ML20080P742
| ML20080P742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1984 |
| From: | Edwards N, Lehnert R, Sanchez R NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080P730 | List: |
| References | |
| BPC-01-300-1, BPC-01-300-1-V01-R00, BPC-1-300-1, BPC-1-300-1-V1-R, NUDOCS 8402230101 | |
| Download: ML20080P742 (202) | |
Text
.
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 January 1984 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION PLANT UNICUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 1 GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY Prepared for:
Public Service Electric and Gas Company b
Q Prepared by:
NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
San Jose, California I
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
l -
R. A. Lehnert, P.E. R. A. Sabch M .E g Project Manager Principal Engineer N Approved by: Issued by:
~
N. W. Edwards, P.E R. A. Lehnert, P.E.
President Project Manager i O "
8402230101 840210
TITLE: Hope Creck Generating DOCUMENT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-1 Statico Revision 0 Plant Unique Analysis 0 Report Volume 1 R. A. Lehnert/ Project Manager h
Initials k.1/ A L 204 R. D. Quinn/ Senior Engineer Initials R. A. Sanc6e2/Prind. thal Engineer Initials A A MET D. K. YoshiGt1/ Engineer Inifials PREPAMED ACCURACY CMITERIA
'#0E I "#" U SY / DATE CHECK SY/ DATE CHECK SY / DATE
, ii 0 Rhl lI"l7-64 MKj//~I8*W Nf//~ITY iii 0 iv a v 0
0 vi 0 vii 0 viii 0 ix 0 x 0 xi 0 xii 0 xiii 0 xiv 0 1-1.1 0 1-1.2 0 1-1.3 0 1-1.4 0 1-1.5 0 1-1.6 0 1-1.7 0 1-1.8 0 V " u l2ALlt-11-14dry l' /-tr-N Mcy/t-it-11 1-1.9 0
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)
Station TITLE: Plant Unique Analysis REPORT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-1 Reoort Revision 0 voin-n 1 PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA PAGEW REV REMARQ SY/OATE CHECX SY / CATE CHECK SYIDATE 1-1.10 0 #AL /l-(7-84 #</ //-/f-I/ MN((#~ I'I l-1.11 0 1-1.12 0 1-1.13 0 1-1.14 0 1-1.15 0 1-1.16 0 1-1.17 0 1-1.18 0 1-1.19 0 1-1.20 0 1-1.21 0 1-1.22 0 V V 1-1.23 0 MXfll-/t-EJ 40Kf//-/f-ti 1-2.1 0 R M/t-16-84 R04/I-4 6-64 l l l-2.2 0 1-2.3 0 1-2.4 0 1-2.5 0 1-2.6 0 1-2.7 0 1-2.8 0 1-2.9 0 1-2.10 0 1-2.11 0 1-2.12 0 1-2.13 0 1-2.14 0 1-2.15 0 v'
y 1-2.16 0 1-2.19 0 V RGQfl.se-e + Mlt-16 -6 +
l-2.18 0 fAL}l-87-84 }?)f t{ttl84 & 1//blpf_ l h
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)
Station TITt.E: Plant Unique Analysis REPORT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 d Report Volume 1 PREPARED ACCURACY CMITERIA
G8 88 "'V sY/OATE CHeCx sY / oart cHecx sYIDATE " *I l-2.19 0 flk.lI-l1-84 3$ /A$//19&
1-2.20 0
)2A6lltt,/
/ IS // IBM 1-3.1 0 JKy//-/f*fY Ak-yl'~'V'W 1-3.2 0 1-3.3 0 1-3.4 0 1-3.5 0 1-3.6 0 y <r 10Fy /t-/f*!+ A$kyl/-tv-rf 1 *) . 7 0 l-3.8 0 RO$//~16-6 + RD$//-Ig-84 1-3.9 0 1-3.10 0 1-3.11 0 1-3.12 0 1-3.13 0 1-3.14 0 1-3.15 0 P Y 1-3.16 0 AEkfl8
- 6
- Yl#~0*
l-4.1 0 !
MAI#'#I'N i 1-4.2 0 SN Ihkis4 & filVldf 1-4.3 0 llFyl'~#'W A#$b'#'U 1-4.4 0 l-4.5 0 l
l 1-4.6 0 1-4.7 0 ,
1-4.8 0 1-'4.9 0 1-4.10 0 1-4.11 0 Y l-4.12 0 Al4ffl~/fW Ykfh*/f-fd 1-4.13 0 W III6}84 RM I/)6fod-1-4.14 0 y f/M /[/8/94- Mf f/m/pf.
1-4.15 0 ggs,ll.;y.g4 ,pyyl7.,y py g,_yj,_,,,,,
!!d i s
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)
Station TITLE: Plant Unique Analysis REPORT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-1 Report Revision 0 }
J Volume 1 PREPARED ACCURACY CRITRRIA SY/OATE CHECK BY / CATE CHECK 8YIDATE #" U
~ ' I l
$-4.l 0 h'h.?sfh k 'il$les-1-4.18 0 dey//-ft-FY 49 //-///fY l-4.19 0 1-4.20 0 ,
1-4.21 0 jpty l-/f-74 a /-/V-14 1-4.22 0
$ I[/8/64 AM I//e/6t1 1-4.23 0 f.h$ lll9l$ [M t(te}5L l-4.24 0 duj //-/P-fp #cy//-/f/f'/
l-4.25 0 1-4.26 0 1-4.27 0 1-4.28 0 1-4.29 0 v y 1-4.30 0 10 // -tr-Jf day lftF-fY ; l l-4.31 0 I//8/Bf EAS ///B/Fil 1-4.32 0 lLh5 /ll8l91 f.A$ ll(sl8),
1-4.33 0 ACy l'-!f-Sf Atll-it-2st 1-4.34 0 kVj,f/-/f-f't 199//-19-1/
l-4.35 0 lL M lllS hlL fM llf6h$
l-4.36 0 4/tt //-/f-N JEp/Nf"-f/
l-4.37 0 1-4.38 0 l
l-4.39 0 'r Y l-4.40 0 jpp:yf/-Ir-Jy $tff-if-f/
l l-4 41 0
& IflBh4- $$ ll6h l-4.42 0 1-4.43 0 1-4.44 0 1-4.45 0 g 4 1-4.46 0 & llI9lfA SU lll6l64-1-4.47 0 , getj {t-it-t'/ Aft 9//~lf-!Y l-4.48 0 g /j.ff. fy gjcy[i.ff-fy (2Af.f/-f 7 -sd{
didi
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generatin9 (CONTINUATION) 8
) TITLE:
Unique Analysis REPORT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-1 P
Q Rem vni mo 1 Revision 0 pmEPARED ACCURACY CmTERIA
- OIE "IY EMARG SY / DATE CHECK SY / DATE CHECK tv/DATE l-4.49 0 M//-l744 M47k/f'" W#~##~
1-4.50 0 MQ[#I'N O@!#~#I'U 1-4.51 0 llJY Iff8k%- EM lh6)84 1-4.52 0 1-4.53 0 1-4.54 0 1-4.55 0 1-4.56 0 1-4.57 0 1-4.58 0 1-4.59 0 1 4 1-4.60 0 f.M lll8l64 & ll9l$2.
1-4.61 0 Jgyllt9-J} 49 Ht-19 l-4.62 0 o y 8 1-4.63 0 Jgy,l.tr.py t $cy,$.tr. ry L-4.64 0 W llt0/9 d- W lll8lg;t.,
L-4.65 0 404// t?-!'l Alcy//-tf-Jt 1-4.66 0 % /[/8h-[AS ///8fS3-1-4.67 0 Abkyf f *If* N O}lI#~$Y
" U l-4.68 0 1-4.69 0 #9!##~N 'Y ~
1-4.70 0 '!/ #
1-4.71 0 1-4.72 0 1-4.73 0 9 p i
1-4.74 0 M f[tB [ M l[/8 1-4.75 0 LIK'}ll */f ~lY AQllf* 'Y l-4.76 0 o y 1-4.77 0 106y ft*lt- ty$Pjft-tf-ty 1-4.78 0 M 1l/6 f & M /[#/8%
l 1-4.79 0 alp)f!"If'FV $KyI'*/f*!f 1-4.80 0 1i M/Y s Lpt<tj f/-//-fY 45 l-4.81 0 f4.Lll-l7-f4 f_Q ,lg [9 gg ,j,g (9g
- " ll0i
REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)
TITLE: Station REPORT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-1 Plant Unique Analysis Revision 0 j }
h$ SON 1 PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA
'#O #N SY / DATE CHECK SY / 04TE CHECK SY / DATE 1-4.82 0 f4(,,/I-17-fi $ /[/bM M //dM 1-4.83 0 l}y}t-ittf 1-4.84 0 bylll-/t-N llXff *ly. gy @ Q o-fT-79 1-4.85 0 fff t},g}g4 1-4.86 0 g f/fg p W flig g/g JA{f/g 1-4.87 0 ygy lHf-fY M/}ll-/f*!}
l-4.88 0 1-4.89 0 1-4.90 0 ,
r y 1-4.91 0 g lHr.yj grafft-tr.rt 1-4.92 0 1//8,@-[M ///S[84-1-4.93 0 #4p[Nf-fY #G[#-'f'I'/
l l-4.94 0 <
r 1-4.95 0 JKylt-fr-y$ AKyll-/T-&
1-4.96 0 W ///6/M M If/8 1 }
1-4.97 0 % /[/6k M /f/ Biff 7-1-4.98 0 !
Ml<'/ #NY b!#'
1-4.99 0 y 9 1-4.100 0 g lHr.rq g&j.it.sy 1-4.101 0 g/ g i/fgh j 1-4.102 0 1-4.103 0 M /f/8/d4 Ed5 //l8/82 '
0 1-4.104
$AM)f/-It-JYAk)f!!*I Y 1-4.105 0 y g 1-4.106 0 ggl7.fg.g4 gyp lg.ty.ty 1-4.107 0 $ f fg4 M j /sh 1-4.108 0 d%) I-/f-VV ACtjll if-tf 1-4.109 0 dRp/Hf-# 44p//-/('8 1-4.110 0 [145//6fB4 IM ([/8[64-1-4.111 0 ggy j.fr.y ggt l/-/f-ty 1-4.112 0 g f//gk 1[loh4 1-4.113 0 V j g 1-4.114 0 b/f_;7fi N 1[l6f6d /24{!/jgh REN o
BEVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINtJATION)
Station TITLE: Plant Unique Analysis REPORT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-1 Report Revision 0 volune 1 PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA GEW REV "#" U BY / DATE CHECK SY/DATE CHECK SY/DATE 1-4.115 0 44t,/l-17-(4 f_ks /[ ISM Adi ///6h 1-4.116 0 M //16/64 % I [/8 %
l-4.117 0 11@ll-lV-fy Afscy//-/f-H 1-4.118 0 $ ///g/gid f.44 ///15 h 1-4.119 0 jp /gs;l/-lhty pr-y// //-IV l-4.120 0 $ ;[fg[g(_ jlAd;fg/cg_
1-5.1 0 9 d -thlf A o it'-ky 1-5.2 0 hi-I7-84 jf ~/f*!Y f/~/V-fy l
l l
O 1 REV
~N ABSTRACT The primary containment for the Hope Creek Generating Station .
was designed, erected, pressure-tested, and N-stamped in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1974 Edition with addenda up to and including Winter 1974. These activities were performed for the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) by the Pittsburgh Des Moines Cteel Company. Since then, new requirements which affect the design and operation of the primary containment system have been established. These requirements are defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0661. The NUREG-0661 requirements define revised contain-ment design loads postulated to occur during a loss-of-coolant accident or a safety-relief valve discharge event which are to be evaluated. In addition, NUREG-0661 requires that an assess-ment of the effects that these postulated events have on the operation of the containment system be performed.
n d This plant unique analysis report (PUAR) documents the efforts undertaken to address and resolve each of the applicable NUREG-0661 requirements for Hope Creek. It de.nons t ra tes , in accordance with NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria, that the design of the primary containment system is adequate and that original design safety margins have been restored. The Hope Creek PUAR is composed of the following six volumes:
o Volume 1 -
GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGY l
o Volume 2 -
SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS I
o Volume 3 -
VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS o Volume 4 -
INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS o Volume 5 -
SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYSIS o Volume 6 -
TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION l
CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES i (
\~'
)
l BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-il L nutggb l
- ~, _- - ._ _ . _ . , - - _ _ . . _ , _
Major portions of all volumes of this report have been prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Incorporated ( NU'f EC H ) , acting as a consultant responsible to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company. Selected sections of Volumes 5 and 6 have been prepared by the Bechtel Power Corporation (acting as an agent responsible to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company).
This volume, Volume 1, provides introductory and background information regarding the reevaluation of the primary contain-ment system including torus attached piping. It includes a description of the Hope Creek containment system, a description of the structural and mechanical acceptance criteria, and the hydrodynamic loads methodology used in the analyses presented in Volumes 2 through 6.
NOTE: Identification of the volume number precedes each page, section, subsection, table, and figure number.
O BPC-Oi 40-1 Revision ' l-iii nutggh
TABLE OF CONTENTS O, Page ABSTRACT 1-11 LIST OF ACRONYMS 1-vii LIST OF TABLES 1-x LIST OF FIGURES 1-xii 1-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1-1.1 1-1.1 Containment System General Description 1-1.7 1-1.2 Review of Phenomena 1-1.9 1-1.2.1 LOCA-Related Phenomena 1-1.10 1-1.2.2 SRV Discharge Phenomena 1-1.12 1-1.3 Scope of Analysis 1-1.14 I
l-1.4 Evaluation Philosophy 1-1.16 1-2.0 PLANT UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS 1-2.1 1-2.1 Plant Configuration 1-2.2 1-2.1.1 Suppression Chamber 1-2.5 1-2.1.2 Vent System 1-2.6 1-2.1.3 Internal Structures 1-2.8 1-2.1.4 SRV Discharge Piping 1-2.9 1-2.1.5 Torus Attached Piping and 1-2.11 Penetrations 1-2.2 Operating Parameters 1-2.18 1-3.0 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS CRITERIA 1-3.1 1-3.1 Hydrodynamic Loads: NRC Acceptance 1-3.2 Criteria 1-3.1.1 LOCA-Related - Load Applications 1-3.3 1-3.1.2 SRV Discharge Load Applications 1-3.5 1-3.1.3 Other Considerations 1-3.7 s
! V BPC-01-300-1 l
Revision 0 1-iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 1-3.2 Component Analysis: Structural Acceptance Criteria 1-3.8 1-3.2.1 Classification of Components 1-3.9 l-3.2.2 Service Level Assignments 1-3.10 1-3.2.3 Other Considerations 1-3.15 1-4.0 HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS METHODOLOGY AND EVENT SEQUENCE
SUMMARY
l-4.1 1-4.1 LOCA-Related Loads 1-4.3 1-4.1.1 Containment Pressure and Temperature Response 1-4.5 1-4.1.2 Vent System Discharge Loads 1-4.6 1-4.1.3 Pool Swell Loads on Torus Shell 1-4.8 1-4.1.4 Pool Swell Loads on Elevated Structures 1-4.10 1-4.1.4.1 Impact and Drag Loads 1-4.11 on the Vent System 1-4.1.4.2 Impact and Drag Loads 1-4.15 on Other Structures 1-4.1.4.3 Pool Swell Froth Impingement Loads 1-4.18 1-4.1.4.4 Pool Fallback Loads 1-4.24 1-4.1.5 LOCA Water Jet Loads on Sub-merged Structures 1-4.27 1-4.1.6 LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.33 1-4.1.7 Condensation Oscillation Loads 1-4.36 1-4.1.7.1 CO Loads on Torus Shell 1-4.37 1-4.1.7.2 CO Loads on Down-comers and Vent System 1-4.47 1-4.1.7.3 CO Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.61 1-4.1.8 Chugging Loads 1-4.65 1-4.1.8.1 Chugging Loads on Torus Shell 1-4.67 l-4.1.8.2 Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads 1-4.75 1-4.1.8.3 Chugging Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.79 GPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-v nutp_gh
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ,
(Concluded)-
i
'~
Page 1-4.2 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads 1-4.83 1-4.2.1 SRV Actuation Cases 1-4.87 .
1-4.2.2 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Loads 1-4.93 1-4.2.3 SRV Loads on Torus Shell 1-4.98 1-4.2.4 SRV Loads on Submerged Structures 1-4.104 1-4.3 Event Sequence 1-4.108 1-4.3.1 Design Basis Accident 1-4.111 1-4.3.2 Intermediate Break Accident 1-4.117
, 1-4.3.3 Small Break Accident 1-4.119 1-5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 1-5.1 5
t BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS ACI American Concrete Institute O
ADS Automatic Depressurization System AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ATWS Anticipated Transients Without Scram B DC Bottom Dead Center BWR Boiling Water Reactor CDP Cumulative Distribution Function CO Condensation Oscillation DBA Design Basis Accident DC Downcome r DLF Dynamic Load Factor ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction FSTP Full-Scale Test Facility HNWL High Normal Water Level HPCI High Pressure Coolant Injection IBA Intermediate Break Accident I&C Instrumentation and Control ID Inside Diameter IR Inside Radius LDR Load Definition Report { Mark I Containment Program)
LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-vii q
nutp_ch
,-. LIST OF ACRONYMS
( (Continued)
LPCI Low Pressure Coolant Injection LTP Long-Term Program MC Midcylinder MCF Modal Correction Factor MJ Mitered Joint MVA Multiple Valve-Actuation NEP Non-Exceedance Probability
- NOC Normal Operating Conditions NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System NVB Non-Vent Line Bay
/ OBE Operating Basis Earthquake
\'-)g OD Outside Diameter P9D Power Spectral Density PSE&G Public Service Electric and Gas Company
- l PUA Plant Unique Analysis PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definition QSTP Quarter-Scale Test Facility RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling RHR Residual Heat Removal RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel
'~ BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-viii nutgLqb
LIST OF ACRONYMS (Concluded)
RSEL Resultant Static-Equivalent Load SBA Small Break Accident SBP Small Bore Piping SER Safety Evaluation Report SORV Stuck-Open Safety Relief Valve SRSS Square Root of the Sum of the Squares SRV Safety Relief Valve SRVDL Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line l l
SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake STP Short-Term Program SVA Single Valve Actuation TAP Torus Attached Piping VB Vent Line Bay '
VH Vent Header VL Vent Line VPP Vent Pipe Pe ne tra t ion 2PA Zero Period Acceleration BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-ix nutgqb
(/;u'ss LIST OF TABLES
\ Number Title Page 1-1.0-1 Hope Creek Containment Modification Summary 1-1.6 1-2.2-1 Primary Containment Operating Parameters 1-2.19 l-3.2-1 Event Combinations and Service Levels for 1-3.11 Class MC Components and Internal Structures 1-3.2-2 Event Combinations and Service Levels for 1-3.13 Class 2 and 3 Piping 1-4.0-1 Plant Unique Analysis /NUREG-0661 Load 1-4.2 Sections Cross-Reference 1-4.1-1 Hydrodynamic Mass and Acceleration Drag 1-4.31 Volumes for Two-Dimensional Structural Components (Length L For All Structures) 1-4.1-2 Plant Unique Parameters for LOCA Bubble 1-4.35 Drag Load Development 1-4.1-3 DBA Condensation Oscillation Torus Shell 1-4.41 Pressure Amplitudes l-4.1-4 FSTF Response to Condensation Oscillation 1-4.43
.[m)\'
1-4.1-5 Condensation Oscillation Onset and Duration 1-4.44 1-4.1-6 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loads for DBA l-4.51 Condensation oscillation 1-4.1-7 . Downcomer Dif ferential Pressure Loads for 1-4.52 DBA Condensation oscillation 1-4.1-8 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loads 1-4.53 For IBA Condensation Oscillation 1-4.1-9 Downcomer Dif ferential Pressure Loads 1.4.54 For IBA Condensation Oscillation 1-4.1-10 Condensation Oscillation vent System- 1.4.55 Internal Pressures 1-4.1-11 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for 1-4.64 Condensation Oscillation Source Function for Loads on Submerged Structures s )
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-x nutqqh
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Number Title Page 1-4.1-12 Chugging Onset and Duration 1-4.70 1-4.1-13 Post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes 1-4.71 on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center J l
1-4.1-14 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for 1-4.81 )
Chugging Source Function for Loads on
]
Submerged Structures 1-4.2-1 SRV Lor d Case / Initial Conditions 1-4.92 i 1-4.2-2 Plant Unique Initial Conditions for 1-4.96 l Actuation Cases Used for SRVDL Clearing '
Transient Load Development ,
I l-4.2-3 SRVDL Analysis Parameters 1-4.97 l
l-4.2-4 Comparison of Analysis and Monticello 1-4.101 Test Results 1-4.3-1 SRV and LOCA Structural Loads 1-4.110 1-4.3-2 Event Timing Nomenclature 1-4.112 1-4.3-3 SRV Discharge Load Cases for Mark I l-4.113 Structural Analysis BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-xi nut.ech
7-w LIST OF FIGURES k )
%J Number Title Page 1-2.1-1 Plan View of Containment 1-2.3 1-2.1-2 Elevation View of Containment 1-2.4 1-2.1-3 Suppression Chamber Section - Midcylinder 1-2.13 Vent Line Bay 1-2.1-4 Suppression Chamber Section - Mitered Joint 1-2.14 1-2.1-5 Suppression Chamber Section - Midcylinder 1-2.15 Non-Vent Bay 1-2.1-6 Developed View of Suppression Chamber 1-2.16
, Segment 1-2.1-7 Vent Header - Downcomer Intersection 1-2.17 Stif fening Details 1-4.1-1 Downcomer Impact and Drag Pressure Transient 1-4.13 1-4.1-2 Application of Impact and Drag Pressure 1-4.14 Transient to Downcomer 1
(s,)
1-4.1-3 Pulse Shape for Impact and Drag on 1-4.16 Cylindrical Structures 1-4.1-4 Pulse Shape for Impact and Drag on Flat 1-4.17 Plate Structures 1-4.1-5 Froth Impingement Zone - Region I l-4.22 1-4.1-6 Froth Impingement Zone - Region II l-4.23 1-4.1-7 Condensation Oscillation Baseline Rigid 1-4.45 Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center
'l-4.1-8 Condensation Oscillation - Torus Vertical 1-4.46 Cross-Section Pressure Distribution 1-4.1-9 Condensation oscillation Downcomer Dynamic l-4.56 Load 1-4.1-10 Downcomer Pair Internal Pressure Loading 1-4.57 for DBA CO
\'~' ) BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-xii nutpsh
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title Page 1-4.1-11 Downcomer Pair Differential Pressure 1-4.58 Loading for DBA CO 1-4.1-12 Downcomer CO Dynamic Load Application 1-4.59 1-4.1-13 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loading for 1-4.60 IBA CO l-4.1-14 Typical Chugging Pressure Trace on the 1-4.66 Torus Shell 1-4.1-15 Chugging - Torus Longitudinal Distribution 1-4.72 for Asymmetric Pressure Amplitude 1-4.1-16 Chugging - Torus Vertical Cross-Section 1-4.73 Pressure Distribution 1-4.1-17 Post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes 1-4.74 on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 1-4.1-18 Probability of Exceeding a Given Force 1.4-78 Per Downcomer for Different Numbers of Downcomers 1-4.2-1 T-quencher and SRV Discharge Line 1-4.85 1-4.2-2 Elevation and Section Views of T-quencher 1-4.86 Arm Hole Patterns 1-4.2-3 Comparison of Predicted and Measured 1-4.102 Shell Pressure Time-Histories for Monticello Test 801 1-4.2-4 Modal Correction Factors for Analysis of 1-4.103 SRV Discharge Torus Shell Loads 1-4.2-5 Plan View of T-quencher Arm Water Jet 1-4.107 Sections 1-4.3-1 Loading Condition Combinations for the 1-4.114 Vent Header, Main Vents, Downcomers, and Torus Shell During a DBA 1-4.3-2 Loading Condition Combinations for 1-4.115 Submerged Structures During a DBA BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-xiii nutgg}b
J J
LIST OF FIGURES ;
(Concluded)
J Number Title Page 1-4.3-3 Loading Condition Combinations for 1-4.116 I Structures Above Suppression Pool i During a DBA 1-4.3-4 Loading Condition Combinations for the 1-4.118 Vent Header, Main Vents, Downcomers, Torus Shell, and Submerged Structures i During an IBA i
1-4.3-5 Loading Condition Combinations for the 1-4.120 Vent Header, Main Vents, Downcomers, Torus Shell, and Submerged Structures During a SBA O
l l
l l'
r b
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-xiv nutggb i
l l
.. - _ ... ~ . . . . - . . _ . _ . _ . _ - , , _ . _ , . . - - . _ . . . _ _ - _ , _ . . _ . . . - , . , _ . , . _ _ , . , . . _ . . . . . _ , , .
n s 1-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
(d \
The primary containment for the Hope Creek Generating Station was designed, erected, pressure-tested, and N-stamped in accordance with the ASME Code,Section III, 1974 Edition with addenda up to and including Winter 1974. During the course of this effort, large-scale testing for the Mark III containment system and in-plant testing for Mark I primary containment systems were being performed in which new suppression chamber hydrodynamic loads were identified. The new loads are related to the postulated loss-of-coolant aacident (LOCA) and c safety relief valve (SRV) actuttion.
G' The evaluation of the effects of these new loads were identified by the NRC as a generic open item for utilities with Mark I containments. To deter-mine the magnitude, time characteristics, etc., of the dynamic loads in a timely manner and to identify courses of action needed to resolve any outstanding safety concerns, the utilities with Mark I contain-ments formed the Mark I Owners Group. The Mark I-Owners Group established a two-part program consisting of: (1) a short-term program (STP) which was completed in 1976, and (2) a long-term program
,m I,
)
BPC-01-300-1 1-1.1 Revision 0 nutggb
(LTP). The LTP was completed with the submittal of the " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report" (LDR) (Referenca 1), the " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide" (PUAAG) (Reference 2),
and supporting reports documenting experimental and analytical tasks of the long-term program. The NRC reviewed the LTP generic documents and issued acceptance criteria to be used during the implemen-tation of the Mark I plant unique analyses. The NRC acceptance criteria are described in Appendix A of NUREG-0661 (Reference 3).
The objective of the LTP was to establish final design loads and load combinations and to verify that the existing or modified containment and related structures are capable of withstanding these loads with acceptable design margins. However, the original LTP completion schedule was not compatible with the construction schedu.1e for Hope Creek. To comply with the objectives of the LTP and to meet the plant construction schedule, PSE&G committed to a containment evaluatio- program that provided design, analysis, and construction before the final loads and load combinations were determined by the Mark I Owners Group.
BPC-01-300-1 1-1.2 Revision 0 nutggh
M I
X-b V Accordingly, the des ig n basis for the Hope Creek containment was revised in 1977 to include the newly defined suppression pool hydrodynamic loads. As the LTP loads had not yet been finalized, the character-istics of the hyd rodyn amic loads added to the containment des ign basis were established using ava ilable generic documents, with the objective of developing conservative des ig n loads which would ,
allow early plant construc tion with a high probability of bounding the final loads. These loadings and the resulting containme nt desig n are documented in the plant's Final Safety Analysis Repo rt (FSAR) (Reference 4).
\
. Examination of the containment geometry described in
, the Hope Creek FSAR reveals that the hyd rodyn anic loads added to the de s ig n basis resulted in a substantial containme n t desig n upg rade as compared to earlier Mark I containment designs. Examples of the de sig n changes made include the use of a 1" thick torus shell, additional midbay ring beams and toru s supports, use of a 9/16" thick vent header, additional vent system supports, downcomer bracing, and many others. As a result, the final LTP loads defined in NUREG-0661 have resulted in fewer, less (a)
Ad B PC-01-3 00-1 1-1.3 Revision 0 nutagh
extensive containme n t modifications for Hope Creek. A summary of the containment modifications developed to address the NUREG-0661 requirements is provided in Table 1-1. 0 -1. The containment geometry is discussed in Section 1-2.1. The installation of these modifications and the associated engineering evaluations wi11 be completed before fue1 load.
The FSAR for Hope Creek up to and including Amendme nt 2 was submitted to the NRC for review by the Public Service Electric and Gas Company in October of 1983. A summa ry of ong oing eftorts to address and resolve the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the Hope Creek containment is included in Appendix 3b of the FSAR.
Some requirements of NUR EG-0 6 61, such as the installation of a suppression pool temperature monitoring systen are addressed in Section 6.2.1.1.10 of Amendment 1 of the FSAR. The rema ining requireme n ts of NUREG-0661 are a' dressed in this PUAR. The assessment of other celated issues, such as the low-low set logic de sig n ,
drywell-wetwell vacuum breakers, and emergency procedures guidelines fo r 10 minute ADS, will be contained in separate submittals. Rcferences made BPC-01-3 00-1 1-1.4 Revision 0 h
nutp_q.h
i-4 to the plant's FSAR in the PUAR include information contained in - the initial submittal of the FSAR as well as Amendments 1 and 2 to the FSAR.
- I a
i Accordingly, with the submittal of this PUAR, Public
}
i Service Electric and Gas Company believes that the containment evaluation program documented herein has
! addressed. the requirements of NUREG-0661 for Hope [
Creek.
i i
i i i
I e
l i
BPC-01-300-1 1-1.5 i Revision 0 nutggb !
1
- , - . . . . . - . . , - , , _ - - . . , - , . , . ,_,.._n,- _, _,,,,cn_,. . n. w ww., _ _,
Table 1-1.0-1 HOPE CREEK CONTAINMENT MODIFICATION
SUMMARY
ITEM (
MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION COLUMN CONNECTIONS REINFORCED RING BEAM COVER PLATES ADDED TORUS MIDCYLINDER RING BEAM EXTENSIONS ADDED RING BEAMS REINFORCED LATERALLY COLUMN BASEPLATES REINFORCED VENT SYSTEM DOWNCOMERS SHORTENED GRATING STRINGERS ADDED INTERNAL SUPPORTS REINFORCED STRUCTURES CATWALK
(
GRATING REORIENTED HANDRAILS REPLACED SRV PIPING QUENCIIER AND QUENCHER SUPPORTS ADDED SUPPORTS ADDED TORUS SUPPORTS REINFORCED ATTACHED PIPING TORUS PENETRATIONS REINFORCED INTERNAL RHR RETURN REROUTED AND ELBOWS ADDED SRV LOW-LOW SET LOGIC ADDED SYSTEMS MODIFICATIONS SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM ADDED NOTE:
- 1. MODIFICATIONS TO BE INSTALLED BY FUEL LOAD.
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 -
6 nutggh
% . 1-1.1 Containment System General Description
\
'd The Ma rk I containme nt is a pressure suppression system which houses the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) pressure vessel, the reactor coolant recirculation loops, and other Dranch connections of the Nuclear Steam Supply Sy s t em . The containme nt system
. consists of a drywell, a pressure suppression chamber (we twe11 or torus) approximately half-filled with water, and a vent system connecting the drywell to the suppression cham be r. The toroidal shaped suppression chamber is located below and encircles the d rywe ll . The d rywe ll-to-we twe ll main vents (vent lines, vent pipes) are connected to a vent C/ header (ring header) contained within the airspace of the wetwell. Downcomers project from the vent header and terminate below the wa ter surf ace of the suppression pool. The suppression chamber, vent l - system, and related internal st ruc tur es are j described in greater detail in Sections 1-2.1.1 thru l
l l-2.1. 3 a nd in Volumes 2 and 3.
I BWR's utili ze safety relief valves attached to the main steam lines as a means of primary system over-l pressure protection. The outlet of each valve is connected to discharge pipina (SRV piping or SRVDL)
_y (v' )
BPC-01-3 00-1 1-1.7 Revision 0 nutgqh 1 .- .
which is routed to the suppression pool. T-quencher discharge devices are attached to the end of each SRV discharge line. The SRV discharge lines are described in detail in Section 1-2.1.4 and in Volume 5.
Mark I containment systems utilize various process piping systems (TAP) attached to the suppression chamber. These piping systems include both large (LBP) and small bore (SBP) lines which perform both essential and non-essential containment functions.
Small bore piping systems are attached directly to the suppression chamber or to large bore piping systems. The torus-attached piping systems are described in Section 1-2.1.5 and in Volume 6.
l l
l BPC-01-300-1 1-1.8 Revision 0 nutggh
- l t ' t
- t 1.2 Review of Phenomena
{~ The following subsections provide a brief quali-tative description of the various phenomena that j could ~ occur during a postulated LOCA and during SRV
} . actuations. The LDR (Reference 1) provides a L
j - detailed: description of the hydrodynamic loads which j these phenomena could ' impose .upon the suppression
- chamber and related structures. Section 1-4.0 pre-sents the load definition procedures used to develop
' the plant unique hydrodynamic loads for Hope Creek.
e 4
J s
q 4
I 1 i
e b
4.
p i-b
- j. '
I i BPC-01-300-1 1-1~9 l' Revision O' 1
v ,. - , . . - -v,,,, , , _ , . -.,,.,~,.n,<m,w,,sw-,.,.,,,_,,,m,_,,.__e.,.,_ __,w- ,,m nwemy, _ w yv y y m..,,
1-1.2.1 LOCA-Related Phenomena Immediately following a postulated design basis accident (DBA) LOCA, the pressure and temperature of the drywell and vent system atmosphere rapidly increase. With the drywell pressure increase, the water initially present in the downcomers is accelerated into the suppression pool until the water is cleared from the downcomers. Following downcomer water clearing, the downcomer air, which is essentially at drywell pressure, is exposed to the relatively low pressure in the wetwell, producing a downward reaction force on the torus.
The consequent bubble expansion causes the pool water to swell in the torus (pool swell),
compressing the airspace above the pool. This airspace compression results in an upward reaction force on the torus. Eventually, the bubbles " break through" to the torus airspace, equalizing the pressures. An air-water froth mixture continues upward due to the momentum previously imparted to the water, causing impingement loads on elevated structures. The transient associated with this rapid drywell air venting to the suppression pool typically lasts for 3 to 5 seconds.
BPC-01-300-1 1-1.10 Revision 0 nutp_qh
s Following air carryover, there is a period of high
. i d steam flow through the vent system. The discharge of steam into the pool and its subsequent conden-sation causes pool pressure oscillations which are transmitted to submerged structures and the torus shell. This phenomenon is referred to as conden-sation oscillation (CO). As the reactor vessel depressurizes, the steam flowrate to the vent system decreases. Steam condensation during this period of reduced steam flow is characterized by up-and-down movement of the water-steam interface within the downcomer as the steam volumes are condensed and replaced by surrounding pool water. This phenomenon is referred to as chugging.
t b
Postulated intermediate break accident (IBA) and small' break accident (SBA) LOCA's produce drywell pressure transients which are sufficiently slow that the dynamic ef fects of vent clearing and pool swell are negligible. However, CO and chugging occur for >
. an IBA and chugging occurs for a SBA.
I f
i'
{
O l
l V BPC-01-300-1 1-1.11 i Revision 0 nuttgb
1-1.2.2 SRV Discharge Phenomena Hope Creek is equipped with 14 SRV's to control primary system pressure during transient conditions.
The SRV's are mounted on the main steam lines inside the drywell, with the discharge piping routed down the main vents into the suppression pool. When a SRV is actuated steam is released from the primary system and discharges into the suppression pool where it is condensed.
Prior to the initial actuation of a SRV, the SRV piping contains air at atmospheric pressure and suppression pool water in the submerged portion of the piping. Following SRV actuation, steam enters the SRV piping and compresses the air within the line expelling the water slug into the suppression pool. During water clearing, the SRV piping undergoes a transient pressure loading.
l Once the water has been cleared from the T-quencher discharge device, the compressed air enters the pool as high pressure bubbles. These bubbles expand, resulting in an outward acceleration of the surrounding pool water. The momentum of the accel-erated water results in an overexpansion of the BPC-01-300-1 1-1.12 Revision 0 nut _ec_h.
3 bubbles, causing the bubble pressure to become i N/ negative relative to the ambient pressure of the surrounding pool. This negative bubble pressure ,
slows and reverses the motion of the water, leading
, to a compression of the bubbles and a positive
- pressure relative to that of the pool. The bubbles continue to oscillate in this manner as they rise to the pool surface. The positive and negative pres-sures developed due to this phenomenon attenuate with distance and result in an oscillatory pressure loading on the " wetted" portion of the torus shell and submerged structures.
l l
BPC-01-300-1 1-1.13
-Revision 0 nutagh l
1-1.3 Scope of Analysis The structural and mechanical containment components addressed in the subsequent volumes of this report include the following.
o Containment vessels The torus shell with associated penetrations, ring beams, and support attachments The torus supports The vent lines between the drywell and the vent header, including the SRV piping penetrations The local region of the drywell at the vent line penetrations The expansion bellows between the vent lines and the torus shell The vent header and attached downcomers The vent header supports The vacuum breaker penetrations at the vent line The downcomer bracing system and rein-forcement plates BPC-01-300-1 1-1,14 Revision 0 nutp_gh
U o Internal Structures
\
The suppression chamber internal struc-
[
tures, including the monorail and catwalk and their supports ,
1
- o The safety-relief valve discharge piping,
- i. T-quenchers, and their supports I
o The internal and external torus-attached .
piping (TAP) systems and their various-branch connections l
l The piping supports
\ -
The torus penetrations -
The operability of valves l
l -
The operability of equipment As discussed in Section 1-1.0, the requirements for suppression pool temperature monitoring are addressed in the plant's FSAR l-i i:
l-
.BPC-01-300-1 1-1.15 .
Revision-0 nutagh
1-1.4 Evaluation Philosophy The development of event sequences, basic assumptions, load definitions, analysis techniques, and all the other aspects of the Hope Creek plant unique analysis are specifically formulated to provide a conservative evaluation. This section describes, in qualitative terms, some of the conservative elements inherent in the Hope Creek plant unique analysis.
Event Sequences and Assumptions Implicit in the analysis of a LOCA is the assumption that the event will occur, although the probability of such pipe breaks is low. No credit is taken for detection of leaks to prevent loss-of-coolant accidents. Furthermore, various sizes of pipe breaks are evaluated to consider various effects.
The large, instantaneous pipe breaks are considered to evaluate the i r. i t ia l , rapidly occurring events such as vent system pressurization and pool swell.
Smaller pipe breaks are analyzed to maximize prolonged effects such as CO and chugging.
BPC-01-300-1 1-1.16 l Revision 0 nut E h-
The various LOCA's analyzed are assumed to occur
)
/ coincident with plant conditions which maximize the parameter of interest. For example, the reactor is assumed to be at 102% of rated power; a single failure is assumed; and no - credit is taken for normal auxiliary power. Operator action which can mitigate effects of a LOCA is assumed to be unavailable for a specified period. Other assump-tions are also selected to maximize the particular parameter to be evaluated. This approach results in a conservative evaluation since the plant conditions are not likely to be in this worst case situation if a LOCA were to occur.
. . b)
Test Results and Load Definitions The load definitions utilized in the Hope Creek plant unique analysis (PUA) are based on conserva-tive test results and analyses. For example, the LOCA steam condensation loads (CO and chugging) are based on tests in the Mark I Full-Scale Test i
Facility (FCTF). The FSTF is a full-size 1/16 i
segment of a Mark I torus. To ensure that conservative results would be obtained on a generic basis, the FSTF was specifically designed and constructed to promote rapid air and steam flow from
[m BPC-01-300-1 1-1.17 Revision 0 nutggb
the drywell to the wetwell. While this maximizes hydrodynamic loads, it does not take into account the features of actual plants which would mitigate the LOCA effects. Actual Mark I drywells have piping and equipment which would absorb some of the energy released during a loss-of-coolant accident.
There are other features of the FSTF which are not typical of actual plant configurations, yet contribute to more conservative load definitions.
Pre-heating of the drywell to minimize condensation and heat losses is an example of this feature.
Additionally, the load definitions developed from FSTF data apply the maximum observed load over the entire period during which the load may occur. This conservative treatment takes no credit for the load variation observed in the tests.
The LOCA pool swell loads were developed from similarly conservative tests at the Ouarter-Scale Test Facility (OSTF). These tests were performed with the driving medium consisting of 100%
noncondensables. This maximizes pool swell because this phenomenon would be driven by condensable steam if a LOCA were to occur in an actual plant. The OSTF tests also minimized the loss coefficient and maximized the drywell pressurization rate, thus BPC-01-300-1 1-1.18 Revision 0 nutgqh
maximizing the pool swell loads. The drywell pressurization rate used in the tests was calculated using conservative analytical modeling and initial conditions. Structures above the pool are assumed to be rigid when analyzed for pool ssell impact and drag loads. This assumption maximizes loads and is also used to evaluate loads on submerged structures.
The methodology used to develop SRV loads are based ca conservative assumptions, modeling techniques, and full and subscale test data. Safety relief valve loads aie calculated using a minimum or manufacturer-specified SRV opening time, a maximum m steam flow rate, and a maximum steam line pressure.
(
_/ Appropriate assumptions are also applied to conservatively predict SRV load frequency ranges.
The SRV loads on submerged structures are similarly determined with additional assumptions that maximize the pressure differential across the structure due to bubble pressure phasing. The conservatism in the SRV load definition approach has been demonstrated by in-plant tests performed at several other plants.
All such tests have confirmed that actual plant responses are significantly less than predicted.
The Hope Creek in-plant SRV tests are expected to confirm similar conservatisms.
~
)
'*A/ BPC-01-300-1 1-1.19 Revision 0 nutggh
1,oad Combinations Conservative assumptions have also been made in developing the combinations of loading phenomena to be evaluated. Many combinations of loading phenomena are investigated althnugh it is very unlikely for such combinations of phenomena to occur. For example, mechanistic analysis has shown that a SRV cannot actuate during the pool swell phase of a design basis loss-of-coolant accident.
However, that combination of loading phenomena is evaluated. Both the pool swell and SRV load pheno-mena involve pressurized air bubbles in the pool and the structural response to these two different bubbles is assumed to be additive, either by absolute sum or by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method. However, this is a very conservative assumption since two oscillatory, bubbles from independent events cannot physically combine to form one bubble at a pressure higher than the individual bubbles. This rationale is also valid for other hydrodynamic phenomena in the pool such as Co and chugging, which are also combined with SRV discharge effects.
RPC-01-300-1 1-1.20 Revision 0 nutp_qh
When evaluating the structural response to combina-tions of loading phenomena, the peak responses due to the various loading phenomena are assumed to occur at the same time. While this is not an impossible occurrence, the probability that the actual responses will combine in that fashion is very remote. Furthermore, the initiating events themselves (e.g., LOCA or safe shutdown earthquake) are of extremely low probability.
Analysis Techniques The methodology used for analyzing LOCA and SRV q loads also contributes to conservatism. These loads are assumed to be smooth curves of regular or periodic shape. This simplifies load definitions and analyses, but maximizes predicted responses.
Data from full scale tests show actual forcing l functions to be much less " pure" or " perfect" than those assumed for analysis.
l The analyses generally treat a nonlinear problem as a linear, elastic problem with the load " tuned" to l the structural frequencies which produce maximum I
response. The nonlinearities which exist in both the pool and structural dynamics would preclude the U BPC-01-300-1
! 1-1.21 Revision 0 I
attainment of the elastic transient and steady-state responses that are predicted mathematically.
Inherent in the st ruc tural analyses are additional conservatisms. Damping is assumed to be low to maximize re spo nse , but in reality, damping is likely to be much higher. Conse rva t ive reductions in material thicknesses are made during containme nt stress calculations to account for corrosion.
Allowable stress leve ls are low compared to the expected material capabilities. Conse rv a t ive boundary conditions are also used in the analyses.
Conclusion The loads, methods, and resul ts described above and O
elsewhere in this report demonstrate that the ma rgi ns of safety which actually existed for the original de s ig n loads have not only been restored, but have, in some cases, been increased. The advancements in unders ta nd ing the hydrodynamic phenomena and in the s t ruc tural analyses and modeling techniques have substantially' increased since the orig i nal de sig n and analysis were completed. This increased understanding and analysis capability is applied to the original loads B PC-01-3 0 0 -1 1-1.22 Revision 0 nut M h.
- -.- - . . - . - ~ _ _ - . - - . _ _ _ _ _
= _ = . ,
t b, i
). -
i
- l i a s . we ll as to the newly defined loads. Thus, not i only have the original safety margins been restored, j but even greater margins now exist than in the ,
t 1
j original design.
1 l
i f.
I '. [
! i
! i l
s 1 :
I i !
I i 1
l r
l I
i I
O ,
l l
i I
4 f
- l. '
l-i .
!. r i
!. I f
l
, i s .
r i BPC-01-3 0 0--l - 1-1.23 Revision 0 l
l r
_ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ . _ _____.___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . . . ,_m_,,
. - -.- . . . --.-- ..-- .- -- - .. . -. - ..-.-- - --~ .
1 .
t
, i i
1-2.0 PLANT UNIOUE CHARACTERISTICS This section describes the general plant unique geo-l metric and operating parameters applicable to the l evaluation of the primary containment system. ;
i l Specific details are provided in subsequent volumes, ;
where the detailed analyses of individual components are described.
i l
- i
- 1
- I h'
4 !
(
i J
T J
I
!. I 1
- i
, 1 4
k 4
4 BPC-01-300-1 1-2.1 Revision 0 1
N
+---we- w-e--w--.-.--..,.r.ec.-.w-r---w-..-r.-..--.-.me.,---,.. .w-e - w ww-e owwwee w . .
1-2.1 Plant Configuration The Hope Creek primary containment system is a 01 General Electric Company Mark I design with a drywell and toroidal suppression chamber. The major components and bacic dimencior:0 of the containment are shown in Figures 1-2.1-1 and 1-2.1-2. l i
This report section provides a general description of the suppression chamber, vent system, internal structures, SRV piping, and torus-attached piping.
These containment components are described in greater detail in Volumes 2 through 6.
O BPC-01-300-1 1-2.2 Revision 0 nutg,gh
O w@
INTER 5ECTICN OF oa VENT UNE ANO i MIOCYUNCER SUPPRESSION CMAMSER (TfP. MITERED JCtNT 8 PLACES) /
\
[\
O i- O ge .4= _ o' 81 I.D.
O. ~
/[ A _
go*
Q vo* _ .
~
/
+
~O*
- N
"'" s N b A V
VENT HEADER b McRt1CNIAL R EST R AnNT 180
- Figure 1-2.1-1 PLAN VIEW OF CONTAINMENT BPC-01-300-1 1-2.3 Revision 0 UU
1
- 4. R E ACTOR l
i l EL.l?7'-4 to'. 3:. R .
I l
34'-C"t.A.
D R'fW E LL DRYWELL SHIELO WALL , EL.1115IC' K _
n- -
EX AANSION BELLOW 6 ;
t ..
S' ' . l /l2s.c ENT LWE : JET DEFLECTOR
. , .i -
SUAAREs5loN I T
CHAMBER s .
" L i ~N EL.77'.372 . m i ;,,fl
((
,, 3,9,.,, . ,4@, ,i:,3.,;.!
_E L. 7 2 '- 4"
( wr- Uvy .
.: . _y coWNCOMER #,l @.. wcRt1. RESTRAtwr u
CC #'
EL. 54'- C" 4 ,
y . ..e-d ,'
-\ - BASEM AT i
i I
Figure 1-2.1-2 ELEVATION VIEW OF CONTAINMENT BPC-01-300-1 9
Revision 0 -2.4 nutp_qh
I i
1-2.1.1 Suppression Chamber
- . 1 The suppression chamber is in the general form of a torus and is constructed of 16 mitered cylindrical shell segments as shown in Figure 1-2.1-1. The j mitered cylinders which make ur the torus have an !
inside diameter of 30'-8", wJ 5 a shell plate thickness of 1". The ' radius f rom the centerline of
- the drywell to the center of the torus at a section taken midway between the mitered joints is 56'-4".
The . suppression chamber shell is reinforced at each
,- mitered joint and at the midpoint of each mitered cylinder by T-shaped ring beams. The centerline of the ring beam at the mitered joint is of fset 3-1/2" in a plane parallel to the plane of the mitered j joint. The flange and cover plates of the mitered joint ring beams are rolled to a constant inside j radius. The mitered joint . ring beam web depth
- varies around the circumference of the suppression
~
chamber. The midcylinder ring beams are of constant
-depth. The components of the suppression chamber i
! are shown in Figures 1-2.1-3 through 1-2.1-5. -
I L
g.
t l
-BPC-01-300-1 1-2.5 Revision 0
I I
I l-2.1.2 Vent System The drywell is connected to the suppression chamber
- i j by eight vent lines. The vent lines are connected to a common header within the suppression chamber. )
Eighty downcomers are connected to the vent header which terminate below the normal water level of the suppression pool. A bellows assembly at each vent line suppression chamber penetration permits differential expansion between the drywell and the suppression chamber to occur. The general arrange-ment of the vent system is shown in Figures 1-2.1-3 through 1-2.1-7.
The vent lines have a 6'-2" inside diameter with a h nominal 9/16" wall thickness. The upper ends of the vent lines include a locally thickened conical transition segment at the penetration to the dry-well. Inside the suppression chamber, the nominal thickness of the vent line is increased to 1-1/2",
and is further increased to 2" near the vent header junction. The end of the cylindrical vent line in the suppression chamber is capped with a 3" thick plate, which is penetrated by a 24" diameter drywell/wetwell vacuum breaker support pipe. There BPC-01-300-1 1-2.6 Revision 0 nutp_qh
. .. - .- _ . - - - - = - _ _ - - - - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
i i
are 24" GPE vacuum breakers located on each of the eight vent lines, as shown in Figure 1-2.1-3.
The vent header inside the suppression chamber has a 4'-3" inside diameter, and a 9/16" nominal wall thickness. The downcomers have a 2'-0" outside diameter and a 3/8" nominal wall thickness. A longitudinal bracing system stiffens the downcomer intersections in a direction parallel to the vent
, header. Additional stiffening is provided in the i
plane of the downcomers by crotch plates between the downcomers and by outer gusset plates as shown in Figure 1-2.1-7.
P f
u l
l l
I k
BPC-01-300-1 1-2.7 Revision 0 nutggb o
1-2.1.3 Internal Structures O
The location of the catwalk relative to other major components within the suppression chamber is shown in Figures 1-2.1-3 through 1-2.1-5. The catwalk is located parallel to the longitudiani centerline of each suppression chamber mitered cylinder. The catwalk is supported by hangers at the mitered joint ring beam and at two locations between each mitered joint.
The location of the monorail relative to the other major components within the suppression chamber is shown in Figures 1-2.1-3 through 1-2.1-5. The monorail forms a complete circle around the inside of the suppression chamber. The monorail supports l consist of plates and angles providing vertical and horizontal support.
BPC-01-300-1 1-2.8 Revision 0 nutg,gh
1-2.1.4 SRV Discharge Piping (d )
The SRV piping inside the drywell and the suppres-sion chamber consists of fourteen 10 inch diameter Scheduie 80 discharge lines. These discharge lines enter the suppression chamber from the interior of the vent line through a reinforced penetration in the vent line as shown in Figure 1-2.1-3. From the vent line, the piping runs horizontally to the suppression chamber mitered joint, parallel to the vent header. The piping then turns and runs diagonally to a point below the vent header directly above bottom dead center of the mitered joint ring beam, and then runs vertically down into the p
( suppression pool.
Standard Mark I T-quenchers, developed by General Electric, are located at the mitered joints, with the quencher arms located in the plane of the vertical centerline of the suppression chamber as shown in Figure 1-2.1-6. Each T-quencher is supported by a quencher support pipe which is attached to three adjacent ring girders.
BPC-01-300-1 1-2.9 Revision 0 t
nutggb
The SRV piping in the drywell is supported by hangers, struts, and snubbers connected to the back-up steel structures. Supports for the SRV piping are provided by a frame type support assembly inside the vent line, and by struts attached to the mitered joint ring beam and vent header inside the suppression chamber.
l 9
BPC-01-300-1 1-2.10 Revision 0 nutggh
- - . = . - . -.
1-2.1.5 Torus Attached Piping and Penetrations
)
The large bore TAP systems consist of 4" and larger nominal diameter piping, which penetrate or are directly attached to the suppression chamber. Large bore TAP lines range in size from 4" to 24" nominal diameter and have varying schedules.
Large bore TAP may be grouped into two general categories: (1) torus external piping, and (2) torus internal piping. Examples of systems with only torus external piping are the residual heat removal (RHR) pump suction lines and the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) suction lines. Typical systems having both torus external and internal piping are the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) turbine exhaust line and the residual heat removal (RHR) discharge lines. Typical internal
, large bore TAP systems are shown in Figures 1-2.1-3 through 1-2.1-5.
The small bore TAP for Hope Creek consists of piping with a nominal diameter of less than 4", which is attached to the suppression chamber or to the large bore torus attached piping.
i BPC-01-300-1 1-2.11 Revision 0 nutggb
The small bore piping (SBP) lines may be grouped into the following system types:
(1) Cantilevered Drains and Vents (2) Torus Attached SBP lines (3) SBP lines attached to large bore TAP lines 1 The TAP systems penetrate the suppression chamber at many locations. The principal components of the penetrations are the nozzles, the insert plates, and the nozzle reinforcements. 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 cf the suppression chamber shell adjacent to the penetration.
BPC-01-300-1 1-2.12 Revision 0 nutggh
O
_SPRA7 HEActR MONCWAlb ,
VENT HEACER VACUUM SmgAxtm ,
sumacer ,
s VENT LINE
- SRV Pl# LNG AENETRATICN CATW ALK , .ir j
\ '/ ,
/
l .-
T 1
- l. .. . *'
Suppef55fCN I CHAMBER '
S,," I* \ s N M cmiscNTA4.
i T N 4. i
,48p1- masTmant
. i lV -
EL. "I t'. 4' 3.. '
5bd i cowNeousm
)
~
} ~
wNwt ,
i y
^
-Q' -g\j _ - - -
[ Et.. W.4'/t" sucmos
' ~
v G) stum.
~'""*
fv5NT SYSTsu -
f cowwN T , .- A IN G SEA M 7 .ouaNcHER
, ., , sc, ~ / - STiptN ER co W N conusc cuj l
- l}l cowu
.. v. :. ma..s Note: y ASE S puTE ASSEM8'.Y
- 1. Downcomer stiffener plates not shown for clarity.
Figure 1-2.1-3 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION - MIDCYLINDER VENT LINE BAY b
k BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-2.13 nutMh
l CON STRU CTICN ptATFCRM -
_ SPRAT HEACER scNcgAit
\
\ !
i
=ATwALK
\ s
/
sav picius
' GuPPCATS j
'i y RING BEAM
-aw. N N s
\
/ , N4I
'N .
a s e I? \
f \
m - .
k jl N s_ n'. c , 4 '
~ ~
HNWL r ~M -
N {
'=~ 7*ENT SYSTEM %f gn, y . 4,/2* *""" '
m q -spAmata /
\
l j
i
\ \
\
'\
y
. /
/
y SAV PRHG .
i If' s fr .
j- m AM sw e Ao ,
\ $f e
[ ' f RING SEAM STIFF 5NER
\ -
coLum N
- ~ws= ries a
i
_g# cusNcHem surrenT Assy. ,- * . '-<
-lNTEANAL PIPING fuPCCRT
- O Lu M hJ -',. #
j . . . .... ; -y , . : .. . . i . e t;
- B AS E PLATE AS S E M BLT Figure 1-2.1-4 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION - MITERED JOINT BPC-01-300-1
- Revision 0 1-2.14 l
nut.e_qb !
i i
SPRA7 HEACER M cNC* * : L -
g VENT HEACER CAT W AL4 ,. cowNcoygM
,\l
- rI
,-- n}
- N CR t1CNTAL l
' AESTR AINT
~
t A ~
'T /
.h'sq EL . 71'. 4" \
MNwL f = ---
[ \ -
EL.11'- 4'/2"
\
/
's ming BEAM
\ \ l VENT SYSTEM N
' l' cowMN r.outNCHER p
DVi / ' f RING BEAM
/ -
,N STt FRENER tryp)
CC WM N , g, CCNNECT cN *' ousNc=Em i _
Assy. - Su'PCAT cm
,, y ,Nrsm%Aw misiNo suppcat N
!'..y.fi N ,. : 9: ,
n ,';!.i
, 3 g S ASE DLA E ASSEMBLY oR Etsow Note:
- 1. Downcomer stiffener plates not shown for clarity.
Figure 1-2.1 5 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SECTION - MIDCYLINDER NON-VENT BAY O
BPC-01-300-1 l
Revision 0 1-2.15 l nutmb
SUADRESSION CHAMBER SHELL
/ lo" @ TauS5 MEMBERS
/ p 7
. I '/ t" TH 4,. VE NT H E ADE R C RIN G D6ATES
, N NE
! , 3 /
' [4'-3'1,0 VENT / HEADER
. (_ _ _ _ . -
- g -
q I
_J] p_ _ _ L~~~_
i l-l l/4 ? pip
.M.; ,
i ,, (,)
bF
- u
,~,
, u, w ,s, 3" TH <, l l l , i -l , ?.p .1 e Rec
, l l END PLATE l l l l
/'
l 4." 9 SRActNG I l l i
il
i' l
m '
, - lo 6 suPAcRT ,'
' < . - SRv Ptpt l ;
24 @ DOWNCOMER PAD (pin PLATE
[SUPACRT l
i i j-T- QUENCHER .. ,.,
ccLUM N l l o r . ; '
( TY P)
H :"y'
-0 j -D : ;
. ,. #. , il $ Siff
- @ li ,c .mN1 ,
e-I g ,, o I l"; j ,
~f M l ? Icu!4CHER ,
I L SUPPORT SEAM i k RING SEAM g VENT LINE BAT - l. :3'/ 2." NON.y ENT q MITERED JOINT LING g AY Figure 1-2.1-6 DEVELOPED VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SEGMENT B PC-- 01 -3 0 0 - 1 i
Revision 0 1-2.16 nutp_qh
O VENT MEACER e
1 Ik.8 THK. CUTER i h. m<. INNER Gygggy p(A73 GUSSET ALATE
~G
, T \
/
/ s
'L'g
/* ggog i k& %K.
/ , COWNCCM ER Os '
AING ALATE l l i b a' m x. l l CMCTCH l PLATE i OCWNCCMERfl i e i , CCWNCCMER I ,
I I I I
! i l
l l
l
- Figure 1-2.1-7 ,
VENT HEADER - DOWNCOMER INTERSECTION STIFFE ING DETAILS O BFC-01-300-1 Revision 0 I l-2'17 f
nutggb
1-2.2 Operating Parameters Plant operating parameters are used to determine O
many of the hydrodynamic loads utilized in the Hope Creek plant unique analysis. Table 1-2.2-1 is a summary of the primary containment operating parame-ters used for the development of these hydrodynamic loads.
O BPC-01-300-1 1-2.18 Revision 0 nutp_qh
'^N Table 1-2.2-1 s
v )
PRIMARY CONTAINMENT OPERATING PARAMETERS COMPONENTS CONDITION / ITEM VALUE FREE AIR VOLUME (1) 169,000 cu ft NORMAL OPERATING PRESSURE HIGH 1.5 psig LOW -0.5 psig NORMAL OPERATING TEMPERATURE NOMINAL BULK 1350F MAX BULK 150cF MIN BULK 1200F DRYWELL NORMAL OPERATING RELATIVE HIGH 100%
HUMIDITY RANGE LOW 10%
PRESSURE SCRAM INITIATION SETPOINT 2 psig i 0.2 psig DESIGN INTERNAL PRESSURE 62 psig DESIGN EXTERNAL PRESSURE MINUS -3 psid INTERNAL PRESSURE DESIGN TEMPERATURE 3400F POOL VOLUME MAX (HIGH WATER 3
[ LEVEL) 122,000 ft
(') FREE AIR VOLUME (2)
MIN (LOW WATER LEVEL) 118,000 ft MIN (HIGH WATER 3 3
LEVEL) 133,500 ft MAX (LOW WATER 3 SUPPRESSION LEVEL) 137,000 ft LOCA VENT SYSTEM DOWNCOMER MIN (LOW WATER SUBMERGENCE (DISTANCE OF DOWNCOMER LEVEL) 3.00 ft DISCHARGE PLANE BELOW WATER LEVEL) MAX (HIGH WATER LEVEL) 3.33 ft WATER LEVEL DISTANCE TO TORUS MAX (LOW WATER CENTERLINE LEVEL) 1.292 ft MIN (HIGH WATER LEVEL) 0.958 ft SUPPRESSION POOL SURFACE EXPOSED TO MIN 10,680 ft2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER AIRSPACE MAX 1C,710 ft2 NOPNAL OPERATING PRESSURE RANGE HIGH 1.5 psig LOW -0. 5 psig BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-2.19 g{
Table 1-2.2-1 PRIMARY CONTAINMENT OPFRATING PARAMETERS (Concluded)
COMPONENTS CONDITION / ITEM VALUE TEMPERATURE RANGE OF SUPPRESSION HIGH 950F POOL DURING NORMAL OPERATION (3 )
LOW 600F NORMM. OPERATING TEMPERATURE RANGE HIGH 1000F OF EUPPRESSION CHAMBER FREE AIR LOW (3) 600F VOLUME SUPPRESSION NORMAL OPERATING RELATIVE HUMIDITY HIGH 100%
CHAMBER RANGE LOW (3) 50%
DESIGN INTERNAL PRESSURE 62 psig EXTERNAL PRES 3URE MINUS INTERNAL -3 psid PRESSURE DESIGN TEMPERATURE 3400F NORMAL OPERATING PRESSURE ZERO DIFFERENTIAL DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL ID AT DISCHA*.E 1.9375 ft DOWNCOMER OD AT DISCHARGE 2 ft TOTAL NUMBER OF DOWNCOMERS 80 LONG-TERM POST-LOCA CONTAINMENT MAX 0.5%/ DAY LEAK RATE CONTAINMENT DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL LEAKAGE SOURCE MAX 0.2 ft 2 BYPASSING SUPPRESSION PCOL WATER (ESTIMATED)
SERVICE WATER TEMPERATURE LIMITS MAX NOR&u, 950F MIN NORMAL 650 F SAFETY RELIEF SET POINT CAPACITY AT 103% OF SET POINT (lbm/hr)
VALVE (4) (psig) 4 1108 884,000 l
5 1120 893,000 1 I
5 (ADS) 1130 901,000 NOTES:
- 1. INCLUDES FREE AIR VOLUME OF THE LOCA VENT SYSTEM.
- 2. DOES NOT INCLUDE FREE AIR VOLUME OF THE IDCA VENT SYSTEM.
- 3. NOT CONTROLLED. i
BPC-01-300-1 !
Revision 0 1-2.20 g{ j
)
. -. _ _ - . - _ _ . - . = . -. . . - - . _ . _ - _ - _ . _ - -. - -
r 1
1-3.0 PLANT UNIOUE ANALYSIS CRITERIA
\
This section describes the acceptance criteria used in the Hope Creek plant unique analysis for '
hydrodynamic loads development and structural !
evaluations.
4 The acceptance criteria used in the PUA are a result of the NRC review of the long-term program LDR, the PUAAG, and the supporting analytical and experi-mental programs conducted by the Mark I owners Group. These criteria are documented in NUREG-0661 for both hydrodynamic load definitions and struc-l tural applications. Sections 1 and 2 of NUREG-0661 d provide an introduction and background information; Section 3 presents a detailed discussion of the hydrodynamic load evaluation; Section 4 presents the ;
structural and mechanical analyses - and acceptance criteria, and Appendix A presents the hydrodynamic l
loads acceptance criteria.
I s
l l
O BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-3.1 nutggb
1-3.1 Hydrodynamic Loads: NRC Acceptance Criteria O
Appendix A of NUREG-0661 resulted from the NRC review of the load definition procedures for suppression pool hydrodynamic loads contained in the LDR. The NRC review was limited to those events or event combinations involving suppression pool hydrodynamic loads. Unless specified otherwise, all loading conditions or structural analysis techniques used in the PUA, but not addressed in NUREG-0661, are in accordance with the Hope Creek FSAR.
Wherever feasible, the conservative hydrodynamic acceptance criteria of NUREG-0661 were incorporated directly into the detailed plant unique load determinations and associated structural analyses.
Where this simple, direct approach resulted in unrealistic hydrodynamic loads, more detailed plant unique analyses were performed. Many of these analyses have indicated that a specific interpreta-tion of the generic rules was justified. These specific applications of the generic hydrodynamic acceptance criteria are identified in the following sections and are discussed in greater detail in Section 1-4.0.
BPC-01-300-1 1-3.2 Revision 0 nutp_qh
l l
d 1-3.1.1 LOCA-Related Load Applications The hydrodynamic loads criteria are based on the NRC review and resulting revisions to experimentally-formulated hydrodynamic loads. Pool swell loads I derived from plant unique quarter-scale two-dimensional tests are used to obtain net torus uploads, downloads, and local pressure distribu-tions. Vent system impact and drag loads resulting from pool swell effects are also based on experimental results, using analytical techniques where appropriate.
Q Condensation oscillation and chugging loads were derived from FSTF results. Downcomer loads are based on test data, using comparisons of plant unique and FSTF dynamic load factors.
The acceleration drag volumes used in determining loads on submerged structures ~ are calculated based upon the values in published technical literature rather than on the procedure which might be inferred from NUREG-0661, where the structure is idealized as a cylindrical section for both velocity and 4
acceleration drag (see Section 1-4.1-5).
O ID) BPC-01-300-1 1-3.3 Revision 0 nutgsb
.a-, ..,c -
Condensation oscillation and post-chug torus shell and submerged structure loads are defined in terms of 50 harmonics. Random phasing of the loading har-monics is assumed, based on FSTF data and subsequent analysis (see Section 1-4.1.7.1).
NUREG-0661 states that the fluid-structure interac-tion (FSI) effect on CO and chugging loads on submerged structures can be accounted for by adding the shell boundary accelerations to the local fluid acceleration. For Hope Creek, the FSI effects for a given structure are included by adding the pool fluid acceleration at the location of the structure rather than the shell boundary acceleration (see Section 1-4.1.7.3).
l l
l BPC-01-300-1 1-3.4 Revision 0 nut.e_qh
1-3.1.2 SRV Discharge Load Applications V
The analysis techniques for SRV discharge loads were developed to generically define T-quencher air clearing loads on the torus. However, a number of Mark I licensees have indicated that the generic load definition procedures are overly conservative for their plant design, particularly when the procedures are coupled with conservative structural analysis techniques. To allow for these special cases, the NRC has specified requirements whereby in-plant tests could be used to derive the plant specific structural response to the SRV air clearing loads on the torus and submerged structures.
v Because of the various phenomena associated with the air clearing phase of SRV discharge, some form of analysis procedure is necessary to extrapolate from test conditions to the-design casos. Therefore, the NRC requirements are predicated on formulating a coupled load-structure analysis technique which is calibrated to the plant specific conditions for the simplest form of discharge (i.e., single valve, first actuation) and then applied to the design basis event conditions.
\' J BPC-01-300-1 1-3.5 Revision 0 nutagh
The SRV torus shell loads are evaluated using the alternate approach of NUREG-0661, which allows the use of in-plant SRV tests to calibrate a coupled load-structure analytical model. This method utilizes shell pressure waveforms more character-istic of those observed in tests. A series of in-plant SRV tests will be performed for Hope Creek after fuel load to confirm that the computed loadings and predicted structural responses for SRV discharges are conservative (see Section 1-4.2.3).
For SRV bubble-induced drag loads on submerged structures, a bubble pressure multiplier which bounds the maximum peak positive bubble pressure and the maximum bubble pressure differential across the quencher observed during the Monticello in-plant SRV l discharge tests is used (see Section 1-4.2.4).
l BPC-01-300-1 1-3.6 Revision 0 nutp_gh
l-3.1.3 Other Considerations As part of the PUA, each licensee is required to I
either demonstrate that previously submitted pool temperature response analys3s are adequate or pro-vide plant specific pool temperature response analyses to assure that SRV discharge transients will not exceed specified pool temperature limits.
A suppression pool temperature monitoring system is also required to ensure that the suppression pool bulk temperature remains within the allowable limits set forth in the plant technical specifications.
Section 6.2.1.1.10 of the Hope Creek FSAR discusses 3 specific implementation of these considerations.
Several loads are classified as secondary loads becauce of their inherent low magnitudes. These loads include seismic slosh pressure loads, post-pool swell wave loads, asymmetric pool swell pressure loads on the torus as a whole, sonic and compression wave loads, and 'owncomer air clearing loads. In accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661, these secondary loads are considered to be negligible compared to other loads in the PUA and are not evaluated.
\v / BPC-01-300-1 1-3.7 Revision 0
1-3.2 Component Analysis: Structural Acceptance Criteria O
Section 4.0 of NUREG-0661 presents the NRC evalua-tion of the generic structural and mechanical acceptance criteria and of the general analysis techniques proposed by the Mark I Owners Group for use in the plant unique analyses. Because the Mark I plants were designed and constructed at different times, there are variations in the codes and standards to which they were constructed and subsequently licensed. For this assessment of the containment, the criteria described in this subsection were developed to provide a consistent and uniform basis for acceptability for all Mark I plants. In this evaluation, references to " original design criteria" mean those specific criteria in the Hope Creek FSAR.
BPC-01-300-1 1-3.8 Revision 0 nut.e_qh
1-3.2.1 Classification of Components The structures described in Section 1-1.3 were cate-gorized according to their functions to assign the appropriate service limits. The general components of a Mark I containment system have been classified l
l in accordance with Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, a.s specified in NUREG-0661.
1 i
BPC-01-300-1 1-3.9 Revision 0 nutggh
1-3.2.2 Service Level Assignments The criterir. used in the plant unique analysis to O
evaluate the acceptability of the existing containment design or to provide the basis for plant modifications follow Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code through the Summer 1977 Addenda.
Service Limits The service limits are defined in terms of the Winter 1976 Addenda of the ASME Code, which introduced Levels A, B, C, and D. The selection of specific service limits for each load combination is dependent on the functional requirements of the component analyzed and the nature of the applied load. Tables 1-3.2-1 and 1-3.2-2 provide the assignments of service levels for each load combina-tion. Reference 2 describes details regarding service level assignments and other aspects of Tables 1-3.2-1 and 1-3.2-2.
BPC-01-300-1 1-3.10 Revision 0 nutp_qh
fx ,
(\ / <
) w, v s __-r W Table 1-3.2-1 5 'o o
.:<O
~ [o EVENT COMBIN ATIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS FOR CLASS MC .
H o8 pu COMPONENTS AND INTERNAL STRUCTURES o
oo 1 H
EVENT COMB! NATIONS SRV e P8 CO,CH PS PS CO, CH M '
CO, CH '
CO, CH g PS
- O S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S O 3 S 0 5 TYPE OF EARTHOUAEE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Il 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 COMBINATION NUMBER 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NORMAL (2) N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X F X X X X EARTHQUAKE EQ X SRV X X X X X X X X X X(71 X X X(7) X( 71 SRV DISCHARGE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X fOCA TMERMAL TA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IDCA REACTIONS Rg
'"^"S *****' X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X l ES$^E PA X X l
X X X X X X EDCA POOL SWELL PpS p IDCA CONDENSATION X X X X X X X X X X X l oSCzLt.AtroN PoC X X X X X X X X X X X X f IDCA CHUGGING PCH ROW X
H STRUCTURAL ELEMENT H mas,onuemL wNr P:PE, A B EXTERNAL N214NS,0RYMJL (AT WNr), A B C A A B C B C A A B C d C (), A (), C B C C C C C C C 1
CIJLSS MC ATTA0HNr M216,'!Olas SOP- 6) 6)
RIFIS,SEI9 TIC REMINIS A B 2 0 C 0 C C INTERNAL Mg y wggpS }'
VENT B C A " C B C C C C C C C 3 A B C 4 A B C B C A A B C D.
A B E T WELDS HEADER T B
- ^
- C ^ () " C () C ^ (Il B C gy, C {5, g),
, , C gl; C C C C C C C e N. De RS) }
A B (XMNCOMERS A NT WEI.DS 7 A B C A A B C B C A A B C B C A A B C B C C C C C C C INTERNAL SUPPORTS A A C D C D C C D E D E E E E E E E E E E E E E CENERAL 8 A B C INTERNAL STRUCTURES 9 A B C A A C D C D C C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D VENT DEFLECTOR C
<n NOTES TO TABLE l-3.2-1 ri fO O I g 1. REFERENCE 3 STATES "WilEltE Ti!E DRYWELL-10-WETWELL PRESSURE DIFFERENTI AL IS NORMALLY UTILIZED AS A IDAD MI'TIGATOR, AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION SilALL BE PERFORMED WITilOUT SRV IDADINGS BUT DW ASSUMING IDSS OF Tile PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL." IN Tile ADDITIONAL EVALUATION LEVEL D SERVICE o o LIMITS SilALL APPLY FOR ALL STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS EXCEPT ROW 8 INTERNAL STRUCTURES, WilICil HEED NOT BE EVALUATED.
4
- 2. NORMAL LOADS (N) CONSIST OF Tile COMPINATION OF DEAD LOADS, LIVE LOADS, COLUMN PRESET LOADS, TIIERMAL EFFECTS DURING OPERATION, AND PIPE REACTIONS DURING OPERATION.
- 3. EVALUATION OF PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITY RANGE (NE-3221.4) AND OF FATIGUE (NE-3221.5) IS NOT REQUIRED.
- 4. WHEN CONSIDERING 'IllE LIMITS ON IDCAL MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITY (NE-3221.2) AND PRIMARY-MEMBRANE-PLUS-PRIMARY-DENDING STRESS (NE-3221.3), Tile S ac VALVE MAY BE REPLACED BY 1.3 S mc' (NOTE: Tile MODIFICATION TO Tile LIMITS DOES NOT AFFECT Tile NORMAL LIMITS ON PRIMARY-PLUS-SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITY RANGE (NE-3221.4 OR NE-3228.3) NOR THE NORMAL LIMITS ON FATIGUE EVALUATION (NE-3221.5(e) OR APPENDIX 11-1500). THE MODIFICATION IS THAT THE LIMITS ON IDCAL MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITY (NE-3221.2) AhO ON PRIMARY-MEMBRANE-PLUS-PRIMARY BENDING STRESS g INTENSITY (NE-3221.3) IIAVE BEEN MODIFIED BY USING 1.3 Smc IN PLACE OF Ti!E NORMAL S ac*
I f TilIS MODIFICATION IS A CONSERVATIVE APPROXIMATION 'IU RESULTS FROM LIMIT ANALYSIS TESTING AS e REPORTED IN REFERENCE 2 AND IS CONSISTENT WITil Tile REQUIREMENTS OF NE-3228.2.
N
- 5. SERVICE LEVEL LIMITS SPECIFIED APPLY TO Tile OVERALL STRUCTURAL RESPONSE OF Ti!E VENT SYSTEM.
AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION WILL BE PERFORMED 'IO DEMONSTRATE TilAT SilELL STRESSES DUE 40 Tile IDCAL POOL SWELL IMPINGEMENT PRESSURES DO NOT EXCEED SERVICE LEVEL C LIMITS.
- 6. FOR Tile SUPPRESSION CilAMBER SilELL, Tile S TIMES Tile DYNAMIC LOAD FACTOR DERIVED FROM Tile TORUS STRUC@0RAL MODEL.VALUE MAY BE REPLACED BY 1.0 AS AN ALTERNATIVE, MAY BE REPLACED BY Tile PLANT UNIQUE RATIO OF Tile SUPPRESSION CilAMBER DYNAMIC FAILURE PRESSURE TO Tile STATIC FAILURE PRESSURE.
- 7. SRV ACTUATION IS ASSUMED '10 OCCUR COINCIDENT WITil Tile POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTilOUGil SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN Tile DBA, TIIE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON Tile SUFPRESSION CilAMBER e SilELL IS NEGLIGIBLE SINCE Tile AIR AND WATER INITI ALLY IN Tile LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS Tile DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING Tile DBA TRANSIENT.
)
C NG O O O
,,m s ,
p ,
1-
. I L A 4
'\ / \ ( /
%) % %)
.@ @ Table 1-3.2-2
< O e- I m o EVENT COA 1BINATIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS nw 0 8
- 3 w FOR CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING o
o o 1 W
SBA SBA 6 EQ SBA+SRV SBA + SRV
- p CH CO, CH CH CO,CH (h) CH PS CO, CH PS CH PS CO, CH TYPE OF EARTilOUARE O S O S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S 0 S COMBINATION NUMBER I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NORMAL (2) N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X EARTHQUAEE EQ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SRV DISCHARGE SRV X X X X X X X X X X X(6) X X Xf 61X(61 THERMAL TA X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LOADS PIPE PRESSURE Pg X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X IDCA POOL SWELL Ppg X X X X X X LOCA CONDENSATION P CO X X X X X X X X X X OSCILIATION IDCA CHUGGING PCH X X X X X X X X X X X X STRUCTURAL ELEMENT ROW W 10 B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B ESSENTIAL III III I4I I4I I4I I4I I4I III (4) (4I I4I (4) (4) I4I (4) I40 I4) (4) (4) (4) (4I I4I (4) I4I I4I I4I P PIPING W SYSTLMS WITH SbA !! B B B B B B B B B B B B - - - - - - = - - - - -
(3) (3) (4) (4) (4) (4) (3) (3) (4) (8) (4) (4) 12 8 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 IBA/DBA (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) f5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
NONESSENTIAL PIPING SYSTEMS 13 C C D D D D D D D D D D - - - - - - - - - - - -
WITH SBA (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) 4 C
y$ NOTES TO TABLE l-3.2-2
<: O
- p. I mo 1. ItEFERENCE 3 STATES "WiiEllE A DRYWELL 'IO-WETWELL PRESSUltE DIFFERENTI AL IS NORMALLY UTILIZED AS A
$gW1 LOAD MITIGATOR, AN ADDITIONAL EVALUATION SilALL BE PERFORMED WITilOUT SRV IDADINGS BUT ASSUMING
- s illE LOSS OF Tile PitESSURE DIFFERENTI AL." SEltVICE LEVEL D LIMITS SilALL APPLY FOR ALL STRUCTURAL g o ELEMENTS OF Tile PIPING SYSTEM FOR TilIS EVALUATION. Tile ANALYSIS NEED ONLY BE ACCOMPLIStiED 'IO I Tile EXTENT TilAT INTEGRITY OF Tile FIRST PRESSURE BOUNDARY ISOLATION VALUE IS DEMONSTRATED.
H
- 2. NORMAL LOADS (H) CONSIST OF DEAD IDADS (D).
- 3. AS AN ALTERNATIVE, TiiE 1.2 S LIMIT IN EQUATION 9 OF NC-3652.2 MAY BE REPLACED BY 1.8 S ,
PROVIDED TilAT ALL OTilER LIMIhS ARL SATISFIED. FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLICABLE 'IO AbL COLUMNS, WITil T7IE EXCEPT10N OP 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 AND 25.
- 4. FOOTNOTE 3 APPLIES EXCEPT TilAT INSTEAD OF USING 1.8 hS IN EQUATION 9 OF NC-3652.2, 2.4 Sh I6 USED.
- 5. EQUATION 10 OF NC OR ND-3659 WILL BE SATISFIED, EXCEPT Ti!E FATIGUE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE 'IO 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 TilAT COMPONE;NT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED.
Y 6. SRV ACTUATION IS ASSUMED 'IO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITl! Tile POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTiiOUGil SRV f ACTUATION CAN Occult LATER IN Tile DBA, TiiE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON T!!E SUPPRESSION CilAMBER H SilELL IS NEGLIGIBLE SINCE Tile AIR AND WATER INITI ALLY IN Tile LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS Tile A DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING Tile DBA TRANSIENT. ,
)
C, NG O O O
1-3.2.3 Other Considerations
\ /
%J The general structural analysis techniques proposed by the Mark I Owners Group are utilized in the Hope Creek - plant unique analysis with sufficient detail to account for all significant structural response i
modes. These methods are consistent with those used to develop the loading functions defined in the load definition report. For those loads considered in the original design but not redefined by the LDR, either the results of the origins 1 analysis are used or a new analysis is performed, based on the methods employed in the original plant design.
1
(,/ The damping values used in the analysis of dynamic loading events are those specified in Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants" (Reference 5), which is in accordance with NUREG-0661.
The structural responses resulting from two dynamic
, phenomena are combined by either the absolute sum or the SRSS method. Responses due to dynamic loads for containment structures are combined using the absolute sum method except as noted. Response due to dynamic loads for piping systems are combined O
(Vl BPC-01-300-1 1-3.15 Revision 0 nutggb
c.
i using t.h e SRSS method. The time phasing of the responses for two dynamic loadings is such that the combined state of the stress results in the maximum stress intensity.
1 f
1 l
i l
I O
(
l BPC-01-300-1 1-3.16 Revision 0 nut.e_qb
i a
l-4.0 HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS METHODOLOGY AND EVENT SEQUENCE
SUMMARY
d 4
This section presents the load definition procedures used to develop the Hope Creek hydrodynamic loads.
, The ~ section is organized in accordance with NUREG-0661, Section 3. Table 1-4.0-1 provides a
- cross-reference between the PUAR sections and the sections of NUREG-0661 Appendix A, where each load or event is addressed.
1 1
1 4
t i
I I
l
!~
r I
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.1 Revision 0 nutggb
Table 1-4.0-1 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS /NUREG-0661 LOAD' SECTIONS CROSS-REFERENCE NUREG-0661 LOAS/ EVENT PUAR SECTION APPENDIX A SECTION CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND l-4.1.1 2.O TEMPERATURE RESPONSE VENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE LOADS 1-4.1.2 2.2 POOL SWELL LOADS ON TORUS SHELL l-4.1.3 2.3 & 2.4 POOL SWELL LOADS ON ELEVATED l-4.1.4 7 6 - 2.10 STRUCTURES POOL SWELL LOADS ON SUDMERGED l-4.1.5 & 2*14*1 s 2*14*2 STRUCTURES 1-4.1.6 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS 1~4*1*7 2*11*l ON TORUS SHELL CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS 2*ll*2 l*4*1*7 ON DOWNCOMERS AND VENT SYSTEM CONDENSATION OSCILLATION LOADS 2.14.5 i
1-4.1.7 ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES CHUGGING LOADS ON TORUS SHELL l-4.1.8 2.12.1 CHUGGING LOADS ON DOWNCOFIRS 1-4.1.8 2.12.2 CHUGGING LOADS ON SUBMERGED M. 8 2.14.6 STRUCTURES SRV ACTUATION CASES 1-4.2.1 2.13.7 SRV DISCHARGE LINE CLEARING 2 2.13.2 & 2.13.1 SRV LOADS ON TORUS SHELL 1-4.2.3 2.13.3 SRV LOADS ON SUBMERGED 1-4.2.4 2.14.3 & 2.14.4 STRUCTURES DESIGN BASIS ACCIDENT l-4.3.1 3.2.1 INTERMEDIATE BREAK ACCIDENT l-4.3.2 3.2.1 SMALL BREAK ACCIDENT l-4.3.3 3.2.1 BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.2 nutfilRh_
l-4.1 LOCA-Related Loads i
b This subsection describes the procedures used to define the Hope Creek LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads. The sources of structural loads generated during a LOCA are primarily a result of the following conditions.
Prt *es and temperatures within the drywell, vent s_ , and wetwell Fluid flow through the vent system Initial LOCA bubble formation in the pool and the resulting displacement of water resulting in pool swell s
V -
Steam flow into the suppression pool (CO and chugging).
For postulated pipe breaks inside the drywell, three LOCA categories are considered. These three categories, selected on the basis of break size, are referred to as a design basis accident (DBA), an intermediate break accident (IBA), and a small break accident (SBA).
(l)\
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.3 Revision 0 nutggb
\
I I
The DBA for a Mark I containment is defined as the instantaneous guillotine rupture of the largest pipe in the primary system (recirculation suction line). This LOCA leads to a specific combination of dynamic, quasi-static, and static loads. However, the DBA does not represent the limiting case for all loads and structural responses. Consequently, an IBA and a SBA are also evaluated. The IBA is ,
defined as a 0.1 ft 2 instantaneous liquid line break in the primary system, and the SBA is defined as a j 2
0.01 ft instantaneous steam line break in the 1 I
primary system.
i ;
O l
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.4 Revision 0 nutEll
b d
i 1-4.1.1 Containment Pressure and Temperature Response The drywell and suppression chamber transient pres-sure and temperature responses are calculated using !
the " General Electric Company Pressure Suppression Containment Analytical Model" (Reference 6). This analytical model calculates the thermodynamic i response of the drywell, vent system, and suppres-sion chamber volumes to mass and energy released from the primary system following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident.
I The containment pressure and temperature analyses are performed in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661 and are documented in Reference 7.
i l
\
- - BPC-01-300-1 1-4.5 l Revision 0 .
nutpsh
, - , - ~ . . . . .,...m_ ___y ., ,,, , _ - . , _ _ , , - , . _ _,-.....mm,..,.,,,,.._.......,,.,m..-,,,.,,,..,_.,_,.,_..-.....m__,.,m,-
l 1
l 1
l 1
1-4.1.2 Vent System Discharge Loads I Of the three postulated LOCA categories, the DBA O l causes the most rapid pressurization of the containment system, the largest vent system mass flow rate, and therefore, the most severe vent system thrust loads. The pressurization of the containment for the IBA and SBA is much less rapid than for the design basis accident. Thus, the resulting vent system thrust loads for the SBA and IBA are bounded by the DBA thrust loads. Conse-quently, vent system thrust loads are only evaluated for the design basis accident.
Reaction loads occur on the vent system (main vent, vent header, and downcomers) following a LOCA due to pressure imbalances between the vent system and the surrounding torus airspace, and due to forces resulting from changes in linear momentum.
The LDR thrust equations consider the forces due to pre;.sure distributions and momentum to define horizontal and vertical thrust forces. These equations are included in the analytical procedures applied to the main vents, vent header, and down-comer portions of the vent system.
l BPC-01-300-1 1-4.6 Revision 0 nutggh
Because main vents and downcomers are located symmetrically about the center of the vent system, the horizontal vent system thrust loads equilibrate each other, resulting in a zero unbalanced horizontal vent system thrust load.
The bases, analytical procedures, and assumptions used to calculate thrust loads are described in the load definition report. The Hope Creek plant unique DBA thrust loads for the main vent, the vent header, and downcomers were developed using a zero initial drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential. The thrust loads used in this PUA are documented in Reference 7.
PUAR Volume 3 presents the c*r. lysis of the vent system for discharge loads. The vent system discharge loads are developed in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
r
/ BPC-01-300-1 1-4.7 Revision 0 nutggb
1-4.1.3 Pool Swell Loads on the Torus Shell O
During the postulated LOCA, the air initially in the drywell and vent system is expelled into the sup-pression pool, producing a downward reaction force on the torus followed by an upward reaction force.
These vertical loads create a dynamic imbslance of forces on the torus, which acts in addition to the weight of the water contained in the torus. This dynamic force history lasts for only a few seconds.
The bases, assumptions, and justifications for the pool swell loads on the torus shell due to the DBA are described in the load definition report. The pool swell loads on the torus shell are based on a series of Hope Creek unique tests conducted using the OSTF (Reference 8). The pool swell loads on the torus shell used in the PUA are based on the information contained in Reference 8, with the addition of the upload and download margins specified in Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
From the plant unique average submerged pr^ssure and the torus air pressure-time histories, the local average submerged pressure transients at different locations on the shell can be calculated using the BPC-01-300-1 1-4.8 Revision 0 nut.e_qh
4 i
LDR methodology and the criteria given in 1
i NUREG-0661.
5 i I h
t-
! The effects.of pool swell torus shell loads on con-4 tainment structures are discussed in PUAR Volume 2.
i T
- t
+
1
< t i
I i
ili L 0
i 1
i.
i 9 :
i-s 1 i i
I L
i.
i!
I I
i l
O - BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0-1-4.9 ;
nutagh l 1
ete M-M-+ww r w- eem oww - erw m me w esw w,w ear *e**mapw-e-M __ _____.mT _ _ _ , _ _ _ , ,.m . M T WW'M'WM
1-4.1.4 Pool Swell Loads on Elevated Structures O
This subsection describes the load definition procedures used to define the hydrodynamic loads on the vent system and other elevated structures inside the torus above normal water level. These load components include:
Pool Swell Impact and Drag Loads Froth Impingement Loads, Region I Froth Impingement Loads, Region II Pool Fallback Loads Froth Fallback Loads The analysis for the effects of pool swell loads on elevated structures are discussed in PUAR Volumes 3 through 6.
1 BPC-01-300-1 1-4.10 Revision 0 nutg,gh
- . = - . - -
1-4.1.4.1 Impact and Drag Loads on the Vent System In the event of a postulated design basis LOCA, the pool surface rises during the pool swell phase and impacts structures in its path. The resulting loading condition of primary interest is the impact on_the vent system. The impact phenomenon consists of two events: (1) the impact of the pool on the structure, and (2) the drag on the structure as the pool flows past it following impact. The load definition includes both the impact and drag portions of the loading transient.
. The vent system components which are potentially impacted during pool swell include the vent lines, the vent header, and the downcomers. The vent header will experience pool swell impact and drag loads since Hope Creek does not require a vent header deflector due to the use of a thicker vent header. The vent system pool swell impact and drag loads are developed from plant unique quarter-scale tests (Reference 8).
A generic pressure transient is specified for the downcomers and is assumed to apply uniformly over the bottom 50' of the angled portion of the
/
l i' BPC-01-300-1 1-4.11 Revision 0 nutggh
downcomer. The load transient and distribution are shown in Figures 1-4.1-1 and 1-4.1-2.
The vent header loads are developed on a plant unique basis. The LDR provides the bases, assump-tions, and justificatior.s for vent header impact loads. Reference 7 presents the full-scale vent header loads used for Hope Creek. These loads are based on a zero initial drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential and include the load definition requirements specified in Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
Pool swell impact and drag loads on the main vent line are calculated using the procedure specified in Appendix A of NUREG-0661.
The analysis of vent system for pool swell impact and drag loads is discussed in PUAR Volume 3.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.12 Revision 0 nutggh
, 6 l $
5 y 8.0- -~~
- 8 0
s O
l TIME WHEN POOL TIME )F TIME (sec)
! REACHES LOWER MAXIMUM END OF ANGLED POOL SWELL PORTION OF = 0.762 DOWNCOMER(1)
NOTE:
- 1. THE TIME OF INITIAL IMPACT IS DEPENDENT ON THE DOWNCOMER LOCATION.
Figure 1-4.1-1 i DOWNCOMER IMPACT AND DRAG PRESSURE TRANSIENT BPC-01-300-1 l Revision 0 1-4.13 l
- nutagh
0 1 I
f VENT HEADER A
DOWNCOMER (ANGLED SECTION) F A
IMPACT PRESSURE l TRANSIENT APPLIED TO SHADED AREA DOWNCOMER ~ ~
(VERTICAL SECTION)
W500 SECTION A-A Figure 1-4.1-2 APPLICATION OF IMPACT AND DRAG PRESSURE TRANSIENT TO DOWNCOMER BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.14 nutp_qh
1-4.1.4.2 Impact and Drag Loads on Other Structures (m
V)
As the pool surface rises due to the bubbles forming at the downcomer exits, it may impact structures located in the wetwell airspace. In the present context, "other structures" are defined as all structures located above the initial pool surface, exclusive of the vent system.
The LDR presents the bases, assumptions, and method-ology-used in determining the pool swell impact and drag loads on structures located above the pool surface. These load specifications correspond to s impact on " rigid" structures.. When performing
.\v) structural dynamic analysis, the " rigid body" impact loads are applied. The mass of the impacted structure is adjusted by adding the hydrodynamic mass of impact, except for gratings. The value of hydrodynamic mass is obtained using the methods described in the LDR.
l l
l The development and application of impact and drag loads are in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661. Typical impact and drag load transients are shown in Figures 1-4.1-3 and 1-4.1-4. The analysis of elevated structures for impact and drag loads is discussed in PUAR Volumes 3 through 6.
Lj BPC-01-300-1 1-4.15 Revision 0 t
l 0
l l
ta g Pmax-m b
2 5
w 0
w E D- -
~
s'p'j Ip s'/ ,
T TIME WHEFO I = IMPULSE OF IMPACT PER UNIT AREA T = PULSE DURATION 1
l l
Figure 1-4.1-3 PULSE SHAPE FOR IMPACT AND DRAG ON CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURES BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.16 nutgqb
l
=
$ Pmax-E n.
b 2
5 m
o .
I P D-w e I
$ P/
/
/
/
/
I T
TIME WHERE I = IMPULSE OF IMPACT PER UNIT AREA p
T = PULSE DURATION Figure 1-4.1-4
. PULSE SHAPE FOR IMPACT AND DRAG ON FLAT PLATE STRUCTURFe BPC-01-300-1 R9 vision 0 1-4 17 nutggb
- - - - - - - l
I l-4.1.4.3 Pool Swell Froth Impingement Loads O
During the final stages of the pool swell phase of a DBA LOCA, the rising pool breaks up into a two-phase froth mixture of air and water. This froth rises above the pool surface and may impinge on structures within the torus airspace. Subsequently, as the froth falls back, it creates froth fallback loads.
Froth may be generated by two mechanisms as described below.
Region I Froth As the rising pool strikes the bottom of the vent header, a froth spray which travels upward and to both sides of the vent header is formed. This is defined as the Region I froth impingement zone (Figure 1-4.1-5).
Region II Froth A portion of the water above the expanding air bubble becomes detached from the bulk pool and travels vertically upward. This water is influenced only by its own inertia and gravity. The " bubble breakthrough" creates a froth which rises into the BPC-01-300-1 1-4.18 Revision 0 nutggh
m airspace beyond the maximum bulk pool swell height. This is defined as the Region II froth impingement zone (Figure 1-4.1-6).
The LDR methods are used to define the froth impingement loads for Region 1. For the Region I froth formation, the LDR method assumes the froth density to be 20% of full water density for structures with maximum cross-section dimensions of less than l', and a proportionally lower density for structures greater than l'. The load is applied as a step function for a duration of 80 milliseconds in the direction most critical to the structure within the region of load application.
g%
The froth density of Region II is assumed to be 100%
of water density for structures or sections of structures with a maximum cross-sectional dimension less than or equal to l' , 25% of water density for structures greater than l', and 10% of water density for structures located within the projected region directly above the vent header. The load is applied as a rectangular pulse with a duration of 100 milliseconds in the direction most critical to the structure within the region of load application.
A BPC-01-300-1 1-4.19 Revision 0
For some structures, the procedures described above result in unrealistically conservative loads. In these situations, the alternate procedure outlined in Appendix A of NUREG-0661 is used. This procedure consists of calculating Region I froth loads from high-speed OSTP movies. In this case, the froth source velocity, mean jet angle, and froth density in Regici I are derived from a detailed analysis of the OSI. plant specific high-speed films.
With either methodology for Region I, the vertical component of the source velocity i$i decelerated to the elevation of the target structure to obtain the froth impingement velocity. The load is applied in the direction most critical to the structure within the sector obtained from OSTF movies. The OSTF movies are also used to determine whether a struc-ture is impinged by Region I froth. Uncertainty limits for each parameter are applied to assure a conservative load specification.
The froth fallback pressure is based on the conser-vative assumption that all of the froth fallback momentum is transferred to the structure. The froth velocity is calculated by allowing the froth to fall freely from the height of the upper torus shell BPC-01-300-1 1-4.20 Revision 0 nutp_qb
directly above the subject structure. The froth fallback pressure is applied uniformly to the upper projected area of the structure being analyzed in the direction most critical to the behavior of the structure. The froth fallback is specified to start when the froth impingement load ends and lasts for 1.0 second. The range of direction of application is downward 145 degrees from the vertical.
The pool swell froth impingement and froth fallback ;
loads used in the PUA are in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661. The effects of these
- loadings on elevated structures are discussed in PUAR Volumes 3 through 6.
l l
1 1
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.21 Revision 0
SUPPRESSION O
CHAMBER FROTH l REGION I I VENT I
HEADER k -
TYPICAL Kj STRUCTURE sx 450 O'
NOTE:
- 1. REGION IS SYMMETRICAL ON BOTH SIDES OF VENT HEADER.
Figure 1-4.1-5 FROTH IMPINCEMENT ZONE - REGION I BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 .
1-4.22 nutggh
REGION II 0.6R
\
N b
o UU =F SUPPRESSION CHAMBER NOTE:
- 1. REGION IS SYMMETRICAL ON BOTH SIDES OF VENT HEADER.
l Figure 1-4.1-6 FROTH IMPINGEMENT ZONE - REGION II BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.23 i
nutggh
1-4.1.4.4 Pool Fallback Loads This subsection describes pool fallback loads which O
apply to structures within the torus that are below the upper surface of the pool at its maximum height and above the downcomer exit level. After the pool surface has reached maximum height as a result of pool swell, it falls back under the influence of gravity and creates drag loads on structures inside the torus shell. The structures affected are between the maximum bulk pool swell height and the downcomer exit level, or immersed in an air bubble extending beneath the downcomer exit level.
For structures immersed in the pool, the drag force during fallback (as described in the LDR) is the sum of standard drag (proportional to the velocity squared) and acceleration drag (proportional to the acceleration). For structures which are beneath the upper surface of the pool but within the air bubble, there is an initial load associated with resub-mergence of the structure by either an irregular impact with the bubble-pool interface or a process similar to froth fallback. This initial load is bounded by the standard drag because conservative assumptions are made in calculating the standard drag.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.24 O
Revision 0 nutp_qh
^
The load calculation procedure, as described in the
< LDR, requires determination of the maximum pool swell height above the height of the top surface of the structure. Freefall of the bulk fluid from this height is assumed to occur, producing both standard drag and acceleration drag. The total drag is calculated to be the sum of the two.
l The LUR procedure results in a conservative calcula-tion of the velocity since it is unlikely that any appreciable amount of pool fluid will be in freefall t
through this entire distance. The maximum, pool swell height is determined from the OSTF plant 4 unique tests (Reference 8).
O The procedures outlined in' Appendix A of NUREG-0661 are used to account for interference effects associated with both standard and acceleration drag
- forces.
4 Structures which may be enveloped by the LOCA bubble are evaluated for potential fallback loads as a result of bubble collapse to ensure that such loads-are not larger than the LOCA bubble drag loads t
(Section 1-4.1.6).
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.25 Revision 0
The fallback load is applied iniformly over the upper projected surface of the structure in the direction most critical to the behavior of the structure. The range of 145 degrees from the vertical is applied to both the radial and longitudinal planes of the torus.
The procedures used to determine pool fallback loads in the PUA are in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661. The effects of this loading on elevated structures are discussed in PUAR Volumes 3 through 6.
O BPC-01-300-1 1-4.26 Revision 0 nut,e_qh
1-4.1.5 LOCA Water Jet Loads on Submerged Structures As the drywell pressurizes during a postulated DBA LOCA, the water slug initially standing in the sub-merged portion of the downcomer vents is accelerated downward into the suppression pool. As the water slug enters the pool, it forms a jet which loads structures which are intercepted by the discharge.
Forces due to the pool acceleration and velocity induced by the advancing jet front are also included in the analysis.
The LOCA water jet loads affect structures which are enclosed by the jet boundaries and last from the time that the jet first reaches the structure until the last particle of the water slug passes the structure. Pool motion can create loads on structures which are within the region of motion for the duration of the water jet. The assumptions included in the methodology are presented in the load definition report.
The calculation procedure used to obtain LOCA jet loads is based on experimental data obtained from tests performed at the Ouarter-Scale Test Facility 1
'~ BPC-01-300-1 1-4.27 Revision 0 nutggb
(Reference 8), and on the analytical model described in Reference 1.
As the jet travels through the pool, the particles at the rear of the water slug, which were discharged from the downcomer at higher velocities, catch up with particles at the front of the water slug, which were discharged at lower velocities. When this
" overtaking" occurs, both particles are assumed to continue on at the higher velocity. As the rear particles catch up to the particles in front, the jet becomes shorter and wider. When the last fluid particle leaving the downcomer catches up to the front of the jet, the jet dissipates.
O Forces due to pool motion induced by the advancing jet are calculated for structures that are within four downcomer diameters below the downcomer exit elevation. The flow field, standard drag, and acceleration drag are calculated using the equations in the LDR.
Structures that are within four downcomer diameters below the downcomer exit elevation will sustain a loading, first from the flow field induced by the jet, then from the jet itself if it is within the BPC-01-300-1 1-4.28 Revision 0 nut.e_qh
m cross-section of the jet. Forces resulting from the flow field are due to standard drag and acceleration drag. The force from the jet is due to standard drag only,-since particles within the jet travel at a constant discharge velocity (i.e., there is no I
acceleration).
The standard drag force on the submerged structure is computed based on the normal component of veloc-ity intercepting the structure, the projected area
! of the structure intercepted by the normal component of velocity, and,the jet or flow field area.
For LOCA water jet loads, downcomers are modeled as jet sources for submerged structures based on the location of the structure.
Structures are divided into several sections, following the procedure given in the LDR and the criteria given in NUREG-0661. For each section, the
! location, acceleration drag volume, drag l coefficient, and orientation are input into the LOCA i
jet model.
1 l
l BPC-01-300-1 1-4.29 j Revision 0 L nutagh
-g .., , , _ _.,.4- , - . _ - - -.m_ ,a ,u .--y , , , , , , , , _,_.,,~,,,,._....,y.n-,,, ,.,,,, , , , , . _ _ , , , - _g,,_,,,..,e,,, ,. ,-~.
l The LOCA water jet loads on circular, cross-sectional structures due to standard and accelera-tion drag are developed in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-0661. For structures with sharp corners, these drag loads are calculated considering forces on an equivalent cylinder of diameter Deq "
2 1/2 Emax, where hax is the maximum transverse dimension. For acceleration drag, this technique results in unrealistic loads on some structures such as I-beams due to the significant increase in the acceleration drag volume. In these cases, the acceleration drag volumes in Table 1-4.1-1 are used in the acceleration drag load calculation. A literature search concluded that these acceleration drag volumes are appropriate in this application.
References 9 and 10 show that the values in this table are applicable for the cases evaluated in this analysis.
The effect of LOCA water jet loads on submerged structures are discussed in PUAR Volumes 2, 3, 5 and 6.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.30 Revision 0 nutp_qh
1 m'
/ Table 1-4.1-1 HYDRODYNAMIC MASS AND ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS (LENGTH L FOR ALL STRUCTURES)
SECTION THROUGH g.0ELERATION DRAG 900Y BCDY AND UNIFORM HYOR0 DYNAMIC MASS VOLUME VA FLOW DIRECTION CIRCI.E "*"*= otR 8 L 2rRag b~
ELLIPSE T a ora 8 L ra(a+b)L t
i ELLIPSE . owb8 L sb(a+b)L t
ma _
~
PLATE -o-e- 2a ora a g ga n g a/b
'2 cra 8 L aL(4b+al agc;AscLg ,
10 1.14 cra a L aL(4b+1.14Tal l 5 1.21 ora 8 L aL(4b+1.21ral 2 1.36 cra 8 L aL(4b+1.36sa) 1 1.51 ova:L aL(4b+1.51ral l 1/2 1.70 cra a L AL(4b+1.70ta) 1/5 1.98 ova 8 L aL(4b+1.98tal 1/10 2.23 ora a L aL(4b+2.23ra) 2b a/b
_ , _ 2 0.85 ora L aL(2b+0.85tal DIAMOND =*-** 2a 1 0.76 ora 8 L aL ( 2b+0.76 ta) 1/2 0.67 ova:L aL(2b+0.67tal 1/5 0.61 ova 8 L aL (
- b+0. 61sa) ch I-BEAM
]hf c f=2.6h=3.6 (2.11sa 2+2c (2a+b-c)) L w 2a wmg s l J t Ll f 2b C
\,. BPC-01-300-1 i Revision 0 1-4.31 nutggb
Table 1-4.1-1 HYDRODYNAMIC MASS AND ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES FOR TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS (LENGTH L FOR ALL STRUCTURES)
(Concluded)
ACCZLERATION BO CD N IC E S BODY D RE ION VC V 3
b/s
'M 1 0.478 owar b/4 0.478sa2 b/4
- M:;p + d! 1.5 0.680 cra 8b/4 0.680wa2 b/4 REC
- ANGULAR PLATE p 2 0.840 ova t b/4 0.840sar b/4 h 2.5 0.953 3
ora2 b/4 osa b/4 2
0.953ta2 b/4 wa2 b/4
= owa2 b/4 wa2 374
" (tan 6)3/8 TRIANGULAR %
ca8(tan 91 8/2 a 8 PLATE O 37 3*
O SPHERE
- R c2nR8 /3 2rR /3 8
- 38R /3 8
8R3 /3 b/a
' 2
= 1q orba2/6 1.0 -ba /6 ELLIPTICAL * -
o D
3 0.9 onba2 /6 0.9 'b8'/6 2 0.826 arba2 /6 0.826 wba2 /6
- asbaz /6 0.748 tba2 /6 1.5 0.748 1.0 0.637 onba2 /6 0.637 aba2 /6 BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.32 nutg,gh
t l-4.1.6 LOCA Bubble-Induced Loads on Submerged Structures
/_
During the initial phase of the DBA, pressurized j drywell air is purged into the suppression pool through the submerged downcomers. After the vent clearing phase of a DBA, a single Dubble is formed around each dow7 comer. During the bubble growth period, unsteady fluid motion is created within the suppression pool. During this pe riod ,- submerged structures will be subjected to transient hydro-dynamic loads.
The bases of the flow model and load evaluation for the definition of LOCA bubble-induced loads on submerged structures are presented in Section 4.3.8 of the LDR.
After contact between bubbles of adjacent down-comers, the pool swell flow field above the downcomer exit elevation is derived from OSTP plant unique tests (Reference 8). After bubble contact, the load will only act vertically. This pool swell drag load is computed using the method described in Section 1-4.1.4.2.
T
\ BPC-01-300-1 1-4.33 Revision 0 nutggb
The parameters which affect load determination are torus geometry, downcomer locations, and thermo-dynamic properties. Table 1-4.1-2 presents values for these plant specific parameters. The DBA plant unique transient drywell pressure-time history (Reference 8) is also used for load determination.
The torus is modeled as a rectangular cell with dimensions given in Table 1-4.1-2. The structures are divided into sections and the loads on each section are calculated following the procedure given in the LDR and the criteria given in NUREG-0661.
The procedure used for calculating drag loads on structures with circular and sharp-cornered cross-sections is in accordance with Appendix A of NUREG-3661. For some structures with sharp corners such as I-beams, the acceleration drag volumes are calculated using the information in Table 1-4.1-1.
l l
The effects of LOCA bubble loads on submerged l structures are discussed in PUAR Volumes 2, 3, 5, and 6.
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.34 Ol nutp_qh I
a m Table 1-4.1-2 V PLANT UNIQUE PARAMETERS FOR LOCA BUBBLE DRAG LOAD DEVELOPMENT PARAMETER VALUE NUMBER OF DOWNCOMERS 8-10 WATER DEPTH IN TORUS (ft) 14.37 WIDTH (ft) 30.6 CELL LENGTH (ft) 33.63 to 44.84 VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM DOWNCOMER EXIT
- TO TORUS CENTERLINE (f t)
INSIDF RADIdS (ft) 0.969 fN DGWNCOMER 3.333
\Q SUBMERGENCE (f t)
UNDISTURBED PRESSURE AT BUBBLE CENTER
- ELEVATION BEFORE THE BUBBLE APPEARS (psia)
PRESSURE BEFORE LOCA (psia) 15.2 INITIAL DRYWELL TEMPERATURE BEFORE LOCA (OF) 135 OVERALL VENT PIPE FRICTION FACTOR (fl/d) 4.35 INITIAL LOCA BUBBLE WALL VELOCITY (ft/sec) 12.93 i
l t
' (O v'
4
, BPC-01-300-1 j Revision 0 1-4.35 gg
1-4.1.7 Condensation Oscillation Loads O
This subsection describes the CO loads acting on the various containment structures and piping systems.
Following the poci swell phase of a postulated LOCA, there is a period during which condensation oscillations occur at the downcomer exit.
Condensation oscillations are associated with the pulsating movement of the steam-water interface, caused by variations in the condensation rate at the downcomer exit. These condensation oscillatioas cause periodic pressure oscillations on the torus shell, submerged structures, and inside the vent system. The loads specified for CO are based on the FSTF tests (References 11, 12, and 13). The LDR and NUREG-0661 discuss the bases, assumptions, and methodology for computation of the CO loads.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.36 Revision 0 nutggh
1-4.1.7.1 CO Loads on Torus Shell Loads on the submerged portion of the torus shell during the CO phenomenon consist of pressure oscillations superimposed on the prevailing local static pressures.
The CO load on the torus shell is a rigid wall load specified in terms of the pressure at the torus bottom dead center. It is used in conjunction with a flexible wall coupled fluid-structure torus a model. The LDR load definition for CO consists of 50 harmonic loadings with amplitudes which vary with frequency. Three alternate rigid wall pressure amplitude variations in the range of 4 to 16 hertz are specified in the load definition report. A fourth alternate load case is also considered, based on the results of Test M12 from the supplemental test series conducted at the FSTF (References 12 and 13). Table 1-4.1-3 and Figure 1-4.1-7 give the rigid wall pressure amplitude variation with frequency. The alternate frequency spectrum which produces the maximum total response is used for analysis.
/
?
- BPC-01-300-1 1-4.37
- Revision 0 nutggb
- ,w rm -,-, --- __m...m , __ r,v. r -.,-e-- -- , ..--.--------r- m ---rw., w - - - , - - - - v - -.r ,, -- y
The effects of all harmonics are summed to obtain the total response of the structure. Random phasing of the loading harmonics is assumed, based on experimental observations and subsequent analysis.
The implementation of the random phasing approach for the structural evaluation is accomplished by multiplying the absolute sum of the responses of all 50 harmonics by a scale factor. This scale factor is calculated using cumulative distribution function (CDF) curves of the responses at 14 locations on the FSTP torus shell. Each of the CDF curves is generated using 200 sets of random phase angles.
Using this approach, a scale factor of 0.65 is developed which results in a nonexceedance probability (NEP) of 84's at a confidence level of 90% (Table 1-4.1-4). This scale factor is applied to the absolute sum of the responses of all 50 harmonics for all Hope Creek torus shell locations evaluated.
Table 1-4.1-4 compares measured and calculated FSTP response to CO loads. The calculated FSTF response in this table is determined using CO Load Alternates 1, 2, and 3 and the random phasing approach described above. The calculated response is greater BPC-01-300-1 1-4.38 Revision 0 nutp_qh
than the measured response in all cases, demonstrat-ing the conservatism of this approach. Although not shown in Table 1-4.1-4, CO Load Alternate 4 adds approximately 20% to the calculated shell response.
Thus, using Alternate 4 in the Hope Creek analysis results in additional conservatism to the comparison shown in Table 1-4.1-4 since the calculated response for Alternates 1, 2, and 3 already bounds the measured response for Alternate 4 or test M12.
Table 1-4.1-5 specifies the onset times and dura-tions for condensation oscillation. Test results indicate that for the postulated IBA, CO loads are bounded by chugging loads. Test results also q indicate that Cor the postulated SBA, CO loads are not significant; therefore, none is specified.
The longitudinal CO pressure distribution along the torus centerline is uniform. The cross-sectional variation of the torus wall pressure varies linearly with elevation, from zero at the water surface to the maximum at the torus bottom (Figure 1-4.1-8).
Since torus dimensions and the number of downcomers vary, the magnitude of the CO load differs for each Mark I plant. A multiplication factor is developed f
(%
V) BPC-01-300-1 1-4.39 Revision 0 nutgsb
to account for the effect of the pool-to-vent area ratio. This factor is 0.87 for Hope Creek, developed using the method described in the LDR.
The Hope Creek plant unique CO load is determined by multiplying the amplitude of the baseline rigid wall load (Table 1-4.1-3) by this factor.
The effects of CO torus shell loads on the suppression chamber are discussed in PUAR Volume 2.
i O
I l
l l
l l
l i
l l BPC-01-300-1 1-4.40 l Revision 0 nutggh
Table 1-4.1-3 DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES MAXIMUM PRESSURE AMPLITUDE (psi)
FREQUENCY INT.CRVALS ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE (Hz) 1 2 3 4 0-1 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.25 1-2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.28 2-3 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.33 3-4 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.56 4-5 1.86 1.20 0.24 2.71 5-6 1.05 2.73 0.48 1.17 6-7 0.49 0.42 0.99 0.97 7-8 J.59 0.38 0.30 0.47 8-9 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.34
.ON 9-10 0.59 0.38 0.30 0.47 10-11 0.34 0.79 0.18 0.49 11-12 0.15 0.45 0.12 0.38 12-13 0.17 0.12 0.11 0.20 13-14 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.10 14-15 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.11 15-16 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.08 16-17 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 17-18 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 18-19 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 19-20 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.34 20-21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.23 21-22 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.49 22-23 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.37 23-24 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.31 24-25 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.22 O)
~
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.41 nutggb L
Table 1-4.1-3 DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION TORUS SHELL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES (Concluded)
MAXIMUM PRESSURE AMPLITUDE (psi)
FREQUENCY INTERVALS ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE ALTERNATE (Hz) 1 2 3 4 25-26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 26-27 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.31 27-28 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.39 28-29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.27 29-30 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.09 30-31 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 31-32 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 32-33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 33-34 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 34-35 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 35-36 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.07 36-37 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 37-38 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 38-39 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 39-40 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 l
40-41 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.08 41-42 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 l
42-43 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 43-44 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.13 44-45 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.18 45-46 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.30 46-47 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.18 47-48 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.19 48-49 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.17 49-50 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.21 i
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.42 nutg,qh
Table 1-4.1-4 FSTF RESPONSE TO CONDENSATION OSCILLATION MAXIMUM MEASURED CALCULATED FSTF RESPONSE
RESPONSE
FSTF RESPONSE QUANTITY AT 84% NEP(l) g BOTTOM DEAD CENTER AXIAL STRESS (ksi) 3.0 2.3 1.6 2.7 BOTTOM DEAD CENTER . .6 1.4 2.9 HOOP STRESS (ksi)
BOTTOM DEAD CENTER DISPLACEMENT (in) 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.14 INSIDE COLUMN 184 93 68 109 FORCE (kips)
OUTSIDE COLUMN 208 110 81 141 FORCE (kips)
NOTE:
- 1. USING CO LOAD ALTERNATES 1, 2, AND 3.
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.43 nutp_gh
Table 1-4.1-5 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION ONSET AND DURATION ONSET TIME DURATION EAK SIZE AFTER BREAK AFTER ONSET DBA 5 SECONDS 30 SECONDS IBA 5 SECONDS (1) 300 SECONDS II)
SBA NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE NOTE:
O l
l l
l l
l l
l EPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.44 nutg,g.hh
ALTERNATE 2 I i /
'd . 3 -
G % ~
5 5 5 g ALTERNATE 1 m u
@2 g2- g 3 3 3 ALTERNATE 3 h
g 1- "
,1- ,1 8 ... sm 8 m -
m - _
s 0 s0 w s0 ll 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 FREQUENCY (Hz) FREQUENCY (Hz) FREQUENCY (Hz!
8 E -
31 ALTERNATE l h '
2 1, 2, or 3 i -
^
u
~~[ r m i
m0.
i JTf-' 4- -rn- ~
/ ) y 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 j
- FREQUENCY (Hz)
ALTERNATE 4
%3 .
$ 2-E 3c.
5 -
, 1- .
ec a _. _ _
s 0. . . 1 . .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 NO'rE FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. ALL AMPLITUDES REPRESENT ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE.
Figure 1-4.1- 7 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION BASELINE RIGID WALL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES ON TORUS SHELL BOTTOM DEAD CENTER O
( l v' BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.45 nutgch
O
/
WETWELL AIRSPACE FREE SURFACE 1 U -
___ .- 4 t
SUPPRESSSION POOL
'I
\
1 r O
A
[ =1 A
A MAX NOTES:
- 1. A = LOCAL PRESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE.
- 2. AMX = MAXIMUM PRESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE (AT TORUS BOTTOM DEAD CENTER) .
Figure 1-4.1- 8 1
CONDENSATION OSICLLATION -
TORUS VERTICAL CROSS-SECTION PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.46 nutgqh h
1-4.1.7.2 CO Loads on Downcomers and Vent System Downcomer Dynamic Loads The downcomers experience loading during the CO phase of a postulated LOCA. The procedure for defining the dynamic portion of this loading for both a DBA and an IBA is presented in this section. Condensation oscillation loads do not occur for the SBA. The bases, assumptions, and loading definition details are presented in the LDR.
The downcomer dynamic load involves two components:
(1) an internal pressure load of equal magnitude in each downcomer in a pair, and (2) a differential pressure load between down-comers in a pair.
Both the internal pressure load and the differential pressure load have three frequency bands over which they are applied. Figure 1-4.1-9 shows a typical downcomer and a schematic of downcomer loading
-conditions during the CO phase of a LOCA.
O BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.47 nutagh ,
i Table 1-4.1-6 lists the downcomer internal pressure loads for DBA CO. Figure 1-4.1-10 shows the internal pressure load and the three frequency bands over which it is applied. The dominant downcomer frequency is determined from a harmonic analysis, where the dominant downcomer frequency is shown to occur in the frequency range of the second CO downcomer load harmonic (see Volume 3). The first and third CO downcomer load harmonics are therefore applied at frequencies equal to 0.5 and 1.5 times the value of the dominant downcomer frequency.
Table 1-4.1-7 defines the downcomer differential pressure loads for DBA CO. Application of the dominant harmonic differential pressures is the same as for the internal pressure application previously discussed. Figure 1-4.1-11 shows the differential pressure amplitudes and frequency ranges.
Figure 1-4.1-12 shows how the downcomer CO dynamic loads are applied to the different downcomer pairs on the Hope Creek vent system. The total response of the downcomer-vent header intersection to the CO dynamic load is the sum of the responses from the internal and differential pressure components, BPC-01-300-1 1-4.48 Revision 0 nutg_qh
Table 1-4.1-8 provides the downcomer internal pressure loads for IBA CO. Figure 1-4.1-13 shows I these downcomer internal pressure load values and the range of application. Table 1-4.1-9 gives the downcomer differential pressure loads for IBA CO.
The procedure used to evaluate the IBA CO downcomer loads is the same as that used for the DBA CO downcomer loads. The load cases for the IBA loads are also the same as for the DBA loads; therefore, Figure 1-4.1-12 is used.
Vent System Loads Loads on the vent system during the CO phenomenon result- from harmonic pressure oscillations superimposed on the prevailing local static pressures in the vent system.
Condensation oscillation loads are specified for all three major ccmponents of the vent system: (1) the main vents, (2) the vent header, and (3) the down-comers (Table 1-4.1-10). As determined from FSTF data, these loads are generic and thus directly applicable to all Mark I plants.
O
\b) BPC-01-300-1 1-4.49 Revision 0 nutggb
In addition to the oscillating pressure described above, a uniform static pressure is applied to the main vents, vent header, and the downcomers to account for the nominal submergence of the downcomers.
The effects of CO loads on the vent system are evaluated in PUAR Volume 3.
O l
1 l
l l
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.50 O !
nutg,gh :
)
(
Table 1-4.1-6 DOWNCOMER INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS FOR DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION PRESSURE APPLI D FREQUENCY (psi) FREQUENCY RANGE (Hz)
DOMINANT 3.6 4-8 SECOND HARMONIC 1.3 8-16 THIRD HARMONIC 0.6 12-24 O
\ BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.51 nutg,gh
Table 1-4.1-7 DOWNCOMER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADS FOR DBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION
^
PRESSURE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY (psi)
RANGE (Hz)
DOMINANT 2.85 4-8 SECOND HARMONIC 2.6 8-16 THIRD HARMONIC 1.2 12-24 O
s BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.52 nutp_qh
Table 1-4.1-8 DOWNCOMER INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADS FOR IBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION A LI D PRESSURE FREQUENCY (psi)
FREQUENCY RANGE (Hz)
DOMINANT 1.1 6-10 SECOND HARMONIC 0.8 12-20 THIRD HARMONIC 0.2 18-30 s BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4,53 nutp_gh
Table 1-4.1-9 DOWNCOMER DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADS FOR IBA CONDENSATION OSCILLATION PRESSURE APPLIED FREQUENCY FREQUENCY (psd. RANGE (Hz)
DOMINANT 0.2 6-10 SECOND HARMONIC 0.2 12-20 THIRD HARMONIC 0.2 18-30 0
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.54 nutggh
l Table 1-4.1-10 O' CONDENSATION OSCILLATION VENT SYSTEM INTERNAL PRESSURES 1
COMPONENTS DBA IBA AMPLITUDE *2.5 psi t2.5 psi AT FREQUENCY OF AT FREQUENCY OF FREQUENCY RANGE MAXIMUM RESPONSE MAXIMUM RESPONSE MAIN VENT IN 4-8 Hz RANGE IN 6-10 Hz RANCE AND VENT HEADER FORCING FUNCTION SINUSOIDAL SINUSOIDAL SPATIAL UNIFORM UNIFORM DISTRIBUTION O
U AMPLITUDE t5.5 psi 22.1 psi AT FREQUENCY OF AT FREQUENCY OF FREQUENCY RANGE MAXIMUM RESPONSE MAXIMUM RESPONSE IN 4-8 Hz RANGE IN 6-10 Hz RANGE DOWNCOMERS FORCING FUNCTION SINUSOIDAL SINUSOIDAL DISTRIBUTION BPC-01-300-1
\ Revision 0 1-4.55 nutggh
EE
&?
E Si 08 0 l l l l \ l
= Y P Ao s/ N <
,P B s/ N- / \
D/C A D/C B P= (Pg-PB) P=0 P=PB P=PB i
m 9 9 eYB l } e YB a h
"~ / \ e XB - / \ -e XB SWING MOTIeN DUE TO AP VERTICAL LEADING DUE TO P eigure 1-4.1- 9 cemeemssT1em esc 1ssxT1em ee mceme,eY g- 1c sexe
-e e e
( .
5 RANGE OF FUNDAMENTAL n
y4-3 3.6 psi o 3-y RANGE OF SECOND HARMONIC E
a.
$2-
$ RANGE OF THIRD HARMONIC u 1.3 psi 3
81- 0.6 psi 1 0 0 4 8 12 16 24 FREQUENCY (Hz)
NOTE:
- 1. THE AMPLITUDES SHOWN ARE HALF-RANGE (ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK VALUE).
l Figure 1-4.1-10 l
DOWNCOMER PAIR INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADING FOR 03A CO i BPC-01-300-1 l Revision 0 1-4.57 nutggh
O C5 E
o4-
@ RANGE OF FUNDAMENTAL RANGE OF SECOND HARMONIC a 3- 2.85 psi
$ 2.6 psi 8
z y RANGE OF THIRD HARMONIC to 2-C 1.2 psi
$ l-5 0
5 0 4 8 12 16 24 FREQUENCY (Hz)
NOTE:
- 1. THE AMPLITUDES SHOWN ARE HALF-RANGE (ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK VALUE).
Figure 1-4.1- 11 DOWNCOMER PAIR DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOADING FOR DEA CO BPC 3 0 0-1 Revision 0 1-4.58 nutp_qh
s
,CN #
NON-VENT BAY
!, CENTERLINE l CASE 1 + 1 + CASE 2 \
VENT BAY I
\ VENT BAY <
CENTERLINE
[ O O O s CENTERLINE s \
, u . ,
7 s
NON-VENT BAY CENTERLINE i \
f CASE 3 + + CASE 4 \
VENT BAY CENTERLINE [ O O O g \ s VENT BAY CENTERLINE
\ \
, u . s 7
NON-VENT BAY CENTERLINE
\
CASE 5 *-- + CASE 6 \
VENT BAY CENTERLINE / O O G \s VENT BAY CENTERLINE
[m'\)
\
l \
1
\d i 9 0 O s NON-VENT BAY CENTERLINE i i CASE 7 -*-- + CASE 8 \
VENT BAY
[ O O O \ VENT BAY W
CENTERLINE s CENTERLINE I \
, o o . ,
NOTES:
- 1. e D/C WITH INITIAL DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOAD.
- 2. ALL D/C's HAVE INTERNAL PRESSURE LOAD IN PHASE WITH DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE LOAD.
(
I 3. ANALYZED ALL EIGHT CASES-USED MAXIMUM i RESPONSE FOR DESIGN.
l Figure 1-4.1- 12 i
(
p)
(
v DOWNCOMER CO DYNAMIC LOAD APPLICATION BPC-01-300-1 j Revision B l-4.59 @{
i 1.4 RANGE OF FUNDAMENTAL 1.2-g 1.1 psi
! m S 1. 0 - RANGE OF SECOND HARMONIC
\ ta c:
0.8 psi 5
v1 0.8-c.
g 0.6-
> ta
! E O RANGE OF THIRD HARMONIC l u 0.4-ko l
C 0.2 psi l 0.2-0 0 6 10 12 18 20 30 FREQUENCY (Hz)
NOTE:
- 1. THE AMPLITUDES SHOWN ARE HALF-RANGE (ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK VALUE).
l l
Figure 1-4.1-13 DOWNCOMER INTERNAL PRESSURE LOADING FOR IBA CO BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.60 l
l nut.e_qh l
1-4.1.7.3 CO Loads on submerged Structures
\
v)
The CO phase of a postulated LOCA induces bulk pool motion, creating drag loads on structures submerged in the pool. The basis of the analytical model used to determine CO loads on submerged structures is presented in the LDR.
Condensation oscillations result in pressure sources located at the downcomer exits. The average source strengths are determined from wall load measure-ments. By, using potential flow theory and the method of images to account for the effects of solid
,- walls and the free surface, the velocity and A
\ acceleration flow fields within the torus are established. For each structure, the loads are computed using both the average source strength applied at all downcomers and the maximum source strength applied at the nearest downcomer.
The FSI effects are included when the local fluid acceleration is less than twice the torus boundary acceleration. Suppression pool fluid accelerations are computed within the torus using frequency-decomposed radial shell accelerations obtained from the torus analysis described in PUAR Volume 2. The
~BPC-01-300-1 1-4.61 Revision 0 nutagh
FSI effects for a given structure are computed using the pool fluid accelerations at the location of the structure.
The CO drag forces on submerged structures can be separated into two components: (1) standard drag, and (2) acceleration drag. The sum of these two effects gives the total drag load on a submerged structure. The calculations for CO loads on submerged structures use the same procedure used for calculating LOCA bubble-induced drag loads on submerged structures. Acceleration drag volumes for some structures with sharp corners (e.g., I-beams) are calculated using equations from Table 1-4.1-1 instead of volumes derived by circumscribed cylinders, as noted in Section 1-4.1.5.
Presented in Table 1-4.1-11 are the source ampli-tudes used for CO loads on submerged structures, which are in accordance with NUREG-0661. The source forcing function has the form of a sinusoidal wave characterized by the appropriate amplitude and frequency taken from Table 1-4.1-11. The LDR defines the total drag force as the surmation of the resulting responses from all 50 harmonics. As BPC-01-300-1 1-4.62 Revision 0 nutp_qh
g ..
l-described in Section 1-4.1.7.1, the summation is 9 performed to achieve a NEP of 84%.
\
The offects of CO loads on submerged structures are assessed in PUAR Volumes 2, 3, 5, and 6.
9 BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.63
Table 1-4.1-11 AMPLITUDES AT VARIOUS FREQUENCIES FOR CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SOURCE FUNCTION FOR LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES FREQUENCY AMPLITUDE FREQUENCY AMPLITUDE (Hz) (ft /sec2) 3 (Hz) (ft /sec2) 3 0-1 28.38 26-27 56.75 1-2 24.46 27-28 12.72 2-3 31.31 28-29 18.59 3-4 46.97 29-30 13.70 4-5 182.00 30-31 7.83 5 -6 267.13 31-34 2.94 6-7 96.87 34-35 4.89 7-10 57.73 35-36 7.83 10-11 77.30 36-37 9.79 11-12 44.03 37-38 6.85 12-13 16.63 38-39 5.87 13-14 11.74 39-40 8.81 14-15 6.85 40-41 32.29 15-16 9.79 41-42 32.29 16-19 3.91 42-43 32.29 19-20 26.42 43-44 32.29 l
20-21 19.$7 44-45 32.29 21-22 29.36 45-46 32.29 22-23 33.27 46-47 32.29 l 23-24 32.29 47-48 32.29 24-25 15.66 48-49 32.29 25-26 24.46 49-50 32.29 BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.64 nutgg,h)
! n a
1-4.1.8 Chugging Loads This subsection describes the chugging loads on the various containment structures and piping systems.
Chugging occurs during a postulated LOCA when the steam flow through the vent system falls below the rate necessary to maintain steady condensation at the downcomer exits. The corresponding flowrates for chugging are less than those of the CO phenomenon. During chugging, steam bubbles form at the downcomer exits, oscillate as they grow to a critical size (approximately downcomer diameter),
and begin to collapse independently in time. The resulting load - on the torus shell due to a chug cycle consists of a low frequency oscillation (pre-chug) which corresponds to the oscillating bubbles at the downcomer exit as they grow, followed by a higher frequency " ring-out" of the torus shell-pool water . system (post-chug) in response to the
~
collapsing bubbles (Figure 1-4.1-14).
\
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.65 Revision 0 nutgsb
O PRE-CHUG POST-CHUG PORTION _ _
PORTION _
=
CYCLE REPEATS ONE CHUG CYCLE -
TIME Figure 1-4. l- 14 TYPICAL CHUGGING PRESSURE TRACE ON THE TORUS SHELL BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.66 nutp_qh
l-4.1.8.1 Chugging Loads on Torus Shell O
During the chugging phase of a postulated LOCA, the chugging loads on the torus shell occur as a series of chug cycles. The chugging load cycles are divided into pre-chug and post-chug portions. The bases for pre-chug and post-chug rigid wall load definitions are presented in the load definition report.
For the pre-chug portion of the chug cycle, both symmetric and asymmetric loading conditions are used to conservatively account for any randomness in the chugging phenomenon. The asymmetric loading is based on both low and high amplitude chugging data conservatively distributed around the torus in order to maximize the asymmetric loading.
In . order to bound the post-chug portion of the chug cycle, symmetric loads are used. Asymmetric loads are not specified since any azimuthal response would be governed by the asymmetric pre-chug low frequency load specification.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.67
. Revision 0 nutggb
Presented in Table 1-4.1-12 are the chugging onset times and durations for the DBA, IBA, and SBA, which are in accordance with the LDR. Hope Creek utilizes turbine driven feedwater pumps, and the IBA scenario for this configuration is described in Section 2.2 of the LDR. For the SBA, the automatic depressur-ization system (ADS) is assumed to initiate 300 -
seconds after the break and the reactor is assumed to be depressurized 200 seconds after ADS initiation, when chugging ends. For the IBA, the a
reactor is assumed to be depressurized 600 seconds after ADS initiation, when chugging ends.
- a. Pre-Chug Load O
The symmetric pre-chug torus shell pressure load is specified as 2 psi, applied uniformly along the torus longitudinal axis. Figure 1-4.1-15 shows the longitudinal distribution of the asymmetric pre-chug pressure load, which varies from i0.4 to 12.0 psi. The pre-chug cross-sectional distribution for both symmetric and asymmetric cases is the same as for CO (Figure 1-4.1-16). The pre-chug loads are applied at the structural frequency in the range of 6.9 to 9.5 hertz. Table 1-4.1-12 BPC-01-300-1 1-4.68 Revision 0 nutp_qh
shows the pre-chug load is conservatively O assumed to be a steady state harmonic load applied throughout the chugging durations shown in Table 1-4.1-12.
4
- b. Post-Chug Load Table 1-4.1-13 and Figure 1-4.1-17 define the amplitude versus frequency variation for the post-chug torus shell pressure load. The load is applied uniformly along the torus longi-tudinal axis. The cross-sectional variation is the same for CO and pre-chug loads (Figure 1-4.1-16). The steady-state responses from
( l
\d the application of the pressure amplitudes at each frequency given in Figure 1-4.1-17 are
, summed. The summation is performed to achieve a NEP c2 84% as described in Section 1-4.1.7.1 for the CO load. The post-chug load is conservatively assumed to be a steady state harmonic load applied throughout the chugging durations shown in Table 1-4.1-12.
The effects of chugging loads on the torus shell are evaluated in PUAR volume 2.
O
\j
\
BPC-01-300-1' l-4.69 Revision 0 nutg_qh
Table 1-4.1-12 CHUGGING ONSET AND DURATION ONSET TIME DURA'.: ION B m K SIZE AFTER BREAK AFTER ONSET DBA 35 SECONDS 30 SECONDS IBA 305 SECONDS 200 SECONDS SBA 300 SECONDS 900 SECONDS O
BPC-01-300-1 O
Revision 0 1-4.70 nuted
)
Table 1-4.1-13 POST-CHUG RIGID WALL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES ON TORUS SHELL BOTTOM DEAD CENTER FREQUENCY O PRESSURE PRESSURE RANGE (1) RANGE (1) .
(psi) (psi)
(Hz) (Hz) 0-1 0.04 25-26 0.04 1-2 0.04 26-27 0.28 2-3 0.05 27-28 0.18 3-4 0.05 28-29 0.12 4-5 0.06 29-30 0.09 5-6 0.05 30-31 0.03 6-7 0.10 31-32 0.02 7-8 0.10 32-33 0.02 8-9 0.10 33-34 0.02 9-10 0.10 34-35 0.02
( 10-11 0.06 35-36 0.03 C' 11-12 0.05 36-37 0.05 12-13 0.03 37-38 0.03 13-14 0.03 38-39 0.04 14-15 0.02 39-40 0.04 15-16 0.02 40-41 0.15 16-17 0.01 41-42 0.15 17-18 0.01 42-43 0.15 18-19 0.01 43-44 0.15 19-20 0.04 44-45 0.15 20-21 0.03 45-46 0.15 21-22 0.05 46-47 0.15 22-23 0.05 47-48 0.15 23-24 0.05 48-49 0.15 24-25 0.04 49-50 0.15 NOTE:
g 1. HALF-RANGE (= ONE-HTLF PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE).
k A
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.71 nutggh
l l
180 1
270 - - + -
-90
-0 i
0 PLAN VIEW OF TORUS
$U Ni w- 3-U ta OQ OH 2-
@ l-E*
gg
~
A@ 0-mm S$
o o, -1, , , , i 0 90 180 270 360 0 (degree)
NOTES:
- 1. THE AMPLITUDE SHOWN HERE REPRESENTS ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE.
- 2. HIGHEST VALUE IN BAY APPLIED OVER THE ENTIRE BAY.
Figure 1-4.1- 15 CHUGGING - TORUS LONGITUDINAL DISTRIBUTION FOR ASYMMETRIC PRESSURE AMPLITUDE BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.72 nutp_qh
l n
v r
WETWELL AIRSPACE l
FREE SURFACE =0 A MAX L ___ _ _ - _
_U, SUPPRESSION POOL
[ T -~1 V ' '
u ,
^
=1 * "
A "1
A MAX NOTES: A MAX
- l. A = LOCAL PRESSURES OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE.
2.
Q = MAXIMUM PRESSURE OSCILLATION AMPLITUDE (AT TORUS BOTTOM DEAD CENTER) .
Figure 1-4.1- 16 CHUGGING - TORUS VERTICAL CROSS '] ~ 2 0N_
PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
,/~)
t (V BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.73 nutg,gh
- - - - - - - - - - 1
s M
9~
.5-:
w E -
m -
= -
0 - N i
- h. I l l l IN
"" . 1 ,
M.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 NOTE: FREQUENCY (Hz)
- 1. THE AMPLITUDE SHOWN HERE REPRESENTS ONE-HALF OF THE PEAK-TO-PEAK AMPLITUDE.
O Figure 1-4.1- 17 POST-CHUG RIGID WALL PRESSURE AMPLITUDES ON TORUS SHELL BOTTOM DEAD CENTER BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.74 nutggh
1-4.1.8.2 Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads During the chugging phase of a postulated LOCA, bubbles which form at the downcomer exits collapse suddenly and intermittently to produce lateral loads l
l on the downcomers. This section presents the l
procedure used for defining the dynamic portion of this loading.
The basis for the chugging lateral load definition is the data obtained from the instrumented down-comers of the FSTF. The load definition was developed for, and is directly applicable to, downcomer pairs which are untied. Based on FSTF O)
( observations, this load definition is also applicable to tied downcomers.
The PSTF downcomer lateral loads are defined as resultant static-equivalent loads (RSEL) which, when applied statically to the end of the downcomer, reproduce the maximum measured bending response near
.the'downcomer-vent header (DC/VH) junction.
f The loads associated with chugging obtained from the FSTF data are scaled to determine plant specific loads for Hope Creek. The maximum downcomer load BPC-01-300-1 1-4.75 Revision 0
magnitude, histograms of load reversals, and the maximun vent system loading produced by synchronous chugging of the downcomers are determined from the FSTF loads.
NUREG-0661 states that the force per downcomer should be based on a probability of exceedance of 10-4 per LOCA for multiple downcomers during chugging. This requirement relates to the potential for a number of downcomers experiencing a lateral load in the same direction at the same time. The correlation between load magnitude and probability level was derived from a statistical analysis of FSTF data. A probability of exceedance of 10-4 per LOCA bounds all the load cases up to about 120 downcomers during chugging at the same time in a given plant. Hope Creek has 80 downcomers; therefore, a probability of exceedance of 10-4 per LOCA is conservative and is used for the multiple downcomer chugging load cases (F igure 1-4.1-18).
For fatigue evaluation of the downcomers, the required stress reversals at the downcomer-vent header junction are obtained from the FSTF RSEL reversal histograms. The plant unique junction stress reversals are obtained by scaling the FSTF BPC-01-300-1 1-4.76 Revision 0 nutp_qh
RSEL reversals by the ratio of the chugging duration specified for Hope Creek to that of the full-scale test facility. Table 1-1.1-12 specifies chugging durations for the DBA, IBA, and small break accident. l l
l I
The effects of chugging downcomer lateral loads on I the vent system are evaluated in PUAR Volume 3.
l l
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.77 Revision 0
1 i
-1~
10 88 we oG z
5 DOWNCOMERS U"
-2.
ra 10 NU
-O h
- 32
- ca ca 4
- ~ ~
10 10 20 40 120 80 t
-4 "'
' a
- 10 >
- i 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 FORCE PER DOWNCOMER (kips)
Figure 1-4.1- 18 PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDING A GIVEN FORCE PER DOWNCOMER FOR DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF DOWNCOMERS BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.78 nutp_qh
1-4.1.8.5 Chugging Loads on Submerged Structures
\
Chugging at the downcomer exits induces bulk pool motion, and therefore creates drag loads on
( structures submerged in the pool. The submerged structure load definition method for chugging follows that used to predict drag forces caused by l
condensation oscillations (see Section 1-4.1.7.3), I L
except that the source strength for chugging is proportional to the wall load measurement corresponding to the chugging regime.
The LDR presents the baces and assumptions of the analytical model used for the chugging load Q definition. Table 1-4.1-14 presents the source amplitudes foc pre-chug and post chug regimes.
The load development procedure for chugging loads on submerged structures is the same as presented in Section 1-4.1.7.3 for CO loads and is in accordance with NUREG-0661. The responses from the 50 harmonics are summed as described in Section 1-4.1.7.1. Acceleration drag volumes for structures with sharp corners (e.g., I-beams) are calculated using equations from Table 1-4.1-1. Fluid-structure i
O BPC-01-300-1 1-4.79 Revision 0 nutg.gh
interaction effects are included as described in Section 1-4.1.7.3.
The effects of chugging loads on submerged structures are evaluated in PUAR Volumes 2, 3, 5, and 6.
O BPC-01-300-1 1-4.80 Revision 0 nut 99.h.
l f .
Table 1-4.1-14 AMPLITUDES AT VARIOUS FREQUENCIES FOR CHUGGING SOURCE FUNCTION FOR LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES FREQUENCY AMPLITUDE CHUGGING (Hz) (ft /sec2) 3 PRE 6.9 - 9.5 195.70 0-2 11.98 2-3 10.36 3-4 9.87 4-5 17.40 5-6 17.00 6-10 18.88 10-11 87.90 11-12 76.18 12-13 41.01 POST 13-14 35.89 14-15 6.82 15-16 6.20 16-17 3.14 17-18 4.18 18-19 2.94 19-20 16.02 20-21 17.53 21-22 30.67 BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.81 nutggh
Table 1-4.1-14 AMPLITUDES AT VARIOUS FREQUENCIES FOR CHUGGING SOURCE FUNCTION FOR LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES (Concluded)
CHUGGING FREQUENCY AMPLITUDE (Hz) (ft /sec2) 3 22-24 92.39 24-25 134.50 25-26 313.84 26-27 377.83 27-28 251.89 28-29 163.32 29-30 116.66 30-31 43.14 POST 31-32 21.57 32-33 37.91 ,
33-34 50.54 34-35 42.54 35-36 61.87 36-37 41.95 37-38 20.97 38-39 24.47 39-40 29.37 40-50 224.90 BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.82 nut.e_qh I
~ 1-4.2 Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads This section discusses 'the procedures used to determine loads resulting from the actuation of one or more SRV's.
When a SRV actuates, pressure and thrust loads are exerted on the SRVDL piping and the T-quencher j
- discharge device. In addition, the expulsion of water followed by air into the suppression pool l through the T-quencher results in pressure loads on the submerged portion of the torus shell and in drag loads on submerged structures.
l i
m I The T-quencher utilized in Hope Creek is a standard Mark I T-quencher described in the load definition report. The T-quencher has 12", Schedule 80 arms which are mitered at the connection to the ramshead as described in Section 1-2.1.4. Since the T-quenchers for Hope Creek are located at the mitered joint, use of a mitered T-quencher results in symmetric torus shell loads. Figures 1-4.2-1 and 1-4.2-2 illustrate the geometry of the SRVDL, ramshead, and T-quencher connection and the hole distribution along a typical quencher arm.
O
\'
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.83 Revision 0 nutggb
Volume 5 of this PUAR provides a detailed descrip-tion of the SRVDL, T-quencher, and their related support structures.
As specified in Section 2.13.9 of Appendix A of NUREG-0661, plant unique SRV testing at Hope Creek will be performed to confirm that the computed loadings and predicted structural responses for SRV discharge loads are conservative for Hope Creek.
O BPC-01-300-1 1-4.84 Revision 0 nut h
I O q SRV DISCHARGE LINE I AND QUENCHER a
10" NPS SCH 80 PIPE l
l
__ 10"x12" SCH 80 j CONCENTRIC A REDUCER A (I _
I y
1
_ \h _
b t A 2 1J l
l O
12" NPS SCH 80 PIPE
~ l -
[
l t
t RAMSHEAD VIEW A-A Figure 1-4.2-1 T-QUENCHER AND SRV DISCHARGE LINE BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.85 gg
l s 94*
5toa3 t=otes
/som
- i. *S
- ti 18* , i3.99 11 S S' _.
oso.s g _ j .17 s ao.ssj t _, g
,s ao.s g
, i=aacas ino
=c.sv s =osa si mow oi,ssimow , j t -otas , , , s = o s si mon so. ,imo.
3 C< B4 8 A4 34 ] ] ]
I I t.outw-tm (! 4 IfItt I
l ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
fe ,,,
ii ii i i.....
oM s< l c4 3 s<3 s A4 3
- a. ,,- ...,- i so .
... ,,- t.o
...,o*
=' = a S uedt thf % ..
- 3 ,,gg g g,yg,,
NC 8'C' *** smacs0 tace sacs
- s. . s. s',
'o. 4*
.somit. -
aa n.
vt '
~ , ,..
, su t /*- N, ,},,
SECDCN A. A SECEON B B
$' ti mod $ EQua i.T f . ' l =ott$ EGI au.1
' $8&C80 f acw Sect O
t'Ss6c40 taos Sct l
I s t . * * ,. l /
/
t,' s fb lf
=cyt.
I/ K / =cain.
,,1,
" j, j N ,, '
,e x ..
T / x. t
- t. ' N. \g x I
SECTCN C< SECTION 0 0 NOTES:
- 1. ALL HOLE PATTERNS SYMMETRICAL ABOUT C.
- 2. ALL HOLES ARE 0.391" IN DIAMETER.
- 3. ALL HOLE SPACINGS NOT DIMENSIONED ARE 1.97" CENTER TO CENTER.
Figure 1-4.2-2 ELEVATION AND SECTION VIEWS OF T-QUENCHER A.RM HOLE PATTERNS 1-4.86 nutgqh h ,
1-4.2.1 SRV Actuation Cases This section provides a discussion of SRV discharge cases considered for evaluations. The load cases summarized in Table 1-4.2-1 are described as follows.
Load Case A1.1 (Normal Operating Conditions (NOC),
First Actuation)
The first actuation of a SRV may occur under 1
I normal operating conditions; i.e., the SRVDL
! is cold, there is air in the drywell, and the j water in the SRV is at its normal operating level.
Load Case Al.2 (SBA/IBA, First Actuation)
First actuation of SRV(s) is assumed to occur at the predicted time of ADS actuation. At this time, the SRVDL is full of air at the -
pressure corresponding to the drywell pressure minus the vacuum breaker set point. The water level inside the line is depressed below the normal operating level because the drywell pressure is higher than the wetwell pressure l
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.87 Revision 0
I by a pressure differential equal to the down-comer submergence.
Load Case A1.3 (DBA, First Actuation)
The same assumptions are used as for Case Al.1, except for SRV flowrate. This load case is bounded by Case A1.1.
Load Case B (First Actuation, Leaking SRV)
First actuation of a SRV may occur under NOC for leaking safety relief valves. For T-quenchers, Load Case A1.1 bounds the leaking SRV load.
Load Case C3.1 (NOC, Subsequent Actuation, Normal Water Leg)
After the SRV is closed following a first actuation (Case Al.1), the steam in the line is condensed, causing a rapid pressure drop which draws water back into the line. At the same time, the vacuum breaker allows air from the drywell to enter the discharge line. The air repressurizes the line and the water BPC-01-300-1 1-4.88 Revision 0 nutgqh
refloods to a point which is higher than its equilibrium height, and oscillates back to its equilibrium point. A subsequent actuation is assumed to occur after the water level oscillations have damped out and the water leg has returned to the normal water level.
Load Case C3.2 (SBA/IBA, Subsequent Actuation)
Following SRV closure after the first actuation (Case Al.2) in the SBA/IBA, the water refloods back into the line while air from the drywell flown through the vacuum breaker into the SRV discharge line. The SRV is assumed to actuate after the water level oscillations have damped out and the level has stabilized at a point determined by the drywell-to-wetwell AP minus the vacuum breaker set point.
Load Case C3.3 (SBA/IBA, Subsequent Actuation, Steam in SRVDL)
This caso differs from the previous case in that during the reflood transient, steam, instead of air, flows through the vacuum BPC-01-300-1 1-4.89 Revision 0 nutp_qh I - - - - - - - - - - - -
l breaker. Thus, the line contains very little air and the loading imposed on the torus shell from this subsequent SRV actuation is bounded by Case C3.2.
The SRVDL water leg is assumed at its equilibrium height for all subsequent actuation SRV cases. The time after the first valve closure when the equilibrium height is reestablished is calculated using the LDR SRVDL reflood model. Hope Creek primary system transient analyses are used to confirm that more than the minimum required time is
~
available for the SRVDL water leg to return to the equilibrium position. To further insure that the SRVDL water leg will be at its equilibrium height for all subsequent SRV actuation cases, Hope Creek will have delay logic on the two lowest-set relief valves to allow this water leg to clear after initial actuation. For the steam-in-the-drywell conditions, a steam-water convective heat transfer coefficient of 2 x 10 5 BTU /hr*ft2.*R is used. This conservative coefficient is based on the results of a literature survey on chugging and the downcomer water column rise characteristics during chugging in the Mark I Full-Scale Test Facility.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.90 Revision 0 nutegh
The number of SRV's predicted to actuate for each of the above conditions is maximized in performing the Hope Creek structural evaluations, as documented in the remaining PUAR volumes. Section 1-4.3 describes the other hydrodynamic loads which are combined with SRV loads.
4
-BPC-01-300-1 1-4 91 Revision 0
Table 1-4.2-1 SRV LOAD CASE / INITIAL CONDITIONS DESIGN INITIAL CONDITION, ANY ONE ADS MULTIPLE LOAD CASE VALVE VALVES VALVES (l)
NOC, FIRST ACTUATION A1.1 A3.2 SBA/IBA, FIRST ACTUATION A1.2 A2.2 A3.2 DBA, FIRST ACTUATION (2) A1.3 NOC, LEAKING SRV(3) B3.1 NOC, SUBSEQUENT ACTUATION C3.1 SBA/IBA, SUBSEQUENT
- ACTUATION, AIR IN SRVDL SBA/IBA, SUBSEQUENT C3.3 ACTUATION, STEAM IN SRVDL NOTES:
- 1. THE NUMBER (ONE OR MORE) AND LOCATION OF VALVES ASSUMED TO ACTUATE ARE DETERMINED BY PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS.
- 2. THIS ACTUATION IS ASSUMED TO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGH SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON THE TORUS SHELL IS NEGLI-GIBLE SINCE THE AIR AND WATER INITIALLY IN THE LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS THE DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING THE DBA TRANSIENT.
- 3. THIS IS APPLICABLE TO RAMSHEAD DISCHARGE ONLY.
- 4. ONLY ONE VALVE OF THE MULTIPLE GROUP IS ASSUMED TO LEAK.
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.92 nutggh
1-4.2.2 SRV Discharge Line Clearing Loads O
d The flow of high pressure steam into the discharge line when a SRV opens results in the development of a pressure wave at the entrance to the line. During the early portion of this transient, a substantial pressure differential exists across the pressure wave. This pressure differential, plus momentum effects resulting from steam (or water in the initially submerged pipe runs) flowing through elbows in the line, produce transient thrust loads on the SRV discharge piping segments. These loads
. are considered in the evaluation of the SRV piping restraints, the SRV piping penetrations in the vent lines, and the T-quencher support system.
The LDR presents the bases, assumptions, and descriptions of the SRV discharge line clearing analytical model. The parameters affecting SRVDL clearing loads development are the SRVDL geometry, plant specific initial conditions for the SRV actuation cases, and the SRV mass flowrate. Table 1-4.2-2 presents plant specific initial conditions for various actuation cases. ' Table 1-4.2-3 presents common (but case-independent) SRVDL analysis input parameters. All calculation input procedures for O
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.93 Revision 0 nutagh
the SRVDL clearing model are consistent with the LDR.
The line clearing model is used to obtain transient values for each SRV actuation case for each SRVDL for the following parameters or loads.
SRVDL Pressures and Temperatures Thrust Loads on SRVDL Piping Segments T-quencher Internal Discharge Pressure and Temperature Water Slug Mass Flowrate Water Clear!ng Time, velocity, and Accelera-tion The values obtained for T-quencher discharge O
pressure and water clearing time are used as input to evaluate the torus shell loads (Section 1-4.2.3) and SRV air bubble drag loads (Section 1-4.2.4) on i
l submerged structures. The water slug mass flowrate and acceleration are used as inputs to calculations of SRV water jet loads on submerged structures (Section 1-4.2.4).
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.94 Revision 0 nutp_qh
The water clearing thrust load along the axis of the T-quencher (due to the uneven flowsplit in the ramshead), and the thrust load perpendicular to the T-quencher arms (due to a skewed air-water interface) are calculated as specified in the LDR.
The calculation procedures, load definitions, and applications used for SRV water and air clearing thrust and all other SRV water clearing loads are in accordance with the LDR and Appendix A of NUREG-0661. The effects of SRV line clearing loads on the SRV piping and supports are evaluated in PUAR Volume 5.
O
1 Table 1-4.2-2 PLANT UNIQUE INITIAL CONDITIONS FOR ACTUATION CASES USED FOR BRVDL CLEARING TRANSIENT LOAD DEVELOPMENT CME CME CE PARAMETER Al.1 Al.2 C3.1 C3.2 PRESSURE IN THE WETWELL (psia) 15.45 35.357 15.45 35.357 PRESSURE IN THE DRYWELL (psia) 15.45 36.8 15.45 36.8 AP VACUUM BREAKER (psid) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 INITIAL PIPE WALL TEMPERATURE 115o 340o 3500 350 o IN THE WETWELL AIRSPACE (CF)
INITIAL PIPE WALL TEMPERATURE 950 1120 950 112 0 IN THE SUPPRESSION POOL (OF) 15.15 36.5 15.15 36.5 SR D p a)
INITIAL AIR DENSITY IN 0.0711 0.1231 0.0505 0.1216 SRVDL (lbm/ft3)
INITIAL WATER VOLUME IN SRVDL 13.867 12.206 13.867 13.523 AND T-QUENCHER (ft )
BPC-01-300-1 Kevision 0 1-4.96 ,
nutpsh I
Table 1-4.2-3 SRVDL ANALYSIS PARAMETERS r.
PARAMETER VALUE DESIGN SRV FLOW RATE (lbm/sec) 306.59 STEAM LINE PRESSURE (psia) 1179 STEAM DENSITY IN THE STEAM LINE (lbm/ft3) 2.701 RATIO OF AREAS OF DISCHARGE DEVICE EXIT 0.94 TO TOTAL T-QUENCHER ARM NOTES:
N 1. DESIGN FLOW RATE 22.5% ABOVE ASME FLOW RATE.
L 2. PRESSURE 3% ABOVE SET PRESSURE.
4 w BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.97 nutgq, h
r 1-4.2.3 SRV Loads on the Torus Shell Following an SRV actuation, the air mass in the O
SRVDL is expelled into the suppression pool, forming many small air bubbles. These bubbles then coalesce into four larger bubbles which expand and contract as they rise and break through the pool surface.
The positive and negative dynamic pressures developed within these bubbles result in an oscillatory, attenuated pressure loading on the torus shell.
The analytical model which is used to predict air bubble and torus shell boundary pressures resulting from SRV discharge is similar to that described in Reference 14. The analytical model in Reference 14 was modified slightly to more closely bound the magnitudes and time characteristics of pressures observed in the Monticello test. Figure 1-4.2-3 shows a comparison of the shell pressure-time history measured during the Monticello test to the shell pressure-time history computed using the revised analytical model. The comparison is shown for shell pressures at the bottom of the torus beneath the quencher, where the highest shell pressures were observed. Figure 1-4.2-3 shows that BPC-01-300-1 1-4.98 Revision 0 nutp_qh
m the predicted shell pressures envelop those observed in the Monticello test.
The pressure-time history generated using the analytical model discussed above is used to perform a forced vibration analysis of the suppressicn chamber. The phenomena associated with SRV discharge into the suppression pool are characteristic of an initial value or free vibration condition rather than a forced vibration condition. Correction factors are applied to convert the forced vibration response to a free vibration response.
The correction factors are developed using single
'k / degree-of-freedom analogs. The factors vary with the ratio of load frequency to structural frequency and are applied to the response (displacement, velocity, and acceleration) associated with each structural mode. Figure 1-4.2-4 shows the modal correction factors (MCF) which are used in the suppression chamber evaluation.
1 Table 1-4.2-4 shows a comparison of shell membrane stresses and column forces observed in the Monticello test with those values predicted using the analytical methods and correction factors O)
\'"
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.99 Revision 0 nutggb
I I
described above. The table shows that predicted forces and stresses conservatively bound the measured values at all locations. A series of in-plant tests will be performed at Hope Creek after <
fuel load. These tests are expected to provide additional confirmation t. hat the computed loadings and predicted structural response due to SRV discharge are conservative.
O BPC-01-300-1 1-4.100 Revision 0 nutgqh
l l
Table 1-t.2-4 COMPARISION OF ANALYSIS AND MONTICELLO TEST RESULTS QUANTITY LOCATION ANALYSIS TEST T MIDBAY 90 FROM BDC 2.8 0.6 4.7 REACTOR SIDE MIDBAY 52.50 FROM BDC 2.3 1.1 2.1 REACTOR SIDE MIDBAY SUPPRESSION 12.40 FROM BDC 2.2 1.4 1.6 CHAMBER OPPOSITE REACTOR SHELL MEMBRANE MIDBAY STRESSES 12.40 FROM BDC- 2.1 1.7 1.2 (ksi) REACTOR SIDE MIDBAY 52.50 FROM BDC 2.5 1.1 2.3 OPPOSITE REACTOR v 1/4 BAY 12.4 0 FROM BDC 2.2 1.4 1.6 OPPOSITE REhCTOR TORUS INSIDE 2.5 123.9 49.0 COLUMN COLUMN UPLIFT T 157.8 52.5 3.0 (kips) COLUMN TORUS INSIDE 64.5 2.4 152.9 COLUMN COLUMN DOWN OT 178.2 78.5 2.3
( ips) COLU b BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.101 nutg_qh
l o
0
^
0
,4
~
1
- ~
^
^
- 0 0 E
,2 R 1 U S
S E
% R 1 P 0 0
e '
,0 0
1 L
L E
8 T
M )
s I
I S
E S
%" d n
T L o D E O T c R L 0 e L nQ '
,0 8 i s 3 U
S A
E C
l 2 I E
D OM
% l i 4 M T N
O f m -
D e
E ( 1 N M D R \ A E U 0 E e R T S ,0 M r D O C A 6 I u E F E T g I
M i T S D ' F C E E I I
R D R P E O R T V ,0 0
4 P
F S
I
\ ; N O I
I I*
N E l
O M I
S I I T 0 R l
,0 A 2 P M
O
\ \ C l
\
- . 0
- ' _ ~ -
0 O 0
' 7
} d=-
w' 8
$u?8-o ,r . ~
e 3E -
I 1 , 1
A B C D E E D C B A l.0 O.8-O b
g 0. 6 -
8 C
U a:
O U 0.4-LEGEND
- TORUS CURVE FREQUENCY (Hz) 0.2- A g B 11 C 14 D 17-23 E 26-32 l 0.0 , , , , , , , , , ,
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 l
l LOAD FREQUENCY / TORUS FREQUENCY Figure 1-4.2-4 MODAL CORRECTION FACTORS FOR ANALYSIS
' OF SRV DISCHARGE TORUS SHELL LOADS e
' %' DPC-01-300-l' Revision 0 1-4.103 nutggh
l t
e 1-4.2.4 SRV Loads on Submerged Structures This section addresses the load definition pro-cedures for determining SRV loads on submerged structures due to T-quencher water jets and air bubbles.
When a SRV is actuated, water initially contained in the submerged portion of the SRVDL is forced out of the T-quencher through holes in the arms, forming orifice jets. Some ctstance downstream, the orifice jets merge to form column jets. Further downstream, the column jets merge to form the quencher arm jets. As soon as the water flow through the arm hole ceases, the quencher arm jet velocity decreases rapidly and the jet penetrates a limited distance into the pool. The T-quencher water jets create drag loads on nearby submerged structures within the jet path.
Oscillating bubbles resulting from a SRV actuation create an unsteady three-dimensional flow field, and therefore induce acceleration and standard drag forces on the submerged structures in the suppression pool.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.104 Revision 0 nutggh n
- a. T-quencher Wator Jet Loads
%/
The T-quencher water jet model conservatively models the T-quencher water jet test data.
The bases, justification, and assumptions for the Mark I T-quencher model are presented in Reference 1. The SRV T-quencher water jet "
analytic &l model calculation procedure and ,
application are in accordance with Mark I LDR techniques. Figure 1-4.2-5 shows a plan view of the T-quencher arm jet sections.
- b. SRV Bubble-Induced Drag Loads Q The SRV bubble drag load development method-ology, load definition, and application for the Hope Creek PUA are performed utilizing the T-quencher geometry shown in Figures 1-4.2-1 and 1-4.2-2. The techniques utilized in developing the SRV bubble drag loads a r'e in accordance with the LDR and Appendix A of NUREG-0661. Dynamic load factors are cerived from Monticello in-plant SRV test data.
A bubble pressure bounding factor based on Monticello test data in lieu of the LDR value
\
L BPC-01-300-1 1-4.105 Revision 0 nutggb
\
of 2.5 is utilized for Hope Creek SRV load development. A value of 1.75 produces results which bound the peak positive bubble pressure and maximum bubble pressure differential from the Monticello T-quencher test data. Using 1.75, the calculated values for Monticello are 9.9 psid and 18.1 psid, respectively. The predicted values correspond to the single valve actuation, normal water level, and cold pipe case listed in Table 3.2 of Reference 14.
For submerged structures with sharp corners such as T-beams, I-beams, etc., the accelera-tion drag volumes are calculated using the methodology in Section 1-4.1.5.
The effects of SRV loads on submerged struc-tures are evaluated in PUAR volumes 2, 3, 5, and 6.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.106 Revision 0 nutp_qb
N l synnernext. Asout (
a-em
[1 3
(
u ,w 0_ >
l
"#.'? 'W.'? "#.'? .'? 'W'"
_ 'W. i u"#.',"
.o , _
- i. n. _ t.su _ _.i_ i t. ns- i.r>>'
e Figure 1-4.2-5 PLAN VIEW OF T-QUENCHER ARM WATER JET SECTICN3 BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4,107 nutg&b ,
l 1-4.3 Event Sequence O
Not all of the suppression pool hydrodynamic loads discussed in this evaluation can occur at the same time. In addition, the load magnitudes and timing vary, depending on the accident scenario being considered. Therefore, it is necessary to construct a series of event combinations to describe the circumstances under which individual loads might ,
combine.
Tables 1-3.2-1 and 1-3.2-2 show the event combina-tions used in the plant unique analysis. The combinations of load cases were determined from typical plant primary system ano containment response analyses, with considerations for automatic actuation, manual actuation, and single active failures of the various systems in each event. This section describes the event sequences for the following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents.
Design Basis Accident Intermediate Break Accident Small Break Accident BPC-01-30v-1 1-4.108 Revision 0 nutp_qh
Table 1-4.3-1 identifies the SRV and LOCA loads which potentially affect structural components and identifies the appropriate section of this report defining the loads. For SRV piping and other structures within the wetwell, the locations of the structural components are considered to determine if any of the identified conditions affect the structures.
I BPC-01-300-1 1-4.109 Revision 0 nutagh
Table 1-4.3-1 SRV AND LOCA STRUCTURAL LCADS STRUCTURES INTERIOR STRUCTURES ka
- s k c r$
o $ o
- z. CADS $
5 h 0 s
s-
!c
- 5
!! Ei d 53
' S. EE
. != 5 a a. < *= .Eage av E SE ! E EE $$ w z!
E'j h
=
I W
a j <i u@5ja j!
<Ee =
1-4.1.1 CONTAINMENT PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE X X X X X X X X X X SESPONSE X X X l-4.1.2 VENT SYSTEM DISCHARGE LCADS X X 1-4.1.3 POOL SWELL LOADS ON THE TORUS SHELL l-4.1.4 POOL SWEI.L LCADS ON ELEVATED STRUCTURES 1-4.1.4.1 IMPACT AND DRAG LCADS CN THE VENT X X X SYSTEM 1-4.1.4.2 IMPACT AND DRAG LCADS ON OTHER X X X X STRUCTURES X X 1-4.1.4.3 POCL SWELL FROTH IMPINGEMENT LCADS { }
X X X X l-4.1.4.4 PCCL fat'_"U LCADS l-4.1.5 LOCA WATER.TI LCADS ON SUSMERGED I X
- STRUCTURES l-4.1.6 LOCA BUBBLE-INDUCED LCADS ON SUBMERGED X X X STRUCTURES l-4.1.7 CONDENSATION CSCILIATION LCADS 1-4.1.7.1 CO LCADS ON THE TORUS SHE!.L X X 1-4.1.7.2 CO LOADS ON THE DCWNCOMERS x x x At*3 VENT SYSTEM l-4.1.7.3 CO LCADS ON SUBMERGED X X X X STRUCTURES l-4.1.8 CHUGGING LCADS 1-4.1.8.1 CHUGGING LCADS ON THE TORUS *
- 1 SHELL 1 1-4.1.8.2 CHUGCING 00WNCCMER LATERAL *
- LCADS l-4.1.8.3 CHUGGING LCADS CN SUBMER C X X X X STRUCTURES 1-4.2 SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LCADS X
1-4.2.2 SRV DISCHARGE LINE CLEARING LCADS SRV LCADS ON THE TCRUS SHELI. X X l-4.2.3 X X X X X l-4.2.4 SRV LCADS CN SUBMERGED STRUCTURES BPC-01-300-1 Revision G l-4.110 nutg,gERS h
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f 1-4.3.1 Def.ign Basis Accident
\
The postulated DBA for the Mark I containment evaluation is the instantaneous guillotine rupture of the largest pipe in the primary system (the recirculation line). Figures 1-4.3-1 through 1-4.3-3 present the load combinations for the DBA.
Table 1-4.3-2 presents the nomenclature for these figures. The bar charts for the DBA show the loading condition combinations for postulated breaks large enough to produce significant pool swell. The length of the bars in the figures indicates the time periods during which the loading conditions may
.-g occur. Loads are considered to act simultaneously on a structure at a specific time if the loading condition bars overlap at that time. For SRV discharge, the loads may occur at any time during the indicated time period. The assumption of combining a-SRV discharge with the DBA is beyond the design basis for Hope Creek. Therefore, the DBA and SRV load combination is evaluated only to demonstrate containment structural capability.
Table 1-4.3-3 shows the SRV discharge loading conditions.
V BPC-01-300-1' 1-4.111
-Revision 0
( 0
Table 1-4.3-2 EVENT TIMING NOMENCLATURE TI!E DESCRIP'aION t THE ONSET OF CONDENSATION OSCILLATION 1
t THE BEGINNING OF CHUGGING 2
t 3 THE END OF CHUGGING t TIME OF COMPLETE REACTOR DEPRESSURIZATION 4
ADS ACTUATION ON HIGH DRYWELL PRESSURE AND LOW t
ADS REACTOR WATER LEVEL. THE ADS IS ASSUMED TO BE ACTUATED BY THE OPERATOR FOR THE SBA.
O BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.112 ,
nutp_qh
l Table 1-4.3-3
(
t
\'
SRV DISCHARGE LOAD CASES FOR MARK I STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ANY ONE ADS MULTIPLE INITIAL CONDITIONS VALVE VALVES VALVES (1)
FIRST ACTUATION Al A2 A3 FIRST ACTUATION, LEAKING SRV(2) B3 SUBSEQUENT ACTUATION C3 NOTES:
- 1. THE NUMBER (ONE OR MORE) AND LOCATION OF SRV's ASSUMED TO ACTUATE ARE DETERMINED BY PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSES.
- 2. THE LOADS FOR T-QUENCHER DISCHARGE DEVICES ARE
-s s NOT AFFECTED BY LEAKING SRV's. NO SRV's ARE
\ CONSIDERED TO LEAK PRIOR TO A LOCA.
[G js (j
BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.113 gg
LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS O
SECTION 1-4.1.1 VENT SYSTEM AIR, STEAM AND LIQUID FLOW AND PRESSURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.2 8 -----1
- SINGLE SRV ACTUATION (u N l (SRV EVENT CASE A1) o
j SECTION 1-4. 2. 3 s U
c 5 POOL SWELL C SECTIONS o 1-4.1.3 l-4.1.4 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION SECTION 1-4.1.7 CHUGGING SECTION 1-4.1.8
, i i i i t 2 =35 t 3 =65 0.1 1.5 t1=5 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
NOTE:
- 1. THIS ACTUATION IS ASSUMED TO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGH SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON THE TORUS SHELL IS NEGLIGIBLE, SINCE THE AIR AND WATER INITIALLY IN THE LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS THE DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING THE DBA TRANSIENT.
Figure 1-4.3-1 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR THE VENT HEADER, MAIN VENTS, DOWNCOMERS, AND TORUS SHELL DURING A DBA BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.114 yd
G LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1 SINGLE SRV ACTUATION (
l (SRV EVENT SECTION CASE Al 1-4.2.2
-_ __ J b CONDENSATION E OSCILLATION g SECTION 1-4.1.7 z
O CHUGGING SECTION e l-4.1.8 z
$ POOL SWELL 3 FALLBACK SECTION 1-4.1.4 LOCA AIR BUBBLE l-4.1.6 SECTION r
v
)
LOCA WATER '
JET FORMATION SECTION 1-4.1.5'
~ 0.1 -0.7 'l.5 t t =5 t 2 =35 t 3 =65 A sed NOTE:
- 1. THIS ACTUATION IS ASSUMED TO OCCUR COINCIDENT WITH THE POOL SWELL EVENT. ALTHOUGH SRV ACTUATION CAN OCCUR LATER IN THE DBA, THE RESULTING AIR LOADING ON THE TORUS SHELL IS NEGLIGIBLE, SINCE THE AIR AND WATER INITIALLY IN THE LINE WILL BE CLEARED AS THE DRYWELL-TO-WETWELL AP INCREASES DURING THE DBA TRANSIENT.
Figure 1-4.3-2 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DURING A DBA NJ BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.115 nutggh
t 9
LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1 z
3 FROTH IMPINGEMENT
$ SECTION 1-4.1.4 o
8 o
O POOL SWELL (1) 2 FALLBACK g SECTION 1-4.1.4 a
POOL SWELL IMPACT (1)
AND DRAG SECTION 1-4.1.4 0.1 0.7 1.5 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
- 1. STRUCTURES ARE BELOW HAXIMUM POOL SWELL HEIGHT.
Figure 1-4.3-3 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR STRUCTURES ABOVE SUPPRESSION POOL DURING A DBA BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4 116 nutggh
1-4.3.2 Intermediate Break Accident The bar chart in Figure 1-4.3-4 shows conditions for a break size large enough such that the HPCI system cannot prevent ADS actuation on low-water level, but for break sizes smaller than that which would produce significant pool swell loads. A break size _
of 0.1 ft 2 is assumed for an IBA. Table 1-4.3-3 shows SRV discharge loading conditions. The IBA break is too small to cause significant pool swell.
BPC-01-300-1 1-4.117 Revision 0 nutagh
O LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TRANSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1 q ,
SINGLE SRV ACTUATION (1)
(SRV EVENT CASE A1)
SECTIONS 1-4.2.3 AND l-4.2.4 --a 5
5 SRV ACTUATION ON SET POINT (SRV EVENT h CASES A3 AND C3) ADS ACTUATION g (SRV EVENT CASE A2) e 3
e CONDENSATION
- OSCILLATION ,
SECTION 1-4.1.7 CHUGGING SECTION 1-4.1.8 2 3,= 5 TADS = 300 t2 = 305 t=
3 505 t 4 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
NOTE:
- 1. LOADING NOT COMBINED WITH OTHER SRV CASES.
Figure 1-4.3-4 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR THE VENT HEADER, MAIN VENTS, DOWNCOMERS, TCROS SHELL, AND SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DURING AN IBA BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.118 nutp_qh
4.3.3 Small Break Accident The bar chart in Figure 1-4.3-5 shows conditions for a break size equal to 0.01 ft 2 . For a SBA, the HPCI system would be able to maintain the water level and the reactor would be depressurized by means of operator initiation of the automatic depressuriza-tion system. Table 1-4.3-3 identifies the SRV discharge loading conditions. The SBA break is too small to cause significant pool swell, and CO does not occur during a SBA. The ADS is assumed to be initiated by the operator 10 minutes after the SBA begins. With the concurrence of the NRC (Reference 16), the procedures which the operator will use to q perform this action are being developed as part of the Emergency Procedures Guidelines.
C' BPC-01-300-1 1-4.119 Revision 0 nutagh
9 LOCA PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE TR.".NSIENTS SECTION 1-4.1.1 SINGLE SRV ACTUATION (1)
(SRV EVENT CASE A1)
SECTIONS 1-4.2.3, 1-4.2.4 5
g OPERATOR INITIATION OF ADS g (SRV EVENT CASE A2) 5 u
E SRV ACTUATION ON SET POINT
< (SRV EVENT CASES A3, C3) 3 CHUGGING SECTION 1-4.1.8 t 2=300 TADS =600 t 3 =1200 t 4 TIME AFTER LOCA (sec)
NOTE:
- 1. LOADING NOT COMBINED WITH OTHER SRV CASES .
Figure 1-4.3-5 LOADING CONDITION COMBINATIONS FOR THE VENT HEADER, MAIN VENTS, DOWNCOMERS, TORUS SHELL, AND SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DURING A SBA BPC-01-300-1 Revision 0 1-4.120 nut _h.
a
1-5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES
- 1. " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," General Electric Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, November 1981.
- 2. " Mark I Containment Progra'm Structural Accep -
tance Criteria Plant-Unique Analysis Applica-tions Guide," Task Number 3.1.3, Mark I Owners Group, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583, Revision 1, July 1979. "
- 3. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980; Supplement 1, August 1982.
- 4. " Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)," Hope Creek Generating Station, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, October 1983.
- 5. Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Standards Development, Revision 0, October 1973.
- 6. "The General Electric Pressure Suppression h)
(
Containment Electric Company, Analytical Model,"
NEDO-10320, Supplement 1, May 1971; Supplement 2, January April General 1971; 1973.
- 7. " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition," Hope Creek Generating Station, General Electric Company, NEDO-24579, Revision 1, January 1982.
- 8. " Mark I Containment Program Quarter-Scale Plant Unique Tests, Task Number 5.5.3, Series 2," General Electric Company, NEDE-21944-P, Volumes 1-4, April 1979. -
- 9. Patton, K.T., " Tables of Hydrodynamic Mass Factors for Translational Motion," ASME Manuscript, Chicago, November 7-11, 1965.
- 10. Miller, R.R., "The Effects of Frequency and Amplitude of Oscillation on the Hydrodynamic Masses of Irregularly-Shaped Bodies," MS Thesis, Univerity of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I., 1965.
U BPC-01-300-1 1-5.1 Revision 0 nutgqh
- 11. Fitzsimmons, G. W. et al., " Mark I Containment Program Full-Scale Test Program Final Report, Task Number 5.11," General Electric Corpany, NEDE-24539-P, April 1979.
- 12. " Mark I Containment Program Letter Reports MI-LR-81-01 and MI-LR-81-01-P, Supplemental Full-Scale Condensation Test Results and Load Confirmation-Proprietary and Nonpreprietary Information," General Electric Company, May 6, 1981.
- 13. " Mark I Containment Program - Full-Scale Test Program - Evaluation of Cupplemental Tests,"
General Electric Company, NEDO-24539, Supple-ment 1, July 1981.
- 14. Hsiao, W. T. and Valandani, P., " Mark I Containment Program Analytical Model for Computing Air Bubble and Boundary Pressures Resulting from an SRV Discharge Through a T-Ouencher Device," General Electric Company, NEDE-21878-P, August 1979.
- 15. Lette r from T. A. Ippolito (NRC) to J. F.
Quirk (GE) dated October 16, 1981.
e BPC-01-300-1 1-5.2 Revision 0 nutp_gh
_