ML20080Q224
| ML20080Q224 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1983 |
| From: | TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080Q219 | List: |
| References | |
| TR-5319-2, NUDOCS 8310120315 | |
| Download: ML20080Q224 (95) | |
Text
. _ - . . _ . _
f I
i I
l TELEDYrlE ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTROLLED coCUMENT "MTELEDYNE 3Es gaoa. no._p 9 ENGINEERING SERVICES DATE _
/A 8- ~
TECHNICAL REPORT
[
TECTINICAL REPORT TR-5319-2 MARK I CONTAINMENT PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSB REPORT OF THE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING FOR VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OCTOBER 3,1983 hDR O K O 000 PDR1 p
O TECHNICAL REPORT TR-5319-2 f
MARK 1 CONTAINMENT PROGRAM t
PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE
, TORUS ATTACHED PIPING FOR VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
?
SEPTEMBER 30, 1983
)
WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254 617-890-3350
)
TN 1 -ii- M EN ABSTRACT The work summarized in this report was undertaken as part of the Mark 1 Containment Long Term Program. Ic includes the evaluation of all. piping systems that are attached to the suppression pool (torus).
These piping systems include both Main Steam Safety Relief lines and piping attached to the torus shell.
Mark 1 induced loads, as well as original design loads, are included in the evaluation. Necessary modifications are summarized.
1
)
)
)
Technical Report WF WE TR-5319-2 -iii- N NES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ii
) 1.0 GENERAL 1 2.0 SRV PIPING ANALYSIS 2 2.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria 2 t 2.2 SRV Loads 3 2.2.1 SRV Gas Clearing Loads 3 2.2.2 SRV Water Clearing Loads 4 2.2.3 Pool Drag Loads 5 2.2.4 Thermal Expansion 6 2.2.5 Weight, Pressure and. Seismic 6
}
2.3 SRV Analysis Method 7 2.3.1 Piping Analysis 7 2.3.1.1 Computer Model 7
) 2.3.1.2 Piping Analysis Method 7 2.3.2 Pipe Supports Analysis 8 2.3.3 SRV Main Vent Penetration Analysis 9
) 2.4 Evaluation and Results (SRV) 9 2.4.1 General 9 2.4.2 SRV Pipe Stresses 10
) 2.4.3 SRV Pipe Supports 11 2.4.4 Support Steel for SRV Supports 11 2.4.5 SRV Penetration 12
) 2.4.6 Valves 13 2.4.7 Fatigue Evaluation 14 2.5 Summary of SRV Line Modifications 14 h
J
Technical Report YM TR-5319-2 -iv- N MES TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page 3.0 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING (TAP) 25 3.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria 25 3.2 TAP Loads 26
- 3.2.1 Shell Motion Due to Pool Swell 27 3.2.2 Shell Motion Due to DBA Condensation Oscillation 28 3.2.3 Shell Motion Due to Chugging 28 3.2.4 Shell Motion Due to SRV Line Discharge 29 3.2.5 Loads on Internal Piping 30 3.2.6 Deadweight, Thermal and Seismic Analysis 31 3.3 TAP Analysis Methods 31 3.3.1 Representation of Torus Shell for Piping Analysis 32 3.3.2 Piping Analysis Method - Large Bore Systems 32 3.3.3 Piping Analysis Method - Complex Small Bore Systems 33 y
3.3.4 Piping Analysis Method - Simple Small Bore Systems 34 3.3.5 Piping Analysis Method - Branch Piping 34 3.3.6 Piping Analysis - Load Input for Computer Models 35 3.3.6.1 Mark 1 Loads Due to Shell Motion 35
)
3.3.6.2 Submerged Drag Loads on Internal TAP 35 3.3.7 TAP Penet.ation Analysis 37 3.3.8 Analysis Method for Piping Supports 38 3.3.9 Vacuum Breaker Analysis 38 3.3.10 Active Components 38
)
)
Technical Report TME TR-5319-2 -v- ENGNEERNG SERVCES TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page 3.4 Evaluation and Results (TAP) 39 3.4.1 General 39 3.4.2 Piping Stress - Large Bore Systems 39 3.4.3 Piping Stress - Small Bore Systems 40
)
3.4.4 Pumps and Valves 40 3.4.5 Piping Fatigue Evaluation 40 3.4.6 Torus Shell Penetration Evaluation 41 3.4.7 Piping Supports 42 3.5 Summary of TAP Modifications 42 I REFERENCES 78 APPENDIX 1 - Use of C0 Load for Small Bore Piping Al-1 APPENDIX 2 - 32 Hz Cutoff for Condensation Osci:letion Analysis A2-1
)
)
)
)
)
T:.chnical Report WM TR-5319-2 -vi- gg FIGURES AND TABLES Page FIGURES:
2-1 SRV Line Routing - Typical 19 2-2 SRV Line Arrangement - Torus 20 2-3 SRV Line - Vent Pipe Penetration 21 2-4 SRV Tee-Quencher & Support 22 2-5 SRV Pipe Model - Typical 23 2-6 Vent System Model 24 3-1 Shell Response from Pool Swell- Typical 69 3-2 Shell Response from Condensation Oscillation - Typical 70 3-3 Shell Response from SRV - Typical 71 3-4 Load on Internal Piping - Typical 72 3-5 TAP Seismic Horizontal Spectra - Typical 73 3-6 TAP Penetration Representation - Typical 74 3-7 Detailed Shell Model 75 3-8a TAP Penetration Locations 76 3-8b TAP Penetration Locations 77 TABLES:
1 Class 2 & Class 3 Piping Systems 80 l
2-1 SRV Load Case / Initial Conditions 15 l
2-2 SRV Pipe Stress 16 l 2-3 SRV Support Modifications 17 2-4 SRV Valve Evaluation 18 3-1 Large Bore TAP Systems 43 3-2 Small Bore TAP Systems 45 3-3 Pump and Valve Evaluation 46 3-4 TAP Pipe Supports 50 3-5 TAP Penetration Stress Results 68
?
W TF1 RWNE N!Nd""""'
s _1_ ENGNEERNG SERVICES 1.0 GENERAL The purpose of the Mark 1 Containment Program is to evaluate the effects of hydrodynamic loads resulting from a loss of coolant accident and/or an SRV discharge on the torus structure.
Teledyne report TR-5319-1 (Reference 1) reported the effects of Mark 1 loads on the Vermont Yankee torus structure, support system and internals.
This second report completes the work on the program by considering the effects of the Mark 1 loads on the piping systems attached to the torus. Both the main steam relief lines and the piping connected to the torus shell are considered. Also included is the evaluation of piping penetrations, supports and active components.
A summary of modifications made as a result of this analysis is included.
The report is separated into two major categories, one that deals with main steam relief lines (SRV piping) and one that deals with piping attached to the torus shell (TAP). Each of these sections is written to stand alone and includes a discussion of methods and results.
l
\
Technical Report TR-5319-2 WTF1 WE SNN 2.0 SRV PIPING ANALYSIS There are four main steam relief (SRV) lines at Vermont Yankee. These lines connect to the main steam lines in the drywell, extend down the main
)
vents and penetrate the main vent into the torus (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). These lines penetrate the main vent pipe near the outer torus shell and enter the pool vertically; they then enter the discharge quencher at a 30 angle (Fig-ures 2-3 and 2-4).
1 Analysis results for the discharge end of the SRV lines were previously reported in Reference 1. This inchues SRV piping in the torus airspace, the submerged part of the SRV line, the tee-quencher and the quencher support beam. This report will cover the remaining portion of the line, which includes:
e The main vent penetration.
e The SRV piping between the penetration and the main steam line, o SRV pipe supports between the penetration and main steam lines.
The analysis of SRV piping in this report accounts for the fact that some modifications have previously been made to these lines. These modifications are described in the Reference 1 report and consist of the addition of tee-quenchers and support beams (Figure 2-4), and the additicn of two ten-inch vacuum breakers on each SRV line.
I 2.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria The SRV piping and pipe support analysis was performed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Code, 1977 Edition, including Summer 1977 Addenda (Reference 2).
In cases where modifications to SRV line supports were
)
required, they were designed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Code (Reference 2).
)
Technical Report TME TR-5319-2 ENG#EstNG SERVCES Load combinations and stress levels were evaluated in accordance with Table 5-5 of the Mark 1 Containment Program Structural Accept-ance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (Reference 5). Table 5-5 is reproduced in this report as Table 1.
2.2 SRV Loads The Mark 1 Program defined several new SRV line conditions. These conditions resulted from different drywell and torus conditions and produced several different reflood heights and discharge pressures. The load cases considered are listed in Table 2-1.
The analysis and evaluation in this report considers all these SRV cases as well as seismic, weight, thermal and pressure effects.
The specific loa'ds considered in this analysis include:
e Gas clearing (blowdown) loads.
e Water clearing discharge loads.
e Submerged structure drag on the SRV line, quencher and support due to pool motion.
e Thermal expansion of SRV line.
e Thermal expansion of containment structure.
e Seismic.
e Weight.
e Internal Pressure.
Calculational methods developed as a part of the Mark 1 generic program were used to the extent that they apply.
2.2.1 SRV Gas Clearing Loads Sudden oressurization of the SRV line, due to rapid opening of the safety relief 3.1ve, causes unbalanced dynamic forces on the SRV
Technical R: port TR-5319-2 '#TF1 WE ENGNEERNG SERVICES piping. These forces progress through the system as pressure waves, whose speed and amplitude depend upon the particular line conditions being con-sidered; the various SRV cases are listed in Table 2-1.
TES has evaluated the stresses resulting in various SRV pip-ing systems, due to the cases listed in Table 2-1, and has concluded that SRV Case A1.2 is the bounding case for gas clearing loads. Case A1.2 is a first actuation af ter an SBA/IBA break and is characterized by increased gas density in the line before valve actuation. This increased density is a consequence of increased drywell pressure which affects the internal line pressure and density through the vacuum breakers. This increased density produces higher thrust forces than the lower density cases. This load case was run for each of the four SRV lines.
The calculation of loads resulting from Case A1.2, as well as all other SRV cases, was based upon use of the " Computer Code RVFOR-04" (Reference 7), which is the property of General Electric Company.
Case A1.2 was run for each of the four SRV lines at Vermont Yankee. Gas clearing loads associated with this case were used for all SRV cases and, therfore, produced conservative results for normal actuation, as well as other cases. In cases where this conservative condition exceeded the lower allowables associated with normal SRV actuation, Case A1.1 was also calculated.
2.2.2 SRV Water Clearing Loads Water clearing loads are produced as water in the SRV line accelerates under line pressure and is forced around the elbows at the quencher end of the line. These forces are very sensitive to reflood height which varies for several of the second ac+.uation cases.
t Maximum line reflood and water clearing are clearly associ-ated with SRV Case C3.3. Case C3.3 is the second actuation after an IBA/SBA break with steam in the drywell. The high reflood is a consequence of r
Technical Report TR-5319-2 "RTF1 WE ENGNEERING SERVICES additional steam entering the line through the vacuum breaker af ter the first actuation (rather than air).
The high water clearing loads that result from this condi-tion affect the torus end of the SRV line, including the piping in the main vent. It has a negligible effect on piping loads in the drywell.
Water clearing for Vermont Yankee was calculated for SRV Case C3.3, using G.E. programs RVRIZ and RVFOR-04. These programs were run for all four SRV lines and it was determined that line A would experience the highest reflood and water clearing loads. These worst-case water clearing loads for line A were used for all four SRV lines; the lines are identical inside the torus. The second valve actuation was assumed to occur at the point of maximum reflood.
Water clearing loads associated with SRV Case C3.3 bound all other cases and were used for all SRV analysis conditions.
2.2.3 Pool Drag Loads i
The torus end of the SRV line, including the tee-quencher and quencher support beam, are submerged in the torus pool. These components are subject to drag loads due to pool motion from the following loads:
i Pool Swell - Jet Loads q - Bubble Loads Condensation Oscillation -
- Source induced drag
- Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) Drag Chugging - Source Induced Drag
- FSI Drag j SRV Discharge - Drag from Adjacent Quenchers (as applicable) t
Technical Report TF WE TR-5319-2 N WICES The drag loads associated with these events were calculated in the earlier part of the program and the methods are reported in Reference
- 1. At that time, the data was used to determine stresses in the SRV piping in the torus, the quencher and the support beam; these were all reported in Reference 1. The same drag load information was used as a part of this analysis work to help determine stress in the penetration and the SRV line and supports in the main vent pipe.
2.2.4 Thermal Expansion Two different load conditions were considered for thermal expansion stress.
The first assumed that the entire SRV line was at its maximum operating temperature (350U F). It included maximum thermal motion of the connection at the main steam line and assumed the drywell and torus were at ambient temperature.
The second case was like the first except the main vent pipe was assumed to be at 340 F. This has the effect of moving the penetration in the main vent pipe relative to the torus and quencher.
2.2.5 Weight, Pressure and Seismic 1
Weight, pressure and seismic loads were also considered in the analysis. The seismic analysis duplicated the original seismic analysis
{
for the plant, which was a static analysis. Results for the three directions of load were combined by SRSS.
OBE was taken as half of SSE, in accordance with the FSAR.
- Seismic end effects were considered for this analysis, but judged to be negligible.
I
Technical Report 'A' F W NE TR-5319-2 ENGINEERING SERVCES 2.3 SRV Analysis Method 2.3.1 Piping Analysis 2.3.1.1 Computer Model Analysis of all SRV load cases was performed using computer models of the piping systems and the STARDYNE computer code. A typical computer model is illustrated in Figure 2-5.
Features of the model include:
e Modeling of the main steam line with each SRV line.
e Representation of the stiffness of the main vent penetration by a set of six attachment springs, developed by computer analysis of the penetration area.
e Full representation of the tee-quencher and quencher support beam in the piping model.
e Full representation of the brackets between the quencher and support beam which allow free torsional rotation of the quencher arms.
e Two percent damping used for time history analysis.
2.3.1.2 Piping Analysis Method Analysis for SRV discharge cases was done by impos-ing individual time histories for water and gas clearing loads at each bend
Technical Report TME TR-5319-2 NM SER\/ ICES and elbow in the system and performing the dynamic analysis. Bounding analy-sis was performed for these cases by combining gas clearing loads from SRV Case A1.2 with water clearing loads from SRV Case C3.3 into a single load condition. This conservative combination was used to bound all discharge cases, including normal actuations. Different line-unique loads were applied to each of the four SRV lines for gas clearing; wate:r clearing is the same for all lines and is equal to the maximum load for the longest line.
Damping for these time history analyses was taken at 2% of critical and calculational time increments for the solution were taken at .0025 seconds. All response frequencies to 50 Hz were considered in the solution.
Seismic analysis e done using the same model and static analysis. Static accelerations were applied in the vertical and two horizontal directions and the results were combined by SRSS. OBE was taken as half these SSE values.
Analysis for thermal and weight conditions was done using static analysis. Calculations for internal pressure were done by hand.
2.3.2 Pipe Supports Analysis Analysis for SRV piping supports was done using both hand and computer analysis. The STAAD computer program was used for the analysis of complex supports.
The support analysis included the attachment weld to the supporting steel. In all cases, support loads on the supporting steel were considered and judged to be acceptable without further analysis.
In addition to the SRV line supports in the drywell, each line has one support in the wetwell (in addition to the quencher support.
There are also a total of eight supports in the main vent pipes, two on each
Technical Report W F W NE TR-5319-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES line. Analysis of these supports included a detailed evaluation of the stresses in the main vent wall, near the support. These stresses were calcu-lated using a Gijlaard analysis (Reference 9) in combination with intensified free-shell stresses due to vent header loads. Free shell stresses were taken from work done in Reference 1 using the computer model illustrated in Figure 2-7 of this report (Figure 4-4 in Reference 1).
Support analysis was done to Section III, Subsection NF (Reference 2).
2.3.3 SRV Main Ven+ '- :tration Analysis The SRV line penetrations of the vent pipe are illustrated in Figure 2-3. Analysis of these penetrations was done using a Bijlaard analysis (Reference 9), to determine local penetration stresses due to SRV line loads. These local stresses were added to intensified free shell stres-ses which occur in the vent pipe due to vent header loads. These were calculated using the finite element model illustrated in Figure 2-6. Devel-opment of these free shell stresses and a description of the model are given in Reference 1, Section 4.
2.4 Evaluation and Results (SRV) 2.4.1 General Combinations of the previous analysis cases were done to allow evaluation of the results in accordance with Table 1. This table lists a total of 27 different load combinations; of these, 13 include an SRV event.
This evaluation is concerned with piping and supports from the main steam line to the vent pipe penetration - evaluation of piping and supports inside the torus is reported in Reference 1. This separation is important to the selection of the controlling load combinations that follow.
Technical Report '#eTF1 pry (NE TR-5319-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES The results of a conservative load case (described below) were evaluated against level B allowables, without use of increased allow-ables, as allowed in Table 1. Where this load combination produced unaccept-able results, less conservative combinations were evaluated, as described below.
Thermal loads were considered differently for piping and supports as discussed helow.
2.4.2 SRV Pipe Stresses Initial evaluation of SRV pipe stress was done as described in Section 2.4.1 above; that is:
DW + (SSE)2 + (Blowdown) " 1.2 S h In cases where this conservative condition could not be met, the following three cases were evaluated:
(1) DW + (SSE)2 + (Blowdown)2 = 1.8 S h (2) DW + OBE = 1.2 S h (3) DW + Blowdown = 1.2 S h These three cases reoresent load combinations (15), (1) and (2) in Table 1, and are still conservative. No further reduction in con-servatism was necessary to qualify the SRV piping.
(
Thermal expansion stresses were evaluated for piping as a separate load condition, using ASME Code Equation 10.
Results of SRV pipe stress evaluation are listed in Table 2-2.
I Technical Report W F W NE TR-5319-2 N SER\/ ICES i
2.4.3 SRV Pipe Supports SRV pipe supports were evaluated in accordance with the ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF (Reference 2).
A worst-case load condition was developed to include:
e The conservative A1.2/C3.3 blowdown case.
o SSE seismic.
e Worst case thermal load.
e Deadweight.
Seismic and blowdown were combined by SRSS and added to the other loads. Allowable stress for this condition was maintained below yield to assure that pipe stress would not be effected by support motion. This stress criteria is consistent with the Case 15 allowables from Table 1.
- Results of pipe support analysis are listed in Table 2-3.
2.4.4 Support Steel for SRV Supports
! Evaluation of drywell support steel for SRV supports was l done in accordance with Subsection NF of the ASME Code, (Reference 2), as required.
Evaluation of local stress in the main vent pipe wall was done using the same method described for the SRV penetration except evaluation for the Nozzle Piping Transition, paragraph NE-3227.5 is not required. This evaluation was performed for all main vent supports.
Controlling stresses for the main vent pipe wall are:
I' Technical Report W F W NE TR-5319-2 ENGNEEtNG SERVICES i PRIMARY STRESS (Local Membrane Shell Stress Intensity)
Controlling Calculated Allowable
- Load Case Stress Stress Upper Support Case 15 11,635 28,900 (Table 1) (1.5 Sme)
Lower Support Case 15 27,886 28,900 SECONDARY STRESS (Primary and Secondary Stress Intensity)
Upper Support Case 15 49,169 69,900 Lower Support Case 15 62,931 69,900 2.4.5 SRV Penetration Stresses in the main vent pipe penetration area were evalu-ated in accordance with subsection NE of The ASME code, using the following paragraphs:
NE-3221.2 Local Membrane Stress Intensity NE-3221.3 Primary General or Local Membrane plus Primary Bending Stress Intensity NE-3221.4 Primary plus Secondary Stress Intensity NE-3221.5 Analysis for Cyclic Operation NE-3227.5 Nozzle Piping Transition (for vertical lines only)
)
Technical Report TN TR-5319-2 N SBl%/ ICES i
Fatigue evaluation of the penetration (paragraph NE-3221.5) showed that the maximum load could be cycled on the penetrations for at least 7500 cycles without exceeding code allowables. The major load component in this case is SRV Case C3.3, which can only occur for a few cycles (less than I
50). Normal SRV actuations produce substantially less load for up to 4500 effective stress cycles (Reference 10). Since the 7500 cycles of maximum load bounds both of these by such a large margin and since no other significant loads are imposed on the line, the penetration was assumed acceptable for fatigue without further evaluation.
Controlling stresses in the SRV penetration follow:
PRIMARY STRESS (Local Membrane Shell Stress Intensity)
Controlling Calculated Allowable Load Case Stress Stress Case 15 27,922 28,900 (Table 1) (1.5 Smc)
SECONDARY STRESS (Primary plus Secondary Stress Intensity)
Case 15 37,380 69,900 (3.0Smi) 2.4.6 Valves Evaluation of the SRV valves was done on the basis of stres-ses in the adjacent piping for the combined load cases. Pipe stresses meeting level B criteria were considered adequate to insure proper operation of the device. (Reference 5, Section 5.5).
Results of the valve evaluation are listed in Table 2-4.
)
Technical Report 9p qq TR-5319-2 2.4.7 Fatigue Evaluation Fatigue evaluation of SRV lines was undertaken as a generic Mark 1 Program effort, using bounding assumptions. This effort is described 1
and reported in Reference 10, and concludes that f atigue will not be a problem for Mark 1 SRV lines; this includes the SRV lines at Vermont Yankee. No further plant-unique analysis is necessary.
Fatigue evaluation of the SRV penetration is discussed in Paragraph 2.4.5.
2.5 Summary of SRV Line Modifications Modifications to the SRV lines at Vermont Yankee included the fol-lowing changes:
e Installation of tee-quencher discharge devices and quencher supports on all four lines (Figure 2-4).
e Installation of two ten-inch vacuum breakers on each SRV line.
e Modification to supports in the drywell as listed in Table 2-3.
Technical Report TR-5319-2 ENGBEERNG SERVICES TABLE 2-1 SRV LOAD CASE / INITIAL CONDITIONS Any One ADS
- Multiple Design Initial Condition Valve Valves Valves 1 NOC*., First Act. A1.1 A3.1 A 2 SBA/IBA,* First Act. A1.2 A2.2 A3.2 3 DBA,* First Act.1 A1.3 1 N0C, Subsequent Act. C3.1 SBA/IBA, Sub. Act.
C 2 Air in SRV/DL C3.2 SBA/IBA, Sub. Act.
3 Steam in SRV/DL C3.3 (1) This actuation is assumed to occur coincidently with the pool swell event. Although SRV actuations can occur later in the DBA accident, the resulting air loading on the torus shell is negligible since the air and water initially in the line will be cleared as the drywell to wetwell AP
l
!
- ADS = Automatic Depressurization System NOC = Normal Operating Condition
' SBA = Small Break Accident l
IBA = Intermediate Break Accident l DBA = Design Basis Accident I
l
Technical Report TN TR-5319-2 NN TABLE 2-2 VERMONT YANKEE SRV PIPE STRESS Line Size &
SRV Max. Stress Sch. @ Max. Maximum Allowable Line Location Stress Pt. Stress Stress A Elbow 10" Sch. 40 17,233 18,000 B Wetwell 10" Sch. 40 16,659 18,000 2-Way Support C Sweepolet 6" Sch. 160 17,720 18,000 D Elbow 10" Sch. 40 17,690 18,000 i
Technical Report yg TR-5319-2 gg TABLE 2-3 VERMONT YANKEE SRV SUPPORT MODIFICATIONS SRV Line Support # Node # Type Modification A SRV-H15 58 Spring Reset Spring SRV-H14 78 Spring Reset Spring ,,
SRV-H13 128 Spring Reset Spring -
"A" 151 U-Bolt Tube Steel Frahesto Replace U-Bolts s "B" 153 U-Bolt Tube Steel Frame tn Replace U-Bolts ,
B SRV-H18 46 Spring Remove SRV-H19 94 Spring Reset Spring "A" 140 U-Bolt Tube Steel Frame to i Replace U-Bolts
~
"B" 150 U-Bolt Tube Steel Frame to ,
Replace U-Bolts ,
C SRV-H20 19 Spring Remove ,
SRV-H21 56 Spring Reset Spring y "A" 120 U-Bolt Tube St' eel Frame to ., x-I Replace 0-Bolts "B" 130 U-Bolt Tube Steel Frame to Replace U-Bolts '
s -
0 SRV-H16 60 Y Rigid Modif y'to Double-Acting '
, Reset Spring SRV-H17 110 Y Spring -
"A" 146 U-Bolt Tube Steel Frame to Replace U-Bolts "B" 150 U-Bolt Tube Steel Frame to Replace U-Bolts A through D Torus U-Bolt Add Tube Steel for Lateral Load
i TGchnical Report yp qq TR-5319-2 ENG4EERNG SERVCES
) .
TABLE 2-4
~ VERMONT YANKEE s SRV VALVE EVALUATION Component Component SRV Pipe Allowable Designation Type System Stress Pipe Stress RV2-71A'- Relief Valve 10'.' SRV-15A 17,813 18,000 ll 10" Vac. Brk. Check Valve 4,273
,i 10" Vac. Brk. Check Valve 4,187
.' 3" Vac. Brk. Check Valve 567
~RV2-71B Relief Valve 10" SRV-15B 12,916 10".Vac. Brk. Check Valve 5,643 10" Vac. Brk Check Valve 5,960 3" Vac. Brk. Check Valve 3,780 RV2-71C Relief Valve 10" SRV-15C 17,844 10 Vac. Brk. Check Valve 4,314 10' Vac. Brk. Check Valve 4,449 3 3" Vac. Brk. Check Valve 4,083
! RV2-710 Relief Valve 10" SRV-15D 10,620 10" Vac. Brk. Check Valve 4,738 10" Vac.'Brk. Check Valve 4,721 3" Vac. Brk. Check Valve 4,068 N'
Technical Report NMM TR-5319-2 19 I
- ~
MAIN STE5M ONf
' l I
JET DEFLECTOR t
\ l
! l
! \
A
, 's'
/
(
\ %
T l #
./ , TYPICAL-SRV LINE
, 1__ __ __ _
j 1
% is
~
/ -DISCIIARGE TEE-QUENCHER
~
s is
. /
i I a
m"a .\ -
l8
- FIGURE 2-1 SRV LINE ROUTING-TYPICAL l
)
Technical Report 9mmm TR-5319-2 ;
n 14 15 13 'll 12 , S 1 o I A
% y 11 s 2 N
270 - -
-t-M
~_.
f0' % 1 ,3 TYP.ATBBAES 1
1 x 9 4
'C B 8 5
- 7 6
}fD 4 T WM l
FIGURE 2-2 SRV LINE ARRANGEMENT-TORUS
Technical Report ymmM TR-5319-2 ) -
g
/
)
ll
\
ll 1/4" THICKNESS 11 u
W l/2" THICKNESS 10" S9V LINE 1/8" THICKNESS i
~
TORUS SHELL DRYWELL i
r
' VENT 10" SRV LINE I xPENETRATION
~-
~
FIGURE"f-3 SRV LINE ROUTING, TYPICAL
)
NINf9 2 ,
l . . -
SUPPORT BLOCKS (ALLOW ROTATION) 5U~PPORTBEAM smsuuuu E E -
W #
' g-i
~
s,<,sssss o 30 1
880 , ./ ,,
k I # j .
i d I r- u u v 9
C 3
~ -.
SUPPORT BEAM 12" QUENCHER m n -
1 j
( ll .]
l l 5
N' "Y
,'f,. "f }
l
= = .I
-.....-1 k f I l c = _ _ _ _ _
e s y RING GIRDER (TYP.)
l i 20" SCH 120 SUPPORT BEAM-l
/
f fS TORU 12" TYPE 316L ARMS l
lEGURE 2-4 SRV TEE-QUENCHER f. SUPPORT l
, . . - - - _ . . . . . . ~ . - - . . - _ . - - - - - . . . , _ _ . - - _ - - - -
Technical Report T TR-5319-2 ) SRI X " MA'IN 18 STEAM Mg JJ J.L V
/
/#
5 " SRV LINE
]
~~
UENfP'EiiETRATIONX-2086 l
'SiJPPORUBEAM
' ~
TEE-QUENC ER AND SUPPORT BEAM
~
FIGlRE i 2-5' '~SkV PIPE MODEL, TYPICAL
Technical Report WTERME 9GEElWGM TR-5319-2 '
s 11 NODES / # :
l RING HEADER SPAN (TYP) o i d'
> 00WNCOMER i
VENT HEADER 4f <,
SUPPORT COLUMN 1
VENT PIPE 8
, Ls 1A ast 4>
\ .
\ . -
\ j
\ ,
1 _ VENT HEADER INTERSECTION
\
/ _ (STIFFNESS MATRIX INFUT) g C /
\
s-4 >
45 > l t
t 4,
j g SYMMETRY B0UNDARY CONDITIONS l <,
l l
~
l FIGURE 2-6 VENT SYSTEM MODEL
i' Technical R;: port TF WE TR-5319-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 3.0 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING (TAP)
The torus at Vermont Yankee has 17 piping systems attached to its outer shell. These systems connect to 39 penetrations and are listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Analysis of the large diameter attached piping systems included all piping from the torus to the first anchor. Small diameter piping was analyzed to the first anchor or a distance where the torus loads could be considered negligible.
Also considered in this analysis are:
e Branch piping connected to TAP systems.
e Torus penetration stresses, o Piping inside the torus attached to TAP systems.
9 Pump and valve loads, o All pipe support and anchor loads.
The analysis method is different for large bore TAP systems (above four-inch diameter) and small bore systems (four-inch and below), as discussed in the following text.
Different organizations were involved in these analyses. TES performed the piping analysis of all piping systems connected directly to the torus, f including branch lines with diameters greater than approximately 1/6 of the run lines. CYGNA* performed support analysis for all TAP and branch lines.
This report includes descriptions and results for all analysis.
3.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria Analysis and modifications to TAP piping and supports were in accordance with the following codes:
- CYGNA Energy Corp., Boston, Mass. ,
1 f
1%V W NE Technical Report TR-5319-2 NBRiNG SBR \/ ICES i
Piping Analys_i_s, s
All TAP systems, including all branch lines with diameters greater than approximately 1/6 of run lines - ASME,Section III, 1977 (Reference 2).
Support Analysis All TAP and branch supports - AISC-1978 Edition, and includ-ing NRC Bulletin 79-02 requirements (Reference 3). Allow-able loads for SSE conditions were increased 33 percent, but did not exceed 0.9 Fy.
Load combinations and stress levels were evaluated in accordance with Table 5-5 of the Mark 1 Containment Program Structural Acceptance Cri-teria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (Reference.5). Table 5-5 is reproduced in this report as Table 1.
Damping of all time history piping analysis was taken at 2% of critical for all lines 12-inch diameter or less; larger lines used 3% damping.
Seismic analysis used .5% damped spectra in accordance with the FSAR.
3.2 TAP Loads
?
l Loads applied to TAP systems include:
Mark 1 Loads Shell motion due to pool swell.
Shell motion due to SRV line discharge.
Shell motion due to condensation oscillation.
Shell motion due to chugging.
Pool drag and impact loads on internal piping.
i
I Technical Report WTF1 pr7yNE
-TR-5319-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES and Original Design Loads i Deadweight.
Thermal expansion.
Seismic.
} The Mark 1 loads, due to shell motion, were calculated based on plant unique shell response data developed during an earlier phase of this program and reported in the PUA report, Reference 1. Drag loads on internal piping were developed using generic methods from the Mark 1 Program as a part 7
of this piping analysis work. These loads are described more fully in the Mark 1 Load Definition Report (Reference 11).
Analysis for seismic response was based on FSAR spectra.
3.2.1 Shell Motion Due to Pool Swell .
TAP input loads, due to shell motion during pool swell, were based on data developed during the Plant Unique Analysis for the shell (Refer-ence 1). The PUA shell analysis provided time history response information in five degrees of freedom for every point on the shell where large bore TAP was j
. connected. This data consisted of three translations and two out of plane I rotations (no torsion). Data for small bore piping was based on conservative bounding of the large bore data. Attachment points for large bore piping are
[ illustrated in Figures 3-8a and 3-8b.
Data available from the plant unique shell analysis consists of time history displacements and rotations. These were converted to equiva-lent time history forces as described in paragraph 3.3.1.
A typical pool swell force time history is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
i
)
Technical Report TR-5319-2 "MTA W E gg gg i
3.2.2 Shell Motion Due to DBA Condensation Oscillation The DBA condensation oscillation load definition is given in Reference 11 as a set of spectral pressures, from 1-50 Hz. Shell response due to this loading was calculated by applying each frequency in this band to the torus shell model shown in Figure 3-7 and calculating response for each i sinusoidal excitation. (This ' work was done earlier to allow calculation of shell stress for Reference 1). Shell response was calculated for frequencies up to 32 Hz; frequencies above 32 Hz were considered negligible as discussed in Appendix 2.
Shell responses for each of these frequency components were combined into an equivalent time history using random phasing of the indivi-dual components. Amplitudes of this equivalent time history were then increased by a factor of 1.15 to allow for the in-phase response of the four peak frequency components. See Reference 14 for a further discussion of the factor and component phasing.
This method of combining frequency components and generating an equivalent shell response time history was repeated for each TAP penetra- _
tion for large bore piping. Responses for small bore piping were based on conservative bounding of the large bore data.
A typical DBA C0 shell response is illustrated in Figure 3-2.
3.2.3 Shell Motion Due to Chugging i
Shell response during chugging was defined separately for pre-chug and post chug loads.
Pre-chug is a sinusoidal pressure load equal to + 2 psi on the torus shell; this load can occur at any frequency between 6.9 and 9.5 Hz
)
Technical Report TR-5319-2 S P TI I 5:TT( E ENGNEERING SERVICES (Reference 11). Shell response for pre-chug was calculated by applying a continuous i 2 psi sine pressure to the large torus model (Figure 3-7) in the specified frequency range. Maximum shell response in this range occurred at v 9.5 Hz. This was considered as one of the inputs to TAP.
Post chug is specified as a spectrum of pressures from 1-50 Hz. Shell response was calculated for each 1 Hz component in this spectrum, t
then all 50 components were combined into an equivalent time history using random phasing of all components. Amplitudes of this time history loading were multiplied by 1.15 to account for the fact that some elements of the spectrum are not randomly phased. Further discussion of this factor can be found in Reference 6. The resulting pressure time history was applied to the model in Figure 3-7 to calculate shell response.
3.2.4 Shell Motion Due to SRV Line Discharge TAP input loads, due to shell motion during SRV line dis-charge, were based on data developed for the PUA shell analysis (Reference 1).
This shell analysis was the result of a finite element analysis that was calibrated with in-plant SRV test data, as described in Reference 1. The data resulting from the shell analysis were time histories and were u;ed to provide time history input functions for the TAP.
Section 5.2 in the LDR (Reference 11) requires that we allow for a i 25 percent shif t in the SRV frequency for discharge through a cold
! line, and a 1 40 percent shift for discharge through a hot line. This was considered by examining the response modes and frequencies of the TAP piping systems and then making adjustments within the specified ranges to force worst case input-response frequency pairing.
The strongest torus shell response during SRV actuation is the result of simultaneous actuation of several SRV lines. These cases were considered by adding the shell pressures due to the individual actuations by l absolute summation.
)
Technical Report '#PTn WNE TR-5319-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES l A typical shell response due to SRV actuation is illustrated in Figure 3-3.
3.2.5 Loads on Internal Piping Most of the large TAP systems extend into the torus. In the case of suction lines, the internal portions usually consist of a pipe fitting and strainer. For return lines, longer sections of pipe, up to approximately 20 feet, extend into the torus.
The internal portions of these systems are subjected to sub-merged structure drag if they are in the pool; or pool impact, if t.'e" r u above the water level. In either case, the appropriate Mark 1 loads were calculated and considered during the piping evaluation.
Loads for piping in the pool and above the pool were calcu-lated in accordance with the methods of the Load Definition Report (Reference 11), NUREG 0661 (Reference 12) and Appendix 1 of Reference 1. All loads were considered, including:
For Submerged Piping:
e C0 Source and FSI Drag.
f a Post Chug Source and FSI Drag.
[ e Pre-chug Drag.
i e SRV Bubble and Jet Loads.
l e Pool Swell Bubble Drag.
e Pool Swell Fallback.
For Structures Above the Pool:
o Pool Swell Water Impact and Drag, e Froth.
e Fallback.
)
Technical Repart pg TR-5319-2 )
A typical submerged structure load spectrum is shown in Fig-ure 3-4. This spectrum includes C0 and CH source and FSI drag.
3.2.6 Deadweight, Thermal and Seismic Analysis Analysis for all TAP systems was also done for deadweight, thermal and seismic conditions.
Thermal analysis was performed at the original design ther-mal conditions. Thermal displacement of the penetration was determined from the maximum operating temperature of the torus and applied for all cases.
Seismic analysis was done using the OBE spectra from the FSAR. A typical horizontal spectra is shown in Figure 3-5. Analysis for SSE was taken as twice the OBE results. Total seismic stress was taken as the SRSS combination of the two horizontal and the vertical response, in accord-ance with the FSAR. The effect of the seismic response of the torus, at the penetration, was studied to determine if it would exceed the enveloped build-ing spectra beir.;, used for the rest of the line. It was determined that the building spectra would control at all .5 quencies, so this same spectra was applied at the torus penetration.
3.3 TAP Analysis Methods 1
The method for TAP pipe stress analysis varied for each of the following cases:
e Large bore piping (over 4" diameter).
e Small bore piping systems (4" and less), which could be reduced to single degree-of-freedom approximations.
e Small bore piping which could not be reduced to single dof systems.
! e Branch piping off of TAP systems.
1 1
i Technical Report WME TR-5319-2 ENGNEBUNG SERVICES
\
Analysis of supports, anchors and torus penetrations did not vary and was the same for all types of piping systems.
3.3.1 Representation of Torus Shell for Piping Analysis Because tne larger TAP systems are stiff and heavy when compared to the torus shell, it is important that the piping computer model allows for dynamic interaction between the piping and the torus. This was done for all TAP piping systems by including a set of ground springs in the piping model to represent the torus connection, as illustrated in Figure 3-6.
Five ground springs were used to represent the torus shell; these represented stiffnesses associated with the three translations of the shell and the two out of plane moments on the shell. Torsional pipe loads were considered negligible.
The stiffness values of the ground springs were calculated by applying unit loads and moments to the large shell finite element model of the torus illustrated in Figure 3-7.. Different attachment stiffnesses were calculated for each pipe penetration location, and then applied to the appro-priate piping system model.
3.3.2 Piping Analysis Method - Large Bore Systems s Analysis of all large bore piping systems was done using finite element models of each system. These models included ground springs to represent the torus and also included piping inside the torus.
All analysis on these models was done using the STARDYNE computer code. Time history dynamic analysis used damping values of 2% of critical for all lines 12-inches and less, and 3% for larger lines. Seismic analysis utilized a % damped spectra. Analysis on these models included:
e Zero and Full AP Pool Swell Motion and Drag Loads.
e Post Chug Shell Motion and Drag Loads.
l
)
Technical R: port TR-5319-2 WTNE ENGNEERNG SERVICES 1
e DBA C0 Shell Motion and Drag Loads.
e SRV Shell Motion and Drag Loads, o Deadweight.
y e Seismic.
e Thermal .
Pre-chug was considered as a separate load condition, but it was determined that it would always be bounded by DBA C0. On that basis, pre-chug loads were not run for each TAP system.
All TAP response due to shell motion was done using time history analysis. Response due to drag loads on internal piping was calcu-lated by harmonic analysis for the spectral loads and hand analysis for transients. The effects of both shell motion and internal loadings were considered for all points in the piping system.
Pipe stress due to welded support attachments was considered by separate analysis and included in the pipe stress evaluation.
3.3.3 Piping Analysis. Method - Complex Small Bore Systems Analysis of small bore piping systems that could nct be reduced to single degree of freedom systems were treated identically to large bore systems, except for the loads considered. For these systems, the loads considered included:
e DBA C0.
e Deadweight.
e Seismic.
e Thermal.
Consideration of Mark 1 dynamic loads was limited to DBA CO, based on experience with large bore piping analysis for five Mark 1 plants.
i
)
Technical Report pg TR-5319-2 g
)
This experience showed that all high stressed lines were controlled by DBA C0, except in a few special cases. Appendix 1 discusses this furt' 1r.
3.3.4 Piping Analysis Method - Simple Small Bore Systems Small bore piping systems that could be reduced to single mass approximations were analyzed using hand analysis. Torus shell stiffness j
was included in - these models to the extent that it affected first mode response, as a minimum. Higher modes were considered if they fell within the range of the input load. Typically, these systems consisted of a short length of pipe, terminating in a valve or tubing.
i Shell input to these systems (for Mark 1 loads) was format-ted in the frequency domain to provide an input spectrum. This spectral data was used in combination with the hand analysis to calculate response levels.
Loads considered for simple small bore systems were the same as for the more complex small bore systems, including seismic, weight and thermal, if applicable.
3.3.5 Piping Analysis Method - Branch Piping Branch piping connected to TAP systems was modeled with the TAP systems if the ratio of their bending stiffness was greater than approxi-mately 1:40.
Branch piping too flexible to meet this ratio was considered by separate evaluation per the PUAAG. These systems were analyzed statically, where required, by placing a displacement at the connection point, equal to the total TAP motion at the connection point. (except deadweight deflections, which were considered negligible).
/
)
Technical Report 7PTFI FIT (E TR-5319-2 gg gg
) 3.3.6 Piping Analysis - Load Input for Computer Models 3.3.6.1 Mark 1 Loads Due to Shell Motion I
Shell motion, due to internal Mark 1 loads, is due to pressures across broad areas of the shell, as opposed to concentrated forces at the penetration. Because of this, the interactive effects of piping and shell should include allowance for local shell compliance in the force I
input to the piping system. The method of load input for TAP accounts for this. The method is illustrated in Figure 3-6.
The steps involved are:
)
e Extract displacement time history from large computer model for a shell without an attached TAP system. (Reference 1 and Figure 3-7).
I e Determine local shell stiffness from large computer model (Reference 1 and Figure 3-7).
e Determine an equivalent force time history at the penetration by multiplying displacement by stiffness.
l e Apply the force time history to the TAP as shown in Figure 3-6.
The use of forces, rather than displacements to drive the model, is necessary to accurately account for the inertial inter-action of the piping, since the available shell response data is for an unloaded shell (no piping). Use of forces as input will allow displacements at the penetration to increase or decrease in reaction to the inertial forces from the piping.
3.3.6.2 Submerged Drag Loads on Internal TAP l Drag loads on internal piping during CO, CH, SRV and pool swell were evaluated using the same TAP piping models that were used
)
Technical Report WTF1 PTT(NE TR-5319-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES
)
for shell induced, seismic and other loads. Internal drag loadings were run
, as separate cases, with worst-case orientations, and then combined with other l
loadings to determine pipe stress, support loads and penetration stress. The I
effects of drag load on both internal and external parts of the TAP system were calculated and included in all evaluations.
Loads were applied to the piping and evaluated by I the following methods:
o Pool Swell Drag - Static Analysis x 2.
e Pool Swell Fallback - Static Analysis x 1.
t e Pool Swell Impact - Static Analysis x 2.
e Pool Swell Froth - Static Analysis x 2.
e C0 Drag - Dynamic Analysis (Spectrum).
o Post Chug Drag - Dynamic Analysis (Spectrum).
f a SRV Drag - Static Analysis x 1.
e Pre-chug - Bounded by DBA CO.
Piping response to C0 and post chug drag were eval-uated using dynamic analysis. These spectra, including their FSI components, were then enveloped to form a single spectrum that was used in this analysis.
Each frequency component in this spectrum was then applied to the CG of the submerged internal piping as a harmonic forcing function. The load in the pipe was calculated at a point just inside the penetration, in each of six degrees-of-freedom. These single-frequency piping loads were then combined into a single load at that point by absolute sum of the four largest compon-ents added to the SRSS of the balance. This was done for each degree of freedom. (The basis for this method of combining individual frequency com-ponents is discussed in Reference 14). The loads calculated in the pipe were then applied to the system as static loads; and pipe stress, penetration stress, and support loads were determined. A typical combined spectrum is illustrated in Figure 3-4.
)
Technical Report TR-5319-2 'RTFiFrVNE ENGNEERNG SERVICES
)
TAP analysis for other loads noted above, was done by applying the appropriate load to the CG of the affected area and performing static analysis.
)
3.3.7 TAP Penetration Analysis Analysis of torus penetrations included the following loads:
e Loads from piping response due to shell motion (Mark 1 loads).
e Loads due to submerged drag and/or pool impact, on
, internal sections of TAP, as applicable.
e Loads from weight, seismic and thermal conditions on the attached piping.
e Shell loads which exist due to the Mark 1 and other j loads, independent of piping (from Reference 1).
The calculation of stress from the loads was done using a Bijlaard analysis (Reference 9) to account for local penetration stress due to j piping loads. These were combined with free shell stresses in that area, intensified to account for the discontinuity. Free shell stress was taken from earlier containment analysis, as reported in Reference 1. Penetration stresses were calculated for each load in each degree of freedom. Stresses resulting from this analysis were combined to form the load cases defined in the PUAAG (Reference 9 and Table 1).
l Stress in the piping within the limits of reinforcement was calculated by combining the stress in the pipe with the local shell stresses by absolute summation. This was also evaluated for each degree of freedom and each of the PUAAG load cases (Table 1).
)
Technical Report pg TR-5319-2 ENGrEStNG SERVICES
) 3.3.8 Analysis Method for Piping Supports Analysis was done for all piping supports for all TAP and branch systems. Calculations were made using both hand and computer analy-sis, depending on the complexity of the individual support. Evaluation of baseplates and anchor bolts was included, using the current procedures devel-oped in response to NRC Bulletin 79-02.(Reference 3). The GTSTRUDL computer program was used in most cases where computer analysis of supports was done.
In cases where TAP supports were connected to the torus shell, local shell stresses were reevaluated to assure that shell allowables were not exceeded. This evaluation considered the free shell stress which was already calculated in the area of the support in Reference 1. These free shell stresses were intensified before being combined with the local stresses due to support loads.
3.3.9 Vacuum Breaker Analysis The torus TAP systems include the atmospheric control lines which connect the main vent pipe to the the torus airspace, and which include the wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breakers. Analysis of these vacuum breakers was not a part of the Mark 1 Containment Program, but is reported in Reference
- 13. This reference concludes that the Vermont Yankee vacuum breakers will not cycle, due to Mark 1 dynamic loads. Based on this, no analysis of these valves was done.
3.3.10 Active Components Active components on TAP systems include 11 pumps and 46 valves. Acceptability of these components was assured by limiting stresses at these locations, as described in the evaluation section. No analysis was necessary on these components.
1 Technical Report TF WE TR-5319-2 ENGeEBWG SERVCES l
3.4 Evaluation and Results (TAP) 3.4.1 General Combinations of the previous analysis cases were done to allow evaluation of results in accordance with Table 5-5 of Reference 5.
(Table 1 in this report.) This table lists a total of 27 load cases for both essential and non-essential piping systems. For purposes of this evaluation, all TAP systems are classified as essential.
The 27 load cases shown in Table 1 were reduced, by conserva-tive bounding, to the cases listed below:
Case No. Major (Table 1) Load (s) Allowable (Eq. 9) 1 3 SRV (C3.1) + SSE 1.2 S h
2 16 Zero AP 2.4 S h 3 21 D,BA C0/CH + SSE 2.4 S h 4 25 Pool Swell + SRV (A1.3) 2.4 S h 5 15 Post Chug + SRV (A1.2) 2.4 S h In these cases, the seismic stresses were combined with the absolute sum of the Mark 1 dynamic loads by the the SRSS method, as applicable.
3.4.2 Piping Stress - Large Bore Systems Stress in all large bore TAP systems was combined and eval-uated in accordance with Section III of the ASME code for the five cases L
)
Technical Report yg TR-5319-2 N S N ES I '
listed in Paragraph 3.4.1. These evaluations included the effects of local pipe stresses due to welded attachments at supports. Fatigue was considered as explained in Paragraph 3.4.6.
)
The large bore TAP systems are listed in Table 3-1 along with the maximum stress for the controlling load combination.
)
3.4.3 Pipe Stress - Small Bore TAP Systems Evaluation of small bore TAP systems was the same as for large bore systems, except that the only Mark 1 dynamic load considered was DBA C0. This approach was based on experience gained in large bore analysis and is discussed further in Appendix 1.
Small bore systems are listed in Table 3-2.
3.4.4 Pumps and Valves Evaluation of pumps and valves was done based on stresses in the adjacent piping. Pipe stresses meeting Level B criteria were considered adequate to assure proper operation of the pumps or valve. (Reference 5, 1
Section 5.5).
Results of the pump and valve evaluation are listed in Table 3-3.
3.4.5 Piping Fatigue Evaluation l Consideration of the fatigue effects of cyclic loading is reported in Reference 10 for bounding Mark 1 plants. This reference defines bounding conditions and concludes that the stress levels and cycles involved in these systems will not produce a f atigue problem. The conclusions are
- applicable to the Vermont Yankee Plant. No further plant unique evaluation was done to address fatigue considerations for piping. Fatigue for the penetration is considered below.
L
)
Tcchnical Report W Triprt(m TR-5319-2 _41-N ES 3.4.6 Torus Shell Penetration Evaluation Evaluation of torus penetration stresses considered loads from the external and internal piping, as well as the loads that exist in the
. shell, due to the same event (s). Shell stress away from penetrations is reported in Reference 1.
Stresses in the penetration area were evaluated in accord-3 ance with subsection NE of The ASME code, using the following paragraphs:
NE-3221.2 Local Membrane Stress Intensity
)
NE-3221.3 Primary General or Local Membrane plus Primary Bending Strers Intensity NE-3221.4 Primary plus Secondary Stress Intensity NE-3221.5 Analysis for Cyclic Operation NE-3227.5 Nozzle Piping Transition j
Fatigue evaluation of the penetration (paragraph NE-3221.5) showed that the maximum load could be cycled on each penetration for at least 10,000 cycles without exceeding code allowables. The major loads that form these load combinations are pool swell (1 cycle), DBA.C0 (900 cycles), and SRV Case C3.3 (50 cycles). Other loads; normal SRV actuation, IBA CO, and chugg-ing, can produce up to 10,000 cycles, but only at greatly reduc d stress levels. Based on this, the 10,000 cycles at maximum stress represents a conservative level of evaluation and the TAP shell penetrations are con-sidered acceptable for fatigue.
Controlling stresses in the TAP penetrations are listed in Table 3-5. Additional information of number of cycles for each condition can l be found in Reference 10.
l t
)
Technical R: port TR-5319-2 pgg g
y This same evaluation was applied to TAP supports connected to the torus shell, except that NE-3227.5 does not apply.
3.4.7 Piping Supports
)
All piping supports on the TAP systems were evaluated for the same load combinations as the piping (Table 1).
Evaluation was done in accordance with AISC,1978 Edition
)
and included the following criteria:
e Expansion type anchor bolts and baseplates were
)
evaluated in accordance with Bulletin 79-02 cri-teria (Reference 3).
e No stresses in pipe supports were allowed to exceed yield, regardless of pipe stress allowables.
)
A listing of pipe supports and modifications is given in Table 3-4.
l 3.5 Sumary of TAP Modifications Modifications to torus attached piping systems consisted of support changes, as well as modifications to internal piping.
Modifications to internal piping included shortening some lines to reduce submergence and drag loads; rerouting one line and supporting it from the ring girder and resupporting one other. The following modifications were made; these are illustrated in Reference 1.
e Reroute RHR line and support from ring girder.
e Reinforce spray header supports on the ring girders.
e Shorten RCIC exhaust line.
Modifications to external piping consisted of support and support steel modifications as summarized in Table 3-4 of this report.
x TABLE 3-1
System Penetration Line Size Controlling Maximum Allowable Max. Stress E Name Number & Schedule Load Case Stress Stress Location A (3-3 X-226B 12" Std. DBA C0 21663 36000 16 x 12-Reducing
- Elbow HPCI-8 X-225 16" Std. Full " 6P" 27973 36000 Elbow Pool Swell HPCI-6 X-221 24" Sch. 30 Chug 32781 36000 5R Elb w 1
AC-1 X-218 8" Std. Seismic 21190 27000 18 x 8 Tee ,
(with SRV) C
- RHR-6 X-224A 24" Std. DBA C0 35956 36000 SR Elbow AC-2 X-205 20" Std. Seismic 26218 27000 20 x 20 Tee (with SRV)
RCIC-1 X-227 6" Std. Full " AP" 23633 36000 6 x 6 Tee 4 Pool Swell 9 CS-2/RHR-7 X-210A/X-211A 4" Std. Full "A P" 26459 36000 12 x 4 Tee (Model A) Pool Swell CS-6 X-210B/X-2118 10" Std. Seismic 22962 27000 Two-Way Restraint (with SRV) i HISC. 4/4A X-224B 20" Std. Seismic 25947 27000 SR Elbow RHR-5/5B (with SRV)
(Model 3)
I
TABLE 3-1 (CONTINUED) :;;;j g VERMONT YANKEE LARGE BORE TAP RESULTS n
'5' B
System Penetration Line, Size Cont' rolling Maximum Allowable Max. Stress A Name Number- & Schedule Load Case Stress Stress Location-4 i CS-4 X-226A 12" Std. Seismic 16901 27000 12 x 12 Tee
- Pool Swell Inside Torus I
Vacuum Breaker X-202A-F 18" Std. Seismic 7a47 18000 Elbow
~(with SRV) ,
Vacuum Breaker X-202 H&K, G&J 18" Std. DBA C0 27746 36000 Elbow i
i f
i I
l 4
! I
4 TABLE 3-2 "h 4,
wa VERMONT YANKEE 'G&
,43 SMALL BORE TAP RESULTS =
8 5?
I System Penetration Line Size Type of Maximum Allowable Max. Stress Name Number & Schedule Analysis Stress Stress Location Radiation Monitor X-216 Sch. 80 Computer 31,697 37,152 Valve
, Return 1
0xygen Analyzer X-220 1" Sch. 80 Computer 18,600 36,000 Valve HPCI Turbine X-222 2" Sch. 80 Computer 28,755 36,000 Elbow Near Penet.
Cond. Drain
. A RCIC Turbine X-223 2" Sch. 80 Computer 24,623 36,000. 1" Drain Line Y' Cond. Drain . ,
X-206A 1" Sch. 80- ' tiand '
9,628 36,000 Penetration Penetration a
'X-206B, C,.D +1" Sch. 80 Hand 10,247 36,000 1 X-206E, F , 1"> Sch. 80 . Hand 3,541 (CO<,10%) 36,000 Penetration j . . , ,
! , e-X-209A,B,C,D 4-215 1" Sch. 80 ,to ,h" Hand 15,313 36,000 Penetration h X-214 4".5ch.'80 Hand 1,627 (C0 <,10%) 36,000 Penetration X-217 2"'Sch. 80 Hand 5,004 '*
36,000 Fenetration -
.- * - , u> ,
'i i
,r
_W . g ,,
a :
e # //
~
'3 ..,.
l
'M
'g e / a
^
e, . , .
c , .
b ,
Y ,
~~
,.,y a >
2
_- ,_ _ }
y --
? ; 1
~
, . f ".
, L ? '. ,
- TABLE 3-3 -.
' My an -
$5 VERMONT YANKEE ro -
PUMP AND VALVE EPAtt!ATION eo Component
/
TAP TAP Pipe Stress Allowable a Ccmponent at Carponent Pipe Stress <
Designation Type System Penetration .
~
P-46-1A Pump CS-3 X-226B . 6257 /' 18000 X-225,. 5613 18000 Booster Pump Pump, HPCI-8 X-221 3624 18000 TU-1-1A HPCI Turbine HPCI-6 X-227 4524 18000 P-47-1A Pump RCIC-1 18000 P-46-1B Pump CS-2/RHR-7 X-210A/X-211A 10308 h X-210B/X-211B 7444 18000 P46-1A Pump CS-6 Misc. 4/4A, X-224B 17517 18000 P-10-1C Pump RHR-5/5B P-10-1A Pump
" X-224B 17501 18000 h X-226A 9510 18000 P-46-1B Pump CS-4 X-224A , 15584 18000 P-10-1B Pump RHR-6 X-224A 13615 18000 P-10-1D Pump RHR-6 X-224A 5263 18000 M0V10-138 Mtr. Oper. Valve RHR-6 X-2106/X-211B 16425 18000 CS-26A Mtr. Oper. Valve CS-6 X-226B 8428 18000 CS-7A Mtr. Oper. Valve CS-3 X-2268 9812 18000 CS-8A Man. Oper. Valve CS-3
p.> _
%. G
$7 TABLE 3-3 (CONTINUED) $
VERMONT YANKEE PUMP AND VALVE EVALUATION [
e Component Component TAP TAP Pipe Stress Allowable Designation Type System Penetration at Component Pipe Stress HPCI-17 Mtr. Oper. Valve HPCI-8 X-225 3941 18000 HPC1-57 Mtr. Oper. Valve HPCI-8 X-225 6417 18000 HPCI-58 Mtr. Oper. Valve HPCI-8 X-225' 7286 18000 V23-32 Check Valve HPCI-8 X-225 8685 18000 1, V23-61 Check Valve HPCI-8 X-225 6666 18000 HPCI-12 Man. Oper. Valve HPCI-6 X-221 10930 18000 HPCI-65 Check Valve HPCI-6 X-221 6438 18000 V-SBGT-1A Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 1354 18000 V-SBGT-2A Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 1606 18000 V-SBGT-1B Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 1372 18000 V-SBGT-2B Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 1580 18000 V-SBGT-4A' Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 1221 18000 V-SBGT-4B Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 1220 18000 MOV-SB-6 Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 3712 18000 SB16-19-6A Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 4494 18000
,-- - -. . -- - - ~
TABLE 3-3 (CONTINUED) y wo VERMONT YANKEE y ro -
PUMP AND VALVE EVALUATION m 3"
Component Component TAP TAP Pipe Stress Allowable Designation Type System Penetration at Component Pipe Stress ,
SB16-19-7A Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 7523 18000 SB16-19-6B Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 4183 18000 SB16-19-78 Butterfly Valve AC-1 X-218 5738 18000 5B16-19-10 Butterfly Valve AC-2 X-205 4789 18000 ,
SB16-19-11B Butterfly Valve AC-2 X-205 4889 18000 V16-19-128 Check Valve AC-2 X-205 1844 18000 V16-19-12A Check Valve AC-2 X-205 2021 18000 SB16-19-11A Butterfly Valve AC-2 X-205 6693 18000 RCIC-18 Mtr. Oper. Valve RCIC-1 X-227 5089 18000 V13-19 Check Valve RCIC-1 X-227 6741 18000 RCIC-39 Mtr. Oper. Valve RCIC-1 X-227 9925 18000 RCIC-40 Check Valve RCIC-1 X-227 6349 18000 RCIC-41 Mtr. Oper. Valve RCIC-1 X-227 5355 18000 V14-10A Check Valve CS-6 X-2108/X-211B 8112 18000
YW t
TABLE 3-3 (CONTINUED) y VERMONT YANKEE PUMP AND VALVE EVALUATION -
E
?>
a Component Component TAP TAP Pipe Stress Allowable Designation Type System Penetration at Component Pipe Stress Mtr. Oper. Valve Misc. 4, 4A X-224B 6724 18000 RHR-V-15C RHR-5, 5B Mtr. Oper. Valve "
X-2248 7116 18000 V10-15A Mtr. Oper. Valve "
X-224B 16271 18000 V10-13C V10-13A Mtr. Oper. Valve "
X-224B 5367 18000 b Mtr. Oper. Valve CS-4 X-226A 7492 18000 CS-7B Man. Oper. Valve CS-4 X-226A 4575 18000 CS-8B Man. Oper. Valve RCIC-5 X-212 2100 18000 RCIC-28 RCIC-5 X-212 14050 18000 V'3-50 Check Valve Mtr. Oper. Valve RCIC-5 X-212 16705 18000 RCIC-9 ,
Man. Oper. Valve RCIC-5 X-212 5830 18000 RCIC-37 X-202F 5318 18000 N/A Check Valve AC X-202H 13672 18000 N/A Check Valve AC X-202K 17156 18000 N/A Check Valve AC 1
)
Technical Report TME TR-5319-2 N SBt\/m TABLE 3-4 1
VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS I Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1001, Sh. 1 ACSP-HD228 E-W Lateral Yes ACSP-HD22A Spring Can Yes (2030) i ACSP-H22 Axial Yes ACSP-H23 N-S Lateral Yes ACSP-HD25B Gravity Hanger Removed ACSP-HD25A Gravity Hanger Note 1 ACSP-H204 E-W Lateral / Gravity Hanger Gravity Hanger Removed i
ACSP-HD26A Spring Can Yes (2031)
ACSP-HD26B Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1464)
ACSP-H26 N-S/E-W Lateral Yes ACSP-H27 N-S/E-W Lateral Yes Rigid Vertical ACSP-H27B N-S/E-W Lateral Yes ACSP-H27A Gravity Hanger Removed ASCP-HD31B Gravity Hanger Removed ACSP-H31 N-S Lateral / Removed Rigid Vertical ACSP-HD31A Gravity Hanger Removed ACSP-H34 E-W Lateral No ACSP-HD34 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1465)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
I
)
Technical Report SPF WE TR-5319-2 g gg i TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS
)
Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1001, Sh. 1 ACSP-H199 Anchor Yes ACSP-H110 Gravity Hanger Note 1
- (1446)
PI-1001, Sh. 2 ACSP-HD205C Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1447)
ACSP-HD205B Gravity Hanger No i
ACSP-HD205A Rigid Vertical No ACSP-H205 Axial No ACSP-H119 Rigid Vertical No i
ACSP-HD-2028 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1449)
ACSP-HD202A Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1448)
)
ACSP-H202 E-W Lateral No ACSP-HD203F Gravity Hanger Yes (2033)
ACSP-H203 E-W Lateral / Axial No l
ACSP-HD203E Gravity Hanger Note 1 l (1450)
L ACSP-HD203D Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1453)
ACSP-HD203B Gravity Hanger No ACSP-HD203C Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1452)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical Rep;rt yg TR-5319-2
_ _ g TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1001, Sh. 2 ACSP-HD203A Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1451)
ACSP-HD30A Spring Can Yes (2035)
PI-1002, Sh. 1 ACSP-HD30B Spring Can Yes (2036)
ACSP-H30 N-W/E-W Lateral / Yes (1102) Rigid Vertical ACSP-HD30C Spring Can Yes (2037)
', ACSP-H32 Anchor Yes (1125)
ACSP-HD32A Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1454) t ACSP-H32A E-W Lateral / New Design Rigid Vertical ACSP-HD32B Spring Can Yes (2038)
ACSP-H29 Gravity Hanger Note 1 ACSP-HD32C Spring Can Yes (2039)
ACSP-H28 Gravity Hanger Note 1 t
ACSP-HD213 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1455)
ACSP-HD214 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1456)
)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
)
\
Technical R: port
-b3- TN TR-5319-2 StN4G NES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1002, Sh. 1 ACSP-HD215 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1457)
ACSP-HD216 N-S/E-W Lateral No ACSP-HD221 Spring Can Yes (2040)
ACSP-HD220 Gravity Hanger Yes (2041)
PI-1004, Sh. 2 ACSP-HD217 N-S Lateral / Yes (1103) Rigid Vertical RSW-H98 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1459)
ACSP-HD218 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1458)
ACSP-HD227 N-S Lateral New Design RSW-HD224 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1460)
ACSP-H219 Spring Can Yes (2042)
ACSP-HD225 N-S Lateral / New Design Rigid Vertical ACSP-HD226 Anchor New Design PI-1010, Sh. 1 CS-HD42 Gravity Hanger Note 1 CS-H42 E-W Lateral Yes CS-H43 Gravity Hanger Note 1
> CS-H84 E-W Lateral Yes Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
t
Technical Report TR-5319-2 WTF1 WE ENGNEERING SERVICES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1010, Sh. 1 CS-HD84 Spring Can Removed CS-H45 N-5/E-W Lateral Yes CS-HD46 N-S/E-W Lateral Yes CS-H46 N-W/E-W Lateral No CS-HD55B N-S Lateral / Yes Rigid Vertical CS-H55 N-S Lateral / Axial Yes CS-HD55A Gravity Hanger Removed CS-HD85D Rigid Vertical No CS-HD85C N-S Lateral / Axial Yes CS-HD85B Spring Can Removed CS-H56 N-S Lateral No CS-H85 E-W Snubber Removed i CS-HD85A Gravity Hanger Removed PI-1010, Sh. 2 CS-HD868 Spring Can Removed CS-HD86A Spring Can Note 1 CS-HD86C Spring Can Changed to spring /
(2097) vertical snubber CS-H86A Lateral Snubber Changed to rigid lateral CS-H86B Axial Snubber Changed to rigid axial RHR-HD134 Spring / Vertical New Design (1033) Snubber Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical Report TM TR-5319-2 ES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1010, Sh. 2 RHR-H134 Lateral Removed RHR-HD134A Spring Can Removed PI-1010, Sh. 3 RHR-HD101 N-S/E-W Lateral Removed RHR-H101 E-W Lateral / Axial Yes (1107)
CS-HD870 Spring Can Removed CS-HD87C Spring Can Removed RHR-H98 N-W/E-W Lateral Changed to 5-way restraint CS-HD87A N-S/E-W Lateral No CS-H87 Lateral No PI-1133, Sh. 1 RHR-HD241 Anchor No RHR-H103 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1111)
RHR-HD16G E-W Lateral New Design (1113)
RHR-HD16F Spring Can Removed RHR-HD16D Gravity Hanger Removed l RilR-HD16H E-W Lateral New Design (1114)
RHR-HD16E Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-H16 Anchor Yes RHR-HD16C Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1112)
L Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical R: port WME TR-5319-2 N SBl%/lCES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-ll33, Sh. 1 RHR-HD16B Spring Can Removed RHR-HD16J Lateral New Design (1115)
RHR-HD16A Gravity Hanger Removed PI-1133, Sh. 2 RHR-H186 N-S Lateral Yes (1110)
RHR-HD186A Rigid Vertical New Design (1119)
RHR-HD188D Spring Can Removed RHR-HD186 Spriag Can Removed RHR-H154 Anchor Removed RHR-HD154 Gravity Removed RHR-HD129E E-W Lateral New Design (1120)
RHR-HD129A Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-H129B Spring Can Removed RHR-H129 N-S Lateral Yes (1108)
RHR-HD129C Gravity Hanger Yes (1118)
RHR-HD129D Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD188A Gravity Hanger Yes (1116)
RHR-HD188B Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-H188 Lateral Snubber Changed to 2-way (1109) rigid lateral
Technical Report TR-5319-2 TTF1 WE N MICES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-ll33, Sh. 2 RHR-HD188C Spring Can Note 1 (1117)
PI-10ll, Sh. 1 CS-HD57C Spring Can Yes (2043)
CS-H57 N-S Lateral Yes CS-HD57A Gravity Hanger Note 1 CS-HD57B Gravity Hanger Note 1 CS-HD57D N-S Lateral New Design CS-HD88A Spring Can Yes (2044)
CS-H88 Lateral No CS-HD88B Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1466)
CS-HD88C Spring Can Yes (2045)
CS-HD88D Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1461)
CST-H15 Anchor Yes PI-1012, Sh. 1 CS-HD60C Spring Can No l CS-H60 N-S Lateral Changed to vertical / lateral CS-HD60B Spring Can Note 1 (2050)
CS-HD60A Gravity Hanger Note 1 Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical Report YM TR-5319-2 6 g@
TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Suoport I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1012, Sh. 1 CS-HD60A Gravity Hanger Note 1 CS-HD58E Spring Can No CS-HD58T E-W L3teral New Design CS-H59 Anchor No CS-HD58A Gravity Hanger No CS-H58 Lateral No CS-HD588 Spring Can No CS-HD58C Spring Can Yes (2049)
CS-HD58D Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1462)
PI-1013, Sh. 1 CS-H47 Gravity Hanger Note 1
- (1463)
CS-H48 Gravity Hanger No CS-H49 E-W Lateral Yes
/ (1101)
CS-HD52B Spring Can Yes (2053) l CS-HD52A Spring Can Yes (2054)
\
CS-H52 N-S/E-W Lateral Yes Rigid Vertical CS-HB9 Lateral Yes
- CS-HD89 Spring Can Yes (2055)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
j
Technical RGport ygg TR-5319-2 gg TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1013, Sh. 1 CS-HD89 Spring Can Yes (2055)
CS-H54 N-W/E-W Lateral Yes CS-HD90C N-S Snubber New Design CS-HD90B Gravity Hanger Note 1 CS-HD90 N-S Lateral Changed to N-S lateral / axial CS-HD90A Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1467)
CS-HD61C Gravity Hanger No CS-H61 N-S Lateral / Axial Yes CS-HD61B Spring Can Yes (2056)
CS-HD61A Gravity Hanger No PI-1013, Sh. 2 CS-HC54G Gravity Hanger Note 1 CS-HD54A Spring Can Changed to spring /
(2096) lateral snubber CS-HD54B Spring Can Yes (2060)
- CS-HD54H Axial Snubber New Design CS-HD54C Gravity Hanger Note 1 CS-HD54F Spring Can Yes (2059)
CS-HD54D Spring Can Yes (2058)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
1
Technical Report SPT3:1 WE TR-5319-2 g TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. '
Support I.D. Support Type Modifit.d PI-1013, Sh. 2 CS-HD54E Gravity Hanger Note 1 RHR-H83 Anchor Yes PI-1064, Sh. 1 HPCI-HD103 Spring Can Yes (2061)
HPCI-H108 E-W Lateral Yes HPCI-HD108B Spring Can Yes (2062)
HPCI-HD39 Spring Can Yes (2063)
HPCI-H39 N-S Lateral Yes HPCI-H107 Gravity Hanger Note 1 HPCI-HD107A Spring Can Yes (2064)
HPCI-HD109A Spring Can No HPCI-H109 Lateral Yes l
HPCI-HD109B Gravity Hanger Note 1 HPCI-HD109C Gravity Har.ger Note 1 HPCI-H44 N-S/E-W Lateral Yes s HPCI-HD107B Spring Can No HPCI-HD107C Spring Can Yes (2067)
PI-1066, Sh. 1 HPCI-HD84 Spring Can Yes (2068)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical Report "#PTA AWNE TR-5319-2 TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1066, Sh. 1 HPCI-H84 Rigid Vertical Yes HPCI-H85 E-W Lateral Yes HPCI-H85A Spring Can Yes (2069)
HPCI-HD85 Spring Can Removed HPCI-H110 N-S Lateral Yes HPCI-HD110 Spring Can No HPCI-HD111A Spring Can Yes (2072)
HPCI-HDlllB Spring Can Yes (2073)
HPCI-Hill E-W Lateral No HPCI-HDll3 Gravity Hanger Note 1 HPCI-Hil3 Anchor Yes
, PI-1100, Sh. 1 RCIC-H84A,B,C Anchor Yes e
RCIC-H65 Rigid Vertical / Yes l Lateral RCIC-HD64C Spring Can No RCIC-HD64B Spring Can No RCIC-HD64A Spring Can Yes (2075)
RCIC-H64 Lateral Yes
> RCIC-HD63A Anchor Yes Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
)
l Tcchnical Rep:rt YF WE TR-5319-2 N NICES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE
, TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1100, Sh. 1 RCIC-H63 Lateral Yes RCIC-HD63B Spring Can No RCIC-HD63C Lateral Yes RCIC-H62 Gravity Hanger Note 1 PI-1104, Sh. 1 RCIC-HD32 Gravity Hanger Note 1 RCIC-H32 N-S/E-W Lateral / Changed to Rigid Vertical rigid vertical RCIC-H86 Lateral Changed to 2-way lateral RCIC-HD87 Spring Can Yes (2078)
RCIC-H87 Lateral Yes PI-1104, Sh. 2 RCIC-H79 2-Way Lateral No RCIC-H88 2-Way Lateral No RCIC-HD88 Spring Can Yes (2079)
PI-1131, Sh. 1 RHR-H128 N-S/E-W Lateral Changed to anchor (1079)
RHR-HD128 Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-H181 E-W Lateral Yes RHR-HD181 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1084) i RHR-H22 Anchor Yes Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
)
Technical Report WTri pry (E TR-5319-2 g TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1131, Sh. 1 RHR-H182 N-S Lateral / No Gravity Hanger RSR-HD240 Anchor No PI-1131, Sh 2 RHR-HD184 Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD184A Lateral New Design RHR-HD184B E-W Lateral New Design N-S Snubber RHR-H184 Spring Can Note 1 RHR-H183 Lateral Snubber Yes RHR-H183C Spring Can Removed RHR-HD183B Gravity Hanger Changed to (2084) spring RHR-HD183A Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-H185 Lateral Snubber No RHR-HD185A Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD185B Gravity Hanger Remcved RHR-H185C Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD185E Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD185F Lateral New Design RHR-HD-185D Gravity Hanger Changed to (2080) spring PI-1140, Sh. 1 RHR-HD1 N-S/E-W Lateral No i
RHR-HD2 Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1091)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical Report ifE WE TR-5319-2 N NES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1140, Sh. 1 RHR-HD18R N-S Lateral New Design (1099)
RHR-HD3 Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD4 Gravity Hanger Yes (1092)
RHR-HD18P E-W Lateral New Design (1098)
RHR-HD5 Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD6 Gravity Hanger Yes (1090)
RHR-HD7 Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD8 N-S/E-W Lateral Changed to (1180) anchor RHR-HD8A Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD8B Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1089)
RHR-HD18G Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD18N E-W Lateral New Design (1097)
RHR-HD18F Gravity Hanger No RHR-HD18E Gravity Hanger Added E-W (1078) lateral support RHR-HD18D Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD18C Gravity Hanger Yes (1087)
RHR-HD18M E-W Lateral New Design (1096)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
l Technical Report TF WE TR-5319-2 N SBt\/ ICES TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIFE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1140, Sh. 1 RHR-HD18L Axial New Design (1095)
RHR-HD18B Gravity Hanger F.emoved RHR-HD18A Gravity Hanger ses (2090)
RKR-HD18 N-S/E-W Lateral No RHR-HD18K N-S Lateral New Design (1094)
RHR-HD18H Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD18J E-W Lateral New Design (1093)
CUN-HD50 Gravity Hanger Yes (1085)
PI-1080, Sh. 1 CUN-H49 N-S/E-W Lateral Yes (1077)
PI-1081, Sh. 1 CUN-HD49A Anchor Yes (1075)
CUN-HD49N Vertical Strut New Design (1470)
CUN-HD49B Gravity Hanger Removed CUN-HD49C Gravity Hanger Removed CUN-HD49E Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1082)
CUN-HD-49F Gravity Hanger Removed CUN-HD49G Gravity Hanger Removed Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical R: port pgg TR-5319-2 4
TABLE 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified PI-1081, Sh. 1 CUN-HD49M Axial New Design (1083)
CUN-HD49H Gravity Hanger Changed to (1081) N-S lateral CUN-HD49K Gravity Hanger Removed CUN-HD49L Gravity Hanger Removed PI-1132, Sh. 1 RHR-H127 N-S/E-W Lateral Yes RHR-HD127A Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1468)
RHR-HD127B Gravity Hanger Removed RHR-HD127M N-S Snubber New Design RHR-HD127C Gravity Hanger Yes RHR-HD127D Gravity Hanger Note 1 RHR-HD127E Spring Can Yes (2082)
RHR-HD127F Gravity Hanger Note 1 RHR-HD127G Gravity Hanger Note 1 RHR-HD127H Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1469)
RHR-HD127I Spring Can No RHR-HD127L Lateral Snubber New Design RHR-HD127J Gravity Hanger Note 1 PI-ll32, Sh. 2 RHR-HD127K Gravity Hanger Note 1 (1407)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
Technical Report ih v W NE TR-5319-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES TABl.E 3-4 VERMONT YANKEE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS I
Dwg. No. Support I.D. Support Type Modified 2" RCIC-13 RCIC-HD-200 Gravity Note 1 (A-8540)
RCIC-HD-201 Vertical / Lateral Yes (A-8539) 2" HPCI-16 HCIC-HD-200 Gravity Note 1 (A-8538)
Note 1: Single-acting hanger changed to double-acting vertical support.
\ lechnical Report fR-5319-2 yp qq ENG4EstNG SERVICES
! TABLE 3-5 -
TAP PENETRATION STRESS RESULTS - VERMONT YANKEE Primary Stress Secondary Stress Penetration Calculated Calculated .
Number Max. Stress Allowable Max. Stress Allowable X-202F 12273 19300 65524 69,900
- i X-203F 17110 19300 44042 X-202H&K 12461 19300 47097 X-203H&K 12226 19300 35918 X-205 14030 19300 68087 X-210A 28651 28900 59449 X-210B 17554 19300 37040 X>211A 14108 15100 33775 X-211B 14108 15100 33775 X-212 10751 15100 56136 X-218 12350 19300 52491 X-221 27385 28900 66549 X-224A 14172 19300 64689 X-224B 25058 28900 60722
- X-225 23974 28900 67591 X-226A 13861 19300 51342 X-226B 14135 19300 65385 X-227 14009 15100 47971 I
, ll a nif .
wSnQ%EA 4?
,0 8 0
v 2
,7 0
4
,6 0
L A
C y I P
6 Y v
,5 T,
0 L L
E
( W S
I 8 L k ,4 O 0
P 0
M
) O C R E F 0 S
( E
,4 S l
E f 0 M 0 I P T S E
R 2
L 4' ,3 L
E l
i 0 S 1
W 3 4 E
,2 R U
0 G I
F i
6 b ,1 I
0 8
, 0 0
x 0
5 0 5 0 5 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 1
^ yb _ +!8 ;
\ll1,l
l1 l
a22~gEA P fI a0P~
5 t
&,0
,5 4
L A
,0 C
I 4 P Y
T N
O I
T A
- ,5 3 L I
L C
S O
N 0 O
,3 I T
A
' S N
E D
N s ,5 2
O C
M O
R F
E S
0 N
,2 O P
S E
R L
L E
l i
,5 1
S 2
3
~
E R
U
,0 G 1 I F
,5 0
6 5 n 3 2 - 0
- OE$ s, O$
l
l
.l 11 NPrsO .8 "
n NJe? LY 0
8 i
2 7
i 4 6
L A
6 C 5 I P
Y T
V R
S 8 M 4 O
) R F
Z 1
1
( E S
l l
Y 0 0 C P i
4 N S E E U R Q
E L R L F E l
i 2 S i
3 3 3
E R
U G
4 I i
2 F i
6 1
a
% O 9 5 6 5 0 5 0 1 A 3 1 G@E n31ME l 1ll1.l1.l'
l f.
s E n S '5 E A aOek L?
l l 0 4
l G
U H l'0 C 1 3 i
\
T \
I 1
_ G s S \
I N 3 g ~ I
- e r O \
\
P P ( -
I D ~ P J
I
- AN I I r
" )
L i
I " Z A N . H N O t ( R I - E T Y T A -
l C N L I 0 N L 2 E I N U O C . Q S E O D R A F O N - L O
I T -
A 4 S - 3 N
E -
D E N l R O s l 0 U C \ g 1 G
\ I
\ F
\
\ l
/
/
/ ~
f
/
/
f I
O'
'0 0 0 10 5 0 5 1 1
, ,illii gggb mMB~~
l' _
l
- n[O- A' $ a'"
E.$? . T.
2 w,
8 1
- 1 6
1 j
L A
C 4 I 1 P 1 Y T,
A R
T 5 C E
1 0 E S 0 ,
2 P S
N O 0 1
)
P L S O S A E
I D T T N N R AR O O D !
C Z 0 E I N G T S T U
O NI A 1
( R O
R P Y T H GM A T I D C D V S O I A D 1 I M R N 8 R S G O E I C . P E 3 E 0 S 5 S P
0 3 A 3 T
=
0 l 5
= ,6 3 S T 0 E
R U
G I
l F
4 1
0 2
- - - - - ,0 i l j ';
[
7 6 5 4 3 f l 0
2 0 0 0 0 l.
0 0 0 O 0
{ ,t l
bz !$d8cgEC;m lll j lflll
~
1 ,
Technical Report 9g ggipMClES TR-5319-2 -74 T
M c)
~~
f 10ee, Ex1EemA< ,I,E FORCE TIME HISTORY '
INPUT AT PENETRATION '
~
//
~
TORUS It!TERNAL PIPE 1 TORSION PIPE RIGID 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM I
IN OTHER DIRECTI0ftS FIGURE 3-6 TAP pet!ETRATION REPRESENTATION (TYPICAL)
$7 ae S S.
?O N -*
0 ', '
A i
' 7 c s' ,'
a' I f
. - ,). ,, /
- ,'* i 9[3 s
^
- y. .. . -
R,
"?
- - a
,a'
/ ,/
.. %, , . ;- 2* '
s O/ ;
- j ; -
- i, .,o ,
,- 9dp *
. \
y
~.'; ,
~s~ 's ,s' , r' ,
j
' l * ;,,
..,'o ,
si i
s' ,*
,o ,
ia
. i ,, a
' ~ ' '
,.'t ; , r,. '9
, / '
. . .. , i- ,
,..,' 'd.'$',('<!J*
' ' y), \"; *, <, f n ,
< .;: 17, f a ? ', )t h, . .
t
- .k S4cDig Oi VIEW ROTATED AXIS Q_t
(
VER*10flT YANKEE flUCLEAR PLANT l FIGURE 3-7 DETAILED SHELL tt00EL
, i (I\l\.l)i \,\l(, ,fl fI !t l )
wg$ES x$ "
iw
- $5A' ,M' 8 5 09 9 9 6 5 5 2 8 7 6
4 4
- . 4 7 8M- 1 3 8 o _
- 1 8 5 nF 2 0 1
oNo
~ o*
s'. \ '-
\"- ~
f- l;, /
ylyi g'\ -
I,T !Ii,f i mo,o
- ~
. Y,
. / _ \,'/7!i'C D f.f!
i
~
~
lf I
.imUo l _
N , / -
- ~ 'e- i 6 ,
~
dM!f[
I
\ - ~
t mao E, - ~
li i g - ' ;i u #\ Y'\ -, J l I ,'t ~
1 aWa r
U ,> t- - ~
E 0000 0 '
N'/y/
L 5000 0 l I ,'i I mNo G
N 07550 9 I'sf'- ~ B A 81443 12222 6
2
\p/ s l
i_
r<
e- ,;
' yl 7,s1 !
m" o T o,",' -
N A
O b
,..i1,,~/f'_ l F ,,'1 -
I mo' o L
P N -
a - h _ - P, S 6 3 p~,/_ - .
A N N -
j F :'Do E O bbcc272 ; i1 i i
( i [\ _
S O - - - - - L I
2, 222, S jt,/
T' [ 4i11 I
aabb C T T - E U A A 34965 x2 -mo - A I J
i E N R R 12002 2 I
-Oa R T
E T
E 22222 xxxxx 2
x maaE N\~ !
- G E
E E
N N E
/-
I' /,~
~ -
,t D K E N
$'- i[s~ - Mo I
P P .
A Y
S ~ _
U R N h
I _ '/ - _
j
- mo T
N O O I
N j f f_ le _
I O
M
'h,f'g --
T T _
A ~
R
' E C
O ABCDE F
- }(';d_ l!
I
-Uo V L t gf'- _
C 6
r, T l -
!t I
-Ao N 93564 12221
- c'$\
7,$N' f'!
E -
D !
- Wo 0 , -
N , /- -
.$ 'y_.
8l i
- No
}s,'__le-I '
E 'yI4 81 l
I
-o d f_\_ .
yg!v_l, y\ _
i ...
- oo z0E ?'g _
1 oo' t
8 -
- " 0 3 9 s 5 9 6 2 8 7 4 4 6 8 1
1 8 5 2 a ,
Tg4o c 20gr,W m~ a=0>dS E$9v i
!l ll'
TORUS PENETRATIONS-.
N0DE NO. LOCATION PENETRATION NO. ANGLE W#
. O 29 G x206a,d 285.00 $5 30 H x209a,d 285.00 GK 33 J x 202a-h 319.40 M I x202j-k 319.40 x 69 K
-- L x200a-b 319.40 0 x205 316.60 %
104 M U "
106 N x215-x219 330.00 l
-- 0 x214 spare 330.00 U
73 P x211a-b 000.00 109 Q x220 0.00 U i
I 111 R x210a-b 25.70g
-] -- S x201a-h 57.60 64 T x212,x221 272.40
$ l Y
2 ,
O N O '
M N --I g ao lC O.
- r1 m
> --i O O
-4 25 e e
--4 3, l m:
g, i , v ' 's,,,
.i/ s $
n i
$ 8.4850 I lu t o o i } %y_A \' % ,-
L
!"' : n,--f- .'4'-3, (.5 Tti^3_T- tnt
' u .25 a
- g. --- 4--
i l---!--
i i
'.es ,.-- ej, u l
--+l f4' i e
- - v--
a 8 I 8.4850_,fi-5.6798 l l l ., .K .
l [ T, " ' l,-' - -- h, - - i, ---[!--_{---e---F---
i ! ! I 5.6798 U
O d m g 37 495" ---+---+---+._--4.--_t-_-,_-_
u 2.8469 e,
, "'$ , 'l - I, ,aj 8
-- T ---t,
-- !- &,l- --- t, - -! I, --! 1'l g,- _
! - l{, --- {! 2.8469 u*
8 i i i i i i , i i , 3 0i 0I i I i i i e i O
O O
O 8'
O; O.
O O O6 Mi O.O
$5 OO m
O w
C:
a O.
m-O cn-Ci u
O, m:
Ol e
O DEGREES.
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR PLANT!
Technical Rep:rt yg TR-5319-2 K m SBR \/ ICES REFERENCES
- 1. TES Report TR-5319-1, Rev. 1, " Mark 1 Containment Program, Plant Unique Analysis of the Torus Suppression Chamber for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station", dated September 23, 1983.
- 2. ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 1, through Summer 1977.
- 3. USNRC IE Bulletin 79-02, dated November 8,1979, (Revision 2), Pipe Support Base Plate Designs Using Concrete Expansion Anchor Bolts.
- 4. ASME B&PV Code,Section XI, 1977 Edition, with 1978 Addenda.
- 5. G.E. Report NED0-24583-1, " Mark 1 Containment Program Structural Accept-ante Criteria Plant Unique Analy:,is Application Guide", dated October, 1979.
- 6. Structural Mechanics Report SMA-12101.05-R001, " Design Approach for FSTF Data for Combining Hannonic Amplitudes for Mark 1 Post-Chug Response Calculations", dated May, 1982.
- 7. General Electric Computer Program RVFOR-04, A Program to Compute SRV Line Clearing Forces, General Electric Company, San Jose, Calif.
l
- 8. Intentionally Omitted.
- 9. Welding Research Council Bulleti, No. 107, " Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loadings", dated March, 1979.
- 10. General Electric Report No. MPR-751 " Mark 1 Containment Program, Aug-mented Class 2/3 Fatigue Evaluation Method and Results for Typical Torus Attached and SRV Piping Analysis", dated November, 1982.
- 11. G.E. Report NED0-21888, Rev. 2, " Mark 1 Containment Program Load Defini-tion Report", dated November, 1981.
Technical Report sgpp qq TR-5319-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES REFERENCES (COMTINUED)
- 12. NRC " Safety Evaluation Report, Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program",
NUREG-0661, dated July, 1950.
- 13. Vermont Yankee letter No. 2.C.2.1-FVY83-36, J. Sinclair (YAEC) to D.
Vassallo (NRC) " Modification of Vacuum Breakers for mark 1 Containments" dated May 11, 1983.
- 14. Structural Mechanics Assoc. Report SMA-12101.04-R002D " Response Factors Appropriate for use with C0 Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules",
dated March, 1982.
HH N fD e n Table 1 tri 7 w
wmo.
CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING SYSTEMS ?g fM w N
fD V
r- 5?
et 59V SRV SBA $sA + E0 ssA + StV SsA + $RV + EO FVI NT frea9fM ATIMS + isA + SRV
- EQ DsA psA + EQ DsA + SRV DRA + EQ + 5pr lsA !sA + EQ lsA + SIV Co. CD, PS CO, CO, CH CO.CH CM CO.CM (1) 09 PS Co,CM PS CM PS Co.CH TYPE OF EARTHQUARE O $ 0 5 0 5 0 $ c $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ .
00MBINAlltm NUMBtR 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to Il 12 Il 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 L e *A D5 Normal (2) M X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X farthquake I I 1 I I I I 1 FC I I X A I I I I I I I I 5RV Discherse SRV I I X X I X X X X X X E I 1 I I I X Th'raal T, I X X R I I K I I I X X X X X X X X I I I I PIPE Pressure P I I I I I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X I I I I I I I I thCA Fool SweII P I I I I
- I PS LOCA Condensation I X Oscillation CO E I X X X X X X X x x 1 j LncA Chugggns X X I P, I I X X X X 5TRt'CTt1A1 EtDatsit Rnw femential Peping Systeen Wsth IBA/ dea 10 e a e a e a e B B B B e e e a e e a e a P a a e a a e
!3) ( 1) (4) , (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (')
with ssA 11 e ) e a e a e s- e a e a s - - - - - - -
(1) ( 3) (4) (4) (4) (4) (3) ()) (4) (4) (4) (4)
"_2ninta11a1
- Parana Systems With IsA/DBA 12 s C D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D
~D (5) (3) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (il With $sA IS C C D D D D D D D D D D - - - - - - -
j (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
Technical Report TF WE TR-5319-2 gg NOTES TO TABLE 1 i
- 1. Where 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 demcnstrated, including operability of that valve.
If the normal nlant operating condition does not employ a drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential, the listed Service Level assignments shall be applicable.
- 2. Normal leads (N) consist of dead loads (D).
- 3. As an alternative, the 1.25 S hlimit in Equation 9 of NC-3652.2 may be replaced by Level C (1.85hS ) provided that all other limits are satis-fied. Fatigue requirements are applicable to all columns with the excep-tion of 16, 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25.
- 4. Footnote 3 applies, except that instead of using Level C (1.8 Sh ) I" Equation 9 of NC-3652.2, Level D (2.4 S h) may be used.
- 5. Equation 10 of NC or ND-3650 shall 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.
Technical Report S P Ts:a Fry ( E TR-5319-2 -Al APPENDIX 1 USE OF CO LOAD FOR SMALL BORE PIPING Experience with large bore piping analysis showed that DBA condensation oscillation was usually the most severe Mark 1 load for torus attached piping. This is consistent with the continuous nature of the CO load (as opposed to the transient nature of some other Mark 1 loads) and the frequency content'of CO, which is in a range of typically high piping response.
Experience on large bore piping for the first three plants completed by TES follows:
No. of Large Bore Systems Available for No. Controlled Evaluation by C0 or Seismic
- Pilgrim 14 11 Millstone 11 9 Vermont Yankee 13 11 38 31 Of the seven cases not controlled by CO, C0 loads were very close to the maximum, as follows:
Ratio of C0 Case to Controlling Stress Case Pilgrim .999, .953, .958 Millstone .89, .65(1)
Vermont Yankee .960, .53(2)
- Evaluation did not include drag loags on internal piping - small bore sys-tems do not have internal piping.
Technical Report TF WE TR-5319-2 -Al N G SBt\/ ICES In five of these seven cases, C0 stresses are practically equal to the controlling cases. The other two cases, indicated by (1) and (2) appear to be special cases that do not apply to small bore piping.
Case (1) is an atmospheric control (vacuum breaker) line that connects at three po.nts at the top of the torus. The multiple connections and the penetration location make this line particularly susceptible to pool swell impact on the upper shell. There is no comparable small bore system.
Case (2) is an RCIC return line which has a long internal section which is responding at a high level to shell motion. The maximum stress in this line is inside the torus. There is no comparable small bore system.
The decision to limit analysis of small bore piping to DBA C0 as the only Mark 1 load was based on the foregoing. Seismic, thermal and weight were also considered, in addition to DBA CO.
Technical Report 7PTF1 WE TR-5319-2 -A2 ENGINEERING SERVICES APPENDIX 2 32 Hz Cutoff for Condensation Oscillation Analysis All condensation oscillation response of TAP systems due to torus shell motion used an input frequency cutoff of 32 Hz.
This practice began early in the TAP analysis work and was the result of a decision to cut off shell response frequencies at 32 Hz during the contain-ment analysis. The 32 Hz cutoff for containment analysis is discussed in Appendix 2 of Reference 1, and was based on the fact that both high input energy and high modal responses occurred below that frequency. Use of the 32 Hz cutoff was shown to produce only a small error that was considered negli-gible. On this same basis, the 32 Hz cutoff was applied to C0 analysis for TAP.
Later in the TAP analysis work, it became evident that the 32 Hz cutoff would not be realistic for post chug; input frequencies to 50 Hz were used for post chug. At this time, the decision to cut off C0 frequencies at 32 Hz was reviewed. Spectra were generated for several penetrations showing the C0 shell motion up to 50 Hz. Figures A4-1, A4-2, A4-3 and A4-4 illustrate typical spectra for rotation and displacement at TAP penetration points for a similar torus, analyzed by TES. These show clearly that shell response above 32 Hz is negligible for CO, and support the initial position.
A$
FIGURE A4-1 hk DBA C0 SHELL RESPONSE-RADIAL yh re -
(UNLOADED SHELL-N0DE 37) x 0
8 e
2.40-2.00 -
L 1.60 - ,
- e
- 7 y h, y
5 1.20 -
i' 5 W ^
8'i e, 0.80 -
0.40-o - , ,
\, , ,
A , ,
0 5 10 15 20- 25- 30 35 40 45 50 FREQUENCY (HZ)
g - , , _ _ - _ , , _ - . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
FIGURE A4-2 G{
DBA C0 SHELL RESPONSE-ROTATION "[
(UNLOADED SHELL-N0DE 37) $
a 2.40 -
1 2.00 -
m g 1.60 - ,
i / %
M f L' M
e 1.20 -
Li 15 x
0.80 -
0.40 - )
0 0
5 10' 15 20' 25' x ,
30 35 40 45 50 FREQUENCY (HZ)
J
( ti' ,l 2
l
%koE h w'o 'EB c
.>fo 0
_y 5 g 5 4
- g 0 4
g 5 3
L A
I )
D 3 A 2 R
- E y 0 E D 3 3 S 0
- l f N )
4 0 - z A P L H S L (
E E E R R H s 5 Y U S 2 C G L N I L D E F E E U H D Q S A E O R 0 L 3 0 F C N 2 U i A (
B D -
5 3 1
( E 0 1
W I
5 f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 5 0 5 0 5 3 2 2 1 1 0 i
N 3sp w x'c$
llllill
M#
FIGURE A4-4 c'n e w :s DBA C0 SHELL RESPONSE-ROTATION. k{
~~
' :o (UNLOADED SHELL-NODE 23)
O 8n 2.40 -
- 2. 00.-
m O
7 1.60'-
r
=
p 1.20 -
S B
" 0.80 -
0.40 -
0 0
x 5'
10 15 20 25!
30 35 40 45 FREQUENCY (HZ)-
.