ML20072N898
| ML20072N898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 06/27/1983 |
| From: | SARGENT & LUNDY, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17194B616 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8307180168 | |
| Download: ML20072N898 (134) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - .
QC-MARK I PUAR O
VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS ABSTRACT i
I The primary containments for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 were designed, erected, pressure tested, and ASME Code N-stamped in 1969 for Unit 1, and 1970 for Unit 2. The work was performed for Commonwealth Edison Company by the Chicago Bridge & Iron Company and was carried out in accordance with the Sargent O & Lundy (S&L) specification issued in 1966. Since that time of original design and construction, new load requirements have been identified as defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0661. These new loads affect the design and operation of,the primary containment system. The new requirements include an assessment of additional containment loads, postulated to occur during normal safety relief valve discharge events and loss-of-coolant accidents.
The requirements include an assessment of the effect of the original loads and the new loads on the structures which must be within code allowable stresses.
O 5-1 8307((0D 0 000 p P
QC-MARK I PUAR The Plant Unique Analysis Report documents the efforts under-taken to assess and resolve each of the applicable requirements of NUREG-0661. It demonstrates that the design of the primary containment system is adequate, and that the original design safety margins have been restored in accordance with the accep-tance criteria of NUREG-0661.
Volume 5, which documents the assessment of the safety relief valve discharge piping, T-Quencher, their supports, and the vent line penetration, is prepared by Sargent & Lundy acting as an agent responsible to the Commonwealth Edison Company.
The preparation of Volumes 1 through 4, 6, and 7 and the deter-mination of the loads for which the structures are assessed, is provided by Nutech Engineers Inc., also acting as an agent to Commonwealth Edison Company.
5-11
QC-MARK I PUAR i
VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 5-1 Abstract 5-111 Table of Contents 5-v List of Tables 5-vi List of Figures List of Acronyms 5-viii List of Effective Pages 5-ix INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
5-1.1 5-1.0 Scope of Analysis 5-1.2 5-1.1 Summary and Conclusions 5-1.4 5-1.2 5-2.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE PIPING AND T-QUENCHER INSIDE THE WETWELL 5-2.1 s
\- 5-2.1 Component Description 5-2.2 5-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5-2.3 5-2.2.1 Loads 5-2.4 5-2,12 5-2.2.2 Load Combinations 5-2.2.3 Dynamic Response Combination 5-2.13 5-2.3 Acceptance criteria 5-2.14 5-2.4 Method of Analysis 5-2.15 5-2.4.1 Mathematical Model 5-2.16 5-2.4.2 Structural Analysis Methods 5-2.18 5-2.4.3 Stress and Fatigue Evaluation Methods 5-2.18 5-2.5 Analysis Results 5-2.20 5-3.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE AND MAIN STEAM PIPING AND PIPING SUPPORTS INSIDE THE DRYWELL AND THE VENT LINE 5-3.1 5-3.1 Component Description 5-3.1 5-3.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5-3.4 5-3.2.1 Loads 5-3.5 5-3.2.2 Load Combinations 5-3.11 5-3.3 Acceptance criteria 5-3.14 5-3.4 Method of Analysis 5-3.15 5-3.4.1 Piping System Structural Modeling 5-3.16 5-3.4.2 Analytical Techniques 5-3.19 5-3.5 Analysis Results 5-3.24
)
5-111
QC-MARK I PUAR O TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
PAGE 5-4.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE :
PIPING SUPPORTS INSIDE THE WETWELL 5-4.1 Component Description 5-4.1 5-4.1 5-4.2 5-4.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5-4.2 5-4.3 Acceptance Criteria 5-4.2 5-4.4 Method of Analysis -
5-4.5 Analysis Results 5-4.3 5-5.0 VENT LINE PENETRATION AND ATTACHMENTS 5-5.1 Component Description 5-5.1 5-5.1 5-5.1 5-5.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5-5.2 5-5.3 Acceptance Criteria Method of Analysis 5-5.3 5-5.4 5-5.5 5-5.5 Analysis Results _
REFERENCES 5-6.1 5-6.0 0
o-O 5-iv
QC-MARK I PUAR O VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS l
l LIST OF TABLES TITLE PAGE NUMBER ,
i 5-2.1 Load Case Cross-Reference 5-2.21 l 5-2.2 Governing Load Combinations - Class 3 Piping 5-2.22 5-2.3 Governing Load Combinations - Class 3 Piping Supports 5-2.23 5-2.4 Basis for Governing Load l
Combinations - Class 3 Piping and Supports 5-2.25 5-2.5 Governing Load Combinations -
l Class MC Piping (NB Analysis) 5-2.26 I 5-2.6 Basis for Governing Load Combinations - Clcss MC Piping 5-2.27
( 5-2.28 5-2.7 Class 3 Piping Acceptance Criteria 5-2.8 Class MC Piping Acceptance Criteria 5-2.29
, O- 5-2.9 Structural Analysis Methods Stress Analysis Results - Class 3 5-2.30 5-2.10 Piping 5-2.31 5-2.11 Stress Analysis Results - Class MC l
Piping 5-2.32 5-3.1 Pressures and Temperatures for SRVDL and MS Piping 5-3.26 i 5-3.2 Maximum Seismic Relative Anchor l Displacement 5-3.27 5-3.3 SRVDL and MS Piping Structural Models 5-3.28 l 5-3.4 Analysis Techniques 5-3.29 5-3.5 Maximum and Code Allowable Stresses for Critical Support Components 5-3.30 5-4.1 Maximum and Code Allowable Stresses for Critical Components 5-4.4 5-5.1 Loads for SRVDL Vent Line Penetration and Attachments 5-5.6 5-5.2 Load Combinations for SRVDL Vent Line Penetrations and Attachments 5-5.7 l 5-5.3 Allowable Stress Intensities - 5-5.8 l
Class MC Components (ASME 1977 Edition) l g-'g 5-5.4 Maximum Stress Intensities and Code Allowable Stresses in Vent Line t/ Penetration and Attachments 5-5.9 5-v
QC-MARK I PUAR O
VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS LIST OF FIGURES 5-2.1 SRVDL Intermediate and T-Quencher Support Beams Inside Wetwell 5-2.2 T-Quencher Ramshead 5-2.3 T-Quencher Arm 5-2.4 Wetwell SRVDL Mathematical Model 5-3.1 Representative SRVUL Isometric with Support Locations 5-3.2 MS and SRVDL Schematic - Unit 1 5-3.3 MS and SRVDL Schematic - Unit 2 5-3.4 Representative MS Line Isometric with Support Locations 5-3.5 Main Steam Isolation valve 5-3.6 SRVDL Locations in Vent Lines - Unit 1 5-3.7 SRVDL Locations in Vent Lines - Unit 2 5-3.8 6"x8" Electromatic Relief Valve Target Rock Relief Valve O' 5-3.9 5-3.10 SRVDL Vacuum Breaker 5-3.11 6"x8" Maxiflow Safety Valve 5-3.12 Motor-Operated Gate Valve 5-3.13 Structural Steel Support Framing Inside Drywell El. 614'-6" 5-3.14 Structural Steel Support Framing Inside Drywell El. 592'-10" 5-3.15 Vent Line Guide 5-3.16 SRVDL Vent Line Strut Support Near Penetration 5-3.17 Typical MS and SRVDL Support in Drywell 5-3.18 Typical SRV Discharge Force-Time History at Last Segment 5-3.19 Representative MS and SRVDL Piping Model 5-3.20 Typical Application of SRV Discharge Thrust Loads 5-4.1 SRVDL Intermediate Support 5-4.2 Typical T-Quencher Support Plate 5-4.3 SRVDL Intermediate Support Beam End Connection 5-4.4 T-Quencher Support Beam End Connection 5-5.1 SRVDL Vent Line Penetration 5-5.2 SRVDL Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model -
Isometric 5-5.3 Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model Local Developed View - Critical Principal Extreme Fiber 0' Stress Intensities for Service Level A & B With Thermal Expansion 5-vi
QC-MARK I PUAR D
(V LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
L 5-5.4 Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model Local Developed View - Critical Principal Extreme Fiber Stress Intensities for Service Level A & B Without Thermal Expansion Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model Local t
5-5.5 Developed View - Critical Principal Extreme Fiber '
Stress Intensities for Service Level C Without Thermal Expansion 5-5.6 Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model Local Developed View - Critical Primary Membrane Stress
. Intensities for Service Level A & B Without Thermal Expansion 5-5.7 Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model Local Developed View - Critical Primary Membrane Stress Intensities for Service Level C Without Thermal Expansion 5-5.8 Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model Local Developed View - Critical Principal Extreme Fiber Stress Intensities for Fatigue Load Case 5-5.9 Vent Line Penetration Finite Element Model Local Developed View - Maximum Stress Intensities on
() Interior Stiffeners All Service Levels O
5-vii
QC-MARK I PUAR VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS LIST OF ACRONYMS AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineering ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials DBA Design Basis Accident FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report IBA Intermediate Break Accident ID Inside Diameter LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident MS Main Steam NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OBE Operating Basis Earthquake OD Outside Diameter PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide -
PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report O QC RPV Quad Cities Station Reactor Pressure Vessel SBA Small Break Accident SIF Stress Intensification Factor SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake SRV Safety Relief Valve SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line s SVA Single Valve Actuation USAS United States of America Standards-
)
'n l
^
. s.
w 1
s 5
i
\~) .
5-viii s I .,
. _ s s y -
~
2 __._;;; _
' ' - -- - . - - . .4 , _ . _ ,,
2 -_4 _ -m __ 4_.ha.,. J_._M-_ &____ Ai --%2-4-_a__J ._ A-,_2-,t _ :.,*a._ - . 4-+
QC-MARK I PUAR O VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS i
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES ,
PAGE PAGE 5-1 5-2.26 5-11 5-2.27 5-111 5-2.28 5-iv 5-2.29 5-v 5-2.30 5-vi 5-2.31 5-vii 5-2.32
< 5-viii F5-2.1 5-ix F5-2.2 5-x F5-2.3 i 5-1.1 F5-2.4 5-1.2 5-3.1 5-1.3 5-3.2 5-1.4 5-3.3 O 5-1.5 5-2.1 5-3.4 5-3.5 5-2.2 5-3.6 5-2.3 5-3.7 5-2.4 5-3.8 5-2.5 5-3.9 5-2.6 5-3.10 '
5-2.7 5-3.11 5-2.8 5-3.12 5-2.9 5-3.13 j 5-2.10 5-3.14 1 5-2.11 5-3.15 l 5-2.12 5-3.16 5-2.13 5-3.17 5-2.14 5-3.18
! 5-2.15 5-3.19
! 5-2.16 5-3.20 5-2.17 5-3.21 5-2.18 5-3.22 5-2.19 5-3.23 5-2.20 5-3.24 5-2.21 5-3.25 5-2.22 5-3.26 5-2.23 5-3.27 5-2.24 5-3.28
/ l 5-2.25 5-3.29
'/ 5-3.30 5-ix
[
QC-MARK I PUAR O VOLUME 5 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS 4
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES PAGE PAGE F5-3.1 F5-5.6 FS-3.2 F5-5.7 F5-3.3 FS-5.8 F5-3.4 F5-5.9 F5-3.5 5-6.1 F5-3.6 5-6.2 F5-3.7 F5-3.8 FS-3.9 F5-3.10 FS-3.11 F5-3.12 F5-3.13 F5-3.14 O F5-3.15 F5-3.16 F5-3.17 F5-3.18 F5-3.19 FS-3.20 5-4.1 5-4.2 5-4.3 '
5-4.4 F5-4.1 F5-4.2 F5-4.3 F5-4.4 5-5.1 5-5.2 l 5-5.3 i 5-5.4 5-5.5 5-5.6 5-5.7 5-5.8 5-5.9 F5-5.1 l F5-5.2 F5-5.3
- F5-5.4 F5-5.5 5-x 4 e . cy . . - ,- ,.m.- ,. . , , - . . -,,-,,.,-m , , . - - ,- e , . . , - , -w--. . - - - ~,
QC-MARK I PUAR O
5-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND
SUMMARY
This volume documents the conformance of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line (SRVDL) piping, T-Quencher, and their supports as well as the vent line pen-
.etration, to the requirements defined in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1). The text is divided into the following sections:
- a. Introduction and Summary (5-1.0)
- b. SRVDL Piping and T-Quencher Inside the Wetwell
, (5-2.0)
- c. SRVDL and Main Steam Piping and Piping Supports Inside the Drywell and the Vent Line (5-3.0)
- d. SRVDL Piping Supports in the Wetwell (5-4.0)
- e. Vent Line Penetration and Attachments (5-5.0).
This introduction and summary section provides an overview, a discussion of the scope of analysis and evaluation, and a concluding summary statement. The remaining sections describe the comprehensive evaluation, and provide the results of the analysis throughout the following subsections:
. 5-1.1
QC-MARK I PUAR O a. Component Description
- b. Loads and Load Combinations
- c. Acceptance Criteria
- d. Method of Analysis
- e. Analysis Results Each section addresses in detail the above subjects and presents results which indicate that the structures and components
() are within the Code allowable stresses for the applicable loads and load combinations. ,
5 -1.1 - Scope of Analysis The reassessment of the SRV piping, T-Quencher, and their supports in the wetwell and the vent line penetration is per-formed using the general criteria presented in Volume 1 as the basis for the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 SRV piping evaluation described in this volume. The loads are discussed in volume 1 and are based on the Mark I containment Program Load Definition Report (Reference 2) and the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0661.
O 5-1.2
QC-MARK I PUAR (G
The SRV discharge loads and the LOCA related loads used in this evaluation are determined using procedures and test results which include the effects of the plant unique geometry and operating parameters contained in the Plant Unique Load Defi-nition Report (Reference 3). Original design loads such as seismic loads, which have not been redefined by NUREG-0661, are the same as defined in the station's Final Safety Analysis Report (Reference 4).
The evaluation includes the performance of a structural analysis of the SRV piping, T-Quencher, and their supports for the SRV discharge related loads and LOCA related loads to verify that their design is adequate. Rigorous analytical techniques are used in this evaluation by means of detailed models and refined methods to compute the dynamic response of the SRV piping and T-Quencher. The loads are input as static, quasi-static, or dynamic loads, and the interaction between the torus and SRV line supports due to the loads is considered.
The results of the structural analysis for each load are combined in load combinations in accordance with the requirements of the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria and Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide" (Reference 5)and NUREG-0661. The analysis results are compared with the applicable acceptance limits specified by the Plant Unique Analysis J
)
5-1.3
QC-MARK I PUAR O
Application Guide, the ASME Code and NUREG-0661 for the SRV piping, T-Quencher and vent line penetration, and with the acceptance limits specified by the AISC code for the piping supports and the T-Quencher supports. Fatigue effects are evaluated and compared to allowable stresses where required.
The reassessment of the Main Steam (MS) headers and SRVDL piping inside the drywell and vent line is performed using current pipe modeling and analysis techniques. The MS and SRVDL piping are evaluated for the effects of the original loads as stated in the design specification (Reference 6).
In addition to the original loads, the SRVDL is evaluated for seismic loads in accordance with the Mark I Owners' Group commitment-to upgrade the SRVDL piping in the drywell to a seismically qualified system. Other loads which are considered' in the eva'luation of the SRVDL piping include SRV discharge transient loads using refined state-of-the-art techniques and additional temperature loads resulting from postulated accidents.
5-1.2 Summary and Conclusions An evaluation of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 SRVDL piping, vent line penetration, piping supports, T-Quencher, and T-Quencher supports is performed as described in Subsections 5-2.1,'5-3.1, 5-4~.1, and 5-5.1.
5-1.4
-l l
QC-MARK I PUAR O The loads considered in the evaluation consist of the original loads documented in the FSAR plus additional loadings which are postulated to occur during SBA, IBA or DBA LOCA related events and during SRV discharge events as defined generically
/
in NUREG-0661.
Detailed structural models are developed and utilized in calcu-lating the response of the entire SRVDL piping system including supports and the vent line penetration. A combination of static, dynamic and equivalent static analyses is performed.
The results are appropriately combined according to NUREG-0661 requirements. Results of the analyses are compared to the NUREG-0661 criteria, and the Mark I Program Structural Acceptance Criteria. ,
The evaluation results show that the piping system, its supports and the vent line penetration meet the requirements of NUREG-0661 and, the original acceptance criteria documented in the FSAR.
4 k
O 5-1.5
--*g - o----e-ee-6 -.--- -w-g-P i ar -- --m- 1 Mtt-=~i-e g-ww--* -- - - - - -Wr--*g+--w- h--P- g e av 9w P 'k7
QC-MARK I PUAR O 5-2.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DICHARGE LINE PIPING AND T-QUENCHER INSIDE THE WETWELL This section describes the structural analyses and stress evaluations of the Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line (SRVDL) piping system in the wetwell. Due to similarities between the two units and identical piping and support configurations within the wetwell, one representative SRVDL subsystem was analyzed. Bounding loads were developed and applied to this subsystem. The wetwell SRVDL analytical model contains the discharge piping, the T-quencher device, and their supports.
Results of the structural piping analyses documented in this
() section are utilized in the wetwell piping supports evaluation, Section 5-4.f> and in the vent line penetration analysis, Section 5-5.0.
The components of the wetwell SRVDL subsystem are described in Subsection 5-2.1. The loads and load combinations applicable to the piping and supports are described in Subsection 5-2.2.
The structural and stress analysis methods are described in Subsection 5-2.4. Piping analysis acceptance criteria and piping analysis results are summarized in Subsections 5-2.3
- and 5-2.5, respectively.
A generic fatigue evaluation of wetwell piping, including SRV discharge lines, was performed by the Mark I Owners' Group (Reference 7) . This evaluation is based on typical 5-2.1
QC-MARK I PUAR A
U Mark I wetwell piping systems, and demonstrates that fatigue usage factors are acceptable when cyclic mechanical stress is accounted for in an augmented Class 2/3 fatigue analysis.
On this basis, a Quad Cities plant-specific fatigue analysis of the wetwell SRVDL is not performed. The fatigue analysis of the Class MC portion of the SRVDL at the vent line penetration is required by the Code, and is not related to the generic wetwell fatigue evaluation; it is described in Subsection 5-2.4.3.
5-2.1 Component Description O The SRVDL consists of 8 inch Schedule 80, ASTM A-106, Grade B piping. It is routed through the vent line, and penetrates the bottom of the vent shell into the wetwell airspace. The e piping immediately below the vent shell is stiffened with a sleeve and gusset plate arrangement to distribute the pipe load over a larger area on the vent line. A short, 10-inch O.D., ASTM A-106, Grade B spool piece is used at this location, where the gussets are welded to the process pipe. The I.D.
of this spool piece matches the 8 inch Schedule 80 piping.
The SRVDL is routed downward into the wetwell to the T-quencher {
discharge device, near the bottom center of the torus bay.
A detailed view of the SRVDL-vent line penetration is shown in Figure 5-5.1.
5-2.2 ,
QC-MARK I PUAR
() The SRVDL is connected to the T-Quencher discharge device with a 12" x 8" Schedule 80 reducer (ASTM A-234, Grade WPB).
The T-Quencher consists of a ramshead and two quencher arms.
The ramshead is constructed from 12-inch Schedule XS long-radius elbows (ASTM A-234, Grade WPB) and is stiffened by th'ee r gusset plates (ASTM A-36). The T-Quencher arms are 12-inch Schedule 160 perforated and end-capped stainless steel pipes (ASTM A-312, Type 304) oriented along the torus bay longitudinal axis.
The T-Quencher and T-Quencher support beam arrangement is shown in Figure 5-2.1. Details of the ramshead and quencher r
arms are shown in Figures 5-2.2 and 5-2.3. The SRVDL inter-mediate support and the T-Quencher support are described in Section 5-4.0.
5-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations The required loads for the structural analyses of the SRVDL are documented in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1). Volume 1 describes the load generation methodology for the plant-unique analyses.
Subsection 5-2.2.1 summarizes the loads which were applied to the wetwell SRVDL subsystem.
Table 5-2.1 provides a cross-reference between the load cases analyzed and the corresponding subsections in Volume 1, where l the loads are discussed in more detail.
l
, O--
5-2.3 l
l !
i
.- - . = _ .. .
i QC-MARK I PUAR
() The required event combinations for piping and supports evaluation are contained in the " Mark I Program Structural Acceptance Cri-teria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide" (PUAAG) (Reference 5),
The governing approved by the NRC in Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
subsets of load combinations are derived and summarized in Subsection 5-2.2.2.
The method of dynamic response combination for loads within a load combination is discussed in Subsection 5-2.2.3.
4 5-2.2.1 Loads The following loads were applied to the wetwell SRVDL subsystem:
l
- 1. Dead Weight
- 2. Temperature i
I 3. Pressure t
l 4. Seismic
- 5. SRV Discharge t
- a. SRVDL Hydraulic Transient (Thrust) l O b. T-Quencher Water Jet 5-2.4 l
_ _ . . _ . - - - . - - _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . _ . . _ . . - _ _ _ - _ . . - ._, __ _ - . _ . . .. _ . . _ . . ~ . -
QC-MARK I PUAR O c. T-Quencher Uneven Water Clearing
- d. SRV Bubble Drag
- e. Torus / Vent System Response (Interaction)
- 6. Pool Swell
- a. Impact and Drag
- b. Torus / Vent System Response (Interaction)
- 7. Condensation Oscillation
- a. Drag
- b. Torus / Vent System Response (Interaction)
- 8. Chugging
- a. Drag
- b. Torus / Vent System Response (Interaction)
Dead weight and seismic loads are original design basis loads.
I Temperature (thermal expansion) and maximum operating pressure 5-2.5
QC-MARK I PUAR l
O were also considered in the original design basis, but were redefined based on Mark I Program load generation methodology.
The loads identified in items 1 and 2 include 6.isplacement analysis caused by the response of the torus and vent system.
l The loads identified in item 5 are due to the water and air clearing phenomena of an SRV discharge event.
Loads 6, 7, and 8 are due to postulated LOCA events. Two other LOCA-related loads namely LOCA water jet drag and LOCA air bubble drag, were determined to be negligible, and were not analyzed.
O A brief description of each load applied to thc SRVDL subsystem is provided below.
- 1. Dead Weight (WGHT) : Uniformly distributed weight of pipe components (SRVDL, T-Quencher , support beams, etc.) and lumped weights such as SRVDL collar, quencher arm end-caps, ramshead gusset plates, etc.
- 2. Temperature
- a. Thermal Expansion - Normal Operation (THL1):
( Maximum operating temperature of SRVDL plus thermal anchor movements under normal plant conditions.
5-2.6
QC-MARK I PUAR D
U b. Thermal Expansion - LOCA Condition (THL2):
! Envelope of two cases: (1) Maximum operating temperature of SRVDL plus thermal anchor movements, (2) Ambient temperature applied to SRVDL plus thermal anchor movements. Both cases are for plant conditions during a governing postulated LOCA event.
- 3. Pressure
- a. Maximum Operating Pressure (PMAX) : Maximum operating pressure of SRVDL and T-Quencher
() during SRV discharge event.
- b. Design-Pressure (PDES): Design condition internal pressure for SRVDL and T-Quencher.
- 4. Seismic
- a. OBE Inertia (OBEI): Horizontal and vertical excitation of subsystem during an operating basis earthquake. This load is from the original design basis.
- b. SSE Inertia (SSEI): In accordance with the l
' original design basis, SSE is defined as twice l )
the OBE load.
l 5-2.7
QC-MARK I PUAR O
V 5. SRV Discharge
governing SRV actuation cases are identified:
alp 1 - Normal operating conditions, first actuation.
C3P1 - Normal operating conditions, subsequent actuation.
1
() C3P2 - LOCA conditions, applicable to both first and subsequent actuations.
- b. T-Quencher Water Jet (TQWJ) : Water jet impingement f
drag load on affected submerged piping and supports due to water clearing phase of SRV discharge.
T-Quencher Uneven Water Clearing: Water clearing c.
thrust loads on T-Quencher arms. Two cases I
l i
are analyzed, axial and perpendicular:
i l
A U .
5-2.8
-,r- - y- - , - - e --. , ,
QC-MARK I PUAR A'
UNCA: Thrust loading in the axial direction of f
1s ))
quencher arms due to a postulated uneven j l
flow split between the two arms during l water clearing.
UWCP: Thrust loading perpendicular to the quencher arms due a to postulated uneven air / water interface during water clearing.
Because these two different loads are indepen-dently maximized as defined above, they are combined by SRSS load combinations containing SRV discharge loads.
O d. SRV Bubble Drag (SRVD) : Pressure loading -
i on s'ubmerged piping and supports due to SRV air bubble oscillations. Three drag cases are analyzed, based on the possible bubble arrangements: 4 bubbles, 2 asymmetric bubbles, 2 parallel bubbles.
- e. Torus / Vent System Response (SRlI) : Inertial interaction loading from structural attachment points on the torus, due to acceleration of
- the torus during SRV discharge loading. Inertial interaction loading _on the vent system penetration,
() due to acceleration of the vent system during the SRV. discharge loading, is' negligible.
5-2.9 ,
1
QC-MARK I PUAR O 6. Pool Swell 1
- a. Impact and Drag: This load is not applicable.
- b. Torus / Vent System Response (PS 2I) : Inertial interaction loading from structural attachment points on the torus, and vent system due to acceleration of these structures from pool swell loading.
j The pool swell loads represent an envelope of operating AP and zero AP conditions.
O
- 7. Condensation Oscillation
- a. Drag (CODG) : Pressure loading on submerged piping and supports due to downcomer condensation oscillation phenomena during a postulated LOCA event. Fluid-structure interaction effects are considered in the load generation.
i l
5-2.10 i
i
QC-MARK I PUAR
- b. Torus / Vent System Response (CO2I): Inertial gg
~\j interaction loading from the structural attach-ment points on the torus and vent system, due to acceleration of these structures during ,
condensation oscillation loading.
- 8. Chugging
- a. Drag (PCDG) : Pressure loading on submerged piping and supports due to downcomer chugging phenomena during a postulated LOCA event.
Fluid-structure interaction effects are con-sidered in the load generation. Two load cases are considered: pre-chug loads and
[)
post-chug loads. Only post-chug was analyzed because it bounds pre-chug.
- b. Torus / Vent System Response (PC2I) : Inertial interaction loading from the structural attach-ment points on the torus, due to torus acceleration under chugging loads. Two load cases were enveloped: pre-chug loads, and post-chug loads. Inertial interaction loading on the vent system penetration, due to acceleration j
' under chugging loads, is negligible.
N 5-2.11
QC-MARK I PUAR
() 5-2.2.2 Load Combinations As discussed in Subsection 5-2.3, the wetwell SRVDL is analyzed as Class 3 piping, except for the portion of piping within the limits of reinforcement at the vent shell penetration.
This small portion of pipe is classified as Class MC.
The required event combinations for the Class 3 SRVDL, T-Quencher, and supports evaluation are provided in Table 5-2 (rows 10 and 11) of the PUAAG. For the portion of the SRVDL classified as Class MC, event combination Table 5-1 (row 3) of the PUAAu is applicable. The load combinations analyzed for.the various components are based on the PUAAG tables. Smaller subsets i
h4 N/ of governing load combinations were developed, however.
For the Class 3 SRVDL (including the T-Quencher) and supports, the governing load combinations are shown in Tables 5-2.2 and 5-2.3, respectively. The appropriate Service Level is identified for each combination; for the piping combinations,
.the applicable Code equation is also provided. Included in these Tables are some original design basis load combinations, required for completeness of the stress evaluations.
Table 5-2.4 shows the correlation between the Class 3 piping and support load combinations analyzed and the event combinations f
from Table 5-2 of the PUAAG.
\s .
5-2.12
QC-MARK I PUAR O For the Class MC SRVDL, the governing combinations are shown l
in Table 5-2.5. The appropriate Code equations and Service I Levels are identified. As discussed in Subsection 5-2.3 the analysis of this portion of the SRVDL is performed with Class 1 piping rules. A design condition load combination is also !
considered. Table 5-2.6 shows the correlation between the Class MC SRVDL combinations analyzed and the event combinations from Table 5-1 of the PUAAG. All loads associated with SRV discharge (T-Quencher water jet, uneven water clearing, drag, hydraulic transient, and torus response) are conservatively combined, even though the water clearing associated loads and the bubble related loads occur at different times.
O 5-2.2.3 Dynamic Response Combination a
The SRSS method of combining multiple dynamic response is used, as recommended by the Mark I Owners in Reference 8 and approved by the NRC in Reference 25. SRSS is used for all dynamic loads (and dynamic loads analyzed as equivalent static) within a load combination. Drag and structural interaction loading resulting from the same phenomenon were also combined by SRSS, since the load generation methodology independently
(
and conservatively maximizes drag and interaction loads (i.e.,
no correlation between calculated maximum response for drag and interaction).
5-2.13
. - - = . .-. . -_ - ._
QC-MARK I PUAR
\
\~# 5-2.3 Acceptance Criteria Acceptance criteria for the stress analysis of the wetwell SRVDL piping are based on the PUAAG. Stress allowables are based on the applicable ASME Code Subsections (Reference 9).
f The wetwell SRVDL piping and the T-Quencher discharge device are clasified as ASME Code Class 3 for analysis purposes.
Acceptance criteria are therefore based on the requirements of Code Subsection ND, and are summarized in Table 5-2.7.
Acceptance criteria for the SRVDL and T-Quencher supports in the wetwell are discussed in Section 5-4.0.
4 l
The SRVDL within the limits of reinforcement normal to the l
vent line penetration (both above and below the vent shell) is classified as a Class MC component for analysis purposes.
As permitted in Code Subsection NCA, Class 1 piping rules are employed in the stress analysis of this section of the discharge line. Class MC material stress allowables are used, however. Acceptance criteria are therefore based on the require-ments of Code Subsection NB, and are summarized in Table 5-2.8. Acceptance criteria for the remainder of the SRVDL-vent line penetration are based on Code Subsection NE, and are discussed in Section 5-5.0.
O 5-2.14 4
QC-MARK I PUAR 1
i 5-2.4 Method of Analysis This section describes the analytical methodology used for the J
wetwell SRVDL. The mathematical model used in the analyses i is described in Subsection 5-2.4.1. The structural analysis methods used for the loads summarized in Subsection 5-2.2.1 are described in Subsection 5-2.4.2. The stress and fatigue evaluation methods used for the SRVDL and T-Quencher are described in Subsection 5-2.4.3.
The. piping system. analyses are performed using the Integrated Piping System Analysis (PIPSYS) computer program (Reference
- ] ) 10). PIPSYS is a linear, three-dimensional space frame, finite element program, which is primarily used to obtain structural responses for static and dynamic loadings. Static loadings may be specified in terms of weight, thermal expansion and displacement loadings. Dynamic loadings may be specified in terms of either response spectra or time histories. The resulting equation of motion is then solved either by modal superposition techniques or by direct integration. Using the e
results from the static and/or dynamic analyses the program can:
i I 4
- a. calculate stresses for piping systems based on i
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, or USAS B31.1.0-1967 (Reference ll) specifications,
() with adjustments, 5-2.15
QC-MARK I PUAR 1
- b. combine reactions due to various loads at supports, restraints, and terminal point (anchors, nozzles) for piping systems.
5-2.4.1 Mathematical Model As mentioned in the introduction to Section 5-2.0, one representative wetwell SRVDL is analyzed. The PIPSYS model for this subsystem contains the d'ischarge piping, the T-Quencher, and their support memberc in the suppression chamber. The piping and supports are modeled as a lumped mass, finite beam-element system. Although the vent line penetration is very
(g stiff, a section of the SRVDL within the vent line is included V in the wetwell subsystem for a more accurate model. The SRVDL in the vent line is modeled to a point near the jet deflector, at the drywell-vent line intersection.
Spring constants (translational and rotational) are used at the cut-off point of the SRVDL to account for the stiffness of the drywell portion of a typical discharge line.
The SRVDL-vent line penetration is modeled as.a flexible anchor by a combination of rigid restraints and spring constants.
The T-Quencher and intermediate support beam connections to the torus ring girders are also modeled as flexible anchors.
t The SRVDL guide and strut inside the vent line are modeled
[~)
v as rigid restraints.
I 5-2.16
QC-MARK I PUAR O The loads listed in Subsection 5-2.2.1 are applied to the i
model and are combined in accordance with the equations of Subsection 5-2.2.2. The major loads occur only in the wetwell and due to the rigid vent line penetration, their effect is small in the vent line portion of the SRVDL. Support reactions and piping stresses in the vent line are discussed in Section 5-3.0.
For dynamic analyses, hydrodynamic mass effects are considered 1 by lumping additional masses at node points on the submerged portion of the system. The mass of water both inside and surrounding the pipe and support elements is considered.
O Stress intensification factors (SIF ' s) are based on Subsection ND of the Code. As permitted by the Code, SIF's for non-standard components are determined by theoretical and/or experimental methods. SIF's were developed for the following non-standard components: vent line penetration (gusset plate attachment to pipe), 65 elbow, ramshead, and perforated sections of T-Quencher arms. Class 1 stress indices for the SRVDL-vent line shell intersection were also theoretically determined.
Figure 5-2.4 shows the mathematical model of the wetwell SRVDL system.
O 5-2.17
QC-MARK I PUAR
() 5-2.4.2 Structural Analysis Methods Static and dynamic structural analyses were performed for each of the load cases summarized in Subsection 5-2.2.1.
Static analyses were used for weight and thermal expansion loads. Pressure loading is accounted for directly in the appropriate Code stress equations.
The remaining loads are dynamic loads, and are analyzed by one of the following methods: response spectrum, force time history (direct integration method), acceleration time history (modal solution) , or equivalent static.
Appropriate dynamic load factors are developed and used with the equivalent static analyses. Damping levels used for the dynamic analyses are based on Regulatory Guide 1.61. For the response spectrum analyses, X, Y, Z responses are combined by SRSS. Modal summation is by square root of the absolute double sum. For the force and acceleration time history analyses a sufficiently small integration time step was used.
Table 5-2.9 summarizes the structural analysis methods used.
5-2.4.3 Stress and Fatique Evaluation Methods l
The SRVDL and T-Quencher are analyzed as Code Class 3 piping.
Code Subsection ND stress equations, as summarized in l
5-2.18 l
f
QC-MARK I PUAR O Subsection 5-2.3, are checked for all critical components.
Some non-standard stress intensification factors, as mentioned in 5-2.4.1, are applied. Special consideration is also given to the unique geometries of the ramsher.d and perforated T-Quencher arms in calculating the section moduli of these components.
The axial T-Quencher uneven water clearing arm force was treated as an equivalent longitudinal pressure stress and added to the maximum operating internal pressure stress term for the l ramshead and quencher arm, as was done in the generic Mark I T-Quencher stress report, Reference 12.
The portion of the SRVDL within the limits of reinforcement normal to the vent line shell is analyzed as a Class 1 piping lh Code Subsection NB stress equations are checked, component.
and theoretically determined stress indices are applied. In addition, a fatigue analysis is performed. The cyclic effects of mechanical and thermal stress are evaluated to calculate a cumulative fatigue usage fhetor. Conservative thermal gradient stress values for the pipe wall due to SRV actuation were used. The number of load cycles and SRV actuations were based on generic Mark I information, References 13 and 14.
c As permitted by NUREG-0661, SRV in-plant test data were utilized to develop SRV load adjustment factors. The adjustment factors were based on a comparison of Single Valve Actuation (SVA) test O
5-2.19
QC-MARK I PUAR
() data vs. analytical prediction of the data, and were applied to design condition analysis results. An internal pipe pressure adjustment factor was determined from pressure data. From the in-plant test strain gauge data, a response adjustment f actor was calculated, and was applied to the following SRV loads: SRVDL thrust, bubble drag, and torus response.
5-2.5 Analysis Results Table 5-2.10 summarizes the maximum Class 3 wetwell SRVDL and T-Quencher stresses. The maximum calculated stress and Code allowable stresses are given for each applicable Code equation, for each Service Level.
O Table 5-2.11 summarizes the Class MC SRVDL stress and fatigue results. The calculated and Code allowable stresses are given for each applicable Code equation for each service level.
The calculated and allowable fatigue usage factor is also given for the applicable service levels.
The piping stress calculation details, from which the above tables were extracted, are documented in the "SRV Discharge
. Piping Stress Analysis Report" (Reference 15).
The stress and fatigue evaluation results show the piping system satisfies the NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria.
5-2.20
3:
Jd
% -[~ % 1h.g
' V g. w=
" N '
\ _
QC MARK I sPUAR ,"-
w s 6
G
~.
Table 5-2.1 '
N ..
LOAD CASE CROSS-REFEREN9E,s ,
', s
-- . x..
U ., _-
LOAD _ ' '
LOIM NAMI; ' / ,cd- s VOLL'ME 1 SECT 70N CASE NO. - - _
x Dead Weight
-C ^_ ' 5
- pg 1 ,.
r
,y '
2 Temperature i K
.~s
'l-4 ?.2,_-
~- - sc,:'
3 Pressure t
,, w, s
u l-4.2.2
. .- r
.t.a.p n
_.:w. , v m' . - y
' * . .* < ' ~
4 Seismic .
-6, y-0- .s g- -
1 1-4.2e s' 5 SRV Discharge -
- y s 's. ,
x s l-4]?;.2\
6 Y ' \ ' '-
Sa SRVDL Thrust .,
7s s,a * ' b, x 1-4. 2. 4 .
s
- 5b T-Quencher Wateg Je.t .
l' , s s s - . .
s,
~
,s. s- -
Sc T-Quencher Uneven Water Clear,i,ng x .. s .
1-4 . 'L,2 %
/ .
~ r~ _
(
SRV Bubble Drag
' 1-4,2;4 V 5d .
, \
Se Torus Response . *: : f 1-4.2'.3 _y; .
~ . -
s 6 Pool Swell
' '- *l- 4 .1. 3 , '.1 - 4 .1.' 4 , . C E-n, x.s .
s -s
.s .
%.,1 ^
6a Impact + Drag 1-4.1.4
- n. - -
s,. ,, ' s 6b Torus / Vent Respon6.E w -
'\. h, s' .
4.,l-4,.
k 1.".'3 4 ~, ~
_.n.
a
- Ns 7 Condensation Oscillation o. <s s e
',s;1-4.l,i7.- A.. ,
4 4 ,- . ,
7a Drag D'O 1-4.1.\h ~4 . [
g sQ '~ - .,
w % ' ^
y
~s ~ , ".';,
7b Torus / Vent Response 1-4.1. 7.1," l ,4.1. 7Q 8 Chugging 4- -
- l-4.1.@x %
,t .
f 8a . Drag'
- , ,s 1-4.1.8.2 -
8b Torus Response b l-4.1,.8il' _, t
- .' ~ le -
sy17, . : 7p ,
- s. ,
s
, - s, ~ u ,
'*~.."
- Original design basis, load -
. ,,s.f. g.. , ' _\ss [
- l ',,p> , W y , .s ,
.f wh 1
, -w/
,5 .- v
, y/,s v .. .it 5-2.21 N'\5' / ~
%- s i -
-% ,,,s \ c
%% , y \t ,
N-s n* e, -. M's .y
..' % * ,,,yn .
.f we-
-'T
- p, k N '.
s *%,_y
p p Q
~
(): -
Table 5-2.2 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - CLASS 3 PIPING CODE ** SERVICE COMBINATION EQUATION LEVEL NUMBER LOAD COMBINATION
- 8 A 1 PDES + WGHT 10 A 2 TRN1 9 B 3 PMAX + WGHT + OBEI 9 B 4 PMAX +,WGHT + [(plP1)* + (70WJ)* + (UWCP)* +
(UWCA) .+ (SRVD) + (SRlI)^]h
+ 9 B 5 PMAX +2 WGHT + [(p3P1) +( + (UWCP)*
y (UWCA) + (SRVD) + (SRll)7]0WJ)*
h
+ + + 9 C b y 6 PMAX +2 NGHT + [( +
(SRVD)plP1)(SRlI)(TQJW)*+ 3h (SSHI)(UWCP)#
N (UWCA) +
C N
+ (TQJW)* + ( + 9
.7 PMAX +2 WGHT + [(C3P1)
+ (SRlI)2 + (SSHI),UWCP)*
]h g
(UWCA) + (SRVD)
C E 8 PMAX +2 WGHT + [(C3P2)* + +(
(PCDG),UWCP)*+
+
(PC2I),]h 9
(UWCA) + (SRVD) + (SRlI)(TOWJ)*+
- 9 D
+ + (UW + (UKCA)*
9 PMAX + WfiHT + [(C3f2)
+ (SRlI) + (PCDG)
(TQWJ)*+ (PC21),CP)+ (SSHI) ]
+ (SRVD)
- 9 D
[(C3 + (TQW + (UWCP)* + (UWCA)*
+ (CODG), J)*
10 + (SSHI)2 ]g PMAX
+ (SRVD+ K)GHT
+ +(SRlI),P2) + (CO2I)
+ (UWCA)* 9 D 11 PMAX + WGHT + [(C3P2)' + (TQWJ) + (UWCP)
+ (SRVD)2 + (SRlI)2 + (pS2I)' + (SSHI) 2 ]h
- See Subsection 5-2.2.1 for definition of individual loads (TRN1 = envelope of THL1 and THL2).
0 0 0 Table 5-2.3 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - CLASS 3 PIPING SUPPORTS SERVICE COMBINATION LEVEL NUMBER
- LOAD COMBINATION **
A lA WGHT A
1B WGHT + THL1 B
2A WGHT + OBEI B
2B WGHT + THL1 + OBEI
+ B 3A WGHT + TQWJ)* + (UWCP)* + (UWCA)2
+ (SRVD)[(alp
+ 1)*(SRlI)*(3 @
+ (UWCP) + (UWCA) B 3B WGHT + THL1 + [(C3P1) + (TQWJ) g
+ (SRVD)2 + (SRlI)2 3g
+ (TQWJ)* + (UWCP)* + (UWCA)* + C
". 4A WGHT +* [(alp 1)* @
U (SRVD) + (SRlI)* + (SSHI)*3h :p
+ (TQWJ)* + (UWCP)* + (UWCA)* C 4B [(C3 WGHT + T,HL1 +(SRlI),Pl)*
+ (SRVD) + + (SSHI) ]
+ + UWCP)* + (UWCA)* + (SRVD)* C SA WGHT +
+ (SRlI)[(C3P2)*(PCDG)*(TQWJ)*(PC2I)2(39
+ +
+ (TQW + (UWCP)2 + (UWCA)2 C SB WGHT + THL2 + [(C3P2)2 (PCDG), J)2 (PC2I)* ]
+ +
+ (SRVD)* + (SRlI)*
+ + + (UWCA)* + (SRVD)* D 6A WGHT +
+ (SRlI)[(C3P2)*(PCDG)*(TQWJ
+ + + (SSHI)* ] )*(PC2I)*(UWCP)*
6B + [(C NGHT + T,HL2(SRll),3 + +( +
(PC2I),UWCP)*(SSHI)(UWCA)*
D
+ (SRVD) + + P2)*(PCDG)(TQWJ)*
+ + 3h
+ + + (UWCA)* + (SRVD)* D 7A WGHT +
+ (SRlI)[(C3P2)*(CODG)*(TQWJ)*(CO2I)*(UWCP)*(SSHI)2
+ + + 3 g
7 p
Table 5-2.3 (Cont'd) .
SERVICE COMBINATION LEVEL NUMBER LOAD COMBINATION **
+ (UW D 7B WGHT + TjiL2 + [(C3 + (TQW (CO2I),CP)# + (UyA)*
+ (SRlI)72)*
+ (CODG),J)*+ + (SSHI) 3
+ . (SRVD)
+ + UWCA)* + (SRVD)* D 8A WGHT + [(C3P2)* +
+ (SRlI) + (PSDG)2(TOWJ)*(PS2I)2(UWCP)*(SSHI),(]
+ +
D 8B WGHT + THL2 + [(C3P2)* + (TOWJ)* + (UWCP)* + (UWCA)2 ,
+ (SRVD)* + (SRlI)* + (PS2I)* + (SSHI)2]q l
- Comb. "A" = without thermal expansion load g Comb. "B" = with thermal expansion load I
- See Subsection 5-2.2.1 for definition of individual loads
)
vi N m
.N C l
?;
OC-MARK I PUAR t3
(_sl Table 5-2.4 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS -
CLASS 3 PIPING AND SUPPORTS LOAD COMBINATIONS PUAAG EVENT COMBINATIONS ANALYZED BASIS FOR SERVICE CORRESPONDING BOUNDED GOVERNING LEVEL COMBINATIONS COMBINATIONS COMBINATION PIPING SUPPORTS 1 1A,lB A N/A -
- 2 -
A 1,11 -
3 2A,2B B N/A -
4,5 3A,3B B 1 -
6,7 4A,4B C 3 2 (1) 8 5A,5B C 11 10 (2) 4,5 (3) 14,26 (1)
(A)- 9 6A,6B D 15,27 12,13 (2) 6,7,8,9,17, 20,21,23 (3) s 10 7A,7B D 15 14,26 (1) 12,13 (2) 4,5,6,7,8,9,23, (3) 17,20 (1) , (3) 11 8A,8B D 25 24 (1) 16,18,19,22 (3)
(2) - Same (or equ! valent) events, more loads, same allowable.
(3) - More events, same allowable. ;
i I
Note: Chugging load is same for SBA, IBA, and DBA; 1 l
CO load is same for IBA and DBA. Pool swell load is an S envelope of operatin9 AP and zero AP.
[~/
s_
5-2.25 i
p p ,m N. Y N]
Table 5-2.5 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - CLASS MC PIPING (NB ANALYSIS)
CODE ** SERVICE COMBINATION EQUATION LEVEL NUMBER LOAD COMBINATION
- 9 Design 1 PDES + WGHT 9 C 2 [(C3 PDES + 1%;HT +(SRlI),P2)* + (TgWJ)* + (UWCP)* + (UWCA)2
+ (SRVD) + + (PCDG) + (PC21)2 + (SSHI)2Jh 9 C 3 PDES + WGHT + [(C3P2)* + (TQWJ)2 + (UWCP)2 + (UWCA)2
+ (SRVD)* + (SRlI)# + (CODG)2 + (CO2I)2 + (SSHI)*]h 9 C
+ (TQWJ)* + (UWCP)* + (UWCA)2 4 PDES + W*GHT + [(C3P2)*
+ (SRlI)2 + (PS2I)2 + (3337)2Jg
+ (SRVD) o
- A O
+ (UWCP)2
.5 PMAX + WGHT + T3L2 + THTR + [(C3P2)* + (TQWJ)*
+ (UWCA)* + (SRVD)* + (SRlI)2 + (PCDG)2 + (PC2I)2 ]g h
... g $ ,
+ (TQWJ)2 + (UWCP)2 y 6 PMAX + W*GHT + THL2 + THTR + [(C3P2)*
(CO2I)' ]
s eo
+ (UWCA) + (SRVD)* + (SRlI)2 + (CODG)2 +
- B S 7 PMAX + WGHT + THL2 + THTR + [(C3P2)* + (TQWJ)* + (UWCP)2 $
+ (UWCA)* + (SRVD)2 + (SRll)2 + (PCDG)2 + (PC2I)2 +
(OBEI)* ]
- B 8 PMAX + WGHT + THL2 + THTR + [(C3P2)2 + (TQWJ)2 + (UWCP)
+ (UWCA)* + (SRVD)* + (SRlI)2 + (CODG)2 + (CO2I)2 +
(OBEI)* J h
+ (TQWJ)* + (UWCP)* *** B 9 PMAX + WGHT + THL1 + THTR + [(alp 1)
+ (UWCA)2 + (SRVD)2 + (SRlI)2 + (OBEI)2]
+ *** B 10 PMAX + WGHT + THL1 + THTR + [(C3P1) + (TQWJ )* (UWCP)#
+ (UWCA)* + (SRVD)* + (SRlI)* + (OBEI)*]
- See Subsection 5-2.2.1 for definition of individual loads (THTR = thermal transient stress - see Subsection 5-2.4.2).
- See NB-3652 of the ASME Code.
- Equation 10, 12, and 13 and fatigue usage calculation, per NB-3653 of the ASME Code
QC-MARK I PUAR rh s-Table 5-2.6 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - l CLASS MC PIPING l PUAAG EVENT COMBINATIONS BASIS FOR BOUNDED GOVERNING LOAD COMB. SERVICE CORRESPONDING COMBINATIONS COMBINATION ANALYZED LEVEL COMBINATIONS Design 1
C 15,27 26 (1) ;
2 13 (2) 3,7,9,21,23,16 (3)
C 15,27 26 (1) 3 13 (2) '
3,7,9,21,23,16 (3) 4 C 25 24 (1) 16,19,22 (3) 5 A 11 10 (2) 1,4,5,17 (3)
O 6 A 11 10 (2) 1,4,5,17 (3) 12 (2) 7 B 14 6,8,20 (3) 18 (4) 8 B 14 12 (2) 6,8,20 (3) 18 (4) 9,10 B 2 (1) - Same (or equivalent) events, SSE > OBE, same allowable.
(2) - Same (or equivalent) events, more loads, same allowable.
(3) - More events, same allowable.
(4) - CO/CH bounds PS for Class MC piping location.
Note: Chugging load is same for SBA, IBA, DBA; CO load is same for IBA and DBA. Pool swell load is an envelope of operating AP and zero AP. .
O
(-)
5-2.27
QC-MARK I PUAR
,<~
O Table 5-2.7 CLASS 3 PIPING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA CODE SERVICE STRESS ALLOWABLE STRESS * * (ksi) LOAD EQN* LEVEL LIMIT CARBON STAINLESS COMBS.***
8 A 1.0S h 15.0 16.32 1 10 A,B 1.0 S, 22.5 27.58 2 A,B 37.5 43.90 1+2 11 Sh+8 a 9 B 1.2 S h 18.0 19.58 3,4,5 9 C 1.8 S h 27.0 29.38 6,7,8 9 D 2.4 S h 36.0 39.16 9,10,11
- Carbon: SRVDL, ramshead, and reducer O Stainless: T-Quencher arms.
- See Table 5-2.3 for Load Combinations.
i
'\ )
5-2.28 .
QC-MARK I PUAR Table 5-2.8 CLASS MC PIPING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA ALLOWABLE LOAD **
CODE
- SERVICE STRESS / USAGE LEVEL LIMIT STRESS (ksi) COMBINATION EQUATION 24.75 1 9 Design 1.5 S ,
37.16 2,3,4 9 C 2.25 S, 49.50 5 through 10 10 A,B 3.0 S ,
49.50 5 through 10 12 t A,B 3.0 S, 49.50 5 through 10 13 t A,B 3.0 S ,
1.0 5 through 10 Fatigue tt A,B
- See NB-3652 and NB-3653 of the ASME Code.
- See Table 5-2.6 for Load Combinations.
tRequired only if Equation 10 is not satisfied.
ttCumulative fatigue usage calculation per NB-3653.
O 5-2.29
QC-MARK I PUAR Table 5-2.9 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS METHODS LOAD LOAD ANALYSIS METHOD CASE NO.
Dead Weight Static 1
Thermal Expansion Static 2
3 Pressure 4 Seismic Response Spectrum Force Time History 5a SRVDL Thrust 5b T-Ouencher Water Jet Equivalent Static Sc T-Quencher Uneven Water Equivalent Static Clearing Force Time History **
Sd SRV Bubble Drag Equivalent Static
() Se SRV Torus Response Response Spectrum Acceleration Time History **
6b PS Torus / Vent Response Response Spectrum 7a CO Drag Equivalent Static 7b CO' Torus / Vent Response Response Spectrum 8a Chugging Drag Equivalent Static 8b Chugging Torus Response Response Spectrum
- Pressure stress term added directly to applicable Code ,
l equations.
- The more exact time history results are used for critical components where the equivalent static / response spectrum results are too conservative.
I 1
r %.
}
, s/
5-2.30
QC-MARK I PUAR N' Table 5-2.10 STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS - CLASS 3 PIPING CODE SERVICE STRESS (ksi)
COMPONENT EQUATION LEVEL CALCULATED ALLOWABLE SRVDL 8 A 4.02 15.0 10 A,B 11.21 22.5 9 B 12.72 18.0 9 C 17.00 27.0 9 D 22.59 36.0 T-Quencher 8 A 2.77 16.32 10 A,B 0 27.58 9* B 15.29 19.58
, (, 9* C 15.40 29.38 9* D 15.42 39.16
- Calculated equation 9 stress for Service Levels B, C, and D are approximately equal. Since the predominant load is perpendicular uneven water clearing this load is applicable to all three Service Levels.
I
( 1 1
~
5-2.31
-l
~ - - - _ ,
QC-MARK I PUAR
/"'s Table 5-2.11 U STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS - CLASS MC PIPING CODE CODE SERVICE STRESS (ksi)/ USAGE LEVEL CALCULATED ALLOWABLE PARAGRAPH EQUATION NB-3652 9 Design 2.95 24.75 9 C 12.71 37.13 NB-3653 10 A,B 74.35* 49.50 12 A,B 3.10 49.50 13 A,B 48.46 49.50 Fatigue A,B 0.18 1.0
- This is acceptable in accordance with the Code, as long as equations 12 and 13 are satisfied.
O 5-2.32
(_,/
QC-MARK I PUAR I O
C' )
OO '- O * . -
h 58-G/ To d.
DeywsLs
~~
gk. b m
i
+9 .
- sj(TF) g
, \1 .* . '
1 - 14 g s c u.ft.o l ! 4 igod ' GW8NCW""
( : MC'CT DGAM
, *m' l
I 6-v%* _
! '"f O .
3 e'4 FFG (1 R) ,h,ySUPPORT lt. QUIDES .
1 3
'gb g -m ' h_Rf MSHEAD LOQ RETAINER
@D .1 M / 8 TMW BM e A /
-1 l l 7' i s
K< L l
] jg;{
.s &
O t$
1 -12'4 T-SUENCWER II s
\ f INTEstugotATg
.'# 5 0* 'O C it i
- l'
- 0 3 g
sowmT -~-
DEA %4
' ExtTING _'..
C 4GLL 81 1
i
, v !
' ~ l l fi -
RING GIROER 7
w
%% ( 1 "X
k s P L A hJ l
1 FIGURE 5-2.1 (Sheet 1 of 2)
[^')
'wJ SRVDL INTERMEDIATE AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAMS INSIDE THE WETWELL
QC-MARK I PUAR ilC/
i-L AS _
- l. WET W E.L L 1
1 EL . M i- G '
, -_y
}T p s
g
'k . t i--
COLL AR SUPPORT ,
' L";
.fi 5 _ 't - e'4 ontv. l O SUPPORT 5 ' "2'- *'
/.
LINEL (U")
i
~1. c uc ~ c .<
\ g14,( INT ER MED. E' M . M.' y l AT E S U Pf" s DEAM e g =L,A,7q N ,
__ , su.se.e-iow l
. E xlST. R I N Q '[A, GIRDER 2SE CT I O bJ FIGURE 5-2.1 (Sheet 2 of 2) l SRVDL INTERMEDIATE AND T-QUENCHER SUPPORT L (',')
U BEAMS INSIDE THE WETWELL l
OC-MARK I PUAR I V B
B 4 i
j s
/ \
/ s I I
+ -----
GUSSETS (ASTM A36) b V
4 _
33' - 24'
_I i J
VIEW B-B SEE DETAIL 1 ,
f~ /
10" 2.25'I b l/sa l .00" (TYP )
9 l*-(TYP) o (TYP) 0.75" {
- 90'
(] DETAIL 1 FIGURE 5-2.2 VIEW A-A T-QUENCHER RAMSHEAD
QC-MARK I PUAR M
O 8"x12" REDUCER '
k RAMSHEAD T-QUENCHER ARM E
} 8" [ SEE DETAIL 1 r -
A s
239.4" .
\
+F Eq D+ Cq q r :
Aq 1.97'O =
h " >
(TY.P) i 1
. - 2. 50" 43.34
,15.76"= -
27.58"
%F E Dd Cd B+ A+
DETAIL 1 OES 3 HOLES 7 HOLES UMU BOTH SIDES BMH SIDES - SIDES o '
O.; 54' f' 10,8' { , 2 4 - .,']_
3 2 . 4 *- -.
)- -
SECTION B-B SECTION C-C SECTION A-A 13 HOLES 11 HOLES ROW 6 HO BOTH SIDES ;
H 0.78" SIDES 0.391"9 s
HOLES 1
..- l - ' ' , q{ g- J
/ a- (TYP) 27' -a -
64.8*
,3 ,
\
(iiy x '
gh9f" p ~ ~ 9 HOLES ROW SECT 10ilE-E SECTIO!! F-F SECT 10llD-D o)
(J
's.
FIGURE 5-2.3 T-QUENCHER ARM
1 l
QC-MARK I PUAR O
N M
st M g
$ D_ ., D. I - _ - - - - --
32 9 O
^
N
=
M
.e u <
P D
"M O WETWELL SRVDL MATHEMATICAL MODEL
QC-MARK I PUAR O
5-3.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE AND MAIN STEAM PIPING AND PIPING SUPPORTS INSIDE THE DRYWELL AND THE VENT LINE The design adequacy of the Quad Cities Main Steam (MS) and Safety Relief valve Discharge Line (SRVDL) piping is presented in the following subsections.
The components of the MS and SRVDL piping system and supports which are analyzed are described in Subsection 5-3.1. The loads and load combinations for which the piping system and supports are evaluated are described and presented in Subsection 5-3.2. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results
)
are compared are discussed and presented in Subsection 5-3.3.
The LLalysis methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the piping system and supports is discussed in Subsection 5-3.4. The results are presented in Subsection 5-3.5.
5-3.1 Component Description The SRVDL piping system for Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 consists ,
i of five individual Schedule 80, ASTM A-106, Grade B piping lines. The nominal diameter of the piping is 8 inches from the SRV through the vent pipe and into the wetwell. Figure
()
1 5-3.1
QC-MARK I PUAR O 5-3.1 shows the routing, support locations and support types for a representative SRVDL in the drywell.
The five SRVDL originate at the four MS lines. Three of the MS lines (A, C and D) have one SRVDL each, the fourth (line B) has two SRVDL as shown in Figure 5-3.2 for Unit 1 and Figure 5-3.3 for Unit 2. The four MS lines are Sc'hedule 80, ASTM A106, Grade B piping. The nominal diameter of the piping is 20 inches from the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle, past the inboard MS isolation valve, to the drywell penetration structural anchor. Figure 5-3.4 shows the routing, support locations and support types for a representative MS line.
() Figure 5-3.5 shows a typical Crane Company 20-inch "Y-Pattern" MS isolation globe valve.
The SRVDL are routed from the SRV outlets in the drywell area through the vent lines and into the wetwell. As indicated in Figures 5-3.6 and 5-3.7 vent lines contain one SRVDL each at azimuths of 22.50, 67.50, 112.50, 247.50, and 292.50 for Unit 1 and at azimuths of 22.50 , 67.5 ,0 312.50, 292.50 and 337.5 for Unit 2.
Four of the SRVDL are attached to the MS lines in the drywell at-the 6-inch x 8-inch Dresser electromatic relief valve as shown in Figure 5-3.8. The fiftn SRVDL is attached to
's
\
5-3.2
.,,. ~ , - , _ _ _ _
QC-MARK I PUAR O the MS line (line A) in the drywell at the 6" x 10" Target Rock safety relief valve as shown in Figure 5-3.9. Each SRVDL also has an attached vacuum breaker valve connected approximately 20 feet upstream of the jet-deflector as shown in Figure 5-3.10.
In addition to the safety relief valves, each MS line has two 6" x 8" Dresser Maxiflow safety valves as shown in Figure 5-3.11.
One MS line for each unit also has a high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) turbine steam supply line attached to it.
The HPCI turbine steam supply line is attached to line B for
['s-'/l Unit 1. For Unit 2, the HPCI turbine steam supply line is attached to line C. The line is routed from the MS line past the motor-operated gate valve to the drywell penetration.
The line is 10-inch, Schedule 80, ASTM A106, Grade B piping and is anchored at the drywell penetration. Figure 5-3.12 shows the motor-operated gate valve in the HPCI turbine steam l
supply line.
The support system for the MS and SRVDL in the drywell consists of snubbers, struts, hangers, and guides which are connected to the sacrificial shield wall or the drywell floor support steel by means of auxiliary support steel framing. The f)Ts, two existing floor elevations inside the drywell are shown in Figures 5-3.13 and 5-3.14. The floors consist of main members 5-3.3
~ . .
I QC-MARK I PUAR l
O spanning radially with secondary members supported between them. .
A typical MS and SRVDL support in the drywell is illustrated in l
Figure 5-3.17.
4 The SRVDL guide attachment in the vent line consists of a 3/4-inch-thick plate, cut to accept the SRVDL pipe with 1/32-inch clearance between the guide and pipe. The guide is attached to auxiliary steel, which in turn, is attached to a 3/4-inch-thick pad plate rolled to the radius of the vent line. The
- SRVDL strut support near the vent line penetration is attached to auxiliary steel, which in turn, is attached to a 3/4-inch-thick pad plate rolled to the radius of the vent line. These arrangements are shown in Figures 5-3.15 and 5-3.16.
l 5-3.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Quad Cities MS and SRVDL piping and i supports inside the drywell and the vent line are designed for, are defined in Subsection 5-3.2.1; they are consistent with the original loads except that the SRVDL have been upgraded seismicaly as recommended by the Mark I Owners Group._ The i
original loads for which the MS, piping is designed'are defined f
in' Reference 6.
The load. combinations for the MS and SRVDL piping and supports inside the drywell and the vent line are discussed in Sub-section 5-3.2.2.
5-3.4
QC-MARK I PUAR I
5-3.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the MS and SRVDL piping inside the drywell are categorized as follows:
- 1) Pressure
- 2) Dead Weight
[)
(c) SSE Inertia (d) SSE Displacement
- 4) Temperature
- 5) Safety Relief Valve Discharge
- 6) Safety Valve Discharge Loads in Categories 1 through 6 were considered in the original
() design of the MS lines, but the analytical methods and modeling techniques were much simpler reflect!.ng the state-of-the-art 5-3.5
QC-MARK I PUAR
\ during the original design. Seismic loads (Category 3) were not considered in the original design of the SRVDL since they are not safety-related. The latest analysis, however, does consider seismic loads for the SRVDL piping as discussed in Subsection 5-1.1.
The characteristics of these loads are identified and presented in the following paragraphs.
- 1) Pressure (P g, P) Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum internal l
pressure (Pg) in the MS and SRVDL piping during normal operating and accident condition, and the internal pressure (P) in the MS and SRVDL piping for design conditions. Values of P g and P used l
in this analysis are listed in Table 5-3.1.
l
- 2) Dead Weight (DW) Load:
This load is defined as the uniformly distributed weight of the piping, including pipe content and insulation, pipe flanges and the concentrated weights of the main steam isolation valves, safety relief valves, safety valves, vacuum breaker valves, and motor-operated gate valves.
{)
5-3.6
. . - . ...........,,i. .. . ..._.....-.....-...ii
QC-MARK I PUAR I
- 3) Seismic Loads (a) Operating Basis Earthquake Inertia (OBEI)
Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the MS and SRVDL piping during an Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE).
(b) Operating Basis Earthquake Displacement (OBED)
Loads:
O These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the pipe anchor points during an OBE. The telative seismic displacement at the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) nozzle and at the vent line penetration are taken from the Design Specification (Reference 6) and Nutech Transmittal (Reference 16) and are provided in Table 5-3.2.
LO 5-3.7 L
QC-MARK I PUAR O (c) Safe Shutdown Earthquake Inertia (SSEI) Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the MS and SRVDL piping during a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). These accelerations were not developed.
The results to represent SSE Inertia Loads are obtained by multiplying the results due to the OBE Inertia by a conser vative factor of 2.0 which is consistent with the original design basis.
() (d) Safe Shutdown Earthquake Displacement (SSED)
Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the pipe anchor points during the SSE.
The loading is taken as twice the OBE displacement loading.
- 4) Temperature Lo' ads:
These loads are defined as the thermal expansion (TH-1) of the MS and SRVDL piping associated with b
G 5-3.8
i QC-MARK I PUAR l
() normal operating and accident temperature changes occurring without 3RV actuation, and the thermal expansion (TH-2) of the MS and SRVDL piping associated with normal operating and accident temperature i changes occurring with SRV actuation. Piping ,
l temperatures for thermal expansion used in the analysis are listed in Table 5-3.1.
Effects of thermal anchor movements at the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle and at the vent line penetration as documented in Nutech's transmittal
- (Reference 16) are included in the analysis.
() The piping thermal anchor movements for normal operating condition (THAM-1) and for accident condition (THAM-2) are combined with the thermal expansion loadings (TH-1) and (TH-2) to describe the following thermal modes for the particular operating conditon:
Mode 1 - Normal operating condition without SRV actuation. (TH-1) + (THAM-1)
Mode 2 - Normal operating condition with SRV actuation.
(TH-2) + (THAM-1)
Mode 3 - Accident condition without SRV actuation.
(TH-1) + (THAM-2)
Mode 4 - Accident condition with SRV actuation.
(TH-2) + (THAM-2) f\
U 5-3.9
QC-MARK I PUAR O' A total of eight modes are considered in doing the thermal analysis for MS line B and its associated SRVDL. The eight modes are required since the two SRV's may actuate independently of each other during normal and accident conditions.
- 5) Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads:
These loads are defined as the pressure and thrust forces acting along the SRVDL due to SRV actuation.
The methodology used to develop the SRVDL thrust loads is described in Subsection 5-3.4 in accordance with the Design Specification (Reference 6) .
)
A typical SRV thrust force time history plot is shown in Figure 5-3.18.
- 6) Safety valve Discharge Loads:
These loads are defined as the pressure and thrust forces acting at the safety valve due to safety valve actuation. The method used to develop safety valve discharge loads is described in Subsection 5-3.4.
Combinations of the previously described loads which are applied in evaluating the MS and SRVDL
( )
piping and supports are presented in the following section as defined in Reference 6.
5-3.16
QC-MARK I PUAR
() 5-3.2.2 Load combinations _
The load combinations and stress allowables for the MS and SRVDL piping in accordance with the Design Specification (Reference
- 6) are presented below:
Primary 1) P + DW $ 1.0 S h Stresses
- 2) Pg+ DW + [OBEI2 + SRVD2 + SVD ] / $ 1.2 S h
- 3) Pg + DW + [SSEI + SRVD + SVD 3 ! $ 1.8 S h Secondary 4) E + OBED f S g Stresses plus 5) E + SSED 5 S g Pressure
- 6) E + OBED + P + DW 5 Sg+Sh and Dead Weight 7) E + SSED + P + DW 5 Sg+Sh where, P = Longitudinal stress due to internal design pressure
- psi DW = Stress due to dead weight loading - psi r
Pg = Longitudinal stress due to internal maximum operating pressure - psi I 5-3.11 .
t l
- . . - ~ - - - . .- _, _ _-_ _ ,, , _ _ _ __ _ _ _
. , - .6 ,, / -
sr. -
a s, q% d -
QC-MARK I PUAR ;, ..P! , .
s, . ,
s' .
OBEI = Stress due to OBE Inertia, loads - F81, .' ' ' ,
- g. ',
_ ', . -P
~ s s j SRVD = Stress due to safety relief valve discharge s loids
- psi -
l
^
- . i SVD = Stress due to safety valve discharge loads - psi., '
SSEI = Stress due to SSE inertial' loads'- psi E = Stress due to thermal expansion and thermal anchor'~^ l' movements - psi 4
OBED = Stress due to OBE displacement loads - psi SSED = Stress due to SSE displacement loads - psi S
h
= Basic material allowable stress at max!. mum (hot) temperature from the Allowable Stress Tables B31.1.0-O 1967 Appendix A (Reference 11)
Sg = f (1.25 S c + 0.25 Sh) (Reference 11)
S c
=- Basic material allowable stress at minimum (cold) temperature from Allowable Stress Tables (Reference 11) 4 f = Stress range reduction factor for cyclic conditions for total number N of full temperature cycles
" over total number of years during which system is expected to be in operation. f = 1.0 for N < 7000 (Reference 11)
Notes:
- 1) For MS line B with two SRVDL, the safety relief valve l discharge load is the SRSS of the two individual SRV actuations.
- - 5-3.12 l
QC-MARK I PUAR f l
O 2) The safety valve discharge load is the SRSS of the two individual safety valve actuations.
- 3) E is the maximum stress due to the worst thermal mode.
The load combinations for the main steam and SRVDL piping supports are presented below.
! Upset F +F OBED +F +F SVD FDW + FE+ OBEI SRVD
+F SSED +F SRVD + emergency FDW + FE+ SVD
[SSEI where F is the forces and moments due to a particular load.
Notes:
- 1) For MS line B with two SRVDL, the safety relief valve discharge load is the SRSS of the two individual SRV actuations.
- 2) The safety valve discharge load is the SRSS of the two individual safety valve actuations.
- 3) F E
is the maximum forces and moments due to the worst thermal mode.
O 5-3.13
QC-MARK I PUAR 1
5-3.3 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for the MS and SRVDL piping follows the rules contained in the USAS B31.1.0 - 1967 (Reference 11). The applicable stress limits for each of the piping load combinations are listed in Subsection 5-3.2.2. Load combination number (3), which has a stress limit of 1.8 Sh, is not addressed in USAS B31.1.0 - 1967 but was taken from the original design basis (as documented in Reference 6).
The acceptance criteria for the SRVDL vent line supports are in accordance with the Structural Design Specification (Reference
() 17) and are consistent with AISC " Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel Buildings" (Reference 18). These criteria are more conservative than Section III, Subsection NF, Division 1 of the ASME Code, which is required by the Mark I Program Structural Acceptance Criteria.
t The design of the auxiliary steel and floor support structure was based on the allowable stresses as given in the AISC (Reference 18). All stresses due to normal and severe environmental loading conditions were within the normal AISC allowable limits.
All stresses due to extreme environmental and emergency loading conditions were within 1.6 times the AISC allowable limits, ;
with no stress greater than 0.95 times the ASTM minimum yield p)
(_, stress of the material.
5-3.14 l l
l
QC-MARK I PUAR
() The acceptance criteria for the vent line are in accordance l
with the ASME B&PV Code,Section III (Reference 19). The allowable stress intensities for each service level are in accordance with Table NE-3221-1 of the ASME Code.
5-3.4 Method of Analysis This section describes the methods of analysis used to evaluate the MS and SRVDL piping and supports for the effects of the loads presented in Subsection 5-3.2.1.
The methodology used to develop the structural model of the
( MS and SRVDL piping system is presented in Subsection 5-3.4.1.
)
The methodology used to obtain results for the load combinations and evaluate the analysis results for comparison with the ac'ceptance limits is discussed in Subsection 5-3.4.2.
The piping system analyses are performed using the computer program PIPSYS (Reference 10), as described previously in Subsection 5-2.4. (There are differences between the equations used in PIPSYS for evaluating the stress level and those equations in USAS B31.1.0-1967. Adjustments to the equations have been made to-be consistent with the original code).
5-3.15 l
QC-MARK I PUAR O The analysis of the auxiliary steel and floor support structure was based on classical elastic techniques. Member boundary conditions were conservatively selected; this ultimately provides additional margin of safety against the allowable stresses.
When necessary, a computer analysis was used to accurately represent the effect of the interaction of the structural floor framing.
The SRVDL guide and strut in the vent line are included as supports in the piping analysis models. Calculations using an elastic approach are used to determine maximum stress in these supports. These stresses are also compared to the appro-() priate allowable stresses as given in Section 5-4.0. The effects of local attachments on the vent line are discussed in Section 5-5.0.
5-3.4.1 Piping System Structural Modeling The structural model used in the analysis of the MS and SRVDL piping inside the drywell includes both the drywell and wetwell piping. Only the loads listed in Subsection 5-3.2.1 are applied to the model and combined in accovdance with the equations shown in Subsection 5-3.2.2. The analytical results are valid for the drywell piping and its supports including the SRVDL in the vent line. Furthermore, the portion of the SRVDL in O.
/
5-3.16
, , y
QC-MARK I PUAR
() the vent line between the jet deflector and the vent line penetration is common to both the wetwell and drywell models.
Loads acting on the supports for this portion of the piping
' are determined by enveloping the analyses results due to both The pipe stresses for this portion of the piping 4
models.
are determined by the drywell model as well as the wetwell model as previously discussed in Section 5-2.0. The vent line penetration itself and the wetwell portion are addressed in Section 5-2.0. Since the configuration of the SRVDL piping within the drywell may vary, all lines are modeled in the drywell piping analysis.
The five drywell lines at each unit are analyzed using four
.() separate models, each including a main steam line and one or two attached SRVDL. The MS lines are modeled from the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) nozzle to the structural anchor after the inboard main steam isolation valve. The SRVDL are attached to the MS lines at the safety relief valves and terminate at the T-Quenchers in the wetwell. The HPCI turbine steam supply line, where applicable, is modeled from the MS line to the structural anchor at the drywell penetration.
The MS and SRVDL piping systems included in each of the eight-i models are listed in Table 5-3.3. A computer plot of a repre-sentative MS and SRVDL piping model is presented in Figure 5-3.19.
1 There are five safety relief valves for each unit, one Target Rock and four Electromatic relief valves, which were modeled 5-3.17
QC-MARK I PUAR O' as shown in Figures 5-3.8 and 5-3.9. The mass of each valve is lumped at the valve center of gravity. Also included in the piping model is one identical vacuum breaker valve attached to each SRVDL.
Figure 5-3.10 shows the modeling of the vacuum breaker valve.
The mass of the vacuum breaker is lumped at the breaker center of gravity. The Maxiflow safety valve is modeled as shown in Figure 5-3.11.
The drywell models have anchor points at the MS line connection to the RPV nozzle and at the structural anchor at the drywell penetration.
O Spring constants were introduced to the SRVDL connection to the vent pipe as discussed in Subsection 5-2.4.1, to simulate the stiffness at the vent line penetration.
Pipe supports included in the drywell piping models consist of snubber, struts, spring hangers, guides and their auxiliary support steel. Snubbers are modeled as active in seismic and other dynamic load cases, while struts are active in all load cases. Spring hangers with appropriate preloads are modeled as active in the dead weight load case only.
O 5-3.18
i
- QC-MARK I PUAR i
() 5-3.4.2 Analytical Techniques The mathematical models described in Subsection 5-3.4-1 are utilized l in performing the analyses for the MS and SRVDL piping, supports, and associated components. The numerous analytical techniques 1
used to determine the piping response to the loads discussed in Subsection 5-3.2.1 are presented here.
Dynamic analysis techniques are used to determine system response
' to seismic inertia loads, safety relief valve discharge loads b
! e.nd safety valve discharge loads. These techniques utilize I either response spectra or time history analysis methods depending i on the input loading characteristics and forms. The seismic
() displacement loads and the remaining MS and SRVDL piping load
! cases specified in Subsection 5-3.2.1 are analyzed using static j techniques.
i The specific analytical techniques used for the model described in Subsection 5-3.4.1 for each load-identified in Subsection 5-3.2.1 are summarized in Table 5-3.4. The analytical techniques used in the MS and SRVDL piping analysis are described in the following_ paragraphs:
i 4
i O . 5-3.19 ~
. _ _ _ - . _ _ - . ~ . . . _ , _ ~ _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
QC-MARK I PUAR l
- 1) Pressure (P g, P) Loads:
O The effects of the maximum pressure (Pg ) and design pressure (P) are evaluated utilizing the techniques
' described in Paragraph 102.3.2 (d) of USAS B31.1.0 1967 (Reference 11). The values of P g and P used in the analysis are listed in Table 5-3.1.
- 2) Dead Weight (DW) Loads:
A static analysis is performed for the uniformly distributed and concentrated weight loads applied to the MS and SRVDL piping.
i O
[
- 3) Seismic Loads (a) Operating Basis Earthquake (OBEI) Loads:
A dynamic analysis is performed independently I for each of the three orthogonal directions (North-South, East-West and vertical) using
( the response spectra method. The seismic response spectra curves used in the analysis for the North-South and East-West directions are selected from the " Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2 Reactor Turbine Building Response Spectra" Report (Reference 20). A value of l-Q 5-3.20 L .
1 i
QC-MARK I PUAR 1 O 1/2% critical damping is used in the response spectra analysis. The response of each direction l
(North-South, East-West and vertical) (for Quad' Cities the North-South direction is along i
the X-axis and the East-West direction is along the Z-axis) was calculated using the square root of the absolute double sum of the modal responses.
The combined dynamic response was calculated using the maximum of X+Y vs. Y+Z excitations
~ ' ~ ~
in accordance with the Design Specification f
() (Reference 6).
(b) Operating Basis Earthquake Displacement (OBED) i Loads:
A static analysis is performed to determine l
l the effects of relative seismic movement at the pipe anchor points for each of the three orthogonal directions. The relative anchor I displacements are provided in Table 5-3.2.
-(c) Safe Shutdown Earthquake Inertia (SSEI) Loads:
() SSE Inertia' loads are twice the OBE Inertia loads in accordance with (Reference 6).
l-5-3.21 .
QC-MARK I PUAR
()
(d) Safe Shutdown Earthquake Diaplacement (SSED) f Loads:
SSE Displacement loads are twice the OBE
-Displacement loads in accordance with (Reference 6).
- 4) Temperature Loads A static thermal analysis is performed for the i
MS and SRVDL piping for each of the operating thermal modes as described in Subsection 5-3.2.
I
- 5) Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads A dynamic analysis is performed for SRV actuation utilizing the direct integration time-history analysis techniques. A time-dependent forcing function is applied on each pipe segment along the pipe axis. The forcing function'is developed L using the Safety Relief Valve Blowdown Analysis (SRVA) computer program (Reference 21) . SRVA is a finite difference program for the analysis of transient flow in a relief valve line discharging to the suppression pool through a ramshead or l
5-3.22
l l
QC-MARK I PUAR O quencher. Transient' forces and the pressures at the water column and the valve outlet are. calculated for relief valve lines with up to 20 straight ;
l segments. Output force time-data is compatible with PIPSYS, and force-time histories can be plotted using a subroutine. For the MS lines with two SRVDL attached, the forcing functions are applied to each SRVDL in the model separstely. The peak response at a particular location in one SRVDL is then obtained by SRSS of the responses at that location due to both actuations. A typical drywell piping thrust force time history plot is shown
() in Figure 5-3.18. A typical application of the thrust forces along the segments of a SRVDL is shown in Figure 5-3.20.
A direct integration time-step of sufficiently small size is selected to adequately account for the critical responses of the piping system.
A value of 14 critical damping is utilized in determining the appropriate values of Rayleigh damping coefficients a and B for use in the direct integration process.
I l
lO 5-3.23
QC-MARK I PUAR l
l f
s- 6) Safety Valve Discharge Loads A dynamic analysis is performed for the safety valve discharge loads utilizing moda l synthesis techniques. A time-dependent forcing function is applied at the safety valve outlet flange.
The forcing function associated with the safety valve actuation is developed from the safety valve opening characteristics and the methods shown in General Electric report ITY7241 (Reference 22).
5-3.5 Analysis Results m)
The analytical results for the MS and SRVDL piping evaluation are summarized in this section.
The maximum piping stresses resulting from the load combinations for each MS and SRVDL are within the allowable stress values for the associated code equation.
The maximum snubber reaction loads for the load combinations for each MS and SRVDL are within the appropriate allowables.
The maximum resultant loads in the rigid struts are within
(} the appropriate strut allowables.
5-3.24
QC-MARK I PUAR O In summary, the design of the MS and SRVDL piping system is adequate for the loads, load combinations and acceptance criteria limits specified.
i The auxiliary steel and floor support structure are within the allowable limits specified in Subsection 5-3.3. The SRVDL guides and attachments in the vent are also within the allowable limits as shown in Table 5-3.5 l
l O
l l
I O l 5-3.25
-. - - .. ~ - - - . . . - - - . . . . . . . . - . . -- - - , -.
l QC-MARK I PUAR
'l Table 5-3.1 PRESSURES AND TEMPERATURES FOR SRVDL AND MS PIPING PRESSURE (PSIG) TEMPERATURE ( F)
WITHOUT SRV WITH SRV l PIPING MAXIMUM ACTUATION SYSTEM OPERATING DESIGN ACTUATION (Pg ) (P) (TH-1) (TH-2) 1125 1250 550 550 MAIN STEAM 500 550 135 380 SRVDL 4 DRYWELL
^
1 HPCI
- TURBINE 1125 1250 550 550 STEAM l ,
SUPPLY LINE 9
i J
e D
v:
5-3.26 l
l QC-MARK I PUAR O Table 5-3.2 MAXIMUM SEISMIC RELATIVE ANCHOR DISPLACEMENT RELATIVE ANCHOR DISPLACEMENT (in.)
LOCATION OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKE *
(OBE) l N-S E-W VERTICAL RPV 0.282 0.10 3 0.000 NOZZLE **
1 VENT PIPE PENETRATION *** -0.021285 -0.00190620 -0.00850430
'
- Safe Shutdown Earthquake displacements (SSED) are twice the OBED i
- Relative displacement between RPV nozzle and f)t
\- . sacrificial shield wall (Reference 6)
- (Reference 16) l l
(~h ;'
. \ .)
5-3.27
QC-MARK I PUAR O Table 5-3.3 SRVDL AND MS PIPING STRUCTURAL MODELS HPCI TURBINE SRVD STEAM SUPPLY UNIT SUBSYSTEM MAIN STEAM LINE LINE LINE MS-A 1-3001A-20" 1-3019A-8" N/A MS-B 1-3001B-20" 1-3019B-8" l-2305-10" 1 1-3019E-8" MS-C 1-3001C-20" l-3019C-8" N/A MS-D 1-3001D-20" 1-3019D-8" N/A MS-A 2-3001A-20" 2-3019A-8" N/A MS-B 2-3001B-20" 2-3019B-8" N/A 2 2-3019E-8" MS-C 2-3001C-20" 2-3019C-8" 2-2305-10" MS-D 2-3001D-20" 2-3019D-8" N/A f%
t V 5-3.28
QC-MARK I PUAR
(- l V)
Table 5-3.4 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES LOAD TECHNIQUE Pg P
DW STATIC OBEI RESPONSE SPECTRA OBED STATIC SSEI 2 x OBEI SSED 2 x OBED THERMAL MODE 1 STATIC (U
) THERMAL MODE 2 STATIC THERMAL MODE 3 STATIC THERMAL MODE 4 STATIC SRVD FORCE TIME HISTORY SVD FORCE TIME HISTORY
- The effects of_ internal pressure are evaluated using the techniques described in Paragraph 102.3.2 of USAS B31.1.0-1967 (Reference 11)
~ (< J 5-3.29
1 l
l l
QC-MARK I PUAR O i b
Table 5-3.5 MAXIMUM AND CODE ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR CRITICAL SUPPORT COMPONENTS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRESS STRESS ITEM MATERIAL (ksi) (ksi)
SRV Guides in Vent:
ASTM A36 0.73* 1.0*
Guide Plate ASTM A36 0.46* 1.0*
Auxiliary Beam 0.30* 1.0*
Auxiliary Beam Connection ASTM A36 t
- These values are the result of an interaction equation.
I i
l 1
5-3.30
QC-MARK I PUAR O
\j d.s
\
- \
j
/. T /\
~ kk r ,,
?
e
.;r .
s,
[h';
6 - _
EcI
!!!!it M,], /\ +
s
-- A k. . f.,\~ \y(\
r
{\//. . \m*
\ \\
s x g, ph s
j/\ \
\'/ $ /
\L \/
\ \[ X.
t \?.. .. V
.?
\L ! x
,g 4 +
g' 3
.x , v, k..
%s.....k,-Qh.s ... ,n j ;1 ff
!! s i Y
," s n\)g\\ '%@' //
\
i f@h7Y R 8.flphll*
'h '((
,ys/ , > ,
/
FIGURE 5-3.1 REPRESENTATIVE SRVDL ISOMETRIC WITH SUPPORT LOCATIONS
. - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _-._ _m___-- -__--__ _ _ _ . _ . _ ._ m
QC-MARK I PUAR O
MS-C-- M N # #'#= MS-B MS-D --. -- MS-A
~ ~
/ SRV 1 -203-3A SV 1 -203-4H y W 1 -203 -4 SV 1 -203-4D N N 7
- SV 1,203-4A SV1 -203-4F
- SV 1 -203-4E l SV 1 -203-4C -
SRV 1 -203-3D ' SRV 1 -203-3 8 tise, -220 s-iO" O
SR v ,-2 03 3 C
. - SRV 1 -203-3E l
LNORTH i
l FIGURE 5-3.2 MS AND SRVDL SCHEMATIC - UNIT 1
_ .- - _ . _ . . ~ . _ . _ . . _ . . _
QC-MARK I PUAR O
fil ill JD l'1--- M S-B MS-C =
MS-D --= +- MS-A SRV 2-203-3A
/ SV 2-203-4 E SRV 2-203-3D x f SV 2-203-4H , SV 2-203-4 A SV 2-203-4G SV 2-203-4 F SV 2-203-4C r SRV 2-203-3B SV 2-203-4D SRV 2-203-3C 1 SV 2-203-48 X SRV 2-203-3E LINE 2-2305-10"
{ NORTH FIGURE 5-3.3 f l
l
- O ms xse sRves sces Aezc - es1e 2 l
I l l
i
QC-MARK I PUAR O
a
) LEf4N3 V MA*8M R AN UI 13f 2
~ $PV 1 253.'t p, _
rv sv 1-zon-4a f 7 f
1 O 4, .
r
, 4.
y, av
===~
Act.aos-le e.r 4
TT FIGURE 5-3.4 REPRESENTATIVE MS LINE ISOMETRIC WITH SUPPORT LOCATIONS
-)
QC-MARK I PUAR
_1 /2_
f/ /
/
l0 cp ;
,i
/
45*
\ O H q OF 20' MAIN STEAM UNE J
FIGURE 5-3.5 MAIN STEAM ISOLATION VALVE L
i
QC-MARK I PUAR O*
337.5* 223'
\ l0 M S* 67.5' 1-3019A6 -
/
1 -3019E-8*
270* 's, 1 30198 8'
./ r a*
t ))
( ~
I M -4*
112.5' I 24 7.5 l
l \\
\
202s' ,s2 s.
. l l
l (D FIGURE 5-3.6 i LJ SRVDL LOCATIONS IN VENT LINES - UNIT 1
QC-MARK I PUAR
(
O' 337.5* 225*
l
\ l 62 5*
292.5*
2-3019D 301gA.g 2-3019C-8* 2-3019E 8' .c-
-a
.q ~\ .
, s lD
\vl 1115' 24 7.
/ \
202.s*
l \ i s7.s*
FIGURE 5-3.7
'( d)
' ,SRVDL LOCATIONS IN VENT LINES - UNIT 2 1
QC-MARK I PUAR O
8" S.R. 90 E.
B" SRV LINE I
C
'jl o
O
)
'E , 8" FLANGE , s
~
, T -c e.
7 .
u
~ a /
- O-n n /,
6" 1500 WN FLANGE-- V
~- -
Ov 6 PIPE r l'- 6" =
=
2dX 6" SWEEPOLET N-m
C 20" MAIN STEAM LINE] ,
I l
l I
FIGURE 5-3.8
(
(]
\ /
6" x 8" ELECTROMATIC RELIEF VALVE
OC-MARK I PUAR O
51 /d ,
10" FLANGE ~~
=
1dk8" RED. '~
N ,_
( . -
\ -
~ a N N
'N cg
)
=
g _
_/ s to 8" SRV LINE -- -S g h e .7
~
h/ n~ ' l 6" 1500*WN FLANGE---=
6" PI P E S-#
2d X 6" SWEEPOLET "Jnn
""~
\
C 20" MAIN "
STEAM UNEq H
l' . _
I
<>I <,
l i
FIGURE 5-3.9 TARGET ROCK RELIEF VALVE l
r
/
QC-MARK I PUAR O
8' SRV LINE 4
(
)
') _f{_ .I x)
--8" TEE CG . 7 0 - /
m s
W
__P m.k ll
>==
-8" FLANGE
_ 78/' - 11 /"
8 _
k
""""'~'"
O SRVDL VACUUM BREAKER
QC-MARK I PUAR O
2'- 8' 90* ELLS.
WELDED TOGETHER C.G.
k I
yJ 4 A
i 6' 150Cf WN FLANGE -
6 PlPE -)~
'5 20' X 6" SWEEPOLET v
~
7 .im C 20' MAIN STEAM LINEq ( _
j[
0 0 FIGURE 5-3.11 f
-( 6" x 8" MAXIFLOW SAFETY-VALVE
l'-
QC-MARK I PUAR F 1 C.G.
i l
/ \ ::
C _ ~
< 0 -
)
0 C OF 10" HPCI TURBINE STEAM SUPPLY LINE FIGURE 5.3-12 MOTOR-OPERATED GATE VALVE O
- y-QC-MARK I PUAR
). , ,ne+, N
'I g,.:;. ;- ,, gg y
3
\
v
^
++a.
.m,) // .
, 4
%. ..en s y .,
y ;j=fu,:
8 ,.J'-
,r:.e.
- .- , "4 %, . Y ;i '
@y Q ['(,,.2.. ..
s \ , jeg.J g
~
{ %'yrg;-gQ fe 'W:
ca ' ; ?YfSy,k[,
'Y ;'?'
l
, n. I s , vv s, s
- n. 8 z
.,~ -
.=..
\j g" \ (
ih I'EE "
maememsmw
,. ./ j
=
xy . ., .y-
.c s. m. =. -
o) y e .y ..
yy. . ,; ,,f ~fw.
.2
,. . t* **$
- h.. / ,
, ,.3.
5 c;;y,Vd'. , =.m m
,e 3
_f ~
-ra..
~-**' ,b.
s gm 4 4 gt ,,- ,
Sy
.I a ( \ l' 'W \ u,. , g/j o.
, . L< -
a
'. **'W
/y, ' Ja;4.,;j .
i
.\
(p ofe, e I =1 j
2I0 ([ ha f A
- h. '
r.u
.k
, MW '
, -y mu, v.:,,
f na qL322,,w
! - ((.rw.*.w&
\
l FIGURE 5-3.13 STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPORT FRAMING INSIDE O
- (,/ DRYWELL, EL. 614'-6"
QC-MARK I PUAR O
s
[E* L7 g
'+,.
y,+
!n,
,yJ.:;.,,, kNk,'b
- y q $. ' '$ p i y ;v.
, x
% 9 Lt>jtf .
. 0l+' * /, /*
A;
. p '.,_
~
/Og
'( r k :\.\l- 7 / 8*'+ *+
- 9';.
I d. -
,a q .
.%)
, y 4 '. \ s, -
7 7q j.
/ .
.Ni' N x. .
. ~ .- i R...u x e .
e '
x n
%. g e a mg-
.s ..- .- -- :%,._ . .
O e: '
,:* ..%.)$7% .. m,
.*s %E.Y'"
- ,, k / x- ' ~ .. .
// ),'"ym. .r: ' * - \/-
s /j' Nh/ k " % . ? i-
,>s i
,c. :,gNp- p-u
/<. V,
'p g . 4
-r _
e j'
jf
[y h e
-?
8
.+
~
\-
6 .
f 2;ty;~ <
., /
4 )
FIGURE 5-3.14 STRUCTURAL STEEL SUPPORT FRAMING INSIDE O- DRYWELL, EL. 592'-10"
QC-MARK I PUAR O
B t'- 1" _
QVENT LINE 4h' R4 L
- p , ca k c.u urs ce .
y
- o$ de- $ \
-ey u 3
- I
.B
$ SECTLON C-C SECTION A-A O w, mse, C itFWG r) - - - 3 J f_
_f t__
l;i' l t _ o_ _O GECTtON B-15 FIGUPS 5-3.15 VENT LINE GUIDE
l QC-MARK I PUAR
\
O 4 sev e a
,B
), , L12'og.'g 5 - - -
{
' %-9y -
3
\ ivoe'-os' B' 4--
S E CT LOM A-A O
w ksv4 v <*
c
_ _ _g "M r
1 a r= =E_g_h5g-dF J Ll (M d
_sh" ' >
SECTIO N C-C g :
IC, a. 9 4 1I l SECTION B-B O
SRVDL VENT LINE STRUT SUPPORT NEAR PENETRATION !
l
O O O O q MAIN STEAM / SRVD LINT m
H SNUBBER 9
e AUXILIARY SUPPORT x
e C r
STEEL E : .: . :: : ;_:-
Z J' - 8 5 -
Q ' s lS (
N
~l) E x
o E .
e ,
H 8 tn l '-" ,
. !s F PIPE CLAMP i sm EO
-s g
l M E -
, g i =
- E!
' DRYWELL FLOOR SUPPORT STEEL e
i
QC-MARK I PUAR 9 69
- SEG 16 0 99 -
-7 71 _
{
m L
M x: '.
- -16 41 -
m ia .
O GC .
e is -
-25 11 -
O :
-33 81 _
-42 51 -
~
l l .
-51 21 . . . , , , . . . .... .. i i 0 00 0 10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 T!!1Et SECOND8 )
i l
1 FIGURE 5-3.18 TYPICAL SRV DISCHARGE FORCE-TIME O- . HISTORY AT LAST SEGMENT l
a A _e a . _ . . 4 , 4_ ~ a QC-MAM 1 '
O
, E t:
+r b
p, 6
p
$5i.
W '
t
. l' *
=
~
5-i i
(
\ 's
, gg 4
' *E O
g u
1 g .
tn t- i at d
b.:
0 t
a E
I r
a O
e g ...... 1 I1
- 9 5-3 19 avDL PIPING MODEL
a - - - - --- ,- r-w- - # .J*ae As a+44+ 6 m * .4 5- 4 e --.-e
- 4 A &
l QC-MARK I PUAR i O
J 4
d
, A = r-
/
\
ha ) /;
' Zurr , ;.2'? n=.57n ve:.
F' I
,;3.,,-
M1AKEF
- Th rs= us,
..?:;07.?"
\
T.M,P,r?'=.*. A*
, / tTw l
- / - .
I t
e FIGURE 5-3.20 l
TYPICAL APPLICATION OF SRV DISCHARGE THRUST LOADS 9
+ - - - 4+-. . . ,e-- . --,-,-....-..,ww w -v ,e,,,-,.mw--m---- *-e,--w-,v.cswegw-,e s w,, w -e e .w-- sur -em-r =w+,r---vr--+-e-e--,=-w==+e-ey n wav* ms v- c- ' 9 e -- r w wwe +y-wv---.e-=-
QC-MARK I PUAE O
O 5-4.0 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHAAGE LINE PIPING SUPPORTS INSIDE THE WETWELL 5-4.1 Component Description Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line (SRVDL) piping component supports in the wetwell include the SRVDL intermediate support and the T-Quencher support.
The SRVDL intermediate support in the wetwell consists of an 8-inch diameter, Schedule 80 pipe strut attached to a 10-inch diameter, Schedule 120 guide collar, which surrounds the
.) SRVDL. The pipe strut is supported by a 14-inch diameter Schedule 120 pipe, which spans adjacent ring girders in the wetwell. This arrangement is shown on Figures 5-2.2 and 5-4.1.
The T-Quencher support consists of four 1 1/2-inch thick support plate guides and two ramshead lug retainers attached to a 14-This beam spans inch diameter Schedule 140 pipe support beam.
the adjacent ring girders of the wetwell. This arrangement is shown on Figures 5-2.1 and 5-4.2.
O 5-4.1
QC-MARK I PUAR O 5-4.2 Loads and Load Combinations
\
All loads and load combinations for the SRVDL wetwell supports are presented in Subsection 5-2.2.
1 5-4.3 Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for SRVDL wetwell supports is in accordance with the Structural Design Specification (Reference 17) and is consistent with the AISC " Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel Buildings" (Reference 18). All stresses due to normal and severe environmental loading condi-l tions are within normal AISC allowable limits. All stresses due
(
to extreme environmental and emergency loading conditions
' are within 1.6 times the AISC allowable, with no stress exceeding 0.95 times the ASTM minimum specified. yield strength of the.
material. These criteria are more conservative than Section III of the ASME Code (Reference 19), which is required by Mark I Program Structural Acceptance Criteria.
5-4.4 Method of Analysis The SRVDL intermediate and T-Quencher supports are included
[
in the piping analysis model as described in Subsection 5-2.4.
Therefore, the forces and moments on these components are
() readily available from this analysis.. Calculations, 5-4.2
QC-MARK I PUAR using an elastic approach are used to determine the maximum ,
stress values in the critical elements of the intermediate and T-Quencher supports. These maximum stresses are then compared to the appropriate allowable stresses given in Sub-section 5-4.5.
5-4.5 Analysis Results Maximum stress values and the corresponding appropriate code allowable stresses of the critical components of-the intermediate support, and T-Quencher supports are listed in Table 5-4.1.
All critical stress values are within AISC Code requirements, O and therefore meet the requirements of the ASME Code, Subsec-tion NF.
]
O .
5-4.3
/
, m - - - , , . - - . -%, -. . - , , . - , - - - - , - - , , , , - - , , . , , - - . , , , , - - ~ - . , , , , , , , -
._y,-
, - , . . . ~,. .., .4, , ,-..- -- ,-, ----r--
QC-MARK I PUAR
(
Table 5-4.1 MAXIMUM AND CODE ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR CRITICAL COMPONENTS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE STRESS STRESS ITEM MATERIAL (ksi) (ksi)
. T-Quencher Support 0.86* 1.0*
Beam ASTM A53 Beam End Connection 9.3 17.5 Bolts ASTM A325 Beam End Header Support 22.8 ASTM SA516 GR. 70 15.6 Plate ASTM SA516 GR. 70 13.7 15.2 Support Plate Guides ASTM A564; F = 190 ksi 41.0 62.7 Support Plate Bolts u
() Support Plate Welds (Full Penetration) ASTM SA516 GR. 70 18.0 21.0 ASTM SAS16 GR. 70 27.2 28.0 Ramshead Lug Retainer Intermediate Support ASTM A53 0.76* 1.0*
Beam Beam End Connection 25.7 44.0 Bolts ASTM A325 Beam End Connection 0.7* 1.0 Plates ASTM SA516 GR. 70 Collar Support Strut ASTM A53 GR. B. 0.45* 1.0*
ASTM A325 3.7 44.0 Collar Bolts-
- These values are the results of an interaction equation.
x)
('~\
I 5-4.4
- , . , -- - - - ,~--,, , , , , , ~ ,,
QC-MARK I PUAR O
,._D use . un
.To 4. suremssion cwAesi-e-
, *'d';-#
' , . cotua c.uios at..sse ve ,N ~ 't x i s
/ /
e s n e r ,e . / j O
n.w.s. l J . . . , . . --
ETo ( SuPPfub5tCW 4Wudagg' o ,IeoRE s-4.1 SRVDL INTERMEDIATE SUPPORT I
QC-MARK I PUAR b
a l.
A 3
- , h
, r f
g e "
N 7
~
W / g $s S
$7EEd,l 1
v s.
- p [9 i IF0 o s _-
l m ,. s .. W N
avs,g '- $ T s 3,s-.
s d k t-4 q" n O i . ..
s
)
/ s I
.IP
=,..
- s. .
.i gn . .r
+ 2
'_ -J.
3 2 d 3 ,
FIGURE 5-4.2 L
TYPICAL T-QUENCHER SUPPORT PLATE
QC-MARK I PUAR i
. O 4
i 1
<>. - t I
-qr - 'i h' - - -
wsN i ,
....,... .... ... eta.
- i' [ .
esys A \ ' _.< Y ELEVATIOM _
~ .
3, err
_ e'ron'os 4 - -
WETWELL j
SE.CTIO M I
I FIGURE 5-4.3 SRVDL INTERMEDIATE-SUPPORT BEAM END CONNECTION
..-... . ..~.. -,,,...,n ,-.,,.-.,......,--...~,,-......-,..,,-....,,,_,......,n..._,... ,. - ,- ,, ..,.-,
QC-MARK I PUAR i ~
t.I'4 - (c. ,
--t - - . _
is e s e m -
T,*[p*,'," QL "7 4% i %
, s;_ N1 }i I _A' d _ ,t31, -.
4 c..c, - -
/
I'GusstT %. % y /
/
h.
?
1 i
9G S TIO N i
l l
f 'i&'d PsPt
$ 1 ,
, f,e. . . s= c ..,'
9
-4 ik* e 15" n 3 0 E MY-8 -,- L _ Z .1 T_ _ . _ , _ _
i iRil 1El 4l0If, k' Q, 4'r e wrs-g.g iy.ct. -_ -
j -
l 'fiMF t '/2* Mt a ct ut i
SUPPC8tT ft.
I
/ a== sat wha es t
I
%.- l ll .
.~
j ELE VATIOkJ FIGURE 5-4.4 T-QUENCHER SUPPORT BEAM END CONNECTION
/m -o) ~
w - . q~ ---
. , , - - .-- - - - - - . -,- .y.-- -. n.,. ,, .. n --
6 QC-MARK I PUAR O.
3- 5-5.0 VENT LINE PENETRATION AND ATTACHMENTS l
5-5.1 Component Description The general location and description of surrounding elements
- for the Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line (SRVDL) penetration are shown in Figure 5-2.1. The SRVDL penetration through f
the vent line consists of a thickened 1/2-inch-thick, 3-foot diameter insert plate with a 1/2-inch-thick by 6-inch-wide, 30-inch outer diameter plating and 8-3/4-inch x 6-inch minimum radial stiffeners on the interior of the vent line, and a 24-inch diameter, 3/4-inch-thick sleeve with 4-1/2-inch-thick i
' stiffeners, surrounding a 3/16-inch-thick, 10-inch outer diameter, I- 1-foot 9-inch long portion of SRVDL pipe on the exterior of the vent line. This arrangement is shown on Figure 5.5-1.
5-5.2 Loads and Load Combinations i
i~ The loads and load combinations for the SRVDL vent line penetration and attachments are consistent with the Mark I owners Load Definition Report and the Structural Acceptance Criteria (References 2 and 5).
' The 27 general event combinations shown in Table 5-5.2 are evaluated to-determine the governing load combinations for Normal Operating, SBA, IBA, and DBA events.
The specific 5-5.1
QC-MARK I PUAR OV '
load combinations that were assessed, were those governing general event combinations, including distinctions between SBA and IBA, distinctions between pre-chug and post-clug, distinc-tions between SRV actuation cases, and considerations of multiple cases of particular loadings, consistent with the combinations discussed in Section 5-2.0.
Several different service level limits and corresponding sets of allowable stresses are associated with these load combinations.
There is no distinction between load combinations with service level A or B conditions for the vent line penetration since l
the allowable stress values for service level A and B are the same.
The loads are considered as static, quasi-static or dynamic depending on the nature of the phenomena causing the loads.
The dynamic loads are superimposed using the SRSS method in a methodology consistent with the approach approved by the
! NRC for Mark II wetwell. These loads and load combinations are given in Table 5-5.1 and 5-5.2 respectively.
5-5.3 Acceptance Criteria l
The acceptance criteria are in accordance with ASME Boiler
/
and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsection
.C}
I 5-5.2
_ _ . . - _ . - _ ~ _ . . _
QC-MARK I PUAR
[O') The allowable NE, 1977 Edition including Summer 1977 Addenda.
stress intensities for each service level are in accordance with Table NE-3221-1 of the ASME Code and are listed in Table 5-5.3.
Fatigue stress inter.sities are evaluated in accordance with requirements of NE-3221.5 of the ASME code. The number of cycles used for the fatigue evaluation are based on the Mark I fatigue evaluation report and actual plant data as given in References 7 and 14 respectively. When the total number of cycles is plotted on Figure I-9.0 of the ASME Code, the modified value of S a equal to 41.2 ksi is derived.
5-5.4 Method of Analysis A finite element analysis is utilized in order to determine the stress intensities of the penetration of the SRVDL through the vent line. The analytical model is composed of 260 nodes, 37 elastic beam elements, and 227 elastic plate. Included in the model are a 24-inch diameter pipe ring, 3/4-inch x 6-inch stiffener plates, and portions of the SRVDL and vent line. Two dimensional plate elements and beam elements are used in the modeling. Beam. elements are used to m6 del the The vent line penetration 3/4-inch-thick stiffener plates.
e- has node spacing of approximately 5 inches, with additional l
' mesh refinement near discontinuities to permit examination 5-5.3
QC-MARK I PUAR D
O of local stresses.
The stiffness properties used in the model are based on the nominal dimensions of the materials used Small displacement to construct the vent line penetration.
The boundary i
linear-elastic behavior is assumed throughout.
conditions reflect symmetry, anti-symmetry, or a combination of both depending on the characteristics of the load being evaluated. A three-dimensional plot of the model is shown l
in Figure 5-5.2.
I f
Internal pressure loads are applied directly to the vent line where applicable. Loads due to the SRVDL reactions are l
The generation l
applied to the circumference of the pipe.
( of these pipe loads is discussed in Subsection 5-2.2.
The finite element analysis output consists of plate element membrane and fiber stresses in addition to primary membrane and fiber stresses.
Moments, shears, and axial loads are given for the beam elements.
l Stresses due to the overall response of the vent line are
! combined with those due to the penetration analysis. A dis-cussion of the vent line overall response is presented in Volume 3. The total stress was used to compute stress inten-sities which were compared to the allowable stresses.
5-5.4
l 1
QC-MARK I PUAR l 4
The effects of local attachments on the vent line are evaluated using Welding Research Council Bulletin $107, (Reference 23).
These stress intensities are combined with the stresses due to the overall response of the vent line. Maximum total stresses
! are then compared with allowable stresses.
In addition, a fatigue analysis is performed. The fatigue analysis consisted of evaluation of stress intensities of t
all elements in the finite element model for the cyclic loads, f These stress intensities are then compared to the appropriate ASME allowable in Subsection NE. The analysis input and output t
-are documented in the "SRV Line Associated Torus Internals and Vent Line Modifications Stress Report," (Reference 24)
I ( in accordance with Section NCA-3350 of the ASME code.
5-5.5 Analysis Results i
Maximum stresses in the vent line penetration and the local area of the vent at the SRVDL guides are compared to allowable i All stresses are .
stresses and are listed in Table 5-5.4.
within ASME code allowables.
I Stretchouts of the finite element model showing the stress intensities in the critical elements of the vent line l
penetration are given in Figures 5-5.3 through 5-5.9.
5-5.5 t
QC-MARK I PUAR
' Table 5-5.1 LOADS FOR SRVDL VENT LINE PENETRATION AND ATTACHMENTS SYMBOL DEFINITION N Normal loads D Dead load (included hydrostatic load)
L Live load T The-rmal effects during operation o
Tg Thermal effects due to LOCA R Pipe reactions during operation o
R Pipe reaction due to LOCA A
EQ(0) Operating basis earthquake loads EQ(S) Safe shutdown earthquake loads SRV Loads induced by discharge of one or more safety relief valves as defined in the LDR P
A Quasi-static loads associated with a LOCA LOCA events are indicated by:
SBA - Small Break Accident IBA - Intermediate Break Accident DBA - Design Basis Accident P pg Loads due to DBA pool swell (transient pressure, .
impact, drag, etc.)
P L ads due to post-LOCA chugging CH P
Loads due to post-LOCA condensation oscillation CO i' ;
v 5-5.6 i
Y . [ .t +L hg g oC a a s v t i n t e a m n S 7 X X X X X X C e r 2 Vl , e V H R er t R C S o l S 2 l t a
%I, +
Q O0 C
6 2 X X X X X X C t aa ur g oui ht t n
a f E t ci s .
S 5 X X C ium A n
+ 2 X X X X wr o td i A d sa . t B , e o l a r
D S 0 4 X X X X C ml l e .
P 2 X X rl d e ep oaa ir u o V f aus R , rrs g S OH 3 X X X X C eoa l s n
CC 2 X pf ae
+ d rr i eye up r A bl y t u B S 2 X X X C po ce d D F 2 X X l pl ur s l ao ru a m tl n hl e . si o S 1 X C sl d a i 2 X X X X at e sf t H nh o r u c
. Q osn i rc a E C. i u oi e O 0 0 X B t ss q t t r
+ C 2 X X X X ati e a ui r et e A l ml hs p i
B aia t t D S 9 X X C vLi o e p 1 X X X e t n mh
. S en ot r
d n
,) l ce e T
N 36 air r f o a E S 0 8 X X F( nve a t P 1 X X X orf d n M i ef ) ee o I
C tSi 5 vr i t
, i d iu A OH 7 X A dD 1 rs a T CC 1 X X X d e 2 es r T A al r 2 d e e A B ,) eu 3 r p D D ) 36 nvs - rp o N
S1 6 X X X A( aes E o g X
P(
,l e N t e 1
A r ( cr n r ,p au i N on e fl r O QQ S 5 C t ol u i u I
EE 1 X X ' X X X ail g d a d T 3 gt e i af A +
- lC, ,+
iaw t o s R t ut a l c t T VV O 0 4 X B il e f i c E
N RR C 1 X X X 7 X maw cm e SS v f ia f P
E d eo o mn ay f
2 + + S 3 X C a t e 1 X X X X ol d nd 5 E AA l al n y l
- N BB nl a d s a
_ 5 I
L SI 0 2 1 X X X X X B aoe ) er u m r
_ ,\ iw
{ e T st y 4 h o e l
N air t t h b E VV dd 1 t a V RR ,
dd 2 se T SS OH 1 X X X X A eaf 2 eh ,
CC 1 X z I 3 mt s L ++ ie - i d D l h E tf a V AA N o S
R BB SI 0
1 X X X X A i t .
t une d ( ,oo l R I t e Si e y a g t v D X X X C l u n 0 a i F H S 9 X X l .l a r l S C, al a r 1 N QQ O mav y yu e s O EE C 0 8 X X X X X B rie b q d ot t I
T nne i i a A + + eb s d n o N S X X X X C s r n eu l I
AA 7 i et e c B BB f o t at d M SI lf n . n l n pa a
O X X X B ai e i e 0 6 X i ddl el d C t eb s r p D neea s ee f
o A , ernc r u i e
r bh O OH A eshl t t n L CC 5 X X X I f scp s y o f ei p ay i AA i rha y mb t BB d pw r a SI X A e a ed n 4 X X ee ,b d ue i rh s n l c b ut el o aa m S X X X C s rl c vl p
o 3 sf ua e c V eoth s e,re R+ Q r cs - e S E B psu s S h O 2 X X X srs u e t l ot t l eb llSi p r f e m - t y o V
R 1 1 X A wgli t naL y
r ,am t S ein a l s V S P g H vmre uec i m l r e e i
s Q R A A P P P P C
5 osti r hi n N E S T R t s nv p sl o t
aI r p c S e e f si N c l o ut s R n l t8S O E c n e eu rl d I K E B o r wb wd n o u a o
T A i t l i e y oe o t m A U M rsRt l hY N Q H
U N e s
n t a l e
t a g l
. f e d g s i
t e0
- m I B T g r
l a i o S
- S w s nn i n e v
R nti e i pl a
u h
t 1 l
a ri M R N eo g ee m rd e l m O A O ) e a m t i s g l L o eace a r e r C E I 4 k h r c l di r h osh v oh o T ( a c e a ae o nt u b E F t N T F A u s h e ur o oa h ae F Wl et N O N l q i T R Qu P Cl C cc E I S a h D s l ii V E B D m t A A As A Ai A l v pr ) ) ) )
E P M A r r V C C C e C C c C 3 4 a A As O pe 1 2 Y O O o E
R S
O L
T C L N I I T u,*a
- . < I' i
.-.c __ . .. . - _ _
i
- (~ N QC-MARK I PUAR ,
\ ,l l Table 5-5.3 l ALLOWABLE STRESS INTENSITIES - CLASS MC COMPONENTS (ASME 1977 EDITION INCLUDING SUMMER 1977 ADDENDA)
Load
.i Types Service P, Pg Pg+PB L* B+Q Levels (A-C Only A
S,c 1.5 S,c 1.5 S, 3 S,1 c
B S,c 1.5 S,c 1.5 S,c 3 S 3,1 C
1.2or*S*c 1.8 S*c or* 1.8or*S*c
, N/A S 1.5 S y 1.5 S y l ,_
y P -
General Membrane m
P -
Stress Due to Bending
, B j P L
Local Membrane Q -
Secondary or Self-Equilibratory Membrane + Bending S, -
Stress' Intensities per I-10.0 S, -
Stress Intensity per I-1.0 S -
Minimum Specified Yield Stress at Maximum Operating Y Temperature Greater of 2 Values N/A - Not Applicable l
(~ .
.LJ 5-5.8.
8.%g " @:p#
E L
N B 5 5 O A 5 5 5 A I
W A A A 3 3 3 /
T O / / 3 / 3 4 N o
A N N 4 N 4 4 4 L
U L ) AL A i V
E s k E( M 6 6 U U 2 9 3 A
G M A A A 3 2 /
I I / / 2 / 3 5 N T N 2 2 1 X N N 3 1 A A F M E
L 9 B 9 9 9 C A 9 9 9 A W A 0 0 0 0 5 /
L 4 1 0 0 / 5 5 5 N E 1 3 5 5 N V L A
E )ie l
Ek C(
I M V U 6 9 6 3 d M 4 5 6 A E I A 1 9 3 /
S X 4 2 8 / 4 2 2 N A 1 2 3 N 1 3 M
B EI 5 5 B 0 5 5 5 5
& 1 9 9 9 9 1 A A 3 9 9 S W 8 8 8 E L O 9 8 8 8 8 8 2 6 2 2 2 6 S E L 1 2 2 S V) L E Ei A R Ls T k S E(
S C M E
I T
N I
V U
M 2 8 9 0 3 3 3 6 8 B E R ! 2 3 A M 5 4 1 5 E K 9 8 5 2 1 2 W H C S A 1 2 4 1 2 O M L A L T _
A T A
E e r r D & n r r r e e O a e e e e 4 N b b b b C n o
r b i i 5 O b a i y
i i F F F y
- D I m r F F r N T E e b r e e a 5 A A P M m e a e e m d R e m m m m e S T Y
M e d
n e e e e n l
E T l o r r r r o b E a r t t cr a I N S r l t cr t t x x x ee T E S e a x ee x E Sb i T I P E n c E Sb E E E .
S E R e o i l l &F e N T C L l &F l l a a a r E N S a a p p p ye u y p ye p T
N I
L y
r r rm i i i i rm t a
i ae c c c c ae I a a c n n n n mr r S
T N
m m n mr it i i i i i t e p
S E i i i r rx r r r r rx r r P P P P PE m E V P P P PE e R t T N S I g 9 9 9 9 n M 9 - * - i J -
3 3 3 3 t M S 3 3 3 a I
X
- L EI 3
- y 3
- y "y dy = t ep A
A I T )is S S S S S.
7 M R R E
- 7 e e 3
3 2 o E P k 3 3 3 - - - 2 m
T A RO( 9
- 2 2 9 9 9 I
9 1 =
u MP I I m I
" " = i C
=
1
,C " ,C .C ,c ,1 x a
m S S S S S m S 3 0 0 0 0 e 0 7 7 7 7 h 7 t L . . .
R R n A R R R C o I
C C C C R 6 d E 6 6 6 6 e 1
T 1 1 1 1 5 5 s A 5 5 5 A a M A A A A b S S S S S
e r
s a r t e u- s n rs e t t i e S n t f
l f g e r l
i n n d m e p
e t i i nh h S R F ac o M
S - - - a r p
E -
n n n n et 0 I T
ei nt ia L r t e o
t ei nt i a Lr t e t
o ia ei nt Lr t e nn o
t ei nt i a Lr t e nn o
t dt iA u
Ct r Lol D pl V pe l
i a
r e
t a
nn nn ee ee R uh M ee ee VP VP hSS
~
QC-MARK I PUAR O
v 3
[g m i O 2
f 4 S h
Ik d. 3 1
\\ q) sQ a :L
,, y n
[W J
b n sf a V 18 3
~
hila ti
,, $.$c
~J w
s i _-_ _/_~ ', ' , __
T- F _f6 rm
$ i i r' h na Y E
- ?*;p "c4 k 4t t 4 $
1 .M i 4 es e C
/'^s FIGURE 5-5.1 SRVDL VENT LINE PENETRATION I
l -
I QC-MARK I PUAR
,n.
I MlllllllllJp e
I x
g b
\
^'
,, - j3 7
/
%g 5~3'2
/-
SRVDL VENT ~ LINE PENETRATION a FINITE ELEMENT MODEL - ISOMETRIC
QC-MARK I PUAR O
A11owstle Stress Ir.te.sity
- 3 $ 3 (66.1 kri) I l I
} I f b). 4
- a. 39.4 20.3 gg
M' 27.0 13.4
- 4. g,,g 27.0 3.2 I
-' tu p 17.3 21.0
,,3
' 22.2 A g
- 3,,3
'8 - 19.7 16.3 gg,3
- 25. 12.1
+. 5 19.4
- 17. . i..,
- n. 1,.,
n..
18.3 22.4 7,,
g,,g II. !
13.6 15.4 20.6 21.5 22.9 20.5 13.0 20.9 14.7 15.4 17 9 35.6 14.2 23.0 21.5 II '
- 20.7 32.4 25.7 s
22.2
~ 21.s 22 *
- 1. .. 10.6 15.4
-- 17.0 13.7 n.i u..
25.0 21.0 su n.,
14.0 12.9 32.6 12.0 12.3 FIGURE 5-5.3 (Sheet 1 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRINCIPAL EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE LEVEL A Sr B WITH THERMAL EXPANSION O
- - - - . ~ . . . . . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . ,_ , , _ ,,_, _ _
-- - . _ _ . _ , ~. - -. - - . - . __.. _ --.
QC-MARK I PUAR 1
e 21.5 29.4 17.2 39.5 g a
3* -'
.s ' _
2...
2,.. ,
a N 24.0 33-
~
1 I
a PIPE & FINS a
l l
Allowable Stress Intensity = 3 s 8 (66.1 ksi) 1 i
i 16.3 20.9 25.6 30.6 31.8 13,3 15.7 14.9 21.7 14.2 11.7 20.3 32.2 21,9 13.9 20.3 l
l ELEEVE l
i l
I FIGURE 5-5.3 (Sheet 2 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRINCIPAL EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE LEVEL A & B WITH THERMAL-EXPANSION l
l \
9 e
s yy --w-y 9,- - --.s-w ,_yyc.,+,y--g- , ,-_f,,-y- .,-,g, . - . , . , ,.,,,,..g,.,- -_,,y ,.,w.,---m.,. ,,e,._ ,,,,- , - . ., 7.--,-, , ,_ .,-,-,_.,, _-n,. e , ,,-
_ m QC-MARK I PUAR O
Allowable Stteas Intensity = 1.*
5 ,c (28.95 ksii I I f I I I [
.. ,~
" s.1
- 2. ,, 13.4
- 11. se.7 10.1 38.9 25.9
%. gg,, 7.3
- 9. 3 0.3 15.1 3,,
9.2 9.7
'1. .3.
% 12.6
!1. t 10.3 It'7 20.7 10.4 8.6 9.0 14.2 4.0 11.7 4.5 10.C ,,3 11.3 7.4 . 9.6 1C .9 72 'I 14.0 9.2 12.3 gg,3 7.7
10 7 10.0 y,,
12.7 gg,,
16.0
- 9. 4 12.5 7.5
,,3 15.6 12.0
13.6 16.2 23.3 22.5 9.3 16.6 .I*'
13.5 9.4 i2.2 9..
11.4 33,9 9.7
- 9.2
' 12.. 10..
* *.= ,.s ,,, ,_,
FIGURE 5-5.4 (Sheet 1 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRINCIPAL EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE LEVEL A & B WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION L
lO l
I
QC-MARK I PUAR O
12.s 17.9 9.4 f.o E' d 29.
10.9 '
- n..
v.o ~Y
~ ..
PIPE 6 FINS O
Allowable Stress Intensity (28.95 kal)= 1.5 s#c 9.3 8.7 9.7 10.3 16.7 20.0 22.1 22.9 9.9 8.2 12.5 14.7 12.7 12.1 15.0 27.3 I
I SLEEVE FIGURE 5-5.4 (Sh'eet 2 of 2) l VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRINCIPAL EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE l
LEVEL A & B WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION d
l QC-MARK I PUAR V
I i
i l
Allowable Stress intensity = 1.5 5 (50.9 ksi)
! I I [
lu. . , ..
! f I II II '
' S- ,,, gy,e l, 3 14.5 22.3
.B. g
- ' 13.1 26.6 i 20.8 16.0 Sy , ,g. 1*
- I 13.4 l 38 4
- 4. 12.5 a '
e 3.5 15.3 13.3
- $.s I* 16.2 22.6 13.0 13 S I'
11.6 13.2 12.1 15.0 15.5 16.1 19.S 13,3 11.5 17.9 15.1 g 13.1 18.5 l
12.6 11,2 I'*I 14.C 19.0 19.7 14.8 20.6 17.8 12.7 19.8 16.5 28.2 33,3 gy ,,
l 24.s 11.1 l
gr.,
13 s 2. . .
l
- 21.4 19.4 10.0 19.0 14.7 i
13.2 16.5 19.5 13.6 l
17.7 17.3 16.4 1* s n.. 20.2 1, . , ,,,,
l l
FIGURE 5-5.5 (Sheet 1 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRINCIPAL EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE LZVEL C WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION
d f
QC-MARK I PUAR f
(
u.s 11.o e - 1s.a an.1 29.
- 5. 3 u .. ; i. . .
~
ao.
o.e e
S.
2 PIPE 8 FINS t,
b D
U Allowable Strtes
- Intensity = 1.5 S y
. ($0.9 ksi)
I i
1 4
13.6 20.1 13.5 16.3 20.5 26.0 26.4 27.8 1
13.9 11.0 16.3 18.4 16.3 16.0 19.8 32.9 i
SLEEVE l
- FIGURE 5-5.5 - (Sheet 2 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL l
LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRINCIPAL
~
EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE LEVEL C WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION U
QC-MARK I PUAR C
Allowable General Membrane Stress Intensity =
5,C (19.3 ksi)
Allowable Local Membrane Stress Intensity =
1.5 8,c (28.95 ksi)
).1 5. 7 g3 7.1 57 *8 6.1 3 7.6 II I 16.6
- .2 5.4 g,, 33,3 $,9 0
. .? 6.4
- 4. 2 5,9 6.4 6. 9
.1 ,',
6.7 g,g sa ' '** .., e.3 A
5.9 7.4 g,3 14.4 4.8 12.6 8.6 4.7 47 10.0 6.0 6.6 i 1.4 ,,3 73
8 II 0 4.7 7.6 I' 10.7 8.0 i 7.0 6.8 7.6 93 7.7 6.0 93 I9 0.8 6.8 6.1 11.6 5.1 4 5.1 g,3 14.9 6.9 4.e l' ' 6.4 y,4 11.6
~
10.7 ,,,
10.2 6.7
- 9.5 9.4 2* '
l 7.4 l -
8.1 9.6 6.7
,,3 7.7 6. 5 5.5 3,y 7,,
FIGURE 5-5.6 (Sheet 1 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED -VIEW - CRITICAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE LEVEL A & B WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION
_ _ , - _.. __ - - . _ _ _ . _ .. . _ - - ~. _. __, _. . . . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . - . - _
QC-MARK I PUAR
/
V e, 12.6 17.s 3.3 4.2 g
- E
- a. .
1..
, 12.4 6.4 .
- e
~ ~W h
P PE & FINS O Allowable General Membrane Stress Intensity =
5 (19.3 ksi)
Allowable Local Membrane Stress Intensity =
1.5 S, (28.95 ksi) 6.a 6.5 6.s s ., s.7 7.7 a.:
s.s S.3 6.4 S.0 3.6 7.4 10.0 36.4
?.0 l
L SLEEVE FIGURE 5-5.6 (Sheet 2 of 2) l VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE
( LEVEL A & B WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION L-
QC-MARK I PUAR O
Allowable General Mestrane Stress Intensity .
S y (33.9 ksi)
Allowable Local Membrane Stress Intensity .
4 1.5 S y (50.9 ksi)
I f I I [
l 6. I'
11.1 33,,
I
- , , ^
10.9 gg,g
. 3.
I 37.9 10.6
. 0. 6 16.2 2.' 30,3 g 1.6 10.8 9. 8 /
11 11 ? 11.3 '8 %
j 12.2 11.6 13. *-
l'* 1 11 ' 12.7 11.1 18 3 10.1 g ..
15.0 11.S 12.0 9.3 IO 1- 12.2 12.7 17.5 11.0 12.3 16.3 10.7 11.7 10.6 15.3 11.7 16.9 l 10.8 33.g 16.1 12.5 10.8 35,g 13.6 22.5 11.3 30 4 13.0 11.3 18.2 n.7 13.2
!$ 5 1s.,
- I 13.9 g3. 7 16.8
- 13.4 10.. 10..
13.3 10.6 11.8 12.3 10.7 13.6 l
FIGURE 5-5.7 (Sheet 1 of 2)
! VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL l' LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE i.
i' LEVEL C WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION I -
i
QC-MARK I PUAR l
T J _ _ _ . . . ..
u *
,h h, g
~
b 29.4 11.9 a,3 ' *
- a. 14 3
~
.T 20.
2_
FIPE 8 FINS 4
Allowable General Membrane Stress Intensity =
Sy (33.9 kai)
Allowable Local Mer.brane Stress Intensity =
1.5 Sy (50.9 ksi) 9.4 10.3 0.1 10.2 12.5 12.4 11.6 12.4 n.. ... ... ... .2 u.s n. , u..
SLEEVE I
l i
FIGURE 5-5.7 (Sheet 2 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRIMARY i t MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITIES FOR SERVICE L LEVEL C WITHOUT THERMAL EXPANSION
{
- i I
t i l l
~ ~ ' - < s ~ - , . - - - , , _, ,. , , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _
QC-MARK I PUAR O
Allowette Faber Stre**
1stessity
- E,$, GI I b811
's .4:01 ,,,
0- ,33 % 'I 6.9 gg.3 12.9
,'. e s.*
I' ' 25.* 1, . , 33.3 s.s 4.6
,2.2 I
at. '.1. gg,g
$.. 'S.' s.5 12.5
?' a.7 10.2 16.0
,,g e- S .7 13.4 I*' 12.2 g.3 S.O
'*I 10.1 7.1 g,3 g,3 3.7 I *I 9.7 12.4 7.7 10.7 0
8.9 93 7.2 6.1
8.2 go,3 14.1 I' 13.8 7,7 10.9 y,g O 10.2 y ,7 1.6 11.0 14.3 I*
20.6 12.1 9.4 13.5 14.6 12.2 10.9 II 11.6 99 10.1 g,7 11.9 7.4 S.2 10.3 h2.5
.1 3.7 l
l
(
FIGURE 5-5.8. (Sheet 1 of 2)
VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL f) PRINCIPAL EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES V FOR FATIGUE LOAD CASE i .
QC-MARK I PUAR O
. 11.4 1* 8
,.. 5.3 ,.
as.6 to.*
n.e e
a 4 :
PAPE & FINS O azim u.ris.esu.
- g. it, . s,s, (o.s tes) is.1 20.2 ao.e
- p. 3 a ., s ., s.s 34.s 10., 10.4 14.0 25.s 3.1 6.6 10.7 22.8
' SLEEVE l
FIGURE 5-5.8 (Sheet 2 of 2)
L VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - CRITICAL PRINCIPAL EXTREME FIBER STRESS INTENSITIES
'~ FOR FATIGUE LOAD CASE v
l l '
QC-MARK I PUAR e
(
.=:,e- vu,m , ne w.ua w= w:nos m >
&llemeMe BNs nament no. steeee 32 22 1 10 Il 11 SJ 1 19 14 19 af 14 sen. level t e.Neaal P.9 11.9 13.1 11.5 12.0 h.? h.9 M .6 14.1 19.9 14.4 13.s 10.9 9J asse level P e/s Tseses! 13.95 2.9 a 4.0 12.4 1..) 12.! ILt 12.4 13.? 12.9 11.9 4.0 6?
arev. Insel c wh fleremi 93.f? 2.4 a.) 9.0 12.4 14.4 12.0 11.t u .) 13.3 12.1 11.4 8.4 .9 43.9 1.8 4.3 f3 12.0 11.s U .9 13.9 12.0 13.3 12.1 11.9 0.9 a.e Fetitue tant hoe r.e-i FIGURE 5-5.9 VENT LINE PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 1 LOCAL DEVELOPED VIEW - MAXIMUM STRESS INTENSITIES ON INTERIOR STIFFENERS ALL SERVICE LEVELS l O
i s .
4 QC-MARK I PUAR 5-
6.0 REFERENCES
- 1. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980; Supplement 1, August 1982.
- 2. " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," General.
j Electric Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, November 1981.
- 3. " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition,"
Quad Cities Station - Units 1 and 2, General Electric j Company, NEDO-24567, Revision 2, April 1982.
- 4. Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2, Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Commonwealth Edison Company, July 20, 1982.
- 5. " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide," Task Number 3.1.3, Mark I Owners Group, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583-1, October 1979.
,, 6. " Main Steam /SRV Discharge Line and Support Modification" ,
i Sargent & Lundy Design Specification DS-SRV-01-QC.
).
- 7. " Mark I Containment Program Augmented Class 2/3 Fatigue Evaluation Method and Results for Typical Torus Attached and SRV Piping Systems," MPR Associate, Report No. MPR-751, j November 1982; (Submitted to NRC by General Electric Letter MFN-187-82, November 30, 1982).
- 8. Summary of Meeting Held on September 9 and 10,1982 with General Electric and the Mark I Owners Group in Bethesda, Maryland.
- 10. Integrated Piping Analysis System (PIPSYS), Sargent &
l Lundy Computer Program No. 09.5.065-5.5, Revision 1, November 1982; and No. 09.5.065-5.3, Revision 6, June 1982. .
- 11. Power Piping Code USAS B31.1.0-1967.
- 12. " Mark I Containment. Program - Task 6.2.1, Monticello T-Quencher Stress Report," General Electric Company Report l
22A6010, Revision e, May 9, 1978.
l 13 . Summary of Meeting Held on August 19 and 20, 1982 with General Electric and Mark I Architect Engineers in.
O . Knoxville, Tennessee; Subject, " Mark I Containment Program."
5-6.1
- - ._ . . _ . _ _ _ .__._.- _ . ._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . ~
c--- - - - - - _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
QC-MARK I PUAR O
- 14. " Realistic Estimate of SRV Actuations for Plant Life,"
General Electric Company; Mark I SSE Question No. 319 Response, Task 9.2.1, July 2, 1982.
- 15. " Piping Stress Analysis Report, Mark I Program Plant Unique Analysis of the SRV Discharge Piping System2," in Sargent the Suppression Chamber - Quad Cities Units 1 and
& Lundy Report No. EMD-033967, Revision 00, March 25, 1983.
- 16. " Final Vent System Response to LDR Defined Loads at SRVDL Penetration in Vent Line" letter from H. W. Massie (Nutech) to A. Walser (S&L) dated November 30, 1982.
- 17. Sargent & Lundy Design Specification DC-SE-01-QC, Revision C, December 29, 1982.
- 18. AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Eighth Edition 1980,
" Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel Buildings."
- 19. ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsection NE; 1977 Edition, including Sumraer 1977 Addenda.
- 20. Quad Cities Units 1 and 2, " Reactor Turbine Building Floor Response Spectra" Letter with Attachment, by Keith, Feibusch Associates, Engineers, September 1970.
- 21. Safety Relief Valve Blowdown Analysis (SRVA) , Sargent
& Lundy Computer Program No. 09.5.138-2.0, June 1979.
- 22. " Stress Analysis Safety Valve Station Dresden-2", General Electric Company, Report ITY-7241. .
- 23. " Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loadings," Wichman, Hopper, and Mershon; Welding Research Council Bulletin #107.
- 24. "SRV Discharge Line Associated Torus Internals and Vent Line Modifications Stress Report - Quad Cities Station Units 1 and 2," Sargent & Lundy Calculation file No.
5486-17QCR, May 11, 1983.
- 25. " Acceptability of SRSS Method for Combining Dynamic Responses in Mark I Piping Systems". NRC Letter from P. B. Vassallo to H. C. Pfefferlen, March 10, 1983.
- 26. Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 "Drywell Floor Framing Analysis" Sargent & Lundy Calculations file Nos. 6005-E3 and 6005-E4, O March 31, 1983.
5-6.2
-