ML20101J840
| ML20101J840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1984 |
| From: | Woolever E DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 2NRC-4-212, NUDOCS 8412310146 | |
| Download: ML20101J840 (9) | |
Text
'
$VL 2NRC-4-212 (412)787 - 5141 Tefecopy Nuclear Construction Division December 21, 1984 Robinson Plaza, Building 2, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Mr. George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch 3 Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Responses to NRC Structural Engineering Sections's Draft SER Open and Confirmatory Items Gentlemen:
A t tached are the responses to the following confirmatory items related to the NRC Structural Engineering Section:
SRP 3.8.1 (Audit Action Item 10)
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 28)
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 27)
These responses are being submitted in accordance with our letter 2NRC-4-207, dated December 17, 1984, wh ich scheduled these res pons es for submittal by December 21, 1984.
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY f-By p
E. Q. Goolever Vice President JD0/wjs Attachment cc:
Mr. B. K. Singh, Project Manager (w/a) ph Mr. G. Walton, NRC Resident Inspector (w/a) i I
SUBSCRIBED AND 4 WORN TO BEFORE ME THIS g [ DAY OF d }/nm tu
- 1904' c
AJ1L U.
' Notary Public ANITA ELAINE REITER, NOTARI FUBLIC ROBINSON TOWNSHIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTI MY COMM!SS:CN EXP!3ES OCTOBER 20, INA 9412310146 841221 PDR ADOCK 05000 E
Unitsd Stcteo Nucisar Rsgulatory Commission Mr. Grorge W. Knighton, Chief Page 2 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
)
SS:
C0i1NTY OF ALLEGHENY
-)
On this J/
day of h
// /
, before me, a Notary Public in and for said Commonwealth and County, personally appeared E.
J. Woolever, who being duly sworn, deposed and said that (1) he is Vice President of Duquesne Light, (2) he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing Submittal on behalf of said Company, and (3) the statements set forth in the Submittal are true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
xA QL 1
~
Notary Public ANITA ELAINE f,'EITER, NOTARY PUBLIC ROB!NSON TOWNSHIP, ALLEGHENY COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXP!RES OCTOBER 20,1986
SRP 3.8.1 (Audit Action item 10)
For different load cat egory, use direct comparison to show that BV-2 meets the criteria of liner strain allowable and the liner anchor allow-able as specified in ASME Division 2 Tables CC-3720-1 and CC-3730-1, res pe ct ively.
Response
This response supplements our response to NRC Structural Design Audit Action item 10 provided in letter 2NRC-4-080, dated June 15, 1984, and c
is being provided in accordance with our November 30, 1984, meeting with the NRC Structural Engineering Section.
Table 10.1 and Figures 10.1 and 10.2 provide the comparison of the BVPS-2 containment liner anchor allowables and Table 10.2 provides the comparison of the BVPS-2 containment liner strain allowables with those of ASME III, Division 2.
The following is a discussion of the anchor stud comparison:
As shown on Table 10.1 and Figures 10.1 and 10.2, the BVPS-2 design allowables are less than Division 2 for displacement limited loads but are gr eater than Division 2 for mechanical loads.
- The mechanical loads used in the BVPS-2 anchor stud designs are envelope loads based on the la rges t absolute number of each force or noment. component that was considered in the equipment or piping suppo rt design.
This approach conservatively encom-passes the worst case load.
Therefore, only one analysis of mechanical loads is performed in the liner design.
Based upon the cons ervative ly developed envelope design loads used on BVPS-2, the design is considered comparable to the requirements of Division 2 and to have adequate design margins.
- Note for Table 10.1 6
~
TABLE 10.1 LINER ANCHOR ALLOWABLE COMPARISON DISPIACEMENT LIMITED LOADS CATEGORY DIVISION 2 BVPS-2 j
Service ta =0.25 Ku Sa=0.185u*
Faccored la=0.5 Su Sa=0.188u*
MECHANICAL LOADS CATEGORY DIVISION 2 BVPS-2 Service Fa=0.67 Fy Fa=0.33 Fu Tension Fa= 0.9Fu (0.75Fu*)
Factored Fa=0.9Fy (0.9Fy*)
=
Fa=0.5Fu Shear Fa=0.857u (0.63Fu*)
(0.76Fy*)
=
ia,- Allowable Displacement Sis-Ultimate Displacement Fa - Allowable Load Fu - Ultimate Load Fy - Yield Load
- Based on figures 1 & 16 of "Embedment Properties of Headed Studs," TRW Nelson.
- See previous page l ---
a gf na c.
.e 8
g.<
f g
.g tr <
T f
~
i re-m g-r.
o.or o.to C.!s"-
c.2e i
Displacemmat (4acham) l i
I
(
A = Taaston alloumbia for BVPS-2 (0.75Fu=0.9Fy) s 3.C. = Division 2 allowables for displacemmat 14=4ead loads h= Ultimata displacemmat based on TIN Nelson. Figure 1 Notes from "Embedmont 7sepssies of Headed Studs "
Figure 1. TIN Naison.
i Figure 10.1 Tension vs. Displacement for 5/8-inch Diameter Scud Beaver Valley Power Station l
w, Unit 2 1
~~ ~~ '
~~
- - ~ ~ - - - -
- - - ~..... _ _.. _. _, _. _. _
(
gg.,
r to..
2 E
of D
=
8 ta <
T g
(
a.I 0W 0.eC
' 6.10
- /f AJD Displacement (inehas)
I D => Shese allouable for IYPS-1 (0.63Fu=0.76Fy) e E.T'= Division 1 allouables for displacement-limited loads
= Ultimate displacement based on TIIrNelson. Figura 16 Notes From "Imbedmont Properties of nn And Scuda,"
rigure 16. TIli Nelson.
Figura 10.2 Shear vs. Displacement for 5/8-inch Diameter Scud Beaver Valley Power Scacion Unic 2 1
t
4 TABLE 10.2 j
L ---
UNER LOAD COMBINADON AND STRESS / STRAIN COMPARISON 1
CAT E GORY LOAD COMBINATIONE STRAIN ALLOWASLES DeVIS60tl 2 SV PS-2 DIVISION 2 SVf5 -2 D8V1510N 2 SVPS-2 SE RVICE TE5T TEST del +/e 5 eTg D+Pk*L MEMSRANE Esc
- O.002 bilbi HEMBRAtE gn.O 9 S.0.00t9 hva y
MEM + 9ENDING. Esc
- O.004 infin MEMe BENDING g* g=L355y.
.O.OD29mlin del /.T NOTE (1)
MEMSRANE f,g.fsc* Ipy NOTE (1)
Coll 5T HUCTION o
MEM. 6ENDfMG Q
- isc
- fIPy Oe Le fe Tg toe 4 D + P.. T. 555 e L, %
MEMBRANE Eg. E c. 0.002milin MEMBRANE Sm' O.OOO8infin
]
NORMAL NORMAL e
ICyclic)
P,(100s
,Q400cys
$5E MEM e SENDING E,g
- Esc.O004 anten MEM. SENDING 1.5 Sm ODOt2r. fin I
W MEM. BE ND8NG. PEAK 35m '
D e L e /eTg, E R *%
Delhtgeh55E.LeR, a
SEVERE SEVERE g
.O.OO24 4nf an ENVIHONMENTAL OPERATIONAL Fe.T@E FER NS 3222.4(d)OR(e)
DePhinTminhSEEeLeRo
, Dele [. tom +Ro o
ePy FACTORE D
~~*
~~*
Esc NS Mn SEVERE EMERGENCY
' De Le /+ To+ Ep Ro. Pw 0 + Pg e Tg* ESE, L.R.
MEMME a
Est.0.003 infin ENV8RONMENTAL j
D.Le/.Te/eSg,'Py MEM e SENDING Coc'O.014Infin' Eng* 0LOtO intin
'D+ Le /. To* Ese+ Ro N e
ExTHEME ENVnRotedt.N15.L De Le[ To.M eRo N e
1
' O e L e!* %. T. R.
De g e Tg*55E e Le Sg ABHORMAL Dele /eg eT Se
)
i ABNORMAL
' D6 L e[* Po.To* Eo *Re
- 5EVERE
- 0. L. /. g. Te*
- p
'I ENVIRO #NENTAL i
. D. L. /. Y,. E..E.g /e N.
D. q,. Yg e SSE e L e Ng D e L. / g +Te* Ese* Re* Rr D* % eTg.55E e LeRe'#r ABtK* MAL
- EXT REME 1
ENVIRONMENTAL
REFERENCES:
TABLE CC-32301 1960 EDITION CONSTRUCTION LOADE WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS A LOADING COMAINATION FOR SVP5-2.
TASLE CC-3720 1 1980 EDITION (1)
THE BVPS-2 8.INER Wh5 $UPPORTED TO REstST DISTORTION OR COLLAP5E DURING CONSTRUCTION
]
SV WIND BRAQMS WHICH WAS sww.adED PER INDUSTRY STANDARD API-SSO.
SVPS-2 FSAR TAaLE 3.8-9 e
SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 28)
Clarification is needed to explain why the effects of Ta are of no impo rt ance.
You have indicated in your thermal transient analysis that thermal strain = 0.001 and concrete allowable strain = 0.003.
Response
This response supplements our response to NRC Structural Design Audit Action Item 28 provided in letter 2NRC-4-047, dated A pril 27, 1984, and is being provided in accordance with our November 30, 1984, meeting with the NRC Structural Engineering Section.
The following are the results of a calculation which demonstrates that the relatively thin outer layer of concrete that is heated by the t rans ient effects of the temperature term (Ta) will have negligible ef fect on the overall strength of the concrete section.
A radial wall in the steam ge ne rato r cubicle was chosen to use as a basis for comparison.
This wall is 36 inches thick and is reinforced with No.11 rebar spaced 6 inches on center. The design forces for this cross-section are 142 kips /f t axial tension and 169 f t-kip /f t bending 3
moment.
To bound the ef fect s, the full section was assumed to be reduced by the depth of signific ant temperature penet rat ion, resulcing in reduced nominal capacity (that is, the section was conservatively reduced by 0.4 inches).
It is demonstrated in the following table that the effect of Ta on overall section capacity is in fact negligible.
SECTION CAPACITY COMPARISON
- DESIGN AXIAL DESIGN MDMENT FULL SECTION REDUCED SECTION ** DIFFERENCE TENSION (KIP /FT) (FT-KIP /FT)
MOMENT CAPACITY MOMENT CAPACITY (Mf)(FT-KIP /FT) (Mr)(FT-KIP /FT)
(%)
14 2 169 265 260 2%
- Axial tension held constant
- Dif ference = [(Mf-Mr)/Mf] (100) 7
8 SRP 3.8.3 (Audit Action Item 27)
(1) ABS of _ two seismic components vs. SRSS of three seismic components on polar crane. Need to show ABS is equally conservative as SRSS.
(2) Use the input from SRP 3.7.3.A, B in (1)
Response
This res ponse supplements our res pons e to NRC t e ructural Design Audit '
Action Item 27 provided in le tter 2NRC-4-018, dated February 27, 1984, and is being provided in accordance with our November 30, 1984, meet ing with the NRC Structural Engineering Section.
The following sn==m ry demonstrates that 2D-ABd analysis is actually more conservat ive than the 3D-SRSS analys is for the polar crane.
These stress results are for the center of span of the main bridge girder.
The 3D-SRSS stress is based on a calculation that shows that the girder is well within rigid range in longitudinal direction and also, because of the simplicity of the structure, the cross-coupling effect of seismic loads is not a significant f ac to r.
4 This comparison was made utilizing the qualification levels and design criteria for BVPS-2.
The 2D-ABS analytical results show the following:
REPORTED-STRESS ALLOWABLE STRESS OBE CONDITION 17.73 KSI 27.0 KSI SSE CONDITION 23.73 KSI 36.0 KSI Allowable-Actual l
% Margin = 100 x 3
,7 For OBE Condition: Margin = 52%
For SSE Condition: Margin = 52%
The 3D-SRSS analytical results show'the following:
REPORTED STRESS ALLOWABLE STRESS OBE CONDITION 16.52 KSI 27.0 KSI SSE CONDITION 21.35 KSI 36.0 KSI A llowable-Ac tual
% Margin = 100 x Actual For OBE Condition:
Margin = 63%
For SSE Condition: Margin = 69%
I n
+
.n n.n,n,
,.,.,..m--,,
-,._,.n.,.,,-.
,--,.,,----.n,..
,-+-,.n,,
... - - - -.