Text

Rev 0 to Vol 6 to plant-unique Analysis Rept, Torus Attached Piping & Suppression Chamber Penetration Analysis
	ML20080P808
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	01/31/1984
From:	Baskin J, Edwards N, Wong C; NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20080P730	List: ML20080P726; ML20080P742; ML20080P773; ML20080P783; ML20080P789; ML20080P797; ML20080P808;
References
	BPC-01-300-6, BPC-01-300-6-V06-R00, BPC-1-300-6, BPC-1-300-6-V6-R, NUDOCS 8402230126
	Download: ML20080P808 (150)
	v • d • e

BPC-01-300-6

(' Revision 0 ,

January 1984 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 6 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES Prepared for:

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Prepared by:

NUTECH Engineers, Inc.

San Jose, California Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Q[h.Baskin, e Tb6 c w A9m4 P.E. C. T. Wong, k. E .

rYup Leader Principal Engineer Approve by: Issued by:

e

) ,

k N. W. Edwards, P.E. R. A. Lehne rt , P.E.

President . Project Manager

/

s_

8402230126 840210 0 DR ADOCK 05000354 PDR

REVISION CONTROL SHEET O TITLE: Hope Creek Generating Station DOCUMENT NUMBER: BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 Plant Unique Analysis Report '

Volume 6 ,

D4 g.Baskin/GroupLeader gtials 1 % 4 f* x b = . 41 rs Initials N. Balasubramanian/ Consultant II d' b hkw GV@

Initials G. U. Fonseka/ Engineer

% Skt.

M. Habib/ Consultant I mra--.

Initials O A.L / f A7 Initials A. Imandoust/ Consultant I b k Initials M. Islam / Specialist k Ib Initials

{ R. A. Lehnert/ Project Manager l ./ $ W Initials M. Shamszad/ Senior Engine r 0Y 9 C7@

C. T. Wong/Prineipal Engineer Initials khC-Mu. ./MbP Y. C. Yiu/ Group Leader Initia'Is nutp_qh i

i - -- - - _ , - , . . - - - - - _ . , . . , . - , _ , _ _ , _ , . . _ _ _ , , _ _ , _ _ _ _ . , _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ ,

REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continued ) !

TITLB: Hope Creek Generating DOCUMENT NUMBER: BPC-01-3 00-6 ;

Station Revision 0 i Plant Unique Analysis l Report :

Volume 6 !

! % b lb,t s. , d,, , .. . ( udJ ,

N. Goyal/ Engineer. Supervisor InitiaYs ;

fr.l b I.

K. Madrat/ Senior Engineer "r blS Initials l

4 l

i i

I G59/10 '

nutagh

REVISION CONTROL SHEET (CONTINUATION) 4 TITLE:

Ho e reek Generating Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volume 6 DOCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 AF8ECTED DOC ! PREPARED ACCURACY CRITE RI A EM AR KS PACE (S) REv l 8Y / OATE CHECK BY / CATE CHECK BY / DATE N P g s 6-4.1 through 6-4.1 - 0 Ak.

,,33 M f25lI4' 1 Sff 6-4.10 were prepared and 6-4.10 checked by Bechtel Power Corporation in accordance with their Quality Assur-ance program.

(G I l

l l

,/ ,

/

I \d Pace 1 OF

, cEP 3 3.1.2

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)

T;TLE. Station , DOCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-01-300-6 Plant Unique Analysis Revision 0 { }

Report, Volume 6 AFFECTED DOC PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERIA

" *3 PAGEIS) REv 8Y / DATE CHECK BY / DATE CHECK BY / DATE ii ! 0 %/j-71-64 (t&[t-51 84 844 L/ t-SI- 5'i lii 0 iv 0 v 0 vi 0 vii 0 viii 0 ix 0 x 0 xi 0 xii 0 6 1.1 0 6-1.2 0 6-1.3 0 6-1.4 0 l l 6-1.5 0 ,I V U 6-1.6 0 g/g _3l- sq- gj, .g g. g4 , ,

i 6-2.1 0- Cm/i.31-84 g/g _9,,34 j,,9,,g4.

6-2.2 0 6-2.3 0 l P y

) 5-2.4 0 C nd/i- 3/- s+ g,9,, g, 6-2.5 0 C'# V5'/S= 4 c y w p . g f.g ,f 6-2.6 0 G'" 'bs/94 Crwp- st-B st l

6-2.7 0 cyta '/gf/gy % /i-fl. 94-6-2.8 0 6-2.9 0 6-2.10 0 6-2.11 0 6-2.12 0 5-2.13 0 5-2.14 0 5-2.15 0 y y 5-2.16 0 cna/,_3f,g,j g),, gg, g+ /l 8 4- 2 6 PAGE OF CEP 3 3.12 REV 1

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)

T!TLE: Station DOCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-01-300-6 l l Plant Unique Analysis Revision 0 Report, Volume 6 AFFECTED DOC PREPARED ACC1) RACY CRITE RI A R E M AR KS PAGEIS) REV SY / DATE CHECX SY / DATE CHECK BY / DATE 6-2.17 0 crtJf. gf.gr.J %[i-31 h[i 6 4 6-2.18 0 6-2.19 0 6-2.20 0 6-2.21 0 6-2.22 0 6-2.23 0 6-2.24 0 6-2.25 0 6-2.26 0 6-2.27 0 6-2.28 0 6-2.29 0 6-2.30 0 0 6-2.31 6-2.32 0

0

'I cnd/,31- 6Y p/i- 3 f y 'r

% /l-31-B4

/

6-2.33 0

$/i B +- @c/f-3f-F4 g //-3/-iPT 6-2.34 0 %/t B4- h//-JI-24 h/ /-3I - 99 6-2.35 0 cm/j.gf. 89 D[i-31 -8& h/l-3I 6-2.36 0 6-2.37 0 6-2.38 0 6-2.39 0 6-2.40 0 l 6-2.41 0 6-2.42 0 6-2.43 0 6-2.44 0 o 'I 6-2.45 0 Cm}d-3/-eV p/l 64-i 6-2.46 0 sJ '/>'lk4 CrtJ//-31 8'A 6-2.47 0 r. uF W' /** Cfzv//-3 /-B Y 6-2.48 0 cm>/f_y,-6d % /l 6 4 1[

6-2.49 0 c,,g/,,,, , g p g/g ,3; , g4, /,,yg , gq_

PAGE OF CEP 3-3.1.2 REV 1

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)

I b~

~

P t nique Analysjs Revision 0 Report, Volume 6 l )

AFFECTED DOC PREPARED ACCURACY CRITERI A PAGEL9 REV BY / D ATE CNECK BY / OATE CHECK BY / DATE 6-2.50 0 CrW//-9/-8V %/t -3t- g4- h[i B4-6-2.51 0 5-2.52 0 6-2.53 0 6-2.54 0 6-2.55 0 6-2.56 0 6-2.57 0 6-2.58 0 6-2.59 0 6-2.60 0 6-2.61 0 6-2.62 0 y 6-2.63 0 g/ st 6-2.64 0 p/l.gs-g4 6-2.65 0 6-2.66 0 '[ y y l 6-2.67 0 c m/f. 3f-ey p/t B+ $41,/l-H-f4 6-2.68 0 45/, sr.se /l-31 84 @ [I-31-M 6-2.69 0 g/ 31

-r]6/s.31.ay % t- -B+ %/t-31-%+

C rr.J/f.3r s4 M9[l-SI-8f N ['~

~

l 6-2,70 0 G-2.71 0 g/, .g g.e C7W/t 8V [At<[l->l-fi j 6-2.72 0 crw//-3t-84 p/-31-94 D/t-31-M 6-2.73 0 Ab ll'3% gnrrtj il3sl9F 6-3.1 0 d rw/f. Sr. 84r g/g _g g.gg.

6-3.2 0 6-3.3 0 6-3.4 0 6-3.5 0 6-3.6 0 6-3.7 0

, 6-3.8 0 y y y 6-3.9 0 Crw//3s-ge/ %[t-3l $/t 84-PAGE OF CEP 3 3.12 l AEV 1

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)

TITLE: Station 9 Plant Unique Analysis Report, Volume 6 DOCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 AFFECTED DOC PREPARED ACCURACY CRITE RI A

3 P AGE (S) REV SY / DATE CHECK BY / DATE CHECK BY / DATE 6-3.10 0 CW//-3/-8t/ $/1-31-94 %/t B&

6-3.11 0 6-3.12 0 6-3.13 0 v y 6-3.14 0 M/-si-9 V g/g _3 -g+

6-3.15 0 16/ -3i-t4 of I/m /94 6-5.1 0 crw/f.3 i-s4 %/i-31-g4 6-5.2 0 6-5.3 0 6-5.4 0 6-5.5 0 6-5.6 0 y y 6-5.7 0 CM!i s+ $}g-38-Q% y 6-5.8 0 M6li->'i-M pr# </N[89 g/t B4-W/l 84 trMd /{s:{St/ pf, . 3 t.eq 6-5.9 0 ,

\/ 6-6.1 0 g/g.3,- 2 4 Mb l i -s- d4- /l-3l-g 6-6.2 0 6-6.3 0 6-6.4 0 6-6.5 0 6-6.6 0 6-6.7 0 6-6.8 0 6-6.9 0 6-6.10 0 6-6.11 0 6-6.12 0 6-6.13 0 6-6.14 0 6-6.15 0 y 6-6.16 0 g/ g+ g ,,3,, 3 g f,3pg4 6-6.17 0 g37, _ //-}i-$f ,,,g

( ,) 6-6.18 0 0

j,_5g.9, ns 7, _ 3, _ ,,

N ,;,3_,q $ 6 6-6.19 a^cE oF

$/i- al-84 m //-se- a5 g / -3:-gf CEP 3 3.1.2 REV 1

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Hope Creek Generating (CONTINUATION)

TITLE: Station DOCUMENT FILE NUMBER: BPC-01-300-6 Plant Unique Analysis Revision 0 I Report, Volume 6 AFFECTED DCC PAEPARED ACCURACY CRITERI A EMAR KS PAGEIS) REV BY / DATE CHECK SY / DATE CHECK BY / DATE 6-6.20 0

%/l-31-B4-M3 /'-3/- 8

Ag[i '>f-71 6-6.21 0 6-6.22 0 o 6-6.23 0 g/i 84 ' p 6.24 0 Aill/3'lb4 n s t o-u- s s ' jest /t-st-sa 6-7.1 0 ees/f.3,-6<t p/-3f-B4 h/l-31-S4 0

g /3-31-89 $ )t-31'M 6-7.2 c7wff,3f.34f I I I

l l

l 1

l l k l PAGE OF 1

I CEP 3-3.1.2 REV 1

l O ABSTRACT U,

The prima ry containme nt for the Hope Creek Ge ne rating Station was designed, erected, pressure-tested, and N-stamped in accord-ance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, 1974 Edition with adden'da up to and including Winter 1974.

These activities were performed for the Public Service Electric and Gas- Company (PSE&G) by the Pitt sburg h-Des Moines Steel Compa ny . Since then, new requirements which af fect the design and operation of the primary containment system have been established. These requireme n ts are defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0661. The NUREG-0661 requireme nts define revised containment des ign loads postulated to occur during a loss-of-coolant acc ident or a safety-relief valve discharge event which are to be evaluated. In addition, NUREG-0661 requires that an assessment of the effects that these pos tulated events have on the operation of the containment system be performed.

OAd

~

This plant unique analysis repo rt ( PUA R) docume nts the e f fo rts undertaken to address and resolve each of the applicable NUREG-0 6 61 requireme nts fo r Hope Creek. It demonstrates, in accordance with NUREG-0661 acceptance criteria, that the design of the primary containme nt 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 o Vo lume 2 -

SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYS IS o volume 3 -

VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS o Volume 4 -

INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS o Volume 5 -

SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING ANALYS IS o Volume 6 - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES 3

y BPC-01-300-6 U Revision 0 6-11 nutggb

Major portions of all volumes of this report have been prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Incorporated (NUTECH), 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 Bech tel Powe r Corpo ra tion (acting as an age nt responsible to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company).

Th is volume , Vo lume 6, docume n ts the evaluation of the torus attached piping and suppression chamber penetrations.

NOTE: Iden tifica t ion of the volume number precedes each page, section, subsection, table, and figure number.

O BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-iii nut.e_qh

T TABLE OF CONTENTS V Page ABSTRACT 6-ii LIST OF ACRONYMS 6-vii LIST OF TABLE 3 6-x LIST OF FIGURES 6-xii 6-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

6-1.1 4

6-1.1 Scope of Analysis 6-1.4 6-2.0 LARGE BORE PIPING 6-2.1 6-2.1 Component Description 6-2.2 6-2.1.1 Torus External Piping 6-2.7 6-2.1.2 Torus Internal Piping 6-2.9 6-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 6-2.14

~'N 6-2.2.1 Loads 6-2.15

% 6-2.2.2 Load Combinations 6-2.30 6-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 6-2.39

~6-2.4 Methods of Analysis 6-2.42 6-2.4.1 Analytical Modeling 6-2.43 l

l 6-2.4.2 Methods of Analysis for FSAR 6-2.48 and Static Torus Displace-ment Loads 6-2.4.3 Methods of Analysis for 6-2.53 Hydrodynamic Loads 6-2.4.4 Methods of Analysis for Torus 6-2.59 Motion Loads

~

6-2.4.S Enveloping of Loading 6-2.64

Combinations A-6 and D-3 6-2.4.6 Fatigue Evaluation 6-2.71 O)

(

N- '

BPC-01-300-6

-Revision 0 6-iv nutggh

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

l l

o TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page 6-2.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions 6-2.72 6-3.0 SMALL BORE PIPING 6-3.1 6-3.1 Component Description 6-3.2 6-3.2 Loads and Load Combinations 6-3.4 6-3.2.1 Loads 6-3.5 6-3.2.2 Load Combinations 6-3.6 6-3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 6-3.7 6-3.4 Methods of Analysis 6-3.8 6-3.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions 6-3.14 6-4.0 PIPING SUPPORTS 6-4.1 6-4.1 Component Description 6-4.2 6-4.2 Loads and Load Combinations 6-4.3 6-4.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance 6-4.5 Criteria 6-4.4 Analysis Results and Conclusions 6-4.8 6-5.0 EQUIPMENT AND VALVES 6-5.1 6-5.1 Component Description 6-5.2 6-5.2 Loads and Load Combinations 6-5.3 6-5.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance e-5.5 Criteria 6-5.4 Analysis Results and Conclusions 6-5.7 6-6.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS 6-6.1 6-6.1 Component Description 6-6.2 BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-v l nut.e_qh l

- . . _ _ __ _ .._ _ . . _- . _ _ _m f

TABLE OF CONTENTS i (Concluded)

Page s

1 6-6.2 Loads and Load Combinations 6-6.9 6-6.2.1 Loads 6-6.10 6-6.2.2 Load Combinations 6-6.13 4

6-6.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria 6-6.15 6-6.4 Methods of Analysis 6-6.18 6-6.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions 6-6.23 6-7.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 6-7.1 4

h r

i-l l-l BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-vi !

nutggb !

I I

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACI American Concrete Institute ADS Automatic Depressuriza tion System AISC American Institute of Steel Construction ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ATWS Anticipated Transients Without Scram BDC Bottom Dead Center BWR Boiling Water Reactor CDF Cumulative Distribu tion Function CO Condensation Oscillation DBA De sign Bas is Accident DC Downcomer DLF Dynamic Load Factor ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction FSTF Full-Scale Test Facility HNWL High Normal Water Level H PCI High Pressure Coolant Injection IBA Intermediate Break Accident I& C Instrumentation and Control ID Ins ide Diameter IR Inside Radius LCDS Load Capacity Data Sheets LDR Load De finition Repo rt ( Ma rk I Containment Prog ram)

LOCA Los s-o f-Coola nt Acc iden t BPC-01-3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-vii nutgqh

/ \ 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 No n-Vent Line Bay 4

N OBE Operating Basis Earthquake

\' OD Outside Diameter PSD Powe r Spectral Det.sity PS E&G Public Service Electric and Gas Company P UA Plant Unique Analysis PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide i

PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report i

PULD Plant Unique Load Definition QSTF Quarter-Scale Test Facility ,

.RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling RHR Residual Heat Removal RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel f

i

.( B PC-01-3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-viii nutggh

LIST OF ACRONYMS (Concluded)

RSEL Resultant Sta t .# c-Equ ivale nt Load SBA Small Break Accident SBP Small Bore Piping-SER Saf 9ty 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 SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake STP Short-Te rm Program SVA Single Valve Actuation TAP Torus Attached Piping VB Vent Line Bay VH Vent Header VL Vent Line VPP Ve nt Pi pe Pe ne t ration ZPA Cero Period Acceleration l

l l

l BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-ix nut.e_qh

~x

[ '

LIST OF TABLES k

Number Title Page 6-2.1-1 Identification of Large Bore Torus 6-2.3 Attached Piping Systems and Associated Penetrations 6-2.2-1 Torus Attached Piping Loading 6-2.29 Identification Cross-Reference 6-2.2-2 Event Combinations and Allowable Limits 6-2.33 for Torus Attached Piping 6-2.2-3 Basis for Governing Load Combinations - 6-2.35 Torus Attached Piping 6-2.2-4 Governing Load Combinations - Torus 6-2.37 Attached Piping 6-2.3-1 Applicable ASME Code Equations and 6-2.40 Allowable Stresses for Essential Torus Attached Piping 6-2.3-2 Applicable ASME Code Equations and 6-2.41 g Allowable Stresses for Non-Essential (g-w)

Torus Attached Piping 6-2.4-1 Individual Torus Motion Load Displace- 6-2.68 ments for Loading Combinations A-5 and A-6 6-2.4-2 Combined Torus Motion Displacements 6-2.69 for Loading Combinations A-5, A-6, D-2 and D-3 6-2.4-3 Typical Line Analysis Results for Hydro- 6-2.70 dynamic Loads Contained in Combinations D-2 and D-3.

6-2.5-1 Analysis Results for Large Bore Torus 6-2.73 i Attached Piping Stress 6-3.5-1 Representative Small Bore Piping 6-3.15 Stresses. for Controlling Load Combinations 6-4.2-1 Governing Icad Combinations - Piping 6-4.4 Supports

(N

\ BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-x nutggb

LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)

Number Title Page, 6-4.3-1 Allowable Stress Limits for Piping 6-4.7 Supports 6-4.4-1 Summary of Large Bore Pipe Support 6-4.9 Modifications 6-5.4-1 Analysis Results for Valve Accelerations 6-5.8 6-6.1-1 Penetration Reinforcement Schedule 6-6.4 6-6.2-1 Governing Penetration Load Combinations 6-6.14 and Service Levels 6-6.3-1 Allowable Stresses for Penetrations 6-6.17 6-6.5-1 Stress Summary of Representative 6-6.24 Penetrations O

l l

l BPC-01-300-6

! Revision 0 6-xi l nutgqh

. - _= . .

LIST OF FIGURES s

Numbe r Title Page 6-2.1-1. Large Bore TAP Penetration Locations 6-2.4 on Suppression Chamber - Plan View 6-2.1-2 TAP System Isometric and Support 6-2.5 Locations - HPCI Pump Suction Line (P202) 6-2.1-3 TAP System Isometric and Support 6-2.6

- Locations - HPCI Turbine Exhaust Line (P201) 6-2.1-4 Typical TAP System Support Outside 6-2.11 Suppression Chamber Attached to Main Steel 6-2.1-5 Typical TAP System Support Outside 6-2.12 Suppression Chamber Attached to Structural Concrete 6-2.1-6 Typical TAP System Support Inside 6-2.13 Suppression Chamber

[\.

6-2.'4-1 TAP System Structural Model (Line P202) 6-2.46 6-2.4-2 TAP System Structural Model (Line P201) 6-2.47 6-2.4-3 TAP Coupled / Transfer Function Analysis 6-2.63 Procedure 6-6.1-1 Typical ~ Unreinforced Penetration 6-6.5 6-6.1-2 Typical Penetration with Nozzle Rein- 6-6.6 forcement only 6-6.1-3. External View of Penetration P212A 6-6.7 and B Reinforcement 6-6.1-4 Reinforcement Details for Penetration 6-6.8 P212A and B 6-6.2-1 Typical TAP Loads on Penetration 6-6.12

- 6-6.4-1 Finite Element Model for Penetrations 6-6.22 P212A and B a

k Revision 0 6-xii nutggh 1

. .- . . _ - . . .. . _ . - ~ - . = - . - . - . - - . . - . . .

i I

i 6-

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In conjunction with Volume 1 of the Plant Un ique

. Analysis Re port (PUAR), this volume documents the ef forts undertaken to address the requirements defined in NUREG-0661 (Raference 1) which affect the Hope Cre'k e torus attached piping (TAP), includ ing large and small bore piping, supports, piping equipment, and suppression chamber penetrations. The toru s attached piping PUAR is organized as follows:

o INTRODUCTION Scope of Analysis o LARGE BORE PIPING '

. (,, -

Component Description Loads and Load Combinations

' - Analysis Acceptance Criteria

- Me thods of Analysis

- Analysis Results and Conclusions o SMALL BORE PIPING l

Component De scrip tion 4

Loads and Load Combinations i

Analysis Acceptance Criteria f

- Methods of Analysis Analysis Results and Conclusions i -~s B PC-01-3 00-6

( Revision 0 6-1.1 L nutp_qb

. - , _ . - . _ _ . - - , , _ _ , , , - . , . . - . . . ...,....,__,_.,-y .._-._..,_.._r,y-___.._,_._,.,r-,ry,,.., .--m....

o PIPING SUPPORTS Component De scription Loads and Load C' ombinations

- Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria

- Analysis Results and Conclusions o EQUIPMENT AND VALVES

- Component Description Loads and Load Combinations

- Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria Analysis Results and Conclusions o SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS

- Component De scription Loads and Load Combinations Analysis Acceptance Criteria

- Methods of Analysis Analysis Results and Conclusions The introduc tion contains an overview discussion of the scope of the torus attached piping systems and suppres-sion chanbe r penetration eva lua t ions . Each of the analysis sections contains a discussion of the loads and load combinations to be addressed, and a description of the piping components or penetrations aftected by these loads and load com binations . The sections also contain a discussion of the methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-1.2 nutgqh

-l . !

\

1-combinations, the evaluation results, the acceptance

limits to which the results are compared, and the t

i conclusions derived from the evaluations performed.

i i

d'. i

! i i ,

i a

h.

4 i'

4 i I

!. i i

i:

L !

4

.O I

e i

i f

i i

4

)

i <

1 1

I, i.

i t

i B PC-01-3 00 -6 Revision 0 6-1.3 l

1 0

6-1.1 Scope of Analysis O

The general criteria presented in Volume 1 a re used as the basis for the Hope Creek torus attached piping and suppression chamber penetration evaluations described in this report. The evaluations include the large and small bore toru s attached piping; p iping suppo rts ;

piping components such as flanges, strainers, and e xp ansion joints; related eq'u ipme nt nozzles such as pumps, valves, and turbines; and TAP suppression c hambe r penetrations. These components are evaluated for the effects of LOCA-related and SRV di scha rg e-related loads discussed in Volume 1, and defined by the NRC's Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and by the Ma rk I Containme nt Program Load De finition Report (LOR) (Reference 2).

The LOCA and SRV discharge loads used in this evalua-tion are formulated using procedures and test results which include the effects of the plant unique geometry and operating parameters contained in the Plant Unique Load De f inition (PULD) report (Reference 3 ) . Other loads and methodology which have not been redefined by NUREG-0661, such as the evaluation for seismic loads, are taken from the plant's Final Saf ety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Re f erence 4 ) .

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-1.4 nut _ech

O d The evaluation includes performing a structural analysis of the torus attached piping systems and suppression chamber penetrations fo r the effects of LOCA-related and SRV discharge-related loads to , confirm that the desig n cf the torus attached piping and suppression chamber penetrations is adequate. Rigorous analytical techniques are applied in this evaluation, utilizing detailed analytical models and refined me thods fo r computing the dynamic response of the torus f

attached piping systems, including consideration of the interaction effects of individual piping systems and the suppression chamber.

O

,h The results of the TAP structural analysis for each load are used to evaluate load combinations for the p ip ing , piping suppo rts , equipment, and suppression chamber penetrations in accordance with NUREG-0661 and the Ma rk I Containme nt Program St ruc tural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Gu ide (PUAAG) (Reference 5). The analysis results are compared with the acceptance limits specified by the PUAAG and the applicable sections of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Class 2 piping and piping supports, and for Class MC components for the torus penetrations (Reference 6).

BPC-01-300-6

Revision 0 6-1.5 nutgLqh

Evaluation of the piping for f atigue ef fects stipulated in Reference 1 has been addressed generically for all Ma rk I plants by the Mark I Owners Group (Reference 7). Use of the generic f atigue evaluation approach has been permitted by the NRC as described in Reference 8.

O l

l l

l B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-1.6 nut _ech l

[( 6-2.0 LARGE BORE PIPING An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the des ig n adequacy of the Hope Creek large bore torus attached piping (T AP) is presented in the following sections. The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1.

The component parts of the TAP systems which are analyzed are described in Section 6-2.1. The loads and load combinations for which the piping systems are evaluated are described and presented in Section 6-2.2.

The acceptance limits to which thc analysis results are o compared are discussed and presented in Section 6-2.3.

The analysis methodology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the piping systems, including evaluation of f atigue effects, is d iscus sed in Section 6-2.4. The analysis results and conclusions are presented in Section 6-2.5.

O BPC-01-300-6

\j Revision 0 6-2.1 nutECh

. - - , -- ,_ _,,,,-_.-,--y- ,_ ,-,.,,-.,,e.e,,. =,,- ,,,e,,c. yy--,------,--,-,--_..,v.m.,_9 ,.,----.--.p.-,

6-2.1 Component Description The large bore TAP for Hope Creek consists of piping systems with 4" and larger nominal diameters, which penetrate or are directly attached to the suppression chamber. This section gives a general description of the large bore TAP systems and their associated components.

Large bore TAP lines range in size from 4" to 24" nominal diameter and have varying piping schedules.

Although most of the piping consists of ASTM A-106, Grade B carbon steel material, some pipe segments are ASME SA312 GR. TP304L austenitic stainless steel.

Table 6-2.1-1 lists the Hope Creek large bore TAP systems, their associated suppression chamber penetrations, and their essentiality classification.

Figure 6-2.1-1 shows the locations of the penetrations on the suppression chamber.

The :arge bore TAP systems are grouped into two general categories: torus external piping and torus internal piping. An example of a system with only torus external piping is the high pressure coolant injection (HPCI) pump suction line shown in Figure 6-2.1-2. A typical system having both internal and external piping is the HPCI turbine axhaust line shown in Figure 6-2.1-3.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.2 nut.e_qh

,_s Table 6-2.1-1

\

(

( ) IDENTIFICATION OF LARGE BORE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATTD PENETRATIONS ESSENTIAL (E)/

PENETRATION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION NON-ESSENTIAL (NE)

N ER -

SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION P201 HPCI Turbine Exhaust E P202 HPCI Pump Suction E P203 HPCI Minimum Return NE P204 HPCI & RCIC Vacuum Breaker NE P207 RCIC Turbine Exhaust E P208 RCIC Pump Suction & Discharge E P209 RCIC Minimum Return NE P211A RHR Pump Suction "D" E P211B RHR Pump Suction "B" E P211C RHR Ptmp Suction "A" E f'"3 P211D RHR Pump Suction "C" E k ,) P212A RHR Torus Water Clearing E P212B RHR Torus Water Clearing E P213A RHR Relief to Torus NE P213B RHR Relief to Torus NE P214A RHR to Torus Spray Header E P214B RHR to Torus Spray Header E P216A Core Spray Pump Suction "B" E P216B Core Spray Pump Suction "D" E P216C Core Spray Pump Suction "C" E P216D Core Spray Pump Suction "A" E P217A Core Spray Test to Torus NE P217B Core Spray Test to Torus NE P219 Torus Vacuum Relief & Purge Outlet NE P220 Torus Vacuum Relief & Purge Inlet E P222 Torus Water Cleanup Return NE P223 Torus Water Cleanup Supply NE

,-s NOTE:

) 1. Systems include both essential and non-essential segments.

m BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.3 N h

O

_ 'I !

a.

l Pt7s l 711G0 Pm 'P117A

~/ NY' l

+-

,L .

9.c' 4 PilGC : Pi!G4 l

17C

- -90*

t a PtID Ptla O

\

.+. _- / -4. -

P%.

l i f etic i p21:s .PtitA l

Ptits ~*'

.Q.,

/ +- Pto4

- S S' , ' 212 p'ics ' . '\PtOT otc4 Pi!3A i s'c' Figure 6-2.1-1 LARGE BORE TAP PENETRATION LOCATIONS ON SUPPRESSION CHAMBER - PLAN VIEW BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 0

6-2 4 nut.e_qh

N

'N

[N

, '\.

5P Un o

[7 lEMh$ s

1 w -

oo MIGIO LATERAL REEMAINT ,

woests a . .gnw. uwa j> p\

a mioio VERTICAL RESTRAINT iS-r . ....

i uwe a D. -

x O 5" - ' o- - mm =7.'.* ~

g/ } \

\c, tHasRT PLATE

e. .- s u

fa -.

T , 4:, , "

w ,, T - H is a

" '* te%

%n a *'

. . . 's t ,

?!'ve j', j f' *k. *R .@

4 fl ee<., i xp%

N

. . -p

<f'%g *= "'/ '.' ) fi'

-e

,e <

a

-4

$% 4:

j,* ( . '

N4'J , p 2 ty , -

w g ....,. ,,g $

a".

fY 3 Figure 6-2.1-2 C.g.

p TAP SYSTEM ISOMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS -

IIPCI PUMP SUCTION LINE (P202) i3'

$$ a "

$? #

- 4; ' i4 LEGENQi %g, ***k .

,,,g o ]-nic o LATERAL. DESTRMNT gg \

"I, j

?

e senius Haussa - *

,y f ',

y a m.aio vtRTscat NESTRAINT %

M-.~e - { f i

,H3

. .<,...o.

~ , . . . . .

--...p' - ,

t g , hg,.q.

g , .,

Q suppoari.o. ' O. '

J d D . '

'8 x

43 k D^ k '

i

%)"fuk)y,$1bb -

- 6/ .

= (]

g . .4A [

ot 4 x g

'Ny,. .,y:o-

, J #8[h '*t.

l 7aa

.h , j' 4

D w ? 'a ,,.

wNo, ,

+# $#a. N.#\.

'T. 1 og

Aus(($te '9

- to a is aso. 9@,

/ Tas y Figure 6-2.1-3

$ TAP SYSTEM ISOMETRIC AND SUPPORT LOCATIONS -

C llPCI TURBINE EXIIAUST LINE (P201) 18 is O O O

[.- 6-2.1.1 Torus External Piping Q)

The torus external piping included in the plant unique

analysis (PUA) starts at the suppression chamber

. penetration nozzles, and terminates fo r evaluation purposes at anchor supports or equipment within the reactor buildi ng . The external piping typically extends from the suppression chamber up to the reactor bu ilding floor slab at elevation 77'-0". Some lines extend up to the reactor building floor slab at elevation 10 2'-0" .

The external piping - is supported by hange rs , rig id restraints, guides, and. snubbers attached to reactor

(/ building slabs or walls, or to main structural steel in the reactor building. Figures 6-2.1-4 and 6-2.1-5 illustrate typical pipe support configurations ou tside tne suppression chamber. Other components on these lines include valves and standard pipe fittings. The valve types used are gate valves, globe valves, swing check valves, butterfly valves, and relief valves.

Smaller lines branching of f the large bore TAP systems are ' discussed in Section 6-3.0. Piping suppo rts are described in Section 6-4.0. Equipment such as valves, pumps, and turbines are described in Section 6-5.0.

B PC-01-3 00-6

\ - Revision 0 6-2.7 nutggb

The suppression chamber penetrations are described in Section 6-6.0.

O B PC-01-3 0 0 - 6 Revision 0 6-2.8 nutp_qh

6-2.1.2 Torus Internal Piping v

Pi ping located inside the suppression chamber aly be categorized into three basic configurations:

(a) Short, unsupported segme nts of piping which project inside the suppression chamber. Examples of these types of configurations are the discharge lines which penetrate the upper half of the suppression chamber and the suction lines which penetrate the lower half. Discharge lines are typically open-ended whereas suction lines have a strainer connected to their inner nozzle flange.

An example of this type of internal piping

'j conf iguration is the HPCI Pump Suction Line (P202) shown in Figure 6-2.1.2.

(b) Short segments of piping ins ide the suppression chamber which are supported by rig id struts attached to the torus shell, the mid-bay girders or to the mitered joint ring girders as shown in Figure 6-2.1-6. The HPCI turbine exhaust line (P201) shown in Figure 6-2.1-3 is an example of this type of piping conf iguration.

~

( ,

l BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.9 nut 99.h.

(c) Long lengths of piping running through more than a single torus bay which are supported at intervals by rig id s tru ts connected to the torus shell or ring girders. This type of la rge bore piping conf ig ura tion is unique to the RHR to torus spray header lines (P214A and 214B).

Supports for the torus internal piping are discussed in Section 6-4.0. Strainers for the torus internal piping are discussed in Section 6-5.0.

Loads and load combinations which are applied to the large bore TAP systems described above are presented in the following sections.

O l

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.10 nut.e_qh

O M AIN STEEL

.,,o i

i INTERMEDIATE STEEL PRAMING

$TAlBUNE gg; . ,

. STRUT Figure 6-2.1-4 TYPICAL TAP SYSTEM SUPPORT OUTSIDE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ATTACHED TO MAIN STEEL BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.11 i nutggh l

O EM BEOCEO

'i.~,7 sass ALATE (T4p)

:r

.r i

! INTERM EDI ATE STEEL pmAMING s

'N

..*r

_-* 'e l N\ x4 ,_,

l swuseam W

~

<sl '

L fn

.s ..@. ~ ,

--9--

~: .'. . ' . -

,1_

Tap LINE

( - h-U j_ J

-o-Figura 6-2.1-5 TYPICAL TAP SYSTEM SUPPORT OUTSIDE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ATTACHED TO STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.12 nut.e_qh

mine emosm

. w .-

ptATE 8

Sup 4Fs \

p ewa*ussa@QN g

. ]u inten% - A'

1

N4 r A '

/

W

. D et supseet

"... SuponsS$ON cwassen swsu.

. m ,

i' ' k O .

I /

[INisaww pt m ue

.I ,-

sies

. supcom?

suseoer

/ .

.,~. '

emesa uicsAv GmesR

' ]-

[supeasesiew cwausam swsw n A ' r 6 SECTICN A- A Figure 6-2.1- 6 TYPICAL TAP SYSTEM SUPPORT INSIDE SUPPRESSION CHAMBER BPC-01-300-6 Revisior. 0 Ov 6-2.13 nutggh

6-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Hope Creek torus attached piping is des igned are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Ma rk I plants. The methodology used to develop plant uniqua TAP loads for each load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Section 1-4.0.

In addition, the loading event sequences described in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3 include consideration of plant unique operation of the torus attached piping systems. The results of applying the above methodology to develop specific values for each of the controlling

, loads which act on the piping are discussed and presented in Section 6-2.2.1.

Us ing the eve nt combinations and event seque ncing O

describec in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3, the governing load combinations which affect the torus attached piping are fo rmula ted . The load combinations are discussed and presented in Section 6-2. 2. 2.

B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2,14 nut.e&.h.

[ 6-2.2.1 toads The loads acting on the torus attached piping are categorized as follows:

1. Dead Weig ht

2. Seismic ;

i

3. Pressure and Temperature j

4. Cperating

5. Static Torus Displacement

6. Safety Relief Valve Discharge

7. Vent Clearing

8. Pool Swell

9. Condensation oscillation O

10. Chugging

11. Torus Motion Ioads in Ca teg ories 1 t hrough 4 are analyzed in the piping design per the FSAR (Reference .4). The range of pressures and tempe ratures ( Ca tegory 3) considered in the analyses include those relating to the time period within the Ma rk I Prog ram event duration. Ioads in Category 5 are displacements resulting from torus

- internal pressure or wa ter dead we ig ht during both normal and acc ident conditions. Loads in Category 6 result from SRV discharge eve nts. toads in Categories i

f BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.15 nutggb

/

7 through 10 result from postulated LOCA events. Ioads in Category 11 consist of torus inertial and displace-ment responses due to hydrodynamic loads acting on the torus.

Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 and the FSAR need be examined, since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible ef fect on the torus attached piping.

Only those loads which maximize the piping response and lead to controlling stresses are examined and dis-cussed. These loads are referred to as governing loads in the following sections.

De sc riptions of the governing loads in each ca teg ory are provided in the following par ag raphs . The corresponding section of Vo lume 1, where the method-ology used to develop the loads are discussed, is provided in Table 6-2. 2-1. Loading mag nitud es for loads in Categories 6 through 10 are similar to values l

provided in Vo lume s 2 and 3. Representative torus motion loads (Category 11) are presented in Section l

I 6-2.4.5.

l B PC-01-3 0 0 -6 Revision 0 6-2.16 nut.e_Q.h_

e w

['N 1. De ad heigh t (DW) Loads These loads are defined as the uniformly dis-i tributed weight of the piping and insulation, and l the concentrated we igh t of piping suppo rts ,

hardware attached to piping, valves, and fla nge s. Also included is the we ig ht of tL contents of the torus attached piping .

2. Seismic Loads

a. OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads: These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accel-erations acting on the TAP systems during an b\ operating basis earthquake (OBE). The loading is taken from the design basis for the piping as documented in the FSAR. Building response spectra at elevations which represent piping attachment points are utilized to develop l

e nve loping respo nse spectra curves fo r the N-S, E-W, and vertical direction OBEY inputs, t

r espec tive ly .

l l

l

b. OBE Di splaceme nt (OBED) Loads : These loads are defined as the maximum horizontal and i

vertical relative seismic displacements at i'

\

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.17 nutggb l

L..

the piping attachment points during an OBE.

The loading is taken from the des ig n basis f or the piping , as documented in the FSAR.

c. SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads: These loads are defined as the horizontal and vertical accelerations acting on the piping during a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). The loading is taken trom the des ign basis for the piping, as documented in the F6AR. Bu ilding response spectra at different elevations which represent the piping attachment po ints are utilized to develop enveloping response spectra curves for the N-S, E-W , and vertical direction SSE7 inputs, respect ively .

d. SSE Displ aceme nt (SSED) Loads: These loads are defined as the maximum ho ri zontal and vertical relative seismic displacements at the piping attachment points during a SSE.

The loading is take n from the desig n basis for the piping , as documented in the FSAR.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.18 nut _ech

l i

3. Pressure and Temperature Ioads

}'

-/

a. Pressure (P ,

o P) Loads: These loads are defined as the maximum ope ra ting internal pressure (P g ) and des ign condition pressure (P), in the torus attached piping.

b. Temperature (TE, TEy ) Loads: These loads are defined as the thermal expansion (TE) of the piping associated with tempe ra ture changes occurring during normal operating conditions, and the thermal expansion (TEt) of the piping associated with temperature changes occurring during maximum operating conditions. ,

Dif ferent pressure and temperature values are typically applied to specific segments of a piping system for each of the system operat-ing conditions which are evaluated. The pressures and temperatures used in the i

' analyses are in accordance with the FSAR.

Ef fects of thermal anchor novements at the torus penetrations and at torus support locations are also included in the analysis.

A

( I B PC-01-3 0 0 -6 Revision 0 6-2,19 nutggb

- % w '--gy w mmm_ g n - - - -,+9- 9 ,-.-----.-%v mmg m9-+m->ws-er,- ,9n m- --gme y.g- m- ,,wn---mem,wp-y,--r

The piping themal anchor movement loadings are categorized and designated as follows:

1. THAM -

Piping thermal anchor movement during normal operating condi-tions (NOC) , and

2. THAMy - Piping thermal anchor movement during accident conditions.

4. Operating (OL) Loads These loads are defined as line ope rating thrust loads due to discharge of piping systems into the to ru s . The loads are applicable to the HPCI turbine exhaust line (P201), the RCIC turbine e xh aust line (P207), the RHR test lines (P212A and 212B), and the core spray test lines (P217A and 1

2178).

1 1

! 5. Static Torus Displacement Loads l

l These loads are defined as the torus displacement loads due to the weight of water in the torus and due to normal opersting or acc ident condition pressures.

B PC-01-3 00 -6 '

Revision 0 6-2,20 nutgqhh

a. TD - These are the torus displaceme nts due to normal operating pressure and the we igh t of water in the torus.

These are the toru s displacements

b. TD1-due to torus internal pressure dur ing SBA conditions plus the weight of water in the torus,

c. 102- These are the torus displaceme nts due to torus internal pressure during IBA conditions plus the weight of water in the torus.

N ,

These are the torus displacements

d. TD3-due to torus internal pressure

' dur ing DBA conditions plus the weight of water in the torus.

6. Safety Relief Valve Discharge (QAB) Loads The safety relief valve (SRV) discha rge loads are l

I j.

defined as the transient pressures which act on the submerged portion of the TAP and supports in the torus during a SRV discharge. The methodology B PC-01-3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-2.21 l

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

for developing the loads is discussed in Volume 1.

The SRV discha rge loads consist of the following components:

a. Wa te r Je t Impingeme nt lo ads : During the water clearing phase of a SRV d ischa rge event, the subme rged TAP and suppo r ts are subjected to transient drag pressure loads.

The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of these loads is discussed in Se ction 1-4. 2. 4.

b. Air Bubble Drag Loads: During the air c learing phase of a SRV disc harge event, trans ant drag pressure loads are postulated to act on the subme rged TAP and supports.

The procedure used to develop the transient forces and spatial distribution of these loads is discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.

7. Ve nt Clea ring (VCLO) Loads These loads art defined as the transient pressure loads acting on the submerged portion of the TAP and suppo rts dur ing the wa ter and air clearing phase of a DBA event.

l BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.22 nut.e_qh

a. LOCA Fater Je t Impingement Loads : During the water clearing phase of a DBA event, the submerged portion of the TAP and supports are subjected to transient drag pressure loads.

The procedure used to develop these transient drag forces is discussed in Section 1-4.1.5.

b. LOCA Air Bubble Drag I.c ads : During the air clearing phase of a DBA event, the subme rged portion of the TAP and supports are subjected to transient drag pressure loads. The procedure used to develop these transient drag forces is discussed in Section 1-4.1. 6.

O b 8. Pool Swell (PSO) Loads ,

These loads are defined as the transient pressure

~

loads which act on the portion of the TAP and supports above the minimum torus water level,

a. Impact and Drag Loads: During the initial stages of a DBA event, the TAP and suppo rts within the torus are subjected to transient impact and drag pressures. The procedure -

used to develop these pressure transients is d iscu ssed in Sect ion 1-4.1. 4. 2.

B PC-01-3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-2.23 nutgsb

I

b. Froth Impingeme nt Ioads: Dur ing the LOCA Ol pool swell event, the TAP and supports within the torus airspace are subjected to transient pressures. The procedure used to develop these pressure transients is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.3.

c. Pool Fallback Ioads: During the later phase of pool swell, the TAP and supports within the to ru s are subjected to transient pressures. The procedure used to d evelop these pressure transients is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.4.

9. Condensation Oscillation (CO) Lo Ads O

During the condensation oscillation phase of a DBA event, the subme rged po r tion of the TAP and supports within the torus are subjected to 1

harmonic velocity and acceleration drag pressures.

The procedure used to develop the harmonic drag loads is discussed in Section 1-4.1. 7. 3. Included are acceleration drag loads due to torus fluid-struc ture interaction ( FSI) .

B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.24 nut.e._9_h

10. Chugging Loads

, O

a. Pre-Chug (PCHUG) Loads : These loads are defined as single ha rmonic velocity and acceleration drag loads, including accelera-tion drag loads due to torus FSI effects.

They act on the submerged portion of the TAP and supports during the pre-chug phase of a SBA, IB A, or DBA event. The procedure used to develop the pre-chug loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.3.

l

.b. Pos t-Chug (CHUG) Loads: These loads are defined as harmonic velocity and acceleration

'10 drag loads, including acceleration drag loads due to toru s PSI effects. They act on the subme rged portion of the TAP and supports dur ing the pos t-chug phase of a SBA, an IB A, or a DBA event. The procedure used to

develop the pos t-ch ug loads on these components is discussed in Section 1-4.1.8.3.

11. Torus Motion Loads These loads are defined as the inertia and dis-placement effects at the TAP attachment points on

-f B PC-01-3 00-6 N. Revision 0 6-2.25 nutRCh

~

r .

the suppression chamber due to loads acting on the suppression chamber shell. The loads are derived frca the analysis of the suppression chamber discussed in Volume 2.

a. SRV Torus Motion Loads:

1. QABy -

These are the inertia effects of torus motions due to SRV T-quencher discharge loads.

2. QABD These are the displacement effects of torus motions due to SRV T-quenc he r discha rge loads.

b. Pool Swell Torus Motion Ioads :

1. PSO y -

These are the inertia effects of torus motions due to pool swe ll loads .

2. PSO D -

These are the displacement effects of torus motions due to pool swell loads.

B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.26 nutagh

c. Condensation Oscillation Torus Motion Loads:

1. CO y -

These are the inertia effects of torus motions due to con-densation oscillation loads.

2. CO D -

These are the displacement effects of torus motions due to condensation oscillation loads.

d. Pre-Chug Torus Motion Loads:

g 1. PCHUGy- These are the inertia effects of torus motions due to pre-chug loads.

2. PCHUGD- These are the displacement

(~

effects of torus motions due to pre-chug loads. ,

e. Post-Chug Torus Motion Loads:

1. CHUG y - These are the inertia effects of torus c cions due to pos t-chug loads.

B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.27 nutash ;

i

-,=-,,++,-..,,,-m 3-,_ , . , - -,, , , , , - - - - .-,w ..-,%m--w_-,,. -y-,,-.y,,,-.,m-,,--es.,r.,,w,,,. ,y,-w.,---,--. ww m,p e - , - m,--- rm.,..,.,--

2. CHUG D -

These are the displacement l effects of torus motions due to post-chug loads.

)

l l

l i

O

(

I l

l l

B PC-01-3 0 0- 6 Revision 0 6-2.28 nut .h

N

)

/

Table 6-2.2-1 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING LOADING IDENTIFICATION CROSS-REFERENCE LOAD DESIGNATION VOLUME 1 LOAD LOAD SECTION NUMBER CATEGORY CASE NUMBER DEAD WEIGHT 1 1-3.1 SEISMIC 2 1-3.1 PRESSURE AND 3 1-3.1, 1-4.1.1 TEMPE?AATURE OPERATING 4 1-3.1 STATIC TORUS 5 1-3.1, 1-4.1.1 DISPLACEMENT SRV DISCHARGE 6 1-4.2.4 ,

VENT CLEARING 7 1-4.1.5, 1-4.1.6 POOL SWELL 8 1-4.1.4.2, 1-4.1.4.3, 1-4.1.4.4 CONDENSATION 9 l-4.1.7.3 OSCILLATION CHUGGING 10 1-4.1.8.3 TORUS MOTION 11 1-4.1, 1-4.2

~

C)\

\,_,

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.29 nutp_qh

6-2.2.2 Ioad Combinations The loads for which the TAP systems are evaluated are O

presented in Section 6-2.2.1. The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the loads into load combinations are discussed in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3 and summa rized in Table 6-2.2-2.

The load combinations specified for each event in Table 6-2.2-2 can be expanded into many more load combinations than those shown, as discussed in Section 2-2,2.2. However, not all load combinations for each event need be examined, since many have the same allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which contain the same plus additional loads. Many of the 27 load combinations listed in Table 6-2.2-2 are actually pairs of load combinationc with all of the same loads except for seismic loads. The first load combination in the pair contains OBE loads, while the second contains SSE loads.

Table 6-2.2-3 presents the basis for establishing the gove rning loading combinations for the TAP systems.

The resulting governing load combinations are listed in Table 6-2.2-4. The appropriate ASME Code equations for B PC-01-3 00 -6 Revision 0 5-2.30 nut _ech

the toru s attached piping are also provided in Table 6-2.2-4.

Included in the list of governing load combinations are four additional load combinations which do not result from the 27 event combinations listed in Ta ble 6-2.2-2. These are: Load Combination A-1, which relates to the design pressure plus dead we igh t condition; Load Combinations A-2 and B-1, which include the ccxubination of normal and seismic loads; and Load Combination T-1, which relates to the hydrostatic test condition. Evalua tion of Inad Combination T-1 is a requirement of the ASME Code (Reference 6). Load Combinations A-1, A-2, and B-1 a re consistent with the

! O V requirements specified in the FSAR (Reference 4).

The system pressure and temperature loads considered in the loading combinations include those occurring within f the range of the Ma rk I Prog ram event durations, as defined in the LDR (Reference 2).

In performing loading combinations, the dynamic loading components of the structural response are combined using the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) l l

method. Use of the SRSS methodology for torus attached piping has been pe rmi tted by the NRC as described in i

Reference 9.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.31 nutpsb l

Each of the listed governing load combinations for the torus attached piping as provided in Table 6-2.2-4 has been considered in the analysis methods described in Section 6-2.4.

l 1

l l

l BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.32 nutp_qh

1 l

l l

\

s e . : - ml-lmj-l - .gl. .g l .

i .: m -lm; . mi =!- .gl. 5l.

'e

. a ml= = ml= .gl 5 r j g . = = = =

ml= .j' i 5 i l fg 2 m o a ml = = 3 e og . .

{ g = = = = = = 5 i .g i 3 . ;; m .m mjm = 3 e .g .

I

. f . a =

.ml=

= = .jl .g a g . = m l - =l= = .fl e og l .

g . = -

= m = . .gi. I.g ,

t/3 p pg a a a = = m 3ls og .

r l g3

m = = = .El. .g i b 22 g . = upa. m =l = ja -l.5 ".3 .-

y C $ . : = ml = .m =l = = .jl.3 !.s 5 z tt M ""

. a ul= =

m) 1 : .jl.{ as l .g

@ g !! . : - min =

al 51 5 51 5 "I - - -gl g 5 1.g 7

<j c !! se s ji: - m - - 51 5 .g 1 5

= .gl .g f .g l .g 7 %

88 e . . . . .

l=

) *

C i . . = . . =

l= ,

.g l .5 : .g l .g V

.S

.a E

o m I; . - a m

. . = =

i .g!.5

. c_

5 i.s

,a - D . l.: l . ._

e e x _-

< o z e e=" - -

l- -l - -

I_ ._Iu-3: -

.gl.g: .g l ug i g , - -

l= l x o . - . . .l=. .=l :

2-l c a .s .. -

ml- -

u . . . =l.l= .l .gl log ;

.t :

al l-l -l . l l. i s

a . s :, ce r .e e

. g : - : 1: l:

5

" d ;: 2 g

g l-

. _ m a g 2 1 :

=s E

l t<

m

=

s. :5 0

i !l 8g E

l = g a r - - - e e a e g g 3 !E:$ $$ $ I E I I l .

=

Y l :-:

g.

22-g*=

E N.

BPC-01-300-6 l Revision 0 i

6-2. n nutggj)

O Table 6-2.2-2 (Concluded)

Notes:

1. Where a drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential is normally utilized as a load mitigator, an additional evaluation shall be performed without SRV loadings but assuming the loss of the pressure differential.

Service Level D limits shall apply for all structural elements of the piping system for this evaluation.

The analysis need only be accomplished to the extent that integrity up to and including the first pressure boundary isolation valve is demonstrated. If the normal plant operating condition does not employ a drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential, the listed service level assignments will be applicable. Since Hope Creek does not utilize a drywell-to-wetwell differential pressure, the listed service limits are applied.

2. Normal loads (N) consist of dead loads (D).

3. As an alternative, the 1.2 S h limit in equation 9 of NC-3652.2 may be replaced by 1.8 Sh, Provided that all other limits are satisfied. Fatigue requirements are applicable to all columns, with the exception of 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25.

4. Footnote 3 applies except that instead of using 1.8 Sh in equation 9 of NC-3652.2, 2.4 Sh is used.

5. Equation 10 of NC-3650 will be satisfied, except that fatigue requirements are not applicable to columns 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25 since pool swell loadings occur only once. In addition, if operability of an active component is required to ensure containment integrity, operability of that component must be demonstrated.

BPC-01-300-6 6-2.34 O

b h Revision 0 M

O'r V Table 6-2.2-3 BASIS FOR GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS -

TORUS ATTACHED PIPING EVENT GOVERNING CCMS A ICW COMBINATION LOAD DISCUSSION GOVEENING NUMBER (1) COMBINATICNS (2) ggggg SECONDARY STRESS BOUNDED g3g 1 8 2' BY EVENT CCMBINATION NUMBER 3.

2 C-la, A-3 N/A 3

C-lb, A-3 N/A N/A isA aGilNDED BY EVENT COMBINA-4,$ N/A TION :4 UMBER 15 AND SSA BOUNDED (3)

SY EVENT COMBINATICN NUMBER 11.

6,8,12 N/A g (3) 7,9, 13 N/A SO M ED BY N T C M INATICN g3y NUMBER 15.

ISA SOUNDED ST EVENT COMBINA-IC N/A TION NUMBER 15 AND SBA SOUNDED (3)

SY EVENT CCMBINATION NUMBER 11.

O C-2, C-3 FOR StA CNLY. ISA BOUNDED BY III 11 A-4 A-5 EVENT COMBINATION NUMBER 15.

\

PER SECTION i-4.i.i.i, FGR ADA, D-1. D-2 14 CHUGOING USED IN LIEU OF CO N/A g 4, g.g FOR SBA. CO !.CACS NOT SPECIFIED

.1, D-2 PER SECTION 1-4.1.7.1, FCR ISA, 15 A-4. A-5 CNUGGING USED IN LIEU CF CC yfg POR TRA. CO '.OA*S N0? ????????S BOWDED BY MNT CWINATION g3) 16,18,22 N/A NUMBER 24.

80WDED BY N CMINATICN g3g 19 N/A NUMBER 23.

17,20,23 N/A BOWDED BY MW CNINATICN g3y NUMBER 26.

21 N/A BC N ED BY M W C W INA M N g3y NUMBER 27 24 D-3, A-6 N/A N/A 25 0-3, A-6 N/A N/A FOR CO CNLY, CSA CHUGCINC BCUNCED BY EVENT CCM3INATICN 26 D-4, A-7 NUMBEk 14 (3)

D3A CHUCCING SOUNDED ST A-8 A-9 EVENT CC.SINATICN Nt'!*3ER l$ . I3 I 27 EVALUATE FCP SECCNDARY STRESS CNL*.*.

BPC-01-300-6

\ Revision 0 6-2.35 ggE

Table 6-2.2-3 (Concluded)

Notes: .

1. Event combination numbers refer to the numbers used in Table 6-2.2-2.

2. Governing load combinations are listed in Table 6-2,2-4.

3. The governing event combination contains more loads while the allowable limits are the same.

O BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.36 g -

I A \

Table 6-2.2-4 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING NUREG-0661 (2)

' ' I CODE LOAD COMBINATIONS (

COMBIN TION EQUATION NUMBER 8

A-1 P + DW + OL A-2 TE + THAM + TD + OBED 10(3) a-3(7) TE + THAM + TD + QABD + SSED 10(3)

A-4 TEL + THAM 1 + TD1 or TD2 + PCHUGo + QABo + SSEo 10(3)

A-5 10 (3)

TE1 + THAM 1 + TD1 or TD2 + CHUGD + CABD

SSED A-6 10(3)

TE1 + THAM 1 + TD3 + PSOo + QABo + SSEo A-7 I4) TE1 + THAM 1 + TD3 + COD + CBEp 10(3)

A-8 10 W TE1 + THAM 1 + TD3 + PCHUGD + QABD + SSED A-9 10(3)

TE1 + THAM 1 + TD3 + CHUGD + QABD + SSED 9

B-1 Po + DW + OBEg + OL 9

m B-2 Po + DW + QAB + QABg + CL f

C-la 9

(' ' ' ,

Po + DW + QAB + QAB I + OBE7 + OL C-lb Po + DW + QAB + QABr + SSEg + OL 9 C-2 Po+ DW + PCHUG + PCHUGI + QAB + QABy + OL 9 C-3 Po + DW + CHUG + CHUGy + QAB + QABy + OL 9 D-1 P + DE + PCHUG + PCHUGy + QAB + QABI + SSEI + OL 9 D-2 Po + DW + NG + NGr + QAB + QAB7 + SSEg + OL 9 D-3 9 Po & DW + PSO + PSO7 + VCLO + QAB + QAB7 + SSE + OL D-4 Pg + DW + CO + C07 + OBE + OL 9 T-1 ' l.25P + DW 8 BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0

(

s..

6-2.37 nutE9.h

O Table 6-2.2-4 (Concluded)

Notes:

1. See Section 6-2.2.1 for definition of individual loads.

2. Equations are defined in subsection NC-3650 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).

3. As an alternate, meet equation 11 of the ASME Code (Reference 6).

4. For the DBA condition, SRV discharge loads need not be combined with CO and chugging loads.

5. See Section 6-2.2.2 for combination of dynamic loads.

6. Only governing load combinations from Table 6-2.2-3 are considered here.

7. The larger of OBE or SSE is used.

8. Hydrostatic test condition. DW for all lines shall be with lines full of water at 70 0 F.

9. The larger of TDy, TD2, or TD3 is used in load combinations A-5 and A-6.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.38 nutgqh

I 6-2.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Hope Creek TAP analysis is based are discussed in Section 1-3.2. In ge ne ral , the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained ir, the ASME C]de,Section III, Division 1 up to and includi ng the 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 2 piping (Reference 6).

Tne corresponding se rvice level limits, allowable stresses, and essentiality classification are also consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and NUREG-0661. The torus attached piping is analy zed in accordance with the requirements for Class 2 p iping systems contained in Subsection NC of the Code. The k NUREG-0661 service level limits and corresponding ASME Q

Code allowable stresses'for essential and non-essential classifications have been applied in the piping system analyses. Tables 6-2,3-1, and 6-2.3-2 list the appli-cable ASME Code equations and stress limits for each of the governing load combinations for the essential and I

i non-essential piping systems, re spe ct ive ly . Fun ction-l-

ality requirements for the TAP as defined in NUREG-0161 l are addressed by meeting the ASME code stress allowable limits.

l l

i

!O!

l

/ BPC-01-3 0 0-6

'V Revision 0 6-2.39 l

l l

nutggh l

l - - - . -- __ - - _ _ - - - _

Table 6-2.3-1 APPLICABLE ASME CODE EQUATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR ESSENTIAL TORUS ATTACHED PIPING ALLOWABLE STRESS A

SERVICE STRESS VALUE GOMING LOAD EQUATION (ksi) COMBINATION TYPE LEVEL LIMIT NUMBER (1) NUMBER (2 )

PRIMARY 8 DESIGN 1.0 S h 15.0/15.7 A-1, T-1 PRIMARY 9 B 1.2 S 18.0/18.84 B-1, B-2 h

PRIMARY 9 B 1. 8 S.n 27.0/28.26C-la THROUGH C-3 PRIMARY 9 B 2.4 S h 36.0/37.6E D-1 THROUGH D-4 SECONDARY 10 B 1.0 S a 22.5/23.55 A-2 THROUGH A-9 PRIMARY AND 11 B S +S a h 37.5/39.25 ( 3)

SECONDARY

, Notes:

l l 1. Carbon steel (SA-106 GR. B)/ stainless steel (SA312 GR. TP 304L) .

2. Governing load combination numbers are listed in Table 6-2.2-4.

3. See ASME Code, Se:: tion III, Subsection NC, paragraph NC-3652.3 (Reference 6) for combination of loads.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.40 g

/D

( Table 6-2.3-2 3

N_-)

APPLICABLE ASME CODE EQUATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR NON-ESSENTIAL TORUS ATTACHED PIPING ASME CODE ALLOWABLE GOVERNING LOAD STRESS EQUATION SERVICE STRESS VALUE COMBINATION TYPE NUMBER LEVEL LIMIT (ksi) NUMBER (2)

(1)

PRIMARY 8 DESIGN 1.0 S h 15.0/15.7 A-1, T-1 PRIMARY 9 B 1.2 S h 18.0/18.84 B-1, B-2 PRIMARY 9 C 1.8 S h 27.0/28.26 C-la C-lb, C-2, C-3 PRIMARY 9 D 2.4 Sh 36.0/37.68 D-1, thru D-4 SECONDARY 10 B 1.0 S 3 22.5/23.55 A-2, thru A-9

! (

(N N 11 B h+ a *

(

N_ /

) i SECONDARY Notes:

1. Carbon steel (SA-106 GR. B)/ stainless steel (SA312 GR. TP 304L).

2. Governing load combination numbers are listed in Table 6-2.2-4.

3. See ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC, paragraph NC-3652.3 (Reference 6) for combination of loads.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.41 nutiqh 4

6-2.4 Me thods cf Analysis This section describes the me thods of analysis used to evaluate the large bore (4" in diwmeter and larger) piping and supporting systems attached to the torus both internally and externally, for the effects of the gove rning loads as described in Section 6-2. 2.

The methodology used to develop the structural models of the TAP s ys tems is presented in Section 6-2.4.1.

The methodology used to obtain results for the -

g ove rning load combinations and to evaluate the analysis results for comparison with the acceptance limi ts is discussed in Sections 6-2.4.2 through 6-2.4.5. The approach used to address f atigue ef fects is presented in Section 6-2.4.6.

A standard, commercially available piping analysis computer code, PISTAR, is used in performing the piping system analyses. The PISTAR computer code is based on the well known SAP computer code, and has been verified using ASME benchmark problems. The PISTAR prog ram perf o rms static, modal extraction, uniform response spectra, multiple response spectra, and dynamic time-history analyses of piping sys tem s . It also performs ASME Code piping evaluations.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.42 nutegj]

-4 6-2.4.1 Analytical Modeling b

The structural models used in the analysis of the large bore TAP systems fall into the following two categories: piping models which represent systems with only torus external piping, and piping models which includ e both to ru s internal and torus external piping .

Figures 6-2. 4-1 and 6-2. 4 -2 show representat ive torus internal and external piping system models.

Twenty-two separate piping system models are utilized to represent the twe nty-seven piping systems listed in Table 6-2.1-1. Five of the systems (P216A, P216D, P216B, P211C, and P211D) are not modeled since they are O P216C, P211A, and

() essentially identical to systems P211B which are modeled.

The piping systems are modeled as mul t i-deg ree of freedom, finite element systems consisting of stra ight and curved beam elements using a lumped mass fo rmul a-tion. A sufficient amount of detail is used to accur-ately represent the dyn arnic behav ior of the piping systems for the applied loads. Flexibility and stress intensification factors based on the ASME Code,Section III, Class 2 piping requirements are included in the model fo rmula tions. Ma s s , flexibility and stiffness (A BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.43 nutggh

,-r . - . , , , , , , .en, .v - - ~,- ,m .

.--w.------ - - - . --m,, -n-a,emq..,er,y,--~e,--,,,,-~--,--,,m-.w, rv,-,., ,, ,

properties, as appropriate, for piping components such as in-line valves, strainers, flanges, and expansion joints are also included in the piping system st.ructural models.

Toru s external piping suppo rts included in the models consist of snubbers, struts, spring hangers, and their supplemental steel. Snubbers are modeled as active in seismic and other dynamic load cases, while spring hange rs and stru ts are active in all load cases.

Spring hanger preloads, are modeled as act ive in the dead weight load case only. The effects of the mass of supports and connecting hardware attached to the piping are included in the piping models when the effective support mass attached to the piping exceeds 5% of the mass of both adjacent pipe spans.

Stiffness values at a piping support location are established conside ring the combined effects of the snubber or strut and its supplementary steel.

For piping models which includ e to ru s internal piping ,

the entire piping system including the internal supports connected to the toru s is modeled. The hydrodynamic mass acting on submerged portions of the piping and supports is also included in the models.

BPC-01-300-6 nevision 0 6-2,44 nut.e_c_h.

Boundary conditions for -the piping models at the torus

\v' consist of the torus penetration and attachment points ;

for the torus internal piping suppo rts . The local stiffness of the torus is included at these locations in the form of six degree-of-freedom linear springs for all analyses except the coupled torus motion analyses described in Section 6-2.4.4. These local stiffnesses are represented by the torus modal characteristics when perfo rming the cou pled toru s motion analyses of the piping systems.

Model boundary conditions at the torus external piping termination points consist of rigid anchors at physical restraint locations. Examples of physical restraints are structural anchors, equipment (pumps, turbines),

{O}

%J anchors at building penetrations, etc. Rigid stif fness values are specified in the models at these locations.

Branch lines are included in the piping models unless they meet uncoupling criteria based on the relat ive outside diame te rs (OD) of the branch line and main line. An OD ratio of 3 to 1 is used for this purpose. These criteria ensure that omission . of the branch line will not influence the behavior of the main line. The evaluation of the omitted branch lines has been considered in Section 6-3.0.

O B PC 3 0 0-6 6-2.45 Q/ Revision 0 ,

nutggh

e g

- eth C

. I$

ee y _; I .

2 i

28 x w 2 2

m c

m

$ 4 O

h v f". \y t ,o e Z

c Ig I IW m g O 4

~

S ee i

4 19 I N u 9 C !

E O 6 .

o xs aza i

~ e a- g 0 :D 9a I* - w s 3 O

& :D

~ a:

zo u

It -

A s M

3 g E 4* ~ t-_

" h a

w o s~- b il w o N

~

IS S g,.

[

~ o

' t.t3 4

~ L O

p.

=

2

e5 25 E o : :

We

0 3 &

j 2 3

< !c sg 2 3 I; 9$$o E o O h 2 8 j a55 5" h zg

g. a-e a o 212 s

@f5 a

2eo8- 8-

. I e liilQ*a y 0, <- ,-,,,,-

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.46 nutggh

J _

gh )

o g . nnbs i o s

p' o yAs.sS o N t,

S t

' P .oS a A

h"'

,a t' 8

C8 .oi I

,l w i o )

c ,

t a g 1 i - sa a g

5 ,

' 0 4

s *

. g a

s ~ '* s a

t

a 2

P

r. 8 P t A i S s

s

na 4

6 ,. ' ,S 5- o E 6 , it s N 1 .. a,, I 5,-

. E * - L a (

", H0 7

g s

l L

'. I 2 E (I T - D

m. - 4, O M

'a, d

' 2 t

l

- L Ho 6 A g R U M E

T S

S Y

o g

e r

u g U U

T C

i R y E F T T

A S NI

" M O E l

0 T K

llO O

C h H *+

,l' s

6e S

Y S

P c

0 2 aE L A S '

Ns T U io T4 e

R o sN n

E T M uT p T o tsu T N T 3 iA R R ti t E N a IO D 6 ocH Q n ax E G AI E d . E a ,, HE GN R

o. H N A T A l f

i C A H - S O O T 0, A

H .ER R I S R T

T G . E o g 1

A 1 - 6e a

O N . O OL N HI A p E H* A c GI RI eI CE P a cO ,

, 5 T

0 s D R Sp ~ GI I

AN No ER. uoo sN N

, 3, A1 i 4 4 N

E E

G L

&.eR jji}

n m Oe E o

t

. O , tO L) w so mL.*4 3gM r l

1 l

, ; i l : {

6-2.4.2 Methods of Analy sis fo r FSAR and Static To rus Displacement Load s The fo llowi ng loads, which , :e de sc ribed in Section 6-2.2.1, represent the FSAR and static torus displaceme nt loads fo r which the TAP systems are analy zed .

1. De ad We ig h t

2. Seismic

3. Pressure and Temperature

4. Operating

5. Static Torus Displacement The methods used to analyze the piping systems for the above loads are described as follows :

I

1. Cead Weight (DW) Loads A static analysis is performed fo r the un ifo rmly distributed and concentrated we ight loads, including insulation and pipe contents, applied to the TAP systems.

l B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.48 nut _ec_h

2. Seismic Ioads L :

a. OBE Inertia (OBEY) Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions ( N -S , E-W, and vertical) using the uniform response spectra method. Critical damping is in accordance with the FSAR. All modes up to 33 hertz are conside red in calcula ting the peak response ,

of the piping system. System frequencies above 33 hertz are also considered in the analyses to account for high-frequency rigid range response of the piping system. ,

b. OBE Displacement Loads: A static

( (OBED) analysis 'is pe rformed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions. Relat ive

. anchor displaceme nts are applied to the piping systems in accordance with the Hope Creek FSAR. Horizontal displacements at the torus penetration and reactor building slabs and walls are considered to be in-phase.

Ve rtica'l displacements at the penetration, building slabs and walls are considered to ce i out of phase.

4 f

O B PC-01-3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-2.49 nutggh t

i P

l. . , , _ . . ~ - - - . . _ _ ,,__ _ ..___ _ , _ _ _ _ _ , , _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

c.

SSE Inertia (SSE7) Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions using the uniform response spectra method. Critical damping is in accordance with the FSAR. All modes up to 33 hertz are considered in calculating the peak response of the piping systems. System frequencies above 33 hertz are also considered as described in Load Case 2a.

d. SSE Displacement (SSED) Loads: A static analysis is performed independently for each of the three orthogonal directions. The relative anchor displacements are applied in the horizontal and vertical directions as described in Load Case 2b.

The methodology used to combine modal responses and spatial components in the seismic analysis is defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92 (Reference 10). The individual modal responses are grouped by frequencies (within 10%) and the modal responses within each group are combined by absolute sum. The responses of each group are then combined by the SRSS method. The seismic analysis is performed independently for each of BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.50 nuteqh

the two horizontal directions and for the vertical direction. The resulting peak responses obtained for each of the three directions are combined by the SRSS method.

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads

a. Pressure Loads: The effects of maximum operating pressure ( and design pressure (P) are evaluated util. the techniques described in subsection NC-J650 of the ASME Code,Section III (Reference 6).

i b. Temperature Loads: A static thermal expan-s sion analysis is performed for the piping temperature cases TE and TE 1 using the temperatures discussed in Section 6-2.2.1. A static analysis is performed for anchor movement loads (THAM and THAMy) at the torus supports and penetrations, as described in l

Section 6-2.2.1.

_( BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.51 nutagh

4. Ope ra ting (OL) Loads Ope ra t ing loads as desc ribed in Section 6-2.2.1 are included in the TAP system analyses.

5. Static Torus Displacement Loads The static displacements of the suppression c hamber at the TAP penetration locations due to normal (TD) and accident (TDi, TD2, TD 3 ) condition torus pressures and torus dead we igh t are applied to each piping system as an applied displacement load case.

O B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.52 nutp_qh

6-2.4.3 Methods of Analysis for Hydrodynamic Loads Portions of TAP systems internal to the torus are subjected to hydrodynamic drag loads as a result of SRV discharge and LOCA events, as discussed in Section 6-2.2.1. The methods used to analyze the piping for these loads are described as follows:

6. Safety Relief Valve Discharge (OAB) Loads

a. Water Jet Impingement Loads: Water jet pres-sure loadings are evaluated by multiplying the drag pressures by the appropriate submerged piping projected areas and

\s converting them to piping nodal forces. An equivalent static analysis is performed by multiplying the forces by a value of 2.0, which is the maximum dynamic load factor (DLP) for the rectangular pulse loading.

b. Air Bubble Drag Loads: An equivalent static analysis of the piping systems is performed to evaluate the acceleration drag and standard drag forces imparted to the submerged portions of piping. The applied equivalent static loads include a DLF of 3.0 BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.53 nutgq.h

if the natural frequency of the internal structure is below 20 hz and 2.0 if the natural frequency is above 20 hz. The DLF values have been established based on test results as discussed in Section 1-4.2.4.

7. Vent Clearing (VCLO) Loads

a. LOC A Wa ter Je t Impingement Loads : An equiva-lent static analysis method is used to apply the LOCA jet loads to subme rged portions of the piping models. For a g iven jet loading t ime-h is to ry , the peak DLF for the s truc ture within the load frequency range (1 to 50 hertz) is determined. The equivalent static load applied to each segment of piping is equal to the product of the peak jet load

- section force and the appropriate DLF.

b. LOCA Air Bubble Drag to ads : An equivalent static analysis is pe r f o rmed to evaluate the acceleration drag and standard drag fo rces imparted to the submerged portions of the p iping . The loading profiles fo r LOCA air bubble loads may be enveloped by a rectang ula r pulse loadi ng . Acco rdi ng ly , a B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.54 nut _ech_

DLF value of 2.0 is applied in performing the O

!bj equivalent static analyses.

As described in Section 6-2. 4. 5 the vent clearir g (VCLO) loading is bounded by other loadings. The VCLO loads have been evaluated only for a typical piping system used to demonstrate that the load is enveloped by other loads.

]

8. Pool Swell (PSO) Loads The me thod of equivalent static loads is used in analyzing the piping systems for the effects of pool swe ll loads. The applied equivalent static C\

! piping section forces are equal to the peak section forces multiplied by their correspcnding DLF's. These section forces are converted into nodal forces for application to the piping models.

a. Impact and Drag Loads: Horizontal torus i internal piping above the elevation of the downcomers is subjected to pool swell impact l The impact and drag pressure and drag loads.

l transients are distributed uniformly over the a f f ected piping surf ace. The load is applied l- in the upward direction most critical to the l.

I l

l l (A)

\s B PC 3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-2.55 nutggh

---.y,,.,_y -,y.,,,,n.,.--y-..-_y -

.7.,,-------..w,-----... .. . , , - , . - - - - , . - - -

piping within the specified load directional range. The impact plus drag loading tran-sient consists of a sharp triangula r impuls e followed by a rectangular drag loading. The combined DLF value for this transient is 1.7.

In some cases where the impact load component does not exist, a DLF of 2.0 is utilized to account for the drag load component.

b. Froth Impingeme nt Ioads: The pool swe 11 froth loading time-history is a rec ca ng ula r pulse which has a maximum DLF value of 2.0.

Froth imping ement loads are applied to piping located within t ". e suppression chambe r , as defined in Section 1-4.1.4.3.

c. Pool Fa llback Ioads: Fo llowi ng the pool swell transient, the pool water falls back to i

l its orig i nal level, creating drag loads on piping ins ide the torus. The fallback l

loadi ng is a triangular pulse and is applied statically to the piping using a DLP value of

, 1.25.

l i

As desc ribed in Section 6-2.4.5 the pool swe ll (PSO) loading is bounded by other loadings.

I B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.56 nut.e_Qh.

k

N

9. Condensation oscillation (CO) Loads t'

As discussed in Section 6-2.2.1, the CO drag force is composed of both velocity and acceleration drag components. The drag forces are determined based on the summation of 50 harmonic loading functions.

A detailed description of the harmonic loading functions as well as the procedures used in applying the loads are discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.

An equivalent static analysis method is applied utilizing peak structural dynamic load factors.

k) Once the amplitudes of the drag forces for a given piping system have- been determined, they are conve rted to the piping coordinate system and applied as piping nodal forces.

For selected piping systems, in order to reduce l

conse rvatisms in the analysis, a dynamic time-history analysis is pe rfo rmed as fo llows . Given l

the harmonic nodal force time-histories for l

I' acceleration and standard drag as we ll as the results of a piping mode-frequency analysis for each p iping system, a steady-state respo nse l-

'l B PC-01-3 0 0-6

\

Revision 0 6-2.57 nutgrJ)

4 calculation is carried out us ing the modal superposition method.

The toru s FSI effects are also considered in performing the CO load analyses.

10. Chugging Loads

a. Pr e-Chug (PCHUG) Loads: As described in Section 6-2.2.1, the pre-chug load definition is a sing le hannonic ve loc ity and accelera-tion drag loading. The defined loading ampl i tud e is 2 psi, and the loading frequency is in the 6.9 to 9.5 hertz range.

In reviewi ng the pre-chug loading am pli tude s and frequencies, it has been determined that the effects of this loading are bounded by pos t-c hug loads (Case 10b). Therefore the pos t-chug loading has been used in the analyses in lieu of pre-chug.

b. Po s t-Ch ug (CHUG) Loads: The pos t-chug load-ing definition is similar to that for CO loads. The piping analysis procedures fo r pos t-c hug loads are the same as for the CO loads desc ribed above.

B PC 3 0 0 -6 Revision 0 6-2.58 nut.e_qh

6-2.4.4 Methods of Analysis for Tc rus Motion Ioads

11. Torus Motion Loads Toru s motion loads, as discussed in Section 6-2.2.1, are cons idered for the analysis of all large bore to ru s attached piping systems. This section describes the methods of analysis for the following torus motion load cases:

a. SRV Torus Motion (OABy, QABD I

c. Condensation Osc illation Torus Motion (Co y, COD I

e. Post-Chug Torus Motion (CHUGy, CHUGD I As described in Section 6-2.4.3, the effects of p re-chug loadings are bounded by po s t-chug loads. Therefore, analyses are not performed for the pre-chug torus mo tion loads , (Case lid).

As described in Section 6-2.4.5, the pool swell toru s mo tion (PSOy , PS OD ) loading is bounded by other loadings. Accordingly, no analyses are pe rfo rmed for pool swell torus motion loads, (Case lib).

B PC-01-3 0 0-6 V Revision 0 6-2.59 nutECh

Analyses performed for condensation oscillation and post-chug torus motion loads include the summation of fifty harmonic loadings using a random phasing technique as discussed in Section 1-4.1.7.1.

The methods of analysis for the above torus motion load cases are described in the following paragraphs.

Coupling Analysis The conventional method for performing dynamic analyses of piping systems attached to and excited by structures such as containment vessels is to perform independent uncoupled dynamic analyses of the containment and of the supported piping. This method of analysis is termed an uncoupled analysis because the dynamic models of the containment vessel and the piping are never directly coupled or combined.

Conventional uncoupled analyses tend to over-estimate the response of the supported piping.

This overestimation of piping response may be corrected by performing a coupled analysis in BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.60 nut.e_qh

/O which a single dynamic model including both the containment (torus) and the piping is used.

Howeve r, a coupled analysis of this type is not practical for the majority of the torus attached p iping systems. For these systems, a computer ,

I prog ram based on CMDOF (Reference 11) has been developed which is used to incorpo rate the coupling effects into the results of the uncoupled torus and piping analyses.

Since the cou pling program is fo rmula ted in the time domain, it is not directly applicable for LOCA-related loads such as CO and chugging, which are defined in the frequency domain. It is also impractical for performing analyses for loads with a wide range of frequencies or a la rge number of separate load cases that must be conside red such as SRV discharge loads.

4 Transfer Function Approach In order to f acilitate application of the coupling methods for CO, chugging, and SRV loads, a transfer function approach is utilized in con-junction with the coupling program. This method provides for determination of the critical coupled BPC-01-3 0 0-6

'd Revision 0 6-2.61 nutggb

respo nse frequencies of the piping systems. The critical piping system frequencies are then utilized to select loading frequencies for the analyses which will yield the maximum system response.

The basic steps involved in pe rfo rming the coupled / transfer function TAP analysis are shown in the flow chart provided in Figure 6-2.4-3.

O l

r i

B PC-01-3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-2.62 nutp_qh

(

STARDYNE PISTAR TORUS PIPING MODEL MODEL o o

!!ODAL PROPERTIES, MODAI, WHITE NOISE RESPONSE PROPERTIES TIME-HISTORY

~

COUPLING PROGRAM o

COUPLED PIPING

RESPONSE

('

C - TRANSFER RESPONSE TO n

FREQUENCY DOMAIN

- COMPUTE TRANSFER FUNCTION

- DETERMINE CRITICAL PIPING RESPONSE FREQUENCIES

- SELECT TORUS MOTION CRITICAL LOADING FREQUENCIES

- COMPUTE PIPING RESPONSES AT CRITICAL LOAD FREQUENCIES ,

USING TRANSFER FUNCTIONS Y

PERFORM PIPING STRESS EVALUATION Figure 6-2.4- 3 TAP COUPLED / TRANSFER FUNCTION ANALYSIS PROCEDURE BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.63 nutggh

6-2.4.5 Enveloping of toading Combinations A-6 and D-3 O

As discussed in Sections 6-2.4.3 and 6-2.4.4, specific analyses fo r selected loadings are not pe rfo rmed for the TAP systems since they are bounded by, other load i ng s . On this basis, Ioading Combinations A-6 and D-3 which contain pool swell and vent clearing loads are eliminated from the TAP a nalys is of each system.

De ta ils of the loading combination enveloping are described in the tollowing parag raphs.

As can be seen by inspection of Table 6-2.2-4, Ioad Combination A-6 is s imila r to T.c ad Combination A-5 except that A-6 contains pool swell torus motion d isplaceme nt loads in place of the chugging (PSOD) torus motion displacement loads (CHUG D) in A-5. In addition, the SRV discharge to ru s motion displacement loads (OABD) for Ioad Combination A-5 correspond to a mult ipl e SRV actuation, while those for Lo ad Combination A-6 correspond to a single SRV actuation.

The individual displacements for each torus motion load case are shown in Table 6-2.4-1.

Combining the displaceme nts shown in Table 6-2.4-1 in accordance with Load Combinations A-5 and A-6 from Table 6-2.2-4 reveals that the displacements fo r lo ad B PC 3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-2.64 nut.e_qh

Combination A-5 envelope those of Ioad Combination A-6. These results are shown in Table 6-2.4-2.

Th ere fo re the displacement offacts due to load l

Combination A-5 are evaluated for each TAP system in lieu of those for Load Combination A-6.

A similar conclusion can be drawn by comparing Load Combinations D-2 and D-3. These combinations are similar except that Combination D-2 includes chugging hyd rodyn amic and toru s motion loads (CHUG and CHUGy) whereas D-3 includes hydrodynamic and torus motion loads associated with pool swe ll (PSO, VCLO, and PSoy ). Also, the SRV discha rge loads (QAB and QABy) included in the combinations relate to different kj discharge conditions (i.e., single versus multiple SRV discharge).

The displaceme nt effects .of Ioad Combinations D-2 envelop those of Load Combination D-3 as shown in Tables 6-2.4-1 and 6-2.4-2. The inertia effects of torus motion acceleration loads in D-2 are also considered to bound those due to Load Combination D-3. This can be demonstrated by examining the characteristics of the pool swe ll (PSOy), chugging (CHUGy), and SRV discharge (QABI) loadings. The pool swell torus shell loading transient is a low frequency Ch k BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.65 nutggb

(2.5 Hz) single pulse loading . Chuggi ng is a harmonic loading with loading components throughout a frequency range of 0 to 50 Hz. SRV discharge loads are sinusoidal in nature and have maximum fraquencies of 11.0 Hz and 15.0 Hz for the DBA single and IB A/ SBA multiple valve dischargo cases, respec t ively.

Evaluation of piping analysis results shows that the TAP response due to torus motion loadings is driven by the dominant suppression chambe r frequency of 16.1 Hz. Since the pool swell and single SRV discharge loading frequencies are removed from the dominant suppression chamber frequency while the multiple SRV discharge and enugging load frequencies are close to or span the dominant suppression chamber frequency, the dynamic amplification ef fects of chugging plus multiple SRV d ischa rge are more severe than those of a single S RV discharge plus pool swe ll. The inertia effects of Load Combination D-2, therefore, envelop those of Load Combination D-3.

In order to verify that the hyd rodynamic loading components contained in Load Combifiation D-2 envelop those of Ioad Combination D-3, a typical piping system (P 212A) is analyzed by applying hydrodynamic loads associated with each combination. The SRV discharge hydrodynamic loads are conservatively assumed to be the B PC 3 00 -6 Revision 0 6-2.66 nutp_qh L

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

same fo r both combinations. Therefo re , only the j remaining hydrodynamic loads are ' included in the load combination comparisons. The results of the two combination analyses, as shown in Table 6-2. 4 -3, demonstrate that the hyd rodynamic loads contained in ;

Combination D-2 significantly bound those in Load Combination D-3. Thus it is demonstrated that both the hydrodynamic and the - inertial torus motion loads in Combination D-2 bound similar loads contained in D-3.

Based on the above conclusions, Loading Combinations A-5 and D-2 a re evaluated for each TAP system in lieu of combinations A-6 and D-3.

O i 1

i 1

t B PC-01-3 0 0 -6

\ 6-2.67 Revision 0 O

$$ Table 6-2.4-1

i?

O g INDIVIDUAL TORUS MOTION LOAD DISPLACEMENTS oe Dg FOR LOADING COMBINATIONS A-5 AND A-6

?

m SINGLE MULTIPLE POST- DBA POOL ITEM SRV SRV PRE-CilUG CHUG CO SWELL DISCIIARGE DISCIIARGE BDC 0.1769 0.2621 0.0101 0.0486 0.1732 0.0776 cn 0 OUTSIDE TORUS SilELL 45 ABOVE 0.1548 0.2319 0.0064 0.0497 0.2060 0 0436

$ RESULTANT BDC DISPLACEMENTS AT QUARTER BAY OUTSIDE (IN.) EQUATOR 0.1225 0.1758 0.0096 0.0377 0.1540 0.0980 OUTSIDE 450 ABOVE 0.0725 0.1069 0.0016 0.0364 0.1230 0.0142 EQUATOR Note:

1. Results taken from analysis documented in Section 3-2.4.

3 C

IG O

i7 9.

9 e

Table 6-2.4-2 COMBINED TORUS MOTION DISPLACEMENTS FOR LOADING COMBINATIONS A-5, A-6 __

D-2 AND D-3 l l

MULTIPLE SINGLE ITEM SRV + SRV +

CHUGGING (1) POOL SWELL BDC 0.27 0.19 OUTSIDE TORUS SHELL B RESULTANT

( DISPLACEMENTS AT QUARTER BAY OUTSIDE O*18 0*16 (IN.) EQUATOR OUTSIDE 450 ABOVE 0.11 0.07 EQUATOR Note:

I 1. Displacements combined by SRSS.

l O

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.69 0 h

Table 6-2.4-3 T'ZPICAL LINE ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS CONTAINED IN COMBINATIONS D-2 AND D-3 LINE P212A COMPONENT STRESS (ksi)

(INTERNAL)

LOCATION PSO + VCLO CHUG (W/FSI)

(L.C. D-3) (L.C. D-2)

PENETRATION NOZZLE 1.82 6.32 ELBOW 2.07 6.33 PIPING SEGMENT 1.86 5.99 MID-SPAN PIPING STRUT 1.64 2.06 BPC-01-300-6 6-2.70 e

Revision 0 nutggh

_ ___. . . . _. _ . ~ . . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ . -

4 6-2.4.6 Fatigue Evaluation

! Section 4.3.3.2 of NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) requires 1

that a fatigue evaluation of the torus attached piping h

be pe rfo rmed for all loading conditions except pool swell.

t i The Ma rk I Owners Group prepared and submitted a generic f atigue evaluation report (Reference 7) to the NRC on November 30, 1982. The report addressed f atigue cn a generic basis using actual piping analysis results ,

from essentially all Ma rk I plants. The resulting i cumulat ive usage factors are below 0.5, demonstrating i that further plant unique f atig ue evaluations are not warranted. Use of the generic f atigue evaluation approach has been approved as described in Re ference 8.

Therefore, the Hope Creek TAP is adequate for f atigue based on this generic evaluation.

l l

\

B PC-01-3 00-6 Revision 0 6-2.71 f

[

6-2.5 Analysis Results and Conclusicns The analytical results and conclusions for the large bare TAP evaluation are summarized in this section.

The maximum piping stresses resulting from governing load combinations for locations on each large bore TAP line are presented in Table 6-2.5-1. The maximum stresses for each Service Level are listed along with the associated ASME Code equations.

Fatigue evaluations for the TAP lines have been performed generically as described in Section 6-2.4-6.

The Hope Creek torus attached piping is qualified for fatigue effects based on this generic evaluation.

The analysis results show that the design of the large bore torus attached piping systems is adequate for the loads, load combinations and acceptance criteria limits specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) and in the PUAAG l

(Reference 5).

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-2.72 nut _ech

Table 6-2.5-1 ANALYSIS RESULTO FOR LARGE BORE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING STRESS PENETRATICN MS su NUMBER I1I DESIGN LEVEL B(2) LEVEL C(2) LEVEL 0(2) SECONDARY I' P201 5.92 10.90 11.14 11.30 15.34 P202 3.56 9.50 10.64 13.62 6.00 P203 5.26 18.00 24.51 24.52 9.50 P204 1.91 15.30 19.94 26.97 22.25 P207 9.41 13.45 16.22 17.34 12.77 P208 2.21 18.00 21.00 36.00 10.30 P209 4.64 15.24 30.16 I3I 34.32 11.40 P211A 3.56 13.44 15.90 16.22 19.35 P211B 3.33 15.77 20.00 20.00 21.08 P 21.! C 3.33 15.?? 20.00 20.00 21.03 P2113 3.56 15.44 15.90 16.22 19.35 P212A 6.19 14.66 15.27 15.32 13.11 P2128 5.37 17.33 23.56 27.42 10.81 (4)

P213A 6.47 13.00 25.61 25.32 23.31 P213B 8.61 16.65 17.50 17.32 25.24 P214A 4.00 8.39 9.92 10.70 35.95 "I N P214B 2.73 4.92 6.38 6.39 20.90 P216A 2.41 10.55 11.67 15.06 3.64 l v P216B 2.41 10.35 11.67 15.06 3.64 P216C 2.41 10.55 11.67 15.06 3.64 P2160 2.41 10.55 11.67 15.06 3.64 P217A 14.56 16.75 17.00 13.20 34.40 P217B 13.34 16.30 20.40 20.40 19.03 P219 3.04 14.30 16.94 16.99 11.26 i

P220 2.40 16.42 17.00 17.20 15.30 P222 3.75 11.70 13.36 19.33 16.51 P223 1.36 7.69 3.09 3.23 5.20 1

Notes:

1. ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3650, Equation 8.

2. ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3650, Equation 9.

i

3. ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3650, Equation 10.

4. ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3650, Equation ll.

5. Non-essential piping system-level D allowable.

O BPC-01-300-6 6-2.73

( Revision 0 s

nutp_qll

i 6-3.0 SMALL BORE PIPING ,

An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) requirements which affect the des ig n adequacy of the Hope Creek small bore piping (SBP) is presented in the following sections. The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in volume 1.

The components of the SBP which are examined are described in Section 6-3.1. The loads and load com-binations for which the SBP are evaluated are described and presented in Section 6-3.2. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are 4

I discussed and presented in Section 6-3.3. The analysis methodologies used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the SBP are discussed in Section 6-3.4. The analysis results and conclusions are presented in Section 6-3. 5.

B PC-01-3 00 -6 6-3.1 Revision 0 nutggb

6-3.1 Component Description The SBP lines for the Hope Creek plant unique analysis (PUA) consist of the following configurations.

1. Cantilevered lines

2. Torus attached external SBP lines

3. Torus attached internal SBP lines.

4. Other small bore lines attached to large bore TAP of the 139 small bore lines evaluated, approximately 29 lines are cantilevered from the torus or from large bore TAP systems. These cantilevered lines function as vents, drains, and test lines.

Seventeen small bore lines are attached directly to the O

torus. These small bore internal and external TAP lines include torus instrument lines and vacuum breaker test lines. The lines range in size from 1" to 2" diameter.

I Ninety-three small bore lines are attached to large bore torus attached piping. These branch lines are typically 1" to 2" in diameter and may be several feet in length. The branch systems norJnally include one or BPC-01-300-6 6-3.2 Revision 0 nutggh

l -

3 1: ,

4 two isolation valves and terminate at anchors, equipment, or other large bore lines.

I i

i I i ,

! l s-i i

1 4

4 i

i l

I. !

4 i

+ 5 i'

9 I

f i,

t i

i v

h i !

l i i

^

! t i i i:

t t I

i !

4 i

i i i i

i 1

t.

t 1

4-

- BPC-01-300-6 6-3.3 I Revision 0

}-

b ,-ve.wv-w e , -~ , - _

6-3.2 Loads and Load Combinations )

The loads for which the Hope Creek SBP is designed are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants. The methodology used to develop plant unique loads for each load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Segtion 1-4.0. The results of applying the method-ology to develop specific values for each of the controlling loads which act on the SBP are discussed and presented in Section 6-3.2.1.

Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3, the governing load combinations which affect the SBP are formulated. The load combinations are ,

discussed and presented in Section 6-3.2.2.

BPC-01-300-6 6-3.4 Revision 0 nutech

6-3.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the SBP are the same as the large bore TAP loads defined in Section 6-2.2.1 except as described below. All large bore TAP loads except Load Case 4 (Operating Loads) and Load Cases 6, 7, 9, and 10 (LOCA and SRV discharge submerged structure hydro-dynamic loads) are applied in the SBP analyses.

Torus response due to LOCA-induced and SRV discharge-induced loadings directly af fect the small bore piping attached to the torus. These loads also indirectly affect small bore pining attached to large bore TAP lines.

O Not all of the loads defined in NUREG-0661 need to be evaluated, since some are enveloped by others or have a negligible effect on the piping. Only those loads which maximize the piping resprnse and lead to controlling stresses are examined and discussed. These loads are referred to as governing loads in subsequent discussions.

BPC-01-300-6 6-3.5 Revision 0 nutggb

- - - - i

6-3.2.2 f. cad Combinations The loads for which the SBP are evaluated are presented in Section 6-3.2.1. The general NUREG-0661 criteria for g rouping these loads into load combinations are discussed in Sections 1-3. 2 and 1-4. 3.

Load combinations specified for the SBP are the same as those specified f sr the la rge bore TAP in Table 6-2.2-4. The hyd rc -test load combination (T -1 ) is not evaluated since these loadings have a negligible ef fect on the small bore p ipi ng . Also, as discussed in Section 6-2.4.5, load combinations A-6 and D-3 have not been evaluated since they are enveloped by other combinations. The remaining load combinations listed in Table 6-2.2-4 h ave been conside red in the SBP analytical methods described in Section 6-3.4.

l l

i B PC-01-3 00-6 6-3.6 Revision 0 nut.e_ql)

. = _ _ . . _ .. .. . _ . - . - _ -. . - - _.

6-3.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria

, The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Hopa Creek SBP analysis is based are discussed in Volume 1. The acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in the ASME Code,Section III, Division 1, 1977 Summer Addenda for Class 2 piping (Reference 6).

The corresponding service level limits and allowable stresses are also consistent with the requirements of the PUAAG (Reference 5) and the ASME Code (Reference 6).

J l

l l

l I

l BPC-01-300-6 6-3.7 Revision 0 f

nutggb L

6-3. 4 Methods of Analysis The gove rning load combinations for which the Hope Creek SBP is evaluated are discussed in Section 6-3.2.2. The methodology used to evaluate the SBP for the effects of these loads is described in the following parag raphs.

The SBP s ystems are evaluated for the effects of the loads discussed in Section 6-3.2.1 using several different me thods , depending on the type of system conf iguration . A description of the methods of analysis used for each type of configuration follows,

a. Cantilevered Test Lines and Vents: A beam model of the cantileveced system is used to calculate the natural frequency using standard beam formula-tions. A dynamic load factor is calculated based l

upon the calculated system natural frequency and the predominant loadi ng frequency. An equivalent static analysis is performed using the loads and load combinations defined in Sections 6-3.2.1 and 6-3.2.2.

b. Small Bore Toru s Attached Lines: A multiple response spectra or time-history dynamic analysis B PC 3 0 0- 6 6-3.8 Revision 0 nut.e._c_h

m is pe rfo rmed for the SBP torus attached lines using the loads and load combinations defined in Sections 6-3. 2.1 and 6-3. 2. 2.

The type.of dynamic analysis used for a particular TAP line is initially based upon the piping system natural frequencies. If system frequencies are near the dominant suppression chamber and load frequency, a time-history analysis is pe r fo rmed .

If system frequencies are outside of this loading frequency range, a multiple response spectra analysis is performed.

c. Other Small Bore Lines Attached to La rge Bore g-TAP: Initially, a number of the SBP branch lines are excluded from specific evaluations for LOCA and SRV discharge induced loadings since the large r bore piping branch connection locations are far removed from the suppression chamber and as a result stresses are significantly below allow-ables. Lines which are not excluded on this basis are specifically evaluated using the multiple response spectra analysis technique.

k

k. BPC-01-300-6 6-3.9 Revision 0

@k ,

The treatment of each load in each load category identified in Section 6-3.2.1 is discussed in the following paragraphs.

1. Dead Weight (DW) Loads A static analysis is performed for the uniformly distributed and concentrated weight loads including the weight of water contained inside the small bore piping.

2. Seismic Loads

a. OBE Inertia (OBEr) Loads: A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the horizontal and vertical directions using the l uniform response spectra method.

b. OBE Displacement (OBED) Loads: A static analysis is performed for the horizontal and vertical OBE displacements as defined in the FSAR.

c. SSE Inertia (SSEy) Loads : A dynamic analysis is performed independently for each of the BPC-01-300-6 6-3.10 Revision 0 nutggh

s horizontal and vertical directions using the uniform response spectra method.

d. SSE Displacement (SSED ) Loads: A static analysis is performed for the horizontal and vertical SSE displacements as defined in the FSAR.

3. Pressure and Temperature Loads

a. Pressure (P,g P) Loads: The effects of these loads on the SBP are evaluated by using the ASME Code piping equations. The design pressure is conservatively applied to the SBP analysis,

b. Temperature (TE, TE1) Loads: A static thermal expansion analysis is performed with the load applied uniformly to the small bore piping.

l l-l An additional static analysis is performed l

for the effects of thermal anchor movements at the attachment of the SBP to the sup-pression chamber for normal operating and accident conditions.

BPC-01-300-6 6-3.11 Revision 0

4. Safety Relief Valve Discharge (QAB y, QABD) Loads A dynamic time-history analysis or multiple response spectra analysis is performed for the loads defined in Section 6-3.2.1.

5. Pool Swell (PSO y, PSO D ) Loads As discussed in Section 6-2.4.5, the pool swell load is bounded by other loads. Accordingly, no analysis of the SBP is performed for this load.

6. Condensation Oscillation (C0 7, COD) L ads O

A dynamic time-history analysis or multiple response spectra analysis is performed for the loads defined in Section 6-3.2.1.

7. Chugging Loads

a. Pre-Chug (PCHUG 7, Loads: As KHUGD) discussed in Section 6-2.4.3, pre-chug loads are bounded by post-chug loads (Case 7b).

Therefore, no analysis is performed for pre-chug loads.

BPC-01-300-6 6-3.12 Revision 0 nut.ech

1 4

[

I 2

I !

b. Post-Chug (CHUGI , CHUGD) Loads: The post- (

chug loading definition is similar to that i

j. for CO loads. The SBP analysis procedures for post-chug loads are the same as for the !

l

[

t CO loads described above. I r

A l

i 1 i i

f i 4 l .

l i \

t l

1 I

I' i

f

. e 4

I l

l t

[

t l

[

I l

r r

I t

f I

l

- BPC-01-300-6 6-3.13 l

. Revision 0 !

6-3.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions The component descriptions, loads and load combina-tions, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Hope Creek SBP are presented and discussed in the preceding sections. The results from the evaluation of the SBP are presented in the following paragraphs.

Table 6-3.5-1 shows maximum stresses for representative torus attached, branch, and cantilever SBP lines resulting from application of ASME Code piping equations for the controlling load combinations.

In summary, the results show that the small bore piping is adequate for the loads, load combinations, and acceptance criteria specified in NUREG-0661 (Reference

1) and the PUAAG (Reference 5).

BPC-01-300-6 6-3.14 Revision 0 nut.eSh

I (D T.,1e e.>.,.1 REPRESENTATIVE SMALL BORE PIPING STRFSSES FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS

}

DESIGN ( } LEVEL B LEVEL C LEVEL D SECONDARY SYSTEM ALLOWABLE STRESS (ksi)

TYPE 15.00 18.00 27.00 36.00 22.50 MAXIMUM STRESS (ksi)

CANTILEVER 0.70 5.20 15.20 23.60 0.00 TORUS ATTACHED 1.97 10.41 14.51 14.58 9.25 PIPING 1.99 12.50 12.65 12.67 20.87 g

Notes:

1. ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3650, Equation 8.

2. ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3650, Equation 9.

3. ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC-3650, Equation 10.

Revision 6-3.15 O h

m '

6-4.0 PIPING SUPPORTS An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) requirements which affect the design adequacy of the

. Hope Creek pipirs supports is presented in the following sections. The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in Volume 1.

The piping supports which are examined are described in Section 6-4.1. The loads and load combinations for which the piping supports are evaluated are described and presented in Section 6-4.2. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared and the analysis methodologies used to evaluate the effects of d the loads and load combinations on the piping supports are discussed in Section 6-4.3. The a7alysis results and conclusions are presented in Section 6-4.4.

{

I

, a 1G

! B PC-01-3 0 0-6 6-4.1

-Revision 0 nu

1 6-4.1 Component Description External TAP lines are supported by spring hangers, rigid struts, guides, and snubbers attached to reactor building walls or slabs using frames and base plates, or directly to the main structural steel in the reactor building. Figures 6-2.1-4 and 6-2.1-5 show typical TAP supports outside the suppression chamber.

Torus internal piping is generally supported by rigid struts attached directly to the torus shell or ring girders, as shown in Figure 6-2.1-6.

O BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-4.2 O

g

6-4.2 toads and Ioad Combinations The loads fo r which the Hope Creek TAP supports are des ig ned are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants, The methodology used to develop plant unique TAP loads for each load ' defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed in Volume 1.

The loads acting on the piping supports outs ide the suppression chamber are cacced by the response of the piping systems to the loads defined in Sections 6-2.2.1 and 6-3.2.1. Piping supports inside the suppression chamber experience these same loads, with the addition f.-

of hyd rodyn amic impact and drag loads as defined in Section 6-2.2.1.

Using the event combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Volume 1, the gove rning load combinations which dffect the piping supports are formulated. Table 6-4.2-1 presents the ,

gove rning load combinations. Ioads on the piping supports resulting from dynamic events have been combined using the SRSS method in accordance with Reference 9.

i 1 )

V BPC-01-300-6 6-4.3 Revision 0 nutggh

l Table 6-4.2-1 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS - PIPING SUPPORTS LOAD COMBINATION LOAD COMBINATION (5)

NUMBER A-1 DWT+0L B-1 DW+0BE +0L 7

B-2 DW+QAB+QAB7 +OL B-3 I OBE7 +0BED+ + +E#+E+

B-4 (4 QAB +QAB7+DW+TE+ THAM +TD +0L C-1 I1} DW+QAB+QAB y +SSE 7 +0L C-2 DW+QAB+QAB7+ CHUG + CHUG 7

+0L C-3 (2)I4I QAB+QAB7+ CHUG + CHUG 7 +DW+TE y + THAM 1 +E1+0L C-4 IIII II4) QAB+QABy +SSE7+SSE D 1 1 1 D-1 DW+QAB+QABy +SSE7+ CHUG +CHUO 7

+0L D-2 (1) (2) W QAB+QAB +SSE 6 7 7 +SSE D +" I+DW+TE y +WM7 +Et D-3 DW+CO+C0 7

+0BE7 +0L D-4 CO+CO +0BE +0BE + +

7 7 D 1+ 1+ 1 D-5 DW+QAB+QAB 7

+SSE7 vPSO+PSO7 +VCLO+0L D-6 DW+QAB+0AB 7 +SSE7+SSE D 07 MO+E +EM y +Ey+0L y

Notes:

1. Use OBE or SSE whichever is greater.

2. Use TD y whichever is the greatest value.

or TD2 or TD3

3. Applicable to non-water lines only (hydrotest load).

4. The most severe combination of static loads must be considered.

5. See Section 6-2.2.2 for combination of dynamic loads.

O BPC-0 -300-6 6-4.4 g{

~ ._ .-. _ _ .

I j 6-4.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria kJ Pipe supports are evaluated using standard linear elastic structural analysis methods, which include hand calculations and standard structural analysis computer programs. The resultant component forces and/or stresses are compared to their respective allowable values.

Design procedures used in the analy3is of component supports are described in Subsection NF-3130 of ASME III, Division I, 1974 edition with addenda through Winter of 1975. All component supports are categorized p into three separate types; plate and shell type

(

L supports, linear type supports, and component standard supports.

Component standard supports defined per Section NF-1214 are catalogue items. Load Capacity Data Sheets (LCDS) developed by ITT Grinnell Pipe Hangers Division, Corner

& Lada, and NPS are being used for acceptance of hardware. Methods of analysis / design procedure are indicated in the LCDS.

Most of the supports are linear type component supports acting under essentially a single component of direct bi U

4 BPC-01-300-6 6-4.5 Revision 0 Ilu

stress which may be subjected to shear stresses.

Elastic analysis based on maximum stress theory in accordance with the rules of NF-3230 of Appendix XVII -

2000 is used for the design of Class 1, 2, and 3 linear type supports.

The nationally recognized computer program, ICES STRUDL II, on the UNIVAC SYSTEM (Bechtel Documentation CE-901) is used to perform static linear elastic frame analyses for linear type supports, e.g., beams and columns (sub-jected to axial force and bending), trusses and frames.

Long hand calculations are performed at times using standard beam formulae. Standard formulae are available in various text books and other reference books such as Frame Formulas by Kleinloggl, Beam Formulas by Griffel, and the AISC Manual. Stresses calculated are compared against allowable values given in Table 6-4.3-1. These allowables are calculated according to Appendix XVII -

2000; however, Appendix XVII - 2211(c) and NF-3392.l(b) are not applicable to welding. Allowables for weld stresses are based on NP-3292. Plate and shell type supports are analyzed per NF-3132.2 and the resultant component stresses are compared against allowables for Class 1, 2, and 3 given in NF-3200, NF-3320, and NF-3400 respectively.

BPC-01-300-6 6-4.6 Revision 0 nu m.

)

' d f

l EE i <: n Table 6-4.3-1 oe

s w gg ALLOWABLE STRESS LIMITS FOR PIPING SUPPORTS ,

i. ,

4 y

i NORM /

UPSET ENENGEtKN FAULTED MATERIAL TIPE OF i STPFSS (ksi) (kai) (ksi) REMARKS TENSION 19.l( .6 Sy) 25.5(1.33x.6 Sy) 31.9 Sy = YLD. STR. @ 300*F

m i

1

BE24 DING 19.1 25.5 31.9 = 31.9 KSI

.4 S A-3 ti SilEAR 12.8 (.4 Sy) 17.0(1.33x.4 Sy) 19.l(1.5x.4 Sy)

! STEEL ODMPRESSION Refer 1.25xFa 1.25x Fa

< SFPSM (1) l 3.10.1 (Fa) 4

( hF-3292-1.1 )

E-70 WELD ELECTRODE 18.0 24.0( =1. 33x18) 30.6(=1.7x18) i l

i Notes:

i

1. San Francisco Power Pipe Support Design Manual.

< 3 Allowable stresses for linear type nuclear pipe supports, ASME Code,Section III,

g 2.

Subsection NF.

j 4 I"7

6-4.4 Analysis Results and Conclusions The loads, load combinations, acceptance criteria and analysis methods used in the evaluation of piping supports are discussed in the preceding sections.

The results from the evaluation of the supports for the governing load combinations are presented in this section. Supports are evaluated for large and small bore (less than 4 inch diameter), torus attached piping and branch lines ' attached to large bore piping). The results of large bore pipe support evaluations are shown in Table 6-4.4-1. For each line, the table identifies the penetration number, corresponding isometric drawing number, number of existing and new supports evaluated, and number of existing supports requiring modification. Results indicate that relatively few modifications to existing supports or additional supports are required because the original design included some preliminary hydrodynamic loads.

l The analysis results confirm that all supports in their final configuration meet the acceptance criteria specified in References 1 and 5.

BPC-01-300-6 6-4.8 Revision 0 nutgg_h.

e

. - - .- . - . - - - . = _ - . - . _. - - -_. . - . - .- .

I Table 6-4.4-1

SUMMARY

OF LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORT MODIFICATIONS ISOMETRIC PENETRATION NUMBER OF SUPPORTS DRAWING NUMBER EXISTING NEW MODIFIED P-FD-01 P-201 23 1 1 P-BJ-Ol & P-AP-01 P-202 17 0 4 P-BJ-01 P-203 8 0 2 P-BC-06 P-204 16 5 3 P-FC-01 P-207 21 1 2 P-BD-01 & P-AP-01 P-208 18 0 1 P-BC-04 P211A 18 2 2 P-BC-04 P211B 12 2 1 P-BC-04 P211C 13 2 3 P-BC-04 P211D 18 2 2 P-BC-01 P212A 24 1 4 P-BC-03 P212B 21 4 0 P-BC-01 P213A 47 5 4 4

P-BC-03 P213B 51 0 12 P-BC-01 P214A 8 0 0 P-BC-03 P214B 10 0 0 P-BE-01 P216A 15 0 0 P-BE-01 P216B 20 0 2 P-BE-02 P216C 14 0 2 P-BE-02 P216D 15 0 0 BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-4.9 nutech

., -, , -- , , . - , , , -- ,,,c -,.,n--,,.,--,---_...-...~r.-,..,,.-.....n ,--n_,,- ,__.m-,--,,r- , . - - - --r----

Table 6-4.4-1 O

(Concluded)

ISOMETRIC PENETRATION NUMBER OF SUPPORTS _

DRAWING NUMBER EXISTING NEW MODIFIED P-BE-Ol P-217A 60 0 2 P-BE-02 P-217B 52 0 6 P-GS-01 P-219 13 2 0 P-GS-01 P-220 39 0 4 P-EE-01 P-222 5 4 0 P-EE-Ol P-223 5 0 0 0

t BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-4.10 nut.e_c__h.

6-5.0 EQUIPMENT AND VALVES As an integral part of the TAP analysis, the Hope Creek equipment and valves associated with the piping have been evaluated in accordance with the criteria established in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1).

The components, equipment, and valves which are examined are described in Section 6-5.1. The loads and load combinations for which the equipment, components, and valves are evaluated are described and presented in Section 6-5.2. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared and the analysis methodologies used to evaluate the effects of the loads

'-- and load combinations on the equipment and valves are discussed in Section 6-5.3. Analysis results and conclusions are presented in Section 6-5.4.

b\

d BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-5.1 nutggh

6-5.1 Component De sc ription The equipment evaluated for TAP loads includes pump and turbine nozzles which act as termination points, pipe moun ted valves, fi c nge s , water seal expansion joints, and suction strainers.

The TAP systems which terminate at equipment consist of the RHR, core spray, HPCI, and RCIC systems. Valves that have been evaluated are included in the piping structural models described in Sections 6-2.4.1 and 6-3.4. The types of valves represented consist of gate, globe, check, relief, and butterfly valves.

Valves are ge ne rally equipped with motor or air operators. Suction strainers are attached to eleven of the toru s internal piping sys tems and are included in the piping system evaluation.

1 l

l l

l B PC-01-3 00-6 6-5.2 Revision 0 nute9.h.

i

< fN ' Loads and Load Combinations

( 6-5.2 The loads acting on the valves, valve operators, flanges, water seal expansicn joints, strainers, and equipment nozzles are caused by the response of the piping systems to the loads defined in Sections 6-2.2.1 and 6-3.2.1. Strainers are also subjected to direct application of the hydrodynamic loads described in Section 6-2.2.1. The results of the component evaluations are used to establish compliance with the operability and functionality criteria of NUREG-0661.

Equipment nozzle connections are modeled as rigid p

5 anchors in the piping system analyses, as described in C Section 6-2.4.1. Reaction loads at the nozzles are computed using the governing load combinations listed for the piping supports in Table 6-4.2-1 (excluding operating loads (OL) which have a negligible effect on

( the nozzles). These loads are used in the evaluation l

of the equipment, as described in Section 6-5.3.

l l

l Valve accelerations are calculated ucing the governing i

load combinations listed for the piping system analyses l.

t i

in Table 6-2.2-4. The acceleration components obtained from the piping analysis are used in the evaluation of the valves and valve operators, as described in Section 6-5.3.

! O /

s

\.

I BPC-01-300-6 6-5.3 Revision 0

Accelerations and hydrodynamic loads on strainers are also calculated using the governing load combinations listed for the piping system analyses in Table 6-2.2-4. The acceleration components obtained from the piping analysis and the directly applied strainer hydrodynamic loads are used in the evaluation of the strainers as described in Section 6-5.3.

In accordance with the original design criteria, equip-ment nozzles, valves and associated valve operators, flanges, expansion joints, and strainers have been designed and qualified by the manufacturers for load, displacement, and acceleration magnitudes defined in the Hope Creek FSAR. These limits have been used in evaluating equipment operability and functionality.

l l Revision 0

nutggh

p 6-5.3 Methods of Analysis and Acceptance Criteria

( l'

\a' The equipment described in Section 6-5.1 is evaluated for the loading combinations described in Table 6-4.2-1. Nozzle loads are evaluated by comparison with the nozzle allowablos specified by the equipment manufacturers for the specified Service Levels.

The valves located in TAP systems are classified as ASME Code, Section III, Class 2 components. In performing the valve evaluations, the resultant horizontal and vertical accelerations have been determined from the piping analyses in the direction of the weak axis of the valve. The resultant valve

\

'- accelerations from individual loads are combined in accordance with Table 6-2.2-4. The valve acceleration allowables listed in Table 6-5.4-1 which are used in the evaluations have been derived from the valves' original design criteria.

The strainers described in Section 6-5.1 are evaluated for acceleration and hydrodynamic loadings contained in loading combination Table 6-2.2-4. Strainer loads are evaluated by comparison with strainer allowables developed in accordance- with the original strainer design bases.

i BPC-01-300-6 6-5.5 Revision 0 nutggh

Flanges are evaluate-d for the loading combinations contained in Table 6-2.2.4. To qualify the flanges, resultant loadings at the flange locations are compared to ASME code flange allowables .

The wa ter seal expansion joints are evaluated by comparing maximum displacements from the piping analysos at expansion joint locations to manufacturer's allowable displacements.

O B PC 3 0 0 -6 6-5.6 Revision 0 nut.e._c_h_

6-5.4 Analysis Results and Conclusions The results of the equipment and component evaluations '

conducted concluded that the acceptance criteria as described in Section 6-5.3 have been satisfied.

The functionality and operability assessment of the

' valves conclud ed that all valves met the acceptance criteria as described in Section 6-5.3.

Table 6-5.4-1 provides the resultant valve accelera-tions de rived from the piping system analyses along with the allowable accelerations.

s The results of the strainer, equipment nozzle, flange, and expansion joint evaluations conduc ted concluded that the acceptance criteria as described in Section 6-5. 3 have been satisfied.

\ '

B PC-01-3 0 0-6 6-5.7 Revision 0 nutggb

Table 6-5.4-1 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR VALVE ACCELERATIONS MAXIMUM PENETRATION VALVE ACCELERATION FOR ALLOWABLE NUMBER I.D. ALL EVENT ACCELERATION COMBINATIONS (g) (g)

P201 V006 7.5 7.50 P202 V009 4.2 . 6.00 P203 V016 2.1 6.00 V256 5.5 5.65 P204 V010 5.2 6.00 V007 4.3 6.00 P207 V005 4.0 6.00 P208 V003 3.7 6.00 P209 V007 2.1 6.00 P211A V001 3.1 6.00 P211B V006 3.2 6.00 P211C V103 3.2 6.00 P211D V098 3.1 6.00 P212A V028 2.7 6.00 V214 2.3 6.00 P212B V131 5.5 5.53 V128 2.2 6.00 BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-5.8 0

nut.ech

Table 6-5.4-1 (Concluded)

MAXIMUM PENETRATION VALVE ACCELERATION FOR ALLOWABLE NUMBER I.D. ALL EVENT ACCELERATION COMBINATIONS (g) (g)

~

V255 3.4 5.60 P213A V010 4.0 6.00 V253 3.8 5.60 P213B V107 4.1 6.00 P216A V019 1.4 6.00 P216B V020 1.4 6.00 P216C V018 1.4 6.00 P216D V017 1.4 6.00 P217A V026 2.3 6.00 V025 3.8 6.00 P217B V035 4.1 6.00 P220 V022 1.7 6.00 V001 6.0 6.00 P222 V002 6.0 6.00 V003 4.2 6.00 P223 V004 2.9 6.00 0' BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-5.9 nutp_qh

6-6.0 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS D

An evaluation of the NUREG-0661 requirements which affect the design adequacy of the Hope Creek torus attached piping (TAP) penetrations is presented in the following sections. This evaluation includes both small bore and large bore penetrations. The general criteria used in this evaluation are contained in volume 1.

The components which are analyzed are described in Section 6-6.1. The loads and load combinations for which the penetrations are evaluated are described and presented in Section 6-6.2. The acceptance limits to which the analysis results are compared are discussed and presented in Section 6-6.3. The analysis method-ology used to evaluate the effects of the loads and load combinations on the penetrations, including consideration of fatigue effects, is discussed in Section 6-6.4. The analysis results and conclusions i

are presented in Section 6-6.5.

l

> BPC-01-300-6 6-6.1 C Revision 0 l

nutggh

6-6.1 Component Description The large bore piping suppression chamber penetrations evaluated in this section are numbered and located as shown in Figure 6-2.1-1. The principal components of the penetrations consist of the nozzles and the insert plates, as shown in Figure 6-6.1-1. The nozzle extends from the outer circumferential pipe weld through the insert plate to the inner circumferential pipe weld or flange. The insert plate provides local reinforcement of the suppression chamber shell near the penetration.

Additional reinforcement is provided for several of the penetrations, as shown in Table 6-6.1-1 and Figures 6-6.1-2 through 6-6.1-4.

There are two general types of penetration reinforce-O ments. Seve ral of the penetrations are reinforced by the addition of 3/4" thick plates welded to the inner or outer penetration nozzles as shown in Figure 6-6.1-2. A second type of penetration reinforcement is used for penetrations P212A and B. This type of

penetration reinforcement as shown in Figures 6-6.1-3 and 6-6.1-4 consists of an arrangement of plates located inside and cutside the suppression chamber.

The external reinforcement includes two 1" thick saddle plates welded to the penetration nozzle and six BPC-01-300-6 6-6.2 Re. vision 0 nut.e_qh

l 1

l l

g reinforcing arms which extend to the suppression chamber shell. The reinforcing arms are connected to pad plates on the suppression chamber shell or are directly attached to the penetration insert plate. The internal reinforcement consists of four 3/4" thick stiffener plates attached to the insert plate and to the penetration nozzle.

Each penetration is designed to resist TAP reaction loads produced by suppression chamber motions due to normal loads and hydrodynamic loads, and due to normal and hydrodynamic loads acting directly on the piping system.

I l

[

3 BPC-01-300-6 6-6.3 Revision 0 nutggh

Table 6-6.1-1 PENETRATION REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE PENETRATION PENETRATION REINFORCEMENT REFERENCE NUMBER SIZE TYPE FIGURE (NOM. DIA)

P213A II' 10" NOZZLE PLATES FIGURE 6-6.1-2 III P213B 10" NOZZLE PLATES FIGURE 6-6.1-2 P217A 10" NOZZLE PLATES FIGURE 6-6.1-2 I P217B 10" NOZZLE PLATES FIGURE 6-6.1-2 51}

P222 III 8" NOZZLE PLATES FIGURE 6-6.1-2 P208 6" NOZZLE PLATES SIMILAR TO FIGURE 6-6.1-2(2)

P212A 18" AND S FENERS FIGURES 6-6.1-3 & 4 P212B 18" SUPPORT ARMS FIGURES 6-6.1-3 & 4 AND STIFFENERS No t_ e_ _s :-

1. Four reinforcement plates on inner penetration nozzle.

2. Two reinforcement plates on outer penetration nozzle.

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-6.4 nut.ech--

SUPPRES$1CN CH AMSER SHELL IN SERF PLATE CI RCU MFERsNTIAL W ELO

/

IO / )

,V / 2 NC11LE o 4

< B 0'

f 9

9

/

f Figure 6-6.1-1 TYPICAL UNREINFORCED PENETRATION

's

\

BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-6.5 nutggb

SUPPR ESSION I CH AMBER SHELL I N SERT ALATE

=

A -

N C11LE'

,1

-- ,y a ..___ 9

/

g ye* THK.

q REINFORCEM ENT ALATE l

) e d

1 NC11LE I ///, ,

7-

/

l \

! REINFORCE MENT l ALATE )

SECTION A- A i Figure 6-6.1-2 TYPICAL PENETRATION WITH NOZZLE REINFORCEMENT ONLY j i

i BPC-01-300-6 l Revision 0 6-6.6 nutgqh 1

L

O O

[gg7g ~N- MO Q NotELE SUPAR ESSION CH AMBER SHELL Nr 3/A TH K. I' x I S* x l'- G' pac i

REINRCRCIN ALATE ARM

\ 'g e .s [ l ,

y'__

~

\ Vy I NCIILE A '

t [ *

[]v "

l .

f G )

V / -

\ x i

1 *x s'x l'-ti k4 LGd 1 "r x x .

S ADDLE PLATE R EIN FOR CIN G ARM

+s Figure 6-6.1-3 EXTERNAI. VIEW OF PENETRATION P212A AND B REINFORCD1ENT BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-6.7 nutech

INSERT PLATE

' (* g,G'

. l' TH K.

R EIN FORCING ARM t

~~

.-&\\\m f)

- V e wopts y

'~

W -

L .5

,' \

O 3/4' N -

STIFFENER

/ .

SADDLE PLATE PLAT E SUPP AESSION CH AMBER SHELL SECT 1CN B-B Figure 6-6,1-4 REINFORCEMENT DETAILS FOR PENETRATION P212A AND D BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-6.8 nute_gh

h 6-6.2 T.oads and Load Combinations The loads for which the Hope Creek suppression chamber penetrations are evaluated are defined in NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants. Torus attached piping reaction loads for each penetration are derived from the piping analyses described in Sections 6-2.4 and 6-3.4. The controlling reaction loads which act on the penetrations are discussed in Section 6-6.2.1.

Using the event combinations, and the event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661 and discussed in Volume 1, the governing load combinations which affect the penetra-tions are fo rmula ted . The load combinations are O discussed and presented in Section 6-6.2.2.

BPC 3 00-6 6-6.9 P(- Revision 0 nutggb

6-6.2.1 Loads The loads acting on the suppression cham ber penetrations are categorized as follows:

1. Dead We ig h t

2. Seismic

3. Pressure and Temperature

4. Operating

5. Static Torus Displacement

6. Safety Relief Valve Discharge

7. Vent Clearing

8. Pool Swell

9. Condensation Oscillation

10. Chugging

11. To ru s Mo tion Loads in the above ca teg ories include those acting on torus attached piping discussed in Section 6-2.2.1 and l

those acting on the torus shell discussed in Vo lume 2.

l Loads acting directly on torus attached piping systems resul t in reaction loads on the penetrations. Ioads acting directly on the torus shell result in suppres-l s ion chamber mo tions. The suppression chamber motions

[ excite the attached piping systems, which produce additional reaction loads on the penetrations. In BPC-01-3 0 0 -6 6-6.10 Revision 0 I

nut _ech.

. - _ = . . - . _

loads acting directly on the torus shell f

addition, produce stresses in the shell and insert plate, which are included in the evaluation as discussed in Section 6-6.4.

The reaction loads used in the suppression chamber penetration evaluation for each load category are taken J

from the TAP system evaluation described in Section 6-2.4. The components of these reaction loads at the penetrations, as shown in Figure 6-6.2-1, consist of the forces and moments acting on the penetration nozzle both inside and outside the suppression chamber.

Des ign pressures and temperatures used for the piping O

Q systems and the ' suppression chamber penetration evaluation include those relating to the time period i

within the Ma rk I Prog ram event duration. The piping system pressures and temperatures defined in Section 6-2.2.1 are applied to the nozzle po rtion of the

. penetrations whereas pressures and temperatures defined for the suppression chamber in volume 2 are considered in evaluating the insert plate and torus shell portions of the penetration.

l-l g l BPC-01-300-6 l

(O '

% Bovision 0 6-6.i1 nutagh s

,<\---,

-, , , . . , - - - , , . _ . . . . , - - - - . , - , , , , . - - . , . - - , .,,.,.,,.,-,,.-,,,,--,.---,.---.e .

1 0

a A MT Ap l

Mg vc'

(

M vg c ,

s ML MC vc s VP r

MT SECTION THRCUGH PEN ETA ATION l

l I

Figure 6-6,2-1 TYPICAL TAP LOADS ON PENETRATION BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-6.12 nutg,gh

_ 7 -_ __ _ _ . . - _ _

.T 6-6.2.2 Ioad Combinations J

The loads for which the suppression chamber penetra-tions are evaluated are presented in Section 6-6.2.1. l The general NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping the loads )

into load combinations are discussed in Volume 1. Not all load combinations fo r each event are examined, since many have the same or higher allowable stresses and are enveloped by others which contain the same or additional loads. Table 6-6.2-1 shows the governing

) !

-' load combinations evaluated for the suppression chamber penetrations. For the controlling load combination 1' conside red , the dynamic loads are combined using the ,

i SRSS method as described in Reference 9.

O

,e l

h w

4 BPC-01-300-6 6-6,13 t

\ <

Revision 0 nutagh d.

,,,,,,,,,,-.,,,-,-x,-n.w,, , - .

-,....,-_.-,--ny,e.p-.,,,-,.w ------n. - - , - -, , . , - -

- - . . , ,a ,. .-+ ,w , - - , - - - .,,--,,-,-,-,-,a w. ,

i Table 6-6.2-1 O

GOVERNING PENETRATION LOAD COMBINATIONS AND SERVICE LEVELS LOAD SERVICE COMBINATION LOAD COMBINATIONS (1'2) LEVEL NUMBER CHUG-14 DW + P0 + TE1 + THAM 1 + TD + OL B

+ QAB + QAB7 + QABD + OBE7+

+ OBED + CHUG + CHUGI + CHUGD CO-20 DW + PO + TEy + THAMy + TD + OL B

+ OBE; + OBED + CO + C07 + COD Noten

1. See Section 6-2.2.1 for definition of symbols used in load combination.

2. Use the governing case of TDi, TD2, or TD3-BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-6.14 nutp_qh

l l

[] 6-6.3 Analysis Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria defined in NUREG-0661 on which the Hope Creek suppression chamber penetrations analysis is based are discussed in Vo lume 1. In general, the acceptance criteria follow the rules contained in the ASME Code, Se ction III, Division 1, 1977 Edition up to and including the 1977 Summor Addenda (Reference 6). The corresponding service level limits and allowable stresses are also consistent with the requirements of the ASME Code and NUREG-0661.

The suppression chamber penetrations and penetration p, reinforceme nts are evaluated in accordance with the requirements for Class MC components and supports contained in the ASME Code. The j urisdic tional boundaries for the penetration Class MC components and component supports are defined as follows.

The penetration nozzles, insert plates, reinforcement plates, saddle plates, pad plates, and the suppression chamber shell adjacent to the penetrations are clas-sified as MC components. The associated attachment welds which join the nozzle and reinforcement plates, and the pad plates and torus shell, are classified as

- Class MC component welds. The attachment welds which

( BPC-01-3 0 0-6 Revision 0 6-6.15 nutggh

join the internal gussets to the nozzle and insert plate for penetrations P212A and B are also classified as MC components welds. The reinforcing arms and attachment welds to the saddle plates and pad plates for penetrations P212A and B are classified as NF component supports. The internal gusset plates for penetrations P212A and B are also classified as NF component supports. Table 6-6.3-1 shows the allowable stresses for the components of the suppression chamber penetrations. The allowable stresses are determined at the maximum temperature of each component for Service Level B conditions.

t O

BPC-01-300-6 6-6.16 Revision 0 nutggh

d Table 6-6.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR PENETRATIONS CODE ITEM CLASSIFICATION B STRESS P

m 1.0 S mc NE (1) Pg/P g+P b 1.5 S mc COMPONENTS' PL+Pb+Q 3.0 S,1 0.6 S P* Y SUPPORTS NF (2 )

P+b m 0.6 S y

PRIMARY 0.55 S mc gy)

SECONDARY 0. 5 h3. 0 S,1 WELDS I

NF I THROAT 21 ksi Notee:

1. Sec Reference 6, Subsection NE, Table NE-3221-1 for components and paragraph NE-3356 for welds.

l l 2. See Reference 6, Article XVII-2000 for supports, l

and Subsection NF, Table NF-3292.1-1 for welds.

l

3. Allowable weld stress based on tensile stress

! of material.

1 1

/ BPC-01-300-6

\ Revision 0 6-6.17 nutp_qb

'6-6.4 Methods of Analysis The loads for 'vhich the suppression chamber penetra-tions are evaluated are discussed in Section 6-6.2.1.

The methodology used to evaluate the penetrations for these loadings is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Penetrations P212A and B which include additional reinforcing arms have been evaluated using finite element model. The small bore, unreinforced large bore, and penetrations with added nozzle reinforcements only are evaluated using methods based on closed-form solutions for nozzle-type attachments to cylindrical vessels.

A single finite element model representing both P212A and B is used. The model consists of the penetration nozzle, the insert plate, a portion of the suppression chamber shell, the reinforcing arms, pad plates, nozzle saddle plates, and internal stiffener plates. Thin plate finite elements are used to model each component explicitly. The analytical model of the penetration is shown in Figure 6-6.4-1.

BPC-01-300-6 6-6.18 Revision 0 nutggh

I

\g]

/ The entire length of each nozzle is modeled between the inner and outer piping / nozzle circumferential welds nearest to the suppression chamber shell.

The portion of the suppression chamber shell included in the model is chosen to minimize the boundary effects in the region of stress evaluation. Translational restraints are imposed at the boundary nodes on the suppression chamber shell portion of the model. Where pad plates are attached to the suppression chamber, shell element thicknesses are increased to include the pad plate thickness.

1 Mechanical and thermal reaction loads at the penetra-O

\ tions are taken from the piping system analysis results and applied to the ends of the nozzles. The force and moment components for each reaction load case are conservatively applied to the analytical model in a manner which maximizes penetrasion stresses.

L The temperature differential between the nozzle and the suppression chamber shell is evaluated for those l systems defined to be at maximum operating temperatures

, during the time of peak hydrodynamic loadings. For the i

remaining systems, the differential temperatures which

(% BPC-01-300-6

(-)- Revision 0 6-6.19 nutg_qh

occur during the time of peak hydrodynamic loads are negligible.

The stresses in the suppression chamber shell and insert plate due to piping reactions are added to the stresses in the suppression chamber shell due to loads acting directly on the suppression chamber as described in Section 6-6.2.1. These stresses are taken from the suppression chamber analysis results discussed in Volume 2.

For the controlling load combination considered, the maximum stress intensities for each penetration component are calculated and compared to allowable stresses listed in Table 6-6.3-1.

The small bore, large bore unreinforced, and nozzle reinforced penetrations are evaluated in a manner similar to the procedure described above. For these penetrations, however, computer codes based on closed-form solutions for nozzle-type attachments to cylindrical vessels is used. The mechanical and thermal loads from the piping analysis are applied to the nozzle ends and to the shell/ nozzle intersection.

The maximum stress intensities for each penetration l

i BPC-01-300-6 6-6.20 Revision 0 nut.e._c_h.

component are calculated and compared to the allowable stresses in Table 6-6.3-1.

Fatigue effects for the penetration with the highest stress lev'els and maximum loading cycles are evaluated.

The number of load cycles for Mark I loads is established using the suppression chamber analysis results presented in Volume 2. The alternating stress intensity for each loading is calculated and fatigue strength reduction factors of 2.0 for major component stresses and. 4.0 for component weld stresses are conservatively applied. The governing cumulative fatigue usage factor is determined by calculating fatigue usage for the controlling event combination.

j BPC-01-300-6 6-6.21 Revision 0 nutagh

O e7 _ ,

m_ -

Wc -

7

)

l l

/\

j \j/\N/T\ ) ,s,n. ix m /n/ r ixin / I\ / l/\y/

g' '

f,ty 7 1 I / ll I I I i l bi l I Illl N 1 ,

,f NppJit I i t i I i i u o it p g //' i

\ i I Qil l ' l l .\1l ,' ' ' l() I I /

l .-. .~ --- \,

I f I L

j j\AllillillllI l l M71 I I I lililllilllh// ll Il ljlll,4.]NlllC ' ' ' ' ' ' d,'ll ; } l\

I iX !!! "' _ : ' M E_Y w . ;:.' Kl I/

// ////////////// / / / /N/ ////////////d/ /

, Nf~ 5,1)l ' l '; j?' l'_-l/ if

/ < / i/ /

h// i e i/ iv, . ,

/1 $1llll!!!!!N /\

l / / /// / / / / / / / / / //// //

N / \/ / N/ 'N/\

L

///

(,,,,,,,,,

_/

/ / / / / /_

/ _1 -

///

]_/ f Note:

1. For clarity, only the refined mesh portion of the model is shown.

Figure 6-6.4-1 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR PENETRATICNS F212A AND 3 BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 nut.e_qh

6-6.5 Analysis Results and Conclusions

{O d

The geometry, loads and load combinations, acceptance criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation of the Hope Creek suppression chamber penetrations are presented and discussed in the previous sections. The results from the evaluation of the penetrations are presented in the following paragraphs.

The unreinforced small bore, large bore and reinforced penetrations are evaluated and found to be within the specified allowable limits. Table 6-6.5-1 presents a comparison of the calculated and allowable stress values for the representative unreinforced and reinforced penetrations.

The cumulative fatigue usage factors for the control-ling component and weld are within the allowable fatigue usage factor of 1.0.

The suppression chamber penetrations, therefore, are adequate and all applicable NUREG-0661 requirements have been satisfied.

O)

(v BPC-01-300-6 Revision 0 6-6.23 nutggb

_- 1

Table 6-6.5-1 STRESS

SUMMARY

OF REPRESENTATIVE PENETRATIONS PENETRATION STRESS CALC ALLOW. CALC.

N TYPE TYPE STRESS (ksi) ALLOW.

(ksi)

PRIMARY 8.92 16.50 0.54 NOZZLE UNREINFORCED SECONDARY 44.01 60.00 0.73 PENETRATION PRIMARY 22.21 28.95 0.77 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL SECONDARY 62.45 69.45 0.90 PRIMARY 14.25 16.50 0.86 NOZZLE REINFORCED SECONDARY 24.80 60.45 0.41 PENETRATION SUPPRESSION PRIMARY 14.72 28.95 0.51 CHAMBER SHELL SECONDARY 58.41 69.45 0.84 BPC-01-300-6 6-6*24 O

Revision 0 gg ,

6-7.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," Safety Evaluation Report, USNRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980; Supplement 1, August 1982.

2. " Mark I Containment Program Load Definition Report," General Electric . Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, November 1981.

3. " Mark I Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition," Hope Creek Generating Station, General Electric Company, NEDO-24579-1, Revision 1, January 1982.

4. Hope Creek Generating Station, Final Safety Analysis Report, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Amendment No. 2, October 1983.

5. " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide," Task Number 1.1.3, General Electric Company, NEDO-24583-1, Oct Der 1979.

6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III,

,m '

Division 1, 1977 Edition with Addenda up to and

[ including Summer 1977.

~'

l 7. " Mark I Containment Program Augmented Class 2/3 Fatigue Evaluation Method and Results for Typical Torus Attached and SRV Piping Systems," MPR Associates, Inc., MPR-751, November 1982.

8. Letter from D. B. Vassallo (NRC) to H. C.

Pfefferlen (GE), " Evaluation of Adequacy of the Existing Mark I Downcome r Chugging Lateral Load Specification and Augmented ASME Class 2/3 Fatigue Evaluation Method for the Mark I Containment Piping Systems," dated November 9, 1983.

9. Let te r from D. B. Vassallo (NRC) to H. C.

Pfefferlen (GE), " Acceptability of SRSS Method for Combining Dynamic Responses in Mark I Piping Responses," dated March 10, 1983.

l

10. " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis," USNRC, Regulatory Guide 1.92, Revision 1, February 1976.

.~

4 ) BPC-01-300-6 6-7.1 Revision 0 nutggh

l

11. Kennedy, R. P. and Kincaid, R. H., "CMDOF (Coupling of Multiple Degrees of Freedom), A Computer Program to Couple the Response of Structures and Supported Equipment for Multiple Degrees of Coupling Using the Results from Uncoupled Structure and Equipment Analysis,"

Structural Mechanics Associates, Version 1.2.0, December 3, 1982, i

l l

l t

BPC-01-300-6 6-7.2 Revision 0 nutggh

ML20080P808

Contents

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

RESPONSE

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20080P808

Text

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

RESPONSE

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search