ML20116L492
| ML20116L492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05200001 |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1992 |
| From: | Fox J GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Hou S NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211180338 | |
| Download: ML20116L492 (37) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
,f3 -Ob l I
t November 16, 1992 Shou Nien liou 7F21 U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1155 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
Dear Shou:
Attached is a copy of our report " Sample Analysis for the Effect of Postulated Pipe Break ABWR Main Steam Piping" by II.L. Ilwang.
This report provides a sample pipe break analysis and addresses all remaining SSAR issues raised during your audit of the ABWR SSAR regarding postulated pipe ruptures.
Although we consider the y
t:chnical content of this report to be firm and complete, the internal GE review has not yet been completed and the final format of the report is still ander discussion.
For these reasons the report is marked " Preliminary '.
It will be issued in final form following the incorporation of GE and NRC comments.
If you have any questions, please call me (408-925-4824) or 11enry liwang (408-925-1984).
j Sincerely, l
ek N. Fox Advanced Reactor Programs cc:
Chet Posiusny'(NRC)
Paul Chen (ETEC)
Ken Jaguay (ETEC) 1 9211180338 921116 i
ga(-
PDR-ADOCK.05200001 s
voR
J \\1]V )
}
cc E O Swain, M Herzog S J Lin, R Patel J Fox J
SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR THE EFFECT OF POSTULATED PIPE BREAK ABWR MAIN STEAM PIPING PREPARED BY :
H L Hwang VERIFIED BY S J Lin APPROVED BY :
R Patel
?
I
i LIST OF CONTENTS l
ABSTRACT.
1.0 INTRODUCTIO!1 2.0 : DESCRIPTION OF PIPE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION ANALYSIS 3.0 A11SYS NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS 4.0 STRESS ANALYSIS
5.0 CONCLUSION
S
6.0 REFERENCES
1 A.
l ABSTRACT This report documents the results of a special pipe break analysis performed at the request of the NRC on a GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) main steam line following a postulated break in the main steam line where it connects to the reactor pressure vessel norzle.
It supports the ABWR Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) and supplements Appendix "G" of the SSAR, "Proceduro for Evaluation of Postulated Ruptures in High Energy Pipos."
This special pipe break analysis provides a sample of a GE pipe break analysis.
It also addresses the following specific issues and questions regarding the GE methodology that have been raised by the NRC during their audit of the SSAR. These issues and questions are as follows:
(1)
Document GE procedure for calculating the forcing functions for line segments of a ruptured pipe and for the thrust force at break location.
(2)
Document GE procedure for performing the nonlinear time-history analysis of the ruptured pipo using the ANSYS computer program.
(3)
Show compliance with ASME III, Equation (9) stress linit set by SRP 3.6.2 (MEB 3-1) for the containment piping following a postulated pipe rupture.
~
(4)
Provide justification for the 0.001 time step used by CE in the ANSYS time-history analysis.
(5)
Show that GE methodology based on the simplifying assumption of no rotation of the thrust force at the pipe break is valid for predicting stresses in the containment piping.
(6)
Show the use of the GE program,
- pDA, provides a satisfactory basis for selecting the size of the pipe whip restraint.
The report documents the results of the sample analyses performed and contains the following conclusions:
(1)
The pipe break location that results in the highest-stresses in the containment pipe is the postulated break at the 1
connection of the main steam pipe to RPV nozzle.
l l
(2)
The ASME III, Equation (9) stresses in the containment area of the main steam pipe following a pipe rupture at the RPV nozzle are below the SRP 3.6.2 limit of 2.25 Sm limit even though several very conservative assumptions were made in the calculations to the minimize cost and time of performing nonlinear time-history analysis.
Examples of conservatism are that no credit is taken fort (a) the restraining offects of snubbers on main steam liner (b) the restraining effects of SRV branch lines; (c) the tower pressure in main steam pipe immediately following a pipo rupture.
(3)
Decreasing the time step from 0.001 seconds to 0.005 seconda has insignificant offect on results, proving convergence of the AliSYS solution with the GE analytical assumption of 0.001 seconds.
(4)
The maximum pipe stress in the containment area pipe does not increase due to rotation of the thrust force at the pipe rupture location.
This shows that the GE nonlinear analysis based no rotation of the thrust force is valid.
(5)
The GE computer program, PDA, provides a satisfactory basis for selecting the size of the pipe whip restraints.
l l
a 2
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This analysis report is to present the sample analysis to evaluate the effects of the postulated pipe break at the ABWR main steam pipe nozzle at the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) to the pipe stresses between the inboard and the outboard Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV). The reason to choose this break for analysis is because this break is likely to create the maximum stress for the pipe between the containment isolation valves.
When pipe break is postulated at the Safety Relief Discharge pipe branch connections to the main steam pipes, the break area is only about 1/10 of the main steam pipe break area at the RPV nozzle. The thrust force is much smaller at the branch connection than the force at the main steam nozzle.
When the break is postulated at the feedwater nozzle, the break is 12" pipe and the feedwater header to the isolation valve is 22".
The
- break area is less than 1/3 of th9 head pipe area. Therefore, the pipe stresses between the isolation 'alves due to the feedwater water nozzle break is less severe than the main steam nozzle break.
The analysia for the postulated main steam pipe break analysis is presented in this report. The analysis includes forcing function calculations and the nonlinear dynamic analysis.
The result of the analysis show that the stresses between the MSIV's meet SRP 3.6.2 stress limit (2.25Sm).
2.0 : DESCRIPTION OF PIPE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION ANALYSIS 2.1 Description The steam flows from RPV to turbine du'ing normal operation. When the postulated pipe break occurs at the RPV nozzle safe end or at the first elbow, the steam flows back to the-break. A decompression wave starts at the break location and propagates through the whole main steam pipe to create force time histories on each pipe segment.
In order to calculate the force time histories, Turbine stop Valve Closure Force (TSFOR) program is modified to perform the calculation.
TSFOR is an Engineering Computer. Program (ECP) program.to calculate the pipe 'agment force time histories dua to tofh(ne stop _ valve closure. The prnoram is described in NEDE-23789. The boundary conuition of this program is modified to calculate the pipe segment force time histories due to the postulated pipe break of the main steam pipe at the RPV nozzle. This report describes the modifications and the procedures to calculate the force time histories.
.3
l j
1 2.2 Program Modifications The back flow can be computed by applying the. break boundary j
condition to the vessel side of the main steam pipe as shown-below (Reference 1).
p/po (2/ (K+1) ) * * ( 2K/K-1) = 0.28
=
<j>/C0
= (2/ (K+1)) = 0.86
< rho >/ (rho 0) = (2/(K+1))**(2/(K-1)) = 0.40
- whore, p
= steam pressure at the break exit, psia l
p0 = stagnation pressure, psia 1
<j> = discharge velocity at the break exit, ft/sec CO
' sonic velocity at the stagnation condition rho = steam density at the exit, lbm/ft^3 rho O = stagnation density, Ibm /f t^3 An executable program file, called MS-BRK, have been set up to calculate the pipe segment forces due to the postulated break. The 4
program calculate the force for a closed system only. The method of the analysis is the same as described in the ANS-58.2. The thrust f-Itime history for he discharge pipe, which is an open pipe,
~
se calculated in accordance with ANS-58.2.
.J Application of M8-BRK Program 2.3.1 Pipe 8egment Time Histories (Excluding the Break Pipe segment)
Set up the input exactly the same as the TSFOR. input-~which is
~
described in NEDE-23789. The MS-BRK used the pipe break boundary.
condition for the analysis. No user input boundary condition is needed.
3 2.3.2 Pipa Segment Time. Histories for the Break Pipe segment-I Let the length of the first pipe segment.with the break be L ft.'The time for the pressure wave to; travel through'the'first pipe segment, i
tl,.is-t1 = L/C For t.< t1 F = PA
-For t 1 t1 F = 0.70 PA 0.7 PA = 373,570-lb
-Usually-tl, a very short period, is only' abo t 0.0031sec.
To the-analysis of ths-stresses between MSIV's it is aequate'using 0.70 PA for-the first> pipe segment. However, the sample.. problem analysis--
includes.the force. equal to PA>for 0.003-seconds.
m Y
?'
'L.
.i
The determination of the 0.70 is based on the friction effect of the steady blowdown force, (Ref. 2):
FL/ D = 0. 0 Force = 1.26 PA FL/ D = 2. 5 Force = 0.70 PA The FL/D includes the friction from pipe break to the turbine, plus the friction through MSIV's and steam supply through the other three pipes from RPV. The overall FL/D is 2. 5.
2.4 Analysio Steps The following steps can be used to generate the pipe segment force time histories due to main steam pipe break at the nozzle safe-end.
- 1) Prepare the TSFOR01 input deck.
Create a PERM file to save force time histories.
- 2) Select the following file to run instead of TSFOR01 :
SELECT FS 0027/HLH/MS-BRK-R
- 3) Down load the time histories to PC (ASCII).
- 4) Run MS-DRK-R to convert the force time histories to ANSYS input format.
- 5) Append the output from MS-BRK-A to the ANSYS input model.
- 6) RUN ANSYS.
Details of Steps 3 through 6 are included in ANSYS Analysis Procedures.
2.5 Foroing Function Calculation Results Example of the output plots are shown in the following figures:
Figure A-1 : Force time history for broken pipe segment Figure A-2 : Force time history for 2nd pipe segment Figure A-3 : Force time history for 3rd pipe segment Figure A-4 : Force time history for 4th pipe segment Figure A-5 : Force time histor' for 5th pipe segment Figure A-6 : Force time history for 6th pipe segment Figure A-7 : Force time history for 7th pipe segment Figure A-8 : Force time history for 8th pipe segment f
t 3.0 ANSYS NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS 3.1 Analysis Nodel 1
The pipe break non-linear time history analysis can be performed by ANSYS program. The selection of the input are described as follows:
Analysis : KAN=4 Plastic pipe : use STIF 20 Plastic 01 bows use STIF 60 Pipo whip restraint : use STIF 39 The main steam guido is important to reduce the pipe stresses between the MSIV's. The guido is modeled as two spring elements.
3.2 Analysis Tike step In order to show that the analysis time stop 0.001 second is
- adequate, an analysis with time step of 0.0005 second has been performod. The results of the analysis are plotted in the following figures. Comparisons of the results between 0.001 sec and 0.0005 see timo step showed that the differences are loss than 3%. Therefore, timo stop of 0.001 sec can be used in the future analysis.
Figure 1-1 : ANSYS analysis modol-element plot.
Figure 1-2 : ANSYS analysis model-nodal plot.
Figure 2 : Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec
( max impact =670,000 lb)
Figure 3 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at elm. 2I, at albow near break Figure 4 : Displacement timo histories. DT=0.001 sec at the break location Figure 5 : Moment time history at headfitting, (Elm 42J)
DT=0.001 sec.
Figure 6 Force-time histories at headfitting.
(Elm 42J)
DT=0.001 sec Figure 7 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec at elm 22J, before main steaa guide Figure 8 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec at elm 42I, near headfitting i
Figure 9 : Bending momant time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at Elm 38I, 1st alm after MSIV.
L l
(s
1 i
Figure 2A: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.0005 sec (0.7PA=373,600 lb, max impact =670,000 lb)
Figure 3As Bonding moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec.
at elm. 2I, at elbow near break 5
Figure 4A Displacement timo histories. DT=0.0005 sec at the break location i
Figure 5A Moment time history at headfitting, (Elm 42J)
DT=0.0005 sec.
Figure 6A Force time histories at headfitting.
(Elm 42J)
DT=0.0005 sec Figure 7A Donding moment time histories. DT=0.0005 see at elm 22J, before main steam guide Figure 8A Bending moment time histories. DT=0.0005 see at elm 42I, near headfitting 3.3 Discussion of Large Displacement Analyses The displacements from the terminal end Main Steam Break Structure (MSBS) analysis (using ANSYS) results show large displacements and rotation at the break. The thrust direction changes during the ovent which could affect the stress in the " Holy Pipe" area. Therefore, GE has performed time history analyses for the original and displaced position to confirm the validity of the small displacement assumption in the non-linear time history analysis results.
Two displaced analysis la e been performed. The first displaced analysis is to rotate the element at the break to the displaced angle and change the thrust force to the displaced angle. Another analysis is to rotate the pipq element from the break to the pipe whip restraint to be the same as the displaced orientations.
The results of the analysis are shown in the figures below for the first case, which rotate the pipe break element only.
Figure 28: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec (Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 4B: Displacement tino histories. DT=0.001 sec at.the break location (Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 5B4 Moment time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included rotated blowdown angle) 7
Figure 6B Force time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 791 Dending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec at alm 22J, before main steam guide (Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 9B Force time histories at 22J, before main steam guide.
(Included rotated blowdown angle)
The results of the analysis are snown in the figures below for the second case, which rotate the pipe from the break element and the elbow to the pipe whip restraint element. The results are shown in the following figures.
Figure 2C Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 nac (Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Figure SC Moment time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Figure 6C Force time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Figure 9C Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at Elm 38I, 1st elm after MSIV.
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation) l
[
4.0 STRESS ANALYSIS 4.1 Pipe Data Pipe = 28" oD x 1.423" t I=
(28^4 - 25.154^4) x 3.1416/64
= 10520 in*4 Z = 751 in^3 Assume break occurs at normal operation, T=552 dog. F.
Sm = 18,570 psi for SA-350-LF2 (Carbon steel)
Allowable limit = 2.25 Sm
= 41780 psi The maximum bending moment betwoon the MSIV's will be developed about 0.075 second after the break. The decoinpressing wave travels at 1600 ft/sec. It has traveled a distance of 1600xo.075=120 ft when the maximum moment occurs. Therefore, the pressure between the MSIV at the time when the maximum bending moment is developed will be much less than normal operating pressure of 1050 psi. It is conservative to use 1050 psi to calculate the pressure stress.
Sp
= PD/4t
< 1050 x 28/(4x1.423)
5165 psi Weight stress, Swt
1074 psi Sp + Swt = 6239 psi 4.2 Moment and stress Comparisons comparisons of the bending moments and bending stresses at the head titting are as follows.
Results 1 = Using normal procedure with time step 0.001 sec.
Results 2 = Study case with time step 0.0005 sec.
Results 3 = Study case with time step 0.001 sec.
Include rotated. force angle Results 4 = Study case with time stop 0.001 sec.
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Moments and stresses at the headfitting Ma Mb Mc Mr B2 M/Z (E6)
(E6)
(E6)
(E6) psi i
Result 1 15.3 15.0 13.3 25.2 33600 Result 2 15.0 15.0 13.3 25.1 33500 Result 3 20.5 4.5 9.0 22.8 30400 Result 4(a) 22.0 7.2 5.0 23.7 31560 Result 4(b) 19.9 13.0 8.0 25.0 33390 This can be seen that the values calculated from the result 1 is slightly conservative.
From Figure 9, moment time history-plots at element 38I, the first element after MSIV, the maximum bending are as follows:
Elem 38I Ma-Mb Mc Mr 82 M/Z (E6)
(E6)
(E6)
(E6) psi Result 1 15.0 13.0 11.5-23.0 -
30600 Result 4 19.5 8.5 13.0 24.9
-33200 This shows that the maximum stress between isolation ~ valve is at'the headfitting for the analysis with the design-configuration. The combined stress is as follows:
~
Sp + Sw + S break = 5165 + 1074 + 33600
= 39,839 psi Allowable stress = 41,780 psi Stress ratio
= 39839/41780 = 0.954 All the stresses are within the allowable limit of 2.25 Sm.-
4.3 Pipe Whip Restraint Loads as comparison With PDA Results The maximum pipe whip restraint load calculated are. listed below.
Result 670,000 lb l
Result-2 670,000 lb Result.3 650,000 lb Result 4 64 0,000: lb -
PDA 666,727 lb i
i L
-The above results show-that the PDA calculated cons stent result w th ANSYS output. The PDA-analysis is1shown in-Attachment A.'
L. _.-
p L
5.0 CONCLUSION
S
- 1) The maximum combined stress between the MSIV's is 39265 psi. This is below 2.25 Sm allowable limit as specified in SRD 3.6.2.
i The analysis did not include the snubbers on the main steam piping.
Therefore, the analysis is very conservative.
- 2) The maximum stresses between the MSIV's do not increase due to the force direction change as result of the displacements at the break location..This shows that the nonlinear.:nalysis based on design location in acceptable.
- 3) Calculated pipe whip restraint load by ANSYS is 670,000 lb. The PDA calculated peak restraint load of 666,727 lb. Both results are Close.
PDA program is acceptable to be used for sizing the pipe whip restraints.
5.1 Discussions of Conservatisms in the Anr.lysia Summary of conservative assumptions are as follows:
a) The main steam pipe snubbers are not considered. This is conservative because the supports reduce pipe stresses between MSIV's. The support can absorb energy before failura if load is exceeded.
The branch pipes are not included in the model, which is conservative because the branch pipes act like restraints for the main steam pipe.
b) Pressure stress at the normal operating condition is used in the load combination. This is conservative because the pressure in the pipe will be reduced due to pipe break, c) The stresses due to the displacement of the pipe whip restraint are also included as tequired by SRP 3.U.2.
6.0 REFERENCES
- 1) " Thermal-Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor" by F J Moody and Lahey.
- 2) ANSI /ANS-58.2-1988 Figure B-3.
l 4
a,
CCI E O Swain, M Herzog SJ Lin, R Patel J Fox SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR THE EFFECT OF POSTULATED PIPE BREAK ABh'R MAIN STEAM PIPING PREPARED BY :
H L Hwang VERIFIED BY :
S J Lin APPROVED BY :
R Patel m
4 4
LIST OF COHtENTS ABSTRACT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 : DESCRIPTION OF PIPE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION ANALYSIS 3.0 ANSYS HON-LINEAR ANALYSIS 4.0 STRESS ANALYSIS
- 5. 0 CONCLUSIONS
6.0 REFERENCES
4
i ABSTRACT This report documents the results of a special pipe break analysis performed at the request of the NRC on a GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) main steam line following a postulated break in the main steam line where it connects to the reactor pressure vessel nozzle.
It supports the ABWR Standard Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) and supplements Appendix "G"
of the SSAR, " Procedure for Evaluation of Postulated Ruptures in High Energy pipes."
This special pipe break analysis providos a sample of a GE pipe break analysis.
It also addresses the f ollowing specific issues and-questions regarding the GE methodology that have been raised by -the NRC during their audit of the SSAR. These issues and questions are as followst (1)
Document GE procedure for calculating the forcing functions for line segments of a ruptured pipe e for-the-thrust force at break location.
(2)
Document GE procedure f or --per f orming the_ nonlinear.
time-history analysis of the ruptured pipe using the ANSYS computer program.
(3)
Show compliance with ASME III, Equation (9) stress limit set by SRP 3.6.2 (MEB 3-1) for the containment piping following a postulated-pipe rupture.
(4)
Provide justification for the 0.001 time step unod by GE in the ANSYS time-history &nalysis, (5)
Show that GE methodology based on the simplifying assumption of no rotation of the thrust force at'the pipe break is valid for predicting stresses in the containment piping.
(6)
Show the use of the'GE program,
- PDA, provides a satisfactory basis for selecting the size of the pipe whip restraint.
The report documents the results of the sample analyses performed and
.contains the following conclusions:
(1)
The pipe--break location that results in the h'ighe'st:
stresses in the containment pipe is the postulated break at the connection of the main steam pipe to RPV nozzle.
4
1 l
l (2)
The ASME III, Equation (9) stresses in the containment area of the main steam pip followiag a pipe rupture at the RPV nozzle are below the SRo 6.2 limit of 2.25 Sm limit even though several very conservative assumptions were made in the calculations to the minimizo cost and time of performing nonlinear tino-history analysis.
Examplos of conservatism are that no credit is taken fort (a) the restraining offects of snubbers on main steam liner (b) the restraining offects of SRV branch lines; (c) the lower pressure in main steam pipe immediately following a pipe rupture.
(3)
Decreasing the time step from 0.001 seconds to 0.005 seconds has insignificant effect on results, proving convergence of the ANSYS solution Vith the GE analytical assumption of 0.001 seconds.
(4)
The maximum pipe stress in the containment area pipe does-not increase due to rotation of the thrust force at the pipe rupture location.
This shows that the GE nonlinear analysis based no rotation of the thrust force is valid.
(5)
The GE computer program, PDA, providos a satisfactory basis for selecting the size of the pipe whip restraints.
e i
l I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This analysis report is to present the sample analysis to evaluate the ef fects of the postulated pipe break at the Ai)WR main steam pipe nozzle at the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) to the pipe stresses between the inboard and the outboard Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV). The reason to choose this break for analysis is because this break is likely to create the maximum stress for the pipe between the containment isolation valves.
When pipe break is postulated at the Safety Relief Discharge pipe branch connections to the main steam pipes, the break area is only about 1/10 of the main steam pipe break area at the RPV nozzle. The thrust force is much smaller at the branch connection than the force at the main steam nozzle.
When the break is postulatal at the feodwater nozzle, the break is 12" pipe and the feedwater header to the isolation valve is 22".
The break area is less than 1/3 of the head pipe area. Thorofore, the pipe stresses between the isolation valves due to the feedwater water nozzle break is less severe than the main steam noz91e break.
The analysis for the postulated main steam pipe break analysis is presented in this report. The analysis includes forcing function calculations and the nonlinear dynamic analysis.
The result of the analysis show that the stresses between the MSIV's meet SRP 3.6.2 stress limit (2.25Sm).
2.0 t DEDCRIPTION OF PIPE BREAK FORCING FUNCTION ANALYSIB 2.1 Description The steam flows from RPV to turbine during normal operation. When the postulated pipe break occurs at the RPV nozzle safe end or at the first elbow, the steam flows back to the break. A decompression wave starts at the break location and propagates through the whole main steam pipe to create force time histories on each pipe segment.
In order to calculate the force time histories, Turbine Stop Valve Closure Force (TSFOR) program is modified to perform the calculation.
TSFOR is an Engineering Computer Program (ECP) program to calculate the pipe segment force time histories due to turbine stop valve closure. The program is described in NEDE-23789. The boundary condition of this program is modified to calculate the pipe segment force time histories due to the postulated pipe break of the main steam pipe at the RPV nozzle. This report describes the modifications and the procedures to calculate the force time histories.
I l
.3
I 2.2 Program Modifications The back flow can be' computed by applying the break boundary condition to the vessel side of the main steam pipe as shown below (Reference 1).
p/po (2/(K+1))**(2K/K-1) = 0.28
=
<j>/C0 (2/(K+1)) = 0.86
=
< rho >/ (rho 0) = ( 2/ (K+1) ) * * (2/ (K-1) ) = 0.40
- where, p
= steam pressure at the break exit, psia
~i po = stagnation pressure, psia
<j> = discharge velocity at the break exit,'ft/sec CO
= sonic velocity at the stagnation condition rho = steam density at the exit, Ibm /ft^3 rho o = stagnation density, Ibm /ft^3 An executable program file, called MS-BRK, have been-set-up-to l
calculate the pipe segment forces due to the postulated break. The:
program calculate the force for a closed system only. The-method of the analysis is the.same as described in the Aits-58.2. The thrust force 1 time history for he. discharge pipe, wh d 4 is an open pipe,.
should be calculated in accordance with ANS-58.2.
-i 2.3 Application of MS-BRK Program a
2.3.1 Pipe segment Time-Histories (Excluding the Break Pipe 8egment)
~l Set up the input exactly the same as the TSFOR input-~which is I
described in NEDE-23789. The MS-BRK used the pipe break boundary 1
condition for the analysis. No user input boundary condition is needed.-
'2.3.2' Pipe Segment-Time:Nistories-for the Break Pipe segment'
-Let the length of the first pipe segment-with the break.be L ft, The.
j time for the pressure wave to travel through the first pipet segment-ti, is t1 = L/C r
For t-<;tl' F.=
.For t 1-t1 F.= 0.70.PA
-0.7 PA== 373,570.lb Usually ti, a very short-period,ris only-about 0.003; sect-To;the analysis.of the; stresses between MSIV's it is. adequate using-0-70 PA.
for the first. pipe:: segment. However, the sample problem 7 analysis _
includes the force equal to-PA for 0.003-seconds.-
i I
i J+
w v.--,--
,,4 w
-,-,,p
The determination of the 0.70 is based on the friction effect of the steady blowdown force, (Ref. 2):
1 FL/D = 0.0 Force = 1.26 PA FL/ D = 2. 5 Force = 0.70 PA The FL/D includes the friction from pipe break to the turbine, plus the friction through MSIV's and steam supply through the other three pipes from RPV. The overall FL/D is 2.5.
2.4 Analysis steps The foJ1owing steps can be used to generate the pipe segment force time hind.orien due to main steam pipe break at the nozzle safe-end.
- 1) Prepare the TSFOR01 input deck.
Create a PERM file to save force time histories.
- 2) Select the following file to run instead of TSFOR01 :
SELECT FS 0027/HLJ{/MS-BRK-R
- 3) Down load the time histories to PC (ASCII).
- 4) Run MS-BRK-R to convert the force time histories to ANSYS input format.
- 5) Append the output from MS-BRK-A to the ANSYS input model.
- 6) RUN ANSYS.
Details of Steps 3 through 6 are included in'ANSYS Analysis Procedures.
2.5 Forcing Function calculation hasults Example of the output plots are shown in the following figures Figure A-1 : For-- time history for broken pipe segment Figure A-2 : Force time history for 2nd pipe segment Figure A-3 : Force time history for 3rd pipe segment Figure A-4 : Force time history for 4th pipe _ segment Figure A-5 : Force time history for 5th pipe segment Figure A-6 : Force time history for-6th pipe segment Figure A-7 : Force time history-for 7th pipe segment Figure A-8 : Force time history for 8th pipe segment l
4
3.0 ANDYS NON-LINEAR ANALYSIS 3.1 Analysis Model The pipe break non-linear time history analysis can be performed by ANSYS program. The selection of the input are described as follows:
Analysis i KAN=4 Plastic pipe : u e STIF 20 Plastic elbow: u s e S'."I F 6 0 Pipe whip restraint : use STIF 39 The main steam guide !
important to reduce the pipe stresses between the MSIV's. The guide in modeled as two spring elementn.
3.2 Analysis Time Step In order to show that the analysis time stop 0.001 second is
- adequate, an analysis with time stop of 0.0005 second has been per f ormed. The results of the analysis are plotted in the following figures. Comparisons of the results between 0.001 sec and 0.0005 sec time step showed that the differences are less than 3%. Therefore, time step of 0.001 sec can be used in the future analysis.
Figure 1-1 : ANSYS analysis model-element plot.
Figure 1-2 : ANSYS analysis model-nodal plot.
Figure 2 : Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec
( max impact =670,000 lb)
Figure 3 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at elm. 21, at elbow near break Figure 4 : Displacement time histories. DT=0.001 sec at the break location Figure 5 : Moment time history at headfitting, (Elm 42J)
DT=0.001 sec.
Figure 6 Force time histories at headfitting.
(Elm 42J)
DT=0.001 sec Figure 7 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 nec at elm 22J, before main steam guide Figure 8 : Bending moment time histories. DT=C.001 sec at alm 42I, near headfitting Figure 9 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at Elm 381, 1st elm after MSIV.
b
Figure 2A: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.0005 sec (0.7pA=373,600 lb, max impact =670,000 lb)
Figure 3As Bending moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec.
at elm. 21, at elbow near break Figure 4A Displacement time histories. DT=0.0005 nc at the break location Figure 5A Moment time history at headfitting, (Elm 42J)
DT=0.0005 sec.
Figure 6A:
Force time histories at headfitting.
(Elm 42J)
DT=0.0005 sec Figure 7At P.tding moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec at elm 22J, before main steam guide Figure 8A: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec at elm 421, near headfitting 3.3 Discussion of Large Displacement Analyses The displacements from the terminal end Main Steam Break Structure (MSDS) analysis (using ANSYS) results show large displacements and rotation at the break. The thrust direction changes during the event which could affect the stress in the " Holy Pipe" area. Therefore,_GE has performed time history analyses for the original and displaced position to confirm the velidity of the small displacement assumption in the non-linear time history analysis results.
Two displaced analysis have been performed. The first displaced analysis is to rotate the element at the break to the displaced angle and change the thrust. force to the displaced angl.e. Another analysis is to rotate the pipe element from the breah to the pipe whip restraint to be the same as the displacea orientations.
The results of the analysis are shown in the figures below for the first case, which rotate the pipe break element c.nly.
Figure 2B: Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec (Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 4B: Displacement time histories. DT=0.001 sec at the break location (Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure SB Moment time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Ir.cluded rotated blowdown angle) 7
9 Figure 6B Forc-e time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 7B Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec at elm 22J, before main steam guide (Included rotated blowdown angle)
Figure 9BI Force time histories at 22J, before main steam guide.
(Included totated blowdown angle)
The results of the analysis are shown in the figures below for the second cuse, which rotate the pipe from the break element and the elbow to the pipe whip restraint element. The results are shown in i
the following figures.
Figure 2C Irpact force at tha pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec (Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Figure.5C: Moment time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe. orientation)
Figure GC Force time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
Figure 9C: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
at Elm 381, 1st elm after MSIV.
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
4 t
4.0 STRESS ANALYSIS 4.1 Pipe Data Pipe = 2;" OD x 1.423" t I=
(28^4 - 25.154^4) x 3.1416/64
= 10520 in*4 Z = 751 in*3 Assume break occurs at normal operation, T=552 deg. F.
Sm = 18,570 psi for SA-350-LF2 (Carbon eteel)
Allowable limit = 2.25 Sm
= 41780 psi The maximum bending moment between the MSIV's will be developed about 0.075 second after the break. The decompressing wave travels at 1600 ft/sec. It has traveled a distance of 1600x0.075=120 ft when-the maximum moment occurs. Therefore, the pressure between the MSIV at the time when the maximum bending moment is developed will be much less than normal operating pressure of 1050 psi. It is conservative to use 1050 psi to calculate the pressure stress.
Sp
= PD/4t
< 1050 x 28/(4x1.423)
5165 psi Weight stress, Swt
1074 poi i
Sp + Swt = 6239 psi 4.2 Moment and Stress comparisons Comparisons of the bending moments and bending stresses at the head fitting are as follows.
Results 1 = Using normal procedure with time ster 0.001 sec.
Results 2 = Study case with time step'O.0005 sec.
d Resulta 3 = Study case with t.me step 0.001 sec.
Include rotated.'
.e angle Retalts 4 = Study case with aime step 0.001 sec.
(Included displaced elbow and broken pipe orientation)
.-.. s 1.
' Moments and strappes at the headfitting:
Ma Mb
-Mc Mr B2-M/Z~
(E6)
(E6)
(E6)
(E6) psi Result 1 15.3 15.0 13.3 25.2 33600 Result 2 15.0 15.0 13.3 25.1 33500 Result 3 20.5 4.5 9.0 22.8
'30400 Result 4(a) 22.0 7.2 5.0 2,
7 31560 Result 4(b) 19.9 13.0 8.0 25.0 33390 i
This can be seen that the values calculated from the result 1 is slightly conservative.
From Figur 9,
moment time history plots at element 38I, the first element after MSIV, the maximum bending are as follows:
Elcm 38I Ma Mb Mc Mr B2 M/Z (E6)
(E6)
(E6)
(E6) psi Result 1 15.0 13.0 11.5 23.0 30600
?
Result }
19.5 8.5 13.0 24.9 33200 This shows that the maximum rtress between-isolation valve is at the headfitting for-the analysis with the design configuration._The combined stress 1.s as follows:
Sp + Sw + S break = 5365 + 105' + '1600
= 39,839 psi Allowable stress = 41,780' psi Stress ratlo
= 39839/41780 = 0.954 All the stresses are within the = allowable limit of 2.25 Sm.
4.3 Pipe-Whip Restraint Loads as Comparison With PDA Results The maximum pipe whip restraint load calculated are listed below.-
L Result 1 670,000 lb l
Result 2 670,000 lb L
- Result 3 653,000 lb Result 4 640,000 lb PDA-666,727 lb
--The above results show that the PDA calculated consistent result with
'ANSYS output.-The PDA analysis-is shown in Attachment'A.-
l l'
L i ~
~o
5.0 CONCLUSION
S
- 1) The maximum combined stress between the MSIV's is 39265 psi. This is below 2.25 Sm allowable limit as specified in SRP 3.6.2.
The analysis did not include the snubbers on the main stear
- p.,ing.
Therefore, the analysis is very conservative.
- 2) The maximum stresses between the MSIV's do not increase dus no the force direction change as result of the displacements at the break location. This shows that the nonlinear analysis based on design location is acceptable.
- 3) Calculated pipe whip restraint load by ANSYS is 670,000 lb. The PDA calculated peak restraint load of 666,727 lb. Both results are
- close, s
PDA program is acceptable to be used for sizing the pipe whip rostraint:.
5.1 Discussions of Conservatisms in the Analysis Summary of conservative assumptions are as follows:
a) Th2 main steam pipe snubbers are not considered. This is conservative because the supports reduce pipe stresses between MSIV's. The support car absorb energy before failurc if load is exceeded.
The branch pipes are not included in the model, which is conservative because the branch pipes act like restraints for the main steam pipe, b) Pressure stress at the normal operating condition is used in the load combination. This is conservative because the pressure in the pipe will be reduced due to pipe break, c) The stresses due to the displacement of the pipe whip restraint are also included as required by SRP 3.6.2.
6.0 REFERENCES
- 1) " Thermal-Hydraulics of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor" by F J Moody and Lahey.
- 2) ANSI /ANS-58.2-1988 Figure B-3.
11
lC GEN Energy Engtheenhg Calculation Shec NUMBER DATE SUBJECT BY 5HEET OF u
3 6Ap i
J gg"pipg
/
13 " STR AI GHT LEWGTH
- 15. l S 9 " E D
~
P Ws.
L OA D (L6) p,,,,13 9,,7. M 0
F = IFi%o2. T
- -4,543N
+ - e,o u S(
- PWR 88 T'L E ( T8 0N ( 3d )
l BROFEN B LOW 1044 Wo m E.
I (LS) i s=.:.=
mT 553671 iT A vt.T U Ae q,gfT 373570 F = io' F
'3 21 PT o
u P If F-7/A7 sq O s 110000 1
[
N o.003&
S E r.
TIM USC-)
f P E. WE 44 HT"/ FT o.001 S r.c
- 40s. 8'S L8 /FT Figure A-1 : Force time history for broken pipe segment
TSF-MSR BRK MAY 12.-1992 100 l 50-U3
/
g o-K j
ao I
i--.
I i
~
u, a
5 -100-Ob (1J L3 Cro -150-LL Force time history for 2nd pipe segment Figure A-2 :
-200-i 3
i
-- i 0
-100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Tiu ( s= >
- THOUSANDTHS "dS
? E!E MIIEl."
u
,(
Pt 2 I.
l ll<
l1 I
l5s N
l 2
l 9
9 '
i00l 1
S w
7M 2
1 I
T
?
$dE 0"
i06 tne m
0 g
i0 es 5 S H
e T
p D
ip NA d
S r
U 3
0 O r
' i0 H o
T f
4 y
r o
t t
s i
h e
0 m
i0 i
3 t
K e
R c
c e
B r
n o
A F
S e
M w
O 3
F iL T
S A
2 T
er u
g i
Q F
0 i0 1
II L
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 2
3 1
1 1
l n
82yill Ssg~ HE l
1s l
I llllIl llp
s--
~.
TSF-MSA BBK P.AT 12. 1992 I
I i
0-,
U3 O-ZE
.(n B
-110 -
. t--
1 u
O
.Z D
D o_
v.
tuo -120-x 1
g t1-Figure A-4-: Force. time history for 4th pipe segment
-IGO r
i i
i i
-r O
100
'200-3"J -
400 500 600 700 SC4tf 3
'A U.OATO ~2thff5/IN THOUSANDTHS
,mv (sey va r7
.o wiisnu
Q s
v TSF-MSA BRK t'.M 12. I992 40--
I i
i 20-l i
I
<n
'O Ti 0-n an
'3 I t3 I I t--
l _
In O
5,
! o.
. td U
(C o LL Figure A-5 : Force time history for 5th pipe segment
)
I I
I I
i l
[ --
0 100 200 300 400 S00 600 700
$UtES X 8.0xto -2(alTSnw w wo
- THOUSANOTHS usco r2.oxio %:Tsnu.4 i
TSF-MSA BRK
?:
MRT 12. 1992 80 l
l 1
go-m az a
0 m
)
i a
o 1
l r
F-I
-4 0 -
-ma 5 I t
a CL LLJ o
To -120-m Force time history for 6th pipe segment-Figure A-6 :
i a
i i
i i
~r"-
-1G0-0 100 200 300
~400 500 600 700 SCHi ! S' I ti. 4 84 4 0 ^2tsel f 5/lk w ( seo
- THOUSANDTHS un 14 ~m %irsna PL 6
=
i
(
r n
TSF-MSR BBK MAT 12. 1992 100 50-7
.'s P
i 0
~
.I L --
-100 -
kJ
-150 -
Figure A-7 : Force time history for 7th pipe segment
-200 i
0 100 200 300 400-500 600 700 T e hu3
- THOUSANDTHS "Ol$
IE:!ll% MIISI:
a'
TSF-MSA Bi"5 NRr 12. 1992 i
100 i
i 50-m O
E O-'
w ao Iw I {
-wa 5 -100-O tti U
LCO -150-Lt.
Figure A-8 : Force time history for 8th pipe segment
-200-i i
1 i
-i 1-0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ti-t hus
- THOUSANOTHS
"$l$
? ISl$ MNEE PL 8 J
t
~~
.1 g
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 31 1992 16:46:09 POST 1 ELEMENTS ELEM NUM l
ZV
=1 DIST=351.175 XF
=389 l
YF
=528.71 ZF
-102.01 l
F
-,s Il q
14 g
, ~3 vul L 'd J
~g' y.
G a4 n usi u_4 u nun - - ~
m n
/"
n>u
.ABWR-USA MS NOZZl.E POSIUtAIF BREAK PRO (XKE F I E Mt NI PL 01 POSII INP=
Figure 1-1 : AN8YS analysis model-element plot.
l
s 4
g.
.l ANSYS 4.4A AUG 31 1992 16:47:41 POSTI NOOfS ZV
=1 DIST=351.175 XF
=389 YF
=528.71 I
ZF
=182.01 J SN b
.c4 w
.a m se
.n Su n
noone se mcm.m m en' a m a >.
sr a u
me s,
,ASWR-USA MS N0ZZiE POS100AIE BREAK.
-PRODUCE NODEfPi0i POST 1 -INPr Figure 1-2.: ANSYS. analysis model-nodal plot.
6 i
' 3
~
~
m
=
~
.c.
I AUG 7 1992 13:54:18 POST 26
/V
-1 DIST=0.6666 F- ~ ~ !
XI
-0.5
)
YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 Osese
-tessee 314tw 6 a
-e. esse
~c
.n e
F_
C.
_..{
}
e
,/
~
6 30s
-FfeeBS l
i...
f I.,
f ea
.sm o os su l
ABWR-USA MS N0ZZiE POS1ULATE BREAK CURVE VARIABLE NAME 1
2 3
1 l'OS I 26 - ! NI'=
L
~ Figure 2 : Impact force at the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec a
^
~ -
i
ANSYS 4.4A I
AUG 7 1992 14:00:H9 POST 26 s<e=e ZV el DIST=0.6666 XF
-0.5 se==
YE
=0.5 Il
=0.5 sees
.eesee
,e t
y 9
=
an 1
f a ease
-j C
. c l
is.eee I
)
-,.~
..,}
ee.
r y _,..
h s
~
.a N./
f 6
l i
i
..e
..e ABWR-USA MS N0ZZLE POSIULATE BREAK 2
3 2
5 3
4 2
6 l'OS 126 I NI'-
Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001.sec.
Figure 3 :
at alm. 2I,at elbow near break' 2.
I ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:03:25 POST 26
=*
=
ZV al-DIST=0.6666 Xf
=0.5 YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 n
/_..
/
as
/
/
./
'/,.---
a
/
/
/
i
~.
l n.
'~ ~.
(
m.
/
/
/
/
l l
I..
i...
l i
.2, ABWR-USA-MS NOZZLE POSTULATE BREAK.
2.
3-4 UY
'3 4
.4 UZ
.POS126-INP=
Figure 4
- 2. Displacement time histories. DT=0.001 see at.the break' location
'j [
- .6.
7
_.... _ _ ~. -
g ANSYS 4.4A-AUG 7 1992 14: 21:15 POST 26
..na.e ZV m1 DIST=0.6666 XF m0.5 YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 a a.r 7
,s 1
-a nsa.w t'
./-
-a ums.e g_m g
,t J
-a nne w M.
N.
M 1
-a seu.es -
N hg
\\7
-a isei e L
+ ~
f a8EL
+ =.es l
j i.
i.
l l
1...
a a.6
..i ABWR-USA MS N0ZZLE:POSIULATE HREAK.
2 3
42 11' 3
4
'42-12
.POSi26-INP=
Figure 5-2 Moment-time history at headfitting, (31m 42J)'
'DT=0.001~sec.
al 1 4-
-lla 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 7 1992 14:27:03 POST 26
==
u ZV m1 DIST-0.6666 XF-
=0.5 Yr
=0.5 ZF
=0.5
==
\\
l
'\\
1 c
u n
N
/
~
N.
N
, E samme
's* % _,'u 1
A
..\\
,s ~ -'
r ta s
x
\\
j
.s
,es
./
/
l l
1 i.a l
1 i...
e e.ee am.
m e.
..e
==
..i a
A8WR-USA MS NOZ2LE POSIULATE BREAK 2
3 42 8
3 -'
4 42~
9-
'POSI26:INP=
Figure'; 6. E, Force time. histories at headfitting.
(Elm 42J).
DT=0.001 sec-s
.l.I
~dn
ANSYS 4.4A 1
AUG 7 1992 14: 12:15 f
POST 26
.a ZV
-1 1
l _. _
DIST=0.6666 XI
-0.5 l
,-~j YF
=0.5 i
II
=H.5
' ~
[
_m n, n, x/.'
I i
/
O
__/
/
m.
v~
,f (3
_1. 2.
23
'~
N
. n.si A
N
-. w i
's,
\\
l
\\
w,
- w. ~..
- tm t_.~
nu.
I I
g g
I
-e. seu
...r
..i ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSTULA1E BREAK 2
3 22 11
'3 4
22 12 l'OS I 2 6 - 1 NI'=
Figure 7 : Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec at elm 22J,before main steam guida l
4 "
~ "'
q--
ANSYS 4.4A I
AUG 7 1992 14:16:59 POST 26
.is ZV
-I DIST=0.6666
~
Xf
-0.5 s
l
'i
\\
yr
_e 5 e'
/
21-
=0.5
\\
g
' g._/
x
,i
\\
l
\\
\\
H /,.
,.n
.~
s s
/..
\\
.m r
\\
N
- pq J +2 I
\\,
/
.mr
-N,
<asne t
- East *.7 l
l
- i..
+ =s i
ABWR-USA MS N0ZZLE POSTULATE BREAK 2
3 42 5
3 4-42 6
l'OS I 26 INI'-
Bending moment time histories..DT=0.001 sec Figure 8 :
at ela 42I,near headfitting An
\\
]
1 ANSYS 4.4A AUG 31 1992 16:54:48 POST 26 aa.
ZV
=1 i
DIST=0.6666 XT
=0.5 YF
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 a.
/
l N
l
.ar s
lL1
/
,',/.
.ar
\\
L
\\
\\
/" l
\\
/'
s
.f s
,/ f'
\\
-a
\\.
l
,,/
-..a= =
4 l
s.
g
.l
.=
a
==
am
..i
=
'ABWR-USA MS NO22LE POSilRAIE BREAK 2
3 38 5
3 4
38 6
POSI26 I NI'w Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec.
H gure 9 :
at Elm 3SI, 1st ela after MSIV.
s
l l-ANSYS 4.4A 1
AUG 19 1992 11:14:48 POST 26 m.
e ZV
-I DIST=0.6606 I_
XF
- 0. 's YF
-0.5 ZF
=0.5
-888
+te.ees
-m i
h
-320es.
-e.neee
-eet 1
e'
-eeeeee
\\
7~
l l
l 1.
i l
)
- ' = "
.t ABWR-USA MS N0ZZLE POSlULATE BREAK CURVE VARIh'L E NAME 1
2 3
1 POSI26-INP=
Figure 2A Impact. force at the pipe whip restraint.'DT=0.0005 sec
{; c,c,0c i Y %
- a
~
.ej 1
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992 11:18:56 POST 26 ZV ml DIST=0.6666
=
XF
=0.5 YT
=0.5 ZF
=0.5 am p
e 2
il m
V f
h.t
/~~
h.
,?
-a.=
g
-[
i ia g
j.
sm e ee ABWR-USA MS N0ZZLE.~ POSTULATE BREAK 2
3 2-5 3
4 2
.6.
POS126-INP=
-Figure 3As. Bending' moment time histories. DT=0.0005 sec.
~
at elm.::2I,at elbow near break g( 7o.Occ I M
2i-c 3
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 10:28:36 POST 26 m
ZV
-1 DIST=0.6666 y
~
~ ~.
XI
-0.5 Yr 20.5 Zi
=H.S
/
=*
/
j' a
/
/
,.-~_s
,s N
. eq.
, f
~__~ ::~,_
/
'Q'j **
o
/
s 4
s l
ia i.
i:
i.
i
- i... -
i
.6 a.,
ABWR-USA MS NO22LE POSTULAIE BREAK 5
6 5
UY.
6 7
5.
U2 POSl26-INP='
,: i Figute.;4A: Displacement time histories..DT=0.0005.sec at the~ break location h
o
i i
ANSYS
- 4. *1A
,~
AUG 19 1992 11:30:56 POST 26 m.
sna.e ZV 21 DIST=0.6666 Xf
=0.5 i
YF
=0.5 ZF
=H.S
/
A w
-num _
3' 44 s i
a s
.w Y.-.
,l i
-s neu.e s
/'
y
/
s p
/
-sins
/'
N l
j i
1
.l-J
+ ' * * *
..w
==
e.
su su nu su A8WR-USA MS NOZZLE POSTULAIE HR4AK 2:
3-42 '
3' 4
42 12 POS126: INP--
Figure'5A: Moment time history at headfitting,.(Elm 42J)
'DT=0.0005 sec.
00: o...s
.' 4 2 (
.)
x
./
1 ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992 11:3t41 POST _6 ZV
-1 DIST=0.6666 Xf
-0.5 Yf
=0.5 e
ZF
=0.5 am
\\
M sse O
f,
/'
f s
f I
i
~
l
.t
'~~.
y~
. /
~
/
/
p'c y..-
m 0-Q..
y I
I.
O..
f,
}
. a.
.w-
- . a 6
..i
- ABWR-USA MS NO22LE POSItX AIE BREAK 2:
3-42 8-3' 4
42 9
POSI26-INP=
Figure'6&s Force : time -' histories at headfitting.
(Elm 42J).
DT=0.0005 see
1 ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992 11:25:14 POST 26 m.
. ima.
S'
-1
'. - +
DIST=0.6666 i
XT me.5 2
?.. I' YF
=0.5
'~__T i
ZF
=0.5
/.-
{
+-*
i i
s r
N N N
-* w r 4 a.E *e7 N
. ~
, ~ ~
..i ABWR-USA MS N022LE.POSIULATE' BREAK 2'
3
.22 11 3
4-
'22 12
.l'OS i 26 ' INI'r Figure.7&t : Bending L moment ' time histories. ET=0.0005'sec
-at ela-22J,before main steam guide
-6(.:. c ; e c. c.1 l' \\
a e.
,s
T.
m s 4
'e I
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 19 1992 i1:28:39 POST 26
.im ZV ml
'9IST-0.6666 XI
'8.5
/
\\\\. \\
YF
=- 0. 5
/
\\
ZI
=0.5 e m.se
\\
\\
- a/
\\
1
\\
x x
\\
/
-V
. 6.ar !
P.
2bH e.F y-
'd 4
4
- 4. 6.E e.F r
-* * *r
.l i.
i g.
i
- e. ar m
e.a na ABlWR-USA MS N0ZZLE POSIULAIE BREAK 2
3 42 S
3.
L4:
42 6
POSI26-INP=-
Figure SAs Bending'laonent time histories. DTze.0005 sec at als 42I,mear headfitting-vee 5 Yr b(:
s
..as -
1 ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 13:54:08 POST 26
- =
ZV
-- I DIST-0.6666 I
\\
XI
'O.5 YI'
=0.5 ZF
-0.5
~
-2485W8 p
-neam
-.E k.
i
/'
'v/
t l
l 1.
- i..
l j
i..","
.m s.s
..i ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSTULAIE BREAK CURVE VARIABLE NAME 1
~ 2 3
1' POSl26 INP='
Figure 233 Impact force'at the pipe whip restraint.
(Imoluded~ rotated blowdown angle)
L.
I t
ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 13:59:17 OST26 a
ZV
-- I DIST=0.6666 a
-0.5
~
YT
=0.5
/F
-H.S a
,s
/
/
/
,z
/
/
4 i
/
f~
//
N N.
x x,
s s
s\\
'N[\\
'N n
~.,;
l l
1.
.l l
- i.,
i
..i ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSIULATE BREAK 5
6 5
UY 6
7 5
U/
l'OS I 26 i NI' -
Figure 4B Displacement time histories.
at the break location (Included rotated blowdorn angle)
.A
i l
i i
i N4SYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 13:56:21 POST 26 ZV
=1 DIS T= 0.6666
. * = =
XF
=0.5 YF
=0.5
/F
=0.5 s.am r
,\\
/
f '.\\
\\
\\\\
\\
am"
\\
/
\\
M u..
g-N.
3 p
+r l
\\\\
N
-s== sr x.
,N's,_
+.m
's'\\
\\\\
'v'
+==
-g j
i.
i.
i
- e..
n o.
.a sm
..a ASWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSIULAIE BREAK 2
3 42-11 3
4 42 12-POSI26-INP=
Figure 53: Moment time history at headfitting, '(Ele 42J)
. (IncludBed rotated blowdown angle) add '
1 ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 14:01:56 POST 26 u--.
ZV al DIST=0.6666 XF
-0.5 YT
=8.5 ZF
=0.5 u 7
~
.[__.~
\\
M.
,~ -
/
\\ '. m
,s
'N
's
/
\\
(.
6
-m===
g g
i i
j j
t e
t er a se e e.
as ee am
.w
.a ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSTULATE BREAK 2
3 42 8
3 4
42 9
POSI26 INP=
Figure.6Bt Force time histories.at headfitting.
(Ela 42J)
(Iacluded rotated blowdown angle)
J&
1 ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 14:03:53 POST 26
.a ZV -- I
- c..
/
DIST--0.6666
. u= =
f o,,
XF
-0.5 Yr
=0.5 21
=0.5
.mr i
.r N.
\\
/
$. ], _
~ \\
N
-a m r N
N
'/
a..
L.
\\
+ emm e u.'
N
-a.au e
-a.as e N'-'
_^
-a assa
..w g,
-e.aus e l
..-g
- i..
4
[
g
- i.,
ASWR-USA MS NOZ2LE POSIULATE HREAK Figure 7B: Bending moment time histories. DT=0.001 sec at elm 22J,before main steam guiGe (Included rotated blowdown angle)
~
/ }llf) g~; :.
l i
,, il i.
1 ANSYS 4.4A AUG 28 1992 14:06:58 POST 26 m
ZV
-.1 DIST.0.6666 XI
-0.5 Yr
=0.5
/t
=0.5
/*
\\
1
\\
\\
[",
u.
5 sa.m.
\\
'k; ?
\\l
~
k
/
vt t
l l
- i..
l l
ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSlOLATE BREAK 2
3 22 8
3 4
22 9
POS126-INP=
Figure 93:. Forces time histories.
at elm 22J,before mala steen guide (Isoluded rotated blowdows. angle)
.. i V'
J lI ANSYS 4.4A NOV le 1992 7:57:09
=
POST 26 ZV
=1 I
DIST= 0. 6666 xr me.s YF
=0.5-Zs
-e.s 7
-m
-m
/-
-** u
{..
lg l
I L
. l I~
ASWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSTULATE BREAK CURVE.VARIABtE.
NAME 1-2
-3 1
Figure 2C:l; Impact force at'the pipe whip restraint. DT=0.001 sec
.(Included' displaced elbow and break pipe orientation)
P JIF
..c
,,e,.-
. - +
3+
+
,v.
4 r
a.,-w
.,s.
- w. +.,...- -- -,
' 4
~ ' '
i
- ?
1 r !
.ANSYS 4.4A NOV 18 1992 7:59:35 m.-
POST 26 ZV
=1 DIST=0.6666 XF
=B.S YF
=0.5 2F'
=0 5 r
e~
/
m n l
/
s
/
-a==
7 x-
\\
J um 9
4.
y/nv,r"~
.,m i
i i
i
..e
- a.
a, a.6
- a a+
ABWR-USA MS N02ZLE' POSTULATE BREAK 2-3 42, 11 3-4 42 12-p Figure,5C:: Moment time histories at~42J ~ (headfitting)
.)
(Included displaced elbow 'and break pipe orientation) i 4
y
+-
+
---w,-
e.w-9 0
,v.
w
,ay-e,.
v g,,
e y
-.y.
,e c,.
,.~,.w--y.&
wr,,_,-c,w,-,,,w,r,,
.,,,,,,-r
ANSYS 4.4A 1
NOV la 1992 8:05:30 POST 26 m.
ZV ml DIST=0.6666 XF
=H.5 YF
=0.5 ZF
-U.S l
m l
I te.mu.
/ w L'
a,
\\
x
/
m x[.,.
x/
g
-c l
{
6.
4.
j
.j
.a
..i ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSTUI.AIE BREAK 2
3 42 8
3 4
42 9
Figure 6C: Force time histories at 42J (headfitting)
(Included displaced elbow and break pipe orientation)
i-I ANSYS 4.4A 1
NVV 10 1992 9:40:89 PcST26
=.
.a ZV
-1
/ \\
f~' ' x DIST=0.6666
/
XF 0.5
.a YF
=0.5 l
,/
zF
=n.s
/
.u j
.r i
,n.
f-
\\
.o
,7
/
w.
X
/
e
/
\\
/
-. a r
f
,x
/
/
\\ ~ ~ ~ -
/
.mr
/
/
-e u.n g
I l
l
..a a.
..i ABWR-USA MS NOZZLE POSlULATE BREAK 2
3 38 5
3 4
38 6
Figure 9C: Bending moment time histories. Of1'=0.001 sec.
at Elm 381, 1st als after MSIV.
(Included displaced elbow and break pipe orientation)
J
m 533671.0 0.7 0.7
.0038
.0127 13.27 9.1 28.
25.189
.19
- 110000, 402.89 2311.65 1000000.
4.543
.0268 1579602.
10492<.
.235 C.480 36.
0606010101 GENERAL ELECTRIC C0MPANY HUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS DIVISION h 7T(\\ t \\i % M I b XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX PPPPP DDDDD AAAA XXX XXX P
P D
D A
A XXX XXX P
P D
D A
A XXX XXX P
P D
D A
A XXX XXX PPPPP D
D AAAAAA XXX XXX P
D D
A A
XXX XXX P
D D
A A
XXX XXX P
DDDDD A
A XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX i
PIPE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS PROGRAM REVISION 2
2/12/
1976 PROGRAM DEVELOPED BYt LD STEINERT MARCH 1973 ADMINISTERED BY STANDARD PLANT PIPING DESIGN COMP. No. 123 EFFECTIVE LENGTH FROM RESTRAINT CLEARANCE RESTRAINT TO LOADING l
(INCHES)
BREAX(FT)
DIRECTION l
4.543 4.170 0 DEGREES PIPE BENDING PIPE ROTATION MAX. ALLOWABLE STRAIN-STABILITY BENDING MOMENT LIMIT ( IN/IN )
LIMIT (DEGR.)
(PT-LBS) 1.004E-01 8.6281 4647695.
IMPACT VELOCITY =
22.40 FT/SEC IMPACT TIME =
.0235 SECONDS NO. OF BARS DEFL. OF STUC.
DEFL OF REST.
REL.DEFL.
TOTAL DEFL.
COMPOSING IN DIR. OF IN DIR. OF OF PIPE END OF PIPE END THE REST.
THRUST.(IHs) 73 RUST (IN.)
IN DIR. OF THRUST - (IN. )
/
6
.6667 1.2766
.0140 9.4726
y
- -e FORCE ON REST FORCE ON STR.
TIME AT PEAK DEFL. TIME TOTAL IN DIR. OF IN DIR. OF DYNAMIC LOAD FOR PIPE END TIME OF THRUST (LBS.)
THRUST (LBS.)
(SEC)
SEC AF.IMPC.
MOVEMENT 666727.
666727.
.0353
.0010
.0353 TOTAL ENERGY ENERGY ABSO.
ENERGY ABSOB.
ENERGY ABSO.
TOTAL ABSO.
ABSO. BY BY THE BY THE BY THE ENERGY THE REST.
STRUCTURE BOTTOM HINGE REST. HINGE (PT-LBS)
(PT-LBS)
(PT-LDS)
(PT-LDS)
(PT-LDS) 57229.
18522.
221601.
485.
297837.
ENERGY ABSO.
REST.
REST.
PIPE DEFL.
PIPE DEFL.
BY THE LOAD (PCAK)
LOAD (STATIC)
AT REST.
AT THE BREAK TOP HINGE COMP.(LBS)
COMP. (LDS)
COMP. (IN.)
COMP. (IN.)
(PT-LBS)
PD1 PD2 PS1 PS2 XR1 XR2 XP1 XP O.
666727 O.
544755.
O.
6.49
.00 9.47
.00 00* EXCEPT FOR THE RESTRAINT LOAD COMPONENTS PD1 AND PD2, ALL VARIABLES BELOW ARE IN A DIRECTION PARALLEL Tp THE BIDWDOWN FORCE. ***
TIME P DIS.
P VEL.
P ACC REL DIS.
TTL DIS.
RES. LOAD RES. LOAD BLWDWN AT RES.
AT R.
AT R.
OF END OF END COMP.PD1 COMP.PD2 FORCE SEC IN.
FT/SEC FT/SEC2 IN.
(IN.)
(LBS.)
(LBS.)
(LBS.)
.0087 1.14 15.12 701.6
.00 1.66 0.
O.
373570.
.0143 2.27 18.48 524.6
.00 3.31 0.
O.
373570.
.0191 3.41 20.73 420.4
.00 4.97 0.
O.
373570.
.0235 4.54 22.40 348.6
.00 6.62 0.
O.
373570.
.0251 4.97 21.73
.00 7.25 340937.
O.
373570.
.0262 5.24 20.32
.00 7.64 449348.
O.
373570.
.0273 5.51 18.42
.00 8.04 519390.
O.
373570.
.0287 5.79 15.96
.00 8.44 571403.
O.
373570.
.0303 6.06 12.72
.00 8.84 613089.
O.
373570.
.0325 6.33 7.88
.00 9.24 648080.
O.
373570.
l 1
l l
l l