Text

Bulk Pool Swell Impact Loads on Small Structures Above Pool Surface at Clinton Power Station:Evaluation of Impact of Maise Criteria on Original Design
	ML20127H448
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	05/31/1985
From:	; BURNS & ROE CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20127H299	List: ML20127H448; U-600020, Provides Suppl Info in Response to Request for Addl Info Re SER (NUREG-0978) Outstanding Issue 9 Concerning LOCA-related Pool Dynamic Loads.Issue Resolved.W/Eight Oversize Drawings. Aperture Cards Available in PDR;
References
	NUDOCS 8505210303
	Download: ML20127H448 (32)
	v • d • e

t BULK POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS ON SMALL STRUCTURES ABOVE POOL SURFACE AT CLINTON POWER STATION.

AN EVALUATION OF TIIE IMPACT OF "MAISE CRITERIA" ON ORIGINAT, DESIGN TECIINICAL REPORT Prepared By:

' BURNS & ROE, INC.

800 Kinderlamack Road Oradell, New Jersey 07649 Por :

I I,I,IllOI S POWi;R COMPAIJY koj52 303 850516 E

OcK 05000461 PDR w

i.

4.

~

J BULK. POOL SWELL. IMPACT LOADS ON SMALL STRUCTURES ABOVE POOL SURFACE AT CLINTON POhTER STATION

'AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF "MAISE CRITERIA".ON ORIGINAL DESIGN TECHNICAL REPORT 3

Prepared by:

U MW D. T. Mucichescu Reviewed by:

O. Michejda Approved by:

/[

B. Bedrosi'an eh Approved by:

J. C. Archer Submitted by:

h/C R..P.

Chuebon BURNS AND ROE, INC.

800 Kinderkamack Road Oradell, New Jersey 0764 9 May 1985~

m__

e-

+.

E TABLE OF CONTENTS e

t EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND II.

GESSAR II' CRITERI A USED IN Tile ORIGINAL DESIGN LIM 1TATIONS I'I I.

CRITERIA REVISIONS-SUGGESTED BY'G. MAISE FOR

' PLANT UNIQUE. STRUCTURES NOT SATISFYING GESSAR II LIMITATIONS IV.

EVALUATION OF "MAISE CRITERI A" IMPACT OM ORIGINAL DESIGN ~*AT CLINTON POWER STATION A.

EVALUATION METilODOLOGY

' B.

STRUCTURES / COMPONENTS EVAI.UATED C.

RESULTS V.

CONCLUSIONS ~

VI.

REFERENCES TADLES AND FIGURES

. APPENDIX A.

ANAI.YTICAL APPROACil - OUThlNE I

e 9

s D

e f

i l-

m-v i

i

. EX. i.dC. UT. I VM S.UMMA. R. Y Small structures located above the suppression pool in the containment structure of Clinton Power Station - Unit No. I were designed to withstahd bulk ~ pool swell impact loads as defined in GESSAR II ' report.

The U.S.'HRC has reiti.cwed

' ^

this-load definition and'has found it acceptable subject to certain limitations.

For those structures no,t satisfying these limitations, the owner-Utility'was requi ed to demo'nstrate that eqnservative specifications'were used in their original design.

r Dr.

G. Maise o'f the -Brookhaven Nat iona l Laboratory has developed specific guidance in defining btilk impact loads on sniall structures affected by limitations.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate if the supplemental criteria proposed-by Dr. G. Maise would adversely impact the original tiesign of affccted small structures,.i.f adopted.

A reptosentative group of such structures were select,cd by the Illinois Power Company.and provided for Burns and Roc's evaluation.

This group included structural elements (beams), pipe supports -includin.g a f ferent piping, and.:lectrical,

conduits with associated supports.

The equivalent static load method, a sitandard method of design for dynamic loadn

~

was utilized in evaluating the adequacy of original design.

The or'iginal design parameters were obtained from th'e Architect-

' Engineer, Sargent & Lundy, and compared '.iit h equivalent design parameters obtained following Maise Criteria.

This

^

approach is essent ially t hat recommended by 'Dr. Maisc'and

,previously ac'epted'by U.S.

NRC.

c e

e ii

\\l

o.,

~,

4 S

mW 1

' Based on the results of our evaluation, as reported and discussed in ' the body of this report, it is concluded that' the supplemental criteria proposed by Dr. Maise'has.no' adverse-j impact ~on the orig,inal desi'gn of. structures,/ components subjected.

.to bulk pool swell, impact. loads'at.Clinton'P,ower Station Uni't No.

1,'i.e. the briginal-design is. adequ$te'. '

y s

O' 9

9 L

4 5

O e

t 6

4 4

6 J

a i

=

i f

b e

8 e

ki

)

9 ii i g

9

r I.

~ INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Illinois: Power Company's (IPC)'C-linton P'ower Station - Unit

~

is'a boiling wate'creactor (BWR) plant with'a f

r No. ' l~- (CPS)

' Mark.III containment configuration which was designed to the criteria identifiedlin the plant Final Safety Analysis Report. accounting for containment loads defined in GESSAR II

'(References 1,'2).

Smallsstructures. located above the spppression pool were

-designed to withstand the bulk pool swell -impact loads which

..occurafterapostulatedloss-offcoolantaccident (LOCA) ac defined in-GESSAR II'(References 1,.2), and for other appli-cable loads.

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission- (US NRC) has reviewe'd the GESSAR II' definition for bulk pool swell loads on small, structures located above the suppression pool and-

'has found it' acceptable subject to certai.T limitations (see Reference 3)'.

Although these limitations are not applicable to the GESSAR II' Standard Plant, th'ey are applicable to CPS

and, as,airesult, tlui owner utility - IPC. - is required to demonstrate:that. conservative. design specifications were used-in those cases affected by limitations.

Dr. G. Maise of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Depart-ment of Nuclear Energy, has developed specific guidance

-l'n defining bulkipool swell impact loads'on-small structures

.af ected by limita'tions.

V

- The, purpose of this report is to evaluate if the-supple-mental criteria.p'roposed by Dr. G. Maise would adversely impact the original designs of affected small structures at CPS, if' adopted.

+

m 1

.y#--

-.---.w,-%

~ _-

--,.--sn. - _ - -,

,~._.,,u,,

...-9--

, - -, - - +. - -,.

-.-e.9

{,,

7 II.

GESSAR II ' CRITERIA USED I!1 THE ORIGINAL DESIGli -- LIMITATIO!15 i

The; bulk pool swell impact loads on small structures located:

above-the suppression 1' pool are specified in Section 3B.10.11-

-of GESSAR II (Reference 1).

Small' structures are defined there as_those approximately 20 inches wide, or smaller, and the'l'mpact l'oad per unit area is.specified as a triangular..

impulse of duration t

=0. 007 seconds and of amplitude',.-

d pg,x, equal to 115 psi'and,60 psi for beams / flat structures ^

and pipes, respectively. (See Figure' 1 of.this report).

The resulting maximum impulse design values (per unit area),

.Imax' for beams / flat structures:

Imax. = 0. 4 0 3 psi

sec. ; and,

for pipes:

I

= 0. 210 psi

sec.,

- They correspond - to a maximu'm impact. velocity V

= 50' fps max assumed to' occur at a height, II, above the suppression pool:

'l 10 ft 1 II 1 18.ft.

At heights lower than 10 ft.,

the impulse design values, design, correspond to the impact velocity at that height:

I u

I I

IY/Y I;

~'

design max mx where:~

( 11 / 1 0 ) (2. 6 - 1. 6 ' G 11/10

) for 0 g its 10f t.

i.

V/V

=

max The acceptance of a maximum impact velocity V

= 50 fps at max a hoight of 10 ft., and of a design impulse value corresponding to the impact velocity at the height under consideration-appear explicitly in Reference 3.

2

~

F

?^

O 1

The US NRC has; reviewed _and accepted this~GESSAR II' load' specification with tl5e~following limitations, resultin.g from a critica.1' evaluation of'th6 available test data base:

4 (a) the impacted structures must be - shown to : belong to

'the "GESSAR II conservative" region (relative to modified Mark II methodology)Lofl Figures 3B.33-l

through.3B.33-4 1(Reference 2, Response to, Question 3B33) for, impacting velocities 'i 50 fps; (b) impacted ' structures are no shor'cer than 4 f t. ; and, (c) impacted structures are no closer than,6 ft. above

~

the suppression-pool.

7 For structures at the CPS subjected to bulk impact loads

that do not satisfy the_above limitations, the owner utility (IPC):must! demonstrate that conservative -load specifications.

. were-6 sed in.their original designs.

O L

b e

9 6

t 4

9 9

e 3

ik.

s

CRITERIA REVISI'NS SUGGESTED BY G. MAISE FOR PLANT UNIQUE III.

O STRUCTURES NOT SATISFYING GESSAR.II LIMITATIONS Dr. Maise has' addressed'the issues associated with.GESSAR II load specification limi_tations, namely the impulse duration definition for:

structures closer than 6 ft. to the suppression pool, and structures shorter than 4 ft.

The second limitation.is affecting only radial structures.

Revised / shorter durations, t are. recommended by Dr. Maise d,

in Reference 4 report as follows:

for radial structures:

t

= 0.0465*(II/V)*(L/4)s0.0068 sec.;

d for circumferential structures:

t

= 0. 0137

01/V) s0. 002 sec ;

d where:

11 = - height above pool, in feet; V = impact velocity at height !!, in fps; L = length of (radial) structure <4 ft., in feet.

It should be noted that these relations accept, implicitly, the existing GESSAR II load specification tus being conservative.

for all structures that are located further than 6 feet above the poo.1 and that are longer than 4 fe'et; they also accept the fact that the existing GESSAR II load specification (P

= 115 psi /60' psi, t

= 0.007 sec.) is conservative for max d

Mark III containment structures for which the pulse durations are:

4 Wm

V k

e 4

~

for' radial structures:

.td.>

0.0068 sec.; and, 1

s

.for circumferential.' structures; td4

.002 sec 6

~

The basis'of the above could be found in Reference 2,

. particularly in Section 3B0.3.2.33, Figures 3B33.~1"through.

3B33.'.

4

. The: implication here is that, preserving the design ' impulse, f

- structu,res subjected to a shorter pulse ~ duration will be exposed.to a peak pressure greater than used in the.or.tginal design';'- hence, the need to evaluate the adequacy of tho' original'desigh..

s 4

g 9

4 D

g 9

4 4

P e

D 5

6

IV.

EVALUATION OF MAISE CRITERIA IMPACT ON ORIGINAL DESIGN AT CLINTON POWER STATION A.

EVALUATION METHODOLO'GY '

Design of ' structures subjected to impulsive / dynamic loads may be evaluated, in simpler terms, by' examining the product:

(P b

max which may be viewed as a measure of the structure's response; where:

P is the peak pressure in the design impulse ~, and DLF is max the dynamic load. factor, a parameter dependent on the impulse shape and duration and on the natural period of vibrations of the structure governing its response (usually the fundamental / largest natural period),. calculated with due account for fluid-structure interaction effects.

Consequently,..the original design is adequate if:

(P

DLF) original design 2 (P

DLF) Maise design.

max max P

and DLF' values for the original design were obtained from the casigner of the CPS, Sargent & Lundy Engineers (S& L), while new values for the case when Maise proposed criteria revisions were adopted were developed by Burns and Roe, Inc. (BRI).

The analytical approach used' by BRI to evaluate the adequacy /

conservatism of the original design is described in detail in

. APPENDIX A to this report.

In summary, it consists of, first, computing the impulse following the guidelines established in Reference 2 (Section 3B0. 3. 2.'33 ) based on the values of hydrodynamic mass (Reference 5) and impact velocity (Re fe rence

3) for.the structure investigated; second, computing the pulse duration using equations suggested by G. Maise (Reference 4) l 6

q=.

andithe:P,,g value f rom the impulse and pulse duration.

Finally, a<DLF corresponding,to the shape:of the. impulse, the pulse duration and'the, natural period of the structure is obtained and

. the productL(P,

'DLP) is calculated.

A check is then made to ensure.-that:the inequality. mentioned above is satisfied, i.e.

- that the value cif.the ' design' parameter (P

DLF). calculated'

~

max 1as summarized hbove is. smaller.than the corresponding value.of

' the original design.

This approach follows Maise' recommendations

-in-Reference 4 and is essentially' identical with.that used by General. Electric Company to demonstrate the ad6quacy/ conservatism of GESSAR II. load definition.for bulk pool s' ell impa'ct on small w

structures (see Reference 2, S'ection 3BO.3.2.33, Figures 3B33.1 through 3B33.4).

b t

e e

4 9

j s

P e

r W

Lm

{:-

B.-

STRUCTURESICOMPONBNTS EVALUATED

. A representative sample of' structural elements / components

~

subjected to bulk pool swell impact loads.was provided by-

,IPC.

'These ' elements,'also referred to below as " targets",

are listed in Tables lA through 5A of this report.

The tables include the design data needed in the analysis of pool. swell structural ef fects, 'as described

.in Appendix A.

All-pertinent input data were obtained from

~

the plant designer, S&L.

The headings and Eootnotes in Tables lA to SA are self-explanatory.

In addition, the following remarks should be-made:

The reference water pool elevation is '731'-5".

Targets classified as "other" in column' (2) of tables are either linear elements which are not oriented along

~

any of the local principal axes (radial, circumferential or vertical), or small elements without a clearly-defined centerline- (e.g., conduit straps).

- - Natural frequencies of targets Nos, 11 and 18 from Table lA are new estimates (since not available from S&L transm.ittals').,

C.:.RESULTS For each category of targets, as identified in Tables lA to 5A, the-results of the analysis are displayed in Tables 1B to 5B, respectively.

In general, revised equivalent static design pressures, as defined in Section IV A, are the final output of 'the analysis -(PREV in colunn- (8) of Tables la, 2B, 4B and.5B).

Next to the newly calculated values are' listed the corresponding amounts from the original design (PO RIG IU column (9)).

Since'the original design loads'for piping were a'vailable Lunder a different format (reactions at supports due to pool swell loads applied to piping, rather than design pressure itself), columns (9) a'nd (10) of Table 3B list revised and.

' original' support reactions.' Values in Column (9) were obtained as RREV " PREV.

D L,

in which:

RREV is re' vised support reaction,

P is revised design pressure,

REV D-is pipe-diameter,,and L-islength of pipe tributary to support.

8

-m

,-n

r As a rule, the tables also include the intermediate calculation steps required by. the method appropriate to each case ~ (Reference 4 - for " low" targets, vs Reference 3 for "high" - 11 > ' 19 ft. - targets). 'Wherever these intermediate results are

. irrelevant to the applicable method, the symbol "N/A" is used instead of a numerical value.

Symbols for pertinent variabl9s and basic formulas utilized to generate the tabular calculations are,as shown in Appendix A.

The dynamic load factor is based on a versed sine pulse shape whenever the Maise method applies, whereas,a triangular pulse-is assumed, and related DLP values are used, in those cases where the analysis follows the NUREG-0978 approach.

In what follows, specific comm'ents are made and results are discussed for each tabular calculation.

Table 1B comprises only " low" lll < 6 ft.) and ".small" beam-like targ.ets.'

Target No. 18, which is neither circumferential, n.or radial, was conservatively treated as radial.

By comparing the pressures in columns (8)~ and (9), it is concluded that the revised loads are lower for all targets under consideration.-

The pipe supports included in Table 2B qualify as "small" and "short" targets which are oriented either radially or circumferentially.

With the exception of No. 1 in list, where the froth impact load definition applies ( Re f. 3), all remaining targets are treated in accordance with Ref. 4.

'The corresponding pipes, listed in Table 3B, are "high" targets (II > 19',

froth impact applies), with the exception of No. 12.

Throughout Table 3B the. maximum value of the dynamic load factor was used (as required by Ref. 3 for the froth -impact, and conserva-tively for No. 12, which anyway does not pose a problem -

as discussed below).

Since each support is subjected to.both direct pool swell loads (Table 2B) and indirect loade, (from atta' hed piping, c

Table 3B) a more detailed' discussion of results is warranted at this point.

Target No.

1.

Although P-REV > E (Table 2B), the support ORIG was actually designed for a total PS load of'30,529 lbs.

(c f.

Attachment to S&L letter of 3/1/85).

The corresponding revised design load, defined in accordance with the S&L procedure as the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the direct and indirect revised support reactions, As 28,884 lbs.

.It is concluded that the original design has a~s'ufficient margin to accommodate the larger revised direct yomponent of the load.

-w-m.

9 C-4 e

PI 7

^

l

.1 Targeti No. 2'..

Using'a'similar approach under similar Econd'itions, the. revised support design' load is calculated -

Jas 54,'266;1bs. vs a total load.of 75,404 lbs used in original. design (cf. same S&L ' transmittal), so that the same conclus' ion appli,es.

Target'No.

3.

The value indicated in col.. (8)l of Table.

~

2B-already includes the factor F3 defined in Appendix A.

This adjustment was made in order to retain-the-format

-utilized for all the other targets, while accounting for the.effect.of increased yield stress and therefore increased < allowable' stress ~- for impulsive loads.

For the given.t'/T ratio,.the' time at which.the peak response-d o

occurs is of the order of 1 msec. which implies F3 = -0.71-(Ref. 6)._

If the direct and indirect load effects.are, now combined, it is_ concluded that the. revised and original total reactions'are practically equal.

. Targets Numbers 4,15 and'6.

In these cases,the pipe is vertical atisupport, and'the latter provides only_ lateral, restraint to the3former.

Therefore,. indirect' loads on

' support iri the' direction of, applied load (vertical) are,

negligible, so that-only. contributions of direct' loads

need~be' considered. 'When these are compared (Table 2B),

.it'is concluded that.the revised loads.have no imp'act on 4:

-the original ~ design.

3,. ' j-Targets Numbers 7'through ll'.

The direct revised pressures

(

are loweri or practically equal to the. original design values.

g/h

.The same' occurs for-the indirect loads (Table 3B), 'with a single exception --No.. 9 in table.

However, in this

~

' ~ ' ~

particular,c'ase the total (S RSS ) revised reaction turns out to be7 practically equal to,the corresponding original

.value, so-that the original design' appears'to be satisfactory for the new loads,'too.

IN

?

-- i is p. f }'

Target No. 12. 'Since each' revised load component'is lower.

'l-L than its original' co.unterpart, 'the original design is,

,ade'quate.

The direct-lo$ds on electrical ~ conduit supports are displayed' in Table 4B. ?All conduit straps or support struts which -

L a're: exposed to the pool dwell load through their. cross section'al area only are considered as non-6ri'tical,- due

~

-toithe. negligible. thickness of those structural _ shapes.

.In assigning a " length" and a-" width" to small attachment

~ parts,such as conduit straps, it was considered that the

. element' length is' oriented along the centerline of the

- ' attached conduit,f thusc ir.1plicitly defining the radial or

- circumferential character of the target.

y 2

10

[.

p f

?

~

r

'r W

m' w

r-w rw -

e --

r 1

t For conservativenessI, all straps were arbitrarily considered t':

As all ite's in table turn out to be as," flat" - targets.

m circumferentlal, no correction for support'longth was required in'calculationLof impact duration.

Referenc'c 1

4'was used throughout, to. result in values shown in col.

(8).. Inspection ofiresults indicates that,. with' no.

. exception, the revised. direct loads are bounded by the

~

'originalicorresponding' loads.

, Finally, Tab'le -5B includes' the loads on the electrical conduits attached to the supports listed in Table 4B.

The remarks.made.carlier regarding. vertical piping apply to-

' vertical! conduits'as well,.resultingiin nominal indirect

-loads on: support.'

For the remaining targets, provisions of Ref. '4 were used -'in calculations.

All targets are circular in cross section and, with a single exception, oriented circumferentially. 'Where.two conduits are attached t%) the same support,.the DLF was; computed conservatively-

-for-the most unfavorable case (ratio td/T closest tx) 1.,

o or maximum DLP). ' Inspection of final results shows that

-the revised loads are well below the original design loads..

e 4

s O

8 e'

t

,f

~

e

.f 9

)- '

11 L' I

g

~

V.

CON'CLUSIONS The objective of this study was to evaluate the ef fect of the. revised. pool swell impact load definition, as proposed

' in Ref. 4, on the original design of strue'tures/ components exposed'to such loads at the Clinton Power Station.

The. scope of the study was limited to "small structures",

as defined in Ref.

3, para. 1.3, to which the new load' definition

~

- of Ref. 4' applies.

Since the new load-definition only affects "close" (11 1

6 f t ')

and

' "short" - (L 1 4 ft.) targets,.a-selection of

~

such representative.clements was made by. IPC and provided to'BRI.

This' selection includes beams (Table f1A), pipe

' supports (Table 2A) and electrical conduit supports (Table.

4A)., However, since the design.of the items included in the'second'and third categories must also account for. indirect pool. swell effects. (i.e., load transferred to support from

. the attached. pipe;or electrical conduit),-these effects have been also investigated.

These related linear components are listed in Tables 3A.and 5A.

. The method utiliz6d is essentially that recommended by Maise in' Reference 4.

. With very'few exceptions, noted in the body of this report, the input of the analysis.was furnished.by S&L,.the plant.

_ designer.

No review or checking of data supplied by S&L was made; such a review / checking was not considered within' the scope of this work.

Based on.the results of.our evaluation, as reported and discussed within the body of.this report, it is concluded that the~ revised load definition (Ref. 4) has no adverse impact on the initial. design of structures / components located inside the CPS Reactor Building.and exposed to such loads.

9 4

f 4

/

4 12

)

c

w,

/

~VI.

-REFERENCES 1.

' G neral Electric Co., General Electric-Standard Safety

' Analysis Report for'238 Nuclear Island Design (GESSAR.

-II), Volume ^6/ Appendix 3D:

" Containment Loads",'G.E.*

Document'22A7007, Rev. 20.

2.

' GESSAR.II, Volume 7/ Attachment 0 to' Appendix 3B: "Appen-

dix.3B' Questions and Responses", G.E. Document 22A7007,

[

Rev.: 20.

~

'3.-

US-Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Appendix.C.to'" Technical Evaluat' ion Report on Mark III LOCA - Related Hydrodynamic Load Definition", NUREG-0978, August 1984.

4.

G.-Maise:

" Suggested Acceptance Criteria for Impact Loads ~on-Short Mark III Structures.Close to the Pool",

Department of.' Nuclear Energy, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y.

11973, February 15,' 1984.

p r

5..

General Electric Co'.,

" Mark III Confirmatory ^ Test

.. Program. 'One-Third Scale Pool Swell.Impa'ct Tests, Test Series 5805,.,"G.E. Report NEDE-13426P, August 19,75.,

L

.6.

. Air Force Design ~ Manual " Principles and Practices for:

Design. of Hardened Structures", Technical Report AFSWC-TOR-62-138, December 1962.

- o

's.

e 4

r 4 F

v

+

9 i

.g Y

~

4 9

4 S

m 13

(~-

TABLE lA.

S,tructural Elements at Elev. /37'

,. Input Data Height Width Target

.Orien-Above.

aor Nat.

No.

Designation, tation Shape Water Diam.-

Frequency Length (ft.)

(in. ).

(Hz)

(ft.)

'(7)

(0)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6;

~

C12x30 C

F 4.46 3.17 167.

N/A l

2 S15x50 R

F 4.21' 5.64 167.

3.25 3.

S18x70 C

F 3.96 6.25 71.

N/A 4

'lCG1 R

F 3.41 8.00 71.

N/A 5'

W14x26 C

F 4.30 5.00 59.

N/A R

F 3.15 7.25 40.

N/A 6

S24x100 7

1CG4 R

F 2.91 10.0 59.

N/A 8

S15x50 R

F 4.21 5.64' 100.

N/A 9

W8x18 C

F 4.78 5.25 100.

3.'75 10-

.lCG5 C

F 3,21 8.00 40.

N/A' 11 S10x35 R

F 4.63 4.94 251.

N/A.

'12 W14x26 C

F 4.30 5.00 59.

N/A 13 C15x40 C

F 4.21 3.52 59.

N/A 14-C'12x 30 C

F

-4.46 3.17 255.

N/A 15 S15x50 O~

F.

4.21 5.64 125.

N/A 16 C12x30 C

,F 4.46 3.17 96.

N/A

.17 C15x40 C

F 4.21 3.52-96.

N/A 18

-L3x3 O

F.

5.04 3.00 114.

3.64 19 S15x50 R

F 4.21 5.64 96.

3,25 j

Notes:

1. In Col. (2):

R= Radial; C=Circumferential; V= Vertical; O=Other.

2.

In Col. (3):

F= Flat; R=Round; O=Other.

~

3. In Col. (7): Element length is irrelevant if greater than 4 fcot (N/A in table).

14

7 b

~ TABLE'2A.' Pipe-' Supports-rnput Data i:.

Height' Width Above or _

Nat.

g.,

_ Target Orien-.

W a t e r -- _ Diam.

Fr'equency Length

No.

. Designation tation. Shape (ft.)

(in. )

(Hz')

(ft.)'

.(0 )

. (1 )

(2)-

(3)

(4 )

(5)~

(6)

(7)

<1

'lRH06003R..

R-R 19.09

.6-435.

l'.83 2

'lRH06007R R

.R

10-19 8

540.

1.83

.l'C14007R C

F-10 10 416.

.2.50 3

C 4.

ICC16009X.

R F

10-19 4

1180.

. 1.00

~5 lRB12030G R

F.

10-19 3

690..

1.25

- 6;

'lPS05008G R-F' 10-19.

2 1337.

0.58

~

7^

lRH0400lR R

R-10-19 8

393.

2.50

.,5 0 2

8 lRH04006R R

R 10-19 8-306.

9 lRH04038R' R

R 10-19' 10

' 452.

2.58 10 1RH04039R R

R 10-19' 10 405.

2.581 11~

-lRH04041R-R R

10-19 10,

400.

2.58 1

~

~12 1CC16008R R

F 10-19 4

92.

.l'. 0 0 Notes: See Notes'for Ta'ble'lA.

Wide' flange supports with; half pipe-attachment at-bottom flange are assimilated with ci~cular targets (identified r

S

' by " R" in Col. (3) )

~ Elements located ~between elevations 10 and 19'above.

. water level are indicated as 10-19 in Col..(4).

?

h a

1:

l

~-

is, e

3 15 p

{l 7

Q-

.. TABLE;3A.. Piping Attached to the' Selected _S'upports

-Input Data Ileight -Width Target.

Orien-Above or-Nat.

No.

. Designation tation Shapc-Water

. Diam ~.

Frequency. Length

.(ft.)

(in.)

' (liz ) '

(ft.)

' (0)

(1)

(2)

(3)J (4)

(5)

(6)

(7) 1 1RIIO4 B12 C

R 20.5 12.75.N/A

.N/A

' 1RH04B12 C

R.

20.5 12.75 N/A N/A

- 3 lCC42C6 R'

R

~19.08 6.625 N/A'

'N/A 4

~

'lCC57C4 V

R varios 4.5' N/A N/A -'

1R.R2 9 A' V

R varies 3/4 N/A N/A 5

6-1PS65AA V

R varies 1/2 N/A

'N/A:

7-1RIIO3BB-12 C

R

-19.28 12.75 N/A N/A' 8

lRIIO3BB-12 C

R-19.28 12.75.N/A.

N/A

.9-1RIIO3B' -12,

C' R

19.28

.12.75 N/A N/A' B

> 10-

'lRH03BB-12 C

R 119.28 12.75 N/A.

N/A

'11 1RH03BB-12 C

R.

19.28 12.75 N/AL N/A r

12 1CC57C4 C

_R 11.58 4.5

.N/A

.N/A Notes: See notes for Table lA.-

h' b

b m

4

/

f 6

4 A

4 J

16-u

~'

TABLE 4A.

Electrical Conduit' Supports IInput Data Height Width-

Target

Orien-

' Abo ve.

or Nat.

'.. N o. -

. Designation tation Shape Water Diam.

Fre'quency Length (ft)

(in.)

(Hz)

(ft.)

~

(0).

-(l)

_(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

~

1.

WCP-42 O

O 17.83 0

R N/A 2

WCP-4 O

O 7.83 1.63 R

'0.229" 3

WCP-10 0

'O 16'.91 1.63 R

0.198

,;4 WA-27..

C F

13.75 2 '. 5.

R 1.042

^

5' WA-31 V~

O 10.28' 0

.R' N/A

'6 WCA-57' O

O 10.83 1.63.

R 0.354 7.

-WCA-38A' O

O-13.83-1.63-R 0~.354 8

WCA-10 0

O 17.28 1.63

,' R 0.260 9

WAI-5.

V O

'10.83 0

R N/A 410' WAI-5A 17 O

10.83 0

R N/A

.11 WAI-9"-

C-12.08 3.25

-760' 2.0 12, DET30-13 C

F 11.75.

2.00 203 2.88 13 DET30 'C F

11.16 2.00 168 2.50-

14' DET30 C F

9.16-

2.'00 151 2.50.

'15 WV'-4 C-F 15.15 1.63 270 1.58 16 CL-22.,.

C F

6.41 2.50 R

0.50

~ 17.

CL-1 O

O 4.58 0

R N/A w

. Notes:-

Seq notes-for. Table lA'.

In ' col.i(6 ) :

R= Rigid.

17' f

es.

c

. g.=y

}. ::

5 TABLE >5A'.

Electrical' Conduits

.oc

~

Input'. Data 7

IIcight Width-Target'-

Orien-Above or. Na't.

No.

Designation tation Shape' Water-Diam.

Frequency Length (ft.)

'(in. )

(Hz)

.(f t. )

(0)-

(1)

(2)-

(3)

(4)

-(5)

(6)

(7) 1

.WCP-42 V.

R varies. 2.;1.25.15.;27.5

,N/A 2.

WCP-4 C-R 7.83 1.5 120 N/A 3

WCP C R

16.91-1.25 75

'N/A WA-27 V

R; varies,1;00 219;91 N/A

-4

.5 WA-31 C

R 10.28 0.75

'63

,N/A 6'

WCA-57 C

R-10.83 3.00 270 N/A 7

WCA-38A C

R 13.83 3.0 1470.

N/A 8

- WCA-10 O

R-varies 2.00 117 N/A 9

WAI-5 C

R 10.83

,3.00 292 N/A 10 WAI-5A' C

R 10.83 3.00 576

,N/A' 11

. WAI-9 V

R.

varies 2;1.25 40;31 N/A 5-12-DET30-13 V

R varies 4;2 76;44-N/A 13

- D E'T3 0 -2 V-R varies. 0.75 42-N/A i

'14 -

DET30-1~

V R-varies.0.75 79 N/A 15'

-WV-4 V'

,R varies 1.00 25 N/A 16

~ CL-22 V

R varies 1.25' 83

. N /A -

17-CL-1 C

R 4.58 l.25 349 N/A..

No't'es:

See~. notes'for' Table 1A.

.In Col.:(1): Conduits are identified by2 corresponding support designation-

~

In ' Col., (2 ) : Orient'ation at point of attachment.

f In Cols. (5) and (6): When two values are shown, two conduits are attached to the same support.

d A

18 4

L_ l _

.y y o.

^.

u-m LTABLE/IB..

' Structural Elements at Elevation 737'1 esults-

^

D R

'Mf/A

.V.

I

.t

-P t

p.

d mat..

d/T W.

.P

P 8 i g.

REV ORIG-No.

'. (lbm/ f t2)-

~(ft/sec)

(psisec)

'(msec)

. psi).

(-) ~

-(-)

. psi)'

(psi)

(

.(0);

-(l)

(2)

(3)_.

{4).

- (5 );

(6)

'(7) -

.(8)

(9),

(10),

1.

4.44

'34.15 0.0327 1.789 36.54 0.299'0.886 32.37 138

~

2

-14.l' 32.88 0.100 4.838 41.33:

0.-8 0 8 1. 6 6 - l 6 8. 6 138 3

8.75 31.54 0.0595 l.720 6'9.19'

'0.122 0.379 :26.22 6.4

~

J4 20.00 28.40 0.122' 5.583 43.88 0.396:1.123 49.28" 155 5

7.00 33.34 0.050 1;767' 56.97 0.104'0.324 18.46' 17'3 6

18.1 26.81-0.105

~5.463 38.37 0.219 0.667.25.59 161 7'

25.00 25'.27 0.136 5,355 50.89 0.316 0.930 47.33 167' 8

14.1 32.88

'0.100.-

5.954 33.-59 0'.595 1.48' 49.7 173

~.

9 7.35' 35.70 0.057 1.834 61.71 0.183 0.563 34~.72

'75 10 11.20 27.18

' 0.066.

1.618 81.15 0.065 0.204'16.53 150 11 12.35 34.99 0.0932-

-6'.153 30.29 1.54 1.544.-46.77.

173-12 7.00-

,33.34 0.050 1.767

- 56.97 0.104-0.324.18.48 107 13 5.35 32.88

-0.035-1.754 39.85 0.103 0.324 12.9 107 14 4.44 34.15 J0'.'0327 1.789 36.54 0.456,0.251.45.7 107 3.

88 0.100 5.954 33.59:

0.744 1.63~ 55.1-l'7 3,.

15

'14.10 2

16

'4.44 34.15 0.03271 1.789 36.54.

0.18'6 0.571:20.9 107 17 4.93 32.88 0.0349.

1.754 39.85 0.182 0.560 22.3 107 18 7.50 36.90 0.0597

.5.780-20.65 0'.879 1.69 34.9 79 i

32'.'88 O.100 4'.838 41.33 0.47611.286 53.15 108 19.

14.l'

. Pressure' acceptable for' original design.

1

~

4 a

+

m

.a

~

.g.

.c TAB 6E 2B.s Pipe: Supports -_Results.'

~

'V' I

tt P

1t /T D L F..

"P

My/A'

^

, c.

p.

. d max..

g REV:,

ORIG-Target

(msec)[

(psi)

(-)

( ')'

(psi)L (psi)

No. -

(lbm/ft2)

,'(ft/sec)

(psisec).

'(0 ) -

.(1).

-(2 ) I

-(3)

'( 4 )

'( 5 ).

(6)-

'(7)

.(8 ) -

(9)'

(10)-

1 N/A 50 N/A 2.3-21.00 1.000 1.52-32.0-

' 2 3. 4 -

p 2

10'.43 50' 0.1125 3.116

'72.2 1.683'.l.48 107 19.5.

151.

O.832 1.67 179 3

14.00 50-0.1510 2.0 Acceptable:

175 4-10.00 50

'0.1078' l.7 126.8

.2.006'l.33 169-175-5 7.5 50 0.080'9 2.125 76.14 1.466 1.58' 120 175..

6-5.0 50 0.0539 0.991 108.8

.l.325.1.63 17.7 175 Acceptable:

~0.1125 4.25

'53.0 1.670 1.48 78.4' 91.2 7

10.43

- 50' 8

10.43 50 0.1125 4.25 53.0 L.300.1.64 '86.8 91.2 9

13.04 50~

0.1407 4.386 6 4.1 ~

1.982 1.34' -85.9 91'.2 10 13.04 50 0.1407 4.386 64.1 1.776 1.43 91.7

'91.2 Acceptable 11 13.04.

50 0.1407 4.386 64.1 1.754 1.45 92.9 91.2

. Acceptable 12 15.00 50 0.1617 1.700 190.2

-0.156 0.48 91.3

^175 l

See dis'ussion in Section C.

c

7q j-m, r,

7cs.

.r

^

~

TABLE!3B..~ Piping Attached'to Selected Supports - Results.

IVerticalfSupport s

/T Reaction ' (lbs) fargat M /A.

V-I t

. P d

E.DLF.

P H

P:

d '.

max.

Rev Revised ~. Original-'

N o...

(lbm/ft2 ) -.

(ft/sec).. (psisec). (msec ).

, psi)-

(-)

' (psi). Design : ' Design

-Remarks

(

(0)-

(1)

(2 )'

1(3)-

(4)f

, (5 ).

(6)

(7)

- (8)

(9)

(10)'

-(11)

N/A; N/A'

'18.4' l.0 1.52' 28.-

28574 Not Avail".

1 N/A 50 5'894

- Do ;

2 N/A

-50 N/A.

~

'N/A ^

18.4 1.0.

1.52 28.

0 3

N/A 50 N/A.

~.N/A 2d.8 '

1'. 0 1.52 31.6

-17672 193d7 l4 N/A 50 N/A N/A 0;

.N/A N/A' 0

0 0

Vert. pipe

'5.

.N/A 50 N/A' N/A'

-0 N/A N/I.

0 O'

0 Do-3' 6 N/A 50 N/A N/A-0 N/A N/A, 0

.0 0

Do

.7 N/A 50 N/A N/A 20.5

'l.0

.1.52 31.2-32057 42325 8

N/A 50:

- N/A-N/A 20.5 1.0

-1.52 3 1.-2 24491 24429

-Acceptable

~

19 N/A 50 N/A

-N/A.

20.5 1.0' l.52 31.2 24491 22586-10 N/A 50 N/A N/A 20.5

,'l.0 1.52 31.2 24491' 24272

' Acceptable

'.1 N/A 50 N/A N/A 20.5'

.1.0 1.52 31'.2 24491.

26311 12 3.29 50 0.0354

[2. _0 ~

35.4 1.0 1.70 60.2 14532 24372.

See disc'ussion in Section C.

o e

e f

4

u n

.i

+

TABLE 4B.-

Electrical Conduit Supports

. Results.

' Target ll

V I.

.t P

'tg/Tg'DLF.

U /A

.P P

p REV.

ORIG' REMAIO(S No.

' (lbm/ f t )

(ft/sec)

(psisec)

, (msec).

~ spsi)

(-)

(psi)

- (psi) 1 t

~ (0 )

(1);

(2)-

(3)

(4)-

(5)-

(6)'

-(7)l (8)-

-(9)

(10)

.1 0.

N/A'-

0 LN/A 0-

.N/A' N/A Cf 91.2 2

2.28 46.36

-0.0227 2'. 0' 22.7

>>1..

1.0 2 3. -

SII 3

2.28 50.

0.0245 2.0 2 4 '.' 5

>>1.

1.0 25.

SII 4

'3J.50 50.

,0.0377 2.0 37.7.

>>1.

1.0 38.

SII 4

5 0.

N/A 0.

N/A 0,

.N/A-N/A-0 91.2 6

2.28 50.

0.0245 2.0.

24.5

>>1.

1.0 25.

91.2 y

7 2.28 50.

0.0245 2.0 24.5

>il.

'l. 0 25.

91.2 8

4.38

'50.

0.0472 2.0 47.2

>>l.

~1.0 47.

'91.2 9

0 N/A 0

N/A

'O N/A

'N/A 0'

91.2 10 0

N/A 0

N/%

0 N/A

.N/A 0

91.2 t

11 4.55 50.

0.0491' 2.0 49.1 1.52 1.56

77. -

175.

12 2.8 5'0.

0.0302 2. 0..

30.2 0.406 1.14' 34.

Sil 13 2.8 50.

0.0302 2'0.

3,0.2 0.336'O.98 30.

SII -

~

14 2.8 48.95 0.0297 2.0 29.7-0.302 0.89 26..

SII.

15 2.28 50.

0.0245 2.0 24.5 d.54-1.40 34.

175.

~

16 3.5 42.27 0.0319

2. 0.

31.9

> > 1.

1.0 32.

- SII 17 0.

N/A-0 N/A.

0

'N/A

.N/A

'O 91.2 Note:

SII in" Col. (9) indicates,that support was' considered shielded in original-design; shielding effect' is accepted in present evaluation, therefore corresp'onding?ta,rgets are considered as noncritical.

1 4

'.n i

[

-- r i

~. -

?

TABLE 5B.

Electrical Conduit's'

-- Results N

-t '

.P I

t P

U PREV l ORIG

' REMARKS -

Mg/A

- y p..

d max.

d o DLF Target

.-)-

1(psi)

~ (psi)

(

No.

(lbm/ft2)

(ft/sec)

.(psisec)

T(msec)

(psi)

'(-)

9),

(10)

(

- (0)

.. ( 1 )

(2)'

'(3)

(4)-

- (5)'

(6),

'(7);

(8)-

'l~

1.46

'50.-

0.0052.

2.0 5.2

'0.055 0.17'200.9 91.2-2 1.10-46.36?

d.0110

'2.0'.

11'.0 0.24050.726 8.0 SH-3 0.91

-50.

0.0098-

'2.0 9.8 0'.150 0.'464~4 5-

'SH T4

'N/A N/A

/A N/A-0.

N/A 'N/A1 0

SH

. Vert. conduit'

.55 50.

'0'.0059.

2.0-5.9 0.126 0.388 2.3 91.2 S

0 6

2.19 50.

0.0236, 2.0 23.6 0.540 1.40

3 3.

91.2 7

2.19

'5 0.

0.0236 2.0 23.6 2.94 l'.00.

23.6' 91.2 8

2.61 50.

'0.0281 6.8 4.1

'O.796 1.65-

'6. 8 91.2 9'

2.19 50.

0.0236

2. 0' 23.6

'0'.584 1.464.34.6

, 91.2 10 2.19 50..

0.0236 2.' O 23.6 1.152 1.~687 39.8-91.2 11 1.46 50.-

0.00'52 2.0, 522-0.'080 0.250' l.3, 91.2 12 2.92

'50.

0.031'4 2g0

'31.4 0.152 0.464,14.5

'47.3

~

13 N/A

'N/A N/A-N/A 0..

.N/A.

N/A 0.

.SIF Vert. conduit 14 N/A' N/A-N/A N/A 0'.

N/A N/A 0

SH' 15 N/A

'N/A

'N/A' N/A 0.

N'/A N/A

-O'-

d.

16 0.91 44.15 0.0087 2.0 8.7 0.166-0.511 4.5 71.1 0.91 34.74'

'O'.0068 1.81 7.6

..0.63211.524-11.6-43.0 17 Note:

See note at Table 4B.

4 a

o Pressure.k (p) d P

p=P

f (t) max.

max

td 7_

2 I

e'~

t /2 d

td time (t)

{

FIGURE 1:

IMPULSE LOAD 24

~~

~

F:

~

4 1

s APPENDIX A EVALUATION'OF MAISE CRITERIA IMPACT ON ORIG'INAL DESIGN AT.CLINTON POWER STATION l

'~

~(FOR BULK POOL SWELL IMPACT' LOADS ON SMALL STRUCTURES)

- ANALYTICAL APPROACH - OUTLINE -

1.

Determine properties of sma.1 structure under conside-

' ration:

4 Orientati.on (radial or circumferential);

+

Width:

W in inches;-

' Height.(of. structure's bottom) above suppression L-pool:

H in~ feet;

. Length:

L'in feet;

~

' Dominant vertical natural' period (usually the vertical fundamental natural period):

T in o

~

seconds.

Det'rmine' hydrodynamic' mass.of impact,per unit area 2.

e

~

(Reference 5, Figures 6

,8-from G.E. report NEDE-13426P or.6-9).corresp. to structure's orientation and width:-

i_-

2 s

(M !^

H t

3.

Determine.the impact' velocity of water slug, V, corresp.

i to height ~, H:'

-..V l = (11/10.) *-(2.6-1. 6 Q H/10')

V in fps,-

max

~

for 0 1 11 1 10 ' f ee.t ;

,i V=V

= 50 fps, for 10

<H<

18 feet.

max 25

'.L-.

g cgg n:

Or

~

r p

. 4..

Determine design impulse:

~ '

~

..Idesign " I"IIIAI*IYI*'32.2 x 144' in psi.x-sec.

5.

- DOtermine impulse durati.on according to-G. Maise (Reference 4,. Equations (5).or-(9)) corresp. to structure's orientation, height above pool and length:-

.t

n. seconds.

d 6.

-Determine'+the'pcak dynamic pressure design value:

2*Idesign P

=-

. -in ps1.

d v

-7.

Determine'the dynamic load factor, ~

corresponding

DLF,

. to (t /T ) - and-assuming a versed sine shape for the d

g design impulse.-

-8."

Determine e'quival'ent static design pre'ssure:-

t..

(P

DLF)Malse design P

. - =

Malse design'-

max

- 9.

Eva'luate' adequacy:of original design:

~

PMaise design p.,

=F1. F2 3

1.0

F P

x allow.

e M

-[

e T

t a

g e

- 26'

~

r.

s T

+

c.,

e~

9

--,-~r 3

--9 e

127.,---

e-

1 m

4 g@

i' Lwhere:

3 y l=.sMaise design! orig'inal design "

F y

= (P,,x* DLF)Maise - design /( max

L } original design

.0 P~iginaldesign! static ~a'Ilow. 1 1.0

-.F

=

2 or

~

F3=Pstaticallowbdynamicallow.

1 1

0-If F 1 1.0 is not satisfied,.further evaluation is required.

~ NOTES:

a.

Poriginal design " I

' original, design is max obtained,from plant designer, S&L; b.

In Pst'ath allow. consider the actual material J

str,ength (not min'imum. code specifled) and'the actual section properties provided (not minimuth.

' required);

^

.c.

Since F 1 1.0 and F '1 l.0 always, evaluation may 2

3 be limited to F y1 1.0 when favorable.

e 4

l g

[ '

9 27 J

G

_.A

,

ML20127H448

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search