ML20076H021
| ML20076H021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1983 |
| From: | Higginbotham A, Yoshida D NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076G992 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0661, RTR-NUREG-661 DET-19-076-6, DET-19-076-6-R00, DET-19-76-6, DET-19-76-6-R, NUDOCS 8306160366 | |
| Download: ML20076H021 (192) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 f
3 June 1983 50.301.0236 ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS Prepared for:
Detroit Edison Company I4g Prepared by:
NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
San Jose, California Approved by:
Issued by:
bk w u W
D. K. Yobida, P.E.
gginbotha[,P.E.
Dr. A. B Project Manager President In/
NUTECH Engineers, c.
O 8306160366 830610 PDR ADOCK 05000
^
nutagh
REVISION CONTROL SHEET
[m) TITLE:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power REPORT NO.:
DET-19-076-6
'V Plant, Unit 2, Plant Unique Revision 0 Analysis Report J
. HHskin / Engineering Manager I
flais G w a D. w u GF Chachad / Associate Engineer Initials A~. ' S. Herlekar / Principal Engineer Initi'als Oc. h % L.
QtLO JY D.
Irish / Specialist thitials
~
R.
A.
Lehnert / Engineering Manager Initials d
8b A.
K.
Lim / Systems Engineer Initials
&Wo dQlk J. W. Muffett / Engib @ ring Manager Initials JOjtW N
W. E.
Smith' / Engineeh Initia'ls 1MMA WL 77AW M.
S.
Williams / Engineer Initials O
+T Yiu /(/ Senior Engineer e
Y. C InTti(f.s ii
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (CONTINUATION)
. TITLE: Enrico Fermi Atomic Power REPORT NUMBER: DET-19-076-6 Plant, Unit 2, Plant Unique Revision 0 s/
Analysis Report PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA PAGE(S)
REV
- 3 BY / OATE CHECK BY / OATE CHECK SY / DATE g (,[fo/63 M/A vii 0
Vill ix x
xi xii l
xiii l
xiv y
i p No A5/o/e>
e p'h./o i
pc pn.6/io/s3 p '#/63 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1 r p
'd
'1.11_u g
as, c/,.
pa.6A/83 MA/S3
& *p/o tn A m </u 183 p <Mn p1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 i
2.13 l
2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 0
2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 II I
U 2.27 0
& 6/ loft $ /}fH 6//e/j3 hG/no)g3, QEP 3 3.1.2 iii REV O
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (CONTINUATION)
O TITLE:
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power REPORT NUMBER: DET-19-076-6 Plant, Unit 2, Plant Unique Revision 0 Analysis Report PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA AGEm RW BY / OATE CHECK SY / OATE CHECK SY / DATE Q 4[lo[O M 8///D kl0[93 0
2.30 2.31 2.32 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.38 2.39 l
2.40 2.41 2.42 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 h
y 2.47 Qtc.6f/*lf3 thStl Sll*l83 2.48 2.49 g s g,ff,f n % 6ff.je3 2.50 2.51 2.52 2.53 2.54 4
9 2.55 2.56 M 4/ soly & 4(/*l!3 2.57
% &{loN3 $1/4/roft3 2.58 2.59 2.60 2.61 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.65 2.66 n
2g 4
,/,,j,3 g,y(j,,;0
^
2.69
/)Sff 6/l*lth h Yio/g3 2.70 2.71 2.72 2.73 0
2.74 Y
N P
2.75 2.76 0
l}$)lllyl((3
&g/o/q3 hGllo}s$
iv
"" $'E8i
j REVISION CONTROL SHEET (CONTINUATION)
\\
TITLE: Enrico Fermi Atomic Pcwer REPORT NUMBER: DET-19-076-6 Plant, Unit 2, Plant Unique Revision 0 Analysis Report I
PREPARED ACCuftACY CRITERIA EMARd BY / OATE CHECK BY / DATE CHECK BY / DATE gg/s/O
$ $U
$ % =/s>
2.77 0
2.78 2.79 2.80 2.81 2.82 2.83 2,84 2.85 p
2.86 B'
ash 4/ tole
> Ch /es $9ffn 3.1
@ (,liles Aasv/./p Je Wu/i/$
3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 O
3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 j
3.14 3.15 3.16 L
gO (,/i/g3 y d,4/ijg3du]@\\Vi/33 3.17 3.18 l
4.1 amu) 6l1ls.s
- 415499 M WO 4.2 l
4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Y
N 4.8 4.9
& 6l7lg$
gt/4 (Ig/fJ ax4 ff/1 1
5*1 Al@l bl1\\b3 sd4 W//3 & Wo 5.3 5.4 5.5 U
7 I
'I 5.9 0
W W 6/1)g] Md &f//1 fff Y//)
CEP 3 3.1.2 REV O l
y i
t
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (CONTINUATION)
TITLE: Enrico Fermi Atomic Power REPORT NUMBER: DET-19-076-6 O
Plant, Unit 2, Plant Unique Revision 0 Analysis Report PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA PAGE(Si REV BY / OATE CHECK 8Y/QATE CHECK SY/DATE 5.10 0
NMhl63 M 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 L
4 q
p yn)s3 eer 444 d/4 Sf/2 M G/IM83 d*t l'/'ol63 g 6/*/81 2
6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 0
6.11 6.12 6.13 l
6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28
[
y 6.$0
% 82 get 6/to/83 g % /v;
% [4 [ti ght (,[/0/83 N In ta 7.1 g
(
7.2 4
pCggy sat. 6//0/63 N /A 7.3 o
' O ac"t:0i v.1 l
l
- -.~
. - -. ~..
j ABSTRACT D
l l
The primary containment for the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, was designed, erected, pressure-tested, and ASME Code N-stamped in the 1970's by the Detroit Edison Company.
Since that time new requirements, defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661, which affect 4
the design and operation of the primary containment have evolved.
The requirements to be addressed include an assessment of additional containment design loads postulated to occur during a loss-of-coolant accident or a
safety relief valve discharge event, as well as an assessment of the ef fects that these postulated events have on the operational characteristics of the containment and attached piping systems.
f This report documents the efforts undertaken to address and resolve each of the applicable NUREG-0661 requirements as they apply to the torus attached piping systems, and demonstrates, in r
(
accordance with NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria, that the design of the torus attached piping systems and associated suppression 4
chamber penetrations is adequate and that original design safety-margins have been restored.
The NUREG-0661 requirements which apply to the containment and safety relief valve piping systems j
have been addressed previously in Volumes 1 through 5 of the Fermi 2 Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR) (Reference 1).
The evaluations of the torus attached piping and suppression chamber-penetrations have been performed by NUTECH Engineers, i
Incorporated (NUTECH) and by the Detroit Edison Company.
c I
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT vii LIST OF ACRONYMS xi LIST OF TABLES xiii LIST OF FIGURES xv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND
SUMMARY
1.1 1.1 Scope of Analysis 1.4 1.2 Plant Unique Analysis Criteria 1.9 1.3 Summary and Conclusions 1.13 2.0 LARGE BORE PIPING 2.1 1
2.1 Component Description 2.2 2.1.1 Torus External Piping 2.9 2.1.2 Torus Internal Piping 2.10 2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 2.16 2.2.1 Loads 2.17 2.2.2 Load Combinations 2.33 2.2.3 Combination of Dynamic Loads 2.42 2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 2.43 2.4 Methods of Analysis 2.45 1
2.4.1 Large Bore Torus Attached 2.49 Piping Structural Modeling 2.4.2 Methods of Analysis for FSAR 2.57 and Static Torus Displacement Loads 2.4.3 Methods of Analysis for 2.62 Hydrodynamic Loads Od DET-19-076-6 Revision 0
=
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 2.4.4 Methods of Analysis for Torus 2.69 Motions 2.4.5 Fatigue Evaluation 2.85 2.5 Analysis Results 2.86 3.0 SMALL BORE PIPING 3.1 3.1 Component Description 3.2 3.2 Loads and Load Combinations 3.4 3.2.1 Loads 3.5 3.2.2 Load Combinations 3.8 3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 3.9 3.4 Methods of Analysis 3.10 3.4.1 Methods of Analysis for Major 3.11 s
Loads 3.5 Analysis Results 3.17 j
4.0 PIPING SUPPORTS 4.1 4.1 Component Description 4.2 4.2 Loads and Load Combinations 4.4 1
4.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance 4.6 Criteria 4.4 Analysis Results 4.9 5.0 EQUIPMENT AND VALVES 5.1 5.1 Component Description 5.2 5.2 Loads and Load Combinations 5.5 O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 ix nutggb
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Page 5.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance 5.9 Criteria 5.3.1 Equipment (Pumps and Turbines) 5.9 5.3.2 Strainers 5.10 5.3.3 Electrical Penetrations and 5.11
.Thermocouples 5.3.4 Valves 5.12 5.4 Analysis Results 5.16 5.4.1 Equipment and Components 5.16 1
i 5.4.2 Valves 5.17 6.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS 6.1 1
6.1 Component Description 6.2 6.2 Loads and Load Combinations 6.11 6.2.1 Loads 6.12 6.2.2 Load Combinations 6.15 6.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 6.17 6.4 Methods of Analysis 6.20 6.5 Analysis Results 6.26 7.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 7.1 i
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 x
nutggb
LIST OF ACRONYMS ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers DBA Design Basis Accident DLF Dynamic Load Factor DOF Degree of Freedom FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction HPCI High Pressure Coolant Injection IBA Intermediate Break Accident LDR Load Definition Report LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident MRSM Multiple Response Spectra Method NOC Normal Operating Conditions NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OBE Operating Basis Earthquake PUA Plant Unique Analysis PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definition i
RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling RHR Residual Heat Removal i
SBA Small Break Accident SBP Small Bore Piping SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares DET-19-076-6 gd Revision 0 X 3-
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Concluded) t SRV Safety Relief Valve a
SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake i
SSER Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report j
TAP Torus Attached Piping
(
TWMS Torus Water Management System i
l f
f l
a i
~
i 4
A 1
l DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 xii O
l 4
LIST OF TABLES O
Table Title Page 1.1-1 Identification of Large Bore Torus Attached 1.7 Piping Systems and Associated Penetrations 2.2-1 Torus Attached Piping Loading Identifi-2.31 cation Cross-Reference 2.2-2 Large Bore Piping System Design Data 2.32 1
2.2-3 Event Combinations and Allowable Limits 2.36 for Torus Attached Piping 2.2-4 Basis for Governing Load Combinations -
2.38 Torus Attached Piping 2.2-5 Governing Load Combinations - Torus 2.40 Attached Piping 2.3-1 Applicable ASME Code Equations and Allow-2.44 able Stresses for Torus Attached Piping 2.4-1 Summary of Analysis Methods for Large Bore 2.47 Torus Attached Piping O
.5-1 2
Analysis Results for Large Bore Torus 2.87 Attached Piping Stress 3.2-1 Typical Small Bore System Design Data 3.7 3.5-1 Governing Small Bore Piping Stresses for 3.18 Controlling Load Combinations 4.2-1 Governing Load Combinations - Torus Attached 4.5 Piping Supports 4.3-1 Pipe Support Allowables 4.8 5.1-1 Equipment Description 5.4 5.2-1 Equipment Load Combinations 5.7 5.2-2 Valve Acceleration Combinations 5.8 DET-19-076-6 Revision O xiii 11
i l
I LIST OF TABLES (Concluded) l Table Title Page 6.1-1 Penetration and Geometry Reinforcement 6.4 Schedule 6.2-1 Governing Penetration Load Combinations 6.16 and Service Levels J
'l 6.3-1 Allowable Stresses for Penetrations 6.19 6.4-1 Penetration Grouping 6.24 6.5-1 Maximum Stress Summary for Penetration 6.27 X-210A 6.5-2 Maximum Stress Summary for Penetration 6.28 X-212 6.5-3 Maximum Stress Summary for Penetration 6.29 X-223B 6.5-4 Maximum Stress Summary for Penetration 6.30 X-227A i
i i
i DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 xiv I
.--,--...---n._,_
.,n,_
..,...._wr.,,~-.,
LIST OF FIGURES O
Figure Title Page 1.1-1 Large Bore TAP Penetration Locations on 1.8 Suppression Chamber - Plan View 2.1-1 TAP System Isometric and Support Locations -
2.4 RHR Pump Suction Line (X-223A and X-223B) 2.1-2 TAP System Isometric and Support Locations -
2.5 Core Spray Pump Suction Line (X-224A) 2.1-3 TAP System Isometric and Support Locations -
2.6 HPCI Turbine Exhaust Line (X-220) 2.1-4 TAP System Isometric and Support Locations -
2.7 RCIC Turbine Exhaust Line (X-212) 2.1-5 TAP System Isometric and Support Locations -
2.8 RHR Test Line and RHR to Spray Header Line (X-210B and X-l'.lB) 2.1-6 Typical TAP System Support Outside Torus 2.12 Attached to Main Steel O-2.1-7 Typical TAP System Support Outside Torus 2.13 Attached to Concrete Wall or Slab 2.1-8 Typical Suction Strainer Inside Torus 2.14 2.1-9 Typical TAP System Support Inside Torus 2.15 2.4-1 TAP System Structural Model (Line X-223A 2.52 and X-223B) 2.4-2 TAP System Structural Model (Line X-224A) 2.53 2.4-3 TAP System Structural Model (Line X-220) 2.54 2.4-4 TAP System Structural Model (Line X-212) 2.55 2.4-5 TAP System Structural Model (Line X-210B 2.56 and X-211B) 2.4-6 TAP Coupled / Transfer Function Analysis 2.84 Procedure m
b DET-19-076-6 Revision O xv nute_cb
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded) g Figure _
Title Page 6.1-1 Typical Unreinforced Penetration 6.5 6.1-2 External View of Typical Penetration 6.6 Reinforcement 6.1-3 Reinforcement Details for Typical Radial 6.7 Penetrations 6.1-4 Reinforcement Details for Slightly 6.8 Non-Radial Penetrations 6.1-5 Reinforcement Details for Typical 6.9 Non-Radial Penetrations 6.1-6 Typical External Gusset Plate Detail 6.10 6.2-1 Typical TAP Loads on Penetration 6.14 6.4-1 Suppression Chamber Reinforced Penetration -
6.25 Typical Finite Element Model DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 xvi nutggb
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND
SUMMARY
The Fermi 2
Plant Unique Analysis Report (PUAR)
(Reference 1) was submitted to the NRC in May 1982.
The PUAR defined the general criteria and loadings (Volume 1) and described the plant unique analyses i
~
(Volumes 2 through 5) performed for the containment and SRV piping systems.
In January of 1983, the NRC issued its Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) for the Fermi 2 plant (Reference 2).
The NRC indicated acceptance of the PUAR in the SSER.
l In conjunction with Volume 1 of Reference 1,
this report documents the ef forts undertaken to address the requirements defined in NUREG-0661 (Reference 3) which affect the Fermi 2 torus attached piping (TAP),
including large and small bore piping, cupports, piping i
i equipment, and suppression chamber penetrations.
The torus attached piping PUAR is organized as follows:
o INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Scope of Analysis Plant Unique Analysi,s Criteria Summary and Conclusions o
LARGE BORE PIPING Component Description Loads and Load Combinations l
DET-19-076-6 g
Revision 0 1.1
Analysis Acceptance Criteria Methods of Analysis Analysis Results o
SMALL BORE PIPING Component Description Loads and Load Combinations Analysis Acceptance criteria Methods of Analysis Analysis Results o
PIPING SUPPORTS Component Description Loads and Load Combinations Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria Analysis Results o
EQUIPMENT AND VALVES Component Description Loads and Load Combinations Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria Analysis Results l
l o
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS Component Description Loads and Load Combinations l
Analysis Acceptance Criteria Methods of Analysis Analysis Results O
DET-19-076-6 l
Revision O 1.2 l
nutggh
3 The introduction contains an overview discussion of the scope of the torus attached piping systems and suppres-sion chamber penetration evaluations and criteria as well as a
summary of the results and conclusions resulting from the comprehensive evaluations presented in later sections.
Each of the analysis sections contains a discussion of the loads and load combina-tions to be addressed, a description of the piping components or penetrations af fected by these loads and load combinations, the methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations, and the evaluation results and acceptance limits to which the results are compared to ensure that the designs are adequate.
l O
DET-19-076-6 OUk Revision 0 1.3
1.1 Scope of Analysis The general criteria presented in Volume 1 of Reference 1 are used as the basis for the Fermi 2 torus attached piping and suppression chamber penetration evaluations described in this report.
The evaluation includes the large and small bore torus attached piping, piping supports, related equipment such as pumps, valves, and
- turbines, and TAP suppression chamber penetrations.
These components are evaluated for the effects of LOCA-related and SRV discharge-related loads discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1,
and defined by the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661 (Reference 3) and the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" (LDR) (Reference 4).
Table 1.1-1 lists the large bore TAP systems and the associated suppression chamber penetrations.
Figure 1.1-1 shows the locations of these penetrations on the suppression chamber.
The LOCA and SRV discharge loads used in this evalua-l tion are formulated using procedures and test results which include the effects of the plant unique geometry and operating parameters contained in the Plant Unique Load Definition (PULD) report (Reference 5).
Other loads and methodology which have not been redefined by 0
l DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 1.4 nut
NUREG-0661, such as the evaluation for seismic loads, are taken from the plant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Reference 6).
The evaluation includes performing a
structural analysis of the torus attached piping systems and suppression chamber penetrations for the effects of LOCA-related and SRV discharge-related loads to verify that the design of the torus attached piping and suppression chamber penetrations is adequate.
Rigorous analytical techniques are used in this evaluation, utilizing detailed analytical models and refined methods for computing the dynamic response of the torus O
attached piping systems, including consideration of the interaction effects of each piping system and the I
suppression chamber.
The results of the TAP structural analysis for each load are used to evaluate load combinations for the l
- piping, piping
- supports, equipment, and suppression chamber penetrations in accordance with NUREG-0661 and the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide" (PUAAG)
(Reference 7).
The analysis results are compared with the acceptance limits specified by the PUAAG and the applicable sections of the American l
l l
DET-19-076-6
@{
Revision O 1.5
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Class 2 piping and piping supports, and for Class MC components (Reference 8).
Evaluation of the piping for fatigue effects stipulated in Reference 3 has been addressed generically for all Mark I plants by the Mark I Owners Group (Reference 9).
O O
DET-19-076-6 gg Revision O 1.6
Table 1.1-1 IDENTIFICATION OF LARGE BORE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED PENETRATIONS PENETRATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER
'X-205A PIPING TO SECONDARY CONTAINMENT VACUUM BREAKER A X-205B PIPING TO SECONDARY CCNTAINMENT VACUUM BREAKER B X-205C CONTAINMENT PURGE PIPING C X-205D CONTAINMENT PURGE PIPING D X-210A RER TEST LINE A X-211A RER TO SPRAY HEADER A X-210B RER TEST LINE B X-211B RER TO SPRAY HEADER B X-212 RCIC TURBINE EXHAUST I
X-213A TWMS PUMP SUCTION A X-213B TWMS PUMP SUCTION B X-214 HPCI/RCIC VACUUM BREAKER X-215 POST-LOCA H2 CONTAINMENT SUCTION,DIV I X-218 POST-LOCA H2 CONTAINMENT RETURN CONTAINMENT X-219 POST-LOCA H2 SUCTION,DIV II l
X-220 HPCI TURBINE EXHAUST l
X-223A RHR PUMP SUCTION A
,j X-223B RHR PUMP SUCTION B l
X-223C RHR PUMP SUCTION C f
X-223D RHR PUMP SUCTION D X-224A CORE SPRAY PUMP SUCTION A X-224B CORE SPRAY PUMP SUCTION 3 X-225 HPCI PUMP SUCTION X-226 RCIC PUMP SUCTION X-227A CORE SPRAY TEST LINE A X-227B CORE SPRAY TEST LINE B O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 1.7 nuttgh
0 270 287'30' 292*10' L
225*'
@a X-218
..X-205e
+x";226 g/
~
X-2138 X-2113 X-214
\\g 0B X-224s x
X-2278 202'30'.
X-223C,K
,337 30' 0
X.223D f
p/
/
N X-2IS i
~
1808-
+
0" T*-**
X-205;+-
T N
N 7
X-2238 X-221A
/
22'30' 157*30' I-223 %,
'i
\\/,,,-
\\
X.210A X.224AM X-2i I
A a
4
-+.
+.
135' x'.219 X-205A 450 j
l l
s g
112'30' 67'30' I
90 Figure 1.1-1 LARGE BORE TAP PENETRATION LOCATIONS ON l
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER - PLAN VIEW O
I DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 1.8 nutggh 1
l.2 Plant Unique Analysis Criteria This section describes the acceptance criteria for the hydrodynamic
- loads, and piping and component evaluations used in the plant unique analysis of the torus attached piping and suppression chamber penetrations.
Acceptance criteria used in the TAP PUA have been developed from the NRC review of the Long-Term Program Load Definition
- Report, Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide, and the supporting analytical and experimental programs conducted by the Mark I owners Group.
These criteria are documented in NUREG-0661.
Wherever
- feasible, the conservative hydrodynamic acceptance criteria of NUREG-0661 have been directly applied in'the torus attached piping evaluation.
Where this simple, direct approach resulted in unrealistic i
predictions of piping component response, more detailed plant unique analyses have been performed.
Specific interpretations of the generic rules have been applied in some of these detailed analyses.
Many of these l
interpretations have been reviewed and accepted by the I
NRC since NUREG-0661 has been issued.
The remainder of l
this section briefly discusses the specific r
DET-19-076-6 Revision O 1.9 0
l
clarifications to the acceptance criteria applied in the TAP PUAR.
o Acceptance criteria for fatigue evaluation of the large and small bore piping are based on the Mark I owners Group generic fatigue evaluation report (Reference 9).
Analyses documented in this report demonstrate cumulative usage factors for the Mark I plant piping systems of less than 0.5.
o Structural responses resulting from two dynamic phenomena
- have, in
- general, been combined as provided in NUREG-0484.
SRSS methodology permitted by the NRC in Reference 10 has also been selectively used in the torus attached piping l
analyses.
These response combination methods are applied to the piping systems and the respective torus penetration and equipment boundary conditions to maintain uniformity in the analysis approach.
o Fermi 2 unique loads are developed based on the event combinations and event sequencing described in NUREG-0661 and in Volume 1 of Reference 1,
and included consideration of plant unique operation of torus attached piping systems.
O DET-19-076-6 g{
Revision 0 1.10
o In general, acceptance criteria for piping system equipment and components are based on allowables specified by component manufacturers.
For selected components, these allowables have been reevaluated based on service levels, more detailed and sophisticated analyses, and the latest generic test data as discussed in Section 5.
4 o
As described in Volume 1 of Reference 1,
several
'l Mark I licensees have indicated that the generic load definition procedures for the SRV discharge load are overly conservative for their plant design.
This conservatism is amplified when the 6
procedures are coupled with conservative structural analysis techniques of the torus shell and the dynamic analyses of the torus attached piping.
To facilitate a more realistic evaluation of the TAP and associated equipment components, the Fermi 2 PUA is based on the application of a load reduction factor for the SRV air clearing j
load.
The use of this factor is based on applying the option of NUREG-0661 to derive plant specific structural response from in-plant SRV tests.
A series of in-plant SRV tests will be performed at Fermi 2 following fuel load to confirm that the O
DET-19-076-6 Qd Revision 0 1.11
computed
- loadings, including a
load reduction factor for SRV discharges, are conservative and bounding with respect to structural response of the torus shell.
O O
DET-19-076-6 g
Revision O 1.12 l
+
1.3 Summary and Conclusions An evaluation of the Fermi 2 large and small bore torus i
attached piping, piping supports, equipment and valves, 4
and suppression chamber penetrations has been performed for the piping system components as described in Sections 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 6.1.
The loads considered in the evaluation are described in f
i j
Sections 2.2, 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, and 6.2.
They include original loads as documented in the FSAR plus addi-tional loadings which are postulated to occur during a small break accident (SBA), intermediate break accident (IBA) or design basis accident (DBA)
LOCA-related i
event, and during SRV discharge events as defined for Fermi 2 in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
i l
Detailed structural models are developed and utilized in calculating the response of the piping systems and f
suppression chamber penetrations.
A combination of
- static, dynamic, and equivalent static analyses are performed and the results appropriately combined in i
accordance with NUREG-0661 requirements.
For selected f
piping system components, results of dynamic loads have been combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) technique in accordance with the NRC DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 1.13
approval letter to General Electric Company (Reference 10).
Results of the piping and penetration analyses are compared to the NUREG-0661 criteria as discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
Resultant loadings on the equipment and components are compared to allowables specified by the equipment manufacturers or these items are reevaluated using more rigorous analytical techniques.
The initial evaluation resulted in the need for modification of selected piping system components.
These modifications include providing additional pipe
- supports, modifying existing
- supports, suppression chamber penetration reinforcement, minor small bore piping rerouting, and reinforcement of suction strainers.
The final evaluation results which include these modifications show that the
- piping, piping supports, equipment, and suppression chamber penetra-tion loads and stresses meet the acceptance criteria specified by NUREG-0661.
l O
l DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 1.14 nu
2.0 LARGE BORE PIPING An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Fermi 2 large bore torus attached piping (TAP) is presented in the following sections.
The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The component parts of the TAP systems which are 1
analyzed are described in Section 2.1.
The loads and load combinations for which the piping systems are evaluated are described and presented in Section 2.2.
The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are s
compared are discussed and presented in Section 2.3.
The analysis methodology used to evaluate the effects f
l of the loads and load combinations on the piping
- systems, including evaluation of fatigue effects, is discussed in Section 2.4.
The analysis results are presented in Section 2.5.
l l
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.1 M
-,-,--n.
-.n.+-..,,--a,,
,,-e.,,,--,
,,--,wrc--,
-e e--
2.1 Component Description O
The large bore TAP for Fermi 2 consists of piping systems with 4"
and larger nominal diameters, which penetrate or are directly attached to the suppression chamber.
This section gives a general description of the large bore TAP systems and their associated Components.
Large bore TAP lines range in si'ze from 4"
to 24" nominal diameter and have varying piping schedules.
Although most of the piping consists of ASTM A-106, Grade B carbon steel material, some pipe segments are ASTM A358-TP304 austenitic stainless steel.
Table 1.1-1 lists the Fermi 2 large bore TAP systems and their associated suppression chamber penetrations.
Figure 1.1-1 shows the locations of penetrations on the torus.
The large bore TAP systems may be grouped into two general categories:
torus external piping and torus internal piping.
Examples of systems with only torus j
l l
external piping are the residual heat removal (RHR) l pump suction line (Figure 2.1-1),
and the core spray l
l pump suction line (Figure 2.1-2).
Typical systems having both torus external and internal piping are the O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.2 l
l
high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) turbine exhaust line (Figure 2.1-3), the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) turbine exhaust line (Figure 2.1-4) and the RHR 4
i to spray header line (Figure 2.1-5).
In addition to the large bore systems described above, selected small diameter piping systems are included in this section since they have been analyzed using the same methods applied to the large bore piping.
1 4
h 9
DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 2.3
s s.' _
.,Legas, s
e s -
1....
s A
/
g -
9==
Q@
C= - se O-.
G 6
..s.
a w ssn p 2:;.**
C s
/
m f
w-l~.9..F..
4@
~~
..s 4s m
O
~'
6
-s W
U s.
=
6
/
s g'?,,> y~
,, ~ '
~
' ~ * * '
g&selve s.
s d
/ ^ ~~
..ri:-
A.. #
~N~
/
s' o
~
f
~
~=
k 'N\\
l l
j,. l
.~.i
.. '.\\
gi. -'"' ' M l
%\\
d T.h. j N.g..
- ..n ~,
j
.. sv i
l Figure 2.1-1 TAP SYSTEM ISOMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS RHR PUMP SUCTION LINE (X-223A AND X-223B) i DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.4 nutggh
O
(
- .?.*
~
}
)
I A
T 4
~
6 C
2 A
2 O
m c.
L X
a
(
o 6
-s, T
w
^
R E
.c o
O N
/
s w
P I
o P
L s
2 e
U s
S N
g
/
D I
1 O
2 N
T
'u N 9; /
/
a A
C e
U
,a 15 r
.{.
C S
s u
'u I
j, g
R P
l
/
/
T M
py i
s F
a E
U i;
'w S
Y s,
M P
O T
I A
(.
R
\\Mk7a t
~
a M
P E
S
{,
T t,
S E
o"
'4
- n. a m c
Y R
S O
. 'so C
~
sc E
].h'i
. ~.
c*
a*
r P
r A
o.
[
m T
, a c
/
r
/
./m m
a n
o r
4 I_-
a m
a
.re-a =
ts <
g nu
/
s..A=O 3+j s
u M
s o
e e
c IQ CM Y e*-@
q.
2 D
y(? m k e
u,W C*
7 8
-=. n
=n
/"
1' N% %
useewo Ns m
a s
.O e.~...
Y'
-N
& mesto menfamour
.I T
l'f $ie
%*4 / it n
~
,.a O -- -
I i
h I A
'c' \\
x'7 7
N j
e*
f*h
/i q
m,.....,
'/
+
+
9
/9
/
~
c.
W e
J./
./ s l /
O q., -
u
/
.A
/,&=r.=.
,V} /'
,,j '
Figure 2.1-3 TAP SYSTEM ISOMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS -
HPCI TURBINE EXHAUST LINE (X-220)
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.6 nutggb
O\\]T
/
aum
?
.a ass
/
A
.an =.n V
... e m a*.,
O-*
i
~
-d s,.,,,,,,
t n,
x e
p' a
4 an-a
- r....
ig
./
/
~
(y,
/'
u x
q.
4
=
~
@ Lem j
_3 "y.
r-s N !
s
,aJ, i
N i
Figure 2.1-4 TAP SYSTEM ISOMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS -
RCIC TURBINE EXHAUST LINE (X-212)
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.7 nutgch
/
V
/,s wa tu os 5
?.Y l
\\
en e E
y' uses z
o T,
$a c=2 -..
O ~~
h
.<.n_-
-g,f. _
Y'T
- 5'N%h N.s J13
~
[
[
~
s f
="AE% C Ff ((i O')
=N L
Y r acn g
e
/
,,., u.
't t
l<
\\
t Figure 2.1-5 j
g TAP SYSTEM ISGMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS RIIR TEST LINE AND R!!R TO SPRAY llEADER LINE (X-210B AND X-211B) e e
e L
2.1.1 Torus External Piping The torus external piping included in this plant unique analysis (PUA) starts at the suppression chamber penetration
- nozzles, and terminates for evaluation purposes at anchor supports or equipment within the reactor building.
The external piping typically extends from the suppression chamber up to the building slab at an elevation of 583'-6".
Some lines extend up to building slabs at elevations of 613'-6" and 641'-6".
4 The external piping is supported by hangers, rigid restraints, guides, and snubbers attached to building slabs or walls, or to main structural steel in the building.
Figures 2.1-6 and 2.1-7 illustrate typical pipe supports outside the torus.
Other components on these lines include valves and standard pipe fittings.
The valve types used are gate valves, globe valves, swing check
- valves, butterfly
- valves, and relief valves.
Smaller lines branching off the large bore TAP systems are discussed in Section 3.0.
Piping supports are described in Section 4.0.
Equipment such as valves, pumps, and turb.ines are described in Section 5.0.
The suppression chamber penetrations are described in Section 6.0.
DET-19-076-6 0
Revision 0 2.9
2.1.2 Torus Internal Piping O
Piping internal to the torus may be categorized into three basic configurations:
(a)
Short penetration nozzles which project inside the torus.
Typical examples of this type of con-figuration are the suction lines which penetrate the lower half of the torus.
Suction lines have a strainer connected to their inner nozzle flange.
Figure 2.1-8 shows a
typical suction line penetration and strainer.
(b)
Short segments of piping inside the torus which are supported by rigid struts attached to the torus shell or to the ring girders (Figure 2.1-9).
The turbine exhaust lines shown in Figures 2.1-3 and 2.1-4 are typical examples of this piping configuration.
l (c)
Long lengths of piping running through more than a single torus bay which are supported at intervals by rigid struts connected to the torus shell or ring girders.
Figure 2.1-5, which includes the RHR to spray header line, illustrates this type of configuration.
O I
DET-19-076-6 l
Revision 0 2.10 nutp_qh
Supports for the torus internal piping are discussed in Section 4.0.
Strainers for the torus internal piping are discussed in Section 5.0.
Loads and load combinations which are applied to the large bore TAP systems described above are presented in the following sections.
l 5
I l
l i
DET-19-076-6 g{
Revision 0 2.11 1
O.
1 1
MAIN STEEL
-ll~
is rs s z,
/, // s INTERMEDIATE STEEL FRAMING Q TAP LINE i
i C
2 4=
+
f,r Q
C n
l PIPE STRUT CLAMP I
Figure 2.1-6 TYPICAL TAP SYSTEM SUPPORT OUTSIDE TORUS ATTACHED TO MAIN STEEL DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.12 nutggh
BASE PLATE (TYP)
.e ANCHOR BOLT (TYP) a N
>--+
's D
INTERMEDIATE g4 STEEL FRAMING
\\
-+
x s
>--+
_N
+
~
.l SNUBBER N
g..,
L..J
"!!P W
!t
(
T
-Q TAP LINE l I
+
th Kg' L
PIPE CLAMP Figure 2.1-7 TYPICAL TAP SYSTEM SUPPORT OUTSIDE TORUS ATTACHED TO CONCRETE WALL OR SLAB DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.13 nutggl)
SUCTION STRAINER r
N TORUS SHELL
\\
PIPE
\\
'N E
l Figure 2.1-8 TYPICAL SUCTION STRAINER INSIDE TORUS DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.14 nutggh
O k
I e
RING GIRDER INTERNAL gPIPING I
^f 7^
\\/
+
- n...e j !--
a) 1 SUF 1tg83103 l
1 M
$ SUPPRESS!CN cuanssa stanzwr N
G I
P!PS SUPPCETS RING Ctagga t
11* w f
SECTION A-A Figure 2,1-9 TYPICAL TAP SYSTEM SUPPORT INSIDE TORUS DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.15 nutq,q, h
2.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Fermi 2 TAP is designed are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants.
The methodology used to develop plant unique TAP loads for each load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
In addition, the loading event sequences described in Volume 1
of Reference 1
include consideration of plant unique operation of the torus attached piping systems.
The results of applying the methodology to develop specific values for each of the controlling loads which act on the piping are discussed and presented in Section 2.2.1.
Using the event combinations and event sequencing I
decribed above, the governing load combinations which i
affect the torus attached piping are formulated.
The load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 2.2.2.
1 1
O DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 2.16
2.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the TAP are categorized as follows:
1.
Dead Weight 2.
Seismic 3.
Pressure and Temperature 4.
Operating 5.
Static Torus Displacement 6.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge 7.
Vent Clearing 8.
Pool Swell 9.
Condensation oscillation 10.
Chugging 11.
Torus Motion Loads in Categories 1 through 4 are considered in the I
piping design as documented in the FSAR (Reference 6).
The range of pressures and temperatures (Category 3) included in the analyses are those relating to the time period within the Mark I Program event duration.
Loads in Category 5 are displacements resulting from torus internal pressure or water dead weight during both i
normal and accident conditions.
Loads in Category 6 result from SRV discharge events.
Loads in Categories 7 through 10 result from postulated LOCA events.
Loads DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 2.17
.-w~.r- -,.
+_, _.-,-, -
.v..
_,------.--m...--
in Category 11 consist of torus inertial and displace-ment responses due to hydrodynarhic loads acting on the torus.
Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 and the FSAR need be examined, since some are enveloped by others or l
have a negligible effect on the torus attached piping.
Only those loads which maximize the piping response and lead to controlling stresses are examined and dis-l I
cussed.
These loads are referred to as governing loads in the following sections.
The magnitudes and characteristics of the governing j
loads in each category are identified and presented in l
the following paragraphs.
The corresponding section of Volume 1 of Reference 1, where the loads are discussed, is provided in Table 2.2-1.
1.
Dead Weight (DW) Loads These loads are defined as the uniformly dis-tributed weight of the pipe and insulation, and 1
the concentrated weight of piping
- supports, i
hardware attached to
- piping, valves, and 1
Also included is the weight of the contents of the torus attached piping.
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.18 nutech ENCNNEERS
2.
Seismic Loads q
a.
OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accel-erations acting on the TAP during an operat-ing basis earthquake (OBE). The loading is taken from the design basis for the piping as documented in the FSAR.
Building response spectra at elevations which represent piping attachment points are utilized to develop response spectra curves for the N-S, E-W, and vertical direction OBEY inputs, respectively.
\\
N b.
OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the piping attachment points during an OBE.
The loading is taken from the design basis for the piping, as documented in the FSAR.
c.
SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads:
These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the piping during a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).
The loading is taken from the design basis for the DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.19 nutagh
piping, as documented in the FSAR.
Building response spectra at different elevations which represent the piping attachment points are utilized to develop response spectra curves for the N-S, E-W, and vertical direc-tion SSEy inputs, respectively.
d.
SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads:
These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the piping attachment points during a SSE.
The loading is taken from the design basis for the piping, as documented in the FSAR.
3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads a.
Pressure (P
P)
Loads:
These loads are o,
defined as the maximum operating internal pressure (Po) and design condition pressure (P),
in the torus attached piping.
The design pressures listed in Table 2.2-2 are conservacively used for both P and P in the o
analysis.
b.
Temperature (TE, TEy) Loads:
These loads are defined as the thermal expansion (TE) of the O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.20 mo-ca.
C piping associated with temperature changes
('
occurring during normal operating conditions, and the thermal expansion (TE1) of the piping associated with temperature changes occurring during maximum operating conditions.
Table 2.2-2 lists pipe temperatures for TE used in
'the analysis.
Generally, the design tempera-tures listed in Table 2.2-2 are conserva-tively used for TE in the analysis.
In a 1
few selected
- cases, the actual maximum operating temperature during the loading condition is used for TE1 in the analysis.
)
Effects of thermal anchor movements at the
%/
torus penetrations and at torus support locations are also included in the analysis.
The piping thermal anchor movement loadings are categorized and designated as follows:
Piping thermal anchor movement 1.
THAM during normal operating condi-tions (NOC), and 2.
THAM 1-Piping thermal anchor movement during accident conditions.
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.21 g
4.
Operating (OL) Loads These loads are defined as line operating thrust loads due to discharge of piping systems into the torus.
The loads are applicable to the HPCI turbine exhaust, the RCIC turbine exhaust, and the RHR test lines.
5.
Static Torus Displacement Loads These loads are defined as the torus displacement loads due to the weight of water in the torus and due to normal operating or accident condition pressures.
These are the torus displacements a.
TD due to normal operating pressure and the weight of water in the torus.
These are the torus displacements b.
TD1-due to torus internal pressure during SBA conditions plus the weight of water in the torus.
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.22 nute_ql,)
c.
TD2-These are the torus displacements due to torus internal pressure during IBA conditions plus the weight of water in the torus, d.
TD3-These are the torus displacements due to torus internal pressure during DBA conditions plus the weight of water in the torus.
6.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge (OAB) Loads The methodology for developing the safety relief
, p
' valve discharge loads is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
- However, the pressure magnitudes I
produced by the methods described in Volume 1 of Reference 1
result in an overly conservative prediction of loads on the torus attached piping.
This conservatism has been identified and quantified in comparisons of in-plant SRV test results to analyses performed at test conditions.
A correction factor of 0.8 based on these comparisons is used in performing the analysis for SRV discharge loads.
As discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1,
a series of in plant tests will be performed at Fermi 2 after fuel load to provide
\\M DE:T-19-07 6-6 Revision 0 2.23 nutgg_h
additional confirmation that the computed loadings due to SRV discharge are conservative.
The SRV discharge loads are defined as the transient pressures which act on the submerged portion of the TAP and supports in the torus during a SRV discharge.
The SRV discharge loads consist of the following:
a.
Water Jet Impingement Loads:
During the water clearing phase of a
SRV discharge
- event, the submerged TAP and supports are subjected to transient drag pressure loads.
The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of.these loads is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1 and modified as described above.
b.
Air Bubble Drag Loads:
During the air l
clearing phase of a
SRV discharge
- event, transient drag pressure loads are postulated to act on the submerged TAP and supports.
The procedure used to develop the transient 1
forces and spatial distribution of these l
loads is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1 and modified as described above.
O 1
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.24 g
n 7.
Vent Clearing (VCLO) Loads These loads are defined as the transient pressure loads acting on the submerged portion of the TAP and supports during the water and air clearing phase of a DBA event.
a.
LOCA Water Jet Impingement Loads:
During the water clearing phase of a DBA event, the submerged portion of the TAP and supports are subjected to transient drag pressure loads.
The procedure used to develop these transient drag forces is discussed in Volume 1
of
)
i s
Reference 1.
b.
LOCA Air Bubble Drag Loads:
During the air clearing phase of a DBA event, the submerged portion of the TAP and supports are subjected to transient drag pressure loads.
The procedure used to-develop these transient drag forces is discussed in Volume 1
of Reference 1.
b DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.25
8.
Pool Swell (PSO) Loads O
These loads are defined as the transient pressure loads which act on the portion of the TAP and supports above the minimum torus water level, a.
Impact and Drag Loads:
During the initial stages of a DBA event, the TAP and supports within the torus are subjected to transient impact and drag pressures.
The procedure used to develop these pressure transients is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
b.
Froth Impingement Loads:
During the LOCA pool swell event, the TAP and supports within the torus airspace are subjected to transient pressures.
The procedure used to develop these pressure transients is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
c.
Pool Fallback Loads:
During the later phase of pool swell, the TAP and supports within the torus are subjected to transient pressures.
The procedure used to develop these pressure transients is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.26 nutech ENG4NEERS
9.
Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads During the condensation oscillation phase of a DBA event, the submerged portion of the TAP and sup-ports within the torus are subjected to harmonic velocity and acceleration drag pressures.
The procedure used to develop the harmonic drag loads is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
Included are acceleration drag loads due to torus fluid-structure interaction (FSI).
10.
Chugging Loads
)
a.
Pre-Chug (PCHUG)
Loads:
These loads are defined as single harmonic velocity and acceleration drag loads, including accelera-tion drag loads due to torus FSI effects.
They act on the submerged portion of the TAP and supports during the pre-chug phase of a
The procedure used to develop the pre-chug loads on these components is discussed in Volume 1
of Reference 1.
I a
~
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.27 Ilu
.h.
b.
Post-Chug (CHUG)
Loads:
These loads are defined as harmonic velocity and acceleration drag loads, including acceleration drag loads due to torus FSI effects.
They act on the submerged portion of the TAP and supports during the post-chug phase of a SBA, an IBA, 3
or a
DBA event.
The procedure used to develop the post-chug loads on these components is discussed in Volume 1
of Reference 1.
11.
Torus Motion Loads l
These loads are defined as the inertia and dis-placement effects at the TAP attachment points on the suppression chamber due to loads acting on the suppression chamber shell.
In general, the loads l
are derived from the analysis of the suppression chamber discussed in Volume 2 of Reference 1.
a.
SRV Torus Motion Loads:
1.
OABy These are the inertia effects of torus motions due to SRV T-quencher discharge loads.
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.28 g
ENGINEEJ4S
These are the displacement 2.
QABD effects of torus motions due to SRV T-quencher discharge loads.
The load reduction described in Load Case 6 of this section is included in the QABy and QABD loads.
b.
Pool Swell Torus Motion Loads:
These are the inertia effects l.
PSO y
of torus motions due to pool O
swell loads.
, w)
These are the displacement i
2.
PSO D
effects of torus motions due to pool swell loads.
c.
Condensation Oscillation Torus Motion Loads:
I These are the inertia effects 1.
CO of torus motions due to con-densation oscillation loads.
I i
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.29 Efr
. _ _ _. _.,,,. -, _ _ _ _.,, _.. - _., ~ _ _ _ _,, _..,
These are the displacement 2.
CO p
effects of torus motions due to condensation oscillation
- loads, d.
Pre-Chug Torus Motion Loads:
1.
PCHUGy-These are the inertia effects of torus motions due to pre-chug loads.
2.
PCHUGD-These are the displacement i
effects of torus motions due to pre-chug loads.
l e.
Post-Chug Torus Motion Loads:
These are the inertia effects 1.
CHUG I
of torus motions due to post-chug loads.
These are the displacement 2.
CHUGD effects of torus motions due l
l to post-chug loads.
l l
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.30 nut _ech_
d n()
q Table 2.2-1 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING LOADING IDENTIFIC). TION CROSS-REFERENCE LOAD DESIGNATION VOLUME 1 OF REFERENCE 1 LOAD LOAD SECTION NUMBER CATEGORY CASE NUMBER DEAD WEIGHT 1
1-3.1 SEISMIC 2
1-3.1 PRESSURE AND 2
3 1-3.1, 1-4.1.1 TEMPERATURE OPERATING 4
1-3.1 STATIC TORUS 5
1-3.1, 1-4.1.1 j
DISPLACEMENT SRV DISCl!ARGE 6
1-4.2.2, 1-4.2.4 VENT CLEARING 7
1-4.1.5, 1-4.1.6 POOL SWELL 8
1-4.1.4.2, 1-4.1.4.3, 1-4.1.4.4 CONDENSATION 9
l-4.1.7.3 OSCILLATION CHUGGING 10 1-4.1.8.3 TORUS MOTION 11 1-4.1, 1-4.2
\\
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.31 nutmh t
y@
Table 2.2-2
< a Eh LARGE BORE PIPING SYSTEM DESIGN DATA
>*= W O I 30
-4 PENETRATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION PENETRATION DESIC.N DESIGN MN OPNING NNI. MEmW m
NUMBER PIPE SITE (int PRESSURE (ps!)
TEMPERATURE (,F)
PRESSURE (ps!)
TEMPERATURE (OT)
X-205A PIPING TO SECONDARY CONTAINMENT 20 56 281 0
70 VACUUM BREAXER A X-2053 PIPING TO SECONDARY CONTAINMENT 20 56 281 0
70 VACUUM BREAXER E X-205C CONTAINMENT PURCC PIPINO C 20 62/150 340/100 0/20 70/60 X-205D CONTAINMENT PURGE PIPING D 20 62/150 340/100 0/30 7c/60 X-210A RHR TEST LINE A 10 400/150 452/335 400/150 335 X-211A RHR TO SPRAY HEADER A 6
400/150 452/335 400/150 335 X-2108 RHR TEST LINE R 18 400/150 452/335 150 335 X-211B RHR TO SPRAY HEADEP a 6
400/150 452/335 150 335 X-212 RCIC TURBINE EXHAUST 10 150 267 5/25 227/240 X-211A TwMS PUMP SUCTION A 8
15G 195 10 160 y
X-2138 WMS PUMP SUCTION 8 0
150 195 10 160 X-214 HPCI/RCIC VACUUM BREAXER 4
150 366/267 16/25 218/240 X-215 POST-LOCA H2 CONTAINMENT 4
75 340 2
150 SUCTION,DIV I X-210 POST-IDCA Hg CONTAINMENT RETURN 10 75 340 2
150 X-219 POST-lhCA H2 CONTAINMENT 10 75 340 2
150 SUCTION,DIV II X-220 HPCI TURBINE EXHAUST 24 150 366 65 300 X-221 HPCI TURBINE POT DPAIN 2
150 360 65 300 X-222 RCIC TUR81NE POT DPAIN 2
150 360 65 300 X-223A,8 RHR PUPP SCCTION A & B 24 150 335 150 335 X-223C,0 RHR PUMP SUCTION C & D 24 150 335 150 335 X-224A CORE SPRAY PUMP SUCTION A 20 125/)8 212/120 40/9 198/120 X-2248 CORE SPRAY PUMP SUCTION B 20 125/iB 212/120 40/9 190/120 X-225 HPCI PUMP SUCTION 24 125/18 140/120 35/9 120/40 j
X-226 RCIC PUMP SUCTION 8
125/18 140/120 125/9 140/120 l
X-227A CORE SPRAY TEST LINE A 10 500/125 212 275/2 198 X-2278 CORE SPRAY TEST LINE B 10 500/125 212 275/2 198 C.
r+
O O
9
i 2.2.2 Load Combinations The loads for which the TAP systems are evaluated are presented in Section 2.2.1.
The general NUREG-0661 criteria for groupinct the loads into load c-)mbinations are discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1 and summarized in Table 2.2-3.
Table 2.2-3 shows that the load combinations specified for each event can be expanded into many more load combinations than those shown.
However, not all load combinations for each event need be examined, since many have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which contain the same or additional loads.
Many of the load combinations listed in Table 2.2-3 are actually pairs of load combinations with all of the I
same loads except for seismic loads.
The first load combination in the pair contains OBE loads, while the second contains SSE loads.
As shown in Table 2.2-3, different service levels apply for non-essential and essential piping.
The conservative service levels applicable to essential piping have been applied in performing the piping analyses.
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.33 L
Table 2.2-4 presents the basis for establishing the governing loading combinations, which are listed in Table 2.2-5.
Included in the list of governing load combinations are four combinations which do not result from the 27 event combinations listed in Table 2.2-3.
These are:
Load Combination A-1, which relates to the design pressure plus dead weight condition; Load Combinations A-2 and B-1, which include the combination of normal and seismic loads; and Load Combination T-1, which relates to the hydrostatic test condition.
Evaluation of Load Combination T-1 is a requirement of the ASME Code (Reference 8).
Load Combinations A-1, A-2, and B-1 are consistent with the requirements specified in the PSAR (Reference 6).
O Load Combination D-3 has been evaluated only to demonstrate containment and piping system structural capability.
This loading combination is beyond the design basis of the plant.
l l
l The FSAR pressure and temperature loads included in the j
loading combinations are those occurring within the l
range of the Mark I Program event durations as defined l
l in the LDR (Reference 4).
l l
O' DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.34 nut.e_qh
H 4
The appropriate ASME Code equations for the torus attached piping are also provided in the governing load combination table.
Each of the listed governing load combinations for the torus attached piping as provided in Table 2.2-5 has been considered in the analysis methods described in i
Section 2.4.
I i
l i
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.35 nutgg_h
5O Tabic 2. 2-3 mm
<: a P-I ul,_,
EVENT COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE LIMITS eo O 8 FOR TORUS ATTACliED PIPING oa 4
O cs Ic)
EsA Ss4 # EQ tea *SRV SsA 6 SP.V e EQ SRV IsA IsA 4 EQ IsAGSRV IBA
- EG paA6SRV dea e SEV 9 FQ EVENT COMalNATIONS SRV 6
gg CO, CO, PS CO, CO, Ca CO, CH CH CO,CH (1) Cil PS CO, CH PS CH PS CO, CH TYPE OF EARTHQUARE C
S 0
s e
s e
s O
s e
s O
S 0
S 0
s COMsINATION NUMsER I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Il 12 1)
?4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NORMAL (2)
N I
E I
E E
I E
E I
I I
E E
E I
I I
I I
E E
I E
E I
I E
EARTHQUARE EQ E
I E
I I
E I
I I
E I
E E
_E_
I_
E I
I SRV DISCHARGE 3RV I
E E
I E
I I
I E
I_
E I
E_
E I
THERMAL Tg I
E E
I E
I 1
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
E I
i X
X X
14AOS PgPg PRESSURE P
E I
E I
E E
E I
E E
I E
I E
E E
E A
E I
E I
E I
I I
I A
IDCA POOL SWELL Ps I
I I
I E
I P
LOCA LIN8DENSATION P
I E
I E
I E
E' E
E E
OSCILLATION gg N
IDCA CHUGGING P
E I
I I
I I
I E
I I
E CH STRUCTURAL ELEMEN*
ROW g
cn 10 m
a a
a a
a e
a e
a a
a a
e e
a e
e a
e a
a a
e a
e a
ESSENTIAL I3I III I4I I4I I4I I4I I4I I4I I41 I43 I4I I43 I4I III I4I I4I I43 14I t4l I4) 443 I43 III III III I4I PIPING Sv5TEMS 11 a
a e
a e
e a
e a
a a
e WIN SsA gyg gyg ggg g4y g4, g4y g y, g3, ggg ggy ggg gg, 12 s
C D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
WITH lsA/DRA (5) (5) (5)
(5) (5) (5) 151 (5) (5) (5)
(5)
(59
- 15) (5) (5) (53
($1 ISI (5) (5) (5)
(5) til 4%I (5) til "U"jNlIhI*
SYSTEMS 13 C
C D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D WITH SsA (5)
(5) (5)
(5) (5)
($1 (51 (5) (5) (5) (5)
($1 C*
e e
e
n m
NOTES TO TABLE 2. 2-3 ga mM hY
- s. t; (1)
WHERE A DHYWELL-TO-WETWELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL IS NORMALLY UTILIZED AS A LOAD
~J MITIGATOR, AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHOUT SRV LOADINGS BUT f
ASSUMING THE LOSS OF THE PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL.
SERVICE LEVEL D LIMITS SHALL m
APPLY FOR ALL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE PIPING SYSTEM FOR THIS EVALUATION.
THE ANALYSIS NEED ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED TO THE EXTENT THAT INTEGRITY UP TO AND INCLUDING THE FIRST PRESSURE BOUNDARY ISOLATION VALVE IS DEMONSTRATED.
IF THE NORMAL PLANT OPERATING CONDITION DOES NOT EMPLOY A DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL, THE LISTED SERVICE LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS WILL BE APPLICABLE.
SINCE FERMI 2 DOES NOT UTILIZE A DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE, THE LISTED SERVICE LIMITS ARE APPLIED.
(2)
NORMAL LOADS (N) CONSIST OF DEAD LOADS (D).
(3)
AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THE 1.2 Sh LIMIT IN EQUATION 9 OF NC-3652.2 MAY BE REPLACED BY 1.8 Sh, PROVIDED THAT ALL OTHER LIMITS ARE SATISFIED.
FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL COLUMNS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 AND 25.
U (4)
FOOTNOTE 3 APPLIES EXCEPT THAT INSTEAD OF USING 1.8 Sh IN EQUATION 9 of NC-3652.2, 2.4 Sh IS USED.
(5)
EQUATION 10 OF NC-3650 WILL BE SATISFIED, EXCEPT THAT FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO COLUMNS 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 AND 25 SINCE POOL SWELL LOADINGS OCCUR ONLY ONCE.
IN ADDITION, IF OPERABILITY OF AN ACTIVE COMPONENT IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY, OPERABILITY OF THAT COMPONENT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED.
- 3 C.:
1 a
Table 2. 2 -4 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS TORUS ATTACHED PIPING T
MWNG COMB A ION COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSIN GOVERNING NUMBER (1)
COMBINATIONS (2)
BASIS SECONDARY STRESS asOUNDED 1
B-2 (3b) 8Y EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 3.
SECONDARY STRESS BOUNDED BY 2
C-1 (3a)
EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 3.
3 C-1, A-3 N/A N/A IBA BOUNDED Si EVENT COMBINA-4,5 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b) 8Y EVENT COMBINATTON NUMBER 11.
BOMED BY WT COMBDATIN 6,8,12 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 14.
m.
BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION 7,9,13 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 15.
IBA BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-10 N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA BOUNDED (3b)
BY EVENT COMDINATION NUMBER 11.
C-2, C-3 rOR SBA ONLY.
IBA BOUNDED BY (3b) 11 x.4, A-5 EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15.
-1, D-2 N/A 3fg 15 A-4 A-5 SECONDARY STRESS SOUNDED BY 14 D-1* D-2 (3,3 EVENT COM3INATION NUMBER 15 80WDED BY NT CMSMATION (3g) 16,18,22 N/A NUMBER 24.
l aOUNDED BY EVENT COMB mATION 1,
,f3 (sb)
NUMBER 25.
80 WDED BY N T COMB UATION 17,20,23 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 26.
BO M ED BY E M COB DAU CN 21 N/A (3b)
NUMBER 27 SECONDARY STRESS BOUNDEC SY 24 0-3 (3,3 EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 25.
25 D-3, A-6 N/A N/A FOR CO ONLY, DBA CHUGGINC BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION 26 D-4, A-7 NUMBER 14. SECONDARY STRESS (3b)
BOUNDED BY EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 27.
D3A CHUCCING EOUNDED BY NT COMBUATIM NUMBEP 15.
27 A-8, A-9 (3b)
EVALUATE FOR SECONDARY STRESS ONL'.".
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.38 nut 29.h_
i l
l l
i NOTES TO TABLE 2.2-4
<R 1
P-I me l
E7 (1)
EVENT COMBINATION NUMBERS REFER 'IO THE NUMBERS USED IN TABLE 2.2-3.
- s o i
j (2)
GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS ARE LISTED IN TABLE 2.2-5.
o l
(3)
EVENT COMBINATION GOVERNING BASIS:
l a.
THE GOVERNING EVENT COMBINATION CONTAINS SSE LOAOS WHICH BOUND OBE IDADS.
b.
THE GOVERNING EVENT COMBINATION CONTAINS MORE LOADS WHILE THE ALLOWABLE i-t LIMITS ARE THE SAME.
l l
l
'I w
I l
u e
i 1
I 4
1 1
+
1 l
1 3
m,
)
i Table 2.2-5 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING NUREG-0661 LOAD LOAD COMBINATIONS (1' 5 ' 6)
CODE COMBINATION NUMBER EQUATION A-1 P + DW + OL 8
10(3)
A-2 TE + THAM + TD + OBED 10(3)
A-3 TE + THAM + TD + QABD + SSED A-4 TE1 + THAM 1 + TD1 or TD2 + PCHUGo + QABo + SSEo 10(3) 10 (3)
A-5 TE1 + THAM 1 + TD1 or TD2 + CHUGD + CABD + SSED 10(3)
A-6 TC1 + THA211 + TD3 + PSOD + QABo + SSED A-7 I4)
TE1 + THMil + TD3 + COD + OBED 10 (3) 10(3)
A-8 TE1 + THM11 + TD3 + PCHUGD + QABo + SSED 10 (3)
A-9 TE1 + THAM 1 + TD3 + CHUGD + QABD + SSED B-1 Po + DW + OBEr + OL 9
+ OL 9
B-2 Po + DW + QAB + QABI C-1(7)
Po + CW + QAB + QABI + SSEr + OL 9
C-2 Po + DW + PCHUG + PCHUGI + QAB + QABI + OL 9
C-3 Po + DW + CHUG + CHUGI + QAB + CABI + OL 9
D-1 Po + DW + PCHUG + PCHUGI + QAB + QABg + SSEg + CL 9
D-2 Po + DW + CHUG + CHUGI + QAB + QABI + SSEI + OL 9
+ VCLO + QAB + QABI + SSE: + OL 9
g D-4(4)
Po + CW + CO + COI + OBE; + OL 9
T-1(8) 1,25P + DW 8
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.40 nut _ech_
k
's N0 l
h.7 NOTES TO TABLE 2.2-5 mr re Og (1)
SEE SECTION 2.2.1 FOR DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL LOADS.
o$
(2)
EQUATIONS ARE DEFINED IN SUBSECTION NC-3650 OF THE ASME CODE (REFERENCE 8 ).
e (3)
AS AN ALTERNATE, MEET EQUATION 11 OF THE ASME CODE (REFERENCE 8).
(4)
FOR THE DBA CONDITION, SRV DISCHARGE LOADS NEED NOT BE COMBINED WITH CO AND CHUGGING LOADS.
(5)
SEE SECTION 2.2.3 FOR COMBINATION OF DYNAMIC LOADS.
i
]
(6)
ONLY GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS FROM TABLE 2.2-4 ARE CONSIDERED HERE.
1 (7)
THE LARGER OF OBE OR SSE IS USED.
(8)
HYDROSTATIC TEST CONDITION.
DW FOR ALL LINES SHALL BE WITH LINES FULL OF WATER AT 70 F.
j N
l 1
A V'
i i
l i!
2.2.3 Combination of Dynamic Loads O
In
- general, the methods used in the analyses for combining dynamic loads are conservatively based on NUREG-0484,
" Methodology for Combining Dynamic Responses" (Reference 11).
As described in NUREG-0484, when the time-phase relationship between the responses caused by two or more sources of dynamic loading is undefined or
- random, the peak responses from the individual loads are combined by absolute sum (except for combined SSE and LOCA loads).
The peak responses which result from SSE and LOCA loads are combined using the SRSS technique.
The methodology permitted by the NRC in Reference 10 has been selectively used in the analyses to reduce the predicted response of the piping.
As allowed by l
Reference 10, the method used in combining dynamic l
loads is the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method.
l l
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.42 nutggh
2.)
Analysis Acceptance Criteria k
The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Fermi 2 TAP analysis is based are discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
In general, the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in the ASME Code,Section III, Division 1 up to and including the 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 2 piping (Reference 8).
The corresponding service level
- limits, allowable
- stresses, and essentiality classification are also i
consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and NUREG-0661.
The torus attached piping is a'nalyzed in accordance with the requirements for Class 2 piping systems contained in Subsection NC of the Code.
The
! [I t
NUREG-0661 service level limits and corresponding ASME Code allowable stresses for an essential classification l
have been applied in the piping system analyses.
Table 2.3-1 lists the applicable ASME Code equations and stress limits for each of the governing piping load combinations for an essential system classification.
j DET-19-076-6 l
Revision 0 2.43 nutggb
Table 2.3-1 APPLICABLE ASME CODE EQUATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR TORUS ATTACHED PIPING ALLOWABLE A
E CODE GOVERNING LOAD STRESS SERVICE STRESS VALUE EQUATION COMBINATION TYPE LEVEL LIMIT (ksi)
NUMBER ( 3)
NUMBER (1,2)
PRIMARY 8
A 1.0 S 15.0/18.6 A-1, T-1 h
PRIMARY 9
B 1.2 S
~
~
h PRIMARY 9
B 1.8 S
- 27. 0/33. 4 8 C-1 THROUGH C-3 h
PRIMARY 9
B 2.4 S 36.0/44.64 D-1 THROUGH D-4 h
SECONDARY 10 B
1.0 S 22.5/27.9 A-2 THROUGH A-9 a
PRIMARY AND 11 B
S+a 37.5/46.5 (4) h SECONDARY NOTES:
(1)
INCREASED ALLOWABLES AS DEFINED IN NUREG-0661 ( REFERENCE 3)
CAN BE USED FOR PIPING SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS NON-ESSENTI AL.
(2)
CARBON STEEL / STAINLESS STEEL (3)
GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATION NUMBERS ARE LISTED IN TABLE 2.2-5.
l (4)
SEE ASME CODE, SECTION III, SUBSECTION NC, PARAGRAPH NC-3652.3 (REFERENCE 8) FOR COMBINATION OF LOADS.
i I
l O
DET-19-076-6 i
l Revision 0 2.44 nutp_gh
2.4 Methods of Analysis This section describes the methods of analysis used to evaluate the large bore (4" in diameter and larger) piping and supporting systems attached to the torus both internally and externally, for the effects of the governing loads as described in Section 2.2.
As described in Section 2.1, selected small diameter torus internal piping systems have also been evaluated using the analytical methods described in this section.
Table 2.4-1 summarizes the specific analytical techniques used in analyzing the piping systems for 1
each loading.
\\
The methodology used to develop the structural models of the TAP systems is presented in Section 2.4.1.
The methodology used to obtain results for the governing load combinations and to evaluate the analysis results for comparison with the acceptance limits is discussed in Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, and 2.4.4.
The approach used to address fatigue effects is presented in Section 2.4.5.
A
- standard, commercially available piping analysis j
l l
computer code, PISTAR, is used in performing the piping system analyses.
The computer code is based on the
\\
l DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.45 n
well known SAP computer code, and has been verified using ASME benchmark problems.
The PISTAR program performs
- static, modal extraction, uniform response spectra, multiple response spectra, and dynamic time-history analyses of piping systems.
It also performs ASME Code piping evaluations.
O t
l l
l O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.46 nutp_qh
f Table 2.4-1
SUMMARY
OF ANALYSIS METHODS FOR LARGE BORE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING I,OAD ANALYSIS METHOD NUMB DW l
STATIC OBEY 2a RESPONSE SPECTRUM 2b STATIC CBED SSE 2c RESPCNSE SPECTRUM g
SSE d
D P,
3a (1)
P 3a(1)
TE 3b STATIC TE1 3b STATIC THAM 3b STATIC THAM 1 3b STATIC OL 4
STATIC TD Sa STATIC
(,
N TD Sb STATIC 1
Se STATIC TD2 TD3 Sd STATIC QAB 6a,b EQUIVALENT STATIC VCLO 7a,b EQUIVALENT STATIC PSO 8a,b,c EQUIVALENT STATIC CO 9
DYNAMIC PCHUG 10a DYNAMIC I
CHUG 10b DYNN4IC QABy, QABp llat,a2 COUPLED DYNAMIC C4I I2I PSO llbi CCUPLED DYNAMIC
/MRSM g
STATIC ($I lib 2 PSOD II CO llci COUPLED DYNAMIC
/MRSM y
I 11C STATIC COD 2
I PCHUG lidi COUPLED DYNAMIC
/MRSM 7
STATIC ($}
lld2 PCHUGp y
llet COUPLED DYNAMIC
/MRSM( I CHUG CHUGo lle2 STATIC ( '
>0 V
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.47 nutp_qh
NOTES TO TABLE 2.4-1
??
?Y 0$
OS (1)
TIIE EFFECTS OF INTERNAL PRESSURE ARE EVALUATED UTILIZING T!!E TECilNIQUES DESCRIBED IN SUBPARAGRAPil NC-3650 OF Tile ASME CODE, m
SECTION III (REFERENCE 8).
(2)
Tile COUPLED DYNAMIC ANALYSIS METIIOD FOR TORUS MOTION LOADS AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2. 4. 4 fl AS BEEN UTILIZED FOR ALL PIPING SYSTEMS LISTED IN TABLE 1.1-1 EXCEPT LINES X-214, X-215, X-218, X-219, X-224A, X-224B, X-225, AND X-226.
FOR TilESE LINES, TIIE COUPLED DYNAMIC ANALYSIS METilOD WAS APPLIED FOR Tile GOVERNING LOAD CASE ONLY.
Tile MULTIPLE RESPONSE SPECTRA METIIOD (MRSM) WAS TilEN APPROPRI ATELY CALIBRATED AND APPLIED FOR Tile REMAINING LOAD CASES.
(3)
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF Tile ANALYSIS METilODS USED FOR TilIS LOADING IS PRESENTED IN SECTION 2.4.3.
(4)
A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TIIE ANALYSIS METilODS USED FOR TIIIS' LOADING IS PRESENTED IN SECTION 2.4.4.
(5)
DISPLACEMENT LOADS ARE APPLIED SEPARATELY WilEN INERTIA LOADS ARE ANALYZED BY MRSM.
FOR Tile COUPLED DYNAMIC MET!IOD, BOTIl Tile INERTIA AND DISPLACEMENT LOADS ARE INCLUDED IN Tile ANP. LYSIS.
,.+
l"O O
O e
i 2.4.1 Large Bore Torus Attached Piping Structural Modeling d
The structural models used in the analysis of the large bore TAP systems fall into the following two categories:
piping models which represent systems with only torus external piping, and piping models which include both torus internal and torus external piping.
Figures 2.4-1 through 2.4-5 show representa-tive torus internal and external piping models.
The piping systems are modeled as multi-degree of freedom, finite element systems consisting of straight and curved beam elements using a lumped mass formula-A tion.
A sufficient amount of detail is used to accur-ately represent the dynamic behavior of the piping
(
systems for the applied loads.
Flexibility and stress intensification factors based on the ASME Code,Section III, Class 2 piping requirements are also included in the model formulations.
The mass and flexibility properties of in-line valves are included in the piping structural models.
Torus external piping supports included in the models consist of snubbers, struts, spring hangers, and their backup structures.
Where
- required, an element is included to model the offset connection between the supporting member and the centerline of the pipe.
DET-19-076-6 l
Revision 0 2.49
Snubbers are modeled as active in seismic and other dynamic load cases, while struts are active in all load cases.
Spring hangers, with appropriate preloads, are modeled as active in the dead weight load case only.
The effects of the mass of supports and connecting hardware attached to the piping are included in the piping models when the effective support mass attached to the piping exceeds 5% of the mass of both adjacent pipe spans.
Stiffness values at a piping support location are established considering the combined effects of the snubber or strut and its backup supporting structure.
For piping models that include torus internal piping, the entire piping system including the internal supports connected to the torus, is included in the model.
The hydrodynamic mass acting on submerged portions of the piping and supports is also included in the model, using the methods described in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
Boundary conditions for the piping models at the torus consist of the torus penetration and attachment points for the torus internal piping supports.
The local stiffness of the torus is included at these location.s in the form of six degree-of-freedom linear springs for nut,OSh_
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.50
I' all analyses except the coupled torus mction analyses.
Theso local stiffnesses are represented by the torus modal characteristics when performing the coupled torus
~
motion analyses of the piping systems.
Model boundary conditions at the torus external piping termination points consist of rigid anchors at support or equipment (pump, turbine) locations.
Large stiffness values are specified in the models at these locations.
In some cases, piping models have been truncated at locations where combined stress levels due to Mark I Program loadings are less than 10% of the appropriate ASME Code allowables.
For these models,
'N truncation points have been modeled at supports by simulating the mass and stif fness of the piping system beyond the support location.
Branch lines are included in the piping models unless they meet uncoupling criteria based on the relative moments of inertia of the branch line and main line.
A conservative moment of inertia ratio of 40 to 1 is l
used. These criteria ensure that omission of the branch line will not influence the behavior of-the main line.
The evaluation of the omitted branch lines has been considered in Section 3.0.
i l
. O l
DET-19-076-6 4
Revision 0 2.51 NL
W5**1 y
}<3- =.uesen
= =.mmr
\\ a cuac (casemme n m )
coo =c atu ersrew O ~=
. mes to (w au esewu) b WS 5
-r &
.:/he su a
sa sie a
em f
%,7 o f .,, su u
.o a
u 4*
' em
%I:7 som 4
u.
iL7 ses y
ut fo 1,
- sess so.
638 u as
.o, m._
so u,
91
GM tw u." "
Figure 2.4-1 TAP SYSTEM STRUCTURAL MODEL (LINE X-223 AND X-223B)
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.52 h
nut _egERS
O Y
D HANGER j
% SNUSSER l
81640NESTsandf a
ANCHOR E
(*"'*NNENT NOEZLE)
CoomoweATs avsTew sta 0 -zo
- Noos 10 (NOT ALL SHoww) s NoOE ATTACHED M M 4'
g<>
soi Gon y,,
e%
c,oi 605 6t4
'2*" *
\\=
a g3 j,\\
sit o i.
r
" GOS e,s4 ce e
'L1 es,a, er.
T',,,,
w as
~~
OH G03 Gio w,
w o
l oo4 nrte u
s
'% "** eN
.. ru
%w vi *'*^
1 l
l Figure 2.4-2 l
l TAP SYSTEM STRUCTURAL MODEL (LINE X-224A)
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.53 nutg..hg RS E
usam I-O-Hausam 1-C3-SNWS&gg l
mmosasfauwf es,
+
m (ca seemeNT worzts)
O _,,
N008 ZD (NOT Au SHoww) 8 s.
_g.
G33 m
sa.
os 8
4 Gm G34 o
an w
a o
ese m
sa as
/p s
'O Y
esti a
n
.b=,m a
CoostOINATE SYSTesse Figure 2.4-3 TAP SYSTEM STRUCTURAL MODEL (LINE X-220)
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.54 nut _ec__h
O
@ MANGER
}<3= SNUBSER, m ausreuwr i seameur wounts)
O ~==
l woon zotworau o aww) sai e woos ATrAcuso ioineus k" iis
.=
95 k
5 85 to
's
,,.o
'60 j
,235 f
' 130 85 see
'50 e.
30 Sor
45
'280 5
ms aos ice a 2t2 ga e os.
. g gm e
too,n IS' es 25
= ass e 4o son o 31 0 x 282 A J17 390 Figure 2.4-4 TAP SYSTEM STRUCTURAL MODEL (LINE X-212)
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.55 nutp_qh
hh Esw WM*
- i?
sa- -.-
(n W F*- @
GI4
% SNUBSEfL 44 O 8 UO y
l unssoattituMT oy gwgg-W unmeseu a
Glo GIS 8
6e SUPP08tT 10 O
NOCE ID (NOT ALL SHowni)
< 8 e teoos Avracuso iniom s ese W., -
Gas Gas di p
68 6f1 if if 644 m
- gni, j
p* ; $
Gee z
Gas di "*"*
CoostDeNATE SYSTE*4 Ln Datuneet treur eiEAcest o
I 685 g
M ATuftrak SAv
,A
+
!(e
- s.,e M
l GeS s+
' ca.
m i
9 M
3 Figure 2.4-5 C
P4" TAP SYSTEM STRUCTURAL MODEL (LINE X-210B AND X-211B)
G
'O e e
G
2.4.2 Methods of Analysis for FSAR and Static Torus Displacement Loads The following loads, which are described in Section 2. 2.1, represent the FSAR and static torus displacement loads for which the TAP systems are analyzed.
1.
Dead Weight 2.
Seismic 3.
Pressure and Temperature 4.
Operating 5.
Static Torus Displacement The methods used to analyze the piping systems for the above loads are described as follows:
1.
Dead Weight (DW) Loads A static analysis is performed for the uniformly distributed and concentrated weight
- loads, including insulation and pipe contents, applied to the TAP systems.
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.57
@g
2.
Seismic Loads O
a.
OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads:
A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions (N-S, E-W, and vertical) using the uniform response spectra method.
A value of 1/2% of critical damping is used in 4.,ccordance with the FSAR.
All modes up to 33 hertz are considered in calculating the peak response of the piping system.
b.
OBE Displacement (OBED)
Loads:
A static analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions.
The relative anchor displacements at the torus penetration and reactor building slabs are conservatively considered to be out of phase.
c.
SSE Inertia (SSE1) Loads:
A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions using the uniform response spectra method.
A value of 1% of critical damping is used in accordance with the FSAR.
All modes up to 33 hertz are DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.58 nut _e9_h.
considered in calculating the peak response of the piping systems.
4-d.
SSE Displacement (SSED)
Loads:
A static 4
analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions.
The relative anchor displacements at the torus i
penetration and reactor building slabs are conservatively considered to be out of phase.
The methodology used to combine modal responses and spatial components in the seismic analysis is defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92,
" Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components.in Seismic Response Analysis" (Reference 12).
The individual modal responses are grouped by frequencies (within 10%) and the modal responses within each group are combined by absolute sum.
The responses of each group are then combined by the SRSS method.
The seismic analysis is performed independently for each of the two horizontal directions and for the vertical direction.
The resulting peak responses obtained for each of the three directions are combined by the SRSS method.
l O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.59 nut l
3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads a.
Pressure Loads:
The effects of maximum operating pressure (Po) and design pressure (P) are evaluated utilizing the techniques described in Subsection NC-3650 of the ASME Code,Section III (Reference 8).
The values of P
and P
used in the analysis are g
discussed in Section 2.2.1.
b.
Temperature Loads:
A static thermal expan-sion analysis is performed for the piping temperature cases TE and TE1 using the temperatures discussed in Section 2.2.1.
A static analysis is performed for anchor movement loads (THAM and THAM 1) at the torus supports and penetrations, as described in Section 2.2.1.
4.
Operating (OL) Loads l
Operating loads are applied to the TAP systems as static piping end segment thrust
- loads, as described in Section 2.2.1.
O DET-19-076-6 nut.eSh l
Revision 0 2.60
5.
Static Torus Displacement Loads The static displacements of the suppression l
chamber at the TAP penetration locations due to 1
i normal (TD) and accident (TD, TD2, TD3) condition i
(
torus pressures and torus dead weight are applied l
to each piping system as an applied displacement load case.
I i
l I
i i
1 0
DET-19-076-6 gg{
Revision 0 2.61
2.4.3 Methods of Analysis for Hydrodynamic Loads O
Portions of TAP systems internal to the torus are subjected to hydrodynamic drag loads as a result of SRV discharge and LOCA events,
'as discussed ih Section 2.2.1.
The methods used to analyze the piping for these loads are described as follows:
6.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge (QAB) Loads a.
Water Jet Impingement Loads:
Water jet pres-sure loadings are evaluated by multiplying the drag pressures by the appropriate submerged piping projected areas, converting them to nodal piping forces.
An equivalent static analysis is performed by multiplying the forces by a value of 2.0, which is the maximum dynamic load factor (DLF) for the rectangular pulse loading.
The final 1
l analysis results are multiplied by a scale factor of 1.5 to account for the effects of multimode response using the methods provided in IEEE Standard 344-1975 (Reference 13).
b.
Air Bubble Drag Loads:
An equivalent static analysis of the piping systems is performed O
l DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.62 nutgqh r
-.a w -
-w
to evaluate the acceleration drag and standard drag forces imparted to the submerged portions of piping.
The applied equivalent static loads represent the peak dynamic loads from the loading transient multiplied by a DLF of 3.0.
The DLF has been established based on test results as discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The final analysis results are multiplied by a scale factor of 1.5, as described in Load Case 6a.
7.
Vent Clearing (VCLO) Loads a.
LOCA Water Jet Impingement Loads:
An equiva-lent static analysis method is used to apply the LOCA jet loads to submerged portions of the piping models.
For a given jet loading time-history, the peak DLF for the structure within the load frequency range (1 to 50 hertz) is determined.
The equivalent static load applied to each segment of piping is equal to the product of the peak jet load section force and the appropriate DLF.
The final analysis results are multiplied by a scale factor of 1.5, as described in Load
(
Case 6a.
Ngh,hQ DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.63
b.
LOCA Air Bubble Drag Loads:
An equivalent static analysis is performed to evaluate the acceleration drag and standard drag forces imparted to the submerged portions of the piping.
For a given loading time-history, the peak DLP for the structure within the load frequency range (1
to 50 hertz) is determined.
A scale factor of 1.5 is applied to the analysis results, as described in Load Case 6a.
8.
Pool Swell (PSO) Loads The method of equivalent static loads is used in analyzing the piping systems for the effects of pool swell loads.
The applied equivalent static piping section forces are equal to the peak section forces multiplied by their corresponding DLF's.
These section forces are converted into nodal forces for application to the piping models.
a.
Impact and Drag Loads:
Horizontal torus internal piping above the elevation of the downcomers is subjected to pool swell impact and drag loads.
The impact and drag pressure transients are distributed uniformly over the O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.64 nutggh
affected piping surface.
The load is applied U
in the upward direction most critical to the piping within the specified load directional range.
The impact plus drag loading tran-sient consists of a sharp triangular impulse followed by a rectangular drag loading.
The combined DLF value for this transient is 1.7.
In some cases where the impact load component does not exist, a DLF of 2.0 is utilized to account for the drag load component.
b.
Froth Impingement Loads:
The pool swell froth loading time-history is a rectangular pulse which has a maximum DLP value of 2.0.
Froth impingement loads are applied to piping located within the suppression chamber, as defined in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
i c.
Pool Fallback Loads:
Following the pool swell transient, the pool water falls back to its original level, creating drag loads on piping inside the torus.
The fallback loading is a triangular pulse and is applied statically to the piping using a DLF value of 1.25.
I O
DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 2.65
The final pool swell loading analysis results for each of the above loads are multiplied by a scale factor of 1.5, as described in Load Case 6a.
9.
Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the CO drag force is composed of both velocity and acceleration drag components.
The drag forces are determined based on the summation of 50 harmonic loading functions.
A detailed description of the harmonic loadi'ng functions as well as the procedures used in applying the loads are discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
Once the amplitudes of the drag forces for a given piping system have been determined, they are converted to the PISTAR coordinate system and applied as PISTAR nodal forces.
Given the harmonic nodal force t'ime-histories for acceleration and standard drag as well as the results of a PISTAR mode-frequency analysis for each piping
- system, a
steady-state response calculation is carried out using the modal O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.66 nute_gh
superposition method.
The torus FSI effect is (y
also considered in the analysis.
10.
Chugging Loads a.
Pre-Chug (PCHUG)
Loads:
As described in Section 2.2.1, the pre-chug load definition is a single harmonic velocity and accelera-tion drag loading.
The defined loading amplitude is
- 2
- psi, and the loading frequency is in the 6.9 to 9.5 hertz range.
The specific frequency chosen for performing the piping analysis is the frequency that is most critical for the particular piping system being evaluated.
Details of the w
loading definition are described in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The pre-chug loading is applied to the piping models as a
nodal
- force, and a dynamic response analysis is carried out to obtain maximum system response.
Torus FSI effects are also included in the analysis.
b.
Post-Chug (CHUG) Loads:
The post-chug load-ing definition is similar to that for CO in i
that it is defined as a 50 harmonic forcing
(
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.67 nutgqb
function.
The piping analysis procedures for post-chug loads are the same as for the CO loads described above.
O O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.68
2.4.4 Methods of Analysis for Torus Motions 11.
Torus Motion Loads i
Torus motion loads, as discussed in Section 2.2.1, are considered for the analysis of allflarge bore torus attached piping systems.
This section 4
describes the methods of analysis for the follow-ing torus motion load cases:
a.
SRV Torus Motion (QAB QABD) y, b.
Pool Swell Torus Motion (PSOy, PSOD) c.
Condensation Oscillation Torus Motion (COy, COD)
PCHUGD) d.
Pre-Chug Torus Motion (PCHUGy, e.
Post-Chug Torus Motion (CHUG, CHUGD) y l
The coupling analysis method and/or multiple response spectra method (MRSM) is/are utilized to l
obtain piping response for the five torus motion i
load cases.
The methods of analysis for each j
torus motion event are described in the following paragraphs.
i f
f DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 2.69
Coupling Analysis The conventional method for performing dynamic analyses of piping systems attached to and excited
~
by structures such as containments is to perform independent uncoupled dynamic analyses of the containment and of the supported piping.
A detailed model of the structure is first developed.
This model often accounts for the mass of the supported piping but not its dynamic characteristics.
A dynamic analysis of the uncoupled containment is then performed, and the respor'Pe time-history at the attachment point of the supported piping is obtained.
This response time-history or the corresponding spectra is then used to calculate the response of an uncoupled dynamic model of the piping.
This conventional method of analysis is termed an uncoupled analysis because the dynamic models of the containment and the piping are never directly coupled or combined.
Conventional uncoupled analyses tend to over-estimate the response of the supported piping.
The response at the piping attachment point obtained from the uncoupled containment analysis will include the contribution of all uncoupled DET-19-076-6 g
Revision 0 2.70
containment modes excited by the input time-V history.
The spectra of this response will show amplified spectral peaks at each of-the significant uncoupled containment modes.
If the uncoupled piping system has natural modes near these spectral
- peaks, then the uncoupled containment response will engender an amplified response of the piping system.
However, when the uncoupled containment and piping natural modes are nearly the same, the piping system will in reality inhibit the response of the containment at that frequency, and the containment response will be less than that obtained from an uncoupled containment analysis.
This effect is particularly significant for the SRV, pre-chug, and CO torus motion
- analyses, since the LDR requires
+
consideration of a range of frequencies for these loadings.
The coupled analysis technique includes the " tuning" of the loading frequencies to the critical piping response frequencies.
This overestimation of piping response may be corrected by performing a
coupled analysis in which a single dynamic model including both the torus and piping is used.
In this way, the coupling ef fects between the torus and piping are i
s DET-19-076-6 gd Revision 0 2.71
automatically included.
- However, a
coupled analysis of this type is not practical for the majority of the torus attached piping systems.
For these systems, a computer program based on CMDOF (Reference 14) has been developed which is used to incorporate the coupling effects into the results of the uncoupled torus and piping analyses.
This program has been formulated in the time domain.
For loads such as pool swell, where the torus load definition is defined in the time
- domain, the coupling program may be applied directly.
For other LOCA-related loads such as CO and chug-ging, which are defined in the frequency domain, the coupling program is not directly applicable.
The coupling program is also impractical for 1
performing analyses for SRV loads due to the wide range of forcing frequencies involved and the number of separate load cases that must be considered when performing the " tuning" analysis.
Transfer Function Approach In order to facilitate application of the coupling methods for the CO,
- chugging, and SRV loads, a
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.72 nutgqh
i transfer function approach, based on a white noise
^
i time-history analysis, is utilized in conjunction with the coupling program.
This method provides i
for determination of the critical coupled response frequencies of the piping systems, which are in turn used in selecting the appropriate frequencies of the applied loadings.
The transfer functions relate piping system
~
response to torus shell forcing functions, and are calculated in the time domain by applying to the mathematical model of the torus a white noise time-history with a
spatial distribution equivalent to that specified for the particular hydrodynamic load under consideration.
The resulting uncoupled torus shell motions are then used in conjunction with piping and torus modal characteristics to obtain the coupled piping i
responses in the time domain.
These time domain piping responses, together with the white noise l
time-history that is employed for the torus forcing function, are then transformed into the frequency domain using standard fast-fourier transform methods.
The transfer function of the piping system is then obtained by dividing the i
I white noise response by the white noise input in DET-19-076-6 Qd Revision 0 2.73 k
the frequency domain.
The critical piping response frequencies are then obtained by examining the relative magnitudes of the transfer function peaks.
Knowing the critical piping response frequencies, appropriate frequencies from the range of CO, chugging, and SRV load frequencies can be selected to determine the forcing functions to be applied to the torus.
The forcing function time-histories are then transformed into the frequency domain and multiplied by the transfer function to obtain piping system responses in the frequency domain which, in turn, are transformed back into the time domain to conclude the process.
For CO and post-chug
- loads, it is also necessary to sum the responses from each of the 50 harmonics that must be considered.
The basic steps involved in performing the coupled / transfer function TAP analysis are shown in the flow chart provided in Figure 2.4-6.
The specific coupling analysis procedure used for each category of torus motions load is described as follows:
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.74 nutp_qh
a.
SRV Torus Motion 1.
Using the mathematical models of the torus attached piping systems described in Section 2.4.1, the uncoupled piping dynamic characteristics (mode shapes and frequencies) are determined using the PISTAR piping analysis program.
All modes up to 60 hertz have been con-sidered in the analysis.
2.
Similarly, using the finite element model of a
1/32 segment of the suppression chamber as described in Volume 2
of Reference 1,
the torus dynamic characteristics (mode shapes and frequencies) are determined.
The STARDYNE computer program is used for this analysis.
l l
3.
The time-history response of the suppression chamber at the torus-pipe intersection due to a band limited white noise time-history is determined.
The DET-19-076-6 s
Revision 0 2.75 nutggh l
STARDYNE computer program is used for this analysis.
4.
Using information derived in Steps 1
through 3 above, the coupled response of the piping system at the torus-pipe intersection due to the white noise input is determined using the coupling computer program.
5.
The reaction time-history at the torus-pipe intersection is obtained from Step 4,
and is used in calculating the response of the piping system due to the white noise input using the modal super-t position technique.
In performing the
- analyses, the contribution of system frequencies above 60 hertz is also included to account for high-frequency static response of the piping system.
6.
Transformation of the white noise response time-history from Step 5 and the input white noise time-history to the frequency domain is then performed using the fast-fourier transform method. O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.76
7.
The transfer function for each component s
of the piping system is calculated by dividing the white noise response by the white noise input in the frequency domain.
8.
Critical piping frequencies within the prescribed SRV load frequency range are obtained from the transfer functions.
9.
The torus safety relief valve bubble loading is generated by " tuning" the SRV bubble pressure frequency to the piping critical frequencies obtained in Step 8.
O I
10.
The
" tuned" torus shell load time-histories are transformed into the frequency domain using the fast-fourier transform method.
11.
Piping response in the frequency domain for each piping component is computed by multiplying the transfer function (determined in Step 7) times the torus shell load in the frequency domain obtained in Step 10.
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.77 n
12.
Final piping time-history responses are derived from piping response in the frequency domain (Step 11) by using the inverse fast-fourier transform method.
13.
The peak of the time-history response is selected for the piping stress evaluation, b.
Pool Swell Torus Motion 1.
Uncoupled torus and torus attached piping system mode shapes and frequencies, as described above, are again utilized.
l 2.
The actual time-history response of the suppression chamber is determined at the torus-pipe intersection due to the pool swell pressure time-history load.
3.
The coupled response of the piping system at the torus-pipe intersection due to the pool swell load input is determined using the coupling computer program.
l O
DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 2.78
4.
The reaction time-history at the torus-pipe intersection is obtained from Step 3, and is used in calculating the final response time-history using the modal superposition technique.
5.
The peak of the time-history response is selected for the piping stress evaluation.
The inertial component of the pool swell loading is considered using the above procedure.
A separate analysis is performed for the static torus displacement component of the pool swell load.
Piping responses due to both load com-ponents are combined in the final piping stress evaluation.
c.
Condensation Oscillation and Chugging Torus i
Motions 1.
Transfer functions relating piping responses to CO, pre-chug, and post-chug torus internal j
pressures are obtained in a manner similar to Steps 1 through 7,
described above for SRV l
torus motion.
I t
t DET-19-076-6 Qd Revision 0 2.79
2.
Calculations are then performed to obtain piping responses in the frequency domain utilizing tne fast-fourier transform technique and applying amplitudes of pressure versus frequency for the condensation oscil-lation and post-chug load cases.
The pres-sure amplitudes and frequencies utilized for condensation oscillation and post-chug loads are defined in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The pre-chug load is defined as a single harmonic with an amplitude of i2 psi in the frequency range of 6.9 to 9.5 hertz.
The selection of the critical piping frequency in this range is based on the transfer function peak which occurs most frequently.
3.
For CO and post-chug, the frequency domain harmonic response is conservatively determined for each of the 50 defined harmonic forcing frequencies as the product of the pressure amplitude and the peak of the transfer function in each frequency band.
4.
The final time domain response for the CC load case is obtained as the direct sum of 50 0 DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.80 g
harmonic responses which are randomly phased by introduction of a set of 50 random phase angles.
This sum is then multiplied by a factor of 1.15.
Use of this empirically derived factor assures that results obtained from the selected set of random phase angles will bound results obtained considering a
large number of sets of 50 phase angles.
Cumulative distribution functions of analytical and test data form the basis fo'r this random phasing technique.
The criteria for non-exceedance probability as defined in General Electric's Report No.
NEDE-24840 (Reference 15) has been met by applying the (L
above procedures.
5.
For the post-chug case, the final time domain response is obtained as the absolute sum of the 50 harmonic responses.
The phase angles are set to zero in this case.
6.
The peak magnitude of the time domain response for CO, pre-chug, and post-chug load cases is selected for the piping stress evaluation.
i
'D DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.81
Multiple Response Spectra Method (MRSM) Analysis O
An alternate method of analysis was utilized for analyzing selected torus motion loads on selected TAP systems in lieu of the coupling method described above.
The alternate method is termed the multiple response spectra method (MRSM), and is performed using the PISTAR computer program.
The MRSM method of analysis calculates the dynamic responses of the TAP system due to a single support motion input.
The inertial component of torus input motion is in the form of acceleration response spectra curves in the three orthogonal translational directions.
The displacement components of the torus input motion are analyzed by applying static end displacement loads to the piping at the torus connection.
The MRSM analysis technique generally over-estimates the TAP responses as compared to the coupled analysis method.
To account for the effects of coupling, reduction factors have been developed which are used to adjust the MRSM response accordingly.
The reduction factor technique for reducing MRSM analysis response is based on consideration of the high degree of O
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.82 nutp_qh
similarity between the five torus motion loading inputs at a given piping attachment point on the torus.
Coupling reduction factors are generated by performing both a coupled and a MRSM analysis for the critical torus motion loading for a
particular TAP line.
Once the coupled /MSRM reduction factor for the critical loading is i
determined for the line, piping responses due to MRSM analyses performed for other torus motion loads are reduced by multiplying by the reduction factor.
In cases where torus motion loading magnitudes are small, the MRSM analysis technique has been utilized without applying reduction factors to account for coupling.
i v) t DET-19-076-6 Qd Revision 0 2.83 r
.,...--y
, i-.--._
,-_._-,.c
-_.,r,-._,,
,,._.,..,-,y,_
,_,_.--,-cm,--
STARDYNE PISTAR TORUS PIPING j
s/
MODEL MODEL IP 1p MODAL PROPERTIES MODAL WHITE NOISE RESPONSE PROPERTIES TIME-HISTORY COUPLING PROGRAM o
COUPLED PIPING
RESPONSE
TRANSFER RESP NSE TO FREQUENCY DOMAIN COMPUTE TRANSFER FUNCTION
- DETERMINE CRITICAL PIPING RESPONSE FREQUENCIES SELECT TORUS MOTION CRITICAL LOADING FREQUENCIES COMPUTE PIPING RESPONSES l
AT CRITICAL LOAD FREQUENCIES USING TRANSFER FUNCTIONS y
PERFORM PIPING STRESS EVALUATION Figure 2.4-6 TAP COUPLED / TRANSFER FUNCTION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.84 nute.S_h.
s
+h+
0
(([//gY6 [ #v
- b<;>k/
4#
IMAGE EVALUATION f
gpfj g c/
TEST TARGET (MT-3)
++<>
<<%r
,.o vl..
E @ Els' ip m u
~
L'i 1.25 1.4
]
i.6 150mm 4
6" 4
6%
++
+?h$$//f
' % g.[d
h 4# #
0
(([ Y [ f[%
- <# k/
IMAGE EVALUATION f
4 fj/\\
I
%f TEST TARGET (MT-3)
+4 >
<s +
s l.0 lf 2 E E!$E ii
[= En h3 1.25 l
1.4 1.6 t
=
150mm 4
6" 4
l
%ll%
+4
'S)tffb
/
2.4.5 Fatigue Evaluation Section 4.3.3.2 of NUREG-0661 (Reference 3) requires that a fatigue evaluation of the SRV and torus attached piping be performed for all loading conditions except pool swell.
The Mark I
Owners Group prepared and submitted a generic fatigue evaluation report (Reference 9) to the NRC on November 30, 1982.
The report addressed fatigue 1
on a generic basis using actual piping analysis results from essentially all Mark I plants.
The resulting cumulative usage factors are below 0.5, demonstrating that further plant unique fatigue evaluations are not l
warranted.
Therefore, the Fermi 2 TAP is adequate for fatigue based on this generic evaluation.
l l
l i
\\
DET-19-076-6 gg Revision 0 2.85
2.5 Analysis Results The analytical results for the large bore TAP evaluation are summarized in this section.
The maximum piping stresses resulting from governing load combinations for highly stressed locations on each large bore TAP
- line, and for small diameter torus internal
- lines, are presented in Table 2.5-1.
The maximum stresses for each service level are listed along with the associated Code equations, and allowable stress values.
Fatigue evaluations for the TAP lines have been performed generically as described in Section 2.4-5.
The Fermi 2 torus attached piping is qualified for fatigue effects based on this generic evaluation.
l The initial TAP evaluation resulted in the need for the addition of four supports to the piping systems.
The final evaluation results show that the design of the large bore TAP systems, including the added supports, is adequate for the
- loads, load combinations, and acceptance criteria limits specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference 3) and the PUAAG (Reference 7).
O DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.86
Table 2.5-1 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR LARGE BORE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING STRESS I
II St.CONDARY ( '
LEVEL A LEVE.L B LEVEL C LEVEL D ALLOWABLE STRESS (ksi)
PENETRATION NUMBER 15.00/18.60(5) 18.00/22.32(5) 27.00/33.48(5) 36.00/44.64 ISI 22.50/27.90(5)
MAXIMUM STRESS (ksi)
X-205A,B 7.77 11.11 25.56 31.47 0.00 X-205C 10.69 13.31 20.56 21.64 21.35 X-205D 11.05 9.57 12.43 13.35 14.64 I4I X-210A,X-211A 8.25 6.62 10.04 21.60 28.65 X-210B,X-211B 7.37 16.27 25.65 26.37 26.55(4I X-212 4.26 17.88 25.46 28.63 14.44 X-213A 3.31 13.56 19.50 19.75 19.14 X-2138 4.18 10.61 17.59 20.54 10.16 X-214 7.91 16.96 25.70 33.86 32.19 X-215 5.09 17.31' 25.87 32.94 16.01 X-218 5.29 12.44 20.31 25.79
- 25.94 *I
~
I I4I 8.06 16.88 24.31 30.37 28.51 X-219 X-220 6.26 17.81 26.84 32.14 24.62(
X-221 1.00 12.24 17.27 24.62 10.66
{-*
X-222 1.00 12.24 17.27 24.62 10.66 X-223A,B 5.52 13.27 18.14 20.05 26.71( '
I4I X-223C,D 10.44 17.61 21.76 24.82 31.56 X-224A 4.78/1.47 12.79/11.03 17.29/13.26 29.66/17.62 13.06/5.72 X-224B 3.59/4.86 9.86/11.47 14.87/12.63 24.75/14.02 20.75/4.66 X-225 4.17/1.65 14.71/7.74 23.93/10.56 28.88/13.70
'10.39/4.28 X-226 4.84/1.41 16.81/18.20 25.73/32.28 27.49/36.79 20.96/5.64 X-227A 7.75 9.22 24.83 27.96 6.82 X-227B 6.74 15.68 26.28 35.02 16.98 NOTES:
(1)
ASME CODE, SECTION III, EQUATION 8.
(2) ASME CODE, SECTION III, EQUATION 9.
(3)
ASME CODE, SECTION III, EQUATION 10.
(4) ASME CODE, SECTION III, EQUATION 11.
(5)
CARBON STEEL / STAINLESS STEEL.
'N DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 2.87 nutgg])
3.0 SMALL BORE PIPING An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 (Reference 3) requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Fermi 2 small bore piping (SBP) is presented in the following sections.
The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The components of the SBP which are examined are described in Section 3.1.
The loads and load com-binations for which the SBP are evaluated are described and presented in Section 3.2.
The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are discussed i
and presented in Section 3.3.
The - analysis method-ologies used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the SBP are discussed in Section 3.4.
The analysis results and the corresponding design margins are presented in Section 3.5.
i
+
e l
DET-19-076-6 3.1 J
Revision 0
3.1 Component Description The SBP lines for the Fermi 2 plant unique analysis (PUA) fall into the following categories.
1.
Cantilevered lines 2.
Torus attached SBP lines 3.
Instrument lines attached to large bore TAP 4.
Other small bore lines attached to large bore TAP 5.
Torus internal small bore lines (considered in Section 2.0)
Of the 200 small bore lines, approximately 60 lines are cantilevered from the torus or large bore TAP which are evaluated.
These cantilevered lines function as vents, drains, and capped spares.
Approximately 25 small bore lines are attached directly to the torus.
These small bore TAP lines include torus instrument lines and vacuum breaker nitrogen lines.
The lines range in size from 1" to 2" diameter.
Approximately 25 instrument lines are attached to large bore torus attached piping.
Instrument lines are used within the plant to verify operating conditions, i.e.,
temperature, pressure, or flow velocity.
Typically, O DET-19-076-6 3.2 Revision O gg
the instrument lines branch off large bore lines with
/
T (j'
1/2" to 1"
diameter, Schedule 80, carbon steel pipe 1 to 2 feet in length.
They also include one or two isolation valves, and a reducing coupling followed by 5/8" diameter stainless steel tubing.
The tubing is supported by standard formed channels or other similar restraints.
Approximately 25 other types of small bore lines range in size from 1"
to 2" diameter Schedule 80, to 2-1/2" to 4"
diameter Schedule 40 pipe supported by rigid struts, guides, spring supports, and snubbers.
These lines are attached to large bore lines connected to the torus, and serve a multitude of functions such as RHR (O) condensate returns, RHR pump bypasses, and HPCI minimum flow returns.
DET-19-076-6 3.3 Revision 0 g
3.2 Loads and Load Combinations O
The loads for which the Fermi 2 SBP is designed are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants.
The methodology used to develop plant unique loads for each load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The results of applying the methodology to develop specific values for each of the controlling loads which act on the SBP are discussed and presented in Section 3.2.1.
Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1,
the governing load combinations which affect the SBP are formulated.
The load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 3.2.2.
1 l
O DET-19-076-6 3.4 Revision O nutg,qh_
3.2.1 Loads O
The loads acting on the SBP are categorized as follows:
1.
Dead Weight 2.
Seismic 3.
Pressure and Temperature 4.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge 5.
Pool Swell 6.
Condensation Oscillation 7.
Chugging Loads in Categories 1
through 3
are defined in Categories 1 through 3 in Section 2.2.1.
Table 3.2-1 provides further definition of Category 3 loads for v
1
]
typical SBP systems.
Loads in Categories 4 through 7 l
are defined in Category 11 in Section 2.2.1.
Torus response due to LOCA-induced and SRV discharge-induced loadings directly affect the small bore piping attached to the torus.
These loads also indirectly affect small bore piping attached to large bore TAP lines.
Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 need to be evaluated, since some are enveloped by others or have a DET-19-076-6 3.5 Revision 0
negligible effect on the piping.
Only those loads which maximize 'the piping response and lead to controlling stresses are examined and discussed.
These loads are referred to as governing loads in subsequent discussions.
O O
DET-19-076-6 3.6 Revision 0 gy{
Table 3.2-1 TYPICAL SMALL BORE SYSTEM DESIGN DATA DESIGN DESIGN SYSTEM PRESSURE TEMPERATURE TYPE
.(psi)
(OF)
CANTILEVERS 480 335 TORUS ATTACHED 150
- 100, PIPING INSTRUMENT 125 212 TUBING B M CH 480 335 PIPING O
S l
1 t
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 3.7
3.2.2 Load Combinations O
The loads for which the SBP are evaluated are presented in Section 3.2.1.
The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping these loads into load combinations are discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
Load combinations specified for the SBP are the same as those specified for the large bore TAP in Table 2.2-5.
Load combinations which contain hydro-test loadings are not evaluated since these loadings have a negligible effect on the small bore piping.
The governing load combinations for the SBP as described above and listed in Table 2.2-5 have been considered in the analytical methods described in Section 3.4.
I i
O DET-19-076-6 3.8 Revision 0
3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria O
.3 The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Fermi 2 SBP analysis is based are discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in the ASME Code,Section III, Division 1, 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 2 piping (Reference 8).
The corresponding service level limits and allowable stresses are also consistent with the requirements of the PUAAG (Reference 7) and the ASME Code (Reference 8).
The SBP systema are evaluated in accordance with the requirements for piping systems contained in Subsection NC of the ASME Code.
i 1
1 DET-19-076-6 3.9 Revision O gg
3.4 Methods of Analysis O
i The governing load combinations for which the Fermi 2 SBP is evaluated are presented in Section 3.2.2.
The methodology used to evaluate the SBP for the effects of these loads is, discussed in Section 3.4.1.
l O
l l
O DET-19-076-6 3.10 Revision 0 nutg,gh
t 3.4.1 Methods of Analysis for Major Loads (s
The SBP systems are evaluated for the effects of the loads discussed in Section 3.2.1 using several different methods, depending on the type of system configuration.
A description of the methods of J
analysis used for each type of configuration follows.
These configurations encompass Categories 1 through 4, listed in Section 3.1.
i a.
Cantilevered Drains and Vents:
Section 3.1 pro-vides a description of this type of SBP system.
A i
beam model of the system is used to calculate the natural frequency using standard beam formula-tions.
A dynamic load factor is calculated based upon the calculated system natural frequency and the predominant loading frequency.
An equivalent static analysis is performed using the loads and load combinations defined in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
t i
b.
Small Bore Torus Attached, Instrument and Other Small Bore Branch Lines 2 Section 3.1 provides a i
description of these systems.
A multiple response I
spectra analysis, as described in Section 2.4.4, is performed using the loads and load combinations DET-19-076-6 3.11 Revision 0
defined in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
This analysis does not include reductions to account for the effects of
- coupling, as described in Section 2.4.4.
c.
Some of the small bore lines are attached to large bore piping at a distance greater than 60 feet from the torus input motion location.
These lines have been excluded from evaluation for LOCA-induced and SRV discharge-induced loading since they result in stresses significantly below allowables.
The specific treatment of each load in each load category identified in Section 3.2.1 is discussed in the following paragraphs.
1.
Dead Weight (DW) Loads A static analysis is performed for a unit vertical acceleration applied to the weight of steel and the weight of water contained inside the small bore piping.
O DET-19-076-6 3.12 Revision 0 nutgqh
t 2.
Seismic Loads s
a.
OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads:
A~ response spectra i
analysis is performed for horizontal and i
vertical acceleration response spectra applied to the combined weight of steel and water in the analytical model.
These j
acceleration response spectra are defined in the FSAR (Reference 6).
f b.
OBE Displacement (OBED)
Loads:
A static analysis is performed for the horizontal and vertical OBE displacements as defined in the FSAR.
l c.
SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads:
A response spectra analysis is performed for horizontal and vertical acceleration response spectra i
applied to the combined weight of steel and water in the analytical model.
These i
acceleration response spectra are defined in i
the FSAR.
j d.
SSE Displacement (SSED)
L ads:
A static I
analysis is performed for the horizontal and i
vertical SSE displacments as defined in the FSAR.
DET-19-076-6 3.13 i
Revision 0
[
3.
Pressure and Temperature Loads a.
Pressure (P P) Loads:
The effects of these o,
loads on the SBP are evaluated by using the ASME Code piping equations.
The design pressure is conservatively applied to the SBP analysis.
b.
Temperature (TE, TEy) Loads:
A static anal-ysis is performed for the TE and TE1 tempera-ture cases, with the load applied uniformly to the small bore piping.
The pipe design t
temperatures are conservatively applied to the SBP analysis.
An additional static analysis is performed for the effects of thermal anchor movements at the attachment of the SBP to the sup-pression chamber for normal operating and accident conditions.
4.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge (QABI, OABg) Loads A multiple response spectra analysis is performed for the loads defined in Section 3.2.1.
DET-19-076-6 3.14 Revision 0 nutggh
O 5.
Pool Swell (PSO PSOD) Loads y,
A multiple response spectra analysis is performud for the loads defined in Section 3.2.1.
6.
Condensation Oscillation (coy, CO ) Loads D
A multiple response spectra analysis is performed for the loads defined in Section 3.2.1.
7.
Chugging Loads a.
Pre-Chug (PCHUG PCHUGD) Loads:
Post-chug y,
loads bound pre-chug l'oads.
Accordingly, the analysis results for post-chug are used in load combinations which include pre-chug loads.
l CHUGD) Loads:
A multiple b.
Post-Chug (CHUGy, response spectra analysis is performed for the loads defined in Section 3.2.1.
I f
The methodology described in the preceding paragraphs results in conservative values for the SBP stresses for l
l the controlling loads defined in NUREG-0661.
\\
DET-19-076-6 3.15 Revision 0 Qd i
r.
Therefore, use of the analysis results obtained by applying this methodology leads to conservative estimates of design margins for the small bore piping.
G O
DET-19-076-6 3.16 Revision 0 nutp_qh
3.5 Analysis Results The component descriptions, loads and load combina-i tions, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Fermi 2 SBP are presented and discussed in the preceding sections.
The results from the evaluation of the SBP are presented in the following paragraphs.
Table 3.5-1 shows typical maximum SBP stresses resulting from ASME Code piping equations for the controlling load combinations.
These results include rerouting of two torus attached SBP lines to provide added flexibility, addition of
- supports, and modification of several existing supports.
In summary, the results show that the small bore piping i
is adequate for the
- loads, load combinations, and acceptance criteria specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference
- 3) and the PUAAG (Reference 7).
I DET-19-076-6 3.17 Revision 0 gg 1
Table 3.5-1 GOVERNING SMALL BORE PIPING STRESSES FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS c
I1)
I IEVEL C(
LEVEL D( I LEVEL A LEVEL B ALLOWABLE STRESS (psi)
SYSTEM I4)
I4I I4I I4I 15,000/18,600 18,000/22,320 27,000/33,480 36,000/44,640 MAXIMUM STFESS (psi)
CANTILEVERS N/A 15,280 21,300 30,530 TORUS ATTACHED 5,000 16,000 26,000 35,000 PIPING I3I 3)
UB 3,000 20,100 20,500(3) 20,800 11,000 17,400 19,500 26,100 NG NOTES:
(1)
ASME CODE, SECTION III, EQUATION 8.
(2)
ASME CODE, SECTION III, EQUATION 9.
(3; GOVERNING STRESSES ARE FOR STAINLESS TUBING.
(4)
CARBON STEEL / STAINLESS STEEL.
l l
i DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 3.18 nutE_h.
l l
s 4.0 PIPING SUPPORTS
\\
J An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 (Reference 3) requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Fermi 2 piping supports is presented in the following sections.
The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The piping supports which are examined are described in Section 4.1.
The loads and load combinations for which the piping supports are evaluated are described and presented in Section 4.2.
The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared and the analysis methodologies used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the piping supports are discussed in Section 4.3.
The analysis results are presented in Section 4.4.
I
\\
DET-19-076-6 4.1 Revision 0 gg l
4.1 Component Descripticn External TAP lines are supported by spring hangers, rigid struts, guides, and snubbers attached to building walls or slabs using frames and base
- plates, or directly to the main structural steel in the building.
Figures 2.1-6 and 2.1-7 show typical TAP supports outside the suppression chamber.
Torus internal. piping is generally supported by rigid struts attached directly to the torus shell or ring girders, as shown in Figure 2.1-9.
An example of a
typical TAP support outside the suppression chamber includes a pipe clamp attached to a rigid strut, which is connected to a beam attachment, which in turn is welded to a steel base plate anchored to the building structure with wedge-type anchor bolts.
The major standard support component manufacturers are Power Piping (struts,
- clamps, hydraulic
- snubbers, springs),
NPS Industries (struts, clamps),
Pacific Scientific (mechanical snubbers for small bore piping),
and ITT Phillips (wedge-type anchor bolts).
Typically, pipe clamps are fabricated from 1/4" to 2" thick SA-36 steel plates, which are bolted together with SA-307 carbon steel bolts.
Rigid sway struts are constructed of SA-106 pipe of various diameters and schedules, and O
DET-19-076-6 4.2 Revision 0 g
- l are equipped with spherical bearings on each end of the v
assembly to allow for slight misalignment while providing a close tolerance connection.
Base plates are cut from SA-36 carbon steel of various thicknesses.
Anchor bolts are wedge-type and of various diameters and lengths.
Integral attachments (lugs, trunnions, and pads) welded to the pipe pressure boundary are used where necessary to provide shear resistance between the pipe clamp and piping or to anchor the piping system.
Torus attached piping supports inside the suppression chamber are generally made up of a pipe clamp connected to two rigid struts, which are then connected to the
\\
torus shell or ring girders.
Pipe clamps and rigid struts are similar to those described above.
I i
i l
1 DET-19-076-6 4.3 l
Revision 0
4.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Fermi 2 TAP supports are designed are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants.
The methodology used to develop plant unique TAP loads for each load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The loads acting on the piping supports outside the suppression chamber are caused by the response of the piping systems to the loads defined in Sections 2.2.1 and 3.2.1.
Piping supports inside the suppression chamber experience these same loads, with the addition of hydrodynamic impact and drag loads as defined in Section 2.2.1.
Using the event combinations and event sequencing l
defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Volume 1 of l
Reference 1,
the governing load combinations which affect the piping supports are formulated.
Table 4.2-1 presents the governing load combinations.
For selected piping supports, loads resulting from dynamic events have been combined using the SRSS method in accordance with Reference 10.
1 O
DET-19-076-6 4.4 Revision 0 l
l p
N s
t J
U yg Table 4.2-1 4
<a 7 /.,
GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - TORUS ATTACilED PIPING SUPPORTS HD O I OO 4
Om LOAD l
h COMBINATION LOAD CONDITIONS NUMBER S-1 DW + OL + OBE g S-2 DW + OL + QAB + QAB g l
S-3 DW S-4 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE g
g I
S-5 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + PCitUG + PCHUG g
g S-6 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + CHUG + CHUG g
- QAB + QAB + SSE + F ell 0G + PCHUG g
g g
}
S-8 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE + CHUG + CHUG g
g g
g 2
g g
M + THM + M + M g
M + WM + M + QAB g
D S-13 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE +
E + THM + % + QABD*
D g
g W + QABD + PCllUCD TEg + WMg+M3 S-14 DW + OL + QAB + QABg + PCHUG + PCHUG t g
Eg+WMg + W W + QABD + CHUGg S-15 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + CIIUG + CituGg+
3 g
iW N + QABD' D+ PCHUG Mg+WMg 3
S-16 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE + PCHUG + PCHUGg+
g g
g Eg+WMg+W UI + QAHD' D' CN" ()
S-17 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSEg + CHW + CHUGg+
g OI + OBED+
O S-18 DW + OL + OBE + Q + CO +
Eg + THMg+M3 D
g g
i S-19 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE + PSO + PSO + VCW + Eg+WMg + m W + QAug+ S2 i 15 0 g
g g
3 g
0 NOTES:
l (1) SEE SECTION 2.2.1 FOR DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL LOADS.
(2) USE Tile MAXIMUM OF OBE, Wm m M N N ION W. N, M W M GH S-10, S-13, S-16, S-17, AND S-19.
g I
(3) THE MOST SE/ERE COMBINATION OF STATIC LOADS MUST BE CONSIDERED.
(4) USE Tile TD TD g,
2 3 CASE 3 WillCilEVER IS MOST SEVERE.
OR TD (5) APPLICABLE TO NON-WATER LINES ONLY (IlYDROTEST LOAD).
(6) DYNAMIC LOADS ARE COMBINED BY SRSS (REFERENCE 10) FOR SELECTED SUPPORTS.
4.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria O
Pipe supports are evaluated using standard linear elastic structural analysis methods, which include hand calculations and standard structural analysis computer programs.
The resultant component forces and/or stresses are compared to their respective allowable values.
Standard component allowables for Service Levels B,
C, and D are supplied by the manufacturer.
Allowables for structural members, base plates, and welds are defined in the ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF, up to and including the 1977 Summer Addenda and in NUREG-0661.
The application of these allowables is as described in Table 4.3-1.
Wedge-type anchor bolt allowables are taken as 1/4 of the average ultimate tensile ar.d shear loads established by test.
Base plate flexibility and shear-tension interaction are considered in the anchor bolt evaluation in accordance with IEB-79-02 requirements (Reference 16).
Integral attachments are evaluated by adding the local stresses in the pipe from each support load combination 9
DET-19-076-6 4.6 Revision 0
to the corresponding pipe stress load combination listed in Table 2.2-5.
Allowable stresses are given in Table 2.3-1.
Local stresses are generally calculated using methods described in Welding Research Council Bulletin WRC-107 (Reference 17).
l t
f l
DET-19-076-6 4.7 Revision 0 nutggb
Table 4.3-1 PIPE SUPPORT ALLOWABLES LOAD SERVICE LIMITS (2)
SERVICE LIMITS (2)
COMBINATION STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS STANDARD COMPONENTS S-1 S-2 B
B S-3 S-4 S-5 C
C S-6 S-7 S-8 D
D S-9 S-10 S-ll B
S-12 S-13 S-14 C
S-15 3xB S-16 S-17 D
S-18 S-19 NOTES:
1 1
(1) LIMITS APPLY TO THE RANGE OF STRESS.
COMPRESSIVE STRESS NOT TO EXCEED 2/3 OF THE CRITICAL BUCKLING STRESS.
f (2) USE LEVEL B ALLOWABLES FOR BOLTED CONNECTIONS.
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 4.8 nutggh
.=_
4.4 Analysis Results O
The' pre'dicted response and analysis results reported in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 for the large and small bore piping included 24 new pipe supports.
The results of the analysis for the new pipe supports indicate that the designs will satisfy the acceptance criteria of Section 4.3.
Approximately 700 existing supports have been evaluated for the loads caused by the response of the piping systems.
The results of a loads evaluation concluded that approximately 200 of the existing supports s
required modification to provide increased load capability.
The final analysis results of existing supports
- design, with the required modifications, indicate that the design will satisfy the acceptance criteria of Section 4.3.
As a result, the design of the TAP supports for Fermi 2 is adequate for the
- loads, load combinations, and acceptance criteria limits specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference 3) and in the ASME Code,Section III, and cubstantiates the pipin: analysis results.
O DET-19-076-6 4.9 Revision 0 flu
5.0 EQUIPMENT AND VALVES As an integral part of the TAP analysis, the Fermi 2 equipment and valves associated with the piping have been evaluated in accordance with the criteria 4
established in NUREG-0661 (Reference 3).
The components, equipment, and valves which are examined are described in Section 5.1.
The loads and load combinations for which the equipment, components, and valves are evaluated are described and presented in i
Section 5.2.
The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared and the analysis methodologies used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the equipment and valves are discussed in Section 5.3.
Analysis results are I
presented in Section 5.4.
I
{
l s
l O
DET-19-076-6 5.1 Revision 0 g
5.1 Component Description The equipment evaluated for TAP loads includes pumps and turbines which act as termination points, pipe mounted valves, suction strainers, essential thermo-couples, and electrical penetrations.
The TAP systems which terminate at equipment consist of the RHR, core
The equipment description and identification are provided in Table 5.1-1.
Valves tha t-have been evaluated are included in the piping structural models described in Sections 2.4.1 and 3.1.
The types of valves represented consist of gate, globe, check, relief, and butterfly valves, and were generally manufactured by W.
M.
Powell and Jamesbury.
Most of these valves are equipped with motor or air operators manufactured by Limitorque or Bettis, respectively.
Suction strainers are attached to eight of the torus internal piping systems and are included in the evaluation.
DET-19-076-6 5.2 Revision 0 nutggh
.. ~ -.-._-.
=
i i
l Two electrical torus penetrations, manufactured by
- Conax, and the essential instruments (thermocouples)
I are also included in the equipment evaluation.
I r
I f
8 I
i l
=
DET-19-076-6 5.3 Revision 0 E _ ___ __ _ __.____., _ _ _ ___ _ ________._ _ _
Table 5.1-1 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION EQUIPMENT PENETRATION MANUFACTURER DESCRIPTION NUMBER 16 x 20 x 28 DVDS X-223A BYRON-JACKSON 4-VERTICAL X-223B RHR PUMPS X-223C X-223D 10 x 12 x 14 DVDS X-227A BYRON-JACKSON 4-VERTICAL CORE X-227B SPRAY PUMPS TYPE CCS HPCI X-220 TERRY STEAM TURBINE TURBINE TYPE GS-2 RCIC X-212 TERRY STEAM TURBINE TURBINE 12 x 14 x 23 DVS, X-225 BYRON-JACKSON 1-STAGE HPCI BOOSTER PUMP l
l 6 x 6 x 10 1/2, X-226 BINGHAM-WILLAMETTE' 4-STAGE CENTRIFUGAL RCIC PUMP l
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 5.4 nutggh
5.2 Loads and Load combinations The loads acting on the valves, valve operators, and equipment nozzles are caused by the response of the piping systems to the loads defined in Sections 2.2.1 and 3.2.1.
Strainers are subjected to direct application of the hydrodynamic loads described in Section 2.2.1.
The results of the component evaluations are used to establish compliance with the operability and functionality criteria of NUREG-0661.
Equipment nozzle connections are modeled as rigid anchors, as described in Section 2.4.1.
Reaction loads are computed using the governing load combinations listed in Table 5.2-1.
These loads are used in the evaluation of the equipment, as described in Section 5.3.1.
Valve accelerations are calculated using the governing load combinations listed in Table 5.2-2.
The acceleration components obtained from the piping analysis are used in the evaluation of the valves and valve operators, as described in Section 5.3.2.
2 DET-19-076-6 5.5 Revision 0
In accordance with the original design criteria, equip-ment nozzles, valves, and associated valve operators have been designed and qualified by the manufacturers for load and acceleration magnitudes defined in the Fermi 2
FSAR.
These limits have been used in evaluating equipment operability and functionality.
In some cases, this evaluation required review of the manufacturer's design and qualification reports to identify additional design margins to accommodate the additional hydrodynamic loads.
l O
1 l
l l
1 l
O l
DET-19-076-6 5.6 nutp_qh nevision
C O
b i
Table S.2-1 ma i
a tn
<8 e1 EQUIPMENT LOAD COMBINATIONS tn w H @
O I I
Do
-J Om LOAD h
COMBINATIOW LOAD COMDINATION (1,2, 3,4 )
NUMBER 1
D l
E + THAM + M + QAB g
D 3
H + MM + M + QABD + SSED g
4 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + PCHUG + PCHUG +
TEg + THAM 3 + TD3(5) + QABD
- PCHUGD 4
y y
M + QABD + CHUGD TEg + THMg+M3 j
5 DW + OL + QAB + CABy + CHUG + CHUGg+
TEg + THAMg + TD3(5) + QAB 4 SSED+ PCHUG i
6 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE + PCHUG + PCHUGg+
D D
3 g
W + QABD + SSED + CHUGD TEg + THMg+M3 7
DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE + CHUG + CHUGg+
3 g
(5) + OBED + COD
+
TEg + THAMg + TD3 8
9 DW + OL + QAB + QAB + SSE + PSO + PSO + VCLO + TEg + THAMg + TD3
+ QABD+
D+
O g
3 g
D NOTES:
(1) SEE SECTION 2.2.1 FOR DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL LOADS.
(2) USE Ti!E LARGER OF ODE OR SSE FOR LOAD COMDINATION NUMDERS 3, 6,
7, and 9.
g g
(3) Tile WORST COMBINATION OF DEAD WEICHT AND THERMAL LOADS IS USED.
(4) DYNAMIC LOADS ON SELECTED EQUIPMENT HAVE DEEN COMBINED USING Tile SRSS METilOD (REFERENCE 10).
j (5) USE Tile TDg, TD2 3
OR TD CASE; WIIICllEVE R IS MOST SEVERE.
Table 5.2-2 VALVE ACCELERATION COMBINATIONS ACCELERATION COMBINATION ACCELERATION COMBINATION NUMBER 1
OBE 7 2
QAB 7
+ SSE 3
QABy 7
4 QAB
+ PCHUG 7
7 5
QAB
+ CHUG 7
7 6
QAB
+ SSE
+ PCHUG 7
7 7
7 QAB
+ SSE
+ CHUG 7
7 7
8 CO
+ OBE 7
7 9
QAB
+ SSE7 + PSO7 7
NOTES:
1.
SEE SECTION 2.2-1 FOR DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL LOADS.
2.
USE THE LARGER OF OBEr OR SSEI FOR LOAD COMBINATION NUMBERS 3, 6,
7, AND 9.
3.
ACCELERATIONS FOR SELECTED VALVES HAVE BEEN COMBINED USING THE SRSS METHOD.
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 5.8 nutp_qh
5.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria (3
'% J 5.3.1 Equipment (Pumps and Turbines)
The equipment described in Table 5.1-1 is evaluated for the nozzle loading combinations described in Table 5.2-1.
Nozzle loads are initially compared with the original nozzle allowables specified by the manufacturer.
If these allowables are met, no further evaluation is required.
If the original allowables are
- exceeded, the manufacturer's stress analysis report is obtained and reviewed.
The original design loads are then considered in combination with the hydrodynamic loads, with due consideration of load magnitude and direction of the inlet and discharge nozzle loads.
Using these specific sets of forces and moments, the method of analysis used by the manufacturer in the equipment design report is utilized to reevaluate the equipment.
l Allowable stress limits used by the manufacturer are maintained to assure operability and functionality of the equipment.
l l
(
DET-19-076-6 5.9 Revision 0 nutagh
5.3.2 Strainers O
The reinforced suction strainers are evaluated for the enveloping LOCA, SRV discharge, and suction loads using a
Service Level B
load combination.
The stress analysis is performed using a finite element model of the reinforced strainer.
Buckling of the strainer l
l forms the controlling basis for the analysis.
Allow-able stresses are based on the ASME Code,Section III, 1
Subsection NP.
i O
l l
l l
1 DET-19-076-6 5.10 Revision 0 nutggh l
i t
1 5.3.3 Electrical Penetrations and Thermocouples Dynamic response analyses of the electrical penetrations and thermocouples have been performed using torus location response spectra developed from J
the torus analysis (Volume 2
of Reference 1).
4 Acceptable fragility design acceleration levels are established, consistent with the applicable service level stress limits.
Structural integrity of the penetration and operability of the components are thereby assured.
\\
I DET-19-076-6 5.11 Revision 0 nutagh
5.3.4 Valves O
The valves located in TAP systems are classified as ASME Code,Section III, Class 2 components.
These valves were originally evaluated for static seismic accelerations of 5.0g and 3.0g in the horizontal and vertical directions, respectively.
The resultant horizontal and vertical accelerations have been conservatively applied in the direction of the weak axis of the valve.
The extended structure supporting the motor or air operator has been evaluated by analysis.
The maximum calculated stresses due to seismic accelerations and operating loads have been generally limited to 1.0 S The valve operators have m.
been generically qualified using the sine dwell test method for a combined seismic acceleration of 6.09 Check valves and manual valves are modeled in the piping analysis as piping
- elements, with increased stiffness and mass to represent the properties of the l
valve body.
Lumped mass models are included in the piping analysis to represent valves with actuators.
The stiffness and mass of the valve body and stem are considered in the models, along with the eccentricity of the valve operator.
Accelerations are computed for DET-19-076-6 5.12 Revision 0 nutp_qh
each dynamic loading and combined as shown in Table e
5.2-2.
In order to meet the acceptance criteria for operability of valves in torus attached piping systems for the combined accelerations listed in Table 5.2-2, i
the valves are separated into three categories:
1.
Valves with calculated accelerations less than the original design values.
1 If the predicted valve accelerations are less than the allowable design values established by the l-vendor, valve operability acceptance criteria have l
been satisfied.
2.
Passive valves without extended structures (e.g.,
check and manual valves).
Passive valves are not required to function other than to maintain pressure integrity.
The stress limits of'the attached piping provide the limiting criteria, as provided in the ASME Code,Section III.
The integrity of the valve body is con-sidered adequate if the attached piping meets the l
requirements of NC-3600.
I DET-19-076-6 5.13 Revision 0
3.
Valves with extended structures with predicted accelerations that exceed original design values.
a.
Functionality Assessment:
The vendor design report is reviewed and the total stresses in the pressure retaining components and extended structures are reevaluated, using an acceptability criterion of material yield strength (Sy) at the coincident temperature (S at temperature for m
bolted connections in accordance with original vendor design criteria).
In
- addition, the governing inertia Load Combinations 1 and 2 (Table 5.2-2) and SSE 7 accelerations are verified as being within the original design values.
b.
Operability Assessment:
An analysis is undertaken to requalify the valve and operator for the predicted accelerations.
The governing load case during or after the valve is required to function is evaluated to determine the O
DET-19-076-6 5.14 Revision 0 nutp_qh
capability of the extended structure.
The calculated stresses are compared to ASME Code, Service Level B allowable values or the 4
original vendor design criteria; whichever are higher.
For the operator, the governing acceleration load combinations are compared 4
to existing generic qualification test documentation.
Where the reevaluation of the vendor design report did not provide sufficient safety margins, a detailed dynamic analysis of the valve and operator has been performed, employing finite element modeling considering the as-installed position of the valve.
Input acceleration is described by a response spectrum extracted from the dynamic TAP systems analysis at the location node of the valve at the centerline of the pipe.
l The results of the operability and functionality evaluation of the valves are presented in Section 5.4.2.
l O
1O l
DET-19-076-6 5.15 Revision 0 nutggb
5.4 Analysis Results 5.4.1 Equipment and Components The results of the equipment and component evaluations conducted concluded that the acceptance criteria as described in Section 5.3 have been satisfied.
In some cases, the evaluations led to component modification to meet the acceptance criteria.
O i
DET-19-076-6 5.16 Revision 0 nutgqh
5.4.2 Valves The functionality and operability assessment of the valves concluded that all valves met the acceptance criteria as described in Section 5.3.4.
Maximum predicted accelerations do not exceed documented generic qualification test data, except for one valve in one division of the post-LOCA combustible gas control system piping, which has been qualified by analysis.
This valve is normally closed and may be required to open (one cycle) approximately six hours following a
DBA event.
Containment integrity is assured at all times.
O lO DET-19-076-6 5.17 Revision 0 nutggb
i 6.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS O
An evaluation of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Fermi 2
torus attached piping (TAP) penetrations is presented in the following sections.
This evaluation includes both small bore and large bore penetrations.
The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
The components which are analyzed are described in Section 6.1.
The loads and load combinations for which the penetrations are evaluated are described and pre-sented in Section 6.2.
The acceptance limits to which
\\
(j the analysis results are compared are discussed and presented in Section 6.3.
The analysis methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the penetrations, including consid-eration of fatigue effects, is discussed in section i
6.4.
The analysis results are presented in Section 6.5.
O DET-19-076-6 6.1 Revision 0
6.1 Component Description O
The large bore piping suppression chamber penetrations evaluated in this section are numbered and located as shown in Figure 1.1-1.
The principal components of the penetrations consist of the nozzles and the insert plates, as shown in Figure 6.1-1.
The nozzle extends from the outer circumferential pipe weld through the insert plate to the inner circumferential pipe weld or flange.
The insert plate provides local reinforcement of the suppression chamber shell near the penetration.
Additional reinforcing is provided for most penetra-
- tions, as shown in Table 6.1-1 and Figures 6.1-2 through 6.1-5.
O The penetrations are grouped into three types, depend-ing upon their orientation with respect to the suppression chamber.
Radial penetrations are aligned radially with the suppression chamber segment and are symmetrical about their centerline, as shown in Figure 6.1-3.
Slightly non-radial penetrations, shown in Figure 6.1-4, are aligned parallel to the horizontal or vertical centerline of the suppression chamber segment and are slightly offset.
Non-radial penetrations are aligned parallel to the suppression chamber vertical DET-19-076-6 6.2 Revision 0 nuteg])
m centerline,
-producing an oblique orientation with respect to the torus shell, as shown in Figure 6.1-5.
The penetration reinforcement shown in Figures 6.1-2 through 6.1-6 consists of an arrangement of plates located inside and outside the suppression chamber.
The external reinforcement includes
- two, 1"
thick saddle plates welded to the penetration nozzle and four, 1-1/4" thick support arms which extend radially from the saddle plates to pad plates attached to the suppression chamber shell.
Additional external gusset plates which connect to the support arms and the insert
- plate, as shown in Figures 6.1-2 and 6.1-6, are
}
included at. selected penetrations as identified in Table 6.1-1.
The internal reinforcement consists of l
four 1-1/4" thick plates attached-to the insert plate and two 1"
thick saddle plates welded to the penetra-l tion nozzle.
Each penetration is designed to resist TAP reaction loads produced by suppression chamber motions due to nor' mal loads and hydrodynamic
- loads, and to hydro-dynamic loads acting on the portion of the piping inside the suppression chamber.
The penetrations have sufficient similarities in diameters, geometries, locations on the suppression chamber, reinforcements, g
and loadings to allow grouping for analysis.
-DET-19-076-6 6.3 Revision 0
Table 6.1-1
- .a
$h PENETRATION AND GEOMETRY REINFORCEMENT SCIIEDULE O l 3O
-4 Om i
ORIENTATION EXTERNAL HEINFOHCEMENT PENETRATION PENETRATION SIZE I NTI'kN AL
- U M
NUMBEH S LICliTLY (DIAMETER)
REINFOHCEMENT RADIAL NON-RADIAL NON-RADIAL SUPPOHT ARMS GUSSET PLATES I '
X-205A,B X
20" X
X FIGUHE L 1-4 X-205C X
20" VIGuld: e.
1-1 X-205D X
20" X
X r!GUHE 6.1-4 X-210A,o X
18" X
X FIGUkE 6.1-5 X-211A,D X
6" X
X PIGUhE 6.1-s.
X-212 X
10" X
X X
FIGupe 6.1 ',
0" X
X FIGUHI! 6 1-I x.213A,h x
X-214 X
4" f 3 GUH3! 88 - I-I t ia:UNE 6.1-8 X-215 X
4" t
X-218 X
10" X
Pl t;Ul<E 6.1-3 m
X-219 X
10" X
FIGUHl: 6.1-3 X
X-220 X
24 X
X FtGUhE 6.1-4 X-2 2 ] A, ll, t*,1)
X 24" X
VIGUHl 8* I
- I X-224A,8 X
20" X
X VIGui4: 6.1 - t X-225 X
24=
X FIGUkt: 6.1-3 X - 2 2 t, X
0" X
x V8 Gul'E L t - 8 X-227A,a X
10 X
X r l GL.<!: t,.1 - 4 NOTESI (1)
ARMS ORIENTED PARALLEL TO TORUS SEGMENT CENTERLINE.
i C
e+
e o
e
O Q PIPE ll CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD (TYP)
NOZZLE i
e SUPPRESSION O
INSERT PLATE ss m
I CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD (TYP)
Figure 6.1-1 TYPICAL UNREINFORCED PENETRATION DET-19-076-6 Revison 0 6.5 nutggl)
i O
12" x 12" x 1 1/4" THICK PAD PLATE (TYP)
A.B.C SUPPRESSION CHAMBER I
SHELLS s
y 3
r 1* THICK EXTERNAL L
p SADDLE PLATE (TYP)
{>
f
/
l
{ PENETRATION m
L4s I
g (TYP) r 3
1 1/4" THICK INSERT PLATE
\\
w A,B,C N
g i
l 1 1/4 TuICK EXTERNAL GUSSET PLATE (TYP) l l
Figure 6.1-2 EXTERNAL VIEW OF TYPICAL PENETRATION REINFORCEMENT 1
l DET-19-076-6 l
Revision 0 6.6 nutggh
N
{ PENETRATION NOZZLE 5"
l'-ll" (TYP)
~
(TYP) 4 4
10 1/2" s
t s
(TYP) s SUPPORT 4
6" t
ARM (TYP)
)
l
_ (g.yp)
D 4
/
ll
~l r
gs
\\
n a
I I
s 2
Ltd 8 1/4" s
s i
(TYP) q 3
s
,/:
m EXTERNAL l "" 'u "u "u "u " "u "u "u i u
GUSSET PLATE I
SECTION A-A Figure 6.1-3 REINFORCEMENT DETAILS FOR TYPICAL RADIAL PENETRATIONS fV DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.7 nutggh
O
( PEJETRATION NOZILE SUPPORT 4
2'-6" APM (TYP)
(TYP)
(TYP) a g
q s
s
~
6 1/4*
~~~~
~
T
'Dtj y:==p. g;o 1
-t-f r:q 10 1/2" l
l (TYP)
(-,.
.....,c,_
s_ _ _ _ _u.
X-212 (TYP) 0*"
5 1/2" FOR l'-0*
l 1 1/4* THICE INTERNAL REINFORCING PLATE (TYP)
X-220 (TYP)
- gnpy 1* THICK INTERNAL SADDLE PLATE (TYP)
SECTION B-B Figure 6.1-4 REINFORCEMENT DETAILS FOR SLIGHTLY NON-RADIAL PENETRATIONS DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.8 nutggj)
o q PENETRATION NOZZLE 6"
7,9 2'-4" pl.
l t
i
. t p
a
','*s D
N2['s 10 1/2" k
l'-0" l
2t (TYP) o l
l
-l t
lt 8
o D
.a 1
2 9 1/2"
.--=
I
\\
-6" l
1 1/4" THICK INTERNAL REINFORCING PLATE (TYP)
SUPPORT g.
A ARM (TYP)
(TYP) 1" THICK INTERNAL SADDLE PLATE (TYP)
SECTION C-C I
l Figure 6.1-5 REINFORCEMENT DETAILS FOR l
TYPICAL NON-RADIAL PENETRATIONS DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.9 nuttch E
Ests
1 O.
i s
7 1/4" l
y SUPPORT ARM k
EXTERNAL
[
k h'
^
GUSSET PLATE
%\\
gik-VARIES (h
~~
INSERT PLATE P
If / / // / ///1 SECTION D-D Figure 6.1-6 TYPICAL EXTERNAL GUSSET PLATE DETAIL DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.10 nutggh
6.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Fermi 2 suppression chamber penetrations are evaluated are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants.
Torus attached piping reaction loads for each penetration are derived from the piping analysis described in Sections 2.0 and 3.0.
The controlling reaction loads which act on the penetrations are discussed in Section 6.2.1.
seq'encing
'Using. the event combinations, and the event u
defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1,
the governing load combinations which
'N affect the penetrations are formulated.
The load
)
combinations are discussed and presented in Section 6.2.2.
l l
I DET-19-076-6 6.11 Revision 0
6.2.1 Loads O
The loads acting on the suppression chamber penetrations are categorized as follows:
1.
Dead Weight 2.
Seismic 3.
Pressure and Temperature 4.
Operating 5.
Static Torus Displacement 6.
Safety Relief Valve Discharge 7.
Vent Clearing 8.
Pool Swell 9.
Condensation oscillation 10.
Chugging 11.
Torus Motion Loads in the above categories include those acting on torus attached piping discussed in Section 2.2.1 and those acting on the torus shell discussed in Volume 2 of Reference 1.
Loads acting directly on torus I-l attached piping systems result in reaction loads on the penotrations.
Loads acting directly on the torus shell result in suppression chamber motions.
The suppression I
chamber motions excite the attached piping systems, which produce additional reaction loads on the
\\
O l
DET-19-076-6 6.12 Revision 0 nutggh
I penetrations.
In addition, loads acting directly on the torus shell produce stresses in the shell and insert plate, which are included in the evaluation as discussed in Section 6.4.
The reaction loads used in the suppression chamber penetration evaluation for each load category are taken.
from the TAP system evaluation described in Section 2.4.
The components of these reaction loads at the penetrations, as shown in Figure 6.2-1, consist of the forces and moments acting on the penetration nozzle both inside and outside the suppression chamber.
Design pressures and temperatures used for the piping s
systems and the suppression chamber penetration evaluation include those relating to the time period within the Mark I Program event duration.
The pressure values listed in Table 2.2-2 envelop the maximum operating p,ressures.
The associated maximum accident l
temperature in the suppression chamber is 173*F.
l O
DET-19-076-6 6.13 Revision 0 nut l
[
,... ~ _
O MT i
4P
\\
y MC Vn s
4, e
i h
ML g,
C VC
,", P s
MT SECTION THROUGH PENETRATION Figure 6.2-1 TYPICAL TAP LOADS ON PENETRATION DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.14 Ug
6.2.2 Load Combinations The loads for which the suppression chamber penetra-tions are evaluated are presented in Section 6.2.1.
The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the loads into load combinations are discussed in Volume 1 of Reference 1.
Not all load combinations for each event are
- examined, since many have the same or higher i
allowable stresser, and are enveloped by others which contain the same or additional loads.
Table 6.2-1 shows the governing load combinations evaluated for the suppression chamber penetrations.
For the controlling load combination considered, the dynamic loads are combined using the SRSS method as described in Reference 10.
i DET-19-076-6 6.15 Revision 0
Table 6.2-1 GOVERNING PENETRATION LOAD COMBINATIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS COMBINATION LOAD COMBINATIONS (1,2)
SERVICE LEVEL NUMBER DW + PO + TE16 THAM 1 + TD + OL' CHUG-14
+ QAB + QABr + QABD + OBEI+
B
+ OBED + CHUG + CHUG 7 + GUG9 DW + Pg + TE + THAM + TD + sL l
1 PS-18(3)
+ OBE1 + OBED + PSO + PSOI B
PSOp DW + PO + TE1 + THAM 1 + TD + OL B
CO-20
+ OBEI + OBED + CO + COI + COD DW + PO + TEy+ THAMy + TD + OL PS-24
+ QAB + QABy + QABD + OBEI+
C OBED + PSO + PSOr + PSOD NOTES:
(1)
SEE SECTION 2.2.1 FOR DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS USED IN LOAD COMBINATION.
[
(2)
USE THE GOVERNING CASE OF TDy, TD2, 3'
OR TD l
(3)
PRIMARY PLUS SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITY RANGE AND FATIGUE EVALUATION ARE NOT REQUIRED.
l l
l I
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.16 nutggh
6 Analysis Acceptance Criteric O
.3 The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Fermi 2 suppression chamber penetrations analysis is based are discussed in Volume 1 of Referenca 1.
In
- general, the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in the ASME Code,Section III, Division 1,
1977 Edition up to and including the 1977 Summer Addenda (Reference 8). The corresponding service level limits and allowable stresses are also consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and NUREG-0661.
The suppression chamber penetrations and reinforcing i
are evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC components and supports contained in the ASME Code.
The jurisdictional boundaries for the penetra-i i
tion MC components and component supports are defined as follows.
l l
l The penetration nozzles, insert plates, saddle plates, pad plates, and the suppression chamber shell adjacent to tl e penetrations are classified as MC components.
l The f.ssociated attachment welds which join the nozzle and saddle plates, and the pad plates and torus shell, are classified as MC component welds.
The attachment welds which join the internal and external gussets to DET-19-076-6 6.17 Revision 0
the nozzle and insert plate are also classified as MC components welds.
The support arms and attachment welds to the saddle plates and pad plates are classified as NF component supports.
The internal and external gusset plates are also classified as NF component supports.
Table 6.3-1 shows the allowable stresses for these items.
The allowable stresses are determined at the maximum suppression chamber temperature for Service Level B and C conditions.
O l
.s O
DET-19-076-6 6.18 Revision O nutqq.h E
MB
Table 6.3-1 s
ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR PENETRATIONS TYPE SERVICE LEVEL CODE ITM CLASSIFICATION STRESS B
C P,
1.0 S,e 1.0 S y
COMPONENTS NE(2)
P /P +P 1.5 S
.5S mc y
P +P +Q 3.0 S,1 N/A g b P
0.6 5 1.33 x 0.6 S I
SUPPORTS NF 0.6 S 1.33 x 0.6 S P,+Pb y
PRIMARY 0.55 x 1.5 S 0.55 x 1.5 S NE SECONDARY 0.55 x 3.0 S,y N/A WELDS 1.33 x SERVICE I4)
NF THROAT 21 ksi LEVEL B ALLOWABLE
(
NOTES:
(1)
REFER TO TABLE 2.2-2 FOR DESIGN TEMPERATURE OF EACH PENETRATION AT WHICH ALLOWABLE STRESS IS CALCULATED.
(2)
SEE REFERENCE 8, SUBSECTION NE, TABLE NE-3221-1 FOR COMPONENTS AND PARAGRAPH NE-3356 FOR WELDS.
I (3)
SEE REFERENCE 8, ARTICLE XVII-2000 FOR SUPPORTS, AND SUBSECTION I
NF, TABLE NF-3292.1-1 FOR WELDS.
(4)
ALLOWABLE WELD STRESS BASED ON TENSILE STRESS OF MATER 1 l
i l
l l
t DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.19 l
nutggh
6.4 Methods of Analysis O
The loads for which the suppression chamber penetra-tions are evaluated are discussed in Section 6.2.1.
The methodology used to evaluate the penetrations for these loadings is discussed in the following paragraphs.
All of the suppression chamber penetrations listed in Table 6.1-1, except for Penetration X-205C, have been evaluated using finite element models.
The small bore piping penetrations and Penetration X-250C are evaluated using methods based on closed-form solutions for nozzle-type attachments to cylindrical vessels.
O Based on the geometric similarities of the selected penetrations discussed in Section 6.1, eleven finite element models are used to represent a total of twenty-five penetrations.
Table 6.4-1 shows the grouping of penetrations for modeling.
The mechanical and thermal loads for each group of penetrations are enveloped and l
l applied to the associated analytical model.
The l
I allowable stresses for the penetrations are determined at the suppression chamber maximum temperature, as discussed in Section 6.3.
l l
e l
DET-19-076-6 6.20 Revision 0 l
The finite element models of the penetrations consist of the nozzle, the insert plate, and a portion of the suppression chamber shell.
The reinforced penetration models also include the support arms, the pad plates, and the nozzle saddle plates.
External and internal gusset plates are modeled where appropriate.
Thin plate finite elements are used to model each component explicitly.
Figure 6.4-1 shows a typical reinforced penetration analytical model.
The entire length of each nozzle is modeled between the inner and outer piping / nozzle circumferential welds nearest to the suppression chamber shell.
A beam spoke system is included at the ends of the nozzle to facilitate application of piping reaction loads.
Element thicknesses over the area of the nozzle saddle plates are modeled as the thicker of the nozzle or the nozzle saddle plate.
The portion of the suppression chamber shell included in the models is chosen to minimize the, boundary effects in the region of stress evaluation.
Transla-tional restraints are imposed at the boundary nodes on the suppression chamber shell portion of the ' models.
Where pad plates are attached to the suppression cham-ber, shell element thicknesses are taken as the thicker of the suppression chamber shell or the pad plate.
DET-19-076-6 6.21 Revision 0 gg
Mechanical and thermal reaction loads at the penetra-tions are taken from the piping system analysis results atid applied to the ends of the nozzles.
The force and moment components for each reaction load case are conservatively applied to the analytical models in a manner which maximizes penetration stresses.
The temperature differential between the nozzle and the suppression chamber shell is evaluated for those systems defined to be at maximum operating temperatures during the time of peak hydrodynamic loadings.
For the remaining systems, the differential temperatures which occur during the time of peak hydrodynamic loads are negligible.
O The stresses in the suppression chamber shell and insert plate due to piping reactions are added to the stresses in the suppression chamber shell due to loads acting directly on the suppression chamber as described in Section 6.2.1.
These stresses are taken from the l
suppression chamber analysis results discussed in l
Volume 2 of Reference 1.
For the controlling load combination considered, the maximum stress intensities for each penetration component are calculated and compared to allowable stresses listed in Table 6.3-1.
DET-19-076-6 6.22 Revision 0
@{
l
Penetration X-205C and the small bore piping penetra-tions are evaluated in a
manner similar to the procedure described above.
For these penetrations, however, a computer code based on closed-form solutions for nozzle-type attachments to cylindrical vessels is used.
The mechanical and thermal loads from the piping analysis are applied to the ends of the nozzles.
The maximum stress intensities for each penetration j
component are calculated and compared to the allowable stresses in Table 6.3-1.
Fatigue effects for the penetration with the highest stress levels and maximum loading cycles are evaluated.
The number of stress cycles and load cycles for each loading case is established using the suppression chamber analysis results presented in Volume 2
of Reference 1.
The alternating stress intensity for each loading is calcula,ted and fatigue strength reduction factors of 2.0 for major component stresses and 4.0 for component weld stresses are conservatively applied.
The governing cumulative fatigue usage factor is determined by calculating fatigue usage for the controlling event combination.
O DET-19-076-6 6.23 Revision 0
$0 Table 6.4-1
<e
$b PENETRATION GROUPING XT 7
EXTERNAL PENETRATION (1)
PENETRATIONS GUSSET PLATES PENETRATION MODELED ENVELOPED ORIENTATION WITil WITilOUT I4I X-223B X-223A,C,D X
RADIAL X-225 X
RADIAL X-220 X
SLIGilTLY NON-RADIAL GROUP 1(
X-205A X-205B X
SL!GilTLY NON-RADI AL X-205D X
SLIGIITLY NON-RADIAL X-224A X-224B X
RADIAL X-210A X-210B X
NON-RADIAL X-218 X-219 X
RADIALI4I X-213A,B X
RADIAL I
X-212 X
SLIGilTLY NON-RADIAL GROUP 2(3)
X-226 X
RADIAL X-227A X-227B X
NON-RADIAL X-211A,B X
NON-RADIAL X-214 X-215 RADIAL (6)
NOTES:
(1)
SEE TABLE 6.1-1 FOR DETAILS OF GEOMETRY AND REINFORCEMENT.
(2)
INCLUDES PENETRATIONS 18" DIAMETER AND LARGER.
O (3)
INCLUDES PENETRATIONS 10" DIAMETER AND SMALLER.
C M
(4)
EXTERNAL REINFORCEMENT ONLY.
(5)
EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL REINFORCEMENT.
7 (6)
UNREINFORCED.
O
\\\\\\
'N
\\1
\\#S n _J O
,_!E u
N O
, = -
l
's I
\\
/
Figure 6.4-1 SUPPRESGION CHAMBER REINFORCED PENETRATION -
TYPICAL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6,25 nutRGb
6.5 Analysis Results O
The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Fermi 2 suppression chamber penetrations are presented and discussed in the previous sections.
The results from the evaluation o f' the penetrations are presented in the following paragraphs.
The results of the finite element analysis for the penetrations and reinforcements conclude that the maximum calculated stresses are within the specified allowable limits for the governing load combinations.
Tables 6.5-1 through 6.5-4 present a comparison of the calculated and allowable stress values for four representative reinforced penetrations.
The unreinforced SBP penetrations are also evaluated and found to be within the specified allowable limits.
The cumulative fatigue usage factors for the controlling component and weld are within the allowable fatigue usage factor of 1.0.
The suppression chamber penetrations, therefore, are adequate and all applicable NUREG-0661 requirements have been satisfied.
DET-19-076-6 6.26 Revision 0
@{
Table 6.5-1 MAXIMUM STRESS
SUMMARY
FOR PENETRATION X-210A ITEM CCMB N TION CALCULATED ALLOWABLE (1)
CALCULATED ST S
NUMBER (ksi)
(ksi)
P CO-20 2.70 16.50 0.16 a
P, CO-20 12.15 24.75 0.50 NOZZLE g
P +P +Q CO-20 43.17 50.00 0.72 g b COMPONENTS INSERT L
PLATE p #9 +Q 00-20 9.58 69.45 0.14 g,
SUPPRESSION P
CO-20 17.33 28.35 0.60 L
CHAMBER SHELL P +P +Q CO-20 68.62 69.45 0.98 g h I
SUPPORT L
CO-20 9.87 21.31 0.46 SUPPCRTS ARM P +P CO-20 14.08 21.31 0.66 g
i PRIMARY CO-20 6.69 12.84 0.52 NOZZLE /
SADDLE PLATE SECONDARY CO-20 12.20 46.68 0.26 SADDLE WELDS PLATE /
THROAT CO-20 15.23 21.00 0.73 SUPPORT ARM THROAT CO-20 19.45 21.00 0.93 P, = PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS P = LOCAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS g
P = PRIMARY BENDING STRESS b
Q = SECONDARY STRESS NOTES:
3 (1)
REFER TO TABLE 6.3-1 FOR ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
D DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.27 nutggb II -
Table 6.5-2 MAXIMUM STRESS
SUMMARY
FOR PENETRATION X-212 ITEM COMB N TION CALCULATED ALLOWABLE ( I E
g NUMBER (ksi)
(ksi)
P PS-18 7.72 16.50 0.47 m
NOZZLE P
CO-20 7.15 24.75 0.29 g
P +P +Q CHUC-14 34.74 60.00 0.58 g 3 COMPONENTS INSERT L
-0 2.69 28.95 0.09 PLATE P +P +Q CO-20 14.03 65.88 0.21 SUPPRESSION P
CO-20 13.28 28.95 0.46 L
CHAMBER SHELL P +P +Q CO-20 22.12 65.88 0.33 g b SUPPORT L
CO-20 9.34 19.78 0.47 SUPPORTS ARM P +P CO-20 9.59 19.78 0.48 3
PRIMARY CO-20 9.84 12.84 0.77 NOZZLE /
SADDLE PLATE SECONDARY CO-20 17.88 46.68 0.38 SADDLE WELDS PLATE /
THROAT CO-20 15.52 21.00 0.74 SUPPORT ARM O
A THROAT CO-20 4.20 21.00 0.20 P, = PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS P = LOCAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS Pb = PRIMARY BENDING STRESS Q = SECONDARY STRESS NOTES:
(1)
REFER TO TABLE 6.3-1 FOR ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.28 nutggh
Table 6.5-3 v
MAXIMUM STRESS
SUMMARY
FOR PENETRATION X-223B COMB N TION CALCULATED ALLOWABLE (1)
CALCULATED ITTH E
NUMBER (ksi)
(Psi)
P.
CO-20 1.52 19.30 0.08 NOZZLE P
CO-20 6.03 28.95 0.21 L
P *P +Q CO-20 54.26 66.66 0.81 g b
~
COMIONENTS INSERT L
PLATE P +P +Q CO-20 41.67 66.66 0.63 3
SUPPRESSION P
CHUG-14 24.13 28.95 0.83 L
CHAMBER SHELL P +P +Q CHUG-14 40.20 66.66 0.60 g 3 SUPPORT L
CO-20 11.51 19.96 0.58 SUPPORTS ARM p +p CO-20 12.14 19.96 0.61 L b I
PRIMARY CO-20 13.72 15.01 0.91 NOZZLE /
SADDLE
(
PLATE SECONDARY CO-20 21.50 51.86 0.41 l
SADDLE WELDS PLATE /
THROAT CO-20 18.67 21.00 0.89 SUPPORT ARM 8
THROAT CO-20 13.69 21.00 0.65 l
P, = PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS P = LOCAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS P = PRIMARY BENDING STRESS b
Q = SECONDARY STRESS NOTI:S :
(1) REFER TO TABLE 6.3-1 FOR ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
k DET-19-076-6 Revision 0 6.29 nutagh
Table 6.5-4 MAXIMUM STRESS
SUMMARY
FOR PENETRATION X-227A ITEM COMB N TION CALCULATED ALLOWABLE ( I gg NUMBER (ksi)
(ksi)
P, CO-20 6.50 16.50 0.40 P
CO-20 8.35 24.75 0.34 NOZZLE n
P +P +Q CO-20 30.77 60.00 0.51 g b
~
COMPONENTS INSERT L
PLATE P +P +Q CO-20 9.31 69.09 0.13 g
SUPPRESSION P
CHUG-14 13.52 28.95 0.47 L
CHAMBER SHELL P +P +Q CO-20 38.42 59.09 0.56 g b PS-18 7.46 20.69 0.36 SUPPORT L
SUPPORTS N
P +P PS-18 8.40 20.69 0.41 g b PRIMARY PS-18 7.85 12.84 0.61 NOZZLE /
SADDLE PLATE SECONDARY CO-20 13.28 46.68 0.28 SADDLE WELDS PLATE /
THROAT PS-18 14.46 21.00 0.69 SUPPORT ARM S
RT m /
THROAT PS-18 11.29 21.00 0.54 P, = PRIMARY EMBME STRESS P = LOCAL PRIMARY MEMBRANE STRESS L
l P = PRIMARY BENDING STRESS b
Q = SECONDARY STRESS NOTES:
(1)
REFER TO TABLE 6.3-1 FOR ALLOWABLE STRESSES.
l l
l DET-19-076-6 l
Revision 0 6.30 nutggh
l 1
LIST OF REFERENCES
(
7.0
\\
1.
a.
"Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2,
Plant Unique Analysis
- Report, Volume 1,
General Criteria and Loads Methodology,"
NUTECH, DET-04-028-1, Revision 0, April 1982.
b.
"Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2,
Plant Unique Analysis
- Report, Volume 2,
Suppression Chamber Analysis," NUThClf, DET-l 04-028-2, Revision 0, April 1982.
l c.
"Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2.
Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volume 3, Vent System Analysis,"
- NUTECH, DET-04-028-3, i
Revision 0, April 1982.
d.
"Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2,
Plant Unique Analysis
- Report, Volume 4,
Internal Structures Analysis,"
- NUTECH, DET-04-028-4, Revision 0, April 1982.
e.
"Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2,
Plant Unique Analysia
- Report, Volume 5,
Safety Relief Valve Discharge Piping l
l Analysis," NUTECH, DET-20-015-5, Revision 0, April 1982.
l 2.
" Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit No.
2,"
USNRC, NUREG-0798, Supplement 3, January 1983.
3.
" Mark I
Containment Long-Term Program,"
Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980; Supplement 1, August 1982.
l 4.
" Mark I
Containment Program Load Definition Report,"
- Company, NEDO-21888, i
Revision 2, December 1981.
l 5.
" Mark I
Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition," Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2,
General Electric Company, NEDO-24568, Revision 2, June 1981.
6.
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2,
Final Safety Analysis Report, Detroit Edison Company, Section 3.9, Amendment 3, June 1976.
, b DET-19-076-6 7.1 Revision 0
i 7.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide," Task Number 3.1.3, Mark I Owners Group, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583, Revision 1, July 1979.
8.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1,
1977 Edition with Addenda up to and including Summer 1977.
9.
" Mark I cont ainment Program Augmented Class 2/3 Fatigue Evaluation Method and Results for Typical Torus Attached and SRV Piping Systems,"
MPR Associates, Inc., MPR-751, November 1982.
10.
Letter from D.
B.
Vassallo (NRC) to H.
C.
Pfefferlen (GE), " Acceptability of SRSS Method for Combining Dynamic Responses in Mark I
Piping Responses," dated March 10, 1983.
11.
" Methodology for Combining Dynamic Responses,"
USNRC, NUREG-0484, Revision 1, May 1980.
12.
" Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1, February 1976.
13.
"IEEE Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations,"
IEEE Standard 344-1975, January 31, 1975.
14.
- Kennedy, R.
P.
and
- Kincaid, R.
H.,
"CMDOF (Coupling of Multiple Degrees of Freedom),
A Computer Program to Couple the
Response
of Structures and Supported Equipment for Multiple Degrees of Coupling Using the Results from Uncoupled Structure and Equipment Analysis,"
Structural Mechanics Associates, Version 1.2.0, December 3, 1982.
15.
" Mark I Containment Program Evaluation of Harmonic Phasing for the Mark I Torus Shell Condensation oscillation Loading,"
General Electric Company, NEDE-24840, October 1980.
16.
" Pipe Support Base Plate Design Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts," NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement, IEB-79-02, Revision 2,
November 8,
1979.
i O
1 DET-19-076-6 7.2 nutggh Revision 0 l
i 17.
- Wichman, K.
R.,
- Hopper, A.
G.,
and Mershon, J.
L.,
" Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loadings," Welding Research Council Bulletin 107, March 1979.
i 4
i l
l 4
i 1
I i
DET-19-076-6 7.3 Revision O
--nn..-
- - -