ML20100Q627
| ML20100Q627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1995 |
| From: | Elakily N, Gaor J, Qashu R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100Q610 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9603120065 | |
| Download: ML20100Q627 (88) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, ': l b;
\
[,. ' V, l i I i 1 l l l ENCLOSURE 3 t. l SIDOULRY REPORT - PRIMARY PLANT MAKE UP STORAGE TANK UPGRADE 1 I I i i I 1 I l .. 1 i s i 1 i l-1 I i i' 4 d s 1 J i 9603120065 960307 PDR ADOCK 05000361 3 P PDR L;i }
^^
l' i , /. . S UMM ARY REPORT PRIMARY PLANT MAKE UP STORAGE TANK UPGRADE SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 2 AND 3 1 l PREPARED BY : N. M. EL-AKILY #.,mfz A
- VERIFIED BY : J. GAOR 8$W 7 APPROVED BY : R.QASHU
, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON l l OCTOBER 1995 l 1
.~ .j .
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In 1983, SCE implemented seismically qualified mobile fire tankers to provide the capability to supply make-up water to the Component Cooling Water (CCW) surge tank. This arrangement, however, proved to be vers labor intensive to align and operate. Furthermore, , several refills may be required for the tankers to perform their function for the entire required period of time. 1 To eliminate the reliance on the mobile tankers for CCW make-up, the Primary Plant Make- I up Storage (PPMS) tanks were considered. It was necessary to upgrade these tanks from I
- their original Quality Class III Seismic Category II design, to Quality Class II, Seismic l Category I, and to reconcile the original construction standards to ASME Code, Section III, Subsection ND Code technical requirements (Class 3 tank with the exception of N-stamp .
and data reports). As a result, the tanks were reanalyzed in accordance with ASME Code, l Section III, Subsection ND and Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP). To satisfy the new requirements, several modification to the tanks were implemented. The modifications included reinforcing the bottom section of the tank shell by three continuous rings, adding 36 stringers,34 additional anchor bolts, and reinforcing the main manhole and three nozzle l connections. l l e se 1
. t.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 4 Sheet Number EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................ 2
- 1. INTRODUCI' ION ................................ 3
- 2.
SUMMARY
OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . 4
- 3. ASSUMPTIONS .................................. 8
- 4. DESIGN INPUT .................................. 9
- 5. METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANT RESULTS . . . . . . . . 14
- 6. ' REFERENCES ................................... 46
- 7. NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 APPENDIX A - SELECTED REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 APPENDIX B'- RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS ....................... 62 2
, HEAT NUMBERS IN ',14 CATIONS EACH TANKy [RCE s
;j 93. 0 av 3;0 m .
3,/ Mf? "". BOTH TANKS. TOTAL
'UT70fERIFY.MSTERIALPROPERTI .s l REQHARDNESS.CHEMICAUj,j"$S7 Wi@
HEAT #S ARE 35 1HREMDTS MET t@TisM$ BOLT CHAIR egg., 4 w s
- v .. .- - a 4 m .,. a s
i
- ih .
. REPLACED.'TWO RING DESIGN SA 36. PLUS 36."6
.%<,.2, .:. .
- !4 A M[iW ? FOCI' STRINGERS RUNNING TO ' UPP
$,6 4A s
<,af.;A(I.- [DCPf6742]$ T ;7d@D9 iE' TREQUIREMDTSMET4 M: W;.@sig@Wi{k Mi .
PLANGE BOLTING ; ND-2128hsg~nwym,, s SA 193 OR B7 REPLACED. REQUIREMENTS MET
.,wm=
WELDING lND 24003$, .... " API 6SO. SEC. 7 EQUIVALENT. REQUIREMENTS MET x SPECIFIES'ASME 4 SPECIFIES ASME J5EC.M:hd SEC.DC WELD =~~~7%.r END 5300,gg.. J API 650, SEC 6 SEE DETAIL COMPARISON S/A 14151. PAGE 9. EXAMINATION
# & p 'di W e.d (
g *i . h j ^ /1 IDENTIFIED DEFECTS FROM THE GRAPHS WERE USED AS BASIS FOR STATISTICAL AND LINEAR y% ~ "F ggdQWIg . W:b~T' FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATIONS USING SEC x10UIDEuNES-REQUIREMDTS SATISHED s.s e:erc- e , n ,,s .. , , . ~ , e . IND-5420h z46 API 650. PARAGRAPH 'ADDmONAL 60 RADIOGRAPHS U2; AND 61 U3 >c.^ ') MINIMUMyy:s 6.1.3
'REQUIREMDTS EXCEEDED ," ,, , . ! , ' E, , ',
..EXTENTOF SPOT-- " ' '
'+4 1}'#' '1 " d > ' ? " ' , 'c , Y Of , Q h ' /M ^> [:'
!IRADidGRAP)DC% 'O
{EXAMINA' DON 2.- % ',l','2 V.f Cls,, . 's:^,u~ll7'T;fy;, 3 ' L>
,,n.<,.~,,-, , , ~ m, DESIGN E API 620
.-c. , ~ '
$yi$35[I[8@N 31 DOM'N. ;f NEW ANALYSIS PEI FORMED TO ADDRESS THIS f d'OIP/ %gMb? 'SECTION REQUIREh ENTS. RESULTS: % < , ,^,' , i
'-INCREASED # OF B ")LTS BY 36 , - 4 7, , - 's" NYCO$k 05E-)^^[
!. Ad: ~ s-T NK BOITOM EDO IEXTENSION.sQ ,, y ',g :{^.
y2ggy ' K M VW5 '. NEW BOLT CHAIR /',M^ ~ S"'dJ ^, l4 % e + ^,4<<
"/ UPPER RING A ND 36 STRINGERS / - f, 7"'l. S2-,.s+
n 'h2 " s
!3 NOZZLE R,EINI2O.RCEME, NT, '"e , ' g' , ' ', L t. g
&&,[,,{f,$3% f , , -
s hA
.s,
~~ , , , , ,
' g M [ , ^ '. ' ' ' ' ^ ' ,, '
4, 4; g %g, x g ym' TION M-DSC-280 FOR UN'IT-2]' > gl.o< , ,a g kyh , [ CALCULATION h.'-DSC-269 FOR UNTT 3] W REQUIREMENTS JGT , : > ' ' 'f
'5 '
;"f .4
/
- m. ~ - ~ , , m m. . ;.~ . .. > ,
[ND-3821.3 ; ,. . ,,. , .m. ,. mn.w . eu AP! 620 ; LOADS CONSIDERED: *
'P '%
(. LOADING A> ND-13111 9 6
' ~ PRESSURE W
.; WEIGHT 8;l .. <
A' ' 4:;;i:N y dg b.yM7 Apn.s <? .. 5, ' $?:fMN,:. W c'" pSSE INCLUDED FLUID RESPONSE (SLOSHINGR['W Q"W ' NOZZLE LOADS ( ' ' : ' M ' ^" i
$4M'J ' REQUIREMDTS MET . . N<
. . ~ , . ~.
..+.,~.cm...
'.-ND-3112.4 4 API 620 i REANALYZED TO ASME SEC III '
fALLOWABLE REQUIRDIENTS METS ' f , , isTRESSES!.' 7* P ' , " ' *
.. . . . . - . . . ~.
OPENLNOS : ND-3332. 3335 - RELNFORCEMENT AND LOCAL STRESSES CHECK,; W @:. .$ - fADDED REINFORCING PADS FOR SHELL MANHOG
$ LlAND.THREE NOZZLES . '
E'x.f')o.:$ iWT: ' ' REQUIRDIDTS MET ' ' 6
l . j , l i Table 2.1 Code Reconciliation Matrix - cont, - r
.m .,c . .
l BOITOM PLATE ;ND 3831 (a) ,' API 650, PARAGRAPH EQUIVALENT, REQUIREMENTS MET
. BOTTOM PLATE 3.2.1,1/4" (MIN.' THICKNESS
,IOP..!/4 # 4
+., .,m.~ ..
-~.v.-.~. ..o . ,m._,: - _ . o ~. -o, POUNDATION (ND 3831 (c)iTTPE API 650, APPENDDC B l EQUIVALENT,1 OF BOLTS INCREASED FROM 36 TO:
DESIGN (.0F POUNDATION,' % PREFERS TO API L J01Fy?i/E?@Rd3ggNMP$$[ISg?Y};;. CREQUI,REMENTS.Mc.E...TN .e.T,M 4 n
; 650 APPENDIX B - ..- y - #m g:gh. g .;wymm;;#e;ne;h: w%m.m.,.m pn!wntc @,y.
pumomet v... t SHELL !.ND 3842, SHELL: AP! 650, PARAGRAPH EQUIVALENT, REQUIREMENTS MET
, [ PLATE MINJ '. . . 3.3.3, 3/16" LTHICKNESS OF.il
[3/16 M @ t': en w+.,:n. . . ROOF (ND-3852$$M,. PARAGRAPH 3.5 EQUIVALEhT, REQUIREMENTS MET
, OENERAL ROOF;.
l DESIGN %%O w$ v;<p + FABRICATION fND-4000 f. API 650. SECTIONS 5 RECONCILED, REQUIREMENTS MET
@ @i& ".. &6 n.,w+g.
+ , p.-.;s .s -n . e.~ m ?< w.w + ~ ~ ....n ..w nw
!.(N D 4224 W -1: NO REQUIREMENTS rACIUAL DIAMETRAL DEVIATJONS WERE.YERIFIED' (OYMN # EAND FOUND' ACCEPTABLE!U2 mix'2.'647U3 MAti iTOLERANC5 $$< [2.4",3Q$%Mg 7.MAXDEVIADON! M %' $$ d[~9 y % .j S.8?*%jQ !!IM DSC-200
*IM DSC-264U3]$ Wet ,. WiU2P"j@*%{MlNM$ $nly i
R$dh 4 (REQUIREMENTSMETj $Cgh lMgn@%Wds@ 1
- e. ~ ~ .
SND-4232 $$.,,,$. API 650, PARAGRAPH COMPARABLE,THE APIREQUIREMENTS AREMORE NXLIGNMEhT,21/4fl 5.2.3 STRINGENT THAN THE ASME CODE FORTHE fvERTICAL^AND$ LOWER SHELL COURSES WHERE THICKNESS OF , sHORIZONTAL7F THE PLATE IS > I/4" MffW h REQUIREMMTS MET a
- s. .
sils2 e n :246.2R !$, wm API 650, SECT. 3, n:.<mmnm.m=wwan~w~qQr {QUALIFIEDBY STRESS ANALYSIS PER
^
. .g SBOTTOM TOpg4 ALLOWS DOUBLE 5ND.3852'6f(d)dQW%ij.;f@Q ;. dg d
' !SIDEW411. i@
?
FILLET M ?$ 5 MU2))! f 5 jWh @ NI p N$1 MQ
%i .i '
NDSC-280 i [ SHALIlBE!!!iI^l FLAT BOTTOMS in KIN'D$C269-U31Mfghj;gjj. [%P$t%.4, MM f [ SIDEWALL,S ATTACHED BY.t 701, 'blM *Isssild;ypsk . 3ggsm!)g' g$$D - - c [su REQUIREMENTS r~ ~ , METp 444g;pgyh.+. j.h. yrs pSSK,
~l .,
f> ^ %gu
.l D: g }*;7._
k,. FPENETRATION i^, , ;
.v.
^ .:. + ?
$' ?$$lN eih l]CbbNpYS Y.'h'p..
* %.Fy ?'^q*t.y; 4
*~ % ,7 4 WELDShh1 ^
g ;; u,. .^ . . < S . - . ,
?$hIY'@5 TESTING !ND-6500,FILLf; < API 650, FILL WirH EQUIVALENT, TANK RETESTED AFTER
?WITH WATERE WATER MODIFICATION, REQUIREMENTS MET p......;..Nv.,,y... a OVER PRESSURE END-7000, NONE . NO REQUIREMENTS VENIING REQUIREMEhTS ARE MET PROTECTION l REQUIRED, VEST REQUIREMENTS MET ECAPACITY IS '
[ ADEQUATE TO
' KEEP TANK AT Y
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE ISI E + SURVEILLANCE, MALNTENANCE REPAIR AND
, REPLACEMENT PER ASME SECT. XI l
I REQUIREMEhTS MET I 1 l OTHER ND REQUIREMENTS WERE VERIFIED VERSUS AP! AND FOUND EQUIVALENT. THEREFORE, REQUIREMENTS ARE l MET: ND-3861,3862,3863,4246.1,4246.3,4246.4.4246.5,4246.6,4246.7,4300,5282. l 1 l 7
.j .
l
- 3. DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
'1. The weight of nozzles, the ladder, and reinforcing stringers is assumed negligible ,
compared to the weight of the tank and its water content.
- 2. Seismic structural interaction was not considered in the analysis. The interaction effects have been included in the development of seismic spectra used in the seismic analysis of the tanks.
- 3. The existing anchor bolts and the additional anchor bolts share the applied loads accordin;; to the ratio of their bolt areas.
- 4. Flexibility analysis was performed on the piping lines attached to the PPMS tanks -
using decoupled models of these lines to reduce the complexity of the models. The 1 decoupling is technically acceptable based on the following considerations: ) Since the sizes of the piping attached to the tank are very small (4# or less) compared to the size of the tank, the interaction between the piping and the tank shell should be confined to the region of the shell surrounding the nozzic connection. The nozzles are well separated from each other. Therefore, no interaction between the different nozzles is expected.
- 5. The ratio ten /R (effective wall thickness / tank radius) was calculated at 0.00091, which falls below th'e 0.001 to 0.01 applicable range, in the Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP), for the tank parameters. However, it is conservative to use the GIP curves assuming t,g/R=0.001 based on trend of these cmves.
Additional design assumptio'ns can be found in Reference 33 (evaluation of PPMS tank anchorage). I \ _ - --
.j .
- 4. TANK DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN INPUT l i
4.1 Tank General Data and Description The Primary Plant Make-Up Storage Tanks (PPMS) at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) were manufactured by Brown-Minneapolis Tank and Fabricating ! Company. The following is original general design data of the PPMS tanks: j
. Tag number : T-056 for SONGS Unit-2, T-055 for SONGS Unit-3
. Main dimensions Figure 4.1 shows the following main dimensions of the PPMS tank:
Diameter : 40 ft inside diameter - Height : 34 ft high Wall thickness : 5/16,1/4 and 3/16 depending on elevation above the bottom of the tank (see Figure 4.1) Roof radius : 48 ft 3 Roof thickness :1/4# I Bottom thickness :1/4" , ! i
. . Design Pressure : atmospheric l
il
. Capacity : 300,000 gallons i
. Material ,
- type 304 stainless steel plates. Material Spec number: SA240, i Grade 304 {
. Anchor bolts chairs : the tanks are anchored to the foundation by 36 equally-spaced l anchor bolts. The anchor bolt chair materialis A-36 in the ;
original design. Modified chair materialis SA-36, t i
. Code of Desien and Analysis !
The tanks were constructed to API-650,5th. Edition, including Supplement number 1. Analysis was performed per API-620, including Supplement number 1. 9 ! l - I
_- . = _ .
.J.
t I N 3/16"\ 3 / 4.. l \ 11
- 5/1 s'p T / i i
'f _
l 1 - 1
=o c
4 1 l I r 34* ! Elev. C '
. l s*-11 s/8" Elev. B (j l
l 7'-11 5/S" l Elev. A I lI I il lil 9 6 lii lit 11e Hi Hi B 11 I I y I _ ,2
"* h i 11 l/4 '
40' I 1 l l l l Figure 4.1 Main Dimensions of the PPMS tank - t l 10
4.2 Material Properties Tank Plates Material: Stainless Steel, SA 240-304 (Reference 25) The following material properties of SA 240-304, at 120*F(0, were used in the analysis (Reference 2): Young's ravin1us (E) = 28.0 x 10' psi (Reference 2) Yield strength (Sy) = 29,000 psi (Reference 2) Allowable stress intensity (S.) = 20,000 psi (Reference 2) Anchor bolt chair material: SA-36 (Reference 24) Yield stress (f) y @ 110*F = 3L68 ksi (Reference 2) Allowable stress (S) @ 110*F = 176 ksi (Reference 2) Note (1): The actual design temperature, per FCN F-7519M for P&ID number 40133, is 104*F. Therefore, the use of 120*F as the reference temperature for material properties is conservative. 4.3 Anchor Bolt Assemblies Figure 4.2 shows the main dimensions of a typical anchor bolt assembly. Two different bolt sizes exist in the tank after modification: 1.1% ASTM A307 bolts (36 original anchor bolts),
- 2. 2 ASTM A615 bolts (34 new anchor bolts).
Also, a ring was welded to the outside edge of the bottom plate as shown in Figure 4.2. Holes for anchor bolts were drilled in the ring (1%# for the original bolts, and 2%# for the new bolts). 4.4 Reinforcine Bars Per Reference 4, the concrete base is reinforced by #18 size reinforcing bars (rebars). These rebars are 2.257#in diameter and are separated by 16" center-to-center distance. 11 l
)
4.5 Nozzle and Piping Data The nozzle loads evaluated are given in data sheets, attached in Southern California Edison ! Calculation No. M-DSC-280, Appendix D, which were extracted from various calculations as noted in the nozzle load data sheets. i i The following piping is attached to the PPMS tank: 1
# /
4 Sch. 40S SA-312 TP304 @ elev. 31-O" (PPMS Suction) 4 Sch. 80 SA-312 TP304 @ elev. 9'-913/16# (Overflow)
/
3" Sch. 40S SA-312 TP304 @ elev.11-0# (CCW Suction) 3 Sch. 80 SA-312 TP304 @ elev. 8'-5# (Drain)
# /
2% Sch. 40S SA-312 TP304 @ elev. 31-M (PPMS Fill Inlet) 2 Sch. 80S SA-312 TP304 @ elev. 31'-OY (PPMS Recirculation)
# /
1 Sch. 80S SA-312 TP304 @ elev.16-O" (CCW mini-flow) 4.6 Resnonse Spectra The following SONGS 2 & 3 response spectra were used in the seismic evaluation and are included in Appendix A. (a) DBE Horizontal Response Spectra, 20689, Revision 0. (b) DBE Vertical Response Spectra,20690, Revision 0. (c) OBE Horizontal Response Spectra,20713, Revision 0. (d) OBE Vertical Response Spectra,20714, Revision 0. 12
e
* * \
, l 1 -. c 1 j J d
, n Via-ao
% t-- , ii
- A 240' 1NS10E RADIUS 5%'t %' _,
, 'y ,- / / I i i
- / I i TM StEU. V N.> Li- '
- l 4 5'!)'[. %/ - 'SEENOTE11 )
i SEElOTE .
" MM d 1X TO BE NOTCtED AT TM S$u.
i g M MMAY RE1WORCING l'AD ' SEE NOTE 11 s
/ %V - ~
7%" b tasp3
+'
i d > o f . ! % Vt2-20 ! /% V ^#' $ ! SEE SEcit0N/T\\ l 3 . W/ WV <N .A - V sEE W TAft. / T \ { T TYP h g - h / - D l TANK INSE% s PLATE E-241 % RADrus
~ ~
Gh* (REF) ~ ~l(REF) TO IE NOTCHED
,, . AT TANK S F11.
J _ 243' RADIUS FOR 1%" s 00.T Y 244' RADIUS FOR 2' # Bot.T (REF) I ig Figure 4.2 Modified Anchor Bolt Assembly 13
- 5. METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANT RESULTS The tank upgrade design report was prepared by Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. of San Jose, California. This report is included, in its entirety, in SCE Calculations No. M-DSC-280
) for Unit-2 and M-DSC-269 for Unit-3. The methodology of the seismic analysis is based on
" Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment," Reference 5; ASME Code Case 284, Reference 29; and according to ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Reference 2. The PPMS tank design ! ' methodology is summarized in Section 5.1 of this report, which includes the following subsections:
J
., Section 5.1.1 includes the tank design per GIP procedure (Reference 5). This section i t
also includes the roof evaluation for sloshing loads, and qualification of the tank to '
- ASME Code design rules.
Section 5.1.2 includes the application of ASME Code Case N-284 (Reference 29) , i analysis methodology. The additional analysis per Code Case N-284 deals with the reinforced modified tank since the GIP procedure does not cover the effect of the i tank reinforcing stiffeners (stringers). Code Case N-284 was also used to evaluate the ! tank shell at different elevations since the GIP procedure addresses only the bottom ! elevation. l l Additional analyses included : l 1. Tank shell stresses, 4 l
- 2. Bdit st,resses,
- 3. Nozzle stiffness, l i
- 4. Tank shell local stress at nozzle connections, and
- 6. Out of-roundness check.
l . The methodologies used' in these analyses are summarized in sections 5.2 through 5.8 of this report. i Since the tank shell welding did not meet the ASME Code requirements, additional j radiographic examination was performed to provide a statistical sample for characterizing
- the tank welding defects. The statistical analysis was followed by a fracture mechanics analysis based on worst case' defect to demonstrate acceptability of the welds with high degree of reliability. A summary of the methodologies used is provided in Section 5.9 of this l report; details can be found in SCE Calculations M-DSC-280 and M-DEC-269, Appendices E and F.
A summary of the PPMS tank anchorage evaluation is provided in Section 5.10. I 14
s 5.1 Modified PPMS Tank Seismic Evaluation 5.1.1 Analysis Per GIP (Reference 5) The methodology outlined in this section is based on Chapters 4,5 and 7 and Appendix C of GIP (Reference 5). The analysis includes the following evaluations of : 4
. Tank shell buckling
- Anchor bolts and their embedments
. Bolt chair The seismic evaluation of the tank is performed using the step-by-step procedure of the GIP.
There are 22 steps, these steps and the results s'ummary are given below : 1 Step 1 Input data I R Nominal radius of the tank, = 240" ' fI' Height of tank shell, = 408" te Minimum shell thickness at the top of the tank, = 0.1875# i t, Minimum thickness of the tank shell in the lowest 10% of the tank shell, = 0.3125# l t u Adjusted tank shell thickness to account for the added stringers, = 0.4764 # , oy Yield strength of the tank shell material, = 29,000 psi h e Height of anchor bolt chair, = 12.75# E, Young's modulus of the tank shell material, = 28.03E6 psi : 3
'rt Weight density of fluid in tank, = 0.0361 lb(m {
H Maximum height of fluid in the tank, = 384 hr Hei@it of freeboard above fluid surface, = 34.15# N Number of anchor bolts = 36 d Diameter of existing anchor bolt, = 1.5# h3 Effective length of bolt from anchor plate to chair top, = 40.75" E3 Young's modulus of anchor bolt material, = 29.28E6 psi V, Average shear wave velocity of soil, (the tanks are located inside the building on a thick foundation. Therefore, V, will not be considered further). Step 2 Calculate the following ratios and values: H/R = 1.6 I t,/R = 0.002 t,y = (E tiih)/H', i= 1,n
= 0.2488#
15
c where : n = total number of sections of the tank shell with different thicknesses, t,i hi= the thickness and height of the ith section of the tank shell. t,g = (t., + t )/2 = 0.2182# t ,/R = 0.00091# 2 2 A = nd /4 = 1.7671 inch t' = ((N A )/(2 nR)](E /E,)3 = 0.109'I
/
c' = (t/t,)(h,/h,) = 0.1091 # 2 W=nRH r= T 2,508,481 lb. Step 3 Find fluid-structure modal frequency, Fr Hz Enter Table 7-3 (GIP, Section 7, Page 7-35) with: R, t,1, and H/R from Steps 1 and 2, and read, Fr = 7.58 Hz F,(s,f) =7.58*(28.03/30) 5 = 7.33 Hz (stainless steel tank adjustment) Step 4 Find spectral acceleration (Sag) Determine the maximum spectral acceleration (Sar ), for 4% damping, and over a range of Fr +/-' 20%. From the spectra read, j Sag = 1.15 g (Design Basis Earthquake) Sag = 0.75 g (Operating Basis Earthquake) l Steo 5 Base shear load (Q) Calculate shear load coefficient, Q', using Figure 7-3 of GIP (Reference 5) corresponding to H/R and t or/R, both from Step 2. Calculate base shear load, Q 16
c O' = 0.71 Q = Q /W Sa = 2,048,175 lb. g Step 6 Base overturning moment (M) Calculate base overturning moment coefficient M'using Figure 7-4 of GIP (Reference 5) corresponding to H/R from Step 2. Calculate overturning moment, M i l M' = 0.345 M = M' W H Sa r= 3.82x108 in-lb l The seismic capacity of the tank shell and anchorage to resist the overturning moment (M) calculated in Step 6 above is evaluated below. The overturning moment is resisted by compression in the tank wall, and tension in the anchor bolts. Thus, the overturning moment capacity is controlled by shell buckling on the compression side, and anchor bolt capacity on the tension side.
. Step 7 Bolt tensile capacity ,
i l In this step, the anchor bolt tensile load capacity (P, Ib) is calculated per Section 4 and l Appendix C of Reference 5. This bolt capacity is based on " ductile failure" in the bolt rather than th'e co,ncrete. The allowable bolt stress (F3) is given by: P, = 76,368 lb (combined tensile strength of existing and new bolts) Van = 38,259 psi (combined shear strength of existing and new bolts) F3 = P,/A =3 33,941 psi l Next step is to determine the anchorage connection capacity to resist the bolt tensile load capacity (P,) calculated above. l l Step 8 Top plate i l The top plate transfers th'c anchor bolt load to the vertical stiffeners and the tank wall (see
- Figure 4.2). The maximum bending stress in the top plate is given by
t 17 1 l
.? .
(0.375g - 0 . 22 d) P, j fc3 o = 39,100 psi > f y(=35,680 psi for A-36 at 110*F) The top plate is adequate if a < f.yIf this condition is not met, calculate the load reduction factor f/o. This reduction factor is applied to F to 3 calculate reduced allowable bolt stress (F,) as follows: F, = F3 (f/o) psi F, = 30,562 psi l The reduced bolt stress allowable should be used to calculate the tank overturning moment capacity, l i l Step 9 Tank shell stress l' The anchor bolt loads are transferred to the tank shell as a combination of direct vertical load and bending moment. The maximum bending stress in the tank shell is:
, ,Pe[ u 1.32 2 ,0.031) '
e,2 1.43 a h2
+( a hay o.333 % I R t' l where -
g, 1.0 0.177 a eb ( $t ) 2 + 1.0 lR c, a l l Z = 0.936 o = 50,452 psi > f y(=29,000 psi) i The tank shellis adequate if fy > o. If this condition is not met, calculate the load reduction l I factor f/o. This reduction factor is applied to F to 3 calculate reduced allowable bolt stress (F,) as follows: F, = F3 (yo) , i 18
)
! I l F, = 19,509 psi t
- The reduced bolt stress allowable was used to calculate the tank overturning moment capacity.
Step 10 Vertical stiffener plates Vertical stiffener plates are considered adequate for shear stress, buckling, and compressive stress if the following three guidelines are satisfied:
.I <
95 A fY
$ 1000 k/j = 4.5 < 15.90 ,
1
*j > 0.04(h - c) and j> 0. 5 inch l
j = 0.75#> 0.465 # l
- P" 2 k j < 21,000 psi Po/2kj = 15,085 psi < 21,000 psi [O.K.)
where the dimensions k and j are the stiffener width and thickness, respectively. Step 11 Chair-to-tanl: wall weld The load per linear inch of weld is given by: 1 e 30,600c, l y, .p$ ( a + 2h)2 +( a h + 0.667 h2 ) 2 s j gg l l W,, = 1,807 lb/in 19
4
- , l j
l l 30,600 t#2 = 5,409 lb/in > W. [O.K.] I where allowable weld strength is 30,600 psi per GIP, t, = 0.25". i 1 ! I j Step 12 Fluid pressure for elephant foot bucklmg l The fluid pressure coefficient for elephant foot buckling (P/) is determined by entering Figure 7-7 of GIP with Sat from Step 4 and H/R from Step 2. Then the fluid pressure at the base of the tank (P,) is given by: l P, = P/ Tr R = 24.26 psi I 1 l l l Step 13 Elephant-foot buckling stress capacity factor J Determine the elephant-foot buckling stress capacity factor using the following formula: 0 . 6 E, 1 1 y/36,000 j
,P' (R/ c,,) P ot ,R f se
) 2) g _ 1.12+S2 1 **)[8+0 Si+1 l
l where S = R/(400 t,,) = 1.26 3 P6 =' elephant-foot buckling stress capacity factor from Step 12, = 24.26 psi. E, = elastic modulus of elasticity of tank shell material from Step 1, = 28.03E6 psi. R = nominal radius of tank from Step 1,240". t,, = minimum thickness of tank shell in the lowest 10% of the shell height (H'), from Step 1, adjusted to account for stringers
= 0.4764#
o p, = 15,191 psi Sten 14 Fluid pressure for diamond-shape buckling l The fluid pressure coefficient for diamond-shape buckling (Pol) is determined by entering l Figure 7-9 with Sa g from Step 4 and H/R from Step 2. Then the fluid pressure at the be.:g~ -. 20
.u. a.. u . - ea- a - u 1 ----- --u,>- u - w .- su - - ~a__-
( of the tank (P,) is given by: i
, P4/ = 2.063 P, = P,/ yr R = 17.87 psi 4
Step 15 Diamond-shape buckling stress capacity factor Determine the diamond-shape buckling stress capacity factor using the following formula:
%d = (0.6 y +Ay) E' i
where ' i y 0.73(1 - e4) =0.449 i t
&=
j =1 40 . where : A7 = increase factor for internal pressure from Figure 7-11, = 0.12. og = 21,680 psi Step 16 Allowable buckling stress i The allowable buckling stress (o,) is calculated as 72% of the lower value of og or og, i.e., o, = 0.72 [ min.(og , og)] = 10,938 psi Steo 17 Overturning moment capacity The base overturning moment coefficient for ductile failure (M'op) is determined from GIP, Figure 7-12 with c/from Step 2, o, (psi) from Step 16, F3 (psi) being the smaller of F3 from 21
1 .
- Step 7 or F, from either Step 8 or Step 9. Finally, obtain h, and h3 from Step 1.
M'op = 0.13 2 M , = (M'op)(2F3 )(R t )(hA,) i 8 Mw = 4.45x10 in-lb i Sten 18 Compare the overturning moment capacity of the tank (Mop) from Step 17 with the
- overturning moment (M) from Step 6. The tank is considered adequate if M., 2 M 8 8 Map (=4.45x10 in-lb) > M (=3.82x10 in-lb) [O.K.]
Step 19 Base shear load capacity Compute the base shear load capacity as follows: I Q,, = 0.55 (1 - 0.21 Sar ) W + 70*V,/2 6 Q,p = 2.38x10 lb Using Sag from Step 4, W from Step 2 and Va from step 7. l i
- i Steo 20 l
Compare the base shear tank load capacity of the tank (Q,p)iffrom Step 19 with the bas
- load (Q) from Step 5. The is considered adequate Oop hO 6 8 Qop (=2.38x10 in-lb) > Q (=2.048x10 in-lb) [O.K.]
Step 21 Slosh height
) The slosh height is given by the following equation: ! l i h, = 0.837 R Sa, l I
22 i
where Sa, is the spectral acceleration (1/2% damping) of the ground at the sloshing mode (F,), which is calculated as follows: 4 I 1 F,= g tanh (1. 84 ) Hz where : G = acceleration of gravity (=386.4 in/sec2) F, = 0.2732 Hz, Sloshing period = 3.66 seconds h, = 0.837 R S = 301.32# Step 22 Available freeboard l 1 Compare the available freeboard (br) from Step 1 within the slosh height (h,) calculated in i Step 21. The tank is adequate if h,2 h,, ! h, = 301.32# > hr = 34.15# Water will slosh against the roof. An evaluation is performed below. I Roof Oualification for Sloshing Since the guideline of Step 22 above was not satisfied, the hydraulic forces acting on the roof l due to sloshing were calculated as follows: '
. The vertical force excited by the sloshing wa ar would be the sloshing mass times the maximum vertical acceleration (0.77g for DBE per Section 4.6).
FVp33 = 0.29*2,508,481*0.77 = 560,144 lb.
. Conservatively, calculate the horizontal slashing water volume as the entire volume under the roof and above the cylindrical shell. - The sloshing water mass is then calculated by multiplying by the density of water. The horizontal force would be the sloshing mass times the maximum horizontal acceleration (1.15g for DBE).
FHo33 = 0.0361*4,814,637*1.15 = 199,880 lb.
. Calculate the total sloshing load on the roof as the square root of the sum of the squares of the horizontal and vertical sloshing.
F333 = 594,738 lb.
< 23 1
The equivalent pressure due to the sloshing water is the total force divided by nR2 l (3.29 psi) and the additional membrane stress caused by the pressure is simply F/2nRt, where t is the roof thickness (t = 0.25#). . Thus, the additional membrane stress due to sloshing water is 7,580 psi which are much smaller than the Code allowable value of 35,680 psi for DBE per ASME ND-3821.5.
. The stresses at the tank-to roof weld is F/2nRtu,, where F is the total force on the
, roof due to sloshing, and tw = 0.1326". ! o,,ia (DBE) = 2.97 ksi which is much smaller than the Code allowable value of 35.68 ksi. [O.K.] d e 8 1 2 f 24
.- \
l I I i 5.1.2 ASME Code Case N-284 ' The GIP methodology described in Section 5.1.1 is based on calculating the overturning , moment and base shear at the bottom of the tank, where both quantities reach their l maximum values. The methodology of a paper, by M. A. Haroun published in 1983 ; (Reference 27), was used to calculate the mom:nt and shear loads at various levels of the ' tank. These moment and shear loads were used to qualify the tank shell pcr ASME Code j Case N-284 at the following leve!s.
. Elevation A: at the bottom of the tank.
l
. Elevation B: at the top of the first tier (see Figure 4.1). l
. Elevation C: at the top of the second tier (see Figure 4.1). l l
ASME Code Case N-284 provides an alternative niethodology for determining the allowable i compressive stress in the tank shell. This methodology is defined for both unstiffened and ! stringer stiffened cylindrical shells. ! I Result: l Elevation A: o, = 28,528 psi < o p,n (=64,235 psi) [O.K.] Elevation B: o, = 28,108 psi < o&au (=38,620 psi) [O.K.] Elevation C: o, = 13,445 psi < o&an (=33,404 psi) [O.K.] l where o, is the axial compressive stress, at the indicated level, in the tank shell, and o+.au is the corresponding calculated allowable stress. , i 5.2 Ancular Distribution of Shear Load in the Anchor Bolts To determine the maximum shear stress in the tank anchor bolts, to evaluate the anchor bolt chair bottom ring,a sinusoidal shear force distribution was assumed. A finite element analysis was performed to verify this assumption. A tank model was generated using the i finite element program ANSYS. The modelis made up of ANSYS element type STIF63, which is an elastic quadrilateral shell element (Reference 3). This element type has six degrees of freedom at each corner node: translations in the x, y and z directions, and I 1 25 I
j I rotations about the x, y and z axes. The element has stress stiffening and large deflection , capabilities. It is also capable of modeling plates on clastic foundations. This feature was ! utilized to model the bottom plates. : l Figure 5.1 shows a computer plot of the finite element model used in the analysis. The ' model dimensions and material properties are based on the tank data summarized in Section
- 4. Figure 5.1 also shows the locations of the centerlines of anchor bolts at the bottom of the tank, and the displacement boundary condition. The model is loaded in the horizontal direction by a uniformly distributed 10' lb force representing horizontal seismic loads. The shear forces in the bolts were calculated as a function of angular bolt location, as shown in Figure 5.2. The figure shows that maximum bolt shear loads act on the bolt at the 90*
location. Fis;ure 5.2 shows the normalized shear force in anchor bolts plotted versus the angle (s). The figure also shows a plot of a true sinusoidal distribution. Results shown in the figure clearly indicate the validity of the sinusoidal distribution assumption. e 26
e l
/ M/l \\\\
/ 2N/ / /
///// \\\\ N l h%h' V ' \\\\_
I s lu / / I )\.\\L .. N
'N s '
y - N - - - -
'% , / l
~ ~ - - I s - -_ -- - -
s ,
% d'
' ~
~ _ -_ -
s _- s
~ -
j
~ - - -
% l s
s -
, ./
~ ~ -
~ - -- - ;
~ -
' s - -
% /
s y
- ~ - - -
. ~- ,,
, ~ <
s s - - s N 7- - ' -
- - _ _ x _- - ?)
' .,ni ~ ,. i
-ert j -l i ,
'i,,I 8 iii,ii j l l l l1 Ii i ji !liil r I l l lI Model is constrained at bolt locations Figure 5.1 Finite Element Model of the PPMS Tank 27
. . . - . - - , . . . . . . . . . . . - - . - - ~ . . . . . - . . - . . . . . .. .-. . - - . . - ~ . - . - . - . - . - . - . . . . - . - . - . _ - . - . . - . . . . - . ~ = . - . . - . . C 8 t
- c
.t I'.1 - ,
2 I . f"' ' ' '"3 . i t j , g, - 0.9 , i
. L y
o 08 / { } ) -
$ 0.7
[ . k '
=
/ N t w / 1 3 5 !
s: m 0.6 ' n ' a .
@ 0.5 )
- c3 - . -
us 0.4 N / . p -.s .( I \
* @ / t i e 0.3 - . k l
r ca . z -
, \,
0.2 7 -- - , c . { 3 0.1 gy , 4 0 . 12,0 140 160 180 0 20 ' 4 0- EG 80 100 ANGLE (DEGREES) - O BOLT SHEAR LOAD + SINE FUNCTION Figure 5.2 Normalized Bolt Shear Force Distributioh. .' - 4
.i .
i 5.3 Shell to-Bottom Fillet Weld Evaluation 240" RAD TANK WAl.L l 5/16" - i a 1/4" - WELD y 1/4" / 1/4" { m
}
BOTTOW 1 4 The tank shellis welded to the bottom by a double 1/4# fillet weld in accordance with API-i 650, Section 3, while ND-4746.2 calls for a full penetration weld. To address this deviation, the weld was evaluated for both shear and moment loads using ND-3852.6 shear allowable. . The analysis results show that the existing fillet weld meets the ASME Code allowable ' stresses urider DBE loading. Result: Maximum shear in weld = 5.76 ksi < 13.6 ksi [O.K.] Maximum normal stress in weld = 9.48 ksi < 13.60) ksi [O.K.] Maximum shear in base metal = 4.07 ksi < 13.0 ksi [O.K.] Note (1): th'ee shear allowable was conservatively used for the normal stress. 5.4 Shear Evaluation of Anchor Bolt Chair Bottom Plate Finally, methodology of Reference 7 was used to evaluate the added bottom ring. This ring is added for better constructibility of the modified anchor bolt chairs. This evaluation is l
- based on the sinusoidal bolt shear force assumption described in Section 5.2 of this report.
The methodology of References 7 and 8 can be summarhed as follows: 29
i l (a) Tearout Failure ' A tearout stress check is performed to calculate the required plate thickness, t, to preclude the tearout failure type, shown in Figure 5.3(a). The allowable shear stress i is conservatively taken equal to 13 ksi per Reference 2 (Subsection ND-3852.6). ', Result: t (required) = 0.65# < t (actual) = 0.75# [O.K.] I l (b) Pure Tension Rupture 1 This failure mode is illustrated in Figure 5.3(b). The average tensile stress, om, in the plate should not exceed the allowable stress of the plate material (S=12.6 ksi per Reference 2). The use of this allowable is conservative since it is being used to i evaluate Level D loading. 5 Result: om = 6,784 psi < S (=12,600 psi) [O.K.) ) (c) Failure by Crushing This failure mode is illustrated in Figure 5.3(c). The stress acting on the projected area should not exceed the yield stress (f). y 4 Result: om = 25,440 psi < fy(=36,000 psi) [O.K.] 5.5 Nozzle Stiffness Evaluation i Nozzle stiffness values, to be used in the piping analysis, are approximated using the methodology and formulas in WRC Bulletin 297 (Reference 14). Due to the narrow range of parameters given in the bulletin, interpolations and estimations l were used as appropriate. The magnitude of nozzle stiffness obtained by this process gives
- realistic translational and rotational end reactions at the nozzle-shell connections, and j therefore provides a reasonable basis for piping design analysis.
1 i i 30 4
11 5/Is l
.34 3 g p-
',bottom Bottom nng rin l l
p d d'g
+ :_ =
t -
-+ 2%" +- -- + 2%" +-
1
)
11 a ll l ( tank 4; ' tank 2ki I wall wall l (a) Tearout Failure (b) Tensile Failure I AF l bottom l _ __ ring ;
- j
. l 1
-- + 2%" +--
11 tank 1J 4 I wall * > (c) Failure by Crushing Figure 5.3 Bottom Ring Failure Modes 31
. 1 5.6 Local Stress Check for External Loads at Nozzle.to-Tank Connections Several nozzles are attached to the PPMS tanks at SONGS Units 2 and 3. Local stresses evaluation of the tank shell was performed using the computer program ME101LS (Reference 12). The evaluation is based on Bijlaard stress analysis for cylinders. Details can be found in SCE calculations M-DSC-280 and M-DSC-269. The evaluation is stress intensity based using the same approach for detailed analysis of localized effects for Class 1 components, Primary stress intensity allowable = 1.5 S, Primary + secondary stress allowable = 3.0 S, where the stress intensity allowable (S.) = 20 ksi. Note that local yielding in the vicinity of nozzles is allowed by the ASME Code. Results of the local stress evaluation are summarized in Table 5.1 below.
Table 5.1 Local Stress Check Results Summary Nozzle Primary Mem+ Primary + Description Size Bending Stress Secondary Stress (ksi) (ksi) CCW Suction 3# 18.9 48.5 CCW Miniflow 1# 15.2 40.2 PPMST FillInlet 2%# 13.4 48.5 PPMS Recirculation 2# 10.5 40.4 PPMS Suction 4# 14.0 53.8 Overflow 4# 20.4 48.3 No evaluation was performed on the nozzle of the #3 drain line at the bottom of the tank and the nozzles of the two 2 instrument taps, which were judged acceptable based on load comparison with other nozzles. 5.7 Shell Manway (Main Manway) Each PPMS tank is equipped with a 24" shell manway and a 24 roof manway. The shell manway was reinforced by a 1/4 thick,37" outside diameter,25 inside diameter split pad. Details can be found in Appendix A, Section 10.4 of SCE calculations M-DSC-280 and M-DSC-269. 32 l
5.8 Out-of. Roundness Reouirements Surveys were conducted on the Unit-2 PPMS tank, T-056, to measure the diameter at different angles. These measurements were taken at the following elevations: 7 ft,11 ft and 26 above the bottom and 6 ft below the top of the tank. Results of the survey are documented in Reference 27(a). j Similarly, surveys were conducted on the Unit-3 PPMS tank, T-055, to measure the diameter at different angles. These measurements were taken at two elevations: 7 ft above the bottom and 6 ft below the top of the tank. Results of the survey are documented in Reference 27(b), and a copy is attached in SCE Calculation No. M-DSC-269, Appendix D. j Per ASME, ND-4224, the out-of-roundness requirement is checked as follows:
- 1. Step 1 ;
Calculate Dm/100, where D is the average diameter of the tank in inches. ! Maximum allowable out-of-roundness per ASME Code s 0.1 D (average tank shell l diameter) not to exceed 12. l l
- 2. Step 2 Based on field measurements, calculate the maximum diametral out-of-roundness for each tank.
Both SONGS Unit-2 and Unit-3 PPMS tanks were tested for out-of-roundness at two different, elevations. Results are summarized below. Allowable out-of-round; ess on diameter = 4.80" per ND-4224 i Unit-2 maximum out-of-roundness = 2.64# [O.K.] l Unit-3 maximum out-of-roundness = 2.407 [O.K.] ! 4 l 5.9 Statistical Analysis of Examination Data and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation Existing radiographic examination results revealed unacceptable weld defects beyond the ASME Code, Paragraph ND-5000. Undercut, Incomplete Fusion, Slag Inclusion, Inadequate Penetration, Root Concavity / Convexity, Porosity and occasionally Cracks were observed. A statistical approach, combined with a fracture mechanics evaluation was adopted by SCE to demonstrate acceptability of the tank shell welds with high reliability. Acceptance by analytical evaluation is allowed by the ASME Code for flaws not meeting acceptance criteria (see Section XI, Article IWA-3000). This analytical evaluation approach can be described briefly as follows : 33
l
.i .
Statistical analysis based on re-examination of the tank by spot radiography. A large number of spots was specified to ensure adequate statistical base to provide at least 95% confidence level that 95% of the defects do not exceed a given size. Fracture mechanics evaluation using a bounding defect size to demonstrate that a considerable factor of safety exists. A description of these analyses is given below. 5.9.1 Statistical Analysis of Radiographic Examination Data The purpose of the statistical analysis is to calculate the 95.th percentile bounding defect
. length with 95% probability that any flaw size is bounded by the calculated bounding flaw length with 95% confidence level. A sample size of 60 radiographs from Unit 2 and 61 radiographs from Unit 3 were chosen to represent at least 3.5% of the total length of weld seams or at least 5% of the totallength of the weld seams in the bottom three shell courses, which are considered critical from a stress point of view. Figure 5.4 shows the spots selected for radiographic examination of Unit-2 PPMS tank (T056). These spots include vertical seams, horizontal seams and intersections, and cover all the welders involved in the tank construction. Examination of the spot radiography testing results showed 283 welding flaws -
ranging in size from 1/32" to 4% ; these results are plotted in Figure 5.5. Result: IOM
. mean value of flaw size = 0.364, #
standard deviation = 0.547# . Similarly, Figure 5.6 shows the spots selected for radiographic examination of Unit-3 PPMS tank (T055). These include vertical seams, horizonta! seams and intersections, and cover all the welders involved in the tank construction. Examination of the spot radiography testing results showed 126 welding flaws ranging in size from 1/16# to 4%#; these results are plotted in Figure 5.7. Result: .T_QM mean value of flaw size = 0.472", standard deviation = 0.714# l The next step of the statistical analysis is to apply the theory of order statistics for non-parametric testing as follows (References 31 and 32): 34
- - - . - - - . - . - . . _ . .. . - - . . - - ___- - - ~ . , _ _ -
i i ? i Establish the minimum sample size for 95% confidence that 95% of the population is j bounded by a given defect length. Based on the methodology of Reference 30, this population size is 93, which is less than the available 283 population size produced by tank examination for the Unit-2 tank, and 126 for the Unit-3 tank.
. Arrange the flaw population in ascending order based on size:
- a1 $ a2 & . . . $ a, S . . . S a, ,
where aj is the size of the is flaw (i=1,...,n & n=283 is the total number of samples ! for Unit-2 and 126 for Unit-3). The value of a, represents the desired bounding flaw size.
. According to Reference (32), the upper bound flaw size, which has a 95%
I, confidence that it bounds 95% of the population,is given by: s - np + w,qnp(1-p) i where i l p = specified probability i
= 0.95 w, = one-tailed 952 percentile of the Gaussian distribution
= 1.645#
Result: T_02 The value of s was calculated at 275, and the corresponding flaw size is 1.625". Therefore,it is concluded that 95% of the flaws are bounded by
'the value 1.625" with a 95% confidence level.
0 T_01_ l The value of s was calculated at 124, and the corresponding flaw size is ' 3.5". Therefore,it is concluded that 95% of the flaws are bounded by l the value 3.5"with a 95% confidence level. I This bounding defect size described briefly above was used as basis for the subsequent fracture mechanics evaluation described in Section 5.7.2 of this report. Details of the analysis can be found in Appendix E, of SCE Calculation No. M-DSC-280 for Unit-2 and M-DSC-269 for Unit-3. 35
i ,;
. I co ROW 4 or 1 (X '
7 VERT.
~
I- - r k - H E 4 0' 5 alNTS t t ? .
" ~
T R . do" 30-t T 2o-+ ao 2t 2o-+ o Honir. 8 3 40" Mig 10} EE 4 EiE nc + 7,mir 6 , t-qoch- *gfE y ,ET +} RON3 Fj q g. 7 VGRT.
,U H N 3 :
~~
7 OINTS t t A T s "oa'z-
' lay il~
3 u 7,' ay A oi 9.4
*- Q"1'- Q i s 48" y
20 g ; 4
. jas 3
f 2 ROW 2 7 VERR m no _3_ ,x a ,A 9
+ ~40T' 7 J31NTS E .
4 . - p5'Zj- 30i p665 30" 40' io= . 4 3 HORII.
-EE ',L EE}---EE3} ' *E5}-KIIil-ID71*--EBHEliD-41GM t
. HED)'-
+ +
H
- s 4** -* *so + 4e
<-+
48- ROW 1 y ' 1
, Y r - r 7 VERT.
41 $ O JOINTS 4f
~
4; 4X Y 4j as- 40- 35 4 E 3s- 45* 2d" 30- 7 HoRiz.
?
2 2 3 4 5 6 ,
'7 _
1 . Figure 5.4 Radiographic Examination Map for Unit-2 PPMS Tank (T056) (Includes Four Bottom Courses) ,,
~ - - __
0.3 .
~
0.25 . 1 0.2 , D . Si co 0.15 . O. g . .
- a. - -
ti . 0.1 . . N O.05 ' f . 0 . .
^^^^
. . O ^
^
^
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5- 5
. FLAW LENGTH, INCHES Figure 5.5 Weld Defect Size Population Distribution for Unit-2 PPMS Tank (T056)
1 1..- lI lla-o ( r-l[.. T_.1 *
.r+T T -
ll. - ~ .ll, s ._ ~- .ll.-. -
*=y -I l =-
,Y = --
% ~ =-
5 -
- y . ::.T* I-u .-.. _
'5p A. T_-'ll, I
1
'g gg ..
y---[1., a i e<.=_ T. .-- - kn'T.-
- = Ji;WI- I_..,>> p.e. ..in F
~
1e p= F[l a' Img-r a -I T,,. Id'"' 6.n> II5
~
M f" I O c - t"'._7. .
- ** T, - T,.)
lf~,, (l . . _ , ** en .I .IfiI* *ns ,,meit l gie J 7 M . ** an=* [ _,an"
%.v.c si_
si.**
~- iw
. ,_,e c
e." t_asas l Pt l , *" p.q-3- ;; .;r =pi.y J-I!~. o YL.. . 1:l'I . . f [I.? j l~. 7,. Il- ' J g1- - y Q7J 7 7 . I Figure 5.6 Radiographic Examination Map for Unit-3 PPMS Tank (T055) (Includes Four Bottom Courses) I
t o,
. 0.2 -
0.18 , L 0.16 ; , i.
. 1
~ ~
0.14-- - . p 0'.12- - [ .
. a -
~
m 0.1 - '--- - o *
. k . 9,9g. ,
(A . O.06 *
. i-
. m j 0.04 .' . t i .
. T ,
0.02 0 . i l.i A i A. . Ab. .
/
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 FLnW LENGTH, INCHES Figure 5.7 Weld Defect Size Population Distribution for Unit-3 PPMS Tank (T055) s :. O
5.9.2 Fracture Mechanics Evaluation I Based on the results of the radiographic examination and the statistical analysis of the i examination data, fracture mechanics evaluation of the tank welding defects was performed. 1 The fracture mechanics analysis can be described briefly as follows:
. Calculation of the stress components in the tank: !
l ) (a) meridional stress in the tank is calculated using the overturning moment from l
- the tank design results (see Section 5.1). The corresponding stress (o) is then i calculated using the simpli5ed familiar formula
0
-h i
o = 5.3 ksi where
- M = the overturning moment, 4
r = tank radius (240'), I = moment of inertia of the tank cross section. 1 l (b) hoop stress in the tank is calculated using the three-dimensional finite element i model shown in Figure 5.1. Additional hydrostatic pressure, to account for l water sloshing during a DBE event, was included. Hoop stress distribution is shown in Figure 5.8; it can be seen that the maximum hoop stress occurs near
. the bottom of the second tier - a short distance above the reinforcing ring at l the top of the tank shell stiffeners.
Maximum hoop stress = 15.9 ksi controls. l . Conservatively, an infinitely long crack was postulated in the axial direction in the highest stress region of the tank so that it is subjected to the maximum crack opening l stress. Figure 5.9 shows the geometry of the postulated crack in the tank shell. The j crack depth is taken as half the wall thickness of the tank shell wall. 1 i I i i 1
- 40
500 . . k 400 - t T ! a [ 300 -
% +- 3 /16" -
' i h '
I , - e ' 9 . h -
~
t > ! 200 - ^ l ~ i n Vf---
' 1/ 4" o -
h /
/
s 100 - , a /4-- 5 /16" ; y
' ' ' i O '
i
-5 0 5 10 15 Stress Pal (Thousande)
Figure 5.8 Hoop Stress Distribution in the' Tank Shell , 1 .
. I
[
t C > c
/\
te / 5
-t= _
.6 .
[
.n
'tf e
o
\/
-> t/2 (-.
3 .- Figure 5.9 Postulated Crack Geometry For such crack, the stress intensity (K) is given by (Reference 30): K=Go o where
, G, = Free surface correction factor as a function of flaw aspect ratio.
a = Crack depth (taken as half the shell thickness). 42
. , - - v
~
1 o = Maximum hoop stress (ksi) in the tank. It includes the effect of water sloshing and local stress due to geometrical discontinuities. This stress was calculated using the finite element method. Q = Flaw shape parameter given by: Q = 1-(G o/oo )2p /6 I where opis the material yield strength. ;
. A second fracture mechanics analysis was also performed assuming a 5# long through-wall crack, and the stress intensity factor was calculated using the computer program PcCRACK, which is a verified PC-based fracture mechanics evaluation program.
Analysis in this case is based on Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) using l standard formulas for through-wall cracks. j 1
. The critical stress intensity factor (Ki c) of the tank shell material was calculated as follows:
Kzc "S 1 where 1 J ic = critical J-integral value for the tank shell material (SA 240 -304)
= 990 in-lb/in2 per Reference 37,
' Ik = Young's modulus of the tank shell material
= 25 ksi It follows that K ic = 157.32 ksi/ inch The value of K ci calculated above is 16.5% higher than the value of Ki c = 135 ksi/ inch given in Generic Letter 90-05 (Reference 36) for austenitic stainless steel.
. Calculate the factor of safety (FS): ,
FS = 43
Result: The following results were obtained for a crack with crack depth equal to half the tank wall thickness: Stress intensity factor (KJ = 35.72 ksi/ inch < 157.32 ksi/ inch allowable [O.K.) Similarly, the following results were obtained for a 5# through-wall crack in the tank wall: Stress intensity factor (Ky = 50.80 ksi/ inch < 157.32 ksi/ inch allowable [0.K.] The values of Kr calculated above also meet Generic Letter 90-05 stress intensity factor allowable of 135 ksi/ inch with significant margins. The rate of crack growth, da/dN, is calculated per the 1989 ASME Code, Section XI, Figure A-4300-1. It is assumed that the PPMS tanks will undergo 400 cycles of filling based on the i number of shutdowns over a period of 40 years. l 4 Result: Total crack growth = 400(#200x10)
= 0.08 Remaining tank thickness = 0.125-0.08
= 0.045#
44
.o ,
5.10 PPMS Tank Anchorage Evaluation Anchor bolts, concrete shear stresses, shear cone capacity, bolt edge distance, bolt spacing and concrete compression stresses were evaluated in Reference 33. The Radwaste Building basemat was re-evaluated in Reference 34. Anchor bolt loads were calculated based on the tank overturning moment and slosh uplift force obtained from SCE calculations M-DSC-280 : and M DSC-269. The evaluation included both the pre-modification ASTM A3071%" bolts l and the new spin-lock 2" bolts. Shear-tension interaction on the bolts was calculated as ! follows: l I (T/Tan)* + (V/V an)2 s 1.0 l where T and V represent tension and shear loads acting on the bolts, respectively. Significant results are summarized below. l Results: l l Significant results are given in Table 5.2, for OBE loads, and Table 5.3 for DBE l loads. Table 5.2 OBE Loads Evaluation ' Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Interaction Tension Tension Shear Shear Design (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) Margin A-307 29.5 35.3 1.98 17.7 29 % spin-lock 40.5 100 2.72 33 83 % Table 5.3 DBE Loads Evaluation Calculated Allowable Calculated Allowable Interaction Tension Tension Shear Shear Design (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) Margin A-307 45.2 56.5 12.11 28.3 18 % spin-lock 62.1 133 16.64 48 66 % 45
.- i
- 6. REFERENCES I
- 1. Field Change Notice (FCN) number F-7520 M,21 M, and 22 M. These FCN's document the tank modification details.
- 2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1,1989, no addenda. l l
- 3. (a) SCE Calculation M-DSC-280, Revision 1," SONGS 2 Primary Plant Make-UP Storage Tank Upgrade."
(b) SCE Calculation M-DSC-269, Revision 0," SONGS 3 Primary Plant Make-UP Storage Tank Upgrade."
- 4. Calculation number C-258-9.10, Revision 0," Primary Plant Make-Up Storage Tank Evaluation."
- 5. " Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant i Equipment," Revision 8, Corrected 2/14/1992, SQUG.
- 6. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Division 1,1989, Material Specifications (Ferrous).
- 7. Shigley, Joseph E.," Mechanical Engineering Design," Third Edition,1977, McGraw- l Hill Book Company. i
- 8. (a) API 650, 5th. Edition including Supplement 1. ,
l (b) API 620,5th. Edition including Supplement 1.
- 9. Manual of Steel Construction, Eighth Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.,1980.
- 10. " Design of Welded Structures," Omer W. Blodgett, The James F. Lincoln Arc Welding Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, March 1982.
- 11. Design Bases Document S023-TR-EO, Revision 0," Environmental Qualification Topical Report."
- 12. Computer program ME101LS Version M10.
- 13. Design of Piping Systems, MW Kellogg, Revised 2nd Edition.
- 14. Welding Research Council Bulletin 297 September 1987," Local Stresses in Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings on Nozzles."
46
- 6. REFERENCES - cont.
- 15. MW Kellogg Company, Design of Piping Systems, Revised 2nd Edition
- 16. Calculation number M-1203-476-2A, Revision 0.
- 17. Calculation number M-1203-478-2A, Revision 0.
- 18. Calculation number S-1415-22, Revision 0.
- 19. Calculation number 844, Revision 0.
- 20. Calculation number S-1415-06, Revision 0.
- 21. Calculation number S-1415-37, Revision 0.
- 22. Calculation number S-1415-56, Revision 0.
- 23. Piping Material Specifications 90004 Rev. 53
- 24. Drawing number S023-407-3-61-2, 40' dia. x 34' high Primary Plant Make-Up Storage Tank Shell Plate Layout.
- 25. Drawing number S023-407-3-62-3,40/ dia. x 34' high Primary Plant Make-Up Storage Tank Roof and Bottom Layout.
- 26. 15rawing number S023-407-3-63-4,40/ dia. x 34' high Primary Plant Make-Up Storage T056 Nozzle (sheet 1) and T055 Nozzle (sheet 2). l
- 27. (a) . Construction Work Order number 92092078000, Out-of-Roundness Test Results.
(b) Telecopy from G. Vechinski to N. M. El-Akily dated 10/15/1993.
Subject:
As-Built Inside Tank Radius.
- 28. Haroun, M. A.," Vibration Studies and Tests of Liquid Storage Tanks," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.11, pp 179-206,1983.
i I i i 47 i
- 6. REFERENCES - cont.
l l
- 29. ASME Code Case N-284," Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods,"
l Reaffirmed July 10,1989. l l
- 30. ~ ASME Section XI working group on flaw evaluation, replacement of stress intensity factor calculation of Article A-3000 of Appendix A, Section XI with stress analysis of ;
cracks handbook by Tada and Paris, Second Edition. l
- 31. Hesson, G. M., Cliff, W. C., and Stevens, D. L,"A Mathematical Model for Asse.ssing .
the Uncertainties of Instrumentation Measurements for Power and Flow of PWR l Reactors," NUREG/CR-3659, PNI-4973,1985. l l l
- 32. Conover, W. J., " Practical Nonparametric Statistics," John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- 33. SCE Calculation No. C-258-9.10," Primary Plant Make-Up Storage Tank Anchor ,
Evaluation." l I
- 34. SCE Calculation No. C-258-4.01,"Basemat Design - Reinforcing." l l
- 35. Young, W. C.,"Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain," Sixth Edition, McGraw-Hill I Book Company,1989. !
- 36. Generic Letter 90-05," Guidance for Performing Temporary Non-Code Repair of ASME Code Class 1,2, and 3 Piping," June 15,1990, United States Nuclear Regislatory Commission,
- 37. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 108,1989 Edition.
- i l
l 48
- 7. NOMENCLATURE A = area, in2 d = outside diameter of nozzle, inch D, = inside diameter, inch Do = outside diameter, inch DBE: Design Basis Earthquake (same as SSE)
E = modulus of elasticity, psi F = force,Ib F3 = allowable bolt stress, psi F, == allowable bolt stress after applying a reduction factor, psi fy = yield stress, psi h = height, inch Hz- = Hertz j = distance between stiffener plates, inch 1 Jei = critical crack extansion parameter (J-integral), in-lb/m2 k = stiffener plate width, inch Ke i = critical stress intensity, ksi/ inch L = height of tank, inch i M = overturning moment,in-lb i Mey = overturning moment capacity, in lb i OBE: Operating Base Earthquake j l i f 49 !
4
- 7. NOMENCLATURE - cont.
1 P = radialload,Ibs R = radius, inch S = allowable stress, psi S. = stress intensity allowable t = wall thickness, inch w = radial deflection due to P, inch l 3 v = Poisson's ratio o = stress, psi j 1 e = angle, degrees r = shear stress, psi i I Note: See also Section 5.1.1, Step 1 1 4 50
i 4 4 4 1 l i ? 1 2 4 i , l ,1 , i i , i i , APPENDIX A .i 4 PPMS TANK DESIGN MODIFICATION DRAWINGS I i i SONGS 2 & 3 RESPONSE SPECTRA l 4 I e l , = 1 4 4 4 4 1 9 i k i 4 i i 51 i
ge - f , e."*D $ g f g *h g T% f.
.rMF#.G..Os 8. i.i.TA, f t.w3 a gegy .
%4se 3 0,.s. f,
..anM (mm.i.g)
.30. 137 IP l4 >. 44 g as* u.a.m.9 p. f og pegs,as, ee.e'.,4 .stA.
f,L., g a, u,'.f g. q,q
; .ti!. 4.#tA.,s. .,
N .....3.. 4 ,u, ms.Se. w , . m. -
\ ;>;.u .,4...=.=....=
- . .. . , .o,.,_u...
, u . .. - - ~r ... ,u
.~
's ' s- -
.m
,= =. - .**
N'N .
-n .
-...-,u
-.. . m .,
...~
. . "l".. _ , t~5h T -.
E m, ..
,%.W] T e..,
a-
. -.. .as,, . . G .~ ,-...,..-
. -s e.- ... , e..,<=-
.. , m,ic
's' '
m on
.....u..- % .
,N, s c mi, j .
y . u ..
/
/ A .,,o,,,;. ~ , u. m ,
,e - .
j a< .=.=
,/ f g ...(__
f .N. .
. s
.m g ._ ~
, _ . . ~ ,
. ,qt,q.,gge g, gs.,;eg
" s ..'manale
~.
- z. ,=.=*=
a.
.s N.k.e.lt.e
,A,'.,t .ggA m ,.
2.~. =,g
) ,, ,',.m4 m, , ~~ -.-
~.e..,.,...,,.,,,.
w e
, .~ m
~ ~ , ~
.n. n
~ s u- ' - I o== ..
I
.m
,. m, . ,.
( __=w. __ m, a .a . CRIENTATION "".1.
- -__ .. - n, e. . ~ ,
--- .4 % . WP m.la.n.ne mWA 3,1Cs,. t ..
$. a.& .M8 .- Jimi f.,rms. g,. 5. 94ganE t.. C3,tG.
. . , , ......n.,..
=
c (. o
- R s r...
[ i m G e w..m.e -. l _, g g' ..... f I
~ s~> ~~-i C Ws.,
,,.e..m,,,.
, , , . . .. G
~ .s
- ~ .. } . ~.
~ "AP
"""'~~-.l ljl $l lj
'*"~".
,, .. .-r-st >
] -. . .. . m
. ur.
'T -"' I iIhIII$ iI
.i. .r +
...u.. m. s t .i ;i .i i i i l a u s s I '~r l ---
u .
') i........ i
~
~~*"
~'
,.,,,,j,.=,..,,,,.
ELEVATICN i,d .. ' ."f.*'.T
. . . _ . .m .s . . "
<~ t IR ..-
, 2 N
_t
- c . , ...
t.
................, _ . . _ m .
.. ..... ... . . m , __. m
....._...c . . _
s .... . . . .. m . u.c% _.* ~ ~ .... .
. H
..,....... ...... m _.-.-- . . . . .
. ......_......, , _ . . ~ . ._ .
- . . . . . - . ~ . . .
- _ _- -w i
)
_ . . . . . . . . . . - . . ~ r -~>- * * . . . ,
. . . - .,n.,,,..,,y,,,.,,.,,,,,,,,
~-
= _ -. _ _. ~ , -
~ . . . , _
~.-_..--..
... r, ,
- b. b. .* Ju
_. -. s
.r - .r. - -
,: :.= '
1, 1,. , APERTURE _3..
- r. ~ o CARD
. G "N Also Available on Aperture Card 1-.
a > -.
', ( .. , , . .
/ O e e e e e j e l 6 I O l O O I I e i l
e l' e .o_ _ a.,. .,.. el' e Sl el S l S S f 1,;'dC; ~~ 9Il!Il9Ilil19lIlil191l11 1191l ' 8 1 t
<- 6
.. 6 - :,
k,e t I. h ._ . )
- 5. . -
5 5 . ).
""*"'*".u......
ti - < = 2 2 -
- m. ..=
t 7 t 7, 6ta 5. . i, 7
. a av.o. ,, . ..f 6 5 ; ; t,s..
6 6 t
& .t. t tt t .I i .; .
r t s s-i 5
+- 1 l
1 .o
- o. .. . - ,....a..
... .. .e r. ei n. . > .. , .. ,, .. , . r ..= .
.ir c.<.
'*d
.".,",,u.
a
.+ .
" an SHE . L L _PL . L. AYCt)T
=_ ...-- i
_ i
.m.-.,.,,....o.,,, . . . .
s (p63/2006 l
=w a
@ w =~-- b
-. -...-i
_ e.i . ...
.r .... .. .. r fep..nu caunui inio.
- f. . n . . . .
w t.a s i.g. ,
- N
j ' wN =* I a [ o g 3 1 - g It f l l
. l n
- pe tw se 3 g*sive awari w r an. e en a g'$9 are attu "
A , [ re.
== ~. -
,7 ld l h*
g.4 L-4* ire. G - ..
?
C h' y .. h ,, tv .. \( ('
/* Nm se s
~ u.;]
- C(TAtt M -
/
O
- w -
l CEIAIL M W T TYS y W tyga,n= su7.,EE.o*s<EU smer aiws sm:n.pt U."* *' I i l i n
- ne Ne se N
\
L4.'!hf.... c M <
.E'?w?, NON E N?"
=<i.
. oEON...
i ' W '
** -. .S.Y . u .,
cu i cu w~ = =gg ~. E?,'d ', w
- d. qql" N, O a v na"""
CE T A ll M \ l "" W- I' L' G@I=== m E =a22L .. %
,1
. ^\
e ,. 1 --
*"+ -k :=
g.n ; , . _J ! nm 170 L% P #
=% n% N...,,d. f- r E7a la' w"4?
on.e hIg
- urn J PZ '
b%n
$ECTION M D
t e t i o e e 1 . k um D/ % ' *
. . . - - - -- I
m k b h $ . l m_: '
.... . . . F
, .M.A .4ms .a ' t,3 41.J4..n. 4 M v2ws. ' 3 88 u.= -
.e a 3*9 se t> u *
. .m,.e.s te=,is s.i.e
. g* g 3* t (* .. e* O bakh' D.rteMa as a. sam uw 6,E- u.m
't . .e ge g agg ,as 91g.9 g'.
e a r 's t g, g s ese
.a s.Io.a.ei ewe m e c n* u * -es -
ti.e* 6s 'tvu.mes .
. 't 4 %* e .M WB.. ee t6 Se.3sf 89 m.
%/ 8 ' 3 *t M * .*M ft .e WJ., es te.4J ED D.
s l[ 8 s u : s e g an. e. m.i. e =.
. -.- ( n. u < i r* 'w. m e, eten u..et rpe , n.. . > ~. u . um - . . . .
p , ,
% a vam na e .w t>e. . .si se nr g
- g _._._ ..
. w. - . ..
e to 9'er um a2 sa.t' 2 rete
- M$a . un a s a asa um em a g' . . en ae et t ' . ts* 1 *w h. ta. 42 Pt e 9 t.e u ree ' ms9't mer e a.2g ggym 4 ., . v. iam . .e y s . u. e. -
v .. , e,~ ....=. j l s'es cat. mem - i I s l 1 0 l l O
- e. eu => a.: e ens . sw .c.m sie anu ist y L a a t na e an sia = c i awn. taaeise.
. gw.
L ... s n=sar .4 e=n aA3es.utise. a em=s e y sma, se o a ur o.3
>.< wreg - [JT.13.g t sue na one =a a on a ist e naa.
t re,rs. .e i amen,a ens, e.m gw seem.s sea
, gag.g. i a r u =m iak. , , , h ,.
ggg
- E"."n$'s e an.es srie nr.aus a.m s lug ggt,.3 g ang;st s 4 v4 h sta s a a sem a. ms ems. a .m l
i N- i is 4ee e e.s.eert e L some.x sanci g y etAn entest arts. i4 = e eas.r.sc.s gieu = as ee s , ,,2 , m e. ,, ,g m tes. 98 3 6e 4MB Mesa a6e het d af%f83L*G W4GE 90A3 E _. 94 h.. "h '[ # i Visa w 4 I n
.' . t
. e ,.s n uma e t> sp, ~k.s ,
9 Qame K/~ e.
]' 3 3-- 7
. %. .e. ,_._,,,m...
ANSTECs t AkC C Scti CHAtt APERTURy c 7/^ y l 4 , s CARD .s_,w..,..,e..... i
. . . ...m...,.,..,.....
!, Bl Also Available on " '.. .. ' . ' ~. . . " . = = = I Aperture Card *~,,~.
-%.. . , ,,,..t... , . . .~. . , .
. 1 I
k e-53 fl.11 HIf it F3 03( o Elkt la t4lHf 42.4 Mt FaI fus e'd SEf CT.' 9:2Mf+419. 4 CC !! LlNIT 2
. - == . . . . . . . .
40 0I A. 2 34 -C niot
- . _ . _ PUMAff PLANT DJgt.'(7 UCalAG TAMt i,.E,~M TrMM*M.
--me- v_y - - '-C.
9f1L RAT ( L Af0Jf ,w, , ,, ,
"l wn- rt--* ; rw 1N***'-
was ei . um is * ** r- - I .e ! ..e q ,, i e. j i ew. i m ...y es se g $s2sh CALIN& ptSc. SC2 3-*13 3-4. ta. 3 EI . 4
*==ssen wme
__ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ - - r
~rJ f g >-
-Q 4 . . _ . y ... p .
9 -
- r. . II I N. " ~
" " U- '
k) v f f
$ 5'lEh 's.
/?.i 3\
1: AsE3 4 h- . --l- 4 . I ! t \\ 9 i
; y ..44 ._...l_.._.. ..q _.4 . . _ . .
1 1 1 t T \ \ > i
\\ jj / ,P
~
\- i
%, //
y,s
~
_a \
~
i"
~.._! ,./ '
'W5 g.. .m.g m. . . .
. 7... -4 . w-1,,sg .-
g . .
,v.v
==;ms: @. "
\
\
@24suctt>Anaf ,.,o; %.,
f e' IT S* * O. .-
~~-*-
g
.JL / ... _ ._
;-- - t - Q
\ l "'
;_"3--
= -
..... , V j
,A W 6 '~***='. ._....,._._ ,_ . . .-gb ,_
= : 4,
. ' i i g k) .r. e n -
T x
,. \.s -
,/
.. , 5:
~~~~. ~~
% s.%.. l. .cr'
/i
/'I N .
<\
w.... I k
!, n 7 - . . . .. . .
p x i;, gre a Roar M4NwAT g 4 ovcprtow A
.:A
& @ q W,i,. 6-S$YTP *4$t/ d'-e ~
c ww_. . .i
._- _ _.-._. q < A n:er. ,,,,,, #1 r _.._ ,
L
~
t, w INLET
$A-8 4 3 5-64.-018 PtJMP SUCf!ON
$A-1410-PL-ol8 n.
s 1 y.z . ,
= ::- . ..
; v ls -
= = + .og
} 7 gg.
r. j_
.,) .
,, g r.
I # ~ ~ r
. .Q l
l
- .:: c.;t,. -
*.sosse
*=["#'
ausene 3g. l y y f SECTICN A "a.T. ~w EECTICH M w SECfl0N /T\ w
$lCTICN M w
3 wouns Q f _ _ _ . . . , . . wouuwnna..- Y' ..
,n' e.a. 4.a.s...e
( he. x..s
,* e.sm 5
DEf a tt. 6% DEfatt AT
.- w ..w n. , gyggt 4 w
g _._____ ~-
+
W 'v.*
f - --
+
. . , 4acitT- -
gy7 ; _ eu3 . e.s
>. ,i } .co a**.
p
>. i. 1.ua v......... .
..) ,,
'. ~ v . m. . . . .. .
. .J
>. . , n.= r . . h. .... w. .
nJ .:
= a j >. n.
W . . ?.%__ '_u. . .. ./
. w ~1 . ... . v . . . -. . n
- 6. = 'm. e .hh. . . ., . . . ,. 0"'j?.' .$a ; w G . O'! 'JJM*4,."l '.d r " ' ~ ~ . - - -
, , ------c- ,
>. .j v . . % u. . .. j 3
>. . j n er. . a 'e . .. a, . . a. - ea- -. l } .e
~
>.1 .
l n ow . . > .' . . . m. ., _ l .j
~ . n.n v . ~ . .\ .. s
.. >.. ~. , w ~ . . w . . a .. -. s . ,
>n .. m m v . . . y u. . . . . ., .. .,. -n M.
./ m M
.( c e..n
) [
.T:.:'.:;. ";. " ' O ;.'t.,
. -a
. r
)
, , d e ,, , ,, .,
i M i -. . .m ,..,u. ... I ., ,< .,_.r . . . . . _ t-
>. l .l r i s.. J
> i i
.m e .s . ig . ..m. . ]
~~
_. ,a r. .
)
.. S . .m ..cr s. m. q ..s }
.t-]
., .' ~. n_. . r . . . ..
. F l " -
.v..... p 1
.._._t._ ,
0
)
,. . ,. .- .w,.,, . . _
)
t, me ..., t
.... e - - - - - - - -
,,. . . ~, . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _- ;
. . n .........,..m ..>.n.
1* YENT J
, - . . ._ , _. __- s
. . .wosv. w . .c . . n.
.. , ~ . . _ _ . . . . . ,\ +
. ~. r...r.,
L. w s
,i . ~. ..... .__
J, k I/,_S JraF x n q . r..,... .m.. J 1.sc<....._._. - - - - ** I
't
__ .. . '. ". _ . _ " " . * . ' ' " . " . _" ~_ . . "w. . . . c mY y _j m. M
~
O . -= - ~ ; al -. . 3 o..~ , . .. ._ . ANSTEC O= 'Ipst.EY
* - ' 'REC!AC.*"
APERTURE -
~..- _, .
CARD i
** l'*0 ,****
r up u
, Also Available on .
.*n. J
.- Aperture Cwj j 1
. ! E
- . . . . .e, . _
.e re.
i
,g ; g .. ... .
3
= = .=_. = . = . n
....n. ,
SEC T!CN @ ercy rca, M _ _ A, ,/ \,/ u.... l 2 - 54 7(903/2606S~~ J 94lEEGS r . . e _ _._.........._ ma 4
- m. : Mg=Z'J
-m Q,.^-^^ , _W -.
~ T, C_. NM EA88l MAKf* 34'LP o*Sf3Af4
- ~
40*0:a. uso. IA.s
- , up
. _ _ _Uk;. , '. f; '
=_
_ . ~ . .
,....,,m......
2494*- p MI r=.ner co o a>im.
.____--- S023-407-3-63(sH3 REY. 4-
. J. 9 e 7 , s , s 4 4
.......,.7 ""'"
. .- n,,, , a m
~ %
,, .. no. ..
N s 8 .
- g. a .ne.. a.es ,
sw l =
, ...- i .-.
. ..u - m. .=
.~,, &w. 3J . . , . .,m
- ,;,;; g;.~,
. .... .. .. ,< . ,NN, \, wi. u mm .. -,.....,,e
" '"O.::' "
"l" T
\. N ....,,,..
s w
~
st- e, - .
- u. .
gyt. - M&f 88 01. SW.3 h ,tas,g
. wir T7...'T...
a .-, .- { s-
\ ,i.. V, ./- - . . , , . . f ... ..~
..-..i.- ..., / a .~ ..
- )- .. .
N ,..., 8 , , . .
.a nr N . .:- a.- m
,,.,,,,,.- . s s., - .e- w - * - . -
- ,, . g, @N, .,c a . . .,,,,,
- ,- N,N . . .
j - N, ..
. . . . . uw =
-.' un. m
.......<e ,m !! u,
.4=ia.
.u. as. nv.
= . .
Q
.a ,,a, m. . , 2
.sr.a ,
e .a .s:e>= e es e l a= *a m .a*== .' a ,e. pu, e m ,W *. e - . ,. era. one. , w
** ** '**'*f.*. '*g **6
,,,,,,,,, .a.
no ..-
... - c . = - - - - .
-, n
- ".M'M='lll*.illr'"l'.. . "'"..,,.. ., .. .
--o :.:u , , . .
I m. ORIENTATION
= E.ta,'n~ .. , ,
g
.,.m.,
m am m, n -~.
= m u n.=,,
"8'*** g .3TMas .maa.e .a ,e, et a.
p .IF .113 .a ,a .,S s.
=n B E*1=7 eOAs.s 3"." S.as.".l%.".EllU.
Reft . s.gs .coep ."g^st gew,s
> E. sr *Ew*e'.se *b" i ll ( r..
o
.-J
\ _
,S a vr 0
-r -
' 'l
@ l' J s ._. , "'# I*- ,h
,.e.
- "~
u -- ac..n eH I e 9:-
. :: 4/
4 a 1. -.- 3. .
- ~ H l11 1 9 l 11 L",. _.-e.,,x8 '"
~
..T... 'e/ .
- w w nme i+
s a T: ,
---e -c" L . L
} $5 5II55 i
g, g I
.I-
.j ..
\e.l -' "
.<.i.
4 ji 5 6 l -l.7i e
?
l
..i....... % e./
.. .,j,; g ,, ,,,,,.
. .--=:
=,. .4 ELEVATION ' "#.'.::
is.d5'. i e sg.go. 9e # t
3
%~ - 1 t 2 1
_3 T *;.TJ;* = ..
- "ir'sM*.' ' a' ., .
>. . s we . . . e- .w..o. . , _,~.
. v.. . . . . . .e . . on u+* .
- b. I A 4/t.*8 Sa a s .ege. .e e ga.) S* 8"** toes a 6 i a. ee.....ari.. . s- , H s s ve a . a . .ese. n . . s~n*? e w ,
a ve e ..e . acie. e.->+= e i.n i be t A V'. E . 5 48 * * ( . M *6.ees E 3s3l 8tti 6
, guer., & fEst p.3 art.dee bee p 4 efe* s g=.s e ye.s s .e se/tc saata.'Je* 3es g l98. JE88'-* 484 be G sb t/e* 3 4 -e t W." 3 s.%st g gae saa ,,,, g b4 0 84 3/9e 9 t'.00 W 8 6*=4 IW4.* &a 8*.d* pra 3
>4 6 fb we 8 9'.88 W 8 t.***s* 0***** tue a ben s 84 we a I'=et Ss9* 3 4%8 et/tc tana*>m* rye 3 pg..FNe e.es e at Art e 9%e s W e s." see tapa**J8' anse 3 p8''***'"
w . .c6% :
- n. e s we a s% . w e e..e swe m.-s** u a c
.=. . a ec e... w e. .we .= , ,
S>e t .G4 n 7300
> 4 54 8/', a l'.4 0 4." 5 6.' =4 t* the* ass gygg g I .*
r 4 84 w." 5 S .e t W 8 19'*et* asaae sas ges.
- r. - ., --
~
..-.e. .
3
. .<e n.<a . . . eu m .
r l hab.884 'P' d 54 4 84 '/P 8 P E 8"P 8'U"*4 *#nesNr. 30 p
. , .... a. me - ,
EA.e#4 AP8 4=4 888.A fir . f 3 ETAG epen
.t2tm .pg4&Al gm . .e.r'tii's ass.n naut en.ei "drETF* t*> 3e.4mp33sg .6 .dk f(614594hf Bm4seamus .4 .M a .8'438 LAv.A hetea.s .4 aDEILES
^
.e en3Enn
,,, . .* un.f res St.sMast og hasand 4.'UIAA Pf6
- b. e se* .m .asame sm.nemas og u.nz e.usennA
. - . . ~
..e .e .><. . . . ,
e_
. nn, .
f c
. r e texent ggsTEC APERTURE
- a<.. CARD
/,* t'- pgn gya1\sble f e e e e e/
- Aperture Car S l S S @ l S l l l e >
l e l' e .o-- : n ii.. e l> e Sl el G ll e S f- ',n'x
~
!91 Ill 191 lil 191 I lil 19I I la l IH l
= = ~ . _ _ .' * .* *." .' " .* . ,
h ) b I I hg I! hhkIhh IbhI$h '"* . it' l l i z z zzi : iti!!! !!iti -
.. i - . .<,, ,, ,.J' !
r . ..we....,..,,,.,.
,e . e . . . . ...,e,.,.
. .. ...,.,<e. .. 1. .. .. , , . .
3 Slf.f. 'a. PL L AYOUT ..,%
*8----- ;;;; .,, ,,.,,, ,,,, l oi: :: unir : A
=
a==-P :~ }
= = rc mmrrr pn- r v z.T. f7yL S_y, ,g .g * "" ""
. . ,,,esie..es h se 6 *8 i 8 8 I e me aseee l as g gas,8888 SMl#88814 308 9 8 f g_.
son .u t.3.n .3 m. ,._.
l n- , I I i 6 5 4 i g* i e h i i k
- lid fkG SQ 4 --
,s.........,, ,, n ** 38
** a ,,
s s' AY are nn. i . b,2-d p: ,
- w. E j f ' y4 'r ine.. - V -
, a 3..
. a i _. ;
7,_.=/ h. l ' " ,,. " \r ocmt m
-, w g J L _,.
-' 'M ,/'.= a. "J'?t=ag.===> a 2
igg , y == u . ..-.. ocrart m W e I Ia5 .tLA S I pysges a moo 4 '" ~
- N.-
ue . , A
~~ me.
E. .d E. .E. 2.". . g ( -
,k 7 A3.33
) . l
- er'm r--..
OETAIL M cria rt m w
%F N r-r=~ e . :.-) = : e - ru p -r " ~ ~> d 1
cw _c:_ w
. a.a/ se N f-3' pj, x;jjm --">,- ?
= , , ma T ,v_ -
"O \. I r'"
,,,,,,,, a v...
7 k "n~'i' 3 6,,7 A l ?.
. :.Ss.v= , . - ~ % CL!r(. .x L- y Mi y a na l 75 0,$$ 4' un ._ 4 -. !se.
=
==. .-r. ._, a
- o ;a.- =' 4,,,.,,,,,,,
ga== gg, g == .< m r . ., .,, E"3 steitc" m suce ect., custs W i i .
,t . 'h h .
e.,ma 'N
. .---.---<---+.=w-.--,-===----e - . = - - - - - ~ - = - - ' ~ ' " ~
us l 3 1 2 _
, 1 g= r "~',,,,, ., . . . . f is 6 .....m...,.,,..._
rie.. w Lee e. .rmt.as -
.a..
- v. . m.r._. w.,e-= _~,
,, ~,m
., . i
.,m..
- - . . , v. , v . v -.,.
.....,r 1
8, w l
........m_. _ . . . . .
. . .. { LJ t'4' . .v, r. ,.,e n w3, ri f I grata exe. masc ru E
r - 8. w ,L m 1 y - 1 1 1 e i
., =. ..._ .=n.. _._.... - .,_ -. _ .
, = , , _ , . . . . _ _ . .
- s. ,, w ,.. 1
= ..= = . -- - l
=.=__.
t *
- .. n.
k I 7 J l A ST C
" " " ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ -
- c i r
kPERTURE p, p CARD s , , e I ' h
- _ B .s.c.t.m at-"= me.=' a ea. m
==# =2 toe W -
= = = = - = = ~ - .
-<===n PBfWIO Card "a."2a..'*=5'="==-
a == u..,.,.-- l
,ase ecA .A m.
t ww e.us
- t. ss . no Im. em . # maae ae.esi em<:.n.s s ma e.e. iss s.e .ns if wstwi see s pes W .tM IL =an.a vtm v.sa .ere.na. a se, as a'f.i. a.
g
. .O. * ..
==.=c=m I s 5 8 h
l i ! J - n.814 44 E, i j l p fiel S&143>f 9(1711 fGI 56 o3 26 sf 433 CKT F3r f.Mr oss.trt Osr,2:2Fgt F4198 3 ce t t untr 3 A L pk .a8' W., M(44 0&af 5 4 .f af f.e
+: won. x w.r a
*h ; PRtFJRY PLAMI Mart. U' $!CFJCE TA*
9(LL PLAIE LAf0JI
-._mg g _._ h. rsm e ., e
, yp5pty' Ja
.-mn .w.
50uf'on ca.trcso.:a coisoi
.- .,.,.p.,, .-
As j
,. ~ -
sm-.e > .. en.. _ . . . _ - . . - . - - - - - - l
w l ,*%
- p. -
d , , , . . -- y_ '
/sm.se ens k
i me star N. Q./ 3
)' ,.-.9%
~
/,."'"'",,, \.
.R a q~.$ ~ a g
4.i.s ll !
. .\ \ ;R 7
1 .
- _ . . ;.L _._. ..L._.
l :* k p8_.4 . . . Q.i i i it Y # u:::Ur,:ma E \ $\: '/ j { *
&y
- h gr
\ % -:d'i,-
's. l j ' ,- " ' /
1
/
/ - g,,. g
- 0I*h Y Y .
F. W**. . . .a. .,
;,*g.a~ '* a s a- O y
,..s.... '
,i >p *e -a *"ee r ==. -m t .} '., g dJ'
g gyesor ..q _Q. ... .._ g, 8 k ,j ' 24* SNCLL MANWAY f"#. .j %. & -
! ,/ -
g5pr911._t A v(~.~w.- r -
.. L.._
{' l
?' b O-s
] gR r x._i l ex % Il ! AfAl 7._._
3 _. ;aa-~ i g f ;
}) t.e== \
._, ./ M 7-
, \
s
.c9 ~~ l w e.
s. s
.% . . O' e
/ '% N 3....
- g. ., Cfm
*i$
p 4" OVERFLCW ' 38 24" RCCF HANNAf - h*m s== .e=6.
)i g .,(=
uw A #,
- f. g A.I:t".-. .l.3'f b g ...
RhM ... q q A..m;rc.
-._<8
. y%pg9 e
_y l e.oen,"
. 9 m
=~ K.x w i
_ es 4 . .a L .,_ _ .
- fPtri a SA-1415-M.*012
- _w wit 4 i SA- I 415-+tl-024 t ,
,w.
c =._.,. .
. . , . /(. . ..k-<,
r r = =
- e ' : om Q
, _-Qr g r . .,,, ~. ._ 4 . . - '
.). . ._ . _ _
g '* i _ 1 _ . . Cf.'.A
- w. 8 ir SEcit0N /T\ SECYlCN /T\
h r= ~w w SCCTION ## ' SECflCN /O'\ h
*8 w w g
y ..
.e.e8 fasew
.4 s....
1(/////////ph W/////////h-ai.....
\
, _ ...I ,__ i h- t,l gh,. - g -- - - - , .
l
*ocatt /B r was i M _.5: -
cEf Art /TN l >=s W .w , uran /N 5 w
~a
+
. M. :.::s.n , .
. w.p5.- . .;.;:. 4 : ;:.w . ?. : :.q.-
- i. .g ; :: . y
. - .. , . . - : n- .. .
i . - t . T mcr- i 9 =- :-= _ er . . m. 1
>. , - a_~
.m
,,,,, i
~ . s. i..__.*...e... -
-1 n . . . ,
w.>+i.......... ... ,, F-
>.. . . . a n .. .. . ... i.
- b. . %' . 8 '8%_ .g, -..b .
>. . u.
m a . . . . ... . g. ==== . a w a . m*...v....,... ":::"' a. . *
* . O %*"* *0.'_'.'i? * *, ,") ,*;, 'j';. *f- "~~
>. . ~a-* .
F. . g*...%*L.,.., - . * .
- b. I g E' . '8* . .' ng . .ag .e. g ..D. g.
>. . 444 h* . 8 %* . . . m. g... .**.*." m
- h. .,
y . ...._. . l _......~..... . . ., b..t Sm.S V . .V t_ . g .a .ee a. .
- Mk.8
- D. . .*4
~'
, , .u. < .m. .* . 3% 6..
k
.-ews. W.,jgLI. .rni .
. .
- R io. ** b J. .m.
H *' " 1.r. m..uk . . .- .._ - . . .
.rs. .*
. p
.**g., . .a p
. p sw. .*.u...**. J. 9-.*
). a
- W.,
- 4. .
k.. O . .*E4 . .g . gg, > . 6. ks. . Rg .* LJ. .O e.> . M _ k.. . 94 .*.c . . .* g* 4.. .e > M. ... 6.
- b. 44.
h*.*..h*4 . I . i
.v....
~'"'~~~
- f b. . .W .i. . g' SA .e 9 .. 9.-IP l . . . = ww a. r . .v e.
, , , e. U Wa%
u- *su
- g. i -
4 E'.4"..*a.*.II. ,. Est W.** D*
.w .we etxr >. .
--"m*
9 .. . _ . . . . . . _ +
- 8. I M. E' . .* . E' 4 ".4*3 8 W I 4. W. 6' . ." %* w. .. =>B.
A1 ,
- m. . . _. _._. .g._._. .. . .---_-~ v..<.. - - -
n es . o . -__. . C ANSTEC H.- s yt.a. APERTURE g ma, acmc. S A-t 41;a-Pt.-054 CARD -
" ":.t- v-~ Also Available on
- y. ..
Aperture Card r.. T i I. e 0: i .. e
, \ ...e m.a a s
..us...><...
.t m. *
- a. i _.. T 5 g i
n , c .,,,, a..... .. . .. . . .. .i. . . . . .. .. E SECfION M go f {ry M , W W
& . . t .s r.. g C. ;
I l 57 7603l20C6S~-- _ w.ww=w.==- 1
' - ^
.y-QC !! VH11 3 A
.t.,.......,..
r- *
~P
" ?.ST $ WQQN = ~ ' E~ =E lm 4'R S.IA. I.na. M.'
. . I.e E f a 39
-pgip+ e" .y" hWf 8 CZ .Z a.gnt J L. . .
.i...... . i h i i .-.i --jy 5='+'a w'=a una s ._ .._
$023-407-3-63 SH. 2 REV. 0 " ' ' ~ '
r c' I l l l 1 PERIOD (seconds)
.01 .02 .63 .04 .86 .08.1 .2 .3 .4 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 l i l f
l
, -0.5% DAWPING
/
l 13 t 12 - - 1 11
." - ' -I1.0% DAWPING
= ,.
5 1/
~~
i
;* 9 i i I
58 ' - 2.9% DAWPING I lV u I Jl % l 5
/ // M 1
-5.o% oAWP1Nc
/ /-- \
t_ ln/ \ b_.3\\ ~
! >/ t 3 J l s-M x
m;
~
4 l l 100 50 20 to 5 2 1 .5 .2
~
FREQUENCY (cycles per second) ! l l Design Basis Earthquake Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectra, Elevation 9'-08 of Auxiliary Building 58
.e ,
l PERIOD (seconds) l .01 .02 .63 .04 .66 .08.1 .2 .3 .4 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 l l 11 p - -0.5% DAWPING
- 10 '
7 E C 9
\
- -1.0% DAMPING
} ,
e / -
', ( T(
' -2.0% DAWP!NG 6 I '
5 lI - T
\ -5.0% DAWPING 4 l/ ( (i - ' -
l['r-s M 3 J' \ k l y
, ~
D NL
% sis 100 50 20 10 5- 2 I .5 .2 '
FREQUENCY (cycles per second) Design Basis Earthquake Vertical Acceleration Response Spectra, Elevation 9'-0" of Auxiliary Building 59
. ~. . . PERIOD (seconds)
.81 .02 .63 .84 .86 .88.1 .2 .3 4 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 7
b E 2 w 8
" , - -0.5% DAWPING 7 -
6
> \ s 1
p -l.0% DAWP1NG k / 5 -
\gl
/ v -
, - -2.0% DAWP1NG
~ ~ .. -
Jf g' g k , - -5.0% DAWP!NG 3 - 3i ( \
\V_\
). / D
\
g.-- ~ 'Y ( \Mk m l 1 - 100 50 20 to 5 2 1 .5 .2 FREQUENCY (cycles per second) Operating Basis Earthquake Horizontal Acceleration Response Spectra, Elevation 9'-O'I of Auxiliary Building 60
l
.. 1
.c ,-
1 1 l PERIOD (seconds)
.01 .42 .03 .04 .06.08.1 .2 .3 .4 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 l
i 4 } i ! t i i :
? '
b E E 5
-0 u
~ ' -
- - - -0.5% D AMPI'NG
" -~~~~
\) - -1.9% DAMPING 6
I 5 I \ 1 ( - ' ~
-2.0% DAMP!NG j 4
. \, -
l
- l 3 - 5'.9% DAWPING I
\ .- ' I 2 l - b A \
g ; M N - N\
$N '
Nb %
~- 3 _
180 59 20 to 5 2 1 .5 .2 FREQUENCY (cycles per second) Operating Basis Earthquake Vertical Acceleration Response i Spectra, Elevation 9'-O'l of Auxiliary Building 61
e l O 0 . i I 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 APPENDIX B 1 l RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS 1 1 l l l l O me 62
3
-C 1
f . j RESPONSE TO NRC QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS 4 Reference : Telephone Discussion with the NRC on August 10,1995.
- 1. The calculation did not discuss in detail how the code comparison between API 650 (original construction Code) and ASME (Section III Class 3) Code was performed and
! which parts of the ASME code were applicable and why. In particular, they would like to j see more discussions on material, fabrication and installation, and testing and examination. i RESPONSE : Table 2.1, Code Reconciliation Matrix of the Summary Report provides j comparison between the ASME code and API and the reconciliations l performed to satisfy technical requirements of the ASME code. The table j addresses material, design, fabrication, installation, testing, examination, j testing and overpressure protection requirements applicable to atmospheric
! storage tanks.
t s
- 2. There was concern about use of qualifiers like "mainly" in Attachment D and "one major l l difference" in Section 11.3 in the calculation. Although they do not expect absolute ,
j terms, they would like to see more legalistic terms which provide a more specific l description and should present a more general compliance with the ASME code. l !- RESPONSE : The Summary Report provides more specific descriptions to show
~ !
{ compliance with the technical requirements of the ASME code. j 1 i 3. There was no conclusion given in the calculation about code equivalency of the shell to bottom weld deviation. !
- l l RESPONSE: Section 5.3 of the Summary Report shows that the shell to bottom weld
}; . meets ASME code stress allowables under SSE loadings. ; i
- 4. The NRC would like to see in a future letter a summary of results and conclusions showing that the modified tanks are equivalent to ASME Class 3 tanks except for the j - N-stamps.
! RESPONSE : Section 2 of the Summary Report provides a summary of results and conclusions to demonstrate that the modified tanks provide safety j equivalent to ASME Class 3 tanks except for the N-stamping. I W i i 63 1 4
'4 l e '
- l During a meeting on 10/03/1995, the NRC requested a comparison between two sloshing water pressure scenarios during a seismic event:
1 Uniform pressure applied symmetrically to the tank roof, which was evaluated i in SCE's tank upgrade reports, t Asymmetric loading of the roof assuming that the sloshing water will apply
. pressure on part of the roof only. ;
l i RESPONSE: i The following qualitative comparison is made with a circular plate loaded symmetrically by a uniformly distributed pressure, and by a linearly distntuted load
- . (asymmetric load):
1 i Per Roark's Formulas for Stress & Strain (Reference 35), Table 24, Case 10 (uniform pressure) and Case 22 (linearly distributed load), the bending moment, M,, is given by, l 1
- 10. Uniformly distdbuted pressure ,
from r, to 4 Simply supported 22. Unearly distributed load symmetrical about a diameter, edge simply
- r,q Supported
9 ,
3 ' l unifonn pressure, r, = 0, linearly distributed pressure M, = 0.20625 qa2 M, = 0.0425 qa2 l Therefore, M, (uniform pressure) > M, (linear distribution) l 64 l J
-s, ,,o a- a m .,
A .n 4 4 - i $ 1 l l 4 t 1 l l 1 1 e.s* 1 ENCLOSURE 4 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM NRC REVIEWERS 1 l l
\
l 1 1
\
l i I 1 l
i 1 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FRON NRC REVIEWERS ON THE SAN ONOFRE UNITS 2 AND 3 PRINARY PLANT NAKEUP TANK UPGRADE (1) 4.0 DESIGN INPUT, Sheet No. 270 - Confirm that the shell plate seam welds of the CCW tank are of SMAW type. The JIc of 990 in-lb/in2 used in this report is for SMAW at 550 degrees F. Estimate the value corresponding to the tank temperature of 104 degrees F, and revise the
- fracture mechanics analysis accordingly.
Response
The shell plate seam welds of the tanks are of SMAW type. This is l documented in the Data Report, SCE No. SA-1415-1, Page 371, a copy of l i which was sent to the NRC. ' The JIc value of 990 in-lb/in2 at 550 degrees F was used to calculate I the allowable KIc used in the fracture mechanics evaluation. This allowable KIc was calculated using the following correlation: KIc = square root of (JIc times E) (where E is Young's modulus (25E6 psi))
= sqrt (990
- 25E6) i = 157,321 psi sqrt(inch)
= 157 ksi sqrt(inch)
At lower temperatures, no values of JIc or KIc are available. However, an estimate of the allowable KIc at 75 degrees F can be made based on available Charpy V-Notch (CVN) data at 75 degrees F. This estimate was made as follows: CVN Value = 150 ft-lb (Stainless Steel Technical Data, . Allegheny Ludlum Steel Division, Pittsburgh, PA, Allegheny Ludlum Corporation) KIc = 12 times sqrt(CVN) ("The Practical Use of 4 Fracture Mechanics," by D. Broek, 1989, Kluwer Academic PuFlishers)
=
12 times sqrt(150) = 147 ksi sqrt(inch) ' The value calculated above at 75 degrees F (147 ksi sqrt(inch)) is only 6% less than the value of 157 ksi sqrt(inch) at 550 degrees F used in the fracture mechanics evaluation. The effect of lowering the temperature is slight, as would be expected for austenitic stainless steel. A Summary Report of the Primary Plant Makeup Storage Tank (PPMUT) upgrade (see Enclosure 3) includes a fracture mechanics evaluation which compares results against an allowable KIc of 135 ksi sqrt(inch) obtained from Generic Letter (GL) 90-05 for stainless steel. This allowable KIc is consistent with the lower-bound fracture toughness property used in Section XI of the ASME Code (See pages 43 and 44 of the Summary Report). The allowable KIc is also lower than the calculated KIc at 75 degrees F 1 (147 ks1 sqrt(inch)). Therefore, the value of JIc at 104 degrees F, while not available, would clearly be bounded between KIc at 75 degrees s
{ l. l 1 F and KIc at 550 degrees F, which are both above the minimum allowable value established in GL 90-05. (2) 8.1 STRESS CALCULATIONS, Sheet No. 277 - It was indicated that the loads, which produced the maximum hoop stress of 15.9 ksi from the tank FEM model, are the water sloshing SSE load and tank hydrostatic pressure. What about the inertia load of the tank itself under SSE loading? Provide a detailed definition and information about this water l sloshing SSE load. 1
Response
The inertia load of the tank under SSE was calculated in the design l report as part of the GIP analysis steps, and an evaluation was made for the calculated overturning moment (see Steps 6 and 17 of the Summary l Report). The overturning moment produces tensile stresses in the axial l direction on one side of the tank and compressive stresses on the opposite side. The hoop stresses due to hydrostatic pressure are, however, much higher than the axial stresses due to the overturning i moment. Therefore, the fracture mechanics evaluation was based on hoop ' stresses with the flaw assumed in a vertical seam which gives worst case results. The hoop stresses due to water sloshing were incorporated in the fracture analysis by including an additional pressure component to the hydrostatic pressure. This additional pressure component is equivalent to the pressure of the sloshing water on the tank roof as calculated in SCE report numbers M-DSC-269 and M-DSC-280 (see Section 10.3 in either report). This total hydrostatic pressure was then applied to the tank shell in the finite element model to calculate the hoop stresses in the 1 tank shell. ' 1 (3) What is the sloshing component number (i.e., sloshing component magnitude used in the sloshing component analysis)? Response: l The total pressure in the tank, used to calculate the hoop stress in the tank wall for fracture mechanics analysis, consists of two components: l (a) The hydrostatic pressure with the tank filled to its maximum capacity, and (b) The water sloshing component of 3.29 psi added to the hydrostatic pressure component. This value is based on DBE conditions. Refer to the detailed report, Section 10.3, for the calculation of the equivalent sloshing pressure. l (4) In the responses sent to Dave Jeng, what is the Summary Report referred to? (Is it the same as the draft Summary Report provided to Mr. Jeng at his audit?) l
1 . l l
Response
The responses to Mr. Jeng's questions which refer to the Summary Report i reference the final Summary Report which is provided as Enclosure 3. The final Summary Report replaces the draft Summary Report given to Mr. Jeng at the Makeup Tank Audit meeting. (5) With regard to the hoop stresses, what were the added values of the pressure component? Response: I See response to question number 3 above. (6) Provide the reasons why Edison performed the code reconciliation to the 1989 code and not to the 1978 code.
Response
The tank was re-evaluated to perform a new function other than the original function. A recent Code was considered more appropriate as basis for the evaluation. l (7) Perform an analysis to address specifically the flaw acceptability for l the normal plus upset (non-faulted) PPMUT stress condition. l
Response
The analysis is attached. The analysis shows that the margin of safety remains acceptable (i.e., above three) for the normal plus upset (non-faulted) PPMUT stress condition. l l (8) Perform an analysis for the PPMUT worst flaw.
Response
See attached analysis. The maximum horizontal flaw is 4.875 inches. The maximum vertical flaw is 4.375 inches. The 95%/95% flaw was evaluated as a vertical flaw 3.5 inches in length. Each of these flaws was assessed and found to have a margin of safety which is greater than three regardless of whether the margin of safety is based on Generic ; Letter 90-05 or KIA (the crack arrest stress intensity factor). l Therefore the margin of safety remains acceptable. (9) Are the Unit 2 and Unit 3 PPMUT upgrades similar?
Response
The original design and construction of the Unit 2 and the Unit 3 PPMUTs were the same. The Unit 2 and Unit 3 PPMUT upgrades are similar. Both the analysis methods (non-destructive examination, statistical analysis, fracture mechanics analysis, and seismic analysis) and construction criteria for the Units 2 and 3 PPMUT upgrades are the same. i l
Attachment (Responses to Questions 7 and 8) Normal / Upset Flaw Evaluation The fracture mechanics evaluation for the ncrrc.al/ upset flaw evaluation will be conservatively
' "~ ' performed by using the faulted loads and comp . ring against normal / upset allowables. The following analysis steps summarize this fracture mechanics evaluation:
- 1. Identification of the Boundine Flaw Size (Unit-2 vs Unit-3)
Per radiographic examination results (References 2 and 3), the following are the . bounding flaw for Unit-2 PPMS tank (T-056) and Unit-3 PPMS tank (T055): ' Flaw Size, Flaw Size, Unit-2 PPMS Tank Unit-3 PPMS Tank (inch) (inch) l 95% - 95% flaw. 1.625 3.5 size (all flaws) inaximum horizontal 4.875 4.5 flaw (flaw No. G2-3) (flaw No. R4H3) maximum vertical 4.375 3.25 flaw (flaw No. R3V5) (flaw No. RIV5) The flaw designation numbers in the table above are shown in Figure 1 for Unit-2 and Figure 2 for Unit-3. The location of each of these flaws are also shown in these two figures. Based on the above comparison, the bounding evaluations were performed for the following flaws: (a) Flaw size = 3.5" representing the flaw with 95% confidence that 95% of the flaw population will be smaller. This flaw is conservatively evaluated as a vertical through wall crack subjected to the maximum faulted hoop stress in the tank of 15.9 ksi per Figure 3 (same as Figure 5.8 of Reference 1), (b) Horizontal flaw size = 4.875". This flaw size bounds all horizontal flaws in both tanks, and it will be evaluated using a through wall crack model and the maximum axial stress in the tank wall of 5.3 ksi per Reference 1, (c) Vertical flaw size = 4.375". This Unit-2 flaw is located in the third row as shown in Figure 1. Conservatively, a through wall crack model was used in 1
. . - . , , - - = -
the fracture mechanics analysis. This crack is subjected to a hoop stress of 13.6 ksi at the crack location (see Figure 3). This flaw is bounding based on i its size. The second largest vertical crack lies in the first row where the hoop stress is insignificant. Also, largest second row cracks are enveloped by case (a) above. Stress intensity factor results were compared with the allowable Ki =135 ksi/ inch obtained from Generic Letter 90-05 for stainless steel. This allowable is consistentl with the lower bound fracture toughness property used in Sgtion XI of the ASME ' Code. Results were also compared with Ka = 125.86 ksi/ inch (80% of K ic=157.32 ksi/ inch per the Summary Report). Using the acceptance criteria given in Section i XI, Subsection 1WB-3640 as a guideline, the flaw is acceptable if a margin of I safety =3 exists under Normal / Upset conditions.
- 2. Flaw Evaluation Results 1
The fracture mechanics evaluation program PCCRACK was used to perform the evaluation for the following cases: (a) Vertical 3.5" flaw representing 95% confidence that 95% of the flaw population is smaller. Results of the evaluation are given in Attachment A. Kr = 40.54 ksi/ inch Factor of safety (based on GL 90-05) = 135/40.54 = 3.33 [O.K.] Factor of safety (based on Ka) = 125.86/40.54 = 3.10 [O.K.] (b) Horizontal 4.875" flaw (flaw No. G2-3). Results of the evaluation are given in Attachment B. K 3= 14.9 ksi/ inch l Factor of safety (based on GL 90-05) = 135/14.96 = 9.02 [O.K.] I Factor of safety (based on Ka) = 125.86/14.96 = 8.41 [O.K.] (c) Vertical 4.375" flaw (flaw No. R3 V5). The hoop stress at the flaw elevation is 14.3 ksi. Results of the evaluation are given in Attachment C. K3 = 40.7 ksi/ inch Factor of safety (based on GL 90-05) = 135/40.7 = 3.31 [O.K.] Factor of safety (based on Ka) = 125.86/40.7 = 3.09 [O.K.] It should be noted that in the above Normal / Upset evaluation, faulted loads were conservatively used. Based on the above results,it is concluded that applicable allowables are met. 2
G2-3 R3 VS
~
C O . or . r h .
/ R0W4 n -
J - X r E ' L F . 7 VERT. T n t t 4 1 k- s mirars
, , g~' ' 40-107 so-t 20~+ 40 i 20 fEi!'Il O Honsr.
'E ,EZ ESI Nc
.U H
+ r g
hich' g- 'a j " 7 4 ROW 3 7 vgnr. A T t
/ t'
7acants T -'sao- e- t 3o4# *,. 4 i s. M if r .
'- 9.(
N 48" 2hf " age 20 io[El!Z ele A s uonir' R0W2 o ~ f ?' 1 . ND 1 { 9 3 f 7 VERT t E 5 3O I g665 30 40' 7 JOINTS 10t - hs 7;gc; 3 da 40*t ' w --gIE ,a *gia}---gg}- 4 gig _gIII}-gjut-gg}-gj[i}- AgiggIg}-{gr3L s Honir. n '
+ s 4- 4 +,o + d' r 4
. y 48 R0W1 F 7 VERT.
1 -
. 't" l ..-
4I 45 i 4
- 4. ; O OlNTS as- 40- 3s. ss- 4s* 2de>"- so- 7 Honiz.
2 3 4 .s- 6 7 l i . 2 t
"htst M WA Figure 1 Unit-2 PPMS Tank Radiographic Examination Map
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ___.__________.______________________.___________-_________________m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
? -
.i R4H3 l .. I T.1 1.., lhiTr't 1.f T.i J4 l 1. e II I l- 1,
-.. I I _.-
m i -.m n
.TJ T-
. . =_P,e
..... T-
- i.--_ . . . --
-~?- . -
[ 1. N 1 Ih. 2
's= gp., .
1.1 i 1....
~ [.
E, i....
}._el .
I: JiirP I ,.t2,.. rd * ..In~ P 1,.--.a.' . ni . 'I m .:-r , ,... 1 [m- j p- . p -- ljf..f-~
- I. . 1.y ~ i e
I T. l1 .... , ...i._,I-. .
.T.
- - 1.)
m . , in- :P .. ... =l .e .. . . . . - e.[ .m . 1 _fa .ui ml, ;-
~; y ,c ~.
5= .-r na..:r -> v n.k. p . ;- yI-. . l-. IL..il ,
. 11 r -
lTf ',l
- I f -"
l
,0 t.l l-. '
I' tl L-( .
%ci n w.
RW5 Figure 2 Unit-3 PPMS Tank Radiographic Examination Map
O s
!. . l c
8 1 0 -
) W is MS -
l cNV t c3
+
6 oR c ' 5 1 l l 3b l h e S
- k T
n a e ht
)
. n 0d i 1 n n o
i t u u o b
~
p i r T ( i t s w l f e s D s s e r o a S t w r ' 5e p p o r l S o t o l c n H r a Q ~: c 3
" 1
'! e ._ "
e 6 d 4 s 6 1 r u 1 / - / g
/ 1 i 3 7 F 9' 4 b 4 ~54- 0 J; ' , /
3 7 ///s a~
- - - - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 2 1 Ta[
- ht noh u
1
\
References
- 1. Summary Report," Primary Plant Make Up Storage Tank Upgrade, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3," October 1995
- 2. SCE calculation No. M-DSC-280, Revision 1," SONGS 2 Primary Plant Make Up Storage Tank Upgrade."
- 3. SCE calculation No. M-DSC-269, Revision 0," SONGS 3 Primary Plant Make Up Storage Tank Upgrade."
l 4 1 I I 1 1 1 6
.i 6 i Attachment A to Normal / Upset Flaw Evaluation PCCRACK Results for 3.5" Vertical Crack i (95% - 95% Flaw Size) 1 1
. _ _ . . .. .~ - .- - - . . - - - - - --
tm pc-CRACK e (C) COPYRIGHT 1984, 1990 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200
- VERSION 2.1
! DiiE:"22-Jul-199'3
- Time: 18:27:11.99 l
! LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATION l 1 l < l tS6 T l j i crack model:THROUGH WALL AXIAL CRACK IN PRESSURIZED CYLINDER j . - WALL THICCTESS (t) = 0.2500 , O W ER DIAMETER (OD)= 480.0000 '
- ~-
i CASE ID STRESS j 1 15.9000 l .. ) k CRACK -----CASE ----STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR---------------- ' SIZE I 1. O.1000 8.943 '
'12.693 0.2000 O.3000 15.605 0.4000 18.092 .
0.5000 20.312 0.6000 22.347 . 0.7000 24.247 0.8000 26.042 0.9000 27.756 1.0000 29.403 ,. 1.1000 30.996 , 1.2000 32.544 1.3000 34.056
. 1.4000 35.536 1.5000 36.991 1.6000 38.424 #
1.7000 1.8000 39.840 4 hq(f 41.240 y/*_ g / p d l g O { h = f.7 6 __. K 'C . 4o.54 ksidInch 1.9000 42.627 -- 2.0000 44.005 2.1000 45.374 2.2000 2.3000 46.737 48.095 ($g[l gg/,._ qf[ cra leDW 3. 5 ") 2.4000 49.450 2.5000 50.802 13 5 3.33 F- S . : --
..w.
40 54 8
I e , Attachment B to Normal / Upset Flaw Evaluation PCCRACK Results for 4.875" Horizontal Crack 2 J
o tm pc-CRACK i ) (C) COPYRIGHT 1984, 1990 ' STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC. SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 2.1 Dd di'25-Jan-1996 Time: 15:54:59.26 LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATION i 1 cvaluation of flaw G2-3 in the PPMS tank - T056 I crack model:THROUGH WALL CIRC. CRACK IN CYLINDER UNDER TENSION AND' BENDING WALL THICKNESS (t) = 0.1875
, l OUTER DIAMETER (OD)= 480.0000 POISSON RATIO = 0.3000 APPLIED STRESSES: 1 CASE,.ID MEMBRANE BENDING 1 0.0000 5.3000 1/7 CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR---------------- 1 SIZE CASE 1
0.1000 2.971 0.2000 4.202 0.3000 5.147 0.4000 5.945 0.5000 6.648 0.6000 7.286 0.7000 7.873 0.8000 0.9000 8.421 8.937 [ $ _ {1 Q[gg3 5
- - k .O b 1.0000 9.427 1.1000 9.895 1.2000 10.343 1.3000 10.774 1.4000 11.191 -
1.5000 11.596 1.6000 11.989 , 1.7000 12.372 1.8000 12.745 1.9000 13.111 2.0000 13.469 2.1000 13.821 2.2000 14.166 2.3000 14.506 ff
-->[ 4 [ 84 4: ha$ crock Iajth = 2.t375 .- K 3 p eW.($lul\(inf 2.6000 15.497 2.7000 15.820 (( CTctCg.,
f f u th) =r /f.$7$' !g_p j jnch} lo
l 4
) l l
i 1 < l l 1 l l , Attachment C to Normal / Upset Flaw Evaluation
- PCCRACK Results for 4.375" Vertical Crack 1,
l 1 4 0 l l l i 3 I i f
k tm pc-CRACK
' (C) COPYRIGHT 1984, 1990 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
SAN JOSE, CA (408)978-8200 VERSION 2.1 Date+ BO-Jan-1996 I Time: 12:13:13.23
)
LINEAR ELASTIC FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALUATION i evaluation of flaw r3v5 in the ppms tank - t -056 ' 1 crack model:THROUGH WALL AXIAL CRACK IN PRESSURIZED CYLINDER WALL THICKNESS (t) = 0.1875 OUTER DIAMETER (OD)= 480.0000 . CASE ID STRESS 1 13.6000 l/7 CRACK ---------------STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR------ ---- ------ SIZE CASE 1 0.1000 7.653 0.2000 10.870 0.3000 13.373 0.4000 15.514 0.5000 O'.6000 17.432 19.195 PS= d$ -
- -33i 0.7000 0.8000 20.845 22.409
%. '/2 4 0.9000 23.906 l 1.0000 25.350 1.1000 26.752 1.2000 28.119 1.3000 29.457 1.4000 30.773 1.5000 32.070 1.6000 33.352 1.7000 34.622 1.8000 35.883 1.9000 37.136 2.0000 38.385 2
a :1ggg 39:g;< h m - a 6ses= 2.r875
- 888 2.5000
- U 44.599 CM c~k t p. 417s")g= 4o.72.k 2.6000 45.844 2.7000 47.093 2.8000 48.345 '
2.9000 49.602}}