ML20081D503
| ML20081D503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1983 |
| From: | TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081D494 | List: |
| References | |
| TR-5310-2, NUDOCS 8311010221 | |
| Download: ML20081D503 (90) | |
Text
--
l "R TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES TECHNICAL REPORT TECIINICAL REPORT TR-5310-2 MARK I CONTAINMENT PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSB REPORT OF THE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION OCTOBER,1983 h3 DR DO OO P
pyg
TECHNICAL REPORT TR-5310-2 MARK 1 CONTAINMENT PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE TORUS ATTACHED PIPING FOR PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION OCTOBER, 1983 l
WTELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 130 SECOND AVENUE WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 02254 617-890-3350
YE E
Technical Report TR-5310-2
-ii-ENGNEERING SERVICES ABSTRACT The work summarized in this report was undertaken as part of the Mark 1 Containment Long Term Program.
It 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 w.
f
[
- g A
4
~
,a x
f 9
(
?'-
. [j
^
~
- ~
i I
4 " P,
,4 l
l
.t m.
p
- ,, f.
.~r a
i f
/
i y* -
,f
/,
,f,,
, y ['
'?
(
~,>'
~
'p
'.. ~
f
[1
/*
.c
,/l ) ?
v
.s. -
?
1 c
~
/r ^ *
' I,'
'?,
lji N
'f
,y) l,)
_ / /t?, e [
ar. ?
sre b,
, ~,
.~
1
Technical Report WM TR-5310-2
-iii-N SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ii 1.0 GENERAL 1
2.0 SRV PIPING ANALYSIS 2
2.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria 2
2.2 SRV Loads 3
2.2.1 SRV Gas Clearing Loads 3
2.2.2 SRV Water Clearing Loads 4
l 2.2.3 Pool Drag Loads 5
2.2.4 Tnermal 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 Ver.t 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 10 2.4.4 Support Steel for SRV Supports 11 2.4.5 SRV Penetration 11 2.4.6 Valves 12 2.4.7 Fatigue Evaluation 13 2.5 Sumary of SRV Line Modifications 13
Technical Report SPTFI 5:TT(E TR-5310-2
-iv-ENGNEERNG SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page 3.0 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING (TAP) 26 3.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria 26 3.2 TAP Loads 27 3.2.1 Shell Motion Due to Pool Swell 28 3.2.2 Shell Motion Due to DBA Condensation Oscillation 28 3.2.3 Shell Motion Due to Chugging 29 3.2.4 Shell Motion Due to SRV Line Discharge 30 l
3.2.5 Loads on Internal Piping 30 3.2.6 Deadweight, Thermal and Seismic Analysis 32 3.3 TAP Analysis Method 32 3.3.1 Representation of Torus Shell for Piping Analysis 33 3.3.2 Piping Analysis Method - Large Bore Systems 33 3.3.3 Piping Analysis Method - Complex Small Bore Systems 34 3.3.4 Piping Analysis Method - Simple Small Bore Systems 35 3.3.5 Piping Analysis Method - Branch Piping 35 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 36 3.3.7 TAP Penetration Analysis 38 3.3.8 Analysis Method for Piping Supports 39 3.3.9 Vacuum Breaker Analysis 39 3.3.10 Active Components 39
Technical Report
"#PTizi s:rVNE TR-5310-2
-v-ENGINEERING SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page 3.4 Evaluation and Results 39 3.4.1 General 39 3.4.2 Piping Stress - Large Bore Systems 40 3.4.3 Pipe Stress - Small Bore TAP Systems 41 3.4.4 Pipe Stress - Branch Lines 41 3.4.5 Pumps and Valves 41 3.4.6 Piping Fatigue Evaluation 41 3.4.7 Torus Shell Penetration Evaluation 42 3.4.8 Piping Supports 43 3.5 Sunnary of TAP Modifications 43 REFERENCES 73 Appendix 1 - Use of Condensation Oscillation Load for Al-1 Small Bore Piping Appendix 2 - 32 Hz Cutoff for Condensation Oscillation Analysis A2-1 i
e m
Technical Report TN TR-5310-2
-vi-N NES FIGURES AND TABI.ES Page FIGURES:
2-1 SRV Line Routing - Typical 19 2-2 SRV Line Arrangement - Torus 20 2-3 SRV Line Routing - Typical 21 2-4 SRV Tee-Quencher & Support Inclined Entry Line 22 2-5 TAP Piping Model - Typical 23 2-6 SRV Seismic Spectra 24 2-7 Vent System Model 25 3-1 Shell Response from Pool Swell-Typical 64 3-2 Shell Response from Condensation Oscillation - Typical 65 3-3 Shell Response from SRV - Typical 66 3-4 Drag Load on Internal Piping 67 3-5 TAP Seismic Spectra 68 3-6 TAP Penetration Representation - Typical 69 3-7 Detailed Shell Model 70 3-8a TAP Penetrations Upper Shell 71 3-8b TAP Penetrations Lower Shell 72 TABLES:
1 Structural Acceptance Criteria for Class 2 62 and Class 3 Piping Systems 2-1 SRV Load Case / Initial Conditions 14 2-2 SRV Pipe Stress 15 2-3 SRV Support Modifications 16 2-4 SRV Valve Evaluation 18 o
3-1 Large Bore TAP Results 44 3-2 Small Bore TAP Results 45 3-3 Branch Line Pipe Stresses 47 3-4 Pump and Valve Evaluation 48 3-5 TAP Pipe Supports (Large Bore) 51 3-6 TAF Penetration Stress Results - Pilgrim 61
4 WT W NE Technical Report TR-5310-2 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-5310-1 (Reference 1) reported the effects of Mark 1 loads on the Pilgrim 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 l
l l
l l
Technical Report WTA ETWNE TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 2.0 SRV PIPING ANALYSIS There are four main steam relief (SRV) lines at Pilgrim.
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 0
vertically; they then enter the discharge quencher at a 20 angle (Figures 2-3 and 2-4).
Analysis results for the discharge end of the SRV lines were previously reported in Reference 1.
This referenced report includes 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 oortion of the line, which includes:
e The main vent penetration.
e The SRV piping between the penetration and the main steam line, e
SRV pipe supports between the penetration and main steam line.
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 addition of two ten-inch vacuum breakers on each SRV line.
2.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria i
The SRV piping analysis was performed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Code,1977 Edition, including Sumer 1977 addenda (Reference 2). Pipe support analysis was done to Section III of the ASME Code, Subsec-tion NF (Reference 2).
In cases where modifications to SRV line supports were required, they were designed in accordance with Section III of the ASME Ccde, (Reference 2).
SPTA MVNE
- ENGNEERING SERVICES 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.
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 loads 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 i
program were used to the extent that they apply.
L 2.2.1 SRV Gas Clearing Loads Sudden pressurization of the SRV line, due to rapid opening-of the safety relief valve, causes unbalanced dynamic forces on the SRV l
Technical Report SPTA m(NE TR-5310-2 NNG SBi\\/lCES 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 as listed in Table 2-1.
l 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-05 (Reference 7), which is the property of General Electric Company.
Case A1.2 was run for each of the four SRV lines at Pilgrim.
Gas clearing loads associated with this case were used for all SRV cases and, therefore, produced conservative results for normal actuation as well as other cases.
2.2.2 SRV Water Clearing Loads Water clearing loads are produced in the SRV line as water accelerates under line pressure and is forced around the elbows at the 1
quencher end of the line. These forces are very sensitive to reflood height which varies for several of the second actuation cases.
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 i
W TAI:rT/NE Technical Report TR-5310-2 MEstlNG SBR \\/ ICES 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 clear.ing for Pilgrim was calculated for SRV Case C3.3, using G.E. programs RVRIZ and RVFOR-04 (Reference 7). It was concluded, based on inspection and analysis, that line C would produce the highest reflood heights for case C3.3 (lines C and D were analyzed; lines A and B are practi-cally identical to C & D).
Values for line C represent the worst case for water clearing loads and were used for all four SRV lines; these 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 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:
Pool Swell - Jet Loads
- Bubble Loads a
Condensation Oscillation -
- Source induced drag
- Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI) Drag Chugging
- Source Induced Drag
- FSI Drag SRV Discharge - Drag from Adjacent Quenchers (as applicable)
Technical Report W TF1 m(NE TR-5310-2 NMES 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, these drag loads were 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 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 design temperature (340 F). It included maximum thermal motion of the connection at the main steam line and assumed the drywell and torus were at ambient.
The second case was like the first except the main vent pipe U
was also assumed to be at 340 F.
This has the effect of moving the pene-tration in the main vent pipe relative to the torus and quencher.
2.2.5 Weight, Pressure and Seismic Weight, pressure and seismic loads were also considered in the analysis.
The seismic analysis was based on the existing FSAR seismic response spectra for the OBE event. A multiplier of 1.875 was applied to 0BE results for the SSE event, in accordance with the FSAR.
19 Seismic end effects were considered for this analysis, but judged to be negligible.
A typical horizontal spectra is illustrated in Figure 2-6; all spectra were taken from Reference 15.
l l
Technical Report WTn WNE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES 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 (Refer-l ence 16). 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 five attachment springs, developed by computer analysis of the penetration area.
l 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 - % spectra used for OBE seismic.
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 WTF1 m/NE TR-5310-2 N M N ES 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; water clearing is the same for all lines and equals the maximum load for the longest line.
Damping for these time history analyses was taken at two percent of critical and calculational time increments for the solution were taken at.0025 seconds.
All response frequencies to 50 Hz were con-sidered in the solution.
Seismic analysis was done using the same model and computer program by performing response spectrum analysis for the % damped spectra in the FSAR. Figure 2-6 is a typical horizontal 0BE spectra used as a part of this input. The full seismic response was formed by an SRSS combina-tion of the higher horizontal response with the vertical. This is in accord-ance with the FSAR. The SSE multiplier is given in paragraph 2.2.5.
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 (Reference 17).
The support analysis extended to include the attachment weld to the supporting steel. In all cases, the supporting steel was reviewed and a judgement was made regarding the ability of the support steel to carry the new loads.
In all cases, the existing support steel was judged acceptable.
Technical Report SPTA m(NE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES Support analysis was done to the ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NF (Reference 2).
2.3.3 SRV Main Vent Penetration 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 2-7.
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.
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.
Technical Report TE M TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES Thermal loads were considered differently for piping and supports as discussed below.
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)2 2 1.2 Sh In cases where this conservative condition could not be met, the following three cases were evaluated:
(1) DW i (SSE) + (Blowdown)2 2 1.8 Sh (2) DW + OBE 1.2 S
=
h (3) DW + Blowdown 1.2 S
=
h These three cases represent 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.
2.4.3 SRV Pipe Supports a
t 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:
1.
The conservative A1.2/C3.3 blowdown case.
l l
Technical Report TE N TR-5310-2 ENGNERNG SBWICES 2.
SSE seismic.
3.
Worst case thermal load.
4.
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 done in accordance with Subsection NF of the ASME Code, (Reference 2), as required.
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)
WTFI STVNE Technical Report TR-5310-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES 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 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 12,264 15,100 (Table 1)
SECONDARY STRESS (Primary plus Secondary Stress Intensity)
Case 15 21,137 69,900 (3.0 5,$)
2.4.6 Valves i
Evaluation of the SRV valves and vacuum breakers was done on the basis of stresses 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).
Technical Report TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES Results of the valve evaluation are listed in Table 2-4.
2.4.7 Fatigue Evaluation Fatigue evaluatior, of SRV lines was undertaken as a generic Mark 1 Program effort, using bounding assumptions. This effort is described 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 Pilgrim.
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 Modification to the SRV lines at Pilgrim included the following 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.
c Modification to supports in the drydell as listed in Table 2-3.
i
Technical Report TR-5310-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES TABLE 2-1 PILGRIM SRV LOAD CASE / INITIAL CONDITIONS Any One ADS
- Multiple Design Initial Condition Valve Valves Valves
)1NOC*.,FirstAct.
A1.1 A3.1 L
A j2 SBA/IBA,* First Act.
A1.2 A2.2 A3.2 3 DBA,* First Act.1 A1.3
]lN0C,SubsequentAct.
C3.1 SBA/IBA, Sub. Act.
C 2
f Air in SRV/DL C3.2 SBA/IBA, Sub. Act.
J3 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 increases during the DBA transient.
- ADS = Automatic Depressurization System NOC = Normal Operating Condition SBA = Small Break Accident IBA = Intermediate Break Accident DBA = Design Basis Accident
{
4, 9-TABLE 2-2 0 :'.
PILGRIM
?g
~.
SRV PIPE STRESS E
Line Size &
SRV Max. Stress Sch. @ Max.
Maximum Allowable Line Location Stress Pt.
Stress Stress l
Line A T at Vacuum 12" Sch. 40 13,978 psi 18,000 psi Breaker (Node 24)
Line B T at Vacuum 12" Sch. 40 12,548 psi 18,000 psi I
Breaker (Node 22)
G i
Line C Elbow (Node 164) 12" Sch. 40 33,008 psi 37,500 psi Line D Elbow (Node 60) 12" Sch. 40 35,258 psi 37,500 psi l
I i
Technical Report TR-5310-2 Y MEERING SERVICES tar,LE 2-3 PILGRIM SRV PIPE SUPPORT MODIFICATIONS SRV Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modificatiu..
A MS-S-500 Snubber None MS-S-501 Snubber None MS-S-502 Snubber Extend Lugs MS-5-503 Snubber Extend Lugs MS-5-504 Snubber Replace Pipe Clamp and Relocate Lugs MS-S-505 Snebber Replace Pipe Clamp and Relocate Lugs MS-5-506 Snubber None MS-5-507 Snubber None H-1-1-122 Spring Replace Spring H-1-1-123 Spring Replace Spring GE-1-H6 Spring Removed Jet Deflector Y-Z Rigid Added Plates B
H-1-1-124 Spring Replace Spring H-1-1-125 Spring Replace Spring MS-5-508 Snubber Replace Pipe Clamp and Relocate Lugs MS-S-509 Snubber None MS-S-510 Snubber None MS-5-511 Snubber None l
MS-5-512 Snubber Replace Pipe Clamp MS-S-513 Snubber Replace Pipe Clamp 1
MS-S-514 Snubber Replace Base Plate and Add Side Brace MS-S-515 Snubber Replace Base Plate and Add Side Brace Jet Deflector Y-Z Rigid Added Plates
Technical Report TR-5310-2 WTri pr#NE g % S M ES TABLE 2-3 (CONTINUED)
SRV Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification C
MS-S-516 Snubber None MS-S-517 Snubber None i
MS-S-518 Snubber None MS-S-519 Snubber None MS-S-520 Snubber None MS-5-521 Snubber None MS-S-522 Snubber None 1
MS-S-523 Snubber None i
MS-5-524 Snubber None H-1-1-126 Spring Replace Spring H-1-1-127 Spring Adjust Spring GE-1-4-11 Spring Readjust Spring Jet Deflector Y-Z Rigid Added Plates D
MS-S-525 Snubber None MS-S-526 Snubber None MS-5-527 Snubber None MS-S-529 Snubber None MS-5-530 Snubber None MS-5-531 Snubber None MS-S-532 Snubber None MS-5-533 Snubber None MS-5-534 Snubber None GE-1-H-1 Spring Replace Springs GE-1-H-2 Spring Replace Springs GE-1-H-3 Spring Adjust Spring Jet Deflector Y-Z Rigid Added Plates
Y#
' TABLE 2-4
& g.
g3 PILGRIM Pg m-SRV VALVE EVALUATION y
0, SRV Max. Total
-Level B Designation.
-Component TAP Pipe Stress Allowable Component Type System At Valve Pipe Stress RV-203-3A'
'SRV Valve Relief Line A 12,859 18,000 1st.Vac. Bkr.
6,209
'2nd Vac. Bkr.
6,534 RV-203-3B SRV Valve Relief Line B 12,644 18,000
- 1st Vac. Bkr.
6,609
-'T i
2nd Vac. Bkr.
6,252 RV-203-3C.
SRV Valve Relief Line C 16,909 18,000 1st-Vac. Bkr.
5,718 2nd Vac. Bkr.
5,840
.RV-203-30 SRV' Valve Relief Line D
=- 16,354 18,000 1st Vac. Bkr.
7,018 2nd Vac. Bkr.
6,660 Ip
Y Technical Report TR-5310-2,
w~
~,
8 JET DEFLECTOR
-t
\\,
s i
~
WATER LEVEL
/
-DISCfiARGE~TtE-QUENCiiER~
~
l 7
J 4,fgM -&ih
%b-C
_ 2.
/lI'
']
I l. {
~
FIGURE 2-1 SRV LINE ROUTING-TYPICAL j
Technical Report M
TR-5310-2 0 14 15 13 16 12 I
y~
11 2
N 270
+
90 10 g
y 3
D A
9 4
C l
B 8
5 7
6 4 "T" QU5NCHERS FIGURE 2-2 SRVLINEARRANGEMENT-TORijS
R 53 0
\\
\\
j
, 2.5 REF.
\\\\
Il
\\\\
ll
\\\\
/
i I
{
\\\\
\\
\\\\
1/4" PLATI 1 3/4" PLATE l
S'X 5' DETAIL "A" PEflETRATION f
\\
I
\\\\\\w :::':*
'N x
),
J-
~
SEE DETAIL "A"
-TEE-QUENCHER
%eMbH 5WN+
y,
/aiat aP' i
i
'ijz FIGURE 2-3 SRV LINE ROUTIflG-TYPICAL
l i
p SUPPORT BEAri QUEf4CllER
/
f.
Y YE
"[
., [
/,, #
30" s
y'
)
Il
/
j g
L i
)
3
%. /
1
~
\\
-
.h r-j 4-r j
H
.l SUPPORT BEAM RifiG GIRDER M
Y 12" quEficutR m
'IY i
- ."... ; ;:. : ! !.....i 3
8 C.....
.n I
\\ l w
SoPPoR1 nun 20.. Sco no >
yj_
(
SUPPoR1 aRsc<
i FIGURE 2-1 SRV TIT-QUENCHER & SUPPORT IllCL!fil;D ENTRY LINE
TN NM Technical Report TR-5310-2 23-( )
(>
(>
MAINSTEAMLINS SRV c
- }>
o (bd l SRV LINE m
I L
_9 _ _ _
o.-
l VENT PENETRATION l
i l l
,)
L' TEE-QUENCHER AND SUPPORT
_____ f
_C 11:ICI : :_]
FIGURE 2-5 SRV PIPING MODEL, TYPICAL
-4 a w co i n m :r 110RIZONTAL SPECTRA
$ S.
an
,)
OPERATING BASIS EARTilQUAKE 43 %
x-s.s E
S i
I 1
N
~
9-
> - i
- e i
g s
& i t
7 g
,,,N.
-g c.
s i
N s
. w 4.0
.___.J s _
r.
s y,
p
):
QCDAMPI VG,
3 l
s
+*
~>
L r
N.
3.
e '3.0 i t i
s.
\\
_a s
' [~-
J' m
a
?
=
~
o w
1
+-:.
~
. x,
- !s 1
,~
5-2.0
-4
.1--)
s m
'u i
s g<
t l
e 4
N 1.0 '
o
- }
h 4
s t
~
z
\\
)a t
S{.3...
,g 3
0; s
. t O'
.02.03
- 05 0.1-0.2
'e 0.5.
' 3.0 2.0 s
s E
T.
prR100 (SECONDS)~
s 4
FIGilRE 2-6 SRV SEISMIC.';PECTRA l
t s
g k-k g._
Technical Report TR-5310-2 WTELEME mm s
(
11 fiODES/ #
RING HEADER SPAN (TYP) o i
, i' D0utiCOMER VENT HEADER SUPPORT COLUMN l
}
to l
VENT PIPE 1
>' ' N
/
tA L
<>1 it
\\
\\
I h
I
\\
VEliT HEADER IrlTERSECTION
\\
/
(STIFFiiESS MATRIX INPUT)
\\
\\
C
/
\\
s._ -
4 I
I
(
i 1
^m i
1 4>
4>
g SYMMETRY B0UtiDARY CONDITIONS FIGURE 2-7 VENT SYSTEM MODEL
Technical Report 1%' m W NE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES 3.0 TORUS ATTACHED PIPING (TAP) 1 The torus at Pilgrim has 19 piping systems attached to its outer shell.
These systems connect to 40 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, Piping inside the torus attached to TAP systems.
o e
Pump and valve loads.
s 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.
3.1 Applicable Codes and Criteria Analysis and modifications to TAP piping and supports were in accordar.ce with the following codes:
Piping Analysis t
l All TAP systems and branch lines - ASME,Section III, 1977 l
(Reference 2).
Support Analysis All TAP and branch supports - ASME,Section III, Subsection NF, and including NRC Bulletin 79-02 requirements (Reference 3).
l m
Technical Report TR-5310-2 "seTF1 FfWNE l
ENGNEERING SERVICES Load combinations and stress levels were evaluated in accordance with Table 5-5 of the Mark 1 Containment Program Structural Acceptance Cri-l teria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide (Reference 5).
Table 5-5 is l
l reproduced in this report as Table 1.
l Damping of all time history piping analysis was taken at 2% of critical. Seismic analysis used a 0.5% damped spectra.
l l
3.2 TAP Loads 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 loads on internal oiping.
and OjginalDesignLoads Deadseight.
Themial expansion.
Seismic.
Pressure.
)
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 of this piping analysis work.
These loads are described more fully in the Mark 1 1.oad Definition Report (Reference 11).
l
Technical Report SPTri FrVNE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES 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 connected.
This data consisted of three translations and two out of plane 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.
3.2.2 Shell Motion Due to DBA Condensation _0scillation 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 leading was calculated by applying each fregooncy in this band to the torus sheli model snown in Figure 3-7 and calculating response far each sinusoidal excitation.
(This work was done earlier to allow calculation of i
shell stress for Reference 1). Shell response was calculated for frequencies up to 32 Hz; frequencies above 32 Hz were considered negligible as discussed l
in Appendix 2.
j Shell responses for each of these frequency components were l
combined into an equivalent time history using random phasing of the indivi-l
Technical Report
'veTA m(NE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES 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 6 for a further discussion of the factor and component phasing.
This method of combining frequency components and generating dn 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 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 (Reference 11).
Shell response for pre-chug was calculated by acplying a continuous + 2 psi sine pressure to the large torus model (Figure 3-7) in the specified frequency range. Maxirium shell response in this range occurred at 9.5 Hz. This vas considered as one of the inputs to TAP.
l Post chug is specified as a sp6ctrum of pressures from 1-50 Hz. Shell response was calculated for each 1 Hz comparent in this spectrum, 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 acctunt for the fact that some elements of the spectrum are not randomly phased.
Further discussion of this factor can be found in Reference 8.
The resulting pressure time history was applied to the model in Figure 3-7 to calculate shell response.
Technical Report "RTFIFrWNE TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 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 used to provide time history input functions for the TAP.
Section 5.2 in the Load Definition Report (Reference 11) requires that we allow for a 125 percent shif t in the SRV frequency for discharge through a cold line, and a 140 percent shif t for discharge through a hot line. This was considered by examining the response modes and frequen-cies of the TAP piping systems and then making adjustments within the speci-fied 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 absolute summaticn.
A typical snell respense due to SRV actuation is illustrated in Fiqure 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 they are
Technical Report SPTF1 FrWNE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES 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 C.0. Source and FSI Drag e
Post Chug Source and FSI Drag a
Pre-chug Drag e
SRV Bubble and Jet Loads e
Pool Swell Bubble Drag o
Pool Swell Fallback For Structures Above the Pool:
e Pool Swell Water Impact cod Drag s
Froth e
Fallback A typical submerged structure load spectrum is shown in Fig-ure 3-4.
This spectrum includes C0 and CH source and FSI drag.
Technical Report "APTF1 FTY(E TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 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 maximum design thermal conditions as defined in Reference 14.
Thermal displacement of the pene-tration 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 illustrated in Figure 3-5.
Analysis for SSE was taken as 1.875 times the OBE results.
Horizontal and vertical response were combined by an SRSS combination of the worst horizontal response with the vertical; also in accordance 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 building spectra being used for the rest of the line.
It was determined that the building spectra would control at all frequencies, so this same spectra was applied at the torus penetration.
3.3 TAP Analysis Method The method for TAP pipe stress analysis varied for each of the follawing cases:
Large t' ore piping (over 4" diameter).
e t
e Small bore piping systems (4" and less), which could be reduced to single degree-of-freedom approximations.
Small bore piping which could not be reduced to single dof e
systems.
e Branch piping off of TAP systems.
l l
Analysis of supports, anchors and torus penetrations did not vary and was the same for all types of piping systems.
l l
"A'TF1 5-Th'NE Technical Report TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 3.3.1 Representation of Torus Shell for Piping Analysis Because the 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 Analysis of all large borc 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 (Reference 16) computer code. Dynamic analysis used damping values of 2% of cricital for time history anabsis; OBE seismic used a %% damped spectra.
Analysis on these models included:
i e Zero and full & P pool swell shell motion and drag loads.
o Post chug shell moticn and drag loads.
e DBA C0 shell motion and drag loads.
l INNd"*P"*
"veTA m(NE ENGINEERNG SERVCES e SRV Shell Motion and Drag Loads.
e Deadweight.
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 An,1ysis of small bore piping systems that could not 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 CO.
e Deadweight.
e Seismic.
o Thermal.
i Consideration of Mark 1 dynamic loads was limited to DBA CO, based on experience with large bore piping analysis for five Mark 1 plants.
This experience showed that all high stressed lines were controlled by DBA C0, except in a few special cases; Appendix 1 discusses this further.
\\
Technical Report TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES 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 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.
Shell input to these systems (for Mark 1 loads) was format-ted in the frequency domain Lo 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 1:40 (approximately).
Branch piping too flexible to meet this ratio was considered by separate analysis.
These systems were analyzed statically by placing a displacement at the connection point, equal to twice the TAP motion at the connection point. These analyses were carried to a point where Mark 1 loads f
produced less than 10% of the allowable stress.
3.3.6 Piping Analysis - Load Input for Computer Models 3.3.6.1 Mark 1 Loads Due to Shell Motion Shell motion, due to internal Mark 1 loads, is due to pressures across broad areas of the shell, as opposed to concentrated
Technical Report
'RTri prWNE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES 1
forces at the penetration. Because of this, the interactive effects of piping and shell should include allowance for local shell compliance in the force 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).
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.
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.
b 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 l
for shell induced, seismic and other loads.
Internal drag loadings were run as separate cases with worst-case orientations, and then combined with other
Technical Report "RTS1 m(NE TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES loadings to determine pipe stress, support loads and penetration stress. The 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 the following methods:
PoolSweilDrag-StaticAnalysisX2.
o e Pool Swell Fallback - Static Analysis X1.
e Pool Swell Impact - Static Analysis X2.
e Pool Swell Froth - Static Analysis X2.
C0 Drag - Dynamic Analysis (spectrum).
e Post Chug Drag - Dynamic Analysis (spectrum).
e o SRV Drag - Static Analysis X1.
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 compenent in this spectrum was ther, 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 compon-ents is discussed in Reference 6). The loads calculated in the pipe were then
Technical Report
'RTFI fTh'NE TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 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.
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:
Loads from piping response due to shell motion e
(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 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 piping loads. These stresses were combined with free shell stresses in that area, intensified to account for the discontinuity.
Free shell stress was taken f rom earlier containment analysis, as reported in Reference 1.
Penetre-tion stresses were calculated for each load in each degree of freedom. Stres-ses resulting from this analysis were combined to form the load cases defined in the PUAAG (Reference 9 and Table 1).
Stress in the piping within the limits of reinforcement was l
calculated by combining the stress in the pipe with the local shell stresses l
by absolute summation. This was also evaluated for each degree of freedom and I
each of the PUAAG load cases (Table 1).
l
WTF1 FTT/NE Technical Report TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING 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 analysis, depending on the complexity of the individual support.
Evaluation of base-plates and anchor bolts was included, using the current procedures developed in response to NRC Bulletin 79-02 (Reference 3). The STAAD computer program was used in most cases where computer analysis of supports was done (Reference 17).
In all cases, where applicable, the support analysis included a review of supporting steel for the new loads.
Analysis was per-formed for those cases where supporting steel was judged questionable.
3.3.9 Vacuum Breaker Analysis The wetwell-drywell vacuum breakers at Pilgrim are attached to the vent pipe-vent header intersection inside the torus and, therefore, are not included with any TAP analysis. Analysis of these vacuum breakers was not a part of the Mark 1 Containment Program, but is reported in Reference 13.
3.3.10 Active Components Active components on TAP systems include seven pumps and 32
~
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.
3.4 Evaluation and Results 3.4.1 General Combinations of the previous analysis cases were done to i
allow esaluation of results in accordance with Table 5-5 of Reference 5.
l (Table 1 in this report.) This table lists a total of 27 load cases for both i
l l
l l
Technical Report D TR-5310-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES 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
16 Zero AP 2.4 Sh 3
25 Pool Swell + SRV (A1.3) 2.4 Sh 5
15 SSE + SRV + Post Chug 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.
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 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.
h The large bore TAP systems are listed in Table 3-1 along with the maximum stress for the controlling load combination.
i Technical Report SPTA FTVNE TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 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 Pipe Stress - Branch Lines Branch lines connected to TAP systems were evaluated for the load combination providing the maximum displacement at the branch point.
Branch lines are listed in Table 3-3.
3.4.5 Pumps and Valves Evaluation of pumps and valves was done based on stresses in the adjacent piping.
Pipe stresses meeting Level 8 criteria were considered adequate to assure proper operation of the cumps or valve.
(Reference 5, Section 5.5).
Results of the pump and valve avaluation are listed in Table 3-4.
3.4.6 Piping Fatigue Evaluaticn 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 l
in these systems will not produce a f atigue problem.
The conclusions are applicable to the Pilgrim Plant. No further plant unique evaluation was done to address fatigue considerations for piping. Fatigue analysis for the pen-etration is considered below.
Technical Report SPTf:'IFTT(E TR-5310-2 ENGNEERNG SERVICES 3.4.7 Torus Shell Penetration Evaluation l
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 l
reported in Reference 1.
Stresses in the penetration area were evaluated in accord-ance with subsectin 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 Fatigur. evaluation of the penetration (paragraph NE-3221.5) showed that the maximum load comt,ination 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 CO (900 cycles), and SRV Case C3,3 (50 cycles).
Other loads; norral SRV actuation, IBA CO, and chugging, can produce up to 10,000 cycles, but only at greatly reduced stress levels.
Based on this, the 10,000 cycles at maximum stress represents a conservative level of evaluation and the TAP shell penetrations are considered acceptable for fatigue.
Controlling stresses in the TAP penetrations are listed in Table 3-6 Additional information on the number of cycles for each condition can be found in Reference 10.
Technical Report WTI I WE TR-5310-2 gg 3<4.8 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 the ASME Code, Sec-tion III, Subsection NF, 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 for large bore piping is given in Table 3-5.
3.5 Summary of TAP Modifications Modifications to torus attached piping systems consisted of support changes, as well as modifications to internal piping. Modifications to inter-nal piping included shortr.ning some lines to reduce submergence and drag loads; rerouting one line and supporting it f rom the ring girder and resup-porting one other, lhe following modifications were cade; these are illus-trated in Reference 1:
e Reroute RHR iine and support from ring girder, e
Reir, force spray header supports on the ring girders.
e Shorten HPCI exhaust 11ne.
e Shorten RCIC exhaust line.
e Shorten RCIC and HPCI drain lines.
e Shorten 18-inch spare line.
Modifications to external piping consisteo of support and support steel modifications. Table 3-5 summarizes thesa for large bore piping.
TABLE 3-1 PILGRIM M ;ii' a, a LARGE BORE TAP RESULTS
- i3.
?C System Penetration Line Size Controlling Maximum Allowable Max. Stress N~
Name Number
& Schedule Load Case Stress Stress Location
{
O Vacuum Relief from X-205 20" Std.
Case 21 15,825 32,880 Elbow A
Bldg. & Purge Inlet (DBA C0)
Cont. Cooling &
X-210A 12" Std.
21 9,929 32,880 16 x 12 Core Spray Test Line Reducer near Pen.
3-?10B I?" Std.
15 18,253 32,880 Elbow near Pen.
Cont. Cooling to X-213 6" Sch. 40 21 17,528 32,880 Spray Hdr. Pipe near Tee Spray Header X-211b 6" Sch. 40 21 17,417 36,000 12" x 6" Weldolet 2 RCIC Pump Suction X-220 6" Sch. 40 21 11,597 36,000 Elbow HPCI X-221 16" Std. 30 21 8,803 32,880 Elbow near Pen.
RHR X-222A & B 18" Std. 30 21 11,148 36,000 Tee near Valve MOV/18"- N29'44 X-222C & D 18" Std. 30 21 13,369 32,880 Elbow near Pen.
g HPCI Turbine Exhaust X-223 24" Std. 20 25 15,463 32,880 Elbow near Pen.
RCIC Turbine Exhaust X-225 8" Std. 40 21 9,013 32,880 Elbow m
Purge Exhaust X-227 20" Std. 20 15 17,600 32,880 Elbow near Pen.
Core Spray X-229A 18" Std.
21 12,977 32,880 Elbow near Pen.
Pump Suction X-229B 13" Std.
21 11,351 32,880 Elbow I
d TABLE 3-2 PILGRIM fo[
ui =r SMALL BORE TAP RESULTS-
[g
-System Penetration Line Size Type of Maximum Allowable Max. Stress Name Number
& Schedule Analysis Stress Stress Location m
o Liq. Lvl. Indicator-X-206A 1"Sch. 80 Dynamic 32,593 36,000 Penetration S
' Liq. Lvl. Indicator X-206B 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 13,442 36,000 Penetration
-Liq. Lvl. Indicator X-206 C&D 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 28,584 36,000 Penetration Bater Temp. & Spares X.209 A-D 1" Sch. 80 Hand 1,472 36,000 Penetration Spare X-214-X-215 4" Sch. 80 Hand 1,396 36,000 Penetration Spare X-216-X-217 2" Sch. 80 Hand 1,396 36,000 Penetration CACS X-218 & 219*
HPCI-Cond, drain X-224 2" Sch. 80 Dynamic 18,880 36,000 Penetration RCIC Cond. Drain
'X-226 2" Sch. 80 Dynamic 16,357 36,000 Penetration Ref. Vessel Connect.
X-228A 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 8,731 44,088 2nd Valve on Branch Torus Pressure X-228B 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 7,285 44,088 Anchor H0 Analyzer-X-228C 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 21,400 37,680 Near Penetration 22 Spare X 2PS D&F 1" Sch. 80 Hand 130 36,000 Penetration vacuum Breaker X-228E-1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 6,483 28,093 Elbow near Pen.
Post Accident Sampling X-228G 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 26,581 42,960 Elbow near Pen.
OThese are short lines terminating in Eflange - they are presently being analyzed.
4
[
J
TABLE 3-2 (CONTINUED)
- o m PILGRIM Q
~ _..
SMALL BORE TAP RESULTS
?O, System Penetration Line Size Type of Maximum Allowable Max. Stress 5'
Name Number
& Schedule Analysis Stress Stress location 3
c4 Post Accident Sampling X-228H 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 17,046 42,960 Elbow near Pen.
H0 Ar.alyzer X-228J 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 18,236 37,680 Near Penetration 22 H0 Analyzer X-228K 1" Sch. 80 Dynamic 36,748 37,680 Tee near Pen.
22 Torus Level Pressure X-240 A&B t 1" Sch. 80 Hand 11,398 36,000 Penetration
~
X-241 A&EJ k?
4 l
l 1
N TABLE 3-3
((
on PILGRIM A>E x
BRANCH LINE PIPE STRESSES j
3 Branch Line TAP TAP Branch Line Maximum Allowable Designation Sys t eri Penetration Dia./Sch.
Stress Stress 4"-HE-9 Torus Purge Air X-205 4.0 Sch. 40 471 36,000 32,880 1"-HM-9 1.0 Sch. 80 32,880 4"-HL-23 RHR & RCS Pump Disch vge X-210B 4.0 Sch. 40 L
4"-HE-26 RHR Pump P-203 A, X-222A & B 4.0 Sch. 40 1,553 36,000
?
Suction Piping 4"-HE-26 RHR Pump P-203C.
X-222A & B 4.0 Sch. 40 1,900 36,000 Suctic., Piping j
- These lines experienced tctal displacements of less than 1/16 inch at the branch point.
They were judged ccceptaok without analysis.
I I
d TABLE 3-4
-y 7 ?,
PILGRIM
$?
E 7,-
PUMP AND VALVE EVALUATION A3$
Pipe E
Component Component TAP Stress Allowable A
!~
Designation Jpe System / Penetration at Component Pipe Stress 6"-238
. Valve RCIC Pump Suction /X-220 5894/6548 18,000 6"-N957M4K Valve 4330/4355 18,000 6"-29K Valve 5798/7367 18,000 6"-235 Valve 4619/5301 18,000 e
l M0-1301-25 Valve 5778/3827 18,000 MO-1301-26 Valve 7819/7719 18,000 i
P-206'
' Pump.
1171 36,000 N957MAK Valve HPCI/X221 1172/1225 16,440 H-1001-37B Valve Cont. Cooling Spray Hdr./
8699/6323 18,000 X-211B i
A0-5036/A Valve Vacuum Relief from 2234/1285 16,400 Bldg. & Purge Inlet /X-205 A0/5036B Valve 1040/295 18,000 M0/1001-43A-(A)
Valve RHR/X-222A 3931/1992 18,000
'A 18"-N29M4
' Valve 2444/1149 16,440 I
e-a v e
p.
~
w
4
^
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED) yy
- o co bh l
PILGRIM 5K PUMP AND VALVE EVALUATION k$
?
u Pipe 5?
Component Coarenent TAP Stress Allowable Designation lype System / Penetration at Component Pipe 3 tress A 18"-N957M4K Valve RHR/X-222A & B 3366/1934 16,440 i
B M0/1001-43C Valve 3357/1691 18,000 B 18"-N29M4 Valve 2706/5215 16,440 B 18"-N957M4K valve 3007/4952 16,440 i
P-203A Pump 1944 36,000
?
l P-203C Pump 5097 36,000 MOV-18"-N29M4 Valve RHR/X-222C & D 3004/2383 16,440 i
M0-1001-4387 Va1ve 1630/3488 18,000 g
MOV-18"-N29M4 Valve 4513/6593 16,400 l
None Valve 2101/4254 18,000 P-203B Pump 2873 36,000 P-2030 Valve 1621 36,000 20"-N238-Valve HPCI Turbine Exh./X-223 4698/4203 18,000 20"-N294M4K Valve 4579/7007 16,440 Ii
~
e
TABLE 3-4 (CONTINUED)
PILGRIM
$?
5 Fi PUMP AND VALVE EVALUATION k$
- o O
Pipe Q
Component Component TAP Stress Allowable Designation _ _, _ _ _
Type System / Penetration at_ Component Pipe Stress 8"N294M4K Vclve RCIC Turbine Exh./X-225 6935/5223 16,440 8"N238 Valve 9045/8925 18,000 A0-5042-A valve Purge Exhaust /X-227 1477/820 18,000 A0-5040-A Valve 1659/1406 16,440 A0-5042-B Valve 3272/1856 16,440 A0-5040-B Valve 1192/1083 16,440 12"-29K Core Spray Pump /X-229A 1100/1426 18,000 M0-3A Valve 3332/2170 16,440 P-215A Pump 2309 18,000 12"-29K Valve Core Spray Pump Suct./
1431/2053 18,000 X-2298 M0-3B Valve 3796/2397 16,440 P-215B Pump 1717 18,000 l
TABLE 3-5 gg
.n IS $
PILGRIM
- 5. ;o,r m-TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE)
,x -
Penetration Line Number _ _
Support Tag Support Type Modification X-205-20".iM-45 H-45-1-SG X-Z Rigid None H-45-1-ISG Y Rigid Ncs installation j
s H-45-1-2SR Y Rigid Replaced U-bolt with frame X-210A 12"-HL-10 H-1C-1-66 Y Spring Reset spring H-10-1-67 Y Spring Reset spring i
H-10-1-68 Y Spring Replaced spring can 7
16" Sch. a0 Internal TES Lateral X-Z Rigid None 12"-HL-10.
H-10-1-895A Anchor Added plates & anchor bolts X-2108 12"-HL-10 H-10-1-75 Y Rigid Replaced rod strut & pipe clamp
- H-10-1-76 Y Rigid None H-10-1-77 Y Rigid Modified support steel, replaced rod strut and pipe clamp 12"-G6-10 H-10-1-89 X-Y Rigid Replaced spring can with frame of structural tubing 10"-GB-10 H-10-1-11 Y Rigid Modified support steel, replaced spring with rigid strut 12"-HL-10 TES Anchor New Anchor New installation
(
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED)
PILGRIM hR DET TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE)
~ '
5;t 2
h *-.
y c<
[',
,1Line Number, Support Tag Support Type Modification O
a ReplacedkodstbutwithadjustabU
~
X-211A 6"-HL
.0 H-10-1-51 Y Rigid b
rigid strut and pipe clamp.
H-10-1-52
'Y Rigid Modified suppo'rt steplAreplaced rod strut c
$~
g 3.q is H-10-1-875A Anchor Addedplate& anchor' bons
, S * ;) )
X-211B 6"-GB-10 H-10-1-78 Y Rigid Modified support' steel, replaced rod strut
~
H-10-1-79 Y Rigid Modified supr, ort ste 1, s,
T
(
i replaced rod strut
-3 H-10-1-111 45 Lateral None
)
H-10-1-40SA Anchor New installation X-220 6"-HD-13 H-13-1-28 Y Spring Reset-spring can H-13-1-2SR Y Rigid Reorientated and replaced entire support H-13-1-27 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift H-13-1-26 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift H-13-1-1SG
.Y Rigid Replace angle frame
..g H-13-1-25' Y Rigid None i
6"-HS 13 H-13-1-1 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift H-13-1-2 Y Rigid Acded stanchion lugs for uplift X
1 a.,,
s if i
.=
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED)
PILGRIM
${
ww TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE) y{
A, *.
Penetration Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification y
~
k X-220 6"-HE-26 H-26-1-6 Y-Z Rigid New installation-6"-HE-13 H-26-1-1322SP XYZ Rigid None X-221 16"-HL-23 H-23-1-21 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift H-23-1-22 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift TES New Support!
X Rigid New installation H-23-1-SH Anchor New installation except for i
X-222A & B 18'-HB-10 HB-10-SG-18 Z Rigid None 18"-HL-10 H-10-1-19 Y Rigid Added plate clamps to baseplate for uplift H-10-1-18SR Y Rigid Modified support steel &
replaced adjustable rigid strut
& pipe clamp H-10-1-20 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplfit H-10-1-195R Y Rigid None H-10-1-21 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift H-10-1-138 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift
!d-10-1-20SH Y Rigid None I
=. _ -.
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED)
- o ro PILGRIM TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE)
=
Penetration Line Number
Support Tag
-Support Type Modification E
X-222A & B 18"-HL-10 H-10-1-21SR Y Rigid None i
18"-HB-10.
H-10-1-22SH Y Spring Replace spring can and add lubrite plate 20"-HB-10 H-10-1-5 Y Spring Reset spring cans H-10-1-455R X Rigid None H-10-1-46SS Y Spring R,eset spring can, add baseplate with gussets & ancnor bolts H-10-1-475H Y Rigid Added plate clamps to stanchion' baseplate, added baseplate, gusset and anchor bolts to wall baseplate 18"-HL-10 H-10-1-22 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift _
H-10-1-23SR Y Rigid None H-10-1-23 Y Rigid Added stanchion lugs for uplift l
H-10-1-136 Y Rigid None 18"-HB-10 H-10-1-245R Y Rigid Changed baseplate & anchors H-10-1-25SH Y Spring Reset spring can H-10-1-135 Y Spring Reset spring can w
-y
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED) hk M GRIM 1" if..
0 TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE) 4 5'
Penetration Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification X-22A & B 18"-HB-10 HB-10-SG-19 Z Rigid None H-10-1-134 Y Spring Reset spring can 20"-HB-10 H-10-1-44SA Anchor Added gussets & steel X-222C & D 18"-HL-10 H-10-1-29SR 45 Lateral Modified support steel and base-plate, replaced adjustable rigid strut and pipe clamp H-10-1-30SR 45 Lateral None H-10-1-31SH Y Rigid None H-10-1-32SR 45 Lateral None 18"-HB-10 H-10-1-33SH Y Spring Reset sprino can 18"-HL-10 H-10-1-53 Y Rigid Replaced baseplate, added anchor bolts and plate clamps to new baseplate for uplift H-10-1-54 Y Rigid None H-10-1-55 Y Rigid None H-10-1-26SR 45 Lateral Replaced adjustable rigid strut and clamp, added baseplates, gussets and anchor bolts I
4 TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED)
N PILGRIM Di TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE)
EE h%
Penetration Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification X-222C & D.
18"-HG-10 H-10-1-27SR 45 Lateral Added baseplate and anchor bolts 18"-HB-10 H-10-1-28SH Y Spring Reset spring can 18"-HL H-10-1-56 Y Rigid Added plate clamps to baseplate i
for uplift H-10-1-57 Y Rigid Added plate clamps to baseplate for uplift H-10-1-123 Y Rigid None 5,
T 20"-HB-10 H-10-1-10 Y Spring Replaced spring cans and rods 18"-HL-10 H-10-1-121 Y Rigid Added plate clamps to baseplate for uplift 18"-HB-10 HB-10-1-SG-17 45 Lateral Replaced adjustable rigid strut H-10-1-119 Y Spring Replaced spring can and all attachments H-10-1-120 Y Spring Reset spring can HB-10-SG-16 45 Lateral Changed baseplate & bolts 20"-HB-10 H-10-1-60SH Y Rigid Changed baseplate & bolts H-10-1-595H Y Spring Reset spring H-10-1-585R X Lateral None H-10-1-575A Anchor None
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED) yy TZ, PILGRIM EE TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE)
?
Penetration Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification X-223 20"-HB-23 H-23-1-15SS Lateral Snubber None 24"-HL-23 H-23-1-18 Y Rigid Replaced entire support with new installation 20"-HB-23 H-23-1-17 Y Rigid Replaced entire support with new installation 20"-HB-23 H-23-1-16 Y Rigid Replaced rigid rod strut with adjustable rigid strut and replaced pipe clamp, baseplate and anchor bolts H-23-1-14SS X Snubb,er None H-23-1-15 Y Spring Reset spring can H-23-1-13SS X Snubber None H-23-1-14 Y Spring Reset spring can 16"-HB-23 H-23-1-19 Y Spring' Reset spring can, added plate
'and anchor bolts H-23-1-20 Y Spring Replaced spring can, added plate and anchor bolts H-23-1-11SS Z Snubber (skewed)
Added baseplate, gussets and 4
anchor bolts i
l PILGRIM l
aw TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE) j' y.
ws E$ 5' Penetration Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification A> S',
l X-223 20"-HB-23 H-23-1-12SS Z Snubber None 24"-HL-23 New X' Snubber New installation X-225 8"-HL-13 H-13-1-6 Y Spring Replaced spring cans H-13-1-7 Y Spring Replaced spring can, pipe clamp and attachments Two New Axial X Snubbers New installation Snubbers (TES) l H-13-1-3SA Anchor None 5,
?'
i X-227 20"-HM-45 H-45 1-35G Z Rigid None H-45-1-4 Y Spring Replaced spring H-45-1-45G X Rigid New structural steel 20"-HM-45 H-45-1-5 Z Rigid Added frame of tubular steel Y Spring with baseplates and anchor bolts H-45-1-6 Y Spring Remove bar stops for stanchion X-229A 12"-HE-26 H-14-1-195 Y Rigid None l
H-14-1-235 Z Rigid None 18"-HD-14 H-14-1-205 Y-Z Rigid Replaced rigid shock and sway arrestor and pipe clamp i
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED) xn.
PILGRIM TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE)
~
E Penetration Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification "o
X-229A-18"-HL-14 H-14-1-215 X Rigid (skewed)
None H-14-1-22S Z Rigid None PS-450 Y Rigid None H-14 1.-5 Y Rigid None H-14-1-4 Y Rigid None i
H-14-1-6 Y Rigid None H-14-1-20 Y Rigid None 16"-HE-26 H-14-1-24S Anchor X-229B 12"-HE-26 H-14-1-26S X Rigid Added angles to stanchion baseplate for uplift j
4' 12"-HE-26 H-14-1-30S Y Rigid None 18"-HD-14 H-14-1-27S Y Rigid Replaced rigid shock and sway 4
arrestor and pipe clamp, base-plate and anchor bolts H-14-1-12 X Rigid Replace baseplate and anchor bolts H-14-1-13 Y Rigid None H-14-1-28S X Rigid None d
TABLE 3-5 (CONTINUED) gg PILGRIM n
TAP PIPE SUPPORTS (LARGE BORE)
N' 5'
E Penetration Line Number Support Tag Support Type Modification 3
X-229B 18"-HL-14 H-14-1-9 Y Rigid None H-14-1-29S X Rigid None H-14-1-7 Y Rigid None H-14-1-8 Y Rigid None PS-425 Y Rigid None 8
16"-HE-26 H-14-1-25G Anchor None i
i l
i
Technical Report "WTFI RWNE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES TABLE 3-6 PILGRIM TAP PENETRATION STRESS RESULTS - PILGRIM Primary Stress Secondary Stress Penetration Calculated Calculated Number Max. Stress Allowable Max. Stress Allowable X-205 13,419 19,300 67,059 69,900 X-210A 10,470 19,300 39,949 X-210B 10,409 19,300 44,118 X-211A 14,347 15,100 40,338 X-211B 13,731 15,100 29,910 X-220 12,807 15,100 29,761 X-221 16,400 19,300 51,440 X-222A 15,751 19,300 43,843 l
X-222B X-222C 15,756 19,300 45,692 X-222D r
X-223 15,041 19,300 58,570 X-225 12,810 15,100 62,170 X-227 13,447 19,300 36,367 X-229A 15,830 19,300 56,334 X-229B 15,767 19,300 60,433
TABLE 1 STRUCTURAL ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA as m to c1 ASS ? AND 3 PIPING SYSTEMS
/ne ws
>-a s.
On iA N"
N StV SRd SSA
$8A + EQ
$5A + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVFNT C(NUIN ATIONS
+
IBA IBA + EQ IBA + SRV IBA + $RV + EQ DBA DBA + EQ DBA + $RV DBA + EQ + SRV CO, CO, PS CO, CO, CH CO.CH CH CO.CH (1) m PS CO.CH PS CM PS CO,,CH l TTFE OF EARTHQUAKE O
5 0
S 0
5 0
5 0
S 0
S O
5 0
5 0
OMBI:t A TION NLFE F R I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LOADS Normal (2)
N X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
Earthquake EQ X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X 5RY Discharge
$9V X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
thermal TA F1pe Pressure P
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 g
LfCA Fool $well P
I X
X X
X X
pg LOCA Condensation h
oscillation CO X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X LOCA Chugattig P
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
CH STDt'CTUltR ELEhf3T ROW Essential Piping Syetese
'~
With ISA/DBA 10 8
8 5
8 8
B B
B B
B 3
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
B B
B B
B B
B 8
(3) (3) (4)
(4)
(4) (4) (4) (4) (4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4). (4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
With SEA 11 5
3 8
8 8
8 B
B B
B B
(3)
( 3)
(4) (4) (4) (4) (3)
(M (4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
F Monesiential Piping Systems With IBA/DSA 12 B
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) (5) (5)
(5)
(5) (5)
(5) (5) (5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
With 5BA 13 C
C D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D (5)
(5)
(5) (5)
(5) (5) (5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5) l-I m
D'""WWMW9e'**-'
Technical Report WTF1 prWNE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES NOTES TO TABLE 1 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 demonstrated, including operability of that valve.
If the normal plant operating condition does not employ a drywell-to-wetwell pressure differential, the listed Service Level assignments shall be applicable.
2.
Normal loads (N) consist of dead loads (D).
l 3.
As an alternative, the 1.2 S limit in Equation 9 of NC-3652.2 may be h
replaced by Level C (1.8 S ) provided that all other limits are satis-h 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 S ) I" h
l Equation 9 of NC-3652.2, Level D (2.4 S ) may be used.
h 5.
Equation 10 of NC or ND-3650 shall be satisfied, except that f atigue 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.
$#g 1.5_
5X TYPICAL UPPER SHEI.L PENETRATION kE 5'
MARK I PLANT is l.0-A
()
x-I F
0.5-
)
t
?
0-5 i
{(
p g
]i
- 0. 5 --
h
-1.0-i 4
-1.5 0.[Jil 0.56 0.24 0.32 0.40 0.48 0.56 0.64 0.72 0.80 0
TIME (SEC)
FIGURE 3-1 SilELL RESPONSE FROM P0OL SWELL, TYPICAL t
0
!"if EFi 6'
h1 TYPICAL UPPER SHELL PENETRATION MARK I PLANT 3
5-l 1g 4 --
b e
m d
3--
i m
2 --
1-m A
^
0 i
j 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 FIGURE 3-2 SilELL RESPONSE FROM CONDENSATION OSCILLAT10ft-TYPICAL
l if RiiEx$5" 1
WGA 08 W
O 2
,7 m
4
,6 A
LA 6
C 5
I T
P N
Y A
T L
P VR I
S K
8 M
R A
4 O
M R
)
F N
2 1
O E
1
(
I S
T l
l A
Y 0
R C
P
,0 N
S T
4 E
E E
N U
R E
Q P
E L
R L
L F
L lE E
i S
H
,2 S
3 3
R E
3 P
P E
U R
U L
G A
4 I
C 2
F I
P Y
T 6
1
/
8 0
9 s
6 0
5 e
7 3
1 2$E -
mE l
(lll
bS PENETRATION X-221 CONDENSATION OSCILLATION
"[
AND POST CHUG 8e 150 -
4
(
I s
I
\\
f
\\
l
~
g 100 -
d.
)~
I
\\
6
?
g:
/L
/
j g
\\
W I
l
\\
\\
I I
/
g
\\
7
/
\\
e:
\\
R'
\\
59 _
\\
\\
/
i g
\\
I y
/
W
~
w a
0 5'
10l 15j 20; 25, 30 FREQUENCY (HZ)j FIGURE 3-4 DRAG LOAD ON INTERNAL PIPING
l l
Techn al Report TTELEDYME ENGNEERNGSEMCES TR-5310-2 e f
f Ln 0:fta O.
cW U
bfa m
u S
l' o y a
ew x
=
j O
Oi u
e t
u U
et W
La W
W b) g j
~
N 4
v)
Q f
DJ t-g
~~
c2 cc O
g,3 gp O
q Cu s
.M.
N,,
m o.
H LA8 L
r~
et c.g g
O 6
L4J CL M
LA-C g
\\
\\
m O
\\
\\
O.
(9 O.
O O
Ln O
wh a
e e
o e
N
.- e H
d 9 NI NOI1Vd37333V l
l h
mb i u
$hfsNEA G$
Yh o m 0
5 0
G N
2 I
0 1
A RT C
E E
P K
S 5
)
A S
C U
0 O
A Q I
R H N
M T T O
S C
R C
I E
A E
E P
S S
E S
(
S P
2 O
T L
D A
I A S T A 0
I N
R B
O E
5 Z G J
P
'/
I 3
N R
I O T E
H A 1
R U
R 0
G E
/,
0 I
P F
O 5
/
3 0
2 0
0 0
5 0
5 0
2 1
1 e 5 baxy8e
TR-5310- -
cp N
TORUS SHELL N
TORUS EXTERNAL PIPE FORCE-TIME HISTORY g PENETRATION INPUT AT PENETRATION
//
~
TORUS INTERNAL PIPE TORSION PIPE RIGID 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM Ifi OTHER DIRECTIO!!S FIGURE 3-6 TAP PENETRATION REPRESEf;TATION (TYPICAL)
W 1
TR 531 - cn W
CW W<
F--
.3:
w w>
l
\\
s s N g
\\
s s
g l
\\
s s
g s
s s
H g'
=
%\\
'g h
g s,ss' s
,s 6' g,s\\h' *
, /
s s
s
\\
j,/ -T.
a e
s s
- s',s, I
,',Q< %, -r ~ t -l-s
'g
,,', V,,,; s N
' -; ' ' N.-j,-
g N,
's N
,q - -,,
a s g?
'j q
N s
I' a
y,.,,.r-
\\
s, Arg
=
4g N
.Ngte s
s 9
s s
e-e Q
s g
,q-O gh g'?
N.'e--
CD s
s d
s s
N i
c.
S N
' fr.v-
~
s s
~
- -4 d,
~
i,s g%s /
a N
=
+-
/
i%
s s
,: J
.. - -,..3; -
i s
.s -
s
.,.~..
,3 s
s
, U,,'e La s
~,
&,..i,
,., - r>
i r
8 s,.
A s
,c~
0 FIGURE 3-7 DETAILED SHELL MODEL
Yn5 K*
o0%"
k
$."! G L 2
0 8
4 3
5 5
9 2
2 8
7 4
6 9
1 1
a 5
3 3o oC I
o
\\ s.
uf
.p,3_ s\\.'
lp i s!
f s
No e_ i i y t '.d' I
I s
_ \\'
/ *I, l,j Uo
. \\ _
\\ -
_ po, I
ye I 's
_ ss A.
.rl/ y,,/s-A Eo i!(II!
1
\\, i 0000000
.mlU,,',r-E 0077032
)
L i,
L Uo L
' uY! \\.F,lp s
i G
5533046 E
441 1854
- g H
s t
o l '/ '
A 222211 1 e
S
. n,T I
%o E
l i,
R
( u \\ s.
i S_
- l1 1
P
\\
_e/
P T
U
/ M sl,f!
I 3o
- 'g -
s'^
N I
S
,8d U
N g
0
~,, -
I 8o T
O N
c
.ld y!i j,;
I
,\\ - \\'-
N
/
T
,X A
A S
N a
lf L
O 2
<\\', p,\\ ~j/y!il i
$o TR 0
I cc b2b P
j s
S E
I T
d -
x, a-g -
E R
T A
bb
/a N
~
$o e
A R
690b31 9 u
E A
,h. a /r Ii 4iJ E
R E
P R
T 0022122
$o G
L T
E 2222222
,'<f_ /, -
t
{
8i s~
E C
P E
N xxxxxxx s
81ox N
E
~
D U
A M
E P
T
./-
i Co
. d.ss-1 f
S R
a U
l(
I J )',' y-I
$o L
3 8
G R
- ,3'g-O i
l T
I N
_ v, P
E O
R ii,Y u I
$o U
's' I
T QRSTUVW s
G A
.j +s I
C F
. i.
O ib,'$',{- i i
$o L
- l','
l, i
'- /_
Y!{
e Ca O
\\-
M
. 'K' E
9
'o C
D 51 24962
!'y!.y ir' i
0 2629111 l
- e g
f W. '/ -
Ey If:4l i "a N.j. 'N -
W __ ',,
S_ l i $o f
l O
N-
? x. '
._ =$ o" 7,_ '<c-s eo I
o 8
~
g 0
8 9
5 5
9 6
8 7
4 2
6 4
8 l
i 8
5 2
y
[
1,N m,eo c
TORUS PENETRATIONS N0DE N0.
LOCATION PENETRATION NO.
ANGLE
~~7$
64 A
x224,x226 270.00
$g 64 B
x212 270.00 gg 64 C
x223,x225 270.0g kE 6
D x201a-h 54.00 x
3 E
x228c-e,h,j,k 20.00 3
F x228a,b,f,g 20.00 Q
111 G
x 210a-b 25.10 108 H
x230 354.20 107 I
x214-219 340.00 107-161 J
x211a-b 339.10 K
x200a 327.20U L
x200b 327.20
?!
x202a-b 327.20 105 N
x205,x227 319.90 65 0
x209a/d 285.00U 29 P
x206a/d 285.00 s
~a d
G 11.25
-o o
u o
r,- - [ --r --t -
a.
/ d/ \\li iJ 2 8 4
U
'- - - - y - - - Y- -. $y/ ', / s i, s O
8.4850 o
1
'!,/
\\
g ;/ s
, s 8,<
g l
_ y,
\\V g,[ 's,. '-Y, s.M"'"'
/e G ~, ' * -.
11.25 m
/
g o
1 l
l
- - - I - - - +- - - - f'. - I
'._N,9,,j_J%'I-t _ ;l 5.6798 j
'i'
_4_',s4'<_ j i-A;j t -^s-8.4850 '---T U
t
' ~i' 'b-'f---+*--
i J- -{7 -
y I
---y--,
I i
l 2.8469 S
l i
l 5.6798 R
U g-- i I-~~f-~~'
B G - - t - - - f - - - }- -. '. - - {I h8[~ ~ ~ }I~ ~ ~ [ ' - j - - - l - - - + 7. -- _ _ _ {.- _ _ }. _ _ _
_ _ _ _ { _ _ _ j _ _ _.
8 l
{
I i
o 2.8469 g
GC i 0 0l l
PPi i
I l
l l
9,E Im0 8
U i
I t
e f
I e
f e
e i
0 1 i
l I
i t
i i
i0 o
o DEGREES PILGRIM NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 FIGURE 3-8b TAP PENETRATIONS LOWER SHELL
Technical Report
'RTri Frh'NE TR-5310-2 ENGINEERING SERVICES REFERENCES 1.
TES Report TR-5310-1, Rev. 1, " Mark 1 Containment Program, Plant Unique Analysis of the Terus Suppression Chamber for Pilgrim Station - Unit 1" dated April 21, 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 NE00-24583-1, " Mark 1 Containment Program Structural Accept-ance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide", dated October, 1979.
6.
Structural Mechanics Assoc. Report SMA 12101.04-R0020 " Response Factors Appropriate for use with C0 Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules", dated March, 1982.
7.
General Electric Computer Programs RVFOR-04 & RVFOR-05, Programs to Com-pute SRV Line Clearing Forces, General Electric Co., San Jose, CA.
8.
Structural Mechanics Report SMA-12101.05-R001, " Design Approach for FSTF Data for Combining Harmonic Amplitudes for Mark 1 Post-Cliug Response Calculations", dated May, 1982.
9.
Welding Research Council Bulletin 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.
Technical Report SPTn Fr#NE TR-5310-2 ENGNEERING SERVICES REFERENCES (CONTINUED 11.
G.E. Report NEDO-21888, Rev. 2, " Mark 1 Containment Program Load Defini-tion Report", dated November, 1981.
12.
NRC " Safety Evaluation Report, Mark 1 Containment Long-Term Program",
NUREG-0661, dated July, 1980.
l l
13.
BEC0 Letter 83-124, W. Harrington to D. G. Eisenhut, " Generic Letter 83-08 Modification of vacuum Breakers on Mark 1 Containments", dated May 13, 1983.
14.
BECO PNPS-1 Specification No. 6498-M-300 Piping Class Summary Sheets and Bechtel 79-14 Piping Analysis for PNPS-1.
15.
BECO PNPS-1 Specification G505, Seismic Qualification of Safety Essen-tial Equipment and Equipment Supports.
16.
STARDYNE, A General Purpose Computer Program for Structural Analysis, System Development Corp., Santa Monica, Calif.
17.
STAAD, A Computer Program for Frame-Structure Analysis, Research Engi-neers, Cherry Hill, NJ.
i
Technical Report W TF1FrT(NE TR-5310-2
-Al ENGINEERING SERVICES APPENDIX 1 USE OF C0 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 C0 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 two plants completed by TES follows:
No. of Large No. Controlled Bore Systems by C0 Pilgrim 14 11 Millstone 11 9
25 20 Of the five cases not controlled by CO, C0 loads were very close to the maximum, as follows:
Ratio of Controlling Stress Case to C0 Case Pilgrim
.999,.953,.958 Millstone
.89,.65*
- This is a atmospheric control (vacuum breaker) line that connects at three points 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. In addition, this is a relatively low stressed line. Maximum combined stress is less than half the allowable.
Technical Report SPTF1 M TR-5310-2
-Al ENGNEERNG SERVICES In addition, three of these five cases are controlled by pool swell and a significant contributor to total load was pool swell impact on internal pip-ing. Small bore systems do not have internal piping so these loads will not exist, and stresses for pool swell cases would be less.
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 C0.
6
Technical Report WTrl WBJE TR-5310-2
-A2 N ES l
APPENDIX 2~~
l
\\
l 32 HZ CUT 0FF 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-l ment analysis.
Thc 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.
1l(
,(!l N
I aRx3n$ xe s wPwfok 1??
S
,05
,5 4
0
, 4
, 5 3
LA I
)
D 7 A 3 R
, 0 E
3 E D
)
S 0 lZ l
1 N
f i
- O
(
4 P L A S L Y
E R l
, 5 C
E E i
2 N
R S
E U L U
G L D Q
I lE E
E D
R F i A F
S 0 L
, 0 O
2 l
C l
U A
(
BD
, 5 1
~, 0 1
, 5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
0 6
2 8
4 2
2 1
1 0
0 O $ M O 5 5 W 'E e 7
l 1lt
\\
l ll l
l
i
.lll j1 l1l l\\l j
ta I
u&[gE "gA A
sYY 0
5 5
4 0
4 5
f 3
1 0
I T
)
A 7
l x
lZ T 3 O
0 R E 3
D
)
E 0 2
S f
l f
1
(
4 0 L A P L Y
S E
C l
5 E E l
2 l
l R R S
E U
U G L D Q
I L
E j
E E
D f
F f
A R
i F
S O L 0
2 I
0 T
C U (
A BD 5
1 0
1 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
6 2
8 4
2 2
l 1
0 0
-'S* QTMne t1" i5 lllllfl1(
l l
,l!
ll
\\l
I I
ij 1
k r }.o" 'EBE I
h m y.N
- ~h 0
-5 5
4 0
4 5
3 LA I
)
D 3
A 2 R
0 E
3 E D 3
S 0
i N
t
)
4 0
A P L Z
S L
H
(
E E
l 5
E R
R i U
S 2
Y G L C
I L
D N
F E
E E
h D
U S A Q
O E
0 L
0 R
C 2
F l
i V
A
(
BD
~
5 1
.0 1
,5
/
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 5
0 5
0 5
3 2
2 1
1 0
O. =.=~b e<$y N
i lI 1
1
l 1
)
- 9s:
4 I
Y&w%nxeOE r
,5 4
0
,4 5
,3 NO I
)
TA 3
T 2 O
-,0 R
E 3
)
D Z
4 E 0 H
l S
f
^
(
l 4
f0 L
A Y
P L
C R
E il
,5 N
E S
E 2
U R S E
U G
I L D Q
F L
E E
E D
R i A F
l S
O 0
L
,2 0 N C U (
A BD
,5 1
,0 1
,5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
~
4 0
6 2
8 4
2 2
1 1
0 0
S+
y p :b. h E 7
f l
!Il l[