ML20118B735
| ML20118B735 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1992 |
| From: | Zeringue O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| TAC-M80618, TAC-M80619, TAC-M80620, NUDOCS 9210070086 | |
| Download: ML20118B735 (49) | |
Text
-
4 4 i
e l
l l
i Ierv$we vwu Aarg rw on11 u,. ;hb o n.v rua mu O J *lke'Zoongue vu e,ew,, ww.t i en, ore,yn, s SEP 301992 U.S. Nuclear Rogulatory Commission ATTH:
Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemens In the Matter of
)
Dockot Nos. 50-259 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-260 50-296 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (DFN) - RESOLUTION OF THE THERHAL GROWTH ISSUE OUTSIDE CONTAINHENT (TAC NOS. H80618, H80619, AND M80620)
References:
1)
NRC letter to TVA, dated May 12, 1992, Summary of the April 30, 1992 Heating with the Tennessee Valley Authority Regarding Thermal Orowth of Steel structures 2)
HRC letter to TVA, dated July 13,_1992, Safety Evaluation and Request for Additional Information Regarding Drowns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3 Design critoria for Lower Drywell Steel Platforms and Miscellaneous Steel 3)
TVA letter to NRC, dated July 20, 1992, Resolution of the Thermal Growth Issue l
This letter provides information for the resolution of the thermal growth l
outside containment issue at BFN.
As documented in Reference 1, TVA and NRC mut to discuss the methodology used to evaluate the effects of thermal growth on structural steel configurations at BFN.
This issue was documented as a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) open item in Reference 2.
The results of TVA's previous analysis of thermal loads on structural steel configurations and its plan for developing the additional analyses was provided in Reference 3.
00k0 h'
9gR10070006 920930
'b p
ADOCK 05000259 l
PDR i
E 2
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission SEP 1101992 Also in koference 3, TVA committed to prepare a eummary of
..e calculations used to address the thermal growth issue and tu perform linear analyses for those structural configurations that exhibited the highest level of thermally induced stress.
The enclosure to this letter satisfies this commitment.
TVA also committed to make the supporting calculations available for NRC review. These calculations are available for NRC review at TVA's Rockville office.
The enclosure discusses the specific thermal growth issues that were performed for the Reactor Building Unit 2 miscellaneous steel structures located oatside the drywell and the Units 1 and 3 structures that were required to support Unit 2 operation.
However, the thermal growth concerns addressed in tho enclosed report are also applicable to-structural steel configurations for Units 1, 2, and J.
The criteria and methods outlined in the enclosure represent a conservative approach to determine and limit structural behawlor of mia vllaneous steel structures under extreme thermal loads in combination wit, dead, )ive and seismic loads.
This has been confirmed by demonstrating that the acceptance criteria of BFN-50-C-7100 and Design Guide DG-C1.6.12 result in acceptably small deflectione.
Further validation of the criteria is provided by the-linear analysis results that show the limiting case structural configurations have-linear stresses less than twich'che yield. stress. The twice yield stress is the basis for the ASME stress intensity limit for primary plus ser.dary stresses.
Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8.4 states " thermal loads A39 c's neglected when.it can be shown that they are socondary and-self-limiting i, nature and where the material is ductile.' TVA's thermal evaluation demonstrates-that implementation of BFN's' design criteria is consistent with this provision of SRP Section 3.8.4.
i e
3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission SEP 301992 If the Staff has any questions regarding this methodology or the supporting calculations, TVA is available for a maeting at the Staff's earliest convenience.
There are no cownitments c ntained in this letter.
TVA requests a Supplemental SER be issued to document the resolution of this SER open i*em.
If you have any questions, please contact G.
D.
Pierce, interim Manager of Site Licensing, at (205) 729-7566.
Sincerely,
/
/$
0.
J.
Zeringu Enclosure cc (Enclosure):
NRC Resident Inspector Drowas Ferry Nuclear Plant Route 12, Box 637 I
Athens, Alabama 35611 l
Mr. Thierry H. Ross, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission one White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. B. A. Wilson, 'roject Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission
-Region II i
101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 l
Atlanta, Georgia 30323 I
i ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)
RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE INTRODVrTION Au discussed during the April 30, 1992 TVA/NRC n$eting and confirmed by TVA's Jaly 20, 1992 letter, TVA committed to provide an explanation of why the two cases it selected for analysis prior to the restart of BrH Unit 2 were the most limiting of the approximately 20 structural configurations that behaved in a non-linear fashion. TVA committed to include as part of this explanation a tabular suneary of these structural configurations and their critical parameters.
TVA also committed to perform ANSYS linear analyses for the structural configurations that exhibited t!'o highest level of thermally induced stress and provide a comparison between the results of the two analyses.
From thie
-'arisor., an evaluation of the acceptability of the nonlinear analysis <3oci-
~e>?u be prepared.
In addition, the supporting calculations were t ts G+ w 111.
'v.for NRC review at TVA's Rockville-t office.
1 This report and the annotatvd references that are available for review at TVA's Rockville Of fice sati sfy these commitments.
This report describes the methodology used to address the thermal growth issue.
The evaluation included the Unit 2 miscollaneous oteel structures located outside the ctyuell, in the Peactor Building, and the Units 1 and 3 structures required to support Unit 2 operation. While the thermal growth evaluations were performed specifically to support Unit 2 operation, the results of the evaluatione included in this report and the current governing design criteria (Reference 1) are also applicable to the remaining structural steel configurations for Units 1, 2, and 3.
METHODOLOGY The thermal growth evaluations for BFN Unit 2 miscellaneous steel structures-located outside the drywell involved-the ovaluation of approximately 300 configurations.. To facilitate the structural evaluation'of this many configurations in an effective manner, the evaluation program was based-on a screening approach that selected limiting structures for later rigorous f
evaluation (Reference 2).
The methodology for the thermal growth evaluation involved the steps listed below.
Details of these steps and the methodology are described in the following sections.
l
i rap 2 v)a ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
THERMAL GROWTH EVALUATION STEPS Step 1 - Initial screening for thermally restrained structures.
Step 2 - Evaluation of thermally restrained structures and modifications to those structures that were found to be unacceptably restrained.
Step 3 - Selection of the limiting case thermally restrained structures from those that were not modified.
Stop 4 - ANSYS analysis of limiting cases under combined thermal and non-thermal loads.
Step 5 - Connection evaluation for limiting configurations.
Stop 6 - Sunpary of linear and nonlinear responses and comparisons with Design criteria acceptance limits.
In general, the first five steps, except for the ANSYS linear analysis, were performed prior to Unit 2 restart.
For the purpose of this summary report, ten additional configurations were selected for linear and nonlinear analysis (Steps 3 and 4) based on the same pre-Unit 2 restart considerations.
The last etep was compiled for comparison purposes and this summary report.
STEP 1 - INITIAL SCREENING Structures most affected by thermal growth are those that are both thermally rentrained and subjected to high temperatures. The purposes of the initial screening were to identify thermally restrained structures, to determine whether they were located-in a harsh environment and, for those structures located in harsh environments, to-define the post-accident temperature values that were to be used in the evaluations. This initial sereoning was performed on the basis of w lkdowns and the review of structural steel and environment drawings as documented in Reference 1 To facilitate the structural evaluations, structures were classified into the following three categorient Category I - Structures with obvious axial restraint to thermal growth.
For example, the beams attached to the Torus roof steel, consisting of light structural shapes welded to embedded castellated beams were placed in this group (Figure 1).
Category II - Structures with a potentially high degree of internal-thermal restraint.
For example, platform flexural membarc spanning, between beams were considered as Category II.
Category III - Structures that did not have any internal or external restraint with regard to thermal. growth or were located outside harsh environment areas.
e' i
Pnr.f of a ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)-
These determinations were made by engineers experienced in strue'_ ural steel design.
When the category classification was in doubt, the more conservative assignment was made. The screening results, listing the structures by category, were documented in a calculation (Reference 3).
The form of these results was the.dentification of the drawing number and associated details,_
and classification as Category I, II, or III.
Category III structures, for which thermal effects do not apply, received no further consideration beyond this screening stage.
I STEP 2 - IDENTIFICATION OF THERMALLY RESTRAINED STRUCTURES As a result of the initial screening, only Category I and 11 structures remained for further screening and evaluation. These structures were analyzed for their thermal responses in accordance with the methodologies given in BFN Civil Design Guide DG-C1.6.12.
To facilitate these analyses, comparisons of the design parameters (as noted below) were used to determine enveloping.
details or configurations.
For example, several enveloping configurations for the miscellaneous steel beams attached to the Torus roof steel were defined on the basis of their having similar details of span length, environment, temperature, and beam section designation. The following is a list of the parameters used for selection of enveloping configurations (References 4 and 5):
1.
Temperature 2.
Span length 3.
Boundary restraint 4.
Deam member cross section properties 5.
Column alenderness ratios 6.
Wi_th-to thickness ration for local buckling 1.
Mechanical loads 8.
Similarity of geometry and loading (platforms)
The structures with high thermal restraint were selected for detailed evaluations.
If the evaluations indicated that those-structural-responses were within acceptable limits, then it was concluded the rest of the structures in the group enveloped by the critical cases were also considered acceptable (Reference 6).
i ran 4 0/46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
Then the structures with nonlinear behavior (those with ductility ration greater than 1.0) were selected for further evaluation.
To facilitate these evaluations, the structures were grouped on the basis of configuration, geometry, function, and behavior, in such a way that the same basic structural design and analysis considerations applied to each group.
The Groups were defined as follows:
Group 1 Miscellaneous steel beams attached to Torus roof steel (hereafter referred to as Torus roof beame).
Group 2 Platform steel and miscellaneous steel structures (beams thermally restrained).
Group 3 short W shape posts restraining W hhape beams.
Group 4 Anchorages r
Group 5 Single beam support steel framing Group 6 Torus access platform Groups 5 and 6 were modified to eliminate large nonljnear responses that I
resulted from thermal loads (References 7 and 8) Therefore, further l
evaluations were not performed.
There were 36 enveloping configurations.for l
the Group 1, 2,
3, and 4 structures with ductility ration greater than 1.0 (Reference 6).
These enveloping configurations are provided in Table 1.
Note that some of these 36 configurations envelope other configurations or contain more than one configuration for the identified case. Case 1 of Table 1, for example, has seven subeasos.
Also note that for the purposes of clarity and this summary report, 36 enveloping configurations are depicted as opposed to the approximately 20 s>st limiting stru:tural configurations discussed in TVA's July 20, 1992 letter to NRC.
A subsequent detailed evaluation of Group 3 structures showed that they were elastte and Group 4 was not considered critical because of the anchorage's L
ability to accommndate thermal growth in the lateral direction.. Therefore, further evaluations of these groups were not performed.
STEP 3 - SELECTION OF LIMITING CONFIGURATIONS l
prior to. Unit 2 restarc,-one enveloping case from Group 1 and one from Group 2 were selected for nonlinear analyses by ANSYS. This selection was based on the degree of thermal restraint and the magnitude of calculated ductility ration and superimposed dead and live loads.
The pre-bnit 2 enveloping cases, are included as Case 1 in Table 2 and case 1 in Table 3.
For the purposes of this report, ten additional cases were selected for linear and nonlinear analysis using the previous eclection criteria.
l 4
,,.-n-.,..,,-n.--,,-
~. -,.,
.-,-.,,-n.
,,.v-
, c -t
- - - - ~..
i 1%ge 3 of 46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE l
(CONTINUED) l Of the twelve total cases, eight were Torus roof beams (seven subcases of j
Case 1 plus Case 34 in Table 1) and four were platform steel and miscellaneous steel structural configurations (Ct. sos 14, 15, 21, and 28 of Table 1).
These 12 cases envelope the Groups 1 and 2 configurations. The results of these analytse are provided in Tables 2 and 3, respective 1.'.
STEP 4 - ANSYS ANALYSIS OF LIdITING CONFIGURATIONS l
The ANSYS computer program was used to perform linear as well as iterative nonlinear analysis for the eight Group 1 (Torus roof beams) and four Group 2 (platform and miscellaneous steel) enveloping conf'gurations.
In the ANSYS nonlinear analyses, both large displacement effects and nonlinear j
stress-strain behavior were considered.
The modeling and analysis considerations for the enveloping case ANSYS nonlinear analyses vere as follows:
For the Group 1 structures (Figure 1), the finite element model of the W6 beam attached to the bottom flanges of the embedded castellated beams is shown in Figure 2.
The beam is divided into 12 STIF24 type beam-finite elements.
STIF24 is a uniaxial, three-dimensional, thin-walled beam clement with tension-compression and bending capabilities.
The element material property was specified as clastic, perfectly plastic.
ANSYS analyses were performed for the thermal plus superimposed loads for each of these seven configurations basad on this finite element model.
For the single case of a 6 x 6 square tube attached-to the castellated beams (Case 34), the analysis and modeling approach was similar.
For the Group 2 structures, analysis and modeling was similar to that for the Group 1 described above.
The analynis for the W24x68 access platform beam, uhown as AB in Figure 4, typifies the general approach.
A three-dimensional elastic-plastic beam analysis was performed for the member of interest with the restraints provided by surrounding and.
adjacent members represented by three-dimensional. elastic beam finite
- elements.
Figure 5 shows the detailed modeling of the W24.
The cross-sections were modeled in the same manner as the Torus roof beams of-Group 1 (Figure 2).
Included in the ANSYS nonlinear analyses of two cases were the use of ANSYS buckling option for the consideration of local and global buckling effects.
These analyses were' performed for the enveloping configurations, comprising the highest slenderness ratio and tr ;3rature for Groups ' l and 2, respectively.
Using the ANSYS buck. -g option, buckling was identified if increments of applied lord result in excessive or unbounded deflections. - The calculated displacement responses for the analyzed cases were small.
This indicated that, for the enveloping configurations, buckling does not occur.
These results are summarized in Reference 9.
W'W'-*T-TTTP -P7-
'l" g
+,e es g:g
$rp---g-,e mwe
.-mp.y.v.w g, 4yre ygn.-s eq y
,,,,y
~,
e.,m 9e 9
e.
e_=.i-w~
t-
- --fF-e'.
y7ewwry--e-t--ST
$ tv ' f
-P
i Pap 6 cf 4to ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
In addition to ANSYS nonlinear analyses, corresponding ANSYS linear analyses were also performed for Groups 1 and 2 in order to provide linear solutions for comparison with the corresponding nonlinear solutiors.
STEP 5 - CONNECTION EVALUATION FOR LIMITING STRUCTURES The various connections of the structural configuraticas were also evaluated.
These connections were from Groups 1, 2, 3, ano 4 and ere categorized as follows:
1.
Anchored - member ends (W shapes, tube steel, etc.) welded to embedded or anchor bolted plates.
2.
Welded - member to member wolded connections.
3.
Flexible - member to member clip angle connections.
For anchored connections, the anchor bolte and stude were evaluated and found to satisfy the Design criteria.
For welded connections, the welds were evaluated per the Design Criteria. -The interaction ration were found to be less than one except for Evaluation Numbers 4, 5 and 7 of Table 2.
These resulted in an interaction ratio of 1.07.
This is within the accuracy range of engineering calculations.
Furthermore, the ambient temperature used in the calculation for this area was 620F.
The actual normal operating ambient temperature for this area should be at least ten degrees higher.
This higher temperature would reduce the thermal effects.
For flexible connections, the behavior of connections was found to be 3
secondary (deformation of connections would not cause structural instability) and self-limiting (deformation of connections would relieve the thermal stresses-in the members) in nature and therefore acceptable.
The rotations and bending ductility of flexible connection members, such as base plates and plate elements of connections, are acceptable unless that bending is critical to overall structural stability (e.g., a plate supporting a cantilever).
Behavior is analogous to a clip angle which, although it may bend inelastically, is still acceptable per Section 1.2 of the AISC Specification (Reference 11).
For the BFN Unit 2 miscellaneous steel thermally restrained enveloping configurations, the plates and angles are of the flexible type and their deformations are not critical to overall structural stability.
=_
t 4
Pop 7 qf 46 L
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT t
RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
STEP 6 -
SUMMARY
OF LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR RESPONSES The summary of the linear and non-linear response for Group 1 structures, in terms of both stresses and deflections, is provided in Table 2.
The results of the most critical Group 1 analyses, as shown in Table 2, indicated that the i
nonlinear vertical deflection is less than the corresponding linear deflection. This lo shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 shows the linear and the nonlinear behavior _of the Torus roof beams under thermal loading. The dominant response characterization was the iongitudinal expansion of the beam with vertical deflections being of secondary importance.
This expansion caused a rotation of the rigid member accompanied by corresponding vertical beam deflections for the linear solutions. The linearly calculated deformed shape at 1. 4 5 s, ( 1. 4 5 S, de f ine s a load which is 1.45 times the load which causes first yield S,) corresponds to the limiting case for the W6 beams attached to-the Torus roof steel (see Table 2, Evaluation No. 7).
It is similar and linearly proportional to the i
shape at 1.0 S,.
In the nonlinear solution, the behavior was the same as for the linear solution up to first yielding. After yielding occurs, by initiation of a plastic hinge at joint B, the system acted as a propped cantilever. Additional thermal load increments resulted in unrestrained longitudinal thermal expansion of the member BC.
The rigid link, AB, was pinned at both ends and froe to rotate under additional increments of thermal load.
Thus, the thermal load increment following hinge initiation did not result in a vertical deflection increment. This explains why under combined thermal and mechanical loading, the vertical deflections for the linear solution may exceed those for the nonlinear solution.
Table 3 summarizes _the linear and ns.711near results for four_ Group 2 limiting cases.- For. all Group 1 and 2 config arata >ns, the maximum stres"ra based on-linear behavior were less than twice the yield stress.
Twice the yield stress is the basis for the ASME stress intensity limit for primary plus secondary stresses (Reference 10).
As discussed in Reference 10, twice the yield stress limit ensures acceptable behavior during thermal-loading.
Review of Tables 2 and 3 indicated that the elastically calculated stresses due to non-thermal loading conditions proac ad_a typical ratio of non-thermal load stress to combined load stress of about 1/5. This meant that the non-thermal loads were so small that the combined loading condition, for a typical enveloping configurataon, behaved as a secondary load.
l t
l l
l-l l
lm...
[
rafr s y/44 i
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE l
(CONTINUED) t
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS This report givest (1) a detailed history of the evaluations of thirmal growth at BFN; (2) a summary of limiting case configurations (Table 1) for screenirg purposes; (3) a summary of more rigorous linear and nonlinear calculational results using the ANSYS cceputer code with refined boundary conditions I
(Tables 2 and 3); and (4) a summary of the evaluation results that demonstrate the DFN steel structures are acceptable for thermal conditions (Reference 9).
It is noted that the two time yield strese limit concept is used in the ASME
+
code (Section III) for normal operating and upset conditions only.
Thermal evaluation is exempted in the ASME code for emergency and faulted conditions because of the low number of stress cycles.
Since the analyzed load is a faulted condition and has only one stress cycle, it is conservative to use the two times yield stress limit concept for structural thermal evaluation.
The calculated results presented in Tables 2 and 3 demonstrate that the displacemente for enveloping configurations under combined thermal, dead and seismic loads are small.
The comparisons of displacements in the linear and nonlinear analyses demonstrates that the nonlinear results are reasonable.
The criteria and methods outlined in this report represent a conservative _
1 approach to determine and limit structural behavior of miscellaneous steel structures under thermal loads in combination with dead, live, and seismic i
loads. This has been confirmed by demonstrating that the acceptance criteria of BFN-50-C-7100 and Design Guide DG-C1.6.12 result in acceptably small deflections.
Further validation of the criteria is provided by the linear analysis results that show that the limiting case structural configurations have linear stresses less than twice the yield stress. The twice yield stress is the b m s for the ASME stress intensity limit for primary plus secondary j
stresses.
Standard Review Plan (SRP) 3.8.4 states " thermal loads can be neglected when it can be shown that they are secondary and self-limiting in nature and where the material is ductile." TVA's thermal evaluation demonstraten that implementation of BFN's design criteria ic consistent with SRP Section 3.8.4.
L l
l l
I 9
lC
~
huge V erf46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH If 3UE (CONTINUED)
REFERENCES 1.
BFN-bO-C-7100, Revision 2, Attachments F, BFN Design Criteria.
2.
TVA Civil Design Guide D.G.-C1.6.12 Revision 0, Evaluation of Steel Structures with Thermal Restraint and Design Guide Change Notices DGCN-CEB-89-01 and DGCN-CEB-89-02.
(*)
3.
TVA Calaulation No. CD-QO303-883587, Establish Criteria for the Thermal Evaluation of Hiscellaneous and Structural Steel and Identify the-Drawingu Which Require Evaluation, Revision 2, August 7, 1989.
(*)
4.
TVA Calculation No. CD-Q2303-890359, Thermal Evaluation of Hiscellaneous Steel, Revision 3, November 3, 1989.
(*)
5.
TVA Calculation No. CD-Q2303-890364, Thermal Crowth Analysis of Structural and Hiscellaneous Steel, Revision 5, June 1, 1990.
(*)
6.
TVA Calculation No. CD-Q2303-890683, Miscellaneous Steel - Thermally Restrained Structures with Superimposed Loadings, Revision 4, September 23, 1990.
(*)
7.
DCN No. W7157A, Hodifications for Torus Access Platform.
(*)
8.
DCN No. W5921A, Modification for Miscellaneous Structures below Elevation 565.
(*)
9.
TVA Calculation No. CD-Q2303-923155, Summary calculation of Thermal Issue for Miscellaneous Steel, September 30, 1992.
(*)
10.
Criteria of the ASME BPV Code for Design by-Analysis in Sections III and VIII, Division 2, 1969, ASME.
11.-
AISC, specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, 8th Edition.
(*)
The annotated references are available for review at TVA's Rockville Office.
i
l, rw wof *s ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT i
RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE l
(CONTINUED)
I TABLE 1 SUK M Y TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS i
I CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 1-48W1002-2 PART PLAN 1-e is a M CAsmLATED BEA"5 l
A2,E2
/
d s
GN t
d&
Ln-EM J-48W1002-3 FART PLAN
"*I' f
R3
? ?.. M
- 77 34-t
' f 48W1002-4 PAPT PLAN E4 4 5731:115 #ELDD r NF7 2 AREA F?CF PEMS
?
ELEVATION 5
i I
6 t
b
<ye--
..w.
,+-.---w,n
..,. - ~,.,
m-
F
~:
t t
1 2
rmn4*. ;
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT t
l RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) i i
TABI.E 1 I
t.
SUFJiARY TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS
(
I i
CASENO.lDRAWINGNO.
LOCATION GRCUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 2
48W1002-4' H4-H4 3&4 i
f f
f 4e Q
%4eme 3 -
=.+ e x 22 m
tv a i a N.,
g il 4
L
]N
.. e
- i _=,=
.m t
it b
.n; c
h M
Yi i;
- i
.i 4
i H
i!
{
P.
t-g i
l 55.57-
[
+
i t
ErCI - TCEUS E00?!-
l t
7 --
ELEVATION i
I i
Y n
4 e
t I
t I,
i I
I
f i-l.
,n..
,,,m--
..-+-,,4*-T.,-
w w-v - e +
+., -
--*-=-u-
.-*c-,.-,
- r. s e w-wn-
rm i:1e ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLNIT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGUPATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWIt;G !;O.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGUFATION 3
48W1004-2 PART PLAN 3& 4
- ~1 r;
f5 EL n2
.m 1.
a _ __ -
a 1 y
t -'
. ~ _... _ - -.. - - -.
- ^
T
- w
,e p ;
y I j.
y,.
o
_4 D.
I
rmade ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION l
4 4swloo2-4 DET. A4 3&4 i
EEEED260 EL
/
4 1_g
_,;m...e 3
l i.
- e. 17 l
f
~. -.
..~.
=2 =;
! i
]*
13-12 u:4
(
w a
1
c.
i r.
i t
e reuqe t
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT.
f RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE i
(CONTINUED) i.,:
?'
L a
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS I
i i
f 1
i CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION-GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 4
i l
5 48W1004-4 PART PLAN K4 3&4 n~g DDE, 7..
n u
___,1.
i o
o
!L PL 1/ 2 8x 10 i
l i
l l
fb,
-- j I N
I L
A s,:
o r
?
L'i
!!O I
illij V6 y 15 Lilj 5
}
il M.
p
=
'v f
u_
m
'r kx 1
\\
VB r 3-I I
t e
t
{
^
no 3
1 ELEVATION l'
l t
t I.
f f
i i
f r
6 48W1004-3' PART PLAN A3 3 &,4.
SIMILAR TO CASE NO. 5
[
j N.E. PUMP i.
ROOM-i 7.
48W1022-1' MAIN STEAM 3&4 SIMILAR M CASE NO. 5 (48N1005)-
A vaaw --
[
L 3&4 SIMILAR TO CASE NO. 5 i
j-,
8 48W1022-2 PART PLAN A3 t
PAtT PLAN F6 i
4 48W1022-6 4
r 9
~~
. - ~ -. -,... -... -. - - -..
f
.r rege 15 ef *s ' ;
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) t i
TABLE 1
[
SUMMARY
TA.BLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS t
CASE NO.
DRN7ING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURA1 ION L
9' 48N990 MONORAIL 1&4 i
R13-R14/
S-T r
620-3 g#
]
W
/.,
.m l
t 25 I 4 2 9 l, il l
- -i t_-j I
I
}
{
l f
l 6'-6*
l 6'-5' t
5
_5-i P
ELEVATION t
I l
t 10 4BN990 R13-R14/
3&4 SIMILAR TO CASE NO. S' I
s-T-
[
EL. 620-3 i
g 6-h:
4 i
f
[
-f
Io
- t tl!fi:iL
- !.jll 7(
}.
IifI!fi
?I fI
! t if
)
- ib
- I t.'
f e
- 4 1
re a
r
~
h j
7 N
O I
T l
A d
E F
s U
o U
G
-o.
c
+
S I
r F
7m S
N I
O
.v a
v
~
[
TH S
C n
NT N
AW O
h7.*
1 I
LO T
P R A
R RG U
A G
c E L)
I E
A D F
L 7,
5 l
i R CME C
U U RU C
1 S N EN E
O HI L R
~
LYT T B OF i
CR N
A NR EO T E EE H C O
LB N
4 FT(
A S F T
P N O Y
O 1
U R
R WN A
G OO M
M RI U
O T
B U S
N O
L O
P I
O T
P1 S
A
/
M3 E
C 9
U5 O
R P
R L
- P B - WL RNN E O
N G
N 0
IW 9
A 9
R N
8 D
4' O
,N 1
E 1
SAC
F 1
rasa rret e ENCLOSUME i..
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
I TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 1
]
12:
R14 EL. 548
" -~
A.
g_
i.
/
3 c
0 10 I 25.4
[
l
\\
s 107.67' i
4-j ELEVATION i~
4
~
}..'
,i
- h. -
, ~. -
- ~.
l l
rare n dos ENCLOSURE l
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE i
(CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE.NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 13 4BN1030 SECTION 2& 4 A-A
, m s.;
2e s-.
s, a-
't h
t
'i14x119 0:
L I
' ELEVATION l-I
renere ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABI.E 1 SUF. MARY TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 14 48N1030 SECTION 2&4 3-B y,; x, g 4
.I N12 X b 2' me ELEVATION
'b u..
rare Oke ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT i
RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) i TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS i
i s
CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATI.tN 15 48N996 MAIN STEAM 2& 4 l
48N997 TUNNEL O
s f
1N H
cv 1e x es il \\
i i,
!i t;
l f
h:
c,
{
N
- t
- 1 4; I i
4 4
1 *l
!I
'i j
^
f i,-
- ] i
/
i
\\
j I
Y
.1 g
ii
- i j
!;4 fii I.
I i 4 H
j e:
jr j ;
s 1
If i[
j la 7.
+
i n
I
~
~
ic
- z. 1e m es I
- /
J /
t r
r t
Q
- 7m-,e*. - + a s.,
st..
(
W
)
h I
i l
i.
i.
r L
r rage 21 ef *5 i
ENCLOSURE r
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT l
RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) _
t TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUr' NO.
CONFIGURATION 16 48N435 NW CORNER 2&4
}
41N708 ROOM EL. 541-6 V24x68 ~
W10.x21 f
{
4 h
1 N W24x68 4
i 1
4 c
i ANCEOR3 fTYP )
f%
?
L
rw = tm i
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT i
RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED).
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS t
t CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION-GR9UP NO.
CONFIGURATION E
17 48N928 CORE SPRAY 2&4 22 n.
xm VALV3: ACCESS PLATFOPM I
etc..C-c i
i I
i
?
~ n%, <in u a:q :...D r r-~, p - j
(
(
-n~
-~
M g a 4 t l
J h. 5 i
r i
L i
{
i i
?
~
s
e.,e a y*
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESO._UTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 3
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS ICASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 18 48N944-3 CRD RELIEF 2&4 VALVE PL 3/4 x5x10 PLATFORM S3-II
.i it 53-l!
W10x2C t
fk L7 STEEL PLAN J
I l,
)
i, i
%(CZZZCr!!nCrICIC:Cp;rrrI:2Zhr 2ZZrf i
/
_4 _.. __ _ i J
i
-CONCRETE ELEV
-L\\.
s.~W J 2
rw :s q*s ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL. GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1 i
SUM.*UsRY TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION-GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 19 48N944-6 DET. K6 2&4 rTS 4x4 H.
7 "'
/
w B
/
kJ
'h I
m..
.u ch,
c
i I
.l l
u Pay 25 ef46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OFTHE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 1-20 48N992 CORNER ROOM 2&4
!s)v?
AZ. 315
.i
,/ p '/-
W12y27 EL. 557-2 O
f' A
-ve (typ)
/
sh '**
/ M gs
( {' WT b r a c k e t s f
(typ) b PLAN N
ey, _ __ =y y_ _.ef SECTION 21 48N992 CORNER ROOM 2&4 SIMILAR.TO CASE NO. 20.
AZ. 45 EL. 557-2~
22 48N992 CORNER ROOM 2&4 SIMILAR TO CASE NO. 20 AZ. 135 EL. 557-2
raea u g e.
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
T12BLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 23 48N992 CORNER ROOM 2&4 SIMILAR TO CASE NO. 20 AZ. 225 EL.'557-2 24 48N1214-1 SEC. B1-B1 2& 4 W 8x35 r,
ELEVATION
e Page 27ef 46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) i TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR COx4 FIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION l
25 48N1032 SEC. F-F 2& 4 EL. 554-7
\\ ',
W 12x72 s\\a
\\%
\\ g \\p/
4
\\%
/;
/-)'
/
\\ '\\ N
\\'W xv
\\ i \\
/
\\\\
//
iv N/
P L Ali a
s r w :s d e ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT i
i RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
J TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGiJRATIONS a
CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATIUN GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATIO*i 26 48N1218-1 SEC. A-A 2&4 i
48N1218-2 z%
.bEb I i 48N1218-9
!!e t b E r 1 9
y
~"a %'Le;% u w r %Il%
a m+
g 3 b /$ Es l
I.
n
r m 29,f as ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) s TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 27 48N908 SECTIONS.C-C 2& 4
& D-D I
J K
r f'
N h
'N
.JJ !
h i
L-,
(
2 f
i i;> !
'I
,h {
4 i
I
\\
I If 4
J' li u
/
- r. -
rrrv mrne a u as VM1 Av24 l
4 4
y
"~"
r--
' Page 30of 4 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CCNTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS i
CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 28 48N1021 HEAT 2& 4 48N926 EXCMANGER l
PLATFORM l
EL. 587 i
V24 f f ' ~d j
C12 X 20 7
<p M24 I #b 4
L-4 6
6 I
j ve x cc v24, es !
l 7
a 9 L*
S 4""
,. 50 s Lb I
t t
r
~
rhe n esos ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) l l
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE-FOR. CONFIGURATIONS CASE-NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 29 48N927 MAIN STEAM 2&4 VAULT ACCESS PLATFORM MK.
4 @ EL. 571-
, 7'
'm 9
[t CIOriE 3 lN
'ilOx21/)ml~
-- -N i t'/P )
[
i i
j
~~
l,.,.,
PLAN 1
u______
...............,,................. ~.....,.. _... _.................
rare n p.
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 30 48N1018 SEC. A-A 2
MAIN STEAM AND FEEDWATER PIPE SUPPORT
,(Y5x20'
,#2 2 $ x 2h xr!
\\\\,
__ C f. '.' S x 4 0 )
ELEVATION J
i i
i m.
q
s '
Page 33 efM ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 31 47A455-409 A409-A409 1
HPCI SUPT AT TORUS ROOF t
I Ts 3 y 3 w..................-......
.....a F L p......
...3 g
l c
t; f.; <L1 T
prDp 7
u la u l
ln 6)
J g
a u s <.i-t. v 1'.
t y
r w
a y
f.
Page 34ef 46 -
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 32 47B456-70 A70-A70 RCIC 1
7 n? v c 7aDDu PIPE SUPPORT p-~ O.X 2.y.1../ 7 r-u
/
4 i!
- i. l h:
o a
p 4
L i
l 3
V ?
PIFE
,,m av E 1$ b,V [\\ I.1.'V 1%
' ' ' j'
-m______
Page 33 el4 '
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CO:,TINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 33 478920-63 A63-A63 1
f TORUS PURGE r
PIPE SUPPORT c--
e----
W 8x40
.i o
.4!
TN 18" PIPE
[
,s,.
D
,)
J_N W 6x15 5 ELEVATION
-o,
,m,
.e g"
s rna ude ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROW 6 H ISSUE (CONTitJUED):
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS i
CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
I.OCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 34 47B920-64 A64-A64 1
TORUS PURGE
+
PIPE SUPPORT s
y v e n a _ u u 'u n? mr i~-
p{
i r 7. OmrT t
2us
\\
./
. ['
P_ F_..A l< C
')(.
s
_. _ ~ _ _. ~
._.,e g-...
. _ _ _. _. ~. _. ~, - - -
To Sx5xu o
s._._.-._._... _._ _._._ _.;._____....._._ _._ _ _.._ _ _a b L' b" t
- R.4' Oi i i b* U nT n ~ p T7 i
'.h
- "37"I*5' ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERM AL~ GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) l' TABLE 1'
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE NO.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 35 47B2349-9 A9-A9 1- & 4 CONTROL ROD
/
DRIVE PIPE
/
-(([8 E D Pbq r
j SUPPORT
._g4y5 4
,c wbx1a o
j A
ELEVATION t
. m
.,w..
.4
hrge 33 efM '
ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 1
SUMMARY
TABLE FOR CONFIGURATIONS CASE Nd.
DRAWING NO.
LOCATION GROUP NO.
CONFIGURATION 36 4782349-12 A12-A12 3'& 4
[.
./
,N
/
.._ E M. 9 7 I')
D I, -
\\j ut
_um i
,f i;
a n
o i:
6, T5 5x5
,,i 1
).---....__.-_
~. -... -. -....,.
.-..._....-.-,..a.y 7.-.--..-.-..-..--..__--.-....-...-.--,t p{ p iT ? y T ( s %T 4
A) 1s / Mx JU4\\
~
~
= -
Page 39 afes ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 2
SUMMARY
FOR TORUS ATTACHED STEEL THERMAL EVALUATION BY ANSYS linear Nelinear Weld Desig-Span.
Masimum Stress Maximum DAFS N
Non Thermal Refense Refense nation
(!)
Stress (14)
Stress DiWe Drawmg
- (Table 1)
(Inches)
(Inches)
% 6X15.5 6*-7%*
43 11.10 25.5 f, = 17.68 51.858 OD239, asial
!/3326 36.0 0.0316 - axial 1/2514 4tW1002-1 0.76.
PART PLAN 0.0999 - vertical 1/795 0.0418 - vertical
!!864 48W1002-3 R3 CASE 1 2
W6X25 5'-9 % -
30 6
20.4 f, = 6 64 50.573 02100 - axial 1/3647 36.0 0.0256 - axial 1/2701 48W1002-1 0.815 PART PLAN 0.0683 - venical V1014 0.0645 - vertical I/1073 48W1002-4 E4 CASE 1' 3
W6X15.5 5*-10" 38 11.10 25.5 f, = 6.32 51.459 0.0215 - stial 1/3221 36.0 0.0277 - a mial I/2528 48W1002-1 0.98 PART PI AN 0.0808 - venical I/867 0.0754 - vertical L929 48W1002-2 E2 CASEI..
4 W6X15.5 6 -6*
43 II.to 25.5
. f, = 4.9 51 521' O.0239 - asial 1/3270 36.0 0.0306 - axial I/2544, 48W1002-1 1.07 PART PLAN 0 0958 - venical I/789 0 0032 - vertical I/837 4KW1002-2 A2 CASEI 5
W6Xt55 6*.1 "
40 11.10 25.5 f, = 9.05 52.12h 0 0216 - axial I/3373 36.0 0.0291 - asial I/2513 48Wim12-1 127 PART PLAN 0.0820 vertical 17802 0 0744 - venical W81 4RW1002-3 F3 -
CASE 1 6
W6XI5.5 5 ' 33 11.10 25.5 f, = 6.92 51.58 0.0153 - asial 1/3279 36.0 0 0232 - exial I!2584 48W1002-1 0.91 PART PL.A?J 0.0573 - venical I/1049 0.0549 - vertical I/1004 48W1002-3 L3 CASE 1 7
W6XIS.5 5 *-3
- 35 11 10 25.5 f, = 11.85 52.208 0.0186 - axial I/3387 36.0 0.0249 - axial 1/2534 4AW1002-1 1.07 PART PLAN O_0601 - venical I/1048 0.0552 - venical I/1141 44W1002-3 A3 CASEI
4 rmeeps l
ENCLOSURE i
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT
. RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE l
(CONTINUED) l TABLE 2
SUMMARY
FOR TORUS ATTACHED STEEL THERMAL EVALUATION BY ANSYS Unear Non4inear Weld
" 8" I*"
I Refe nce go, k!/r b/24 dg Matinuam Stress Maximtim DAFS isneraction nation (1)
Stress (ksi)
Stress Displacemers DAFS (bi)
Displacemera N
}
Ras (ksi)
(Imhes)
Onched 8'
TS6X6X0.5 5'-10 % "
20.81 6.0 -
12
- f. = 9.953
- 44.764 0.0349 - exial 1/2028 36.0 0 035 - exin!
1/2023 47B92044 0.72 SUPPORT R23 0.2172 - vertical 1/326 0.224 - vertical 1/316 CASE 34 DAFS - Displaccinent As a Fraction of Span
[
L -.
1 Page 4f ef 46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLAtH RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
TABLE 3
SUMMARY
FOR PLATFORM STEEL THERMAL EVALUATION BY A*4SYS l
Linear N.whnear Wekt l
Non D I**
- M**
- Maximm Masinw2m gr,er,3, No.
Designation kl/r
- b72t, d/t,,
Dermal Drawing b
Displacement DAFS Displacemera DAFS Ratio Stress Gui)
(ini.I (ksi) l (laches)
(Imhes) 1 W24X6%
13'-7%*
27.0 7.7 57.0 f = 6.79 69.36 0.0008 - asial negligible 36.0 01U21 - axial negligihte 48N926 Lew then 1.0 Heat Exchanger 0.0431 - vertical F3798 0.0507 - vertical U3229 platf
1 >
d >
0 0
0 0
CROSS SECTIONAL PROFILE OF NONUNEAR BEAM MODEL WITH STIFF 24 ELEMENTS hl RIGID MEMBER.
/
/-
/
f
//
VARIES s
~j
-\\
/
' Figure 2.
Torus Roof Beam Finite Element.Model (Case 1)
~o.
e.
,..,. ~.,.
f.
l'ap 44 ef 46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED)
T7
/ A
//
B.
D
/
C /
f7
/.
/
\\ DEFLECTION CORRESPONDING TO 1.45 C
- ELASTIC BEHAVIOR
'N /
A
/-
DEFLECTION CORRESPONDING TO 1.45 Sy B
l C
-Q
/
4 3
DEFLECTION CORRESPONDING TO 1.0 Sy j.
INELASTIC BEHAVIOR Figure 3.
Torus Roof Beam Elastic and Inelastic Behavior
,, ae l' age 43 oj46 ENCLOSURE i
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROVmi ISSUE (CONTINUED) 13'-7-3/4" ita 6'-4-i/2" 6'-a-l/4'
~'
~
.n sg.i T
b W24x68 R
k 2
4 3
W24x66 f
g_.~
i 12-1/2",
3'-4*
'o h-h W24x68 R
'f b
p - w24Kle S
S
- lg;.
s
!n cea g
$$f,.
RCr DwGSs 4BNio21 48N926 UNT.T 2 - PLAN narc, eer att MCHOERS SHOwN Figure 4.
Accenn Platform Plan (Case 28)
,s.
Page 46 c) 46 ENCLOSURE BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT RESOLUTION OF THE THERMAL GROWTH ISSUE (CONTINUED) v v
o p
- W:24
- d 4
h a
h Figure 5.
Access Platform-Finite Element Model (Case 28) 1