ML20079Q977

Forwards Matl Presented at Anderson,Greenwood & Co (Agco) Vacuum Breaker Test Program Owners Group 830607 Meeting W/ NRC Re Dynamic Testing & Analysis of Agco Vacuum Breaker Valve Assemblies

ML20079Q977
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna, Limerick, 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date:	06/17/1983
From:	Oconnor D BECHTEL GROUP, INC.
To:	Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8306210220
Download: ML20079Q977 (91)

Text

,

Bechtel Power Corporation Engineers-Constructors Fifty Beate Street San Francisco, Cahtornia Mail Aadress: P O Box 3965. San Francisco, CA 94119 JUN 171983 cs-3se U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.

C.

20555 Attention: Dr.

R. W.

Houston, Assistant Director Division of Systems Integration

Subject:

AGCo Vacuum Breaker Test Program

Enclosures:

1.

Meeting Agenda 2.

Test Program Overview 3.

Vacuum Breaker Valve Redesign 4.

Valve Fluid Dynamic Model Development 5.

Valve Structural Model Verification and Operability Tests 6.

Valve Structural Model Development 7.

SNPS Valve Qualification and Retrofit 8.

SSES Valve Qualification and Retrofit 9.

LGS Valve Qualification and Retrofit Dea r Mr. Houston:

On behalf of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS),

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), and Limerick Generat-ing Station (LGS ),

this letter is being issued to formally transmit the material presented to the Mechanical Engineering Branch and Containment Systems Branch staf f personnel of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 7, 1983 by the subject Test Program Owners Group regarding the dynamic testing and analysis of the Anderson, Greenwood & Company (AGCo) vacuum p) breake r valve assemblias.

6 g

@h

,pN hb)

T-44/46(6/83)

B306210220 830617 b@

Ifl

[DRADOCK 05000322 PDR

r Bechtel Power Cornoration Nuclear R:gulatory Commission r

Attention: Mr. Houston Page 2 The enclosed presentation naterial represents the culnination of the vacuum breaker test prograa which was initiated in July 1981 to addres's the NRC concern for potential valve damage as a result of cyclic impact loading conditions caused by the poolswell and chugging phenomena during a LOCA event, which may prevent the vacuum breaker fron fulfilling its design function.

The generic portions of the presentation material, Enclosures (2) through.(6), summarize the. valve redesign e f fort, the nodel development for predicting impact velocities and resultant stresses in the valve components, and the testing performed to validate the models and verify valve operability for the maxinum expected impact velocities.

Each of the participating utilities provided the specific valve modifications adopted for their individual plants as described in Enclosures (7), (8), and (9).

LILCo provided a detailed des-cription of the structural analysis performed for SNPS which, combined with the operability testing performed, constitutes a complete qualification of the redesigned valve for all antici-pated loading conditions.

The nodifications being adopted by SSES and LGS will result in a reduction of the impact velocities to values which will assure complete qualification of their valves.

This conclusion will be confirned when the respective structural analyses are completed.

Based on the above, we conclude that the NRC concern for vacuum breaker cyclic impact loading caused by the poolswell and chugging phenomena during a LOCA event should be considered closed for SNPS, SSES and LGS.

Very truly yours, D.

M.

O'Connor Program Manager Written Response Reg'd:

No DMO:nj Mr.

F.

Eltawila U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr.

H.

Chau Long Island Lighting Company Mr. J.

N.

Mollick Philadelphia Electric Company Mr.

P.

Furman Pennsylvania Power and Light T-44/46(6/83)

HM

r Ericwse.ne (1)

AGCo VACUUM BREAKER TEST PROGRAM OWNERS /NRC MEETING JUNE 7, 1983

~

AGENDA e

e VACUUM BREAKER TEST PROGRAM OVERVIEW D. M. O' CONT 40R e

PHASE IIIA

SUMMARY

e VALVE REDESIGN J. A. WEST e

VALVE FLUID DYNAMIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT A. J. BILANIN e

VALVE STRUCTURAL MODEL VERIFICATION & OPERABILIT'.' TESTS G. G. WILLIAMSON e

VALVE STRUCTURAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT B. R. PATEL e

VALVE QUALIFICATION SHOREHAM H. CHAU SUSOUEHANNA P. FURMAtt LIMERICK J. N. MOLLICK e

11RC CAUCUS f

f e

WPPSS VALVE MODIFICATION

& QUALIFICATION PROGRAM D. M. B0SI

f O

. Arreconsce.:-_NRC_.aune.:Le.JlM3 -MG Vses Shicn LU.___Vs */ _

__)ec& leL_BJ.e c., -1. c,.<>

R a ge,.

Pn_a _m e w 3_y i3 s c u n c. fa va c.v. x,w oc bEM WkEM/

_bb

~. MN.\\

. b -

_f.

b __

__._...__._..__...__..M

...__ _. _... I L.

. dhd

?,,A._ M 4, n

lO6 N O Y

S W 5 _~~~ O O Spod E ADr_

__ _ 50 EC.

._ S A or d **

.19l2x C.<>._..__-.

l -\\@%%Ch

___. - _ _ h Qi C,%

b2&'E EMAly_ZLA

.N_L.c /Dil/ C-5 B. -

T>-TeR4o

/vsc/ m / mes D.jwg 'BoSt S UPFXY SYS7r-^f a\\

{a.

1 Cr \\ a.

1, s Cv g.

u u..-

, r-hsy d,/!//s aa.n_

- -..l'.

b

~

s A m h v1=,

s* u s n a r 8J. &&/

Cn's c R U.p._.

. _ _h b.._. E M *. M ' M A N b '--

EML-T GhwN N fa / A EDp o

/

YMh_ _xa#M.

PIMv_ ___.. _ -__ _ _ _

_J,_Lw.p?ss_1 heem m 6==y

._ {

Y C (% )_!I

^'!.YNf!d03 me

.g-e=

.a

Eucwruge (2.)

to to "O

V G)

D E

D G)

L C) 5 w

48 G

4.s e

G)

G)

O C) 3 L

(lL) 4s Q

Q Q.

U Q

O E

E C

E 4o O

O C

D O

Ch O

U U

U E

Cn$

X X

CL

.E:

O C

C to O

--e LD X

X X

g

--* u) 0

-4*

U

--e.-e 5-48 3 si!"

D u)

M C)

CO "O

LD to m LLI O

O 48 Co X

X X

X F:.

M C

CO G.

O 4)

~

W D.

C.o O

W

> E l--

Co o

c c) L M

Z X

X X

48 G l.LJ Co O O M

L L act O Q LLJ Q

[

Cr Q) C SQ to O

.I-X E

O X

G 43 D

C O D

48

--* U U

UU 3 --*

act OO ch %

C1 O L - -

• E-J CO X

X X

3-O Q-Q O l

U D

w Cn O a:C CO l

C C

CL O l

O O

CL C C

C

• E: O l

O c5 43 05 V 43

% G

.-e O

0) O C M Q) to "O L

to Q L 4J - th O G)

"O

--* C) D

--* Q 3 O C) t.LI A

L O u) Q G to O O

.-e

-e A

H G

OE

> Q --*

> U --*

-* 48 O

C c)

. -

• O%

- C%

.O L C)

Z

--e >

Q)

OU C DD C O O >

4s.-*

O > C C

O C

O L Q-to O C.--* O act L U

• 2" LU c)

O l

c) >

O-O O

Qw>

l t--

4* > 43 L

% % b O O th O

C G)

C Q)

V

. -

• O G) U U G G E D G E ED G)

+ -.

-* C O

--* C O t-E %

O C C --*

th - U th --* U L -%

M G 3

O-G) 4J C Q) 48 C G) 4J O C L "O

th 3 D to 1 4-J to "O C k

- > C)

G) G) O G) G) O C G) O l

G)

~O LL A>

M l--

C 3 l--

Ca 6-- E to O

I i

1 1

I

.C Q-

• -4 ct CQ s-*

8 -e 9 =4

PHASE IIIA P

e VALVE REDESIGN I

~

e DESIGN REQUIREMENTS APPROPRI ATE ASME CODE AND REGULATORY GUIDES FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND OPERABILITY POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS CONSIDERED APPROPRI ATE LOAD COMBINATIONS CONSIDERED e

DESIGN CHANGES TO PROTECT PRESSURE B0UNDARY TO REDUCE IMPACT VELOCITIES e

VALVE FLUID DYNAMIC MODEL e - DETAILED ANALYTICAL MODEL DEVELOPED BASED ON PHASE II TEST DATA e

PREDICTS IMPACT VELOCITIES FOR PLANT SPECIFIC VALVE DESIGNS VALVE STRUCTURAL MODEL VERIFICATION AND OPERABILITY TESTS e

e DYNAMIC IMPACT TESTS TO VERIFY MODEL e

BOUNDING IMPACT TEST TO VERIFY OPERABILITY FOR l

R$0VIRED FUNCTION l

l u

e VALVE STRUCTURAL MODEL e

DETAILED FINITE ELEMENT MODEL DEVELOPED j

FOR P00L SWELL IMPACT LOAD STRESS ANALYSIS e

DOWNCOMER/ VALVE MODEL DEVELOPED FOR LOAD COPSINATION STRESS ANALYSIS e

VALVE QUALIFICATION e

EVALUATED ON PLANT-UNIQUE BASIS FOR INDIVIDUAL PLANT DESI,GNS e

ALL APPLICABLE LOAD COMBINATIONS CONSIDERED 6

r I

Eacwva (s)

.o VACUUM BREAKER REDESIGN A.

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS i

1.

CODES AND STANDARDS e

ASME CODE SECTION III, CLASS 2 e

REGULATORY GUIDE 1.48 2.

LOADING CONDITIONS e

POOL SWELL IMPACT LOAD e

BUILDING RESPONSE LOADS e

SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS 3.

LOAD COMBINATIONS l

e NORMAL e

UPSET e

EMERGENCY e

FAULTED B.

DESIGN OBJECTIVES 1.

INCREASE STRENGTH 2.

REDUCE IMPACT VELOCITY

C.

GENERIC CHANGES 1.

VALVE DISC e

HUB & TRUSS ASSEMBLY TO ABSORB IMPACT ENERGY TRANSFERS HIGH STRESSES AWAY FROM PRESSURE BOUNDARY MAINTAINS DIMENSIONAL INTEGRITY OF SEALING SURFACES e

THICKER DOME & RING FLANGE LOWER STRESSES DUE TO PRESSURE MAINTAINS DIMENSIONAL INTEGRITY OF SEALING SURFACES e

INTERNAL STOP REDUCE SHAFT, COLUMN AND ARM STRESSES l

l 2.

SHAFT, KEYS a PIVOT ARM e

REPLACED WITH BASICALLY THE SAME DESIGN BUT HIGHER STRENGTH MATERIAL e

SHAFT BEARING-AREA INCREASED

3.

SPRING CYLINDER LINKAGE o

SINGLE BAR LINKAGE REDUCES ACTUATION VELOCITY BY MODIFYING SPRING TOROUE AND DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS D.

OPTIONAL CHANGES 1.

STIFFER SPRING IN SPRING CYLINDER o

REDUCES ACTUATION VELOCITY BY MODIFYING SPRING TOROUE 2.

ACTUATING CYLINDER ATTACHED TO PIV0T SHAFT o

REDUCES ACTUATING VELOCITY BY MODIFYING DAMPING CHARACTERISTICS 3.

REDUCED VOLUME ABOVE PISTON l

o REDUCES ACTUATING VELOCITY BY PROVIDING DAMPING FOR OPEN DIRECTION l

i

~

VALVE BODY e.

2 O

O e' ( I)

'k C?.lFICE e'

,f,,.'p g PLATE

,e

s. s e'

3..)

+ ~.g.

v SHAFT WHMg/x n

AND KEYS N -~-

W}~_v.

P1V0T

}g ARM e

\\

N-I

\\

N DISC OPEN

\\

's STOP S SPRING

\\

s

/

\\

's g

• $ ' s

's s'

m+zere

' '='

N,

's

~~wm m - __

9

\\

/

VALVE r

Disc HUB

/

f h

/

DOM.

p j

SPOKES f

t

/

(SPIDERARPp

)

h

/

/

I

\\

f

/

~'

?Y_ _gj_,g/

RING.

v/g g g g,yy/7pxg

)

tLANGE i

~

DISC / ARM ASSEMBLY NEW DESIGil

9 LEAF $PRINGS 2

SHAFT

~

O e $.

da,d O

1 P-v=a c

0/

i O

=

~/

\\\\@

ie

~

T i 9 - ~ ~l TO CF -i--

4. _ L-

. NW'.

l

--l I-g';

g

--)

f

_._ _ n. ).

l\\

f j

C)/

SWITCH ARM N

O O

9

.o O

O

/

i I

I RING FLANGE AIR CYLINDER

~ SPRING CYLINDER VIEW OF_ VALVE AND AUX 3LTARIES - CLOSED POSITION

r o

SPRING CYLINDER LINK e

e n

/

.ll

/

[.

?

g SWITCH ARM I

PISTON R0D

\\

W 5

y't (a!9!+

m.

I i

I l

lll l

SPRING CYLINDER L!.l- --

s l

1 l

l l

. VIEW OF SPRING CYLINDER AND LINKAGE -

l CLOSED POSITION 6

D

.-,--o.

T S-t:

s i

I

=i a

a I

o s

/

./

/

/)

.c

/t ej.

/

}

._..-r 1

s.... s t

s 1 I

/

T * * * -[.g_ _

~

~ ~lJ f-gl 5

~ ifl5i] /

=

O L

J.

3 g

o g

.W W

• C g.

D N

b ei O

h

.t' e

F l

9

,,nw

Eaicrossee (A)

AGC0 VACUUM BREAKER VALVE DYNAMIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT i

Presented to UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION at BETHESDA, MARYLAND JUNE 7, 1983 Presented by ALAN J. BILANIN l

CONTINUUM DYNAMICS, INC.

PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY I

VALVE DYNAMIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT e

OBJECT e

VACUUM BREAKER VALVE DYNAMIC MODEL QUASI-STEADY MODELING QUASI-STEADY HYDRODYNAMIC TOROUE AIR SPRING CYLINDER /ACldATING CYLINDER SNUBBER VERIFICATION WITH TEST DATA e

P0OL SWELL TRANSIENT DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE ACROSS VALVE DISC i

WETWELL AIR SPACE PRESSURE TRANSIENT PREDICTED VALVE ACTUATION VELOCITY DURING POOL SWELL

i OBJECT 7

e TO DEVELOP A VALIDATED WETWELL TO DRYWELL VACUUM BREAKER DYNAMIC MODEL WHICH CAN BE USED TO PREDICT VACUUM BREAKER RESPONSE TO TIME DEPENDENT DIFFER-ENTIAL PRESSURE LOADING APPLIED ACROSS THE VACUUM BREAKER DISCS.

e' MODEL IS TO OUTPUT RESPONSE VARIABLES (SUCH AS DISC STOP IMPACT VELOCITY) REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURAL i

ANALYSIS OF THE VALVES.

L

QUASI-STEADY MODELING

,i e

ALTHOUGH THE VALVE DISC IS IN MOTION, DISC VELOCITIES ARE SUFFICIENTLY LOW S0 THAT THE HYDRODYNAMICS OF THE FLUID FLOW IS QUASI-STEADY.

S Strouhal number w(2e) y Uy p

w = 10 rad /sec l

l l

2e = 2 ft.

=)f2AP=500ft/sec Uy l

@ AP = 5.5 psid l

2we _1 U

" 3Bi y

l I

DOUBLE DISC VALVE MODEL er

~

A' n

n

/

/

'G I

'G l

l g,] P b)

P(t) 2e d

g, u

o2 c

i o

i g*

1 l

i_

i g

1. 02 V Q1 y

B D

a n

H

" max

• 2 max Valve disc 2 Valve disc 1 2353 + 1.Gl*1g sin (0:4G1)

• TH1 s

+T i

3;b;+LGa*2E *I"(

G2)

• H2 62 L

i s

ca (c:)

Q (t) = 2 lP (t) - p (t)l 2

u 1

l

,t p (t) = ha f (6)(t) - 0;(t)) +

[Qg (t) - Q2 (t))dt I.

g T

- torque developed from set point springs, t,pring and actuating cylinders and snubbers

7 i

~

\\

I 4

?.

4000 e

Single Bar Linkage

/

3000

-2 a=

8

/

Eo Four Bar Linkoge 2000 C

E w

E l

or O'

C B

1000 m

0 i

e i

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 6 (Deg)

Theoretical static rnain shaf t torque versus 0

(!

I AIR / SPRING CYLINDER AND ACTUATING CYLINDER MODELING Valve Shaft e

ISENTROPIC COMPRESSION fa, 0F N (Y = 1.4) 2 f-i Z D, i

o MASS CONSERVATION

~

(bFPER-LOWER CHAMBER

)

VOLUMES) o MODEL CALIBRATION AGAINST TEST DATA e

PRESSURIZATION OF y,

m_

CONTAINMENT DURING l

POOL SWELL ACCOUNTED FOR i

l

T' i

SNUBBER MODELING t

g PACIFIC SCIENTIFIC PSA-3 a

CONSTANT ACCELERATION n

g--

a p

F 6000' m

FORCE #

~

r MODEL VERIFICATION AGAINST DYNAMIC FLOW TEST DATA e

MEAN HYDRODYNAMIC TORQUE DATA e

MEASURED SPRING TOROUE VS OPENING ANGLE e

MEASURED DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE ACROSS COMPLETE VALVE ASSEMBLY PREDICT e

VALVE DISC DISPLACEMENT e

VALVE DISC VELOCITY

f N

ed M

3

~

m M-D Mo

' 4;hs.

b mm

\\%.

w l

=

c 4 +--

t 46 2

-r x

2 b1

.c w

G en a

p.

?E

.c-o ->-

)t.o

.e.

M A$

se a

N h

%=.

i u)

N I

b g

u 3

S

• [glir

^

v O

e IIs lti A

O

.l_Lij liI

.E z

H

'*~

I I

ed h

u d

E x

3 3

O O

,m

.c A

u g-<p- >

w w u

oc O

g m

wA

. sum.

g an==

1 kE O

e l

f C

3 u. w Om" amo p

A 4 6--

O

"*b i

N Uw w

w h '2 1

~

6 l

m g _<>-3 g a.

i w

i e

J O g w-s o

u l

3 AI E_

%)

e W

PUEmes e e

• P.2 5 -

x E

XX h

X g

l Xy h

xp,X xy x

x X

1. 0

-x kX X

XX O

W

<1 x

x l

<r O

J 0.75 N

Z K

XX g

X l

X :k n

l W

l g

o 0.5 0.25 I

X X

i O.0 O

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 6 (Deg) flydrodynamic torque mnasured data and analytic fit

)

e c

0e e o 2 S e

/

e d

a 6 (R 1

d e

es t

i c

t i

2i c

d 1

o e

le r

v P

t cap 8

m i

l a

n imo 4

n der u

sae 0

m

/

2 8

)

4 s

4 8

2 u

1 c

1 s

e

/

r e

S v

/

d d

4 e

t a

c i

R de

(

r P

d 8

e ru s

ae 2

M 1

N ee 6

1 0

2

,l

4 MARK II VACUUM BREAKER RESPONSE 5

POOL SWELL FORCING FUNCTIONS e

PEAK DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE = NUREG 0808 SPECIFICATION OF 5.5 PSID e

4TC0 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE HISTORIES USED TO DRIVE VACUUM BREAKER MODEL SELECT THE 2 LIQUID AND 2 STEAM BLOWDOWNS HAVING THE MAXIMUM PEAK UPLIFT AP WHEN ECONOMOS TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS APPLIED (RUNS 1,14,15 AND 21)

A BLOWDOWN-UNIQUE FACTOR WAS THEN ADDED UNIFORMLY TO EACH TRACE SUCH THAT THE PEAK AP WAS 5.5 PSID e

PREDICTED VALVE DISC IMPACT VELOCITIES DURING P00L SWELL,,

6 s

REDESIGNED ONE BAR AIR / SPRING ACTUATING OPENING CLOSING NUBBER (Rt4D/SEC)

(RAD /SEC)

DISK LINKAGE CYLINDER CYLINDER i

+

LGS /SSES X

X X

X 41.0 5.8 SHOREHAM X

X X

12.7 10.9 4

1.8

)

HANFORD 2 X

X (REINFORCED)

Y a

m

Emwsuae (5)

TEST-PROGRAM PERFORMED AT AGC0 Fall 1982 OBJECTIVES OF PHASE IIIA TESTING e

Finite Element Model Veritication e

Verify Valve Operability DYNAMIC MODEL VERIFICATION TESTING l

e Orientation for Opening Tests e

Orientation for Closing Tests e

Test Instrumentation e

Test Matrix e

Typical Time Histories VALVE OPERABILITY TESTS e

Test Rig e

Test Instrunentation e

Test Matrix o

Test Results Visual Leakage Deformation Weld Inspections Torque versus e

~

e Conclusions

s.

p INLET FL ANGE UP h

I r

T tA

\\

~

' PlVOT s

el

/

/ st I

/ ll

/

f e-ARM / DISC IP' ASSEM B LY

/

/

/

iW I

/ %s:l }%

t

/,Y l

/

\\

/

+

VALVE OPEN f,

+

STOP s

/

\\

l

/

i i

OUTLET MANUALLY LIFT VALVE DISC UP AND ALLOW TO FREE FALL AGAINST OPEN STOP.

Opening impoet test set-up.

7-

..n.

,,_,.e.,

UP a

VALVE OPEN STOP ARM / DISC

~

ASSEMBLY

(

PlVOT %

D \\ J4 f 7 OUTLET

// ;p%

\\

t s

g s

g N

s*

%Y

\\

INLET FLANGE MANUALLY LIFT VALVE DISC UP AND ALLOW TO FREE FALL AGAINST VALVE SEAT e

1 I

MODEL VERIFICATION PHASE Illa INSTRUMENTATION - DATA ACQUISITION j

o PARAMETERS MEASURED o

Angular position of disc o

Angular velocity of disc o

20 strain measurements 6 on front spokes 6 on rear spokes 3 on ring flange 4 on back of disc flange 1 on dome DATA ACQUISITION l

0 28 channel FM tape recorder I

o 14 channel oscillograph i

Data subsequently digitized for further processing and l

l final presentation l

i I

4 MODEL VERIFICATION TESTS Dynomic Test Series Matrix i

Test No.

Test Type Impact Velocities, rps 3AM2-1 Opening 6.5

-2 2.8

-3 6.7 I

-4 8.5 3AM1-14 Closing

-0.3 1-15

-4.4 1-16

-4.3 1-17

-5.6 1-18

-9.0 1-19

-10.8 1-20

-8.6 4

e f

}.2 e

i 10 _

j m

l C

08 C

CL v

UJl 06 O

Z-C i

U$

04 O

pb 02 _

/g O

e i

i i

10 11 12 13 14 15 TIME (SEC) l Figure 5-33.

Disc angle time history (RVTD)

e h

h

(

~

\\

j C

_P

,-Q

_ g e

o?

C OG 4

LLI K[

cn to

)

E C

~

t

/-

~

_ g

<T a

~

6 l

l i

t

.e G

G Q

O G M (u

tu v

w (D

G 0) i I

I I

yQ WIU31S 6

w.

n.

,rn,-.

W h

I

/_

QA __.

A^

3* -

Qj u-

~ xu__,

C1

,o rv v w r. qg~

o i

i

/

\\

/

1

_e

$fb W

951

~$

!ss t

';c s

3-c or k B

.a

_Ql

['

w GO I

)

@ 'k i

h j j u

,r idi l "v

's,IF.

~

H N

L

~

a

/

I N

E 5

?

9 l

3 e

1

/

u!

s l

l s

..i.

__ c s

gi N_2 g

i 1

l

{

l

VALVE OPERABILITY PHASE IIIA 5

INSTRUMENTATION - DATA ACQUISITION PARAMETERS MEASURED o

Angular position of disc O

Angular velocity of disc o

Strain Front spoke Rear spoke' Ring flange Disc flange Vertical arm Main shaft DATA ACQUISITION o

28 channel FM tape recorder o

14 channel oscillograph Data subsequently digitized for further processing and final presentation i

i

._.m..._.

VALVE OPERABILITY i

a PHASE IIIA TEST MATRIX RUN NO TEST TYPE DESIRED

• ACHIEVED IMPACT VEL,RPS IMPACT VEL,RPS 3ASl-1 Open 17 17 3AS2-1 Close

-14 14 l

3AS2-2

-14 14 l

• APPR0XIMATELY 30% HIGHER THAN MAXIMUM PREDICTED VALUES t

l l

i l

l

VALVE OPERABILITY PHASE lilA TEST RESULTS h

LEAKAGE AT 4 PSI Pre-test 80 cc/ min Post-test 315 cc/ min Attew.

limit 28,000 cc/ min SET PRESSURE Pre-test 7.02 in H O 2

Post-test 6.30 in H O 2

DIMENSIONAL INSPECTION

)

Flotness of disc seat Pre-test 0.002 in Post-test 0.004 in (The seal can deflect 0.039 in to compensate for disc seat variations)

NO DEFORMATION OR VISUAL INSPECTION SEAL DEGRADATION WELD INSPECTION LIQUID PENETRANT ALL WELDS SATISFACTORY STATIC TOROUE TESTS SATISFACTORY REPEATABILITY

,m..

--7..

~-

VALVE OPERABILITY PHASE IIIA k

CONCI.USIONS VALVE OPERABILITY TEST RESULTS INDICATE:

A)

OPERABILITY MAINTAINED B)

INTEGRITY OF THE VALVE PRESSURE BOUNDARY WAS MAINTAINED

'T G

m

i ADDITIONAL HIGHER IMPACT TESTS PHASE IIIA

-i TEST MATRIX 1

ACHIEVED RUN No.

TEST TYPE IMPACT VELOCITY j

3AS1-2 OPEN 18+

3AS1-3 OPEN 30+

e t

I

ADDITIONAL HIGHER IMPACT TESTS-PHASE IIIA TEST RESULTS i

LE6KAGE AT 4 PSI Pre-test 315 cc/ min Post-test 330 cc/ min ALLOW..

limit 28,000 cc/ min SET PRESSURE Pre-test 6.30 in H O 2

Post-test 6.70 in H O 2

DIMENSIONAL INSPECTION Flotness of disc seat Pre-test 0.004 in Post-test 0.018 in (The seal con deflect 0.039 in to compensate for disc seat variations)

VISUAL INSPECTION SP0KE DEFORMATION WELD INSPECTION LIQUID PENETRANT ALL WELDS SATISFACTORY STATIC TOROUE TESTS SATISFACTORY REPEATABILITY G

,,,.r-,

ADDITIONAL HIGHER IMPACT TESTS PHASE IIIA CONCLUSIONS l

VALVE OPERABILITY TEST LRESULTS INDICATE:

A)

OPERABILITY MAINTAINED B)

INTEGRITY OF THE VALVE PRESSURE BOUNDARY-WAS MAINTAINED I '

9 6

-_m.--

v.

v-

Y

&ctosoee (b)

AGC0 VACUUM BREAKER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ij G

PRESENTED TO THE U.S.N.R.C.

l AT BETHESDA, MD JUNE 7',' 1983 l

~

B. R'. PATEL CREARE R8D INC.

i MTG-83-6-19

~

i i

- SUMARY FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS WAS USED FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS MODELS AND METHODOLOGY WERE DEVELOPED TO ANALYZE THE VACUUM BREAKER MODELS AND METHODOLOGY WERE VERIFIED BY C0tiPARISONS WITH TEST DATA e

i 9

e e

v v

y-------

r-e--

v-a e--

w + + - ~ - -

r*e-

~

~

Creare mo !

\\

1)RYWELL

' g's ~.

o <<,

e,f,? - :.o V:b'

'.l* b *c ' /,,p

~." DRY W ELLif LO0h e

.,ty)K.

ll0&W8?P w

,)

k, i

SETWELL 2

u a

~ AIRSPACE VACUUM BREAKER DOWNCOMER COLLAR j

M' j

W BR ACING

,. ^^^

- - -- ^ ^. _ _ _ _ _

>^

SUP'PR ESSION POOL M

V

%.)

^

.N.D R A IN Figure 1.1 SCllE!!ATIC OF DOWFJCO!!ER WITH VACUUM BREAKER

~

,:..~

s

.t-s M

N

' '~

~

arsxx \\ \\ \\xx x wn OR'IFICE PLATE-1 O s

PlV0T ' ARM a

=

L

/

' = =-

-TURN BUCKl.E 00ME m f

/

_ i," '

g STOP

/

FRONT SPIDERS

-i w i'...'z i

2

/'N x

kus

\\ /

REAR SPIDERS RING FLANCE L

m

.NA\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ x \\ xA a

g

~7

.-VALYE BODY

~

Q

' g Figure 1.2d SIDEVIEWOFbISKASSEMBLY-CLOSEDPOSITION

@c

^"

z...

.s w'.

~

_ _2 9

~.

e i

3 3,z s

\\

,,s

~

%,_sm mu w_u S-101 r 3

. ORIFICE PSTE /

%i

- PlVOT ARM a

=

L

--c

/

eTURN BUCKl.E

==

00ME m

--/

^

/

=q.

STOP FRONT SPIDERS

~~/

".,',. ' " i

/'\\

x

~

-HUB

\\ /

REAR SPIDERS RING Ft.ANGE

%d

\\ \\/)\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\;A N

A hr o

or.-

.' ]

.-VAss BODY O

' g Figure 1.2d SIDEVIEWOFbISKASSEMBLY-CLOSEDPOSITION c.

~

Creare en SPRING CYLINDER I. INK l

I

/ O

_ /

..l" l'

. SWITCH ARM

\\i i

PISTON R0D

=

\\

e,

-% iej! +

I hj+

h b4 I

!{l' SPRING CYLINDER LJ- - f =

I O

Figure 1.2b. VIEW OF SPRING CYLINDER AND LINKAGE -

CLOSED POSITION

--v

~

- - + -

e,-r w----c

--e 9 ywm

,,,.,-----w-v

Creare m LEAF $PRINGS-5 SHAFT i

O O

O

~s CI (2

- Q,42 f-f

~

==

- O,,/

c)

{

1 j

(- x (h

='

' [-

\\ l i 9TlFQ M_ _ _lL

. N7 l

8 Y

l l\\

g

/

y-() \\

j i

s SWITCH ARN

/'

O o

O

'/

o t

O/O

/

i RING FLANGE AIR CYLINDER

' SPRING CYLINDER Figure 1.2c VIEW OF VALVE Af;D AUXILLARIES - CLOSED POSITIOff

FINITE ELEMENT MODELS TWO TYPES OF MODELS WERE CONSTRUCTED:

5 DETAILED FINITE ELEMENT MODELS OF THE DISC ASSEMBLY FINITE ELEMENT MODELS OF THE DOWNCOMER AND VACUUM BREAKER WITH THE DISC ASSEMBLY MODELLED AS A LUMPED MASS DECOUPLING 0F THE DISC ASSEMBLY FROM.THE REST OF THE VALVE JUSTIFIED DUE T0lHE MUCH HIGHER STIFFNESS OF THE DISC ASSEMBLY l

l l

I' l

i

Creeweany 9

PP

_ b N

I1 4

f I1 i

i 1

I l

Il l

Figuro 2.3 CROSS-SECTION OF RIt?G PLANCE At:D DOME

breOre WE f

DRY WELL FLOOR

./////////

BEARING LINK

_ \\, /

~

PlV0T a

ARM j@R DOWN00MER C

=

ASSEMBLY BRACE W Tigure 2.6a SCIEMATIC Or MODEL 2

..-.e

O Creare RD-O e

i

?

/

ff{~

b

%ng hk!

)

Ak.l ~

9h

),

/

s

-y 9 /,

~

Mp;,

/

~

'l m3..

iY x

~5:==: '-

~

a. 3 9,,.,

e 4

l FIGURI: 2.4 FINITE ELE 51ENT BREAKUP OF DISK ASSEMBLY l

e

W

~

Creare y BE

}

ARING LINK D o'

+

T/

i PlVO T-ARM l

- PISTO N R0D l

n

/

DISC ASSEMBLY

~ SPRINC CYLlN DE R NASS LUMPED AT 00 0F DISC ASSEM BLy e

i f

gure 2.6b senEMATIC or yALVE HOVING PARTS IN Moorn 2

'r

LOAD CASES t

STATIC LOADS i

FLOOR EXCITATION LOADS FLUID-STRUCTURE LOADS IMPACT LOADS i

A e

i l

l e

G

---m

,-+c---i

.,,.,,,.,m

x IMPACT METHODOLOGY IMPACTSRUNSEPARATELYONDISCASSEMBLYANDhlV ARM / LINKAGE / SPRING CYLINDER MODELS f

i 9

e t

e l

l 4

e e-9 i

Creare we I p.V= CLOSING VELOCITY l l RING FLANGE

=

MASS 7

CAPM

~

ELEMENT SPIDER ARMS DOME MASS ll

-> V CLOSING VELOCITY FIGURE 4.1 CLOSING IMPACT CONFIGURATION FOR DISK ASSEMBLY MODEL l

l c

Creare w a

OPENING OPENING VELOCITY

.. \\v VELOCITY v

v G AP.E LEME NT I

HUB STOP &

LEAF SPRINGS de e

l 1

TIGURE 4.2 OPENING IMPACT CONFIGURATION FOR DISK ASSEMBLY MODEL

- -. ~. _

Creare im SHAFT CENTERLINE PlV0T ARM

///>--

/

l l j/

GAP ELEMENT

~ Figure 4.10 CLOSING IMPACT CONFIGURATION FOR PIVOT ARM-LINKAGE ASSEMBLY MODEL

,y-

Crance w,

i e

SHAFT CENTERLINE

////////

Y Y

GAP ELEMENT PlV0T ARM HUB STOP l

i Fisure 4.11 OPENING IMPACT CONFIGURATION FOR PIVOT ARM-LINKAGE ASSEMBLY MODEL f

3AM MODEL VERIFICATION TESTS IMPACTTESTSWEREPERFORMEDONTHEVALVETOVSRIFY F.E. MODEL AND METHODOLOGY

~

COMPONENTS STRAIN GAGED WERE:

DOME RING FLANGE SPIDERS PlVOT ARM SHAFT LINK AND PISTON e

f i

G 9

Creare wo-

"l

(

1.50 14A14B h

14 C,14 D f

/.

/

/./

~

E A,2 B,2 C I A.lB,1C m-c i

Q 3e

~

7 IN RADIUS

- 3A

' FROM CENTER-

{

~

LINE OF HUB s 43

\\

c 4B

[

i 4.25

- z 'iz

z. i s y

.nz t

l11

.As

~

y/

~;-

gs g.w/xc

/

ij - - -. - -

~

t.,... - -, 5Z, ~iN-4 m/

_u E

l

-/

l l

g A

i Figure 4.12 STRAIN GACE LOCATIO!!S AS"S!!OWN It! CROSS-SECTIOil OF DISC / FRO!!T l

SPOD: ASSD!BLY e

w

--~w,

'c"

^^

^^

Creare so-I I

l

=.

s

~

15 g

r.

IT l8

,i

,r N-

.a '

y

\\

REAR SPO OB STRAIN GAGE K

\\

l TO BE g

STRAIN l

5A,SB,6A GB GAGED I

\\x A,38,4 A,4 8 s

\\

l' Figure 4.13 STRAIN GAGE LOCATIONS AS SIIOWN IN REAR VIEW OF DISC / SPOKE ASSI'.MBLY

Creare m.o-

~

~

.r o

2.7 8 t sy

~

2.*l l 7 F

I

~

~.56 2

~

h

=

As

\\

r

-' l U! ' '

////\\' / / // j',

l i

i fff.f

// [

/ / o's Q

r

.\\<!

s,- i E

i

/

./

/

t 4

6A

/

l f)il'

{

/

5B 3.25 g

s

}*

t s

t 7

SA I

I j\\

6B f

l

\\

i 5.216 DIA. (.

l J'

l

. e 2 S QAD,

~.

l

• 3'3 0 l Figure 4.14 STRAIN..GACE LOCATIONS AS S!!OWN IN CROSS-SECTION OF DISC /RI'An

_ SPOKE ASSEM11LY

,.--n-m-., -

,m

COMPARISON OF MODEL PREDICTIONS WITH TEST DATA STRAINGAGELOCATIONSSHOWINGMAXIMUMSTRAINS(11THE TESTS WERE SELECTED MEASURED STRAINS WERE CONVERTED TO STRESSES USING ASME CODE RULES MODEL PREDICTIONS AT STRAIN GAGE LOCATIONS WERE COMPARED WITH MEASURED STRESSES O

e 9

,. e g

g g

Sv. bel Tyr.. er !=ssets c

cf = ins O

Ce,=%ine PREDICTION

.e w-..

o s

n 6

l A

t l

th O.'

V

.g a

M E a'

(f)

O

.Q I

-i-C.

)

t,n

~,

2 j

. A-g 3

n

-15

-le

-5 2

5 le 15 4

Opening O

Closing Angulor VeIocIty of Impoct (rodionsIsecond) 0 10

_, COMPARISON OF' CALCULATED STRESS FOR POOL-SWELL IMPACTS WITH TEST DATA -

y rigure 4.15 CIncU::. :sTnEss In air:G FutNGE v.

vi 'w a C. wi>

.r 1

l a'g.

. ~. _

t;,

O-a C

e i

m rd s.

C^

6 3 g.g

c. C G

w CO a:

O o

t V3 i

O

[3 i

O O

g N

n m

n C

I O

n N.4 I

~O m

I O

1 o

C o

... o l

v r g o

x -

4-Ok e O

V3 gn s.

O m

a C.

M M

4 A

0 E

H y m

s-.

a o

rz.

41 4-t4 e O

d Z

H a:

N" n

8 4

H o

m m

g, m 8

l N

0 1

I 2

x e t

i O

o to L

i H

g m

I I

w m

?.:)

i

.)

o

n. o y

c n m O H A

i g

O u o s-

.a o

4, e

i l

.A c

c

+

..g o 1 3

• lu!;

'CQ I

8 a

j

.- c 2

coCC,

e I

O o

It l

l

.1

'.~!

U k

l U

0 s

t i

e 7

3 cccs-2t00.

JacSt-cccc2-

~.

.(isd) s s ea.fg

~.

5007h 7O

~

e 5

1 t

1 E

g n

t i

A

/

n)

T ed A

1 t

0 D

pn T

Oo S

o c

ET e

H s

T o.-

/

IW s

n S

T o

C l

5 A

i P

I d

D o

L r

L O.

(

E iII W

S t

L' e

OO o

P p

S t

R M m

O R F

A N

I O

'4 S

R I

S E

T t

E D

C I

a R

I D

T P

E S

S R

y D T P

t E

N T

O A

R i

i 5

L F

c U

o C M t

L C

A l

e C S S

V F

E

.L_

I g,

O RT r

N S s

O e

o S

D te I

E s

o e

l R N s

n t

/

n 0 ou A

I a

i.

n 1

f P

3 ng M

~-

e e

~

m r

t e

O O in e

C D

C C sA eer o

9 f

1 i

l C

4 te b

a o e

a, r

i.

5 5

ug 1

s i

. 8m

,oe.

="

=="

_. = _

F

~

n e o.v

,m E + m

.i i

~=

.i 3..s.:

r...

or i......

o cr.....

o......

l

=

'o S,

1, 1

n.

O g..

eo, =i

/-

i v

I O

e 0

O

- PRE)ICTION c-.

i t =.,

4-P I

.r, D i

i t

i

+

t.

6

=

i e

4

/

i.

j l\\

=

I C

-is

-so

-s a

s se is 5

Closing Opening G.

j Angulor Velocity of Impoet (rodions/second)

'O 1

3b Figure 4.21 COMPARISON OF CALCULATED STRESS FOR POOL SWELL IMPACTS WITI! TEST DATA -

COMBINED STRESS ON REAR SPIDER ARMS 77 C

CONCLUSIONS MODEL PREDICTIONS SHOW VERY GOOD AGREEMENT WITH TEST DATA i

IT CAN.THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT THE F.E. MODELS AND METHODOLOGY ARE VERIFIED e

i e

9

[

[

i l

l I

G e

e D

y r

- ce

-r 9ey-

- - - =..-

v-

~.---.3,y.,v-

,m,

,--- - -. - - - -, - - - -,- - -,, -,, -. - - - - - -. - - - - - - - + - - - -- - -,

SHOREHAM VALVE

~~

QUALIFICATION RETROFIT i

PRESENTED AT OWNERS /NRC MEETING JUNE 7,1983 i

R.E. FORTIER STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION B.R. PATEL CREARE R&D INC.

r DR.H.CHAU

!n LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY I

83 32,422 2

l SHOREHAM VACUUM l

BREAKER INSTALLATION i

I l

o COMMITMENT TO NRC VACUUM BREAKER DESIGN CHANGES e

t i

l e

RESULTS OF ASME/ STRUCTURAL AND OPERABILITY ANALYSES / TESTS e

ASSESSMENT OF ASME/ STRUCTURAL AND OPERABILITY ANALYSES / TESTS a

JUSTIFICATION FOR MODIFIED VACUUM BREAKER e

32,423

i l

COMMITMENT TO NRC

~

j MEETING WITH NRC ON MAY 20,1982 i

i lT IS OUR INTENT THAT FULLY QUAllFIED VACUUM BREAKER j

l VALVES WILL BE INSTALLED AND TESTED PRIOR TO ANY PLANT i

i OPERATION AND/OR TEST REQUIRING DRYWELL l

FLOOR INTEGRITY..."

%.19 49A

'.f..

I VACUUM BREAKER DESIGN CHANGES H

l

=

SEPTEMBER 1982 - COMPLETED INSTALLATION OF RETROFIT i

PARTS WHICH INCLUDED THE FOLLOWING DESIGN CHANGES:

l e

REDESIGNED DISC l

j REDESIGNED HIGHER STRENGTH CENTER BOLT e

REDESIGNED HIGHER STRENGTH PlVOT ARM e

l e

HIGHER STRENGTH KEYS o

HIGHER STRENGTH PlVOT SHAFT e

EXTENDED BEARING ~ CAPS' e

REDSIGNED SPRING LINKAGE e

HlGHER SPRING CONSTANT SPRING j

83-32,425

-,.. g

. d p.

%y y.,

si 4.-

.e W., / '..

.j w

-c Y

t:r f ?..t )

r -

, ?/

',Y LOAD CASES a

',,i STATIC LOADS 4

1

. r, -

f:

s,i.1 N

FLOOR EXCITATION LOADS

', }

FLUID-STRUCTURE LOADS s

t

,3 s

~

IMPACT LOADS

'.i' r

/

s t

, \\

r s

r

(

)

1 i.!

,N

\\

e s

~: m..

-s e,

f

.' M 8 '

k

.j s'-

.Q j

t e

,s

)

j s

y.,

y y.,,

l e,

^)

}

f:.

j f.

=.

>.i

-3

< \\

.i 1

p 5)

y *

\\

s*

}

e

/

,}

+-

/

p.

c

./

,I

/

tg

-t s

i e,i j

e ll {

1. y s

./3 f*

i l

(

,4-

[

brGOreIbD' B

- o

.s TABLE OF LOAD CASES LOAD CASE SYMBOLS MODELS f

USED 9

STATIC LOADS

~

1. Deadweight DW1. DWA & DWB 1, 2A & 2B

2. Ig along valve axis DWlY

-1

3. 1.68 psi towards closing P

1

4. 2.75 psi towards closing P"

1

5. 2.75 psi towards opening P,"

1

6. 30 psi towards closing 1, 2A & 2B

7. Spring Preload in open position SPIO, SP2O 1, 2A & 2B

8. Spring Preload in closed position SPIC, SP2C 1, 2A & 2B

~

~

'9. Disc Assembly Preload PREL1 1

FLOOR EXCITATION LOADS 1.

Operating Basis Earthquake OBEA

.2A 2.

Safe Shutdown Eathquake SSEA & SSEB 2A & 2B 3',

SRV Floor Excitation Load

/

SRVEA & SRVEB 2A & 2B 4.

LOCA Floor Excitation Load

.LOCAE 2B FLUID-STRUCTURE LOADS J.

SRV Drag Load

'SRVDA & SRVDB 2A & 2B

2..LOCA Bubble Load LOCAB 2B 3.

Condensation Oscillation Load CO 2B

'4.

Chugging Drag Load CHUGD 2B IMPACT LOAD

1. Closing & Opening Impact Load IMPC, IMPO See Sect. 4

2. Closing & Opening Damping Torque Load TORQC..TORQO 2B S

e 0

e o

e 9

4 4

cw,

-~.

LOAD COMBINATIONS CONSIDERED lNORMALCONDITION DEADWEIGHT + SPRING PRELOAD + PRESSURE + DIS ASSY'. PRELOAD

~

UPSET CONDITION DEADWEIGHT + SPRING PRELOAD + DISC ASSY. 'PRELOAD + SRSS (DEE 8 SRV EMERGENCYGONDITION DEADWEIGHT + SPRING PRELOAD + DISC ASSY'.' PRELOAD + SSE FAULTED CONDITIONS DEADWEIGHT + PRESSURE + SPRING PRELOAD + DISC ASSY. PRELOAD +

SRSS (SSE, SRU & LOCA)

DEADWEIGHT + PRESSURE + SRSS (SSE',' (I,; PACT + DAFPING TORQUE +

DISC ASSY. PRELOAD))

l l

l D

-,.,_--7-_-.

I PROCEDUREFORVERIFYINGVALVESTRUCTURALINThGRITY LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYSIS APPROACH WAS USED FOR ALL COMPONENTS PLASTIC ANALYSIS APPROACH WAS USED FOR THE SPIDERS FOR THE IMPACT LOAD CASE ALLCOMPONENTSWEREEVALUATEDAGAINSTTHEALLdWABLES SPECIFIED FOR EACH LOAD COMBINATION IN SECTION III 0F THE ASME B & PV CODE.

(

rn--

m-

-r---

PLASTIC ANALYSIS OF SPIDERS SPIDERS ARE DESIGNED AS ENERGY ABSORBING MEMBERS TO ABSORB THE ENERGY OF-THE IMPACT AND MAINTAIN TH,E INTEGRITY OF THE PRIMARY PRESSURE RETAINING BOUNDARY (DOME / RING FLANGE)

A PLASTIC ANALYSIS WAS PERFORMED TO EVALUATE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE SPIDERS FOR COMPONENT PLASTIC ANALYSIS - APPENDIX F ASME B8PV CODE RE' QUIRES THAT:

N0 GROSS SYSTEM DEFORMATIONS OCCUR WHICH COULD INVALIDATE THE SYSTEM ELASTIC ANALYSIS OR BOUNDING SOLUTION IS OBTAINED WHICH CON.

SERVATIVELY ACCOUNTS FOR LOAD REDISTRIBUTION AND STRESS DUE TO PLASTICITY 1

O 4

l

VALIDIT'Y OF PLASTIC ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATED BY:

IMPACTTESTSATHIGHERTHANDESIGNIMPACTVEL0hlTIES WHICH SHOWED:

N0 GE0 METRIC DISTORTION OF THE DISC ASSEMBLY OCCURRED POST TEST LEAKAGE TEST FURTHER VERIFIED THE DIMENSIONAL INTEGRITY OF DISC / DOME A B0UNDING SOLUTION WITH DEMONSTRABLY CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS 4

e I

e l

e 4

e

ANALYSIS IMPACT LOADS ARE ENERGY LIMITED LOADS; THEREFORE, PLASTIC STRAIN DEVELOPED CAN BE DERIVED FROM THE MAXIMUM STRAIN ENERGY ABSORBED BY SPIDERS.

MAXIMUM STRAIN ENERGY ABSORBED BY SPIDERS OBTAINED FROM ELASTIC F.E. ANALYSIS OF DISC ASSEMBLY PLASTIC STRAIN CORRESPONDING TO MAXIMUM STRAIN ENERGY ABSORBED WAS CALCULATED PLASTIC STRAIN WAS COMPARED WITH THE STRAIN CORRESPONDING TO ALLOWABLE STRESSES AS' DEFINED IN SECTION F-1341.2 0F APP. F.

RESULTANT PLASTIC STRAINS WERE CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN STRAINS CORRESPONDING TO ALLOWABLE STRESSES l

a l

b e

BOUNDIllG SOLUTION i

ASSUMED THAT TOTAL DISC ASSEMBLY KINETIC ENERGY AT

~

IMPACT IS ABSORBED BY TWO REAR SPIDERS

. THE RESULTING PLASTIC STRAlfl IS LESS THAN STRAIN CORRESPONDING TO ALLOWABLE STRESS o

f l

e e

-,-,m,

,---,----v--

STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR NORMAL, UPSET, EMERGENCY ~ CONDITIONS', STRESSES IN ALL COMPONENTS BELOW ASME CLASS 2.ALLOWABLES 5

~

FOR FAULTED CONDITION NOT INVOLVING POOL SWELL IMPACTS, STRESSES IN ALL COMPONENTS BELOW ASME CLASS 2 ALLOWABLES -

SHAFT, LINKAGE, SPRING CYLINDER, STRESSES BELOW EMERGENCY ALLOWABLES FOR FAULTED CONDITION INVOLVING POOL SWELL IMPACTS':

STRESSES IN PRIMARY PRESSURE RETAINING BOUNDARIES -

DOME AND RING FLANGE - BELOW ASME CLASS 2 FAULIED

' ALLOWABLES STRESSES IN PIV0T ARM, SHAFT, LINKAGE', SPRING CYLINDER BELOW ASME CLASS 2 EMERGENCY ALLOWABLES INTEGRITY OF SPIDERS VERIFIED BY PLASTIC ANALYSIS l

S l

~

PROCEDURE FOR VERIFYING VALVE OPERABILITY,

i e

FOR PRIMARY PRESSURE RETAINING COMPONENTS AND OTHER DISC ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS, OPERABILITY WAS VERIFIED BY TESTS IN ADDITION TO FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES J

FOR ALL OTHER COMPONENTS, EMERGENCY ALLOWABLES WERE USED FOR THE FAULTED LOAD COMBINATIONS AND DEFORMATION ANALYSES WERE PERFORMED TO VERIFY OPERABILITY THE AB0VE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF REG. GUIDE 1.48.

f l

e OPERABILITY TESTS j

. o VACUUM BREAKER HAS SUBJECTED TO OPENING AND CLOSING IMPACT VELOCITIES SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE DESIGN IMPACT VELOCITIES POSI TEST INSPECTION AND LEAK TESTS SHOW THAT THE VALVE IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL 9

e e

+

e O

O O

e

CONCLUSIONS THEVACUUMBREAKERHASBEENASSESSEDFORALLbPERATING e

CONDITIONS IN THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION THIS ASSESSMENT SHOWS THAT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND OPERABILITY OF THE VALVE IS ASSURED FOR ALL OPERATING CONDITIONS e

9 8

e a

O L

l ASSESSMENT OF ASME/ STRUCTURAL l

AND OPERABILITY ANALYSES

~

FINITE ELEMENT MODELS ADEQUATELY REPRESENT e

)

STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR OF THE COMPONENTS ANALYSIS CODE EMPLOYED IS APPLICABLE TO THE i

e GEOMETRIES AND LOADS i

j ASME III AND REG. GUIDE 1.48 CRITERIA ARE MET FOR e

j PRESSURE BOUNDARY COMPONENTS i

PLASTIC ANALYSIS ADEQUATELY PREDICTS BEHAVIOR OF i

e l

ENERGY ABSORBING SPIDERS e STRUCTURAL ANALYSES SUBSTANTIATED BY TEST RESULTS CONFIRMING THE MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURAL AND PRESSURE BOUNDARY INTEGRITY 3

OPERABILITY VERIFIED BY AG TEST RESULTS e

83 32,42G

r I

JUSTIFICATION FOR MODIFIED i

VACUUM BREAKER _. _.

J l

l AS INSTALLED, VALVES ARE QUALIFIED PER ASME III CRITERIA e

1 l

AS INSTALLED, VALVES ARE OPERABLE (PER USNRC e

REGULATORY GUIDE 1.48?

s l

l

\\

COMMITMENT TO NRC FOR VALVE QUALIFICATION HAS e

BEEN MET

• =e

(-,

PP&L VACUUM BREAKER QUALIFICATION O

AS A RESULT, PP&L DECIDED TO i

INCORPORATE THE PHASE 3A INTERNALS INCORPORATE THE DOUBLE CYLINDER MODIFICATION O

THIS RESULTS IN IMPACT VELOCITIES OF LESS THAN 1.0 RAD /SEC FOR OPENING 5,8 RAD /SEC FOR CLOSING CREARE IS IN THE PROCESS OF PERFORMING THE STRUCTURAL 0

EVALUATION OF THE VB, USING THE ABOVE IMPACT VELOCITIES AND OTHER DESIGN LOADS 0

THE CALCULATED STRESSES WILL BE LOWER THAN THE STRESSES FOR THE HIGHER IMPACT VELOCITIES PREDICTED FOR THE SINGLE CYLINDER MODIFICATION (SHOREHAM CONFIGURATION) 0 IN CONCLUSION, THIS STRESS ANALYSIS COMBINED WITH THE RESULTS OF THE VB OPERABILITY TEST ENSURES A QUALIFIED VB

y Euewsvae Ch PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY AGC0 VACUUM BREAKER QUALIFICATION O

PECO DETERMINED TO SOLVE CHUGGING PROBLEM BY CAPPING DOWNCOMERS (END OF MARCH 1983).

INVOKES PHASE,3A REDESIGN.

O PECO ALSO PLANS TO UTILIZE THE SPRING CYLINDER AND THE ACTUATING CYLINDER FOR MAXIMUM REDUCTION OF IMPACT VELOCITIES.

O PECO VALVE DESIGN CRITERIA IS NOW SIMILAR TO PP8L CRITERIA.

O PECO IMPACT VELOCITIES WILL BE:

OPENING LESS THAN 1.0 RAD /SEC CLOSING 5.8 RAD /SEC 0

CREARE IS PERFORMING STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF THE REDESIGNED VB, USING ABOVE IMPACT VELOCITIES.

O COMPLETION OF THE STRESS REPORT PLUS THE RESULTS OF TESTS PERFORMED WILL ASSURE THAT THE LIMERICK VB ARE PROPERLY QUALIFIED.

JNM 6/6/83

~-

- - _. - - _ _