ML20086P336
| ML20086P336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1983 |
| From: | Edwards N, Steinert L NUTECH ENGINEERS, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086P296 | List: |
| References | |
| DET-04-028-3, DET-04-028-3-R01, DET-4-28-3, DET-4-28-3-R1, NUDOCS 8402270106 | |
| Download: ML20086P336 (12) | |
Text
_
DET-04-023-3 Revision 1 November 1983 ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT UNIT 2 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 3 VENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS I
Prepared for:
Detroit Edison Company
)
Prepared by:
NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
Approved by:
Issued by:
b Dr.
N.
W.
- Edwards, P.E.
L.
D.
Steinert President Project Manager NUTECH Engineers, Inc.
i
. U l
8402270106 840221 n
PDR ADOCK 05000341 A
pm
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continuation)
TITLE:
ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC REPORT NUMBER:
DET-04-028-3 Q
POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 Revision 1 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 3 bS Un V
e K.
E. Parzyck / Erfaf. Analyst Initial 6
R. D. Quinn / Consultant I Initial 1
b2nr
\\
,u ni t
S. P. Quinn / Senior T4chnician Initial' L/LL BK S. H. Rosenblum / Consultant I Initial Bsc p
/ pecialist Initial M.'A.
Ruper's S
{,
h Yrpus /
b P
i W. E. Smith / Associate Engineer Initial Ab S. S. Tang / Sqhior Engineer Initial dich.$ ht<a th
[57 C.
S. Tetamoto / Consultant I Initial NiN F
M ' '1 ')
Y.C.Yfti / Ertyineer Initial '
o d7 % M
/LOS L.
D. Steinert/Droject Manager Initial 3-iii nutg,qb
REVISION CONTROL SHEET (Continuntion)
TITLE:
ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC REPORT NUMBER:
DET-04-028-3 C
POWER PLANT, UNIT 2 Revision 1 Q)
PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT VOLUME 3 PRE-ACCURACY CRITERIA PRE-ACCURACY CRITERIA E
REV E
REV PARED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECK PAGE(S) rPAGE(S) 3-2.109 0
3-2.172 0
My 44 VA thro h
8M Vk, f6b' w
NN 3-2.173 3-2.174 44:
5M EM 3-2.112 through 8A RQ VL 3-2.175 KEP
- 6 4M
.132 3-2.176 ASL VKRL f >l tbr ac (HT V (,
3-2.177 w<
$.M RPd2 3-2.136 3-2.178
,./5/d Jc
- J@
3-2.137 bg g y[
g pg 3-2.179 through through M
C >T hNL-3-2.143 3-2.181 thro A 84 VK hro hb (g
3-2.148 3-2.186 3-2.149 1(EP
( "I M4 3-3.1 R
V K-S/rt, 0
3-2.150 f[3 v$a UK 3-iii 1
3-2.159 Q
(M AN 3-2.37 1
3-2.160 JDL oq
- frL-3-2.70 1
3-2.129 1
y y
1 3-2.161 2.184 1
l through KEP cif R#4 g
v4 3-3-2.162 3-2.163 4
(~5f 3-2.164 through g4 gSk(
\\/K, 3-2.167 3-2.161.
g g
yg 3-2.169
[
through g
KpfP Y k.
3-2.170 3-2.171 y
yfy Sg V(
l 0
)
QEP-001.4-00 V
3-v i
nutg,qh
components of the vent s,fstem located in spec-ified regions above the rising suppression pool.
The components located in Region I which are affected include the downcomer bracing members and ring plates, the vacuum breaker and vacuum breaker supports and the SRV piping supports beneath the vent line.
The components located in Region II which are affected include the vacuum breaker and vacuum breaker supports.
The plant unique OSTF test results adjusted for the vent line longitudi-nal location show that froth impingement loads on the vent line'are-negligible.
^
The procedure used to develop the transient forces. and spatial distribution of froth impingement and fallback loads on these com-ponen{s is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
The resulting magnitudes and distribution of froth
' impingement and fallback pressures on the downcomeb bracing members and ring plates, and the vacuum breaker and vacuum breaker supports 1
are, summarized in Table 3-2.2-6.
The froth i
I impingement loads acting on the SRV piping and supports located beneath the vent line are presented in Volume 5 of this report.
The results shown include the effects of using the s.
~
plant unique OSTF movies to determine the b.
DET-04-028-3~
Revision 1 3-2.37
~
O l
l
~
source velocity, departure angle, and froth density.
Pool swell loads do not occur during the SBA and IBA events.
d.
Pool Fallback Loads:
During the later portion of the pool swell
- event, transient drag pressures are postulated to act on selected components of the vent system located between the maximum bulk pool height and the downcomer exit.
The components affected include the downcomer bracing members and ring plates, and the SRV piping and supports located beneath the vent line.
The procedure used to develop transient drag pressures and spatial distribu-tion of pool fallback loads on these compo-nents is discussed in Section 1-4.1.4.
The resulting magnitudes and distribution of pool fallback loads on the downcomer bracing members and ring plates are summarized in Table 3-2. 2-7. The pool fallback loads on the SRV piping and supports located beneath the vent line are presented in Volume 5 of this report.
The results shown include the effects of maximun pool displacements measured in DET-04-028-3 Revision 0 3-2. 38 nutgg])
Table 3-2.2-14 MAXIMUM DOWNCOMER CHUGGING LOAD MAGNITUDE DETERMINATION Maximum Chugging Load for Single Downcomer FSTF P =3.046 kips Maximum Load Magnitude:
l Tied Downcomer Frequency: fy=2.9 Hz Pulse Duration: t = 0.003 sec.
d 1 = vf t =0.027 Dynamic Load Factor: DLF yd Fermi 2 Downcomer Frequency: f=12.4 Hz
(
Dynamic Load Factor: DLF=nft =0.117 d
Maximum Load Magnitude (In any direction) :
y (hff-) = (3. 046) ( 4. 276) =13. 02 kips P,3 =P 1
Note:
1.
See Figure 3-2.4-6 for Fermi downcomer frequency determination.
)
i DET-04-028-3 3-2.69 Revision 0 C'
nutgsb
Table 3-2.2-15 MULTIPLE DOWNCCMER CHUGGING LCAD MAGNITUDE DETEPRINATION g
i i
e i
i i
i e
i i
e i
i e
<> I I
I I
I t
I i
i i
i i
l i
I L
- W s
( 1 I
i i
i i
i I
i l
l I
I t
i
\\l i
I I
I 4
I i
i I
I I
I I
I
.c 10.0 g,
\\l 1
I i
i l
i I
i t
i i
t I
i
~
t I I
i I
i i
l i
I I
t i
i I
=
5 iNi i
i i
I i
i i
i i
i e
i i
$ 5.0 I
\\'
i I NI I
i i
i 6
I i
i i
i I
5 I
I I
I 1 :
i I
i i
l I
i 0-1 I
I I
I I
I i
e i
1 I
I I
I i
i i
i l
I i
i l
i E
i i
e i
I i
I e
i e
i
+
50.0.
1 20 40 60 80 Number of Dcwncc:rers Leaded Chugging Leads for Multiple Dcwnce=ers (kips)
Nu=ber of l Mu=ber of P bability TS""? Lead Te==1 Luad OcwnecmersI Chues of Exceedance Per Ocwncc=er Per Ucwncc=e 5
344 2.91 x 10"*
1.77 7.57 10 688 1.45 x 10-3 1.26 5.39 20 1375 7.27 x 10-4 0.91 3.89
~4 40 2751 3.64 x 10 0.68 2.91'
-4 on 9507 1.a2, 10 c.g?
2..t.t l
FSTF 512 sac Chugging duracica: T;
=
Nu=ber of downcemers:,n 8
=
eeg 313 Nu=her cf chugs: N;
=
I Fer i i
1 l
Chugging duration:
T., = 900 sec Nu=ber of dcwncemerci n.,c = 2 to 80 l
Nu=ber of chugs: N. =
M n gg, x T x n.a0 C
ac:
lN/e Prebability of exceedance: P u
1 NOTE:
1.
SEE ~3E RESPCNSE TO NRC QUESTICN 4 IN APPENDIX A FOR l
l ADDITICNAL INFORMATICN CN THE MULTIPLE OCWNCCMER Caccc:No LATERAL LcAcS.
DET-04-028-3 Revision 1 3-2.70 nutach l
f.
DBA Condensation Oscillation Submerged Struc-i ture Loads:
An-equivalent static analysis is performed for the DBA condensation oscillation submerged structure loads on the support s
columns.
These loads are shown in Table 3-2.2-13.
The loads include dynamic amplifi-cation factors which are computed using the methodology described for LOCA air clearing submerged structure loads in load case Se.
The DBA condensation oscillation submerged structure loads acting on the submerged 4
portion of the SRV piping are also' applied.
' O 7.
Chugging Loads
. Chugging Downcomer Lateral Loads:
A harmonic a.
analysis of the downcomers is performed to determine the dominant downcomer frequency for use in calculating the maximum chugging load
['
l magnitude.
The harmonic analysis results are shown in Figure 3-2.4-6.
The resulting chugg-ing load magnitudes are shown in Table 3-2.2-14.
A static analysis using the 1/16th beam model is performed for chugging downcomer lateral load cases 8 through 22.
These load DET-04-028-3 Revision 0 3-2.128 i
cases are shown in Tables 3-2.2-16 and 3-2.2-17.
An additional static analysis using the 180* beam model is performed for boundary displacements and associated concentrated forces generated for load cases 1 through 7.
A static analysis is also performed for the maximum chugging load shown in Table 3-2.2-18, applied to a single downcomer in the in-plane and out-of-plane directions.
The results of this analysis are used in evaluating fatigue.
Reference 7 provides additional information on the Fermi 2 design margins for the single downcomer chagging lateral load.
b.
Chugging Vent System Pressures:
An equivalent static analysis is performed for the chugging system pressures applied to the unreacted f
vent 1
areas of the vent system.
These loads are shown in Table 3-2.2-19.
The dominant vent line and vent header frequencies are deter-mined from the harmonic analysis results shown in Figure 3-2.4-7.
DET-04-028-3 Revision 1 3-2.129 nutp_qj)
have a rated capacity of 500 cycles at maximum displace-ment, their adequacy for fatigue is assured.
The ' vent system fatigue usage factors shown in Table 3-2.5-8 are computed for the controlling events, which are Normal Operating plus SBA and Normal Operating plus IBA.
The governing vent system cc.,mponent for fatigue is the vent header at the downcomer-vent header inter-section.
The magnitudes and cycles of downcomer lateral loads are the primary contributors to fatigue at this location.
The governing vent system weld for fatigue is the nozzle to gusset weld at the SRV penetration to the vent fN i
line.
SRV temperature and thrust loads and the number the major contributors to fatigue of SRV actuations are at this location.
Fatigue effects at other locations in the vent system are less severe than at those described above, due primarily to lower stresses and a lesser number of stress cycles.
Results of studies to analyze and modify the Fermi 2 wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breakers are described in References 8 and 9.
DET-04-028-3 Revision 1 3-2.184 nuttgb i
3-2.5.2 Closure The vent system loads described and presented in Section 3-2.2.1 are conservative estimates of the loads postu-lated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV discharge event.
Applying the methodology discussed in Section 3-2.4 to examine the effects of the governing loads on the vent system results in bounding values of stresses l
l and reactions in vent system components and component supports.
1 The load combinations and event sequencing defined in I
Section 3-2.2.2 envelop the actual events postulated to l
occur during a LOCA or SRV discharge event.
Combining the vent system responses to the governing loads and evaluating fatigue effects using this methodology results in conservative values of the maximum vent system stresses, support reactions, and fatigue usage f actors for each event or sequence of events postulated to occur throughout the life of the plant.
The acceptance limits defined in Section 3-2.3 are at least as restrictive, and in many cases more restric-tive, than those used in the original containment design documented in the plant's FSAR.
Comparing the resulting DET-04-028-3 Revision 0 3-2.185 l
nutp_qh
3-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES gJ 1.
" Mark I
Containment Long-Term Program,"
Safety Evaluation Report, NRC, NUREG-0661, July 1980.
2.
" Mark I Containment-Program Load Definition Report,"
- Company, NEDO-21888, Revision 2, December 1981.
3.
" Mark I
Containment Program Plant Unique Load Definition,"
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2, General Electric
- Company, NEDO-24568, Revision 1, June 1981.
4.
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2,
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR),
Detroit Edison Company, Section 3.8, Amendment 12, June 1978.
5.
" Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide, Task Number 3.1.3," General Electric Company, NEDO-24583-1, October 1979.
6.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1,
1977 Edition with Addenda up to and including Summer 1977.
V 7.
Letter EF2-61,658 from Harry Tauber (Detroit Edison) to B.
J.
Youngblood (NRC),
"Downcomer Chugging Lateral Loads," dated February 11, 1983.
8.
Detroit Edison Letter EF2-59,061 to
- NRC,
" Evaluation of the Enrico Fermi 2
Drywell-to-Wetwell Vacuum Breakers," dated August 18, 1982.
9.
Letter EF2-60,296 from Harry Tauber (Detroit Edison) to L.
L.
Kintner (NRC),
" Submittal of Reports for the Fermi 2 Vacuum Breakers," dated November 9, 1982.
DET-04-028-3 p
i Revision 1 3-3.1 nutgtgb