Text

Rev 2 to Design Assessment Rept
	ML20072P596
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	03/31/1983
From:	; PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	;
Shared Package
ML17320B155	List: ML20072P563; ML20072P585; ML20072P596;
References
	NUDOCS 8304040319
	Download: ML20072P596 (104)
	v • d • e

r LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 & 2

(~5

( ,/ DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT REVISION 2 PAGE CHANGES The attached pages, tables, and figures are considered part of a controlled copy of the Limerick Generating Station DAR. This material should be incorporated into the DAR by following the instructions below.

After the revised pages are inserted, place the page that follows these instructions in the front of the Volume 1.

REMOVE INSERT VOLUME 1 Pages S-iii, -iv, -v Pages S-iii, -iv, -v Pages 1.3-1 & -2 Pages 1.3-1 & -2 Table 1.3-1 (pgs3 thru 7) Table 1.3-1 ( pgs 3 thru 7)

Table 1.3-2 (pgs 1 thru 18) Table 1.3-2 (pgs 1 thru 10)

Table 1.4-1 (pgs 2) Table 1,4-1 (pgs 2)

Pages 2.2-3 Pages 2.2-3 p Pages 4.2-9 & -10 Pages 4.2-9 & -10

() Pages 4.2-13 & -14 Table 4.4-3 & -4 Table 4.2-8 Pages 4.2-13 & -14 Table 4.2-3 & -4 Table 4.2-8 Table 4.2-10 Table 4.2.10 Figure 4.2-17 Figure 4.2-17 Figure 4.2-21 Figure 4.2-21 Figure 4.2-23 Figure 4.2-23 Pages 5-i & -ii Pages 5-i & -ii Pages 5.8-1 Pages 5.8-1 table 5.8-1 Pages 5.8-1 Table 5.10-1 (pg1) Table 5.10-1 (pg 1)

Pages 6-i Pages 6-i Pages 6.8-1 & -2 Pages 6.8-1 & -2 Pages 7-ii thru -v Pages 7-ii thru -v Pages 7.1-5 thru -8 Pages 7.1-5 thri -8 Pages 7.1-19 thru -31 Pages 7.1-19 thru35 Figure 7.1-12 thru -15 Figure 7.1-12 thru 15 Pages 7.2-1 thru -6 Pages 7.2-1 thru -6 Pages 220.17-1 Pages 220.17-1 thru 220.20-1

Page 480.63-1 Page 480.67-1 Page 480.68-1 Page 480.68-1 Page 480.69-1 Page 480.69-1 Page 480.70-1 Page 480.70-1 Page 480.71-1 VOLUME 2 Pages F-i Pages F-i thru Table F.1-1 P304040319 830331 PDR ADOCK 05000352 A PDR

O THIS DAR SET HAS BEEN UPDATED TO INCLUDE REVISIONS THROUGH 2 DATED 03/83 l

O ,

O

LGS DAR 4.2.4.1 Design Basis Accident (DBA) Transient 4.2.4.2 Intermediate Break Accident (IBA) Transients 4.2.4.3 Small Break Accident (SBA) Transients 4.2.5 LOCA Loading Histories for LGS Containment Components 4.2.5.1 LOCA Loads on the Containment Wall and Pedestal 4.2.5.2 LOCA Loads on the Basemat and Liner Plate 4.2.5.3 LOCA Loads on the Drywell and Drywell Floor 4.2.5.4 LOCA Loads on the Columns 4.2.5.5 LOCA Loads on the Downcomers 4 2.5.6 LOCA Loads on the Downcomer Bracing 4.2.5.7 LOCA Loads on Wetwell Piping 4.2.6 References CHAPTER 5 LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STRUCTURES, PIPING, AND EQUIPMENT

5.1 INTRODUCTION

i 5.2 LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR CONCRETE DESIGN IN CONTAINMENT, REACTOR ENCLOSURE, AND CONTROL STRUCTURE 5.2.1 References STRUCTURAL STEEL AND ASME CLASS MC STEEL COMPONENTS 5.3 r

LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.4 LINER PLATE LOAD COMBINATIONS l 5.5 DOWNCOMER LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.6 PIPING, QUENCHER, AND QUENCHER SUPPORT LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.6.1 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Drywell 5.6.2 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Wetwell 5.6.3 Quencher and Quencher Support Load Considerations 5.6.4 Load Considerations for Piping in the Reactor Enclosure l 5.7 NSSS LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.8 BOP EQUIPMENT LOAD COMBINATIONS l 5.9 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.10 HVAC DUCT SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS l

l S-iii Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA l

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.2 CONTAINMENT, REACTOR ENCLOSURE, AND CONTROL l STRUCTURE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.2.1 Containment Structure Capability Assessment Criteria 6.2.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control ~ Structure Capability Assessment Criteria 6.3 STRUCTURAL STEEL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.4 LINER PLATE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.4.1 References 6.5 DOWNCOMER CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.6 PIPING, OUENCHER AND OUENCHER SUPPORT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

() 6.7 NSSS CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.8 BOP E00IPMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA l 6.9 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.10 HVAC DUCT SYSTEM CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA CHAPTER 7 DESIGN ASSESSMENT 7.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 7.1.1 Containment, Reactor Enclosure, and Control Structure Assessment Methodology 7.1.1.1 Containment Structure 7.1.1.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure 7.1.2 Structural Steel Assessment Methodology 7.1.2.1 Suppression Chamber Columns 7.1.2.2 Downcomer Bracing 7.1.2.3 ASME Class MC Steel Components 7.1.3 Liner Plate Assessment Methodology 7.1.4 Downcomer Assessment Methodology N 7.1.4.1 Structural Model 7.1.4.2 Loads 7.1.4.3 Analysis S-iv Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR 7.1.4.4 Design Assessment 7.1.4.5 Fatigue Evaluation of Downcomers in Wetwell Airspace 7.1.5 Piping and SRV Systems Assessment Methodology 7.1.5.1 Fatigue Evaluation of MSRV Discharge Lines i

in Wetwell Air Volume 7.1.6 NSSS Assessment Methodology 7.1.7 BOP Equipment Assessment Methodology 7.1.7.1 Dynamic Loads 7.1.7.2 Load Combinations 7.1.7.3 Other Loads 7.1.7.4 Qualification Methods 7.1.8 Electrical Raceway System Assessment Methodology 7.1.8.1 General 7.1.8.2 Loads 7.1.8.3 Analytical Methods 7.1.9 HVAC Duct System Assessment Methodology 7.1.10 References 7.2 DESIGN CAPABILITY MARGINS 7.2.1 Stress Margins O 7.2.1.1 7.2.1.2 Containment Structure Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure 7.2.1.3 Suppression Chamber Columns 7.2.1.4 Downcomer Bracing 7.2.1.5 Liner Plate 7.2.1.6 Downcomers 7.2.1.7 Electrical Raceway System 7.2.1.8 HVAC Duct System 7.2.1.9 ASME Class MC Steel Components Margin 7.2.1.10 Piping and MSRV Systems Margins 7.2.1.11 BOP Equipment Margins 7.2.1.12 NSSS Margins 7.2.2 Acceleration Response Spectra 7.2.2.1 Containment Structure 7.2.2.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure CHAPTER 8 MARK II T-0UENCHER VERIFICATION TEST (See Proprietary Section) l RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS l O

S-v Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR a 1.3 MARK II CONTAINMENT PROGRAM l Philadephia Electric is a member of the Mark II owners group that I

! was formed in June 1975 to define and investigate.the dynamic loads due to SRV discharge and LOCA. The methods for calculating.

l these hydrodynamic loads are described in the.DFFR (Reference j- 1.3-1). The DFFR also specifies load combinations for plant.

! design assessment. The methode provided in the DFFR are based on a combination of analytical models, test data, and engineering judgment. The methods and information provided are sufficient ;

for use in a conservative evaluation of the design adequacy of Mark II structures and components.

J l The Mark II Owners Group Containment Program concentrated initially on the tasks required for the licensing of the lead plants (Zimmer, LaSalle, and Shoreham). This Lead-Plant Program established interim bounding loads appropriate for the anticipated life of each of the lead plants. The NRC acceptance criteria for the lead plant LOCA and SRV load definitions are described in NUREG 0487 (Reference 1.3-2) and NUREG 0487 Supplements 1 and 2 (References 1.3-3 and 1.3-4, respectively).

! O The remainder of the Mark II Owners Group Program concentrated on i the tasks required to license the long-term plants, which include LGS. The NRC acceptance criteria for the long-term plant LOCA and SRV load definitions are described in NUREG 0808 (Reference 1.3-5)'and NUREG 0802 (Reference 1.3-6), respectively. The l objectives of the Long-Term Program were (a) to provide i justification, by tests and analyses, for refinement of selected lead-plant bounding loads, and.(b) to provide additional confirmation of certain loads used in the Lead-Plant Program.

As a task separate from the Mark II Owners Group Program, a Mark II SRV discharge line T-quencher device and load specification was developed in 1978 by Kraftwerk Union (KWU) for Pennsylvania Power and Light (PP&L) for use in the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES). The T-quencher provides a reduction in the containment wall loads as compared to the loads generated by the original Ramshead quencher design. The T-quencher also promotes effective heat transfer and condensation l of discharge steam in the suppression pool. Philadelphia Electric Company decided to use the same T-quencher design for

! LGS. Following this decision, KWU compared the LGS and SSES SRV-related parameters and concluded that the same T-quencher c load specification could be used by Philadelphia Electric for the i- LGS' containment analysis. The LGS and SSES SRV-related

_ parameters are compared in Table 4.1-1.

1.3-1

LGS DAR The quencher load specification was submitted to the NRC by PP&L O

in April 1978. In addition, a full-scale SSES-unique unit cell test (Chapter 8) was performed by KWU in 1979. This test verifies KWU's design approach for the quencher load specification used for LGS.

Table 1.3-1 provides a summary of the LGS licensing basis as a result of the Mark II Containment Program.

Table 1.3-2 presents a summarizing review of the LGS suppression pool dynamic loadings. This is achieved by comparing the NRC Acceptance Criteria with the LGS plant-unique position.

1.

3.1 REFERENCES

1.3'-1 " Mark II Containment Dynamic Forcing Function Information Report", NEDO-21061, Revision 4, General Electric Co., November 1981.

1.3-2 " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria", NUREG-0487, NRC, October 1978.

1.3-3 " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria", NUREG-0407, Supplement 1, NRC, September 1980.

1.3-4 " Mark II Containment Lead Plant Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria", NUREG-0487, Supplement 2, NRC, February 1981, 1.3-5 " Mark II Containment Program Load Evaluation and Acceptance Criteria", NUREG-0808, NRC, August 1981.

1.3-6 " Safety / Relief Valve Quencher Loads: Evaluation for BWR Mark II and III Containments", NUREG-0802, NRC, October 1982.

O Rev. 2, 03/83 1.3-2

4%m em TASK NUMBER ACTIVITY AC A.22 A.16 SOURCE EVALUATION Co 4I A.29 V.B. MODEL Me A.30 RESPONSE TO Lo BIENKOWSKI/NRC fo CHUGGING QUESTION B. SRV - RELATED TASKS B.1 QUENCHER EMPIFICAL MODEL DF Su B.2 RAMSHEAD MODEL DF Su An<

B.3 MONTICELLO IN-PLANT Pri SRV TESIS Hvi B.S SRV QUENCHER IN-PLANT Te:

CAORSO TESTS Te; Te:

Te:

Phase I Te:

Phase II Te:

Re-evaluate AM1 B. S.1 EXTENDED BLOWDOWN Te:

. < - ~~

E e--mm

LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-1 (CONT ' D) (Page 3 of 7)

DOC USED FOR IIVITX_IYEE DQCUMEh!h7IQU Db7E lgs _LICEUsIEg nfirm/Pevise Source BaDad on 4TCO Data NEDE-24302-P 4/ 81 Yes CO Chuqqing Data - Six NEDE-24285-P 1/81 Yes k;y runs NEDO-24285 Yes thodology Report NEDE-22178-P 8/82 Yes l NEDO-22178 9/82 Yes I ad cvaluation Letter Report 4/82 Yes l r frcquency i I

FR Model NEDE-21061-P 9/76 No l NEDO-21061 9/76 No

' porting Data p NEDE-21078-P 5/75 No NEDO-21078 10/75 No PR MODEL NEDE-21061-P 9/76 No l NEDO-21062 9/76 No pporting Data NEDE-21062-P 7/75 No NEDO-21062 7/75 No llyzis k NEDE-20942-P 5/75 No NEDO-20942 5/75 No eliminary Test Reocrt NEDC-21465-P 12/76 No l NEDO-21465 12/76 No 1rodynrmic Report NEDC-21581-P 8/77 No NEDO-21581 8/77 No 5t Plant NEDM-20988 Rev. 2 12/76 No

't Plan Addendum 1 B NEDM-20988 Rev.2, Add.1 10/77 No it Plan Addendum 2 NEDM-20988 Rev.2, Add.2 4/78 No 5t Summary Letter Report 3/79 No 5t R port NEDE-25100-P 5/79 No NEDE-25100-P Errata 2/81 N3 NEDO-25100 8/79 No NEDO-25100 Errata 2/81 No 5t R port NEDE-24757-P 5/80 No l NEDO-24757 7/80 No 3 Rcoort NEDE-24835-P 3/81 No it R3 port NEDE-24798-P 7/80 No NEDO-24798 8/80 No Fev. 2, 03/83

a .=-

TASK NUMBEB MILVITX 68 B.6 THERMAL MIXING MODEL An<

B.10 MONTICELLO FSI An, B.11 DFFR RAMSHEAD MODEL Da' TO MONTICELLO DATA B.12 RAMSHEAD SRV METHODOLOGY Ani

SUMMARY

C. MISCELLANEOUS TASKS C.0 SUPPORTING PROGRAM Su SI C.1 DFFR REVISIONS RC (TASK C.18)

Re' RW C.3 NRC ROUND 1 QUESTIONS D9 D5 DG C.5 SRSS JUSTIFICATION IT SB C. S.1 SRSS PROGRAM

SUMMARY

SB 8

C. 5. 2 SRSS APPLICATION CRITERIA S~

S<

C.S.3 SRSS JUSTIFICATION CRITERIA S S.

C. 5. 4 BROOKHAVEN REPORT CRITIQUE B C.6 NRC ROUND 2 QUESTIONS Da J ~

9g i

l F

=-

LGS DAR FABLE 1.3-1 (CONT' D) (Page 4 of 7)

DOC USED FOR DQCUMEUI6TIQB D&If LGS,, LICENSING CIVIIX_TXEE tlyticcl Model NEDC-23689-P 3/78 No NEDO-23689 3/78 No sly 310 of FSI NEDO-23834 6/78 No tr/Model Comparison NSC-GEN 0394 9/77 No slytical Methods NEDO-24070 10/77 No ao Prog Report NEDO-21297 5/76 No ap Prog Report Rev. 1 NEDO-21297 Rev. 1 4/78 No ricion 1 NEDE-21061-P Rev. 1 9/75 No NEDO-21061 Fev. 1 9/75 No I ricion 2 NEDE-21061-P Rev. 2 9/76 No NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 9/76 Nc ricion 3 NEDE-21061-P Rev. 3 6/78 Yes NEDO-21061 Rev. 3 6/78 Yes l PR Rsv. 2 NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 9/76 Yes RR Rsv. 2, Amendment 1 NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 12/76 Yes Amendment 1 FR Round 1 Questions Letter Report 6/78 Yes t rin Report (NEDE-24010) 4/77 Yes SS R0 port NEDE-24010-P 7/77 Yes NEDO-24010 7/77 Yes SS Executive Summary Summary Report 4/78 Yes SS Criteria Application NEDO-24010, Supp. 1 10/78 Yes SS Criteria Basis NEDO-24010-P, Supp. 2 12/78 Yes SS Juctification Supp. NEDO-24010, Supp. 3 8/79 Yes 55 Criteria Evaluation Letter Report 1/80 Yes L Critique EDAC 134-242-03 1/80 Yes MR Am:nd. 2 NEDE-21061-P Rev. 2 6/77 Yes Amend. 2 NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 6/77 Yes Amend. 2 -- --

RR Amend. 2, Supp 1 NEDO-21061 Rev. 2 8/77 Yes Rev. 2, 03/83

,w m

^

TASK MdEEB bCTIVITY, C. 7 JUSTIFICATION OF "4T" BOUNDING LOADS C.8 SRV AND CHUGGING FSI C.9 MONITOR WORLD TESTS C.11 MASS ENERGY RELEASE C.13 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND e FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY j CRITERIA C.14 NRC ROUND 3 QUESTIONS '

l l C.15 SUBMERGED STRUCTURE S CRITERIA k.- C.16 QUENCHER MASS ENERGY (o

~

LGS DAR " i l

TABLE 1.3-1 (CONT' D) (Page 5 of 7)

DOC USED FOR d9TIYITY_TYEE D099BEUIhTIQU Dh2E Lg3_LICEUSIUg Amend. 2 Supp. 1 FFR Amend. 2, Supp 2 NEDO-21061-P Rev. 2 9/77 Yes Amend. 2 Supp. 2 FFR R:v. 3, Apoendix A-2 NEDE-21061-P Rev. 3 Yes Appendix A-2 NEDO-21061 Rev. 3 Yes Appendix A-2 Ehuqqing Loads NEDE 23617-P 7/77 Yes hu:tification NEDO 23617 7/77 Yes NEDE 24013-P 6/77 Yes NEDO 24013 7/77 Yes NEDE 24014-P 6/77 Yes NEDO 24014 7/77 Yes NEDE 24015-P 6/77 Yes NEDO 24015 7/77 Yes NEDE 24016-P 6/77 Yes NEDO 24016 7/77 Yes NEDE 24017-P 6/77 Yes NEDO 24017 7/77 Yes NEDE 23627-P 6/77 Yes NEDO 23627 7/77 Yes jrcr.trarsed Concrete loinforced Concrete NEDE 21936-P 7/78 Yes

' Stool NEDO 21936 8/78 Yes 4nitor Tests None No l F

<RV Pool Temperature Let.ter Report-Revision 0 4/80 Yes olysic Assumptions Letter Report-Pevision 1 1/81 Yes

.nd Justification 3thodo for calculating Letter Report 5/81 Yes Os cnd energy release or SRV discharges

<ritoria Justification NEDO 21985 9/78 Yes pttarReport Letter Report 6/78 Yes FFR Round 3 Ouestions Letter Report 6/78 Yes iC Qunstion Responses Letter Report 4/80 Yes Ecnch2r Temperature Letter Report 1/81 Yes Rev. 2, 03/83

C..!

TASK E9MEEE ac;IyI;y nf CUTOFF IJ C.18 DFFR REVISION Re

1. Formation and oscillation Al cf a spherical gas bubble

2. Analytical model for clarification of pressure pulsatien in the wetwell after vent clearing Al

3. Tests on mixed' condensation with model quenchers Ki

4. Condensation and vent clearing tests at GKM with quenchers Kn

5. Concept and design of the

(' 6.

pressure relief system with quenchers KKB vent clearing with Kl quencher Kb

7. Experimental approach to vent clearing in a 1

model tank K%

8. Anticipated data for blowacwn tests with pressure relief system during the non-nuclear L hot functional test at L nuclear power station l Brunsbuttel (KKB) Ki h

9. Results of the non-nuclear hot functional tests with the pressure relief system l

in the nuclear power t station Brunsbuttel Kn

10. Analysis of the loads measured on the pressure relief system durinq

! the non-nuclear hot

. functional test at KKB K%

I ,

j 18

LGS DAR _ _ . ,

TABLE 1. 3-1 . (CONT' D) (Page 6 of 7)

DOC USED FOR 51YITY_ TYPE QQCUMEET&TICE DhI3 Igg _LICEEjIEg imit picion 4 NEDO-21061-4 12/ 81 Yes l

@ - Rcport 2241 12/72 Yes

@ - Report 2208 3/72 Yes

@ - Report 2593 5/73 Yes

@ - Report 2594 5/73 Yes

@ - Report 2703 7/73 Yes

U - Report 2796 10/73 Yes

@ - R0 port 3129 7/75 Yes

'O - Palert 3141 Yes

! . , _ . ~ < ,

q.

..f ,,.

u -. -yv -

~~

e n .

B - Report 326,7 ...

12/74~~ , -

_; Yes 5- A" # ,

p

., u- ~m

, ' y- =ws*

1 .,

b, af - y s

. z, / -

~ -

T - Report 3 346 < 4/75 ..

Yes -

y

/' t .

l :~;,.

N Rev. 2, 03/83 v v i ,N '

K

,, Q rr.+

. av

g ,

r av h . + - f' . , U 'k , 'F.__ ' See - f D., ?,- - ,f A, , , .

Document Titig pg UuBbgE__

11. KKB - Listing of test parameters and important test data of the non-nuclear hot functional tests with the pressure K1 relief system

12. KKB - Results from nuclear startuo testing of KI pressure relief system

13. Results of the non-nuclear hot functional tests with the pressure relief system in the nuclear power K' station Phillipsburg

14. KKPI - Listing of test parameters and important test data of the non-('-- nuclear hot functional tests with the pressure 5 relief system

15. KKB hot test results, loads on internals in pool of the suppression chamber during oressure Q relief processes SOS g 6

LGS DAR (Page 7 of 7) l TABLE 1.3-1 (CO2C' D)

Document Used for 1309 Diction __Dete__ _LQS__L_iERDalDS EU - Working Report 8/77 Yes lR 521/40/77 h-WorkingReport 9/76 Yes IR 142-136/76 l

$U - Working Report 3/77 Yes iR 142-38/77 W - Working Report 8/77 Yes

-R 521/41/77 I

$U - Working Paper 11/74 Yes lR 113/203 I

i L._______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - __- -- --

Rev. 2, 03/83

i e- - j i

I l

Lgad gr ghengmengn I. LOCA Related Hydrodynt Loads A. Submerged Boundary During Vent Clearia B. Poolswell Loads

1. Poolswell Analvt cal Model

a. Air-Bubble Pressure

b. Poolswell Elevation

c. Poolswell Velocity i

a 4

C

'%u/

i

-- t . ,

dj i

t

LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Page 1 of 10) l COMPARISON OF LGS LICENSING BASIS WITH NRC ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Criteria LGS NRC Acceptance Criteria Source Position nic l

l loads 24 psi overpressure added NUREG-0487 Acceptable h to local hydrostatic Supplement 1 pressure below vent exit l l (walls and basemat) -

I linear attenuation to pool surface.

l Calculated by the pool- NUREG-0487 Acceptable swell analytical model (PSAM) used in calcula-tion of submerged boun-dary loads.

! Use PSAM with polytropic NUREG-0487 Acceptable exponent of 1.2 to a max- Supplement 1 i

imum swell height which is the greater of 1.5 x vent submergence or the elevation corresponding to the drywell floor uplift AP=2.5 psid.

Velocity history vs. NUREG-0487 Acceptable )

pool elevation predic-ted by the PSAM used to l compute impact loading l On small structures and i drag on gratings between initial pool surface and maximum pool elevation and steady-state drag i between vent exit and maximum pool elevation.

Analytical velocity variation is used up to maximum velocity. =

l Rev. 2, 03/83

I w.-

Lgad_gr,Eheggggpon

d. Poolswell !

Acceleration I

4

e. Wetwell Air l

Compression i

f. Drywell Pressure

2. Loads on submert Boundaries l

6 t

i

i i

3. Impact Loads i !

ix

a. Small i i; Structures i

a .

I i

_3 ,

a y

.~

M a?

.I N

I

LGS DAR TABLE 1. 3- 2 (Continued) (Page 2 of 10) i 1

Criteria LGS NRC_Acceg_tance Criteria Source Position Maximum velocity applies thereafter up to maximum poolswell. PSAM predic-ted velocities multiplied by a factor of 1.1.

Acceleration predicted NUREG-0487 Acceptable by the PSAM. Pool acceleration is used in the calculation of acceleration loads on submerged components during poolswell.

Wetwell air compression NUREG-0487 Acceptable is calculated by PSAM Supplement 1 consistent with max-imum poolswell eleva-tion in B.1.b.

Methods of NEDM-10320 NUREG-0487 Acceptable and NEDO-20533 Appendix B. Used in PSAM to cal-culate poolswell loads.

ed Maximum bubble pressure NUREG-0487 Acceptable I predicted by the PSAM added uniformly to local hydrostatic pressure below vent exit (walls and basemat) - linear attenuation to pool surface.

Applied to Walls up to max-imum poolswell elevation.

1.35 x Pressure-Velocity NUREG-0487 Acceptable correlation for pipes l and I beams based on l PSTF impulse data and flat pool assumption. l Variable pulse duration. !

Rev. 2, 03/83 l

Load,gr_Phenomepon

b. Lurge Structures

c. Grating

4. Wetwell Air Compression

a. Wall Loads

-- b. Diaphragm Upward Loads

5. Asymmetric LOCA Pool C. Steam Condensation i Chuqqing Loads

1. Downcomer Latera<

Loads

a. Single-Vent Loads (24 in.)

i

b. Multiple-Vent

, Loads (24 in.)

0 - _

s 4

4

-~,,..--.- -- - ..., .,.. .-.. . . . . - --,-.

LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 3 of 10) l Criteria LGS NRC Acceptance Criteria Source Position None - Plant unique load NUREG-0487 Not Applicable where applicable. No large structures P drag vs. grating area NUREG-0487 Acceptable correlation and pool velocity vs. elevation.

Pool velocity from the PSAM. P drag multi-i plied by dynamic load factor.

Direct application of NUREG-0487 Acceptable the PSAM calculated pressure due to wetwell compression.

5.5 psid for diaphragm NUREG-0808 Acceptable loadings only.

Use 20 percent of max- NUREG-0487 Acceptable imum bubble pressure Supplement 1 statically applied to 1/2 of the submerged boundary.

knd Dynamic load to end of NUREG-0808 Acceptable vent. Half sine wave with a duration of 3 to 6 ms and corresponding maximum amplitudes of 65 to 10 Klbf. l Prescribed variation of NUREG-0808 Acceptable load per vent vs. number of vents. Determined from single vent dyna-mic load specification _ _ _ _

Rev. 2, 03/83 I

$ :S Load,gg Ehgggmgggg

c. Single /Multig vent loads (28 in.)

2. Submerged BoundE Loads

a. High/ Medium Steam Flux Cs densation Oscillation Load

c. Low Steam Fl%

Chugging Loaf j - Symmetric Load

! - Asymmetric Load f.ase i

1 L.

LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 4 of 10) l Criteria LGS NRC Acceptance Criteria Source Position and multivent reduc-tion factor.

e Multiply basic vent NUREG-0808 Not Applicable f loads by factor f=1.34 Bounding CO pressure NUREG-0808 Acceptable histories observed in 4TCO tests. Inphase application.

Conservative set of NUREG-0808 Acceptable 10 sources derived from 4TCO tests.

Applied to plants using the IWEGS/ MARS acoustic model.

Source desynchroniza-tion of 50 ms or alter-nate load using 7 sources derived from the 4TCO key chugs without averaging.

All vents use source of equal strength for each of the sources.

Source strengths Si =

S (11a) applied to all vents on + and - side of containment. Sources based on the symmetric sources. Asymmetric parameter a based on rms moment method of interpreting experi-mental 4TCO single-vent and JAERI multivent data.

.. =

Rev. 2, 03/83

r l

euken a mED Load or Phenomenon II. SPV Related Hydrodynal Loads A. Pool Temperatures D i

i n

i I

l

)

LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 5 of 10) l Criteria LGS NRC_Accep,tance Criteria _ Source Position 6C Smits For plants using a dis- NUREG-0783 charge device with the exact hole pattern as described in the SSES DAR Section 4.1, the following limits shall

. apply:

1. For all plant tran- NUREG-0783 Acceptable sients involving SRV operations dur-ing which steam flux exceeds 94 lb /f t2-sec, the m

local pool tem-perature shall not exceed 2000F.

2. For all plant tran- NUREG-0783 Acceptable sients involving SRV operations during which steam flux is less than 42 lb /ft2-m sec, the local pool temperature shall be at least 200F sub-cooled. This is equivalent to a temp-erature of 2100F with quencher submergence of 14 feet.

3. For all plant tran- NUREG-0783 Acceptable sients involving SRV operations during which steam flux is between 42 and 94 lb /ft2-sec, the m

local pool tempera-ture can be deter- -==

mined by linear Rev. 2, 03/83

1 i

I!oa? _QE.,2bgnomenon B. Air Clearing Loads l

l l

1 I

I

=

LGS DAR ,

I TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 6 of 10) l .

Criteria LGS NRC Acceptance _ Criteria _Sgurce_ Positign interpolation between the temperatures defined in items 1 and 2 above.

The P-quencher load NUREG-0802 Acceptable specification described in Section 4.1 of the SSES DAR may be aoplied for evaluation of SRV containment boundary pressure loads with the following restrictions:

1. All valves load case NUREG-0802 Acceptable The DLV and DLWL com-binations must lie be-low the limit line of Fig. A1 defined in the criteria where:

a. DLV shall be equal to the arithmetic average of all dis-charge line volumes (m3)

b. DLWL shall be equal to the quen-cher submergence at high water level (m)

2. ADS Load Case NUREG-0802 Acceptable i

The DLV and DLWL com-binations must lie below the limit line of Fig. A2 defined in the criteria l I

j where:

l a. DLV shall be equal

. to the arithmetic average of all ADS ~~

discharge line l l

l

( Rev. 2, 03/83 l

. - , ,- w - - - - - - - - - . _ . , _

Loa 4 5 _Ehe.neme_nen d

1 C. T-Quencher Tie Down Loads i

i i

lk ,

k__

z e

i

t a- ;

i LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 7 of 10) l Criteria LGS NRC_ Acceptance Criteria Source Position volumes (m3)

b. DLWL shall be equal to the dif-ferences between the plant downcomer exit elevation and the quencher center line elevation (m)

3. Frequency Range NUREG-0802 Acceptable (DAR Section 4.1. 4.1)

For the single valve and asymmetric load cases, the timewise compression of the design pressure signatures shall be in-creased to provide an overall dominant fre-quency range that ex-tends up to 11 Hz.

4. Vertical Pressure NUREG-0802 Acceptable Distribution The maximum pressure amplitudes shall be applied uniformly to the containment and pedestal walls up to an elevation 2.5 feet above the quencher centerline followed l by linear attenuation l to zero at pool l surface. l The T-quencher load speci- NUREG-0802 Acceptable i fication described in SSES DAR Section 4.1 may be ap-plied for evaluation of quencher and quencher sup-port. l Rev. 2, 03/83

_- _ ~

Lgad,og_Ehgggmggcq III. LOCA/SRV Submerged Otructure Loads A. LOCA Downcomer Jet Load B. SRV T-Ouencher Jet I.

C. LOCA Air Bubble Draq Loads C,_y' L

P 41muume O l- _

_c LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 8 of 10) l

. Criteria LGS NRC_ Acceptance Criteria Source Position Alternate methodology pre- NUREG-0487 Acceptable sented in Zimmer DAR may Supplement 1 be applied.

SRV T-quencher iet loads NUREG-0487 Acceptable may be neglected beyond a 5 ft cylindrical zone of influence. Cylinder should be extended 10 hole diameters on the arm with holes in the end cap.

Calculate based on NUREG-0487 Applying methods described in plant-unique NEDE-21471 subiect to the methodology following constraints defined in and modifications: LGS DAR Sec-tion 4.2.1.5

1. To account for bubble NUREG-0487 Acceptable asymme try, accelera-tions and velocities shall be increased 10%.

2. For standard draq NUREG-0487 Acceptable in accelerating flow Supplement 1 fields, use draft co-efficients presented in Zimmer FSAR attach-ment 1.k with fol-lowing modifications:

a. Use C =C-1 in H m the F formula A

b. For Aoncylindricdl structures, use lift coefficient for appropriate shape or C =1.6 Rev. 2, 03/83

" %g n

r.

Load or Phenomenon

.-~. m 1

LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 9 of 10) l Criteria LGS NRC Acceptance Criteria Source Position L

c. The standard draq coefficient for poolswell and SRV oscillating bubbles should be based on data for structures with sharp edges.

3. For equivalent uni- NUREG-0487 Acceptable form flow velocity Supplement 1 and acceleration calculations, structures are segmented into small sections such that 1.0$L/D51.5. The loads are then applied to the geo-metric center of each segment. This approach, as presen-ted in Zimmer FSAR attachment 1.k, may be applied.

4. A detailed metho- NUREG-0487 Acceptable dology on the Supplement 1 approach for con-sidering inter-ference effects as presented in Zimmer FSAR Attachment 1.k may be applied.

5. Formula 2-23 of NEDE- NUREG-0487 Acceptable 21730 shall be modi-fied by replacing M by p V where H FB A V is obtained from A

Tables 2-1 S 2-2.

Rev. 2, 03/83

+ . - . . . .-

Lgad_qr_Eheggmenge D. SRV Air Bubble Draq Load E. Steam Condensation Draq Loads IV. Secondary Loads

1. Sonic Wave Load

2. Compressive Wave Load x_-

3. Fallback Load on Submerged Boundary

4. Thrust Loads

5. Friction Draq Loads on Vents

6. Vent Clearing Loads

7. Post Swell Wave Load

8. Seismic Slosh Load li l

~

i l

LGS DAR TABLE 1.3-2 (Continued) (Page 10 of 10) l Criteria LGS NRC Acceptance Criteria _ Source _ Position No criteria specified Applying for T-quencher plant-unique methodology defined in LGS DAR Section 4.1.4 No criteria specified Applying plant-unique methodology defined in LGS DAR Section 4.2 Negligible Load NUREG-0487 Acceptable Negligible Load NUREG-0487 Acceptable Negligible Load NUREG-0 487 Acceptable Momentum balance NUREG-0487 Acceptable Standard friction draq NUREG-0487 Acceptable calculations Negligible Load NUREG-0487 Acceptable i

Methodology for establish- NUREG-0487 Load is negligible j ing loads resulting when compared to j from post swell waves to design basis loa ~ds j be evaluated on a plant (Section 4. 2. 3. 6) i unique basis. I Methodology for establish- NUREG-0487 Load is negligible j ing loads resulting from when compared to I seismic slosh to be design basis loads i evaluated on a plant unique (section 4. 2. 3. 7) I basis. 1 I

Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR ,

TABLE 1.4-1 (Cont'd) (Page 2 of 3)

Downcomer submergence, ft Low water level 10' Normal water level 11' High water level 12'-3" Downcomer loss coefficient 2.18 l SAFETY RELIEF VALVES Number 14 Spring Set Pressures, Mass Flow Rates:

Mass Flow (1bm/hr) at 103% of Spring Valve Set Pressure (psia) Set Pressure A 1150 917,000

() B 1150 917,000 C 1,150 917,000 D 1140 909,000 E* 1140 909,000 F 1150 917,000 G 1150 917,000 H* 1130 901,500 J 1130 901,500 K* 1140 909,000 L 1130 901,500 M* 1140 909,000 N 1130 901,500 S* 1140 909,000

O

ADS Valves Rev. 2, 03/83 l - - - - . . .. ___.

LGS DAR O 2.2.5 BOP EQUIPMENT ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

l Safety related BOP equipment in the containment, reactor enclosure, and control structure are assessed by the methods contained in Section 7.1.7. Loads are combined as shown in Table 5.8-1.

2.2.6 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

The electrical raceway system located in the containment, reactor enclosure, and control structure is assessed for load combinations in accordance with Table 5.9-1. The assessment methodology and analysis results are presented in Chapter 7.

2.2.7 HVAC DUCT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

The HVAC duct system located in the containment, reactor enclosure, and control structure is assessed for load combinations in accordance with Table 5.10-1. The assessment methodology and analysis results are presented in Chapter 7.

( }

2.2.8 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM (SPTMS)

ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY

SPTMS adequacy assessment and suppression pool temperature response to SRV discharge are presented in Appendix I. l l

l l

l O

2.2-3 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O .The poolswell fallback analysis of piping that has interference ef fects was performed by: using the FORCE II computer code. The results indicate that the interference effects-increase the vertical load component by a maximum of 16%, depending on the elevation.

4.2.2 CONDENSATION OSCILLATIONS AND CHUGGING LOADS Condensation oscillation and chugging loads follow the poolswell loads in time. There are basically three loads in this secondary time period, i.e., from about 4 to 60 seconds after the break.

Condensation oscillation is broken down into two phenomena, a mixed flow regime and a steam flow regime. The mixed flow regime is a relatively high mass flux phenomenon that occurs during,the

. final period of air purging from the drywell to the wetwell when i the mixed flow through the downcomer vents contains some air as well as steam. The steam flow portion of the condensation oscillation phenomena occurs after all the air has been carried over to the wetwell and a relatively high intermediate mass flux of pure steam flow is established.

l Chugging is a pulsating condensation phenomenon that can occur either following the intermediate mass flux phase of a LOCA or during the-class of smaller postulated pipe breaks-that result in steam flow through the vent system into the suppression pool. A l necessary condition for chugging to occur is that.only pure steam flows from the.LOCA vents. Chugging imparts a loading condition to the suppression pool boundary and all submerged structures.

i i 4.2.2.1 Containment Boundary Loads Due to Condensation Oscillations The_ containment boundary loads due to condensation oscillation are based on direct-application of pressure measurements in the drywell and the suppression pool from the full-scale 4TCO tests,

' as described in Reference 1.3-1, section 4.3, and Reference 4.2-7.

l The basic condensation oscillation load is a bounding load for i any condensation oscillation condition expected during a l hypothetical LOCA in the LGS plant. All 28 of the 4TCO test runs were analyzed to determine the bounding time periods. The criterion for the selection of these time periods was to bound l the maximum power spectral density values observed at the bottom center pressure throughout the condensation oscillation period in 4.2-9 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR all runs -- in any 2.048-second block for all frequencies from 0 to 60 Hz -- in approximately 0.5 Hz increments. The selected time periods were independently confirmed to be bounding by the amplified-response-spectra analysis (Ref 4.2-7, Appendix A).

The pressure-response-spectrum envelope for the time periods selected is shown in Figure 4.2-8; the spatial pressure distribution is shown in Figure 4.2-9. The drywell pressure histories for the time periods defined in Reference 4.2-7 are applied uniformly throughout the drywell.

4.2.2.2 Pool Boundary Loads Due to Chugging The Mark II generic chugging load definition was developed by applying the acoustic chugging methodology described in Reference 4.2-8 to the chugging data base provided by the Mark II 4T Condensation Oscillation (4TCO) Test Program (Reference 4.2-9). The definition of a chugging load starts with the identification of steam-bubble collapse as the fundamental excitation mechanism. The collapse produces acoustic responses in the suppression pool and the vents. The combined excitation of the suppression pool and vent response is characterized as a time-varying volumetric point source in the acoustic model.

Point sources for the 4TCO facility are inferred from 4TCO wall pressures via the 4TCO acoustic model. These point sources can be applied to an acoustic model of the Mark II suppression pool because the bubble collapse and vent response in Mark II are correctly simulated by the prototypical 4TCO geometry and blowdown conditions. The multivent effects of variation in chug strength and chug time among vents are incorporated in the Mark II application (Reference.4.2-10).

l Seven large (key) chugs from the 4TCO data base were used to develop design sources to be applied to the acoustic model of the Limerick containment. These design sources are to be applied l desynchronized, using the set of chug start times having the l smallest variance in one-thousand Monte Carlo trials drawn from a uniform distribution of start times having a width of 500 l milliseconds (ms). The chug start times are randomly assigned to l the vents in the Mark II containment.

l l

The observation of vent desynchronization has been verified by determining the time delay between individual bubble collapses in the full-scale, 7-vent tests conducted by the Japan Atomic Energy l Research Institute (JAERI). Conservatism is ensured by applying l to the Mark II plant models a minimum estimate of the time window within which the individual bubble collapses must occur.

4.2-10

r

' -/ +

(

LGS DAR s

4*.,2.3.1 Downcomer Fr ction Drao Loads Friction drag loads are experienced internally by the downcomers during vent clearing and subsequent air or steam flow. In addition,.the'downcomers experience an external drag load during poolswell. Using standard drag force calculation procedures, these loads are determined to be 0.6 and 0.3 kips per downcomer, respectively, and are not considered in the structural evaluation of the containment.

4.2.3.2 Sonic Waves ,

\

Immediately following the postulated instantaneous rupture of a

large primary system pipe, a sonic wave front is created at the break location and propagates through the drywell to the vent system. This load has been determined to be negligible and, t'r.erefore, none is specified.

4.2.3.3 Compressive,Wav,e s

) The compression of the qir in the drywell and vent system causes a compressive wave to be generated in the downcomer water legs.

This compressive wave propagates through the pool and causes a differential pressure loading on the submerged structures and on the wetwell wall. This load has been evaluated and is considered negligible, ,

1 4.2.3.4 Fallback Loads on Submerced Boundaries During fallback, waterhammer-type loads could exist if the water slug remained intact during this phase. However, available test data indicate that this' does not occur, and the fallback process consists 'of a relatively gradual setting of the pool water to its initial level as the air bubble percolates upward. This is based on visual observationsiduring the EPRI tests (Ref 4.2-11) as well as indirect evidence provided by an examination of pool bottom pressure forces from thei4T, EPRI,. foreign licensee, and Marviken tests. Thus, these loads are small and will not be considered.

4.2.3.5 Vent Clearino Loads on the Downcomers

() The expulsion of the water leg in the downcomers at vent clearing creates a transient water jet in the suppression pool. This jet 4.2-13

x

.T W WE* '

, f r

~

~~

3. -

7

3. f

' * * / g

.w <

~y s' e J ** +

f

t,q j~ ,1 -

. .~

<q

~ ,' '

LGS DAR

~ ,

((

'f ormation may occur asymmetrically'. laming'to lateral reaction ,

loads oti .the de,wncomer. However, this load is bounded by the ,

load sp'ecification during chug 91nQ cnd will not be considered for '

l

,,contSinmcat i analysis. --

- e y -

,e

}, c . - +

~ ?

' ~

r 7.4.28.l6,jost-Poolswel1

~ - Waves

, . Follos.ili i lhe poolswell process, continued flow through the vent system # generates random pool motion. The pool motion creates i' waves that have potential loading impingement effects on the LGS wetwell wall and internal' components. In accordance with the ,

. response to Question Mo2N 9 documented in Appendix A of the DFFR, j

< Revision 3 f.yune 1978),'this load is considered negligible when C y

5 compari d tofthe other dis'ign tiasis loads. j 4l? .7"Se'ismic SlecJ Th'e computer code SOLA-3D was used to estimate the suppression pool seismic slo'sh~ hydrodynamic loads. The results indicate that seismic slosh loads in the LGS plant are much less than the LOCA

' chugging loads or the SRV air clearing bubble oscillation loads (on the order of a few psi at a ralatively low frequency depending on location and direction).

The maximum wave '. sloshing) height is 1.6 feet. The nodal force close to the pool bottom oscillates betueen 112 to 88 kips (including static load). Therefore, the bottom pressure rises to about 1.2 psi above the static pressure due to sloshing. The dominant frequency of the sloshing motion is 0.1 Hz, whereas the dominant frequency of the seismic acceleration is about 2 Hz.

4.2.3.8 Thrust Loads Thrust loads are associated with the rapid venting of air and/or steam through the downcomers. To determine this load, a momentum balance for a control volume consisting of the drywell, diaphragm floor, and vents is taken. Results of the analysis indicate that the load reduces the downward pressure differential on the diaphragm.

4.2.4 LONG-TERM LOCA LOADS The loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) causes pressure and temperature transients in the drywell and wetwell due to mass and energy released from the line break. The drywell and wetwell pressure and temperature time histories are required to establish Rev. 2, 03/83 4.2-14

LGS DAR TABLE 4.2-3 LGSPLANTUNIQUEPOOLSWELLCODEINFUTDATA Downcomer area (each) 2.95 ft Suppression pool free surface area 4973.89 fta (outside pedestal)

Maximum downcomer submergence 12.25 ft Downcomer loss coefficient 1.18 l (without exit loss)

Number of downcomers 87 Initial wetwell pressure 15.45 psia Wetwell free air volume 149,425 ft3 Vent clearing time 0.7107 sec

(') Pool velocity at vent clearing 3.096 ft/sec Initial drywell temperature 1350F Initial drywell relative humidity 0.20 Downcomer friction coefficient, f 0.0115 (nominal)

Bubble initialization parameter (nominal) 50 0

Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR TABLE 4.2-4 INPUT DATA FOR LGS LOCA TRANSIENTS Drywell free air volume (including downcomers) 248,950 ft8 Wetwell free air volume 149,425 ft3 Maximum downcomer submergence 12.25 ft Downcomer flow area (total) 256.5 ft*

Downcomer loss coefficient 2.18 l Initial drywell pressure 14.8 psia Initial wetwell pressure 15.45 psia Initial drywell humidity 100%

Initial pool temperature 900F

() Estimated DBA break size 3.538 fta Number of vents 87 Minimum suppression pool mass 5.83 x 10* lb Initial vessel pressure 1.055 psia l Vessel and internals mass 2,940,300 lb Vessel and internals overall heat 484.9 Btu /sec 0F Vessel and internals specific heat 0.123 Btu /lb O

Rev. 2, 03/83 l

LGS DAR O TABLE 4.2-8 POOLSWELL WATER FRICTION DRAG LOADS Friction drag loads on columns Number of columns 12 Surface area per column 214.55 ft2 Friction force for 12 columns 5098 lbf Shear stress 0.01375 lb /in.2 Friction drag load on downcomers Number of downcomers 87 Surface area per downcomer 122.6 ft2 Frictional drag coefficient 0.00216 Friction force for 87 downcomers 2112.2 lb Friction drag load on MSRV pipes 1806 lb Air friction drag inside downcomers 303 lb

() Downcomer bracing fallback loads nominal diameter) 3720 lb /ft l

Vertical load (12 in Horizontal load (12 in. nominal diameter) 2823 lb /ft Vertical load (10 in. nominal diameter) 2616 lb /ft l Horizontal load (10 in, nominal diameter) 2046 lb /ft l O

Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O TABLE 4.2-10 MAXIMUM LOAD ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES Submerged Max CO Load Max Chugging Load Structure (1b/in.) (Ib/in.)

MSRVDL 3.8 24.0 Downcomer 22.0 36.0 Bracer 0.8 25.2 Core spray discharge line 0.22 6.6 l HPCI discharge line 22.0 22.0 l RHR discharge line 2.2 16.0 l Column 38.0 170.0 O

O Rev. 2, 03/83

i O t O WETWELL/DRYWELL P&T DURING POOLSWELL * ,

WETWELL/DRYWELL P&T WETWELL/DRYWELL P&T DURING LOCA *"

DURING LOCA "

POOLSWELL l AIR BUB 8LE

s MIXED FLOW l STEAM FLOW l CHUGGING ""

C.O. "" : C.O. " *

i

. 1 i 2 0 n VENTS PEAK FALLBACK SLOWDOWN O BREAK CLEAR A

-, me g aCm . .

POOLSWELL HT. COMPLETE COMPLETE HO g '

u 0 0.6863 1.5793 2.6371 15.0 25.0 80 s IO o w ym> z n ZoP O >g g_]m TIME (SEC) 00>

oZ m -g O m

vi dy, z m

U

DBA ONLY i

m I

y$ $h ** 18A OR S8A l >mg 3 No '" EITHER DBA. ISA OR SSA i

2 m

hHO o *>

$ *"* DBA ANO ISA ONLY

< 43 m

-y DN d b i r z F

l 8 is

(

l

v '! I . l i

. y NE WT OE 0 DLP I 0

WM 0

OO L

G BC N

I G

G U

H 0 C I ge 5 2

_ W O*

L*

F .

_ O M.C A

E T

S sl gt 0

I 5

W 1 O*

L*.

)

C F O. E S

DC (

E KE E X

I CT M M AE 1 7

I T

B L 3 LPf 6 LM 2 K AO C* FC AD BA T LO L L H A L F

KLE 3 9

A 7 EWI P LS 1 5

L LE L

LL O EGD EB* O WAA S

WSD SUA P Y

LRO LBO LA ODL OR L N8 O

P OI PA SR 3 O$

TA 6 AD l NE 1 8 6 SN R

EL VC 0 YI A EG* LD NNB A

MN OAI OID C RA AAA N EL AO BBB WL DDD OC K ***

A *

D 0

Ee R 0 B

rim 3$ Qzmm>af myyz CE H* *- -

U OE 5Z pgmmmsm N 3 3 R r O0#~tO>02o 3 yO <.

o3g .

m CO!zQggm l

l n5Czm $y" g<. =. 8aw l a ! ;I il .l i)'lijI 1 il ,;

]) - '

NE WT OE 0 DLP t 0

0

W OM L O G BC NI G

G U

)

r H

u C a 0

c I I gG 5

c 2 o W d

s O*

a L*

o F .

M O.

l ht A C o E b

e T r S e 0 h II ii e 5

w W 1 s

e s

O* )

a L* . C c F E n D O. S E C i (

y E l X KE l

a I CT M i

t M AE 1 I S) n B L 7 T e

u L Pa 36 q LM 2 e

s K AO d C* FC ie AD lp BA .

p LO T a L L H

(

A L F 3

, # KL 9 AE e 7 EW PS 5

L L LE 1 L L

LL L ET C *D E GD E8* O O

W S AA WAA S

W8 D SUA P L PO L RO LBO Y O MLI ODL ORL LA O O OI NS P P PA SR 3 OS TA 6 AD NEa 0 EL 0 BN VC 0 YI A LD A NNB OAI ,

AAA BBB DDD K * .

A 0 e

Ee

R 0 B

h Q O z E h s0 ,4 $ - oz cEd yo "

S$z p$mEMz m ,01 -

o $ ro>aEO E $O <.

O rm

- imjmF 33y il l

5C $W mQ'u wNw

!. Il

LGS DAR CHAPTER 5 LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR STRUCTURES, PIPING, AND EQUIPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title

5.1 INTRODUCTION

5.2 LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR CONCRETE DESIGN IN CONTAINMENT, REACTOR ENCLOSURE, AND CONTROL STRUCTURE 5.3 STRUCTURAL STEEL AND ASME CLASS MC STEEL COMPONENTS LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.4 LINER PLATE LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.5 DOWNCOMER LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.6 PIPING, QUENCHER, AND QUENCHER SUPPORT LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.6.1 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Drywell ,,-

O 5.6.2 5.6.3 5.6.4 Load Considerations for Piping Inside the Wetwell Quencher and Quencher Support Load Considerations Load Considerations for Piping in the Reactor Enclosure 5.7 NSSS LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.8 BOP EQUIPMENT LOAD COMBINATIONS l 5.9 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS 5.10 HVAC DUCT SYSTEM LOAD COMBINATIONS

O 5-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR A

V CHAPTER 5 TABLES Number Title 5.2-1 Load Combinations for Concrete Design in Containment, Reactor Enclosure, and Control Structure (Considering Hydrodynamic Loads) 5.3-1 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for Structural Steel Components 5.3-2 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for ASME Class MC Components 5.5-1 Load C'smbinations and Allowable Stresses for Downcomers 5.6-1 Load Combinations and Stress Limits for Piping Systems 5.8-1 Load Combinations and Damping Values for Safety-Related BOP Equipment in the Primary Containment, Reactor Enclosure, and Control Structure 5.9-1 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for Electrical Raceway System 5.10-1 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses for HVAC Duct Systems O

5-ii Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR 5.8 BOP EQUIPMENT LOAD COMBINATIONS l Safety-related BOP equipment located within the primary l containment, reactor enclosure, and control structure are assessed for the governing load combinations shown in Table 5.8-1.

l 1

0 :

l l

l i

F 1 1

O 5.8-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

m . . . .

LGS DAR O TABLE 5.8-1 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND DAMPING VALUES FOR SAFETY-RELATED BOP EQUIPMENT IN THE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT, REACTOR ENCLOSURE, AND CONTROL STRUCTURE Equation Condition Load Combination Dampino(2) 1 Upset a. N+[OBEa + SRV2}1/z 2%

b. N+0BE 0.5%

2 Emergency a. N+[OBE2 + SRVa + SBAa) /a 2%

3 Faulted a. N+[OBE2 + SRV2 + IBAz] /2 2%

b. N+[SSE2 + SRVa + IBAz) /a 2%

c. N+[SSEa + DBA2]*/a 2%

d. Envelope of a, b & c

~

2%

e. N+SSE 1% l 4 Worst a. Envelope of la, 2 and 3d 2%

Notations:

N = Normal loads (dead weight + operating temp + operating press., etc.)

OBE = Operating basis earthquake loads SSE = Safe shutdown earthquake loads SRV = Safety relief valve discharge loads SBA = Small break accident loads IBA = Intermediate break accident loads DBA = Design basis accident loads (2) Where justified, a higher damping value may be used.

O Rev. 2, 03/83

l LGS DAR l

(11)

TABLE 5.10-1 (Page 1 of 2)

LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR HVAC DUCT SYSTEMS Allowable Equation Condition Load Combination Stress 1 Normal D+L+SRV Fs 2 Normal D+P +SRV Fs M

3 Abnormal D+P 1.25F T s 4 Normal / Severe D+P +E 1.25F (1)

M s 5 Normal / Severe D+P +E+SRV 1.25F M s 6 Normal D+Po Fs 7 Normal / Severe D+Po+E 1.25F s

8 Normal / Extreme D+Po+E' (a) 9 Normal / Extreme D+P +E'+SRV (2)

() 10 Extreme / Abnormal D+P +P +E'+SRV+LOCA O A (2) l 11 Extreme / Abnormal When protection against tornado depressurization is required:

D+P +W +SRV+LOCA (2) l O D 12 Extreme / Abnormal For ducts inside drywell l of containment, the fol-lowing additional load combination is also applicable:

D+H +P +P +E'+SRV+LOCA (2)

A O A DUCT SUPPORTS Allowable Equation Condition Load Combination Stress 1 Normal D+L+SRV Fs 2 Normal / Severe D+E 1.25F (*)

() 3 4

Normal / Severe Extreme / Abnormal D+E+SRV D+E'+SRV+LOCA (2

(2)

Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O CHAPTER 6 DESIGN CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.2 CONTAINMENT, REACTOR ENCLOSURE, AND CONTROL STRUCTURE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.2.1 Containment Structure Capability Assessment Criteria 6.2.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure Capability Assessment Criteria 6.3 STRUCTURAL STEEL AND ASME CLASS MC STEEL COMPONENTS CAPABILITY' ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.4 LINER PLATE CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

6.4.1 References 6.5 DOWNCOMER CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA j 6.6 PIPING, QUENCHER, AND QUENCHER SUPPORT CAPABILITY i

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.7 NSSS CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.8 BOP EQUIPMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA l 6.9 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 6.10 HVAC DUCT SYSTEM CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1

l l

O 6-i Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O 6.8 BOP EQUIPMENT CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT CRITERIA l All BOP equipment is required to withstand the dynamic loads resulting from seismic and hydrodynamic loads (SRV, SBA, IBA, and DBA) as follows:

a. OBE alone 1/2% damping l

b. SSE alone 1% damping l

c. Combination of seismic and 2% damping hydrodynamic loads Cases a and b are discussed in FSAR Section 3.7.3. Case c is considered in accordance with the load combinations shown in Table 5.8-1. The adequacy of the qualification is verified by the following methods:

() a. Analysis l

b. Testing l

c. Combination of analysis and testing. l 6.8.1 ANALYSIS Safety-related equipment located in the primary containment, reactor enclosure, and control structure are analyzed to satisfy load combinations la, 1b, 2, 3d, and 3e of Table 5.8-1. The maximum load effects result from simultaneous excitation in all three principal directions for all combinations involving dynamic loads as detailed in Section 7.1.7.4.1.3.

6.8.2 TESTING When safety-related equipment is qualified by testing, the test response spectrum (TRS) is to envelope the required response spectrum (RRS) for load combinations Ib, 3e, and 4 of

() Table 5.8-1. The minimum test sequence is to perform five runs for load combination Ib, followed by one run of load 6.8-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR combination 3e. The input motion for load combination 3e is such that the TRS generated for 2% damping envelopes the RRS for load combination 4. Qualification is achieved if the equipment does not fail or malfunction.during the test. Operability is verified before and after the test sequence. Active components required to function during a dynamic event are also verified during the test.

6.8.3 COMBINED ANALYSIS AND TEST Some equipment is qualified by a combination of analysis and testing procedures.

An analysis is conducted on the overall assembly to determine its stress level and the transmissibility of motion from the base of the equipment to the critical components. The critical components are removed from the assembly and subjected to a simulation of the environment on a test table.

Testing methods are used to aid the formulation of the mathematical model for any piece of equipment. Mode shapes and frequencies are determined experimentally and incorporated into a mathematical model of the equipment. The model and subsequent analysis will meet the requirements of Section 7.1.7.4.1.

l l

l 9

Rev. 2, 03/83 6.8-2

LGS DAR CHAPTER 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Number Titl'e.

7.1.2.1.2.4 Static Loads 7.1.2.1.2.5 Load Combinations 7.1.2.1.2.6 Design Assessment 7.1.2.2 Downcomer Bracing 7.1.2.2.1 Bracing System Description 7.1.2.2.2 Loads 7.1.2.2.2.1 SRV Discharge Loads-7.1.2.2.2.2 LOCA Related Loads 7.1.2.2.2.3 Seismic Loads 7.1.2.2.2.4 Static Loads 7.1.2.2.2.5 Thermal Load 7.1.2.2.2.6 Load Combinations 7.1.2.2.3 Design Assessment 7.1.2.3 ASME Class MC Steel Components 7.1.3 Liner Plate Assessment Methodology 7.1.4 Downcomer Assessment Methodology 7.1.4.1 Structural Model 7.1.4.2 Loads O 7.1.4.3 7.1.4.4 7.1.4.5 Analysis Design Assessment Fatigue Evaluation of Downcomers in Wetwell Airspace 7.1.5' Piping and SRV Systems Assessment Methodology 7.1.5.1 Fatigue Evaluation of MSRV Discharge Lines .

7.1.5.1.1 Loads and Load Combinations Used for Assessment ll 7.1.5.1.2 Acceptance Criteria 7.1.5.1.3 Methods of Analysis 7.1.5.1.4 Results and Design Margins 7.1.6 NSSS Assessment Methodology 7.1.7 BOP Equipment Assessment Methodology 7.1.7.1 Dynamic Loads 7.1.7.1.1 SRV Dischar.ge Loads 7.1.7.1.2 LOCA Related Loads 7.1.7.1.3 Seismic Loads 7.1.7.2 Load Combinations 7.1.7.3 Other Loads 7.1.7.4 Qualification Methods 7.1.7.4.1 Dynamic Analysis 7.1.7.4.1.1 Methods and Procedures 7.1.7.4.1.2 Appropriate Damping Values 7.1.7.4.1.3 Three Components of Dynamic Motions 7.1.7.4.2 Testing 7.1.7.4.3 Combined Analysis and Testing O

7-11 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR CHAPTER 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Number Title

, 7.1.8 Electrical Raceway System Assessment

Methodology 7.1.8.1 General 7.1.8.2 Loads 7.1.8.2.1 Static Loads 7.1.8.2.2 Seismic Loads 7.1.8.2.3 Hydrodynamic Loads 7.1.8.3 Analytical Methods 7.1.9 HVAC Duct System Assessment Methodology 7.1.10 References s

7.2 DESIGN CAPABILITY MARGINS 4

7.2.1 Stress Margins 7.2.1.1 Containment Structure 7.2.1.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure 7.2.1.3 Suppression Chamber Columns O 7.2.1.4 7.2.1.5 Downcomer Bracing Liner Plate 7.2.1.6 Downcorners 7.2.1.7 Electrical Raceway System 7.2.1.8 HVAC Duct System 7.2.1.9 ASME Class MC Steel Components Margins 7.2.1.10 Piping and MSRV Systems Margins 7.2.1.11 BOP Equipment Margins i

7.2.1.12 NSSS Margins 7.2.2 Acceleration Response Spectra 7.2.2.1 Containment Structure 7.2.2.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure l

O 7-111 Rev. 2, 03/83 I

LGS DAR CHAPTER 7 TABLES Number Title 7.1-1 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure:

Summary of Hydrodynamic Analyses and Corresponding Math Models 7.1-2 Control Structure Floor Model Material Properties 7.2-1 Maximum Spectral Accelerations of Containment Due to SRV and LOCA Loads at 1% Damping.

i i

O O

7-iv Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR

) CHAPTER 7 FIGURES Number Title 7.1-1 3-D Containment Finite Element Model 4 (ANSYS Model)

I 7.1-2 Equivalent Modal Damping Ratio Vs. Modal i

Frequency for Structural Stiffness Proportional Damping (Containment Building) 7.1-3 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure Vertical Axisymmetric Coupled Model i (FESS) 1 7.1-4 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure Vertical Stick Model 7.1-5 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure Horizontal Stick Model l

() 7.1-6 7.1-7 Control Structure Floor " Half Model" Control Structure Floor " Quarter Model" 7.1-8 Equivalent Modal Damping Ratio Vs. Modal Frequency for Structural Damping (Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure) 7.1-9 Downcomer Bracing System i 7.1-10 Downcomer Bracing System Details 7.1-11 Deleted 7.1-12 Liner Plate Pressures - Normal Condition 7.1-13 Liner Plate Pressures - Abnormal Condition l

I 7.1-14 DELETED l 7.1-15 DELETED l O

7-v Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O Bechtel in-house computer program MSPEC was used to compute the.

acceleration response spectrum'obtained from DISOGE. The program also performs plotting and broadening of the spectrum.

A computer program ENVELOP was developed to envelope response spectra obtained from MSPEC.

. Computer pr'ogram SCALE was developed to- scan the maximum absolute stresses generated by ANSYS (stress pass option). An explanation of SCALE is given in Section 7.1.1.1.1.6.2.

! Verification of PREPRC1, PREPRC2, PREPRC3, DISQGE, ENVELOP, and l

SCALE are available for review.

l 7.1.1.1.1.5 Load Application i

f ~

j 7.1.1.1.1.5.1 SRV Discharge Loads The SRV discharge load used in the analyses was taken from the report (Ref. 4.1-2). The analyses were done for KWU SRV KWU load pressure traces 35, 76, and 82. Axisymmetric and asymmetric i

pressure distributions were considered. Chapter 4 contains a i detailed SRV load definition. The load definition takes into account the variation in pressure amplitude and frequency in the input forcing functions by applying a change of key frequencies in the assumed range of 55 to 125 percent of original frequency

' content (included are 55, 67, 87, 100, and 125 percent of the original frequencies) and a pressure mult.iplier of 1.5 to each input load trace. A total of 15 axisymmetric load traces and 15 asymmetric load traces were used in the analyses.

7.1.1.1.1.5.2 LOCA Related Loads The main LOCA loads that significantly affect the dynamic analysis are condensation oscillation (CO) and chugging loads.

Because CO and chugging are sequential nonsimultaneous events, formulation of the LOCA load is conservatively accomplished by enveloping the CO and chugging results obtained from dynamic analyses.

O The CO analysis was performed for two cases: the b'asic CO case and the CO-ADS case. Both CO and CO-ADS load definitions are 7.1-5 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR based on direct application of measured pressure data from the 4TCO facility, a BWR Mark II prototypical unit cell used to produce expected bounding CO load data (Ref. 1.3-1). The CO load cas.e is related to the basic CO load that covers all LOCA blowdown conditions resulting in CO, whereas the CO-ADS load case is data associated with the combination of CO and ADS events.

Both events (CO and CO-ADS) produce wall pressure loading of axisymmetric nature. The wetwell pressure load vector was appropriately applied to the ANSYS model for a dynamic analysis.

Also considered in the analysis is associated drywell pressure load defined in Reference 1.3-1, based on a direct application of the measured drywell acoustic pressure time histories. A total of 17 time segments of CO and two time segments of CO-ADS are considered in the analysis.

The LGS Mark II chugging load pressure transients were calculated by Bechtel proprietary computer code IWEGS/ MARS-P using GE700 series CHUG source data supplied by General Electric Company (Reference 1.3-1). The source data were based on measured data from 4TCO test facility, a BWR Mark II prototypical unit cell used to simulate the chugging loads during a postulated Mark II LOCA. A total of 14 chugging time histories are considered in the chugging analyses.

7.1.1.1.1.6 Analysis O

7.1.1.1.1.6.1 Response Spectra Generation Acceleration time histories, maximum structural displacements sad accelerations, and broadened acceleration response spectra are developed for the analysis of piping, equipment, and NSS systems.

Gross acceleration time histories are generated at the interface between pedestal and diaphragm slab, the stabilizer location at the containment wall, the top of drywell at the refueling bellows, and at the interface between wetwell wall and base slab.

The maximum containment response to SRV axisymmetric loads is obtained by enveloping the acceleration response spectra of the 15 axisymmetric SRV cases. Likewise, the response spectra for the 15 asymmetric SRV cases are enveloped.

The maximum containme" response to the condensation oscillation loads is '6tained by enveloping the acceleration response spectra of the 17 CO segments. Likewise, the response spectra of the two CO-ADS segments are enveloped.

7.1-6

LGS DAR The maximum containment response to the chugging loads is obtained by enveloping the acceleration response spectra of the 14 chugging cases.

Enveloped floor response spectra of 8 d'amping values, between 0.5

, and 20 percent.of' critical are generated. For clarity, these 8 enveloped floor spectra'are grouped into two. separate plot sets 1

.of 4 dampings each. The low damping plot sets, furnished in Appendix A, include (amping ratios of 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 percent of critical. The high damping plot sets include damping ratios of 7,.10, 15,-and 20 percent of critical. Floor response spectra of high damping values (i.e., greater than 7 percent critical)'are generated for application to systems and components where larger system or material damping values are justified.

Reference 7.1-11 provides an example of such an application. The spectra are broadened by 15 percent to account for the ,

uncertainties in the structural modeling techniques and material i properties.

7.1.1.1.1.6.2 Stress Analysis i The ANSYS computer program (stress pass option) is used to

' compute the force and moment resultants due to SRV and LOCA -

, related loads. A postprocessor program called SCALE is used to

scan for the maximum absolute values of forces and moments in the circumferential and meridional directions.

The forces and moments due to chugging and condensation oscillation loads are considered for the load combinations including the LOCA loads. The governing forces and moments from the six different frequencies are used in the stress analysis.

~

7.1.1.1.2 Seismic Loads Seismic loads constitute a significant loading in the structural t

assessment. The same seismic loads as those used in the initial builaing design are used. In that design, a dynamic analysis was made using discrete mathematical idealization of'the entire structure using lumped masses. The resulting. axial forces,

. moments, and shear forces at variou's levels due to the operating I basis earthquake and the safe shutdown earthquake are used (FSAR Section 3.7). The. effects of the seismic overtut.asng moment.and

vertical accelerations are converted into forces at the elements. ,

, 7.1.1.1.3 Static and Thermal Loads

\

The loads under consideration cce the static loads (dead load and accident pressure) and temperature loads (operating and accident temperature) which are all axisymmetrical.

1 O

i 7.1-7 Rev. 2, 03/83 l

a -.. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . - _ _ - - _ _ _

LGS DAR

a. To analyze the above static loads, an in-house computer program, FINEL (FSAR Section 3.8.7), is used. Moments, axial forces, and shear forces are computed by FINEL in an uncracked axisymmetric finite element containment model,

b. The operating and accident temperature gradients are computed using ME 620 (FSAR Section 3.8.7) computer program (Bechtel program).

c. The results from a, b, and the hydrodynamic / seismic analysis are combined and applied to a containment element. The element contains data relative to rebar location, direction, and quantity and concrete properties. Within that wall-element, force equilibrium and strain compatibility between the rebar and concrete is established by allowing the concrete to crack in tension. In this way, the stresses in the robar and concrete are determined. The program used for this analysis is called CECAP (FSAR Section 3.8.7).

7.1.1.1.4 Loud Combinations All load combinations from equations 1 through 7a as presented in Table 5.2-1 have been analyzed.

The reversible nature of the structural responses due to the pool dynamic loads and seismic loads is taken into account by considering the peak positive and negative magnitudes of the response forces and maximizing the total positive and negative forces and moments governing the design.

Seismic and pool dynamic load effects (SRV and LOCA) are combined by conservatively summing the peak responses of each load by the absolute sum (ABS) method. Even though the square root sum of squares (SRSS) method is more appropriate because the peak effects of all loads may not occur simultaneously (Reference 7.1-4), the conservative ABS method is used in the design assessment of the containment and internal concrete structures to expedite licensing.

7.1.1.1.5 Design Assessment Material stresses at the critical sections in the primary containment and internal concrete structure are analyzed using the CECAP computer program. Critical sections for bending moment, axial force and shear in three directions are located l

throughout the containment structure. Liner plate is not l considered as a structural element. The CECAP program considers I concrete cracking in the analysis of reinforced concrete Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-8

LGS DAR 7.1.2.1.2.4 Static Load Static loads, including dead load and thermal load, were considered in the column analysis.

7.1.2.1.2.5 Load Combinations The load combinations and allowable stresses are in accordance with Section 5.3. The peak dynamic responses due to the seismic and pool dynamic load effects are combined by the SRSS method.

The resulting combined dynamic loads are combined with the static loads by the absolute sum technique.

7.1.2.1.2.6 Design Assessment The combined stresses due to axial force and bending moment were calculated and compared with allowable stresses.

l

() 7.1.2.2 Downcomer Bracing The following covers the methodology used in the assessment of the bracing system at EL. 203' - 5" in the primary containment suppression pool.

7.1.2.2.1 Bracing System Description The downcomer bracing system is designed as a two-dimensional !

truss system to provida horizontal support for 87 downcomers, 14 l l

MSRV discharge lines, and other miscellaneous piping in the l suppression pool. The bracing system is supported vertically by the 87 downcomers and at 12 anchor points around the RPV pedestal wall. The bracing system is made of stainless steel members connected to carbon steel collars at the downcomers and embeddment plates at the pedestal wall by high-strength stainless steel bolts. The bracing members consist of 10-inch and 12-inch diameter schedule 160 pipe sections, and 3-1/4 inch end connection plates. The bracing system is designed in accordance with Reference 7.1-10.

fs The bracing system layout and typical connection details are .

(,' shown in Figures 7.1-9 and 7.1-10. The mathematical model used I

7.1-19 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR in the bracing system is presented in Figure D.2-10 of Appendix D.

7.1.2.2.2 Loads The bracing system is assessed for all plant operation induced loads described below.- The basis for all hydrodynamic loads considered in the analysis is presented in Chapter 4.

7.1.2.2.2.1 SRV Discharge Loads Discharge through the SRV discharge pipe creates horizontal as well as vertical loading on the bracing system due to unbalar.ceo ;

pressures. The horizontal (lateral) load is considered as acting on the downcomers and the SRV discharge pipes. The vertical load is considered acting on the bracing members alone. These loads ;

are applied to the bracing system by considering them as j equivalent static loads using a dynamic magnification factor which is obtained from the dynamic analysis of the downcomer, as i described in Section 7.1.4. ,

The SRV discharge also induces hydrodynamic forces in the containment structure. Inertial. forces of the bracing system, due to the response of the containment stru'cture, are considered using hydrodynamic reponse spectra of the containment structure shown in Appendix A.

The lateral loads and the containment structure response form the complete SRV discharge load set on the bracing system.

7.1.2.2.2.2 LOCA Related Loads Loss-of-coolant accidents are characterized by several phenomena that result with non-concurrent loadings on the bracing system as described in Section 4.2. These hydrodynamic loads . duce accelerations of the containment structure ~, which ir, curn induce additional loads on the bracing system. These loads are obtained ,

from the hydrodynamic acceleration response spectra shown in !

Appendix A. )

i In addition, the LOCA event induces lateral forces on the submerged portion and tip of downcomers. The loads include drag loads, pressure loads, and chugging tip load. The hydrodynamic )

Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-20 1

LGS DAR (V analysis of a single downcomer for the lateral loads is presented in Section 7.1.4. The resulting reaction forces at the bracing support are applied as equivalent static load in accordance with section 3.1 of Reference 7.1-6.

7.1.2.2.2.3 Seismic Loads The forces due to the seismic accelerations of the downcomers, the SRV lines, and the bracing members are obtained by analysis of these structures using the response spectra developed for OBE and SSE as described in FSAR Section 3.7.2.

7.1.2.2.2.4 Static Loads The dead load of the bracing members is considered with allowance for buoyancy.

7.1.2.2.2.5 Thermal Load (TT 'c (m 7 The operating and accident temperature considered is.90 And 2100F, respectively. The reference temperature of the system is assumed to be 600F.

7.1.2.2.2".6 Load Combinations The load combinations and allowable stresses are described in I Table 5.3-1. Although the loads on the bracing system under consideration act in random horizontal directions, each individual load is applied on the system in the worst possible direction to find the maximum resultant forces.

7.1.2.2.3 Design Assessment The two-dimensional truss model of the bracing system is analyzed for the static, thermal, and equivalent static hydrodynamic loads using the computer program STRUDL. The ASME truss model is !

analyzed for the containment structure inertia response due to

I seismic and hydrodynamic events using the computer program ANSYS. '

The bracing member forces calculated above for the various , >

loading conditions are combined by the SRSS method and assessed (

in accordance with the loading combinations and stress allowables f.

O- specified in Table 5.3-1. p

})

7.1-21 Rev. 2, 03/83

. e I

LGS DAR 7.1.'2,3 ASME Class MC Steel' Components The assessment methodology used for hydrodynamic loads on MC components will be provided later.

7.h.3 LINER PLATE' ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FSAR Section 3.8.1.1.2 provides a description of the containment liner plate and its anchorage system.

The analysis and design of the liner plate anchorages for nonhydrodynamic loads is in accordance with Referenco 7.1-7.

In the assessment' o! the concrete-backed liner plate and anchorages for hydrodynamic pressure loads, the controlling load on the liner plate and anchorage system is that due to the net negative pressure load if prespnt. The net negative pressure load is determined from the dynamic negative pressure due to SRV actuation and/or LOCA chugging minus the static positive pressure due to the wetwell hydrostatic pressure and/or LOCA wetwell pressure. Figures 7.1-12 through 7.1-13 describe the loads on 3 the suppression chamber liner plate for the normal and abnormal load conditions.

l l For the normal condition, the hydrostatic pressure on the base i mat, liner is 10.4 psi (positive) and the maximum negative I pressure due to the actuation of all SRVs is 7.8 psi (negative).

The distribution of these pressures on the suppression chamber wall is shown in Figure 7.1-12. The maximum net pressure is 2.6 psi (positive).

l For the abnormal condition, the combined pressure distribution due to hydcostatic, LOCA wetwell pressure, SRV, and chugging loads is shown in Figure 7.1-13. The total positive pressure on the basemat linear is 35.4 psi which consists of 10.4 psi (positive) from hydrostatic pressure plus 25.0 (positive) from a small or intermediate break LOCA. The total cyclic pressure on i the basemat liner is 17.6 psi (negative) due to the axisymmetric chugging and SRV loads. Although the maximum negative pressures due to SRV actuation and" chugging are combined for conservatism, it is recognized that the probability of these two phenomena .

producing peak negative pressures at the same time is very low.

The assessment of the linear plate is contained in Section '

7.2.1.5.

Rev. 2, d3/83 7.1-22 l

LGS DAR O 7.1.4 DOWNCOMER ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 7.1.4.1 Structural Model There are 87, 24-inch OD, steel pipe downcomers running vertically down from the diaphragm slab. The downcomers are embedded in the diaphragm slab and extend downward to El. 193'-11", which is approximately 12 feet below high water level, as shown in Figure 1.4-2. All downcomers are supported laterally at El 203'-5" by the downcomer bracing system. Any vertical loads are transmitted by the bracing system to the downcomers and therefore to the diaphragm slab.

The structural model considers the downcomer as a vertical pipe fixed at the underside of the diaphragm slab with a spring in the horizontal direction at bracing level. This model is shown in Figure 7.1-16. The inertial effect of the water in the submerged po_~ tion of the downcomer (12 feet) was approximated by the addition of a equivalent mass of water lumped at the appropriate nodal points. The model is evaluated for three spring values for a representative support stiffness provided by the bracing system O to the downcomers. The bracing spring is set to 50 k/in, 350 k/in, and 15000 k/in to represent the tangential mode, the radial mode, and rigid response of the bracing system.

7.1.4.2 Loads The downcomer is subjected to static and dynamic loads due to normal, upset, emergency, and faulted conditions. Loading cases and combinations are described in Table 5.5-1. The basis for all hydrodynamic loads considered in the analysis is presented in Chapter 4.

7.1.4.3 Analysis Downcomers are analyzed for the specified loading conditions using the Bechtel computer program BSAP. The downcomers are analyzed for both the hydrodynamic loads acting directly on the submerged portions and the inertial forces due to containment

, responses to the hydrodynamic and seismic loads.

The hydrodynamic load analyses, due to SRV discharge and LOCA related loads acting on the submerged portion of the downcomers, are performed using the mode-superposition time history 7.1-23 Rev. 2, 03/83 I

LGS DAR.

technique. The seismic and hydrodynamic load analyses, due to O

containment responses, are performed using the response-spectrum analysis procedure. Damping values used are equal to 2 percent of critical for OBE and SRV loads, and 7 percent of critical for SSE and LOCA loads.

7.1.4.4 Desian Assessment The resultant stresses in the downcomers due to the load combinations described in Table 5.5-1 are compared with the allowable stresses in accordance with the criteria given in Reference 6.4-2.

7.1.4.5 Fatique Evaluation Of Downcomers In Wetwell Air Space A fatigue analysis of the downcomers was conducted in accordance with ASME Section III, Division 1 (1979 Summer Addendum),

subsection NB-3650. Only that portion of the downcomer in the air space of the suppression chamber need be evaluated for fatigue. Figures D.2-8 and D.2-9 of Appendix D show the number of cycles considered and the load histogram, respectively.

{}

7.1.5 PIPING AND SRV SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The piping and SRV systems will be analyzed for the load combinations described in Table 5.6-1 using Bechtel computer program ME101. This program is described in FSAR Section 3.9.

Static and dynamic analysis of the piping and SRV systems are performed as described in the paragraphs below.

Static analysis techniques are used to determine the stresses due to steady state loads and/or dynamic loads having equivalent static loads.

Response spectra at the piping anchors are obtained from the dynamic analysis of the containment subjected to LOCA and SRV loading. Piping systems are then analyzed for these response spectra following the method described in Reference 7.1-8.

Time history dynamic analysis of the SRV discharge piping subjected to fluid transient forces in the pipe due to relief l valve opening is performed using Bechtel computer code ME101.

Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-24

LGS DAR 7.1.5.1 Fatique Evaluation of MSRV Discharoe Lines in Wetwell Air Volume In an effort to evaluate the steam bypass potential arising from a failure of the MSRV discharge line in the wetwell air space, a complete fatigue analysis has been performed. Specifically, structural analyses of the MSRV discharge lines from the diaphragm slab penetration to the quencher was performed.

Fatigue evaluations of flued head penetration, elbows, tees, taper transitions, and anchors were done. This analysis considered the cyclic loading acting on the MSRV discharge lines and is in accordance with the applicable portions of ASME Code.

This evaluation is considered supplemental and does not displace the original design basis for these lines as set forth in the appropriate FSAR/DAR sections.

7.1.5.1.1 Loads and Load Combinations Used for Assessment l The MSRV discharge lines are subject to numerous dynamic and hydrodynamic loads from normal, upset, and LOCA-related plant operating conditions. For purposes of fatigue evaluation, the

(( following loads are included: (1) significant thermal and pressure transients, (2) cyclic loads due to hydrodynamic effects including MSRV actuations, CO and chugging, and (3) seismic effects. The determination of load combinations as well as number and duration of each event is obtained from the applicable sections of the DFFR (Reference 1.3-1) and FSAR.

7.1.5.1.2 Acceptance Criteria l The design rules, as set forth in ASME Section III, subsection NB, were used for the fatigue assessment.

7.1.5.1.3 Methods of Analysis l The MSRV discharge lines in the wetwell k'.r volume were analyzed for the appropriate load combinations ans their associated number of cycles. The combined stresses and corresponding equivalent stress cycles were computed to obtain the fatigue usage factors in accordance with the equations of subsection NB-3600 of the ASME Code.

O 7.1-25 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR 7.1.5.1.4 Results and Design Margins The cumulative usage factors for flued head, elbows, tees, tapered transitions, and anchors are summarized in Appendix F, Table F.1-1.

7.1.6 NSSS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY To be provided later.

7.1.7 BOP EQUIPMENT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Safety-related equipment located within the containment and the reactor enclosure and control structure are subjected to hydrodynamic loads due to SRV and LOCA (SBA, IBA, and DBA) discharge effects principally originating in the suppression pool of the containment structure. The equipment and equipment supports are assessed to verify their adequacy to withstand these hydrodynamic loads in combination with seismic and all other applicable loads in accordance with the load combinations given in Table 5.8-1.

7.1.7.1 Dynamic Loads l

7.1.7.1.1 SRV Discharge Loads Loadings associated with the axisymmetric and asymmetric SRV discharges are described in Chapters 3 and 4. Acceleration response spectra at the var'ious elevations where the equipment are located have been generated for all appropriate pressure history traces (Figures 4.1-25 throuah 4.1-27) for damping values of 1/2, 1, 2, and 5 percent.

7.1.7.1.2 LOCA Related Loads Loadings associated with loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) are described in Chapters 3 and 4. The various LOCA loadings considered include condensation oscillation and chugging (Section 4.2.2). Acceleration response spectra at various elevations where the equipment are located have been generated for the above LOCA loads for damping values of 1/2, 1, 2, and 5 percent.

Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-26

i LGS DAR I 7.1.7.1.3 Seismic Loads- l i The. details of seismic input and seismic loads are discussed in l FSAR Section 3.7. The effects of both operating basis earthquake

! (OBE) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) are considered. These loads are provided in the form of acceleration _ response spectra at each floor for damping values of 1/2, 1, 2, and 5 percent for each of N-S, E-W and vertical directions.

7.1.7.2 Load Combinations l Seismic, SRV, and LOCA loads have been combined for various load combinations in accordance with Table 5.8-1 at all floor elevations. For the same equipment located at various elevations, the combined response spectra are enveloped into a single curve for a damping value of 2 percent. Such enveloped ,

curves are generated for each of the N-S, E-W, and vertical l directions.

l 7.1.7.3 Other Loads O

In addition to hydrodynamic and seismic loads, other loads such as dead loads, live loads, operating loads, pressure loads, thermal loads, nozzle loads and equipment piping interaction

. loads, as applicable, are also considered.

7.1.7.4 Qualification Methods

! l l The adequacy of'the design of the equipment is assessed by one of the following:

l

'a. 'ynamic D analys~is L

1 i b. Testing l

c. Combination of testing and analysis.

The choice is based on the practicality of the method depending upon function, type, size, shape, complexity, and nonlinear O effects of the equipment and the reliability of the qualification method.

7.1-27 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR In general, the requirements outlined in Reference 7.1-9 are followed for the qualification of equipment.

7.1.7.4.1 Dynamic Analysis 7.1.7.4.1.1 Methods and Procedures The dynamic analysis of various equipment is classified into three groups according to the relative rigidity of the equipment based on the magnitude of the fundamental natural frequency described below,

a. Structurally simple equipment - comprised of that equipment which can be adequately represented by one degree of freedom system.

b. Structurally rigid equipment - Comprised of that equipment whose fundamental frequency is:

1) greater than 33 Hz for the consideration of seismic loads, and,

2) greater than 100 Hz for the consideration of hydrodynamic loads,

c. Structurally complex equipment - Comprised of that equipment

! which cannot be classified as structurally simple or l structurally rigid.

When the equipment is structurally simple or rigid in one direction but complex in the other, each direction may be classified separately to determine the dynamic loads.

The appropriate response spectra for specific equipment are obtained from the response spectra for the elevation at which the l equipment is located in a building for OBE, SSE, and hydrodynamic l loads. This includes the vertical as well as both the N-S and E-W horizontal directions.

For equipment that is structurally simple, the dynamic loading h (either seismic or hydrodynamic) consists of a static load Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-28

i LGS DAR _

O corresponding to the equipment weight times the acceleration (in "g's") selected from the appropriate response spectrum. The acceleration selected from the response spectrum corresponds to the equipment's natural frequency,Eif the equipment's natural frequency is-known. If the equipment's natural frequency is not known, the acceleration selected corresponds to the maximum "g" value of the response spectra.

For equipment that is structurally rigid, the seismic load consists of a static load corresponding to the equipment weight times the acceleration at 33 Hz, selected from the appropriate

response spectrum and the hydrodynamic loading consists of a i

static load corresponding to the equipment weight times the acceleration at 100 Hz, selected from the appropriate response spectrum.

i For the analysis of structurally complex equipment, the equipment is idealized by a mathematical model that adequately predicts the dynamic properties of the equipment, and a dynamic analysis is performed using any standard analysis procedures such as response

~

spectrum modal analysi.s or a time history analysis. The responses cf interest such as deflection, stress, acceleration,

etc., are determined by combining each modal response considering i all significant modes by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS). The absolute sum of similar effects is considered for closely spaced in-phase modes. Closely spaced j modes are those with frequencies differing by 10 percent or less.

An acceptable alternative method of analysis is by static coefficient analysis for verifying structural integrity of frame type structures such as members physically similar to beams and

columns that can be represented by a simple model. No determination of natural frequencies is made, and the response of the equipment is assumed to be the pte!: of the response spectrum at damping values in accordance with Section 7.1.7.4.1.2. This response is then multiplied by a static coefficient of 1.5 to take into account the effects of both multifrequency excitation and m,ultimode response.

. For nonlinear analysis that may be necessary to account for the nonlinear material properties or the geometry-related nonlinearities, the analysis will include a detailed justification for the approach used for the qualification.

Alternatively, the testing method of qualification is used where the' effects of nonlinearities are to be considered.

LO 1

i 7.1-29 Rev. 2, 03/83 4

i i

LGS DAR 7.1.7.4.1.2 Appropriate Damping Values j The following damping values are used for the design assessment: l l a. Load combinations involving OBE but not hydrodynamic loads 1/2%

( b. Load combinations involving SSE but not hydrodynamic loads 1%

c. Load combinations involving hydrodynamic l loads, or seismic and hydrodynamic loads 2%

Higher damping values may be used where justified.

7.1.7.4.1.3 Three Components of Dynamic Motions The responsas such as internal forces, stresses, and deformations at any point from the three principal orthogonal directions of the dynamic loads are combined as follows.

The response value used shall be the maximum value obtained by adding the response due to vertical earthquake with the larger value of the responses due to one of the horizontal earthquakes by the absolute sum method.

l For the other dynamic loads, the response value shall be obtained by combining the response due to three orthogonal directions of an individual load by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method.

7.1.7.4.2 Testing Qualification by testing is used in cases where operability requires verification and the effects of nonlinearities have to be considered. For these instances, dynamic adequacy is established by providing dynamic test data. Such data must conform to one of tin following:

O Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-30

LGS DAR O a. . Performance data of equipment that has been subjected to equal or greater dynamic loads (considering appropriate-frequency range) than those to be experienced under the specified dynamic loading conditions.

b. Test data from ccaparable equipment previously tested under similar conditions that has been subjected to equal or greater dynamic loads than those specified.

c. Actual testing of equipment in operating conditions

' simulating, as closely as possible, the actual installation, the required loadings and load combinations.

A continuous sinusoidal test, sine beat test, or decaying sinusoidal test is used when the applicable floor acceleration spectrum is a narrow band response spectrum. Otherwise, random motion test-(or equivalent) with broad frequency content is used.

The equipment to be tested is mounted in a manner that simulates the actual service mounting. Sufficient monitoring devices are O used to evaluate the performance of the equipment. With the appropriate test method selected, the equipment is considered to tur qualified when the test response spectra (TRS) cnvelopes the required response spectra (RRS) and the equipment does not malfunction or fail. A new test does not need to be conducted if equipment requires only minor modifications such as additional bracings or change in switch model, etc, and if proper justification is given to show that the modifications would not jeopardize the strength and function of the equipment.

7.1.7.4.3 Combined Analysis and Testing .

There are several instances where the qualification of equipment by analysis alone or testing alone is not practical or adequate because of its size, or its complexity, or large number of similar con ~ figurations. In these instances, a combination of analysis and testing is the most practical. The following are general approaches:

a. An analysis is conducted on the overall assembly to determine its stress level and the transmissibility of motio; from the base of the equipment to the critical components. The critical components are removed from the assembly and

() subjected to a simulation of the environment on a test table.

7.1-31 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR

b. Experimental methods are used to aid in the formulation of O

the mathematical model for any piece of equipment. Mode shapes and frequencies are determined experimentally and incorporated into a mathematical model of the equipemnt.

7.1.8 ELECTRICAL RACEWAY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY l 7.1.8.1 General The analysis and design of supports of electrical raceway systems for non-hydrodynamic loads are in accordance with Reference 7.1-12. SRV discharge and LOCA loads are considered similar to seismic loads by using appropriate floor response "sectra for the hydrodynamic loads. For the abnormal / extreme lord condition, a damping value of 10% of critical is used for cable tray support systems; 7% damping for conduit and wireway gutter trapeze type support systems; 5% damping for conduit and wireway gutter nontrapeze type support systems. A damping value of 3% critical is used for all raceway systems for the normal load condition involving SRV discharge loading only. The damping ratios used for the electrical raceway assessment are in accordance with Reference 7.1-12.

7.1.8.2 Loads l 7.1.8.2.1 Static Loads The static loads are the dead loads and live loads. For cable trays, the weight of the cable plus tray is considered to be 36 lb/ft (except unique situations where heavier weights are considered) and a concentrated live load of 200 lb applicable at any point on the cable tray span is used.

l 7.1.8.2.2 Seismic Loads The details of the seismic motion input are discussed in FSAR Section 3.7. The effects of the operating basis earthquake (OBE) and the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) are considered.

i O

Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-32

1 LGS DAR 7.1.8.2.3 Hydrodynamic Loads l The details of the axisymmetric and asymmetric SRV dischar.ge loads as well as LOCA loads including condensation-oscillation and chugging are discussed in Chapter 4.

The enveloped acceleration response spectra at each floor for l N-S, E-W, and vertical directions have been generated and widened t b'y *15%. These curves form the basis for the hydrodynamic load l assessment of the electrical raceway system. Examples of the response spectrum curves for the containment and reactor and j control enclosures are presented in DAR Appendices A and B.

7.1.8.3 Analytical Methods l Electrical raceway systems are modeled as a three-dimensional dynamic system consisting of several consecutive supports ,

complete with raceways and longitudinal and transverse bracing.

The cable tray properties are determined from the load deflection tests. Member joints are modeled as spring elements having O rotational stiffness with known spring values as determined from the test results.

i Composite spectra are developed by envelop'ing.the f1bor response spectra af ter broadening by *15% for critical floors for seismic, SRV, and LOCA loading conditions.. The design spectrum is obtained by adding.these response spectra curves by either the squares root of the sum of the square (SRSS) method or the absolute method. A frequency variation of i20% is used to

further broaden the spectrum at the fundamental frequency of the electrical raceway system. The composite response spectra curves are obtained for vertical and two horizontal directions.

l Modal and response spectram analyses are performed usi~ng the Bechtel Structural Analysis Program (BSAP), which is a general purpose finite-element computer program. The total response due to the dynamic loads is calculated by determining the absolute ,

sum of the vertical response and only the larger re'sponse of the two horizontal responses.

Dead and live load stresses are determined from a static analysis

of a plane frame model using the BSAP computer program or hand calculation, and these results are combined with those from the

()

response spectrum analysis. For normal load conditions, SRV 4

discharge stresses are proportioned from the response spectrum

)

7.1-33 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR analysis of SSE plus SRV discharge plus LOCA loads according to their spectral acceleration ratios at the fundamental frequencies. Several different support types that are widely used have been analyzed by these methods.

An alternative method for analyzing other support types uses hand calculations by a response spectrum analysis technique. The support may be idealized as a' single degree of freedom system.

In general, the r.aximum peak spectral accelerations were used in the analysis. In some cases where the stresses are critical, a more refined value for the acceleration response was used corresponding to the computed system fundamental frequency and considering a frequency variation as explained earlier in this section. The total response due to the dynamic loads is calculated by determining the absolute sum of the vertical response'and only the larger response of the two horizontal responses. The member stresses are kept within the elastic limit.

7.1.9 HVAC DOCT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The SRV discharge and LOCA loads are considered similar to h seismic loads by using appropriate floor response spectra generated for the CO, chugging, and SRV loads described in Chapter 4.

. A damping value of'5% of critical is us d for load combinations involving SSE, SRV discharge, and LOCA loads, while a damping value of 3% of critical is used for load combinations involving OBE and/or SRV discharge loads. For a discussion of the seismic and hydrodynamic loads input for HVAC duct system assessment, refer to Sections 7.1.8.2.2 and 7.1.8.2.3, respectively. The HVAC duct system has been analyzed by determining the fundamental frequencies of the system in three directions. The inertia forces are determined from the composite spectra to establish member forces and moments due to hydrodynamic as well as seismic loads.

7.1.10 REFERENCES 7.1-1 " Seismic Analyses of Structures and Equipment for Naclear Power Plants," BC-TOP-4A, Bechtel Power Corporation, November 1974.

O Rev. 2, 03/83 7.1-34

LGS DAR O 7.1-2 Wilson, E. L, "A Computer Program for the Dynamic Stress Analysis of Underground Structures," USAEWES, Control Report 1-175, January 1968.

7.1-3 Desai and Abel, " Introduction to the Finite Element Method," Van Nostroid Reinold Co., 1972 7.1-4 " Technical Bases for the Use of SRSS Method for Combining Dynamic Loads for Mark II Plants,"

NEDE-24010-P, General Electric Co, July 1977.

7.1-5 SRV In-Plant Test Report

. 7. t-6 Davis, W. M., "MK II Main Vent Lateral Loads F'immary Report," NEDE-23806-P, General Electric Co., Ociobet 1978.

7.1-7 T. E. Johnson, et al., " Containment Building Liner Plate Design Report," BC-TOP-1, Bechtel Corporation, San

() Francisco, December 1972.

7.1-8 " Seismic Analysis.of Piping Systems," BP-TOP-1, Revision 2, Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, January 1975.

7.1-9 IEEE Standard 344-1975, " Seismic Qualification of Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations."

7.1-10 American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, 7th Edition, 1970. l

) 7.1-11 " Cable Tray and Conduit Raceway Seismic Test Program-i Release 4", Test Report 41053-21.1-4, Volumes 1 and 2, ANCo Engineers, Inc., December 15, 1978.

7.1-12 " Development of Analysis'and Design Techniques from Dynamic Testing of Electrical Raceway Support Systems",

Technical Report, Bechtel Power Corporation, July 1979.

< O 1

7.1-35 Rev. 2, 03/83

7 PEDESTAL = CONTAINMENT g WALL

=.-=.

+

HYDROSTATIC 24' (POSITIVE) -

~~

10.4 psi ii i ip ip i ip j

10.4 psi BASEMAT

+

U

, o SRV g 18' (NEGATIVE) 1.5'(5.19) = 7.8 psi ,,

O' 7.8 psi 1.3 psi ll U

__=- o 18' TOTAL (POSITIVE) 1'_

6' 2.6 psi t * + t t t t t 7 % . isi 2.6 psi

' PRESSURE MULTIPLIER LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT O LINER PLATE PRESSURES NORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7.1-12 REV 2,03/83

I v%

PEDESTAL CONTAINMENT *

WALL PEDESTAL \ SRV

' (NEGATIVE) 7 b 7.8 psi a

HYDROSTATIC 7.8 psi (POSITIVE) 10.4 PSI \ /

i 10.4 PSI 'N BASE MAT 13.292'

+ CHUGGING

_ e AXISYMMETRIC " 71 P'I (NEGATIVE) l 10.708'

~ u 8.2 psi ,

! [' WETWELL(POSITIVE)

PRESSURE -

\

DUE TO $8A OR IBA'

=

25 PSI

' NOTE: ' ' "

WETWELL PRESSURE DUE TO DBA = 30.6 PSI 25 PSI y 13.292' ll

,12.86 psi 10.708' 7

, 16.00 psi 35.4 PSI \ I

. \ I

\ l, 35.4 PSI TOTAL CONSTANT POSITI, PRESSURE i

s

?

t p Il CONTAINMENT WALL 18' b

, , 7.8 psi 6'

7.8 psi-f--

+

v

, y 5.7 psi ,

9.333' 9A psi

~

l 9 2 psi '

PEDES'\L II v v v -

7.042' 8.75 psi CONTAINMENT 19.30 psi ~

WALL

~ 17.90 psi 18.90 psi ~ 15.20 psi 7.625*

' .60psif 17 "

]

8 19.40 psi 17.80 psi TOTAL BASEMAT CYCLIC NEGATIVE PRESSURE NET PRESSURE =

TOTAL POSITIVE PRESSURE + TOTAL NEGATIVE PRESSURE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT LINER PLATE PRESSURES ABNORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7.1-13 Rev. 2, N/83

)

i O

DELETED O

LIMERICK GENER ATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT l

LINER PLATE PRESSURES ABNORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7.1-14 R E V. 2, 03/83

O DELETED N

t LIMERICK GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 DESIGN ASSESMENT REPORT LINEAR PRESSURES ABNORMAL CONDITION FIGURE 7.1-15 R EV. 2, 03/83

l LGS DAR O 7.2 DESIGN CAPABILITY MARGINS This section describes the design margins for structures, piping, and equipment resulting from the LGS design assessment which uses ;

the methods of Section 7.1 7.2.1 STRESS MARGINS Stresses at the critical sections for all of the structures, piping, and equipment described in Section 7.1 are evaluated for the loading combinations presented in Chapter 5.

The stress margin (SM) in percent is defined as follows:

SM = (1 - SR) x 100 where SR represents the stress ratio. SR is calculated by l dividing the factored stress (C f ) by the associated strcas n n allowable (F ) or, mathematically, O n SR = I (C f /F )

nn n 7 2 1.1 Containment SUructure The detailed results from the structural assessment of the containment structure are summarized in Appendix D.1. Figure D.1-1 shows.the design sections in the basemat, shield walls, containmen.t walls, reactor pedestal, and the diaphragm slab that l

were considered in the structural assessment. Figures D.1-2 i through D.1-25 give the calculated maximum design stresses for l the load combinations listed in Table 5.2-1.

Both rebar stresses and concrete stresses are calculated based on the applicable load combination equations. The stresses in the drywell wall are calculated at design sections 1 to 5 and are tabulated in Figures D.1-2 through D.1 5. The stresses in the wetwell wall are calculated at design sections 6 to 11 and are tabulated in Figures D.1-6 through D.1-9. The stresses in the shield wall are calculated at design sections 12 and 13 and are tabulated in Figures D.1-10 and D.1-11, respectively. The RPV (f-'s

,) pedestal stresses are calculated et design sections 14 to 20 and are tabulated in Figures D.1-12 through D.1-16. The stresses in 7.2-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR the diaphgram slab are calculated at design sections 21 to 25 and O

are tabulated in Figures D.1-17 through D.1-20. The stresses in the basemat are calculated at design sections 26 to 30 and are tabulated in Figures D.1-21 through D.1-25.

The containment assessment is summarized as follows:

a. The caJeulated stress level is very low for load combination equation 1 (an operating condition), i.e.,

rebar stresses are far less than 20 ksi.

b. The maximum rebar stress is predicted as 53.9 ksi at design sections 6 and 11, located in the wetwell vertical direction. The magnitude is within the rebar stress allowable (0.9 Fy = 54 ksi).

c. In general, rebar stresses and concrete compressive stresses are within stress allowables.

7.2.1.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure Results of the structural assessment of the reactor enclosure and control structure are summarized in Appendix E. Figures E.1-1 through E.1-21 show the selected structural elements and sections where stresses were calculated.

Appendix E contains tabulations of predicted stresses, stress allowables, and design margins for critical loading combinations considered. The sections selected for assessment were considered to be the most critical based on previous seismic calculations.

The critical load combinations are tabulated considering critical locations / sections related to reactor enclosure and control structure shear walls, foundations, floor slabs and supporting steel, steel platforms, and floor support columns.

Emphasis is placed on margins of principal resisting structural elements, with re.'nforcing bar stresses for reinforced concrete structures and axial and/or bending stresses for steel structures.

O 7.2-2

LGS DAR O Also included in Appendix E are diatrams of axial forces, N-S shear forces, N-S overturning moments, E-W shear forces, E-W overturning moments for reactor enclosure and control structure as shown in Figures E.1-22 through E.1-31.

The reactor enclosure floor system stress margins were calculated for both slabs and f]oor support steel beams, including floors at El. 201, 217,-253, 283, 313, 333, and 352 ft. Calculated slab.

stress levels were generally governed by either Equation 1 or 7a of Table 5.2-1. The highest reinforcing bar stress was found at the floor of El. 253 ft, having a stress intensity of 51.26 ksi and an associated stress margin of approximately 5 percent.

Figure E.1-32 shows rebar stresses and related stress margins of the aforementioned floors. In addition, the stresses and related stress margins of floor support steel beams are presented in "igure E.1-33. The governing equations were Equations 1 and 7 of 72ble 5.3-1. Stress levels were generally low.

In the case of reactor enclosure support columns, load combination 7 of Table 5.3-1 governs the column stress interaction. Stress interaction calculations were performed and show that columns were generally understressed (Figure E.1-34).

O The column at column lines 30.5 and E of El. 217 to 253 ft has a fully stressed situation.

~

The reactor enclosure shear wall sections close to the base (El. 177 ft) were assessed as shown in Figure E.1-35. The highest stress conditions occurred in the walls of column lines 14.1 (west wall) and 31.9 (east wall) due to shearing effect at the base. The corresponding stress margin was approximately 1 percent.

The floor system of the control structure, including the concrete slabs and their supporting steel beams, are shown in Figure E.1-9 through E.1-17, while the stress margins are listed in Figures E.1-36 and i.1-37.

In general, none of those selected critical sections were found overstressed in the control structure. All concrete floors were assessed. The concrete slabs are governed by the normal load conditions, Equation 1 of Table 5.2-1. The steel floor beams supporting the concrete slabs are governed by the abnormal extreme environmental load conditions, Equation 7 of Table 5.2-1.

Generally, the concrete slabs have a higher stress margin than the supporting steel beams.

O 7.2-3 Rev. 2, 03/83

i I

LGS DAR For the control structure shear walls, the stress levels are O

critical in the walls close to the base due to seismic loads.

The stress margins for the shear walls at column lines 19.4 and 26.6, as shown ir. Figure E.1-38, were found most critical under the abnormal extreme environmental load condition including DBE and seismic torsional effects.

The steel platforms at El. 313, 322, 340, and 350 ft were also assessed. The dynamic loads applied on the steel frames which support the platforms were found less significant than the normal loads. All the steel frames are governed by the normal load condition, Equation 2 of Table 5.3-1, with its associated allowable stresses. Those assessed steel members are shown in Figures E.1-18 through E.1-21. As demonstrated in Figure E.1-39, steel frames are generally understressed.

7.2.1.3 Suppression Chamber Columns The column vibration mode shapes are calculated using computer program BSAP. The mode shapes are shown in Appendix D, Figure D.2-1. The equivalent water mass is equal to the column volume.

The stresses at the top and bottom of the suppression chamber columns were calculated and combined in accordance with the load combinations shown in Table 5.3-1. The maximum stresses in the column are governed by load combination Equation 7. The maximum stresses in the column (42-inch diameter pipe), top anchorage, and bottom anchorage are shown in Figure D.2-?.. The lowest stress margin in the column structure is 10 percent.

7.2.1.4 Downcomer Bracing The bracing member forces and the corresponding design margins due to the governing load combinations are given in Figure D.2-11 for the critical bracing members.

7.2.1.5 Liner Plate For the normal and abnormal conditions, the liner plate system does not experience any net negative pressures as demonstrated in Figures 7.1-12 and 7.1-13. There is a large stress margin because the liner plate is designed for resisting a large suction (i.e., 5 psi negative).

Rev. 2, 03/83 7.2-4

LGS DAR 7.2.1.6 Downcomers The downcomer vibration mode shapes are calculated'for the modal analyses using computer program BSAP. The mode shapes are shown in Appendix D, Figures D.2-3 through D.2-5, for the three representative bracing system spring stiffnesses. The equivalent water mass included in the model is equal to the downcomer volume.

The downcomers were' assessed in accordance with ASME Section III, Division 1, subsection NB-3652, using load combinations in Table 5.5-1. Stresses and design margins are given in Appendix D, Figure D.2-6.

Downcomer fatigue at three critical locations were also checked.

Loads are combined by the absolute sum method. Figure D.2-7 shows the fatigue usage factors at these critical locations,

-computed in accordance with ASME Section III, Division 1, subsection NB-3650 (1979 Summer Addenda) . Downcomers are adequate for fatigue considerations.

O 7.2.1.7 Electrical Raceway 2ystem The electrical raceway system was analyzed using the load combinations in Table 5.8-1 in accordance with the methodology

described in Section 7.1.8. The stress margins were found to be most critical under the abnormal / extreme load condition.

Stresses are below allowable stress levels for all members of the electrical raceway system.

7.2.1.8 HVAC Duct System The HVAC duct system was analyzed using the load combinations in Table 5.9-1 in accordance with the methodology described in Section 7.1.9. The stress margins were found to be most critical I under the abnormal / extreme load condition. Stresses are below

'. allowable stress levels for all members of the HVAC duct system.

I 7.2.1.9 ASME Class MC Steel Components Margins i

I To be provided later.

(}

i i

7.2-5 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR 7.2.1.10 BOP Piping and MSRV Systems Margins As described in Section 7.1.5, all Seismic Category I BOP piping systems located inside the containment, reactor enclosure, and control structure are analyzed for seismic and hydrodynamic loads. The loads from the analyses are combined as described in Table 5.6-1. Additional supports and modification of existing supports are required at selected locations to accommodate the hydrodynamic and seismic loads for some piping systems. Stresses and stress margins for selected BOP piping systems are summarized in Appendix F. The stress reports for the evaluation of the BOP piping will be available for NRC review.

7.2.1.11 BOP Equipment Margins All Seismic Category I BOP equipment is re-assessed for hydrodynamic and seismic loads (Section 7.1.7) via the Limerick Seismic Qualification Review Team (SORT) program. For each piece of BOP equipment, a five-page SORT summary form has been prepared documenting the re evaluation of the equipment.

7.2.2 ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA 7.2.2.1 Containment Structure The method of analysis and load description for the acceleration response spectrum generation are outlined in Section 7.1.1.1.1.6.1. From a review of the acceleration response spectra curves for the containn.ent structure, the maximum spectral accelerations are tabulated for 1 percent damping of critical. For SRV and LOCA loads, the maximum spectral accelerations are presented in Table 7.2-1.

The hydrodynamic acceleration response spectra of the containment structure are presented in Appendix A.2.

7.2.2.2 Reactor Enclosure and Control Structure The method of analysis and load applications for the computation of the hydrodynamic acceleration response spectrum in the reactor enclosure and the control structure are described in Section 7.1.1.2. The response spectra of the reactor enclosure and the control structure are shown in Appendix B.

Rev. 2, 03/83 7.2-6

LGS DAR O OUESTION 220.17 (DAR Section 7.2)

In Section 7.2, Design Capacity Margins, it is stated that you are going to provide the pertinent information on margins of various structures at a later date. I n d i c a t e w h e n 'g o u w i l l b e able to provide the necessary information.

RESPONSE

DAR Sections 7.2.1.1, 7.2.1.2, 7.2.1.3, 7.2.1.6, 7.2.1.7, and l

7.2.1.8 have been added to provide pertinent information on the design capacity margins of the containment structure, reactor

! enclosure and control structure, suppression chamber columns, ,

l downcomers, electrical raceway system, and HVAC duct system, l respectively.

O l

l 220.17-1 Rev. 2, 03/83 l ._- - _

LGS DAR QUESTION 220.18 The combination of dynamic load responses or effects appears to be different for different structures, some by ABS and others by SRSS. This is deduced from your statements made in Sections 7.1.1.1.4, 7.1.2.1.2.5 and 7.1.2.2.3. A clarification of these statements is requested. Indicate how the responses due to condensation and oscillation are combined with those due to chugging. Identify the combination method, ABS or SRSS for each of the structur?s inside or outside the containment as well as the structures comprising the containment itself.

RESPONSE

The Limerick containment structure, reactor enclosure, and control structure are assessed for the inclusion of Mark II hydrodynamic loads in accordance with Section 7.1. The use of the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) combination method for combining hydrodynamic and seismic dynamic load events (i.e.,

() /SRV2 + LOCAa + SEISMIC 2) is justified in Reference 7.1-4.

In general, for structural assessment, the combination of these dynamic load events is accomplished by conservatively summing the peak dynamic responses by the absolute sum; method (ABS) (i.e.,

SRV + LOCA + SEISMIC). SRSS combination of the hydrodynamic and seismic loads is used only for the suppressicii chamber columns and the downcomer bracing system.

Sections 7.1.1.1.4, 7.1.2.1.2.5, and 7.1.2.2.3 have been changed to clarify the combination method used for seismic and hydrodynamic load effects.

Section 7.1.1.1.1.5.2 has been changed to clarify the consideration of the dynamic responses due to condensation oscillation in conjunction with those due to chugging.

O 220.18-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR QUESTION 220.19 In Section 7.1.1.1.1.6.1 on Page 7.1-7, it is stated that the enveloped response-spectra furnished in two sets of damping values, the low and the high. Explain the condition under which each of the two sets is used. Note that in the DAR only the response-spectra for the low damping is given in Appendix A.

RESPONSE

For Mark II hydrodynamic load assessment, enveloped floor response spectra were generated for eight damping values between 0.5 to 20 percent of critical. For clarity, these eight enveloped floor spectra are grouped into two separate plot sets of four damping values each.

Application of these spectra to various components and systems attached to the floor slabs are in accordance with the appropriate component and system damping values as shown, for example, in Table 5.8-1. Floor response spectra of larger damping values (i.e., greater than 7 percent of critical) are generated for application to systems and components where larger O' system or material damping values are justified.

Section 7.1.1.1.1.6.1 has been changed to provide the above clarificetions.

O 220.19-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR QUESTION 220.20 (DAR Section 7.1.3)

In Section 7.1.3, the liner plate under negative pressure should be designed in accordance with Section 111, Division 1 criteria.

The liner plate should also be investigated for fatigue. The liner system design requirements are specified in Section 5.6 of the DFFR. In the fatigue analysis the number of cycles to be considered should be specified. The results of the analysis should be included in the DAR.

RESPONSE ,

Section 7.1.3 presently states that for the normal condition, a maximum net negative pressure of 1.27 psi exists on the wetwell liner plate due to.the combination of SRV actuation and hydrostatic pressure. This value is incorrect and should equal 2.6 psi (positive) for the following reasons.

A maximum SRV dynamic negative pressure of 7.8 psi exists on the liner plate based on a consideration of all KWU pressure traces.

The pressure is derived from KWU pressure trace No. 76 (Figure O 4.1-26) multiplied by a 1.5 pressure multiplier to account for the difference in pool geometries and quencher constructions between Limerick and Brunsbuttel as described in Section 4.1.4.1.

This SRV dynamic negative predeure was incorrectly provided in Section 7.1.3 as 11.67 psi and should be corrected to reflect 7.8 psi. When combined with the positive hydrostatic pressure of 10.4 psi, a net positive pressure of 2.6 psi exists on the liner plate.

Based on the discussion above, it is concluded that the liner plate will not be subjected to dynamic cyclic negative pressure load under both normal and abnormal conditions. Therefore, the fatigue evaluations of the Limerick concrete-backed liner plate due to cyclic dynamic negative pressure need not be considered.

Sections 7.1.3 and 7.2.1.5 and Figures 7.1-12 and 7.1-13 changed l to reflect the impact of the corrected SRV maximum dynamic pressure value for both the normal and abnormal conditions.

O 220.20-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O OUESTION 480.63 l Although FSAR Section 6.2.2.2 states that the RHR intake -

strainers are designed to withstand all hydrodynamic loads postulated to occur in the suppression pool, concerns arise due to the close proximity of the downcomer discharges to the intake strainers. Provide a list of all loads used in the design of the strainers and also provide additional information on your analyses that demonstrate the capability of the strainers to accommodate the hydrodynamic loads from downcomer discharges.

RESPONSE

i A dynamic loading analysis has been performed for the ECCS suction strainers and demonstrates their capability to adequately accommodate inertial. loads (resulting from a design basis earthquake, SRV discharge, and LOCA condensation oscillation and chugging), operational loads (pressure and temperature), dead weight loads, and direct hydrodynamic loads. The latter loads are due to direct hydrodynamic SRV discharge (SRV air bubble

, loads) and downcomer discharges (LOCA air bubble, CO, chugging, water jet, and poolswell loads). All of the mentioned loads are combined in accordance with Table 5.8-1. Figure 5.6-1 presents elevations,. dimensions, and orientations of the piping systems inside containment that are associated with the ECCS suction strainers. A Seismic Qualification Review Team (SQRT) form I summarizes the ECCS suction strainers' loading assessment and I will be available for review.

O 480.63-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

l

)

i LGS DAR o QUESTION 480.68 l 1

i Chapter 8 of the Design Assessment Report (DAR) that addresses the T-quencher verification test (proprietary) has not been 1 submitted. We request that a copy of this chapter be submitted for our review.

RESPONSE

Volume 3 (proprietary) of the Design Assessment Report containing Chapter 8 was submitted to the NRC with Amendment 35 to the Limerick License Application by letter from E. J. Bradley to H. R. Denton, dated June 30, 1982.

O f

i j

l s

f

! 480.68-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O QUESTION 480.69 l Provide the pool temperature analysis for the transient involving

, the actuation of one or more SRV's. For additional guidance, your attention is directed to NUREG-0873, " Pool Temperature Transients for BWR."

! RESPONSE The requested information will be provided by May 1983. l I

i O

e l

l l

I lO i

480.69-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

LGS DAR O QUESTION 480.70 l Table 1.3-2 of the DAR indicates that the quencher arm loads, the total quencher loads during SRV opening, and loads during irregular condensation are under evaluation. Provide these load specifications.

RESPONSE

The quencher load specifications are provided in DAR Volume 3 (Proprietary), Section 4.1. DAR Volume 3 was submitted to the NRC with Amendment 35 to the Limerick License Application by letter from E.J. Bradley to H.R. Denton, dated June 30, 1982.

O 1

1 1

O .

480.70-1 Rev. 2, 03/83 1

_ _ _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ ,_. . . _ . . . . _ . . - - . - ~ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -

LGS DAR O

V OUESTION 480.71 l Concerns regarding the capability of the vacuum breaker to perform its function during the pool swell and chugging phases of LOCA have been raised. Provide the design changes, if any, that have been implemented to resolve this concern.

RESPONSE .

A redesign and requalification program that considers the effects of the poolswell and chugging events has been initiated by the vendor, Anderson Greenwood & Co., and is being funded by three utilities: Philadelphia Electric Co., Pennsylvania Power and Light, an'd Long Island Lighting Co. The design changes will be implemented on Limerick during the second and third quarter of 1983 and will be provided in the DAR at that time.

O l

t j

l

( l 480.71-1 Rev. 2, 03/83 4

I

' LGS DAR O APPENDIX F

/

PIPING DESIGN ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS F.1 BOP Piping Design Assessment l TABLES l Number Title l F.1-1 Maximum Cumulative Usage Factors For MSRV Discharge Lines In Wetwell Airspace F.1-2 (later) l l

i i

i O

F-i Rev. 2, 03/83 i

- _ _ _ - - . - _ - - - _, _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ , - _ - _ . . - - _ . _ . -_ _ . ~ _ _ . . - _ . . - , . . , , - . . _ - .

LGS DAR O APPENDIX F l F.1 BOP PIPING DESIGN ASSESSMENT l Table F.1-1 provides maximum cumulative fatigue usage factors for the MSRV discharge lines in the wetwell airspace. Table F.1-2 summarizes the stresses and stress margins for selected BOP' piping systems.

The stress reports for the evaluation of the BOP piping will be available for NRC review.

l O

O F.1-1 Rev. 2, 03/83

. = - - -

LGS DAR O TABLE F.1-1 l MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE USAGE FACTORS FOR MSRV DISCHARGE LINES IN WETWELL AIR SPACE

I Calculated Code' Allowable Cumulative Cumulative Component Usaae Factors Usace Factors t

c 4

Flued head ,

0.401 1.0 l Flush weld (weld between process 0.059 1.0 pipe and flued head)

Short radius elbow 0.110 1.0 l Long radius elbow 0.179 1.0 l Tapered transition (thin end) 0.868 1.0 l Tapered transition (thick end) 0.084 1.0 l Tee 0.106 1.0 l

[}

Flush weld f'or pipe anchor 0.870 ,

1.0 l l

l I

O Rev. 2, 03/83

.-. .- . _ - - - _._________ _ _-. _ _ _. - _-,- - .-- - ._._ __.- _ - _ - ._ - -

ML20072P596

Contents

Text

5.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

ML20072P596

Text

5.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

3.1 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

5.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Navigation menu

Search