ML20128K220
| ML20128K220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 04/25/1984 |
| From: | Ballard R GIBBS & HILL, INC. (SUBS. OF DRAVO CORP.) |
| To: | George J TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| References | |
| GTN-68852, NUDOCS 8507100524 | |
| Download: ML20128K220 (42) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ .x ._ - ~_u a _
. m.c #E;usm&lmEMA.5LE2if W] ';, hy& (S WWwl T cea n; cets - _..
Gibbs S Hill,Inc.
'/ f5 11 Pem Pla2a k ' ' ' f "*I j "#-
- Wk10001 New Wk.
8 ?
)a :; . .- Sid_O O L 2'* ? ((N Do stic:127636/968694
. ^ 7T Lgg ,,y*. .
Intemahonal.428813/234475 ON ' ADravo Company L3G NO. - _
~
*M iILE:
caoss atr. r::.t - f / S '- M "3 April 25, 1984 P10ECT Fli.E GTN- 68352 Texas Utilities Generating Company Post Office Box 1002
~
Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Attention: Mr. J. B. George Vice President / Project Gen. Mgr. e Gentlemen: TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION G&H PROJECT NO. 2323 RESPONSES TO CYGNA QUESTIONS DATED MARCH 12, 19 & 21, 1984 As requested by Mr. D. Wade, the subject responses are being forwarded to CYGNA Energy Services for their use and retention. Very truly yours, GIB'S & ILL, Inc. . f Robert E. Ballard, Jr. Project Manager , l REBa-TDHalc 1 Letter CC: ARMS (B&R Site) OL
; D. Wade (TUSI Dallas) IL
\l'. Williams (CYGNA, San Francisco) lL 1A (PO-Addressee),
j < t esonoos24 roe oocse4o423 osooooe d h eoe
\>lb O .y,A A
s.=
P
.' t- ,
, ,, 1984 (9 a.m.) i PESPONsES To CYGNA TELECOPIED QUEST 3ONS DATED MARCH 12, , e / . . Based upon a preliminary review of the Seismic Qualifi .
' lasb. cation Report, FQP-5A-1, and related' correspondence for the main steam relief valves, it was determined that the f valve was tested and seismically qualified with the i attaching lateral snubbers in place. The snubbers were
( required to bring the valve assembly - . .- into the rigid re.nge - ({ > 33, Hertz) . - ..
*c. '
. In those instances where the. valve assembly cannot meet
.the 33 Hertz.. frequency.requi'rements what has occurred ..,
in the.past is.that the. valve vendor has. contacted the '
- . .. . e . ..';.'.
l
. c.'Gt,H Up'eclalAnalysi's' De' par't3ne' n t iegai d'ing' th'e '"s'tliik" * ^ - '
; J- - J T m(del. Special Analysis' in tu'rn" notified the. Appli'ed
' / Mechanic's Department'- (Pipe. Stress Analysts) . This has -
been the normal process on the CPSES job, but is not j ,.. .. ..... governed by-a. procedure.,......., GEN preferred to use a The G&H Guid's was not' utilized.
~
2a. 1 specific rethod prescribed by Crosby and applicable to their valves. In addition the rated flow was used for each valve e .from Crosby sp.ecifications, instead .of ,a..c.alculated , flow. 1 .
+ / . ,
2b. In the correspondence between Crosby Valve Company
. an'd Gibbs & Hill (G&H reference GTT-435 dated '
September 15, 1976; Crosby response MSG 10-167 dtd 10/12/76 and' subsequent telecon dated 10/21/76) Crosby valve indicated that:
,'- .. " l'. ,Cro'by' s cons 5ders nd im'ba' lance' bet' ween' outlet's on 'the main steam safety valves . ,
2.. . Crosby has never run any ' tests to substantiate that '
.. the flow.from a double ported relief valve is equal
. e , e. . . ..,s .. -
' Cro.. sby.. .: ...h. a. s . . . . .no 3ustification'to assume. equal flow from c.. !. . ' .3. ....
both' ports and to the best of their knowledge, most AE's
, assume. . a. . c60/.40 e s .; . flow
,. : .: split.
~ :
- - .G&H's assumpt' ion of 55/45 was' predicated upon Crosby's According
( Catalog data (Catalog No. 302 Supplement 1).
-to Crosby's basic formulae for nozzle valves the formula for valve capacity allows for a va:iation of 10 percent for
*j
.:.;..N. valves.used;understhe: Code , Section.-1; . Power.' Boilers; ' This '
s :- : s 10 percent variation was considered to represent sufficient conservatism in the G&H analysis. Hence a balanced flow of 50/50 with a 10 percent variation became 45/55. I
-r- ~
i g.
.-' 2cf. While. it' is known thatl the~ valves open in ' sequence based on
.' the incremental (0 10 psi) spring setand pressures, it was assumed by'G&H that the worst stress support load (5) valves are open with scenario would be when all fiveThis assumption was based upon the natur
-s::imum flo.i.
the. 'systep, specif.ically, the, piping ;3 2y.out and stres.s eproble- - b6undaries~.' ' A review of' any (i.e.,of the nain BRHL-MS-1-SB-016) AB-1-23A, steam' pipind arrance-monts out, side containment will'show typically that the stress problem is a straight - run of 32' inch pipe approximately 40 feet long between the "d,t containment. penetration weld'and the moment restraint valve. The five (5) valves are grouped. into a.12 foot length of the The only run pipe approximately spaced 2 to 3 feet apart. other signi.fican.t. connections are the 4-inch and 8-inch lines
~
approximately arrangement. 4 feet off the penetration and a'24 inch'd (5) .valy.es acting conceive of,a scenario. worst.than ,all five simultaneously.
~
2d. DocubentationIxt a stress run 'for the B-inch relief valve lifting only, dees not exist. Upon reviewing the analysis, it ,shows that the. thrust force .of the relief valve is divide Th
~'
- . cased on 'the stiffnesse's' of' the s)upp6rt and of the pipe.
- residual internal force in the pipe reacts at .the penetratic anchor in addition As thetoanalysis
.the residual internal force from the
~
shows, none of the residual.
~
safety load. internal safety load reacts back into the 8-inch branch lin-of the relief valve, in the vertical direction. i l
- m. - . . - _ ., . -
c
.. g 2e. Only in AB-1-23B was an attempt made to . find the effect of alternating the higher force for each of the five (5) valves.
Missing from the AB-1-23B calculation book is a cross-referen to the other three (3) lines regarding.the.in.cres, sed torsirna moment in'the 32 inch line. The' connection bet. ween 'the steam' generator ' nozzle. and the
. '3a.. ," main ' steam pipe ,is" a'n elbow (reference BRP-MS-1-RB-002 fo'r '
rrangement) ." The SIF fo'r' th'is 'e'1 bow is 2'. 24 5 "a'nd
- ' was' used in the analysis. - Since.this SIF is greater.than the typical' '
~ ~-
- maximum 1.9 for a TT7 no SIF was hand-inputted. .
. G&H concurs.'that the caN. . correct value of 1.5 , B ,'should C 'a'ndhave D) .' been
. - 3b. ulatio'ns '(2 3A used in'all four Reviewing the str'ess'results for 23A and 23D:
(4) EQ . 8 (psi)_ EQ.9 EQ.10 EQ.ll Problem 'Node -
~ '
.. '1.... .. ....... . . . .
2341-8033 ,'8780' 3664- 11697 - 23A- 3731 11758 1581 8027 8729 23D An Application of a SIF = 1.5 is of little consequence . .. . .
.,considering the equation..allowables:
.. m.. ., ,
EQ.9 EQ.10 EQ.ll EQ. 8 (psi)_ 10000 22500 37500 15000. , ,
. . ; '. s .
' ' ~
,. . = . . . . ,
G&H concurs that
, , .for th'e" 3-inch schedule 80 connection, Con-3c.
assuming a 1/32 mismatch, the,SIF would be 1.59.
'- siderin'g.the 1.4 used.the stresses would have to Reviewin,g be increased by 1.59/1.4.= 1.136.or 13.6 percent. . .. . . . . . .
'. th.e stress result.s..for. 23C:/ - .
\ EQ. 8 (psi)_ EQ.9 EQ.10 EQ.ll ' Node 8448 12790 19210 j 17 9 0 6 ( * * * * ) 6420-
. A.13.6 percent increase using a mismatch based EQ.10 EQ.ll EQ. 8 (psi) EQ.9 . . .
- e- . .: . .
22500 37500 15005 18000 ,.. s
.s. ., .. .
\ . ,
. . x
. ~. - .
N
\
Ds
_ _ = . _ . - - _. . .-- . 4
. .* r o 9
3d. G&H concurs that the TTJ SIF Was no't considered at the connections between the sweepolets and 6-inch safety valves for problem 23D. A review of the stresse's at these locations follows: - EQ. 8__(psi)_ EQ.9 EQ.10 EQ.ll Node . 2849 1591 2849 12153 O 2849 12123' O 2849 , 1601 2849 1611 2849 12015 0 2849 12054 ' O 2849 1621
. 1631 .
2849 .11811 0 2.849 .. An application of a SIF = 1.5 for the TTJ does not present
- - ' - a' problem -(realizing that the pressure term'must be deleted -
- *and the SIF i's factored by .75 in EQ.9)'when matched ' - - .- -
against
; .. equation'allowables':~
'.~v1 .
EQ.ll. . EQ.10 . ,.
~~ ~
. . 'EQ. 8 (psi) , EQ.9
" 37500 -
.. 15 180.00 .e. ..i.22500
. ,0 0 0. . , . . . .
. , ,. , . . . .3 .
4a. Joints 115,'110 and 112 re' presents the three (3) ends of In the G&H the 24 inch schedule 20e(tnot = .375 t'reated inch) astee. tapered transition analysis these nodes wer' joints. It is.G&H's assumption at,this time that CYGNA is
'iindicating the'se 'ncides 'hs' TTJ's due' to' a' revi'ew of the' tee P-spool piece drawing. If this is so it should be noted that spool piece drawings were not ordinarily supplied by TUSI for use in the G&H as-built piping stress analysis effort . , ,
and.;.it, was .not ,G&H's., policy. to r,eview. them. . Reviewing the' stress results:
- cde EQ.8(psi) EQ.9 EO.10 19 11 t '
' ~
'0 '723 3' 1E sE ' 4431 j . .,
...; 'li5 d *
.'. 2'5 84" " -
1139 3675 3221 110 2536 3407 2564. 3376 843 112 . l I.
' * .. . ... . An appliqation o,f h. .SIF, y 1. 8 3 ,for .TTJ ip .of . lit'ti e c'on ,
sequence considering,the'equa' tion allowables: ' . EQ. 8 (psil EQ.9 EQ.10 EQ.ll l - . j . 37500 15000 18000 22500 l 141s.' In the geometric ~modeling the member cards "lVA" 20 to 19 and 181 to 18 represent the flange between the elbow and th< valve and tha flange between the valve and the next piece o: ....
. ,z'
. a ., . ,
. .e -
,. *.g .g .
% . .'b g - - , - - - . . . , --
. ig (
4b. (Cont ' d ) straight run pipe, respectively. Node 18 has the 1.9 SIF for ; the TTJ; Nodes'19 and 181 represent the ends of the valve; Node 20 is the flange TTJ but the 1.9 was not inputted since the SIF for the elblow - (2. 889) was higher.. i t This discrepancy resulted due to the method of coding and is not documented. Coding into the reduced elbow (24 inch to
, . . . 4c.
18 inch) using the change card from Nodes 21 to to 20 with l 18' inch pipe properties esults .in the SIF of 2.9. Coding - . out of the reduced elbow .(18 inch. to 24 inch) using the-
- change card from Nodes 3 toA2more with 24 inch' pipemethod appropriate. properties of results.in the SIF of 4.3.
coding 'would have been to split. the. elbow and use both sets
~
,.,.,..s o.f ... s.ectional.. pr.operties ,
'c -
A' 'revi5w of thesidess'results .
* .shows : .
Correct EQ. 8 (psi) EQ.9 EQ.10 EQ.ll Node Present . . s
.SIF. . ,
.SIF.,. 2.
2753 3662 3638 6391 21 2.9 4.3 3528 2.9_ 2193 2834 1335 20 2. 9. 3008 889 3505 4.3 2.9 2617 3 :3880...1619.. .. 4.707, 2 4 . 3.' . .4. 3 7, ,.3088. - s .., . - The use of the corrected SIF is a little consequence con-sidering the equation allowables: ,
. ,.EO.11 ~ . > . ,;
o .EQ. 8 (psi)f , . . .: . 7 ;EQ . 9 ' . ..,,EQ.10_..l e.g. ..'. ,
- 18000 22500 37500 15000
- 46. .There is no existing docw enta. tion for either the use of tne la.te.r . code accapt. ability ,or. for :geting the .related. .
c o g g 5 g $ n g ,.,.
' In: the earlieY revisions of. the analysis an SIF of 4.05 was used. This' was based, upon, the recommendation of Bonney Fore in the' designers data 'se'etion of 'their ' catalog -(h = 3.3T/r; -
In the. subs'equent. revision work.the checker
~ -
ifelt
= 0.9/h /3).
~
' 2 that the imposition of the 4.05 SIF was too conservatis
.on the .run pipe. side and did not account for an SIF on the
'. ranch side. Hence, the later ' code' edition was used '(SIF Run = 1.754; SIF Branch = 7.903) . .
~
.. 7
- -.4 ._ . .
. .. s. . .
. e p
g .
,.5 , . . , . .**4 a . . . , ..f* ,
m ..y g , . eme ea.-'
e input at the pr:.etration i s not takenFor from the 1 Sa. The u n . .<3 the
'MH calculation AMS-RB-1-017-3 in all cases.
nain stcam loops inside containment certain analyscs Department.- Unfortunately' memorandum SAT-426 (Calculation should have been referenced, - Book No. DRB-lC, Set 3, Rev. O) - but is not. , Sb. G&H utilized the mill test reportBased with the upon ordered a review plate of the thickness test report we interpreted value of 1.265 inch. thatinterpretation the, minimumwe. wallfelt.it was the Due to this was
. ordered value.
appropriate to con; Nr the test report sufficient enough
. info r,mation . ,
<. 4.
. .. y. ..
. .,..4
- . - . .2.
cir . . : . ' - ..:
.- * . . . . _ :. - . si. . .. :
s . ..c'
... a. .- . . . ..
,. .~
., . i...... ,
v- ,
- c-
~ . .- -
g .
.- .. ( . . . ,:. -
1 . .
. s .
. r. . . . .. . . . . . .
n -- n- _ . . . . .
. /. /4 [
=.,
P.ESPC :5ES TO CYGNA QUESTIONS TELECOPIED . ARCH 12, 1984 (9a .m. ) N 3a. G&H concurs that an SIF 3.nput is required at the penetration.
'ihis SIF value .is 1. 482.- Reviewing. the stress iresults of problems.1.thru 4. . .
Problem Node 'EQ (8) EQ (9) EQ (10) EQ (11)
. (psi)_ (psi) (psi) psi)
'l
" '2005 8',258' '. 12,162 . 9,60'3' '17,861 2
2800 8,889 10,887 5,892 14,781 3 1080' 8,532' 10',900' . 4,132' 12,664'
* ** - s 4- ...
. 9 3 8 '. ........
8 , 5 91 '. .., : '1 4..
,4 -5, 4 . . '.'. 7 ,.9 2 0. . . .
. ,.6,511' 1
.. ....s.. .. .
..The inclusion. of the .SIF. -is of little 'c'onsequence .considering - .
.the equation allowables:...
. ..EQ (8 ) . . ,. E Q ( 9 ) . ,,. .. EQ (10 )., ,. . EQ (11) , ,. .
-(psi) ._(psi)
-(psi) -
(psi)* 17,500 21,000 26,250. 43,750. , . .,
. y . '. . . . .. ; 9 . . . . . c c, .: .,..;.- .
- . . , ...c . ..j.. v .
. . . - . t.
..s..y..... ..y. .
. ., p :. .h., .
v........ . .
~ . .... , . ..
n.. . i
.. . :. .. . . . . r. .,
~
. ' * . . . .. g_:._
. r.;. .-
. ~ .:
_ _ _ _ __ e.. . -
. t RESPONSES TO CYG:!A TELEC,OPIED QUESTIONS ON 3/3 9/84
' requirements,
- 1. .' .In qualifying the break exclusion area' to MEB 3-G&M does not include the local stresses induced by welded attachments. MEB 3-1 requires that for Class II pipin'g, the h I*
summation of equations 9 and 10 should not exceed .8 (1.2S, +S The stresses calculated by equations 9 and 10 are in general -
'menbrane stresses calculated 'over.the entire pipe section.
The stresses produced by welded attachments are primarily local in nature and exist as bending across the pipe wall thickness. In general, G&H does try;to avoid the use of, ....., welded, .at.tachments ,...... ,
.. .. ..,..s ... in, f.he br.eah ,exculsion. area.m., ..- ..
~
~
In reviceing'the'suppo'it sketches fo'r 'tr'ess s pr'oblems<1-23JA thru
- the welded attachments in ' question is a pad around half -the-circumference of the 32" pipe with longitudinal welds. . -
....-..e.,.,__.-...--...-..-.w.
, .- .- "*: . '. Y"-
- lr
*S l
;.<, .: . .. s .. :7 .., .I. ,J, . , 3
..},.
.S"'.k B O LT. . , ., . . .
aw , . ..
-- a
;. ]-
. f.-- ..t -:t. - .. (.. .
g 4: ,. ......7.
, . .:.::;.-: u .. .. :. . . .-; . ._
.--- ....-r. . . w,,... *
=
- 1 g o, -
' For the cer. figuration 'shcwn abcVe , ' kt. e pad a .d tha n-bcl- behavas like a clamp which in, normal, design, induces small hal stresses.
The welds are pri.::iarily for. the purpose of maintaining the ,
. ., position .,of, t. h,e 'pa d... rela.tiv,e to. the' u--bolt.'and. ,the pipe. . ,
Ecwever, G&hi will review all break exclusion area prob'lems to identify all other welded attachments. - m
.* .. j. ,. .
- , . . . . c- ,,, .. .
- . . . . . .' :s...; . ' :. c .. e .: ., . . . _ . . .
.- - - . . . :t
4 , . 1984 (8 a.m.) RESPO::SES TO CYGNA TELECOPIED QUESTIONS DATED MARCH 19, -- ... 1 .',E O E l t./ E D
~
APR 191984 BN 00 2.' ' The safety relief valve and as thrust loads are classjfie3MES dEP: such have been included 'iH"the"UFset" - upset transient, This is condition evaluation for both loads and stresses. specifically; required in M3-46A for. support loads and MS-200 -
~
for piping stress. ~ For emergency condition,.MS-46A does not. include safety-loads. and .MS--2 00, on.ly, , includes emergency. . .
. . ;..; . . . ,. relief. di scharge ..
tr ans 2en. .; t's . , - ' ~~ It is our interpretation that SRV thrust loads need"only'to However, be included in upset condition loads and stresses.
. s.
. this. is 'not- explicit and is cur'rently under- review to- demonstrate that the OBE + SRV would. govern.-
- 3. Due to the fact that the majority of.the piping in the system
'In addition,- .
i . .. . ., is .32 inc.h, the ' larger'. damping values :were used..-file the first mode of fr as can be seen from the outputBoth of these facts areindicated A subsequent in thereview main i is above 22 Hertz. steam outside containment calculation books. .
< ~'
'6ampidEcurves "in th'a keg' ion However, a
'of.'22 the Hartz' curvesan'd' Hertz there are significant differences.A review of unrefined versus utilized in analysis were refined.
refined curves shows that the 1-percent curves (refined) runrs fined) . are esz=ntially
'-= uhe':2 e: divalent unr.afin:-i :: tha:-;er':en:
- -cer en:cur cur- 1s'i5 Es =ct -a' ' c = = :- :.= .
== -s Upon review' o f t.Ne AB-1-61A , Rev. 2 calculation the book and related
- 4. curves indicat
^
output, ths. following was established. . First,d.to.buildine, elevation,
.. .in.the QA book ahe'corre.ct.with. .re.garSecond in ' reviewing the output damping and.are unr'efined. curves. curves match the calculation book; the SSE the 1/2 SSI incu 'x' direction and 'z' direction
' 'y' direction unrefined. Apparently curves do not match. Also the
' SSE curves are refined;due to a piping overestress d curves situation (this isanunique attempt w
'bc
..to partially utilize. preliminary refinesince ordinarily refined.
This assumption to use partial preliminaryTo assess th 1/2 SSI curves was not and SSI). documented in the CA bcck. d w'ith 'those'st
. '.impacE, 'tye- final refined ~SSE." curves w'e're compare With the :fi.".al refined . curves- the correlating i f re acc
99 reduced (x - 2. 65 to 1. 57 ; y - 4.19 to 2. 9 9 ; x - 12. 57 to 1. 03) .: Due .to this reduction this item is not a concern. - . The fact that mass points are missing between same direction 5. supports (nodes 10 and 6; nodes 50 and 47) was not evaluated or docu:nented. Based upon a preliminary review of piping size (18. and 24 inch) and. lengths involved . (between supports and to existing ma.ms points) it is felt that these situations are not a concern. To quantify this situation it.was necessary to rerun
. . the 1/2..SSE inertia. analysis.,with additional mass points added ,
.,. .. ;l . . . (D,o d e s :, ,8 and ;.4 8) .,. ,.A.. gompari, son,.of,. t.he. re sults is , a s follows :
Suoport learl Chahces '- Support Node 1/2 SSEI Load 1/2 SSEI Load
. .; (missing mass points). (added mass points) . -
50 Ix) & (y)' 4042' (x) ; . 635 "(y) 3033 (x) ; 653 (y) 1712 1849 47 - (x) 1429 6 (z) 1671
,.135.1. e e. .. ,e : .,. .
1271:...... , . .. ..;.
.,. . ,1 0 . (:s). <. " - .
Stiess Cha es (1/2 SSEI) ' Node 1/2 SSEI Stress . 1/2.SSEI Stress (added mass' points)
..e3 s
-(missing mass' poiiifs) ', -
320 ..361-6 327 7 291 -
- i.,
4:3 . 529 . ! 9 - 435 10 '77 l
. 3 8 7. , 307 .
50 -
,846 :
1081.
. - ,49.,- -
~
624 . .
"48 507'- . .
859 1004 1047 285 337 47 . . , . As would be expected there was a redistribution of loads and stresse.s, but nothing overly significant. The question of mass fractions , and the overall 6. effect cf hicher crder modes (!)33 H:) isth.e. beinc cursuedcibinc-
. .as'-built bv
- - - G&He NY on- a ceneric basis.: Piesently.
stress' analy'ses '(which ' include MS and CCW) performed in "G&5!, $Y-are being .sprutinized with .participa .ing. mass. -fractions beine calculated.- - - .
- la ter . .
i . - [ . ..
.. :) . . . .
l- . . _ . . , . . ..
3 19, 1984 (8:30 am) RESPONSES TO CYGNA TE1ICOPIED QUESTIONS DATED MARCH of the containment building was not
- 1. Elevation 905.75 included in the envelope of the seismic re.sponse ft. spectra The penetration because assemblyit would ~
is l'ocated be too at conservative.
' elevation 877.5'ft.. By linear inter .
~~'
e and 905.75 ft. for polation be'tw'en'elevat. one can ionssee 860.0 thatft.within.the elevationamplified 877.5 f t.<,. . response region.of the response...This spectra, ..envelthe 905.75 f t. .. .of ,. the op,e . response
...,. o. m . .
the internal.. structure . governs spectra. we. s..u, sed in the .analysi.s . . .. .
. . - 4
..X . .cig a: 7 f opf .
AccELEA) r/osJ
~.. * ./ g __ . . , _ _ _ _ , ,__
_W..sss
.bs HP)aG-.... : .. .a $
' ' ' - ^ *.
- c.' .' . _' . .l :. . - ..;i.* . .. l. * .
r.y. : .. d - . _.:. :
- .usED. IM. APLP/P5 R.Espea.rG spec 7M
- .. . .: z. r o . . . .
.~~. ~ ~~ ~ ; at2Fu/GD A&'s?onsa r/acl'n <4 sd 17e2-7x.. 4,1g
. . . . .....2.. : .. . . . . :. .
.. - Q ..
. n *
. . . g
.r. , . . . n n
\ .It s.
i f l.. .. E 4//.9 9 . c f F t E C .rC w ct r.$ . CSA'.*/DEx t.O_ ._ __
? f j Z.'e e .. . . . . . . . . . . 1.. t/J $2/3 HIC /4/EK1 tA ' //JN )' /$ . .
. ). ,I.'
2, .. . . .
.. ., .. - . . a
. n .. l. .
.\ ! _ ..
t .R . 1 . l E ~.N. U7 6, . . . . _ s.s e ... ~l - N -- Wv e e
% .. .~t
'% ,I
------------,---.....n..._...__.
... 0.00
.a I -4 ( I t -
- . , t.
g ~, . , s
. s %, .f
- c. .. . . _ ..: .: .
% s w N .. .m ..
,,e,.. , . .-
.- .. FAf du.%. c f. /M WE .
j
.. & _ a ,. . .
/A/. Y bg AE4 7"/ DA/._.... -- .
......a.. _ . _ . - .
.A c CELE CA 7~/ O s./. . .
I . :.
. .g . .--_ _ .
....... y M p . .
.~ . , ..2
. *.- .. ~.. _. . . . .
.~...._ . . -
. . . . .= . .. .. . .. ..
_ . . . . _ _ .~'
, ep . _ _ . . .
J./.TGD tat.
' c.#.p/PE..AC4fost.r2_ / s' C'T/' . . _ . .
KEFw&D AEdMW.56_ rmfM g f26-7ACfg,.
.?. c o . . . . . . - .
...b
. a.=.
..... ......s . . .......r .
. . .. ....c. . _ - . aauscees_c_
nwa sr ,caaacwc,e.ss.u ,ewna t.p d ......g . - - .. - _. s ..
. su .1cr.rus c. m ._
. _ . = . .
= .
.- z.o a .. . _ . ... .
. = . . ._-:...,, .-. _ . . . . . ......, __._._...._
J, . . .. .. _ _ _ _ . . -. _ q - l W. . . .. ; , -.
.v
~. .._
. . . N. . ,. n _
e.. .,. a .
.. u .
.o . .
~,
. . . . .9 . . *.* -
l . . i ... . . .
.,:. +. -q
..(
....e.
p, .
- :. a, S .<
ki - -
&' , g.--. .... . .. -
N ..-.. m
. . _.- d . .
^ - --
~~ / H2 . . . . ..
.._ -.__ _ . AsE2v5WC.f. . / 4 I
... ,.s.
i IE
..r.. .
c.. ..- .
- e E
- t . .t . ... . . . . .
. . _ . . . .. Accnt 2,cA yj os./. M x o if.Gch9 C//. .. __ . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . .
.g/2f_GS&J - ... . . _ _.
. ..__, . ._, ._ 4 p j;;.f p y j g =.. 2 " . - . . _ .. _
. _.2, . . .
,iW.,QL&E.f.r:sP.w E rpac.rM _a .
... ._.. '. .. . . .._ _~ . _ . _ _ _ . . , - * . ^:
. .. . ._._....._'....__.___.'u.t2o
- s. - . . . .
._ ._._.__.. ._1 ._._.
!.~7.~~~'
- t.EFiuGD Afstee tE vecrM ta sus vt.f 8,e.
L.._ Y. ; _
- _ .. . .c. co . .-
t
, .i . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ .- . . _ . _ :
,....i.i s. . , ,
, i 8
.. . 3. n . . .. . .
. __?.
s, .. u. . . . . . . .. ... ... . . . .
. . .. h. ...,. i
_ ...____ . . _ _ _ . _ # l
- k. . . __ . ....___._..._)
' . . . .. .\ .. . Mac.e on rer_wswz.s..cca:ios s u r,e nas..s w a r.cs.s
- ao . . .. . . ___ . ,._
._ . _{__ . __..l . \ ., .. .. . . .. /s. tstwic. . '
. . p..;> 2.n ... .) _ _ __ . . .
_ ._ tg - - .r < -_- .
. _. s .
s . .. . . . . . . . . . . __. .. . . _ . . . _ _ . .. _, s, . . . . . _ . .. .J . ._ _ . . . . . i F . ,. .n .Is w . t e' g
. t .
_ . . ~. t t -
-%.#N ,.ELEV l'[7._.5 . .
.. Q - - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ .
- l. .g . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ .._ - _ _ _ __ -
, / .
. . - .J ,
- . I . . .s .
I . . _ ...,. . ,,. .. i
=. g, g g . 1 g g s i.0
? 9 s
t . . 2r ,.. . 1 t' 6 . s' n.- N ._
. . _ _ _ M . ._
.5
,- -s . _ _
4.__. ._ ..._ . . . . .
. /A/.
//E
. *N
. ___.. - . _ _. F.atEd u CA/ C
.* - .. - #* _D-N M . .. ..*-._.
- g. .g.. ._
~...W
.. . , , ,.n.. . . '. . : . . . ~-
f
* . . . *. *
- P' . *;. .
a*f **,.. c.
....*s.
e t L ^ o . _.. .,
,. s
rd X . D/ CEC 7~/od . . _ . . . ...
. .McCE/.EKA T/0// . .. ..
.4 * . SS [~_ .. . _ . . . .
.p A M P sM &~ .i . . _ . . .
_._.._..... .
- USED. /M. .a+DL P/P. G N.E1P.DMJ G .:PE. '77 A .. .. . ..
- .. . _ _ _ . . , _:........ s P &c7~ot & ( d ? A $' .~/t 5 / R
'._ .. _ ._. ..D7.:.~." .~..K t-FJMED . /2$l'W.fF
_ 4.ao _. . l
. Axa cre of mr,2uencsc-s cc,v.swe,eco
_._ . s.co - s
. _... . .. .. : t. tusers , m .y.ri.c . . _ . . ..a
. . .. :..s a .r e.z s m c l
..._._.s --
-1 4___
_l . . ..
. ._i , , . . . .
't . .,.
... : .. r.,...
f -
. . --g . . . .. ..
_7 . . __ . ._.. . . , .s, .... . _,i - s .t . .. . _
. . .u . .. . . . .
(cy. t Th 5,.
- f. .
, ..l .. .
. - j. . . .
- . .-i.oo .
_. w... , Q _.
.. y .,
. . 3 *. .-
. . . s. .
. c.a o
') .
- t, Wi
- g. _,
.. . g{ . . .; s....
._ .g.
' ' ~ ~ ~
-- Q- -
- - * * ~~
- - ~
7.:cousuc y . . /^/ //E
. . . n . . _ . .. - ... .
* . ,e 9
- - - - - ) g
9 O, O i O
. . . A c c E L E Ks4 Ts o d /4 y pie.acrsex/ _ . . . . _ _ ..
3 yl - .__._ DAxpis sg. s . .. .. .. .
.. .: . . . . . . . ..* u.rnD fd A.0/~F/PG . 4E-$FoM.f4.$?&: rM - . _ . . . .__.. .. . . _ .
. . _~"~:-~~~'A.5r u tNE-D A G*/'4CE sfEc ne.4./N Fto .-7se CEK
. . 4.o o . . . _.
. cuista ces-y
'> 4u64 ' of 'Ressucac./ts , _; .
/// 1Gl.ZN/C 'UEE 7*/sq Axot.)'ft.$
_. E.re. .
=. .
_.g 7...... _. y
.2 40. .
K' . ug ...
.i
. , s.
r l , ;.9
.s..._. ... .
. ..: . . . ...n .
,s
.. .g . : _
g .
. ..o' .
. , - 8.5V - . . f.B. 5 '.
~l..
. yv .i.ro _
o I. -
. N. , . . ,s.- .
.. u .
. . u .
t l
. a. a % =. R q .
k $ &
< g * '
s g.. s' s g n . m f *
. . . .g_. ~
( _
. r.t:Esuisc)'. . . /M ... M. 2 l . . . . . . ..
1 . .. .
. ..a .
t
'N
*M_ __.g=F_M8*OO
__ -^'-e- h __
i
/A./ . . a , A/AEt:7"raA/_...... --
. .. ... . . . . 4 CCnl & 7~/o AJ .... . . . . :.a . . - ~ . . - - . _ . _ _
( ' ' ' . .
. ,r. o o .. ..
..r $ * . - ... . $.S. . . . . . . . . - .... . .
p x H.
\
.: . . e :.~.....; ..: . _ ~;.-' ~. _ . _ . . . .
._ . JJJE'D 1AJ .s4D4p//2./2:sfs M.s E...sP w 74
.:y . . .: . . ;
,t...' i u ...s.$ . .. . . _.
I . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . 3-7A' _ .'~~ ~~~"" " /.2?"/MCb A2:5'/cHJE as PWifd .M,f /~4 4.so a j _ _. . _ \ .
.' s ....
. . . .1 . . . . . .
__ . . . . g. . (, . .% . g
.. \ .
. . ~ . ..
._ . . _ * -l.. , s. ' . ..
.y. p e , g . ... _. ...-
g i, . 9. AAA/6~2 c?"/s/6A*,7"t// /.'.'DGU'EAl.C/C4 A W f. Y.f'/.f C.c//Z/JGAE. I . . ..
. .. _ , \ \ . //J Jl'*f.$#HC .. --
- - - . ..- . 4 8 s u . ---
j-
)
.g . ,
. . . y 2. ro . . ,.
-k-A - --
_).__ . . . ,t : . . M
..u.,....
_ ,s3 ~~ -
. - ~
.G ..- -
_f . E 7 7 5 '. ,
... ../.c o .. l. .. .. - . _ _
= .
.=_,,.
u .. . .
. ,s . .
. u, . ,! . .
N. .
=
. s _..,
m ., g ,
.. s - --
s
- ~ .. .-
py_. sq . _ . s_. m.gicy
RJSPONSES TO CY'NA TELECOPIED QUESTIONS DATED MARCH 19,' 1984 (8:30a.m.) G&H did not consider a possible amplification of the reactor 2. coolant loop vibration. The displacement data obtained.from Westinghouse (Steam Generator Displacements) were used directly in our analysis. .
- 3. Since each devihtion is' noted'in the QA'~ calculation' book, it E .
was the' decision '(at .that time when the analysis was. open for' Presently there
. .. chang'e) not'to-incorporate'these deviations.
..is no plan to. reopen these calculations.. Should significant ,
changes, ones considered to have impact on the stress results, kdown then
- .arise .in a. new site . survey package ' based upon final wal these present deviations will be ' corrected.
- 5. The effect of the combined analysis is below:
. A3-1-23B . MS-1-240-002-572K- .
~ ~
MS-1-240-001-572K General Local Total Allowable EQ. '
- Stress Stress .
15000 5939 0 5939 8 22500 8138 zI S9 t o 297 (1/2SSE) 9 27000
- 8138 5625 is763 (1/255E) 9 to b8b 33245 37500 11 14559
.9? . s p .. ,.9241..
. 2513 ,
131 4 32400 ,
. . .'(sSE).. ,
As can be seen the combined ef fect is st.411 within the allowable stresses. i
'6. 'The failure'of equation 11' b'y 1-pere'ent should have been docu-mented more conclusively with statements regarding the co'n- -
This can he elaborated upon servatism of the CYLNOZ approach. if necessary.
.. , . ~:
.g* * , . ,.
m_ m.o - . .**
of I: arch 19; 1984 Ti'3sx a Item 4 Although the deadweiight moment on the steam generator. nozzle direction, it is permissible is over by 20 percent in the 'x' to con.bine the thermal and deadweight load and meet the combined allowables of_ thermal and deadweight ( re_Ve.re.nCE- TELECON between G&H and Westinghouse on November 2, 1979).
~
~
Mx Calculated- Ibc Allowable - 360.64 in-kips 300.in-kips DUT ,, . 2000 .in-ic.'ips
*664'.3 Thermal -
in-kips - .
- ' . - 1029'.*94 in-kips
*
- 2300'in-kips
' ' Total - -
p
; . ; - : .'.s.. , . - ' . .
i * ' i
~; ;. : . . . ' ; . . . -; . . *: .-
O . * , ,
?
i
" n ' . ; ' .*
l * . '. . =
., .la f...-*.'.. ;. ss . ., , s t :
y'=' * * * . .- y h. . . . . . . .-
*. . ,-s
. 4, , ,
..~
- t. ..~..
~,ty,5;>O%F.S TO CYG:!A ":SPC!mi:S IG UTH 39, 3984:
GirH concurs with CYGNA's calculated "g" value of 4.08 7 for valve 1MS-095. This is in excess of the 4g allowed
- 2. This 4.08g allowed by Specification 2323-MS-77, Rev.
value is over the allowable by about 2-percent. The analysis uas performed using conservative response spectras. Plots of the response spectras used in the analysis and the refined response. spectra a.re. shown below. , s..n. n c:.-~ :.s. a tz m '
- Q," * ~ 54. % s > L **t cso t * . _
-- cnisidk *a& at.t stec-ra 4
#T as.v ~t s w r.5. r.4. ,st a - r 4 sg . ,
, ,, . .g . ut uts .te:te.ss g;
- g _, ,
*-,,,~*-:.:--
s's - - - a , T--- M ~
, , . j g.f, ,g,,4
- s. .
. . . . . .i .~ .
i '
+,
' so se .
4o 9
.o g c p5) al. .. .
.f 3 .!, j 1:5 R t_hs t s?mth
- y -hencTeo e h!
e e .4.sai. t. w r.e s, rf73 a s'. .
\, . .
. s ..u .ec.3:,,st, . m m- sne.n.a/ - s y, j
.* . ,j - " arri so i
* " , *,,,,,,, . I
. N - -
s N. e t'/. 34 47. 4 'N, !.l5) g i s N. __' _! I y; . e 1. c:'.- .,M'v - . I :; - ~- .' -
*. , , . < . ,' . . h, , :. ., . ; -l- ,. -- . . ;.'~ ft . . .
so
.o lI so l (c P.5)
.o g sse *t wou.cc .:u:ra *. *l
^ gga t = Blis*?*s&& ,
- . - . e , a. ~ s es.us m.u r; q.
ts': -n s.e sse.e s_ s,s ew~ y-**
- 5 st* im!D I C**.N!> - 1 , .
., j ,, i. . .
- 2 % sa-t -e . % .
- - ~ _
i se to a'o (c.ps) d i
' ~ -
..- .;G. .. . : .
.c.- .
l- . . ...:...... ,-
.'- 'From the plotsi shown; the- minimum difference between the conservatively two sets of response spectras is 0.!5g's.'g' loacing, this assuming.15g difference at the highest rec 0Ct M:
d'if ference would represent a minimum of 7.1 percent ,
--.t Since the total value acceleration is airectly relatec 3.~ I to g.
eg' value applied, the valve acceleration would be
- ...--. ~ .... -
3 //1 /M RESFGNSES TO C) ;NA TELECOPIED QUESTIONS ON G&H concurs with CYGNA that for stress problem AB-1-61A the S. water and insulation weight was not included in the r.-odel,ing of the flanges and valves. To evaluate this ef fect, the per-centage dif ference between the neglected weight and the span weight must be addressed. . Neglected W Min. span wt. % Ccmponent Neglected wt. 8P"" ** (Ibs) ,
,1bs)
( 1.5% 17330.
. 2 6 . 7 . ,- . . ~
. . . .' 1-FE-4536B .. .
'1-FT-4536B .
.,.. 10" 3001.RFWN FL .
"' 5514.7 3.7%
1-FE-4536A 203.1 24" 3004 RFWN FL 2445.7 11.4% Valve ICC-4 0 277.84 .
- 24" 150t.RF?;N.FL .
2060.7 5.9% Valve ICC-107 122.5 18" 150% RFWN . .. FL . . . 2060.7 5.9% Valve ICC-109 122.'5 18" 150# EFWN FL In order to evaluate the worst case increase not ad above, a simplifi '
' model including valve ICC-40 and 1-FE-4536A was generated. ,
- i. ...
% ,, ;R,. .
. 'ce. ,. , ., i v
. . ,% , c.). .!i.4 . . - q*
?
y YwAW*k g]pfi y- ., % . ,'. 'r
* 't ck'g **. . < +
. 41 b :aw o
v, 9 x. ... . . , . cri. c es .- a
. : . . . . .. j 0 p '. . . ..,...,?..
. . . . . 8
.: .s . . ., .
.m 1
's #re , L ioo
Using this simplified model, a static calculation was performed forTo app the effect of the neglected weight only.'g' values at the fundamental frequ inertia effect, the static, ally applied. , x direction = 1.4g fundamental freq = 8.5 cps y direction = 1.85g
- z. direction =.1.38g. .
envelope 'g' values The above values are for 1/2 sse and is the831.5' of the Safeguards b
. at. elevation. .
. 810.5' of the Auxiliary building (see For figures sse 1420-b and 1328-b.'g'. valu
.. .. for the respective buildings)This factor tines"the'1/2 sse 'g. values factor of~1.6 was~used..
envelopes.the actual sse ' g.' "va lu e s'.
~
d The results indicate that a maximum This supportsupport load l'oad increase increase of 19tno is of (g-at support CC-1-020-002-A33R. concern when the following is considered:
- 1. Unrefined response spectra was used in the as-built analysis 9 8.5 cps '
x direction 4.2% margin , ' y direction 26% margin' 1/2 sse z direction 40% margin x direction 164 margin > sse y direction 31% margin * ' ' ' z direction 20%' margin
- 2. Conservative assumption in the simplified static analysis that the fundamental frequency of the system occurs in span being investigated. A review of support scheme l
v .. c y. r ', , : f.or. the pi, ping. in that , area will indicate higher natural . t l . . . frequencies in 'the verical direction. The neglected weights will only produce an additional stressand about 1000 psi of 30 psi in the dc adweight condition i t the . seismic. This is of no concern when reviewed aga ns9 for the particular area'.
' margins available in both eq's 8 &
i
., . . e ....._.....
n :. . . .. ., 8 .
. . - - - . . , , - - , - - - - _ - , - . - , , . . . . - - . _ , , _ , - . . *- . . . - - . - _ - - . . --- m m:- **
- iY FZ :s [. :n' !43
,. ,. sab) (1b) (ib) '.G.Ibs) , g[.5 ) It -l b.s A 0 1 1 7 9 '5 nrmn B 1272 3524 2278 3882 9372 3956 .
?:ozz)e 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 (327)
A 91 19 12 53 82 159 upset B 5347 4075 4283 3156 15287 1:1952
% 2 0 0 2 1 1 A 146 '30 19 81 126 251 emerg B 6318 4202 4876 3475 17053 13949 4 2 1 0 2 1 2 CC norm B -
020-001 % .
.'-A33'K. .
i A .. 76.[ .. , l . . ., .(124)/ B'.
~5200 ' - '~ '- ~
. upset .' .
3... -
, s.
A 122 emerg .B . 648.6 4 2 ; A 431 CC norm B 6050 020-002 1 ' 7 '
' l *
-A33R i A- 1228 (118) upset B 7968
% 15 .
A 1706
. emerg B 8784
% 19 .
A 0 7 0 8 1 ! 31 4921.
' ~
C C - 1 " ' '. - f t o r m . B.. 4117) 4 0
'2189 - *14.45, ;,7 0 2 v .::4263 0 0 1 10 1
.f . 6 ;
087-004 '
-A33A 225 23 685 88 A 587 22 upset'B 1,0083 3830, 1766 11250 6353 - .
(114) .. - l2584-- 1 6 '6 1-
% 6'- -
l' ' l . . . A 939 31
~
360 32 1095 122 l
-emerg B 11544 2737 4417 2175 12977I 6915 8 1 8 1 8 2 t
A . 25 i CC norm B 5720 f 021-001 % o
.....A33R . .... . .
.. . . . .. , ..:.. , , .. . . . . . . ;,. . \. . ,
g . , (122.) : upset B 8338. . g .. j
. . .. . A . 107 .
9501 emerg B
., - % 1. . . .
f
s
- FX FY FZ Ibs thr, lbs.
A 1 - i 3076 : CC norm B ' 028-701 %. . ! 0 .
-A33R '
A. 605 : (1000) upset B 8148 l' 7 : I - A 967 1 8 i 9420' emerg B
. . 10 .
21
. A . .
CC norm B . 3077 '! - '. 1
... O'28-700 %-
.-{
' :- -A33R -
A. 60 - (1110) upset B. - 5108 t.; j.
%' 1 i i i i
83 A e.terg B 6285
.% 1 -t
.u:....--.....-...... .
t i .
.' ~~
Note : a) 'A' is the add.itionol' load due to unaccounted insulation } and water. b) 'B' is the as-built lead .
. . . . . , . . > . - i.. : . . . . . . , g s. . .
. .,,.....n -
c)' % = ;37 s too ) . .. . ..- . \ p l .. . . , I r I ,
1984 (8:30am) kl.Li'OLSES TO CYGNA TE17.COPI ED OUCST3 0!!S D7sTED i17.HCII 21,
- 1. The Loop 3 weights and offsets are representative of those found in the main steam inside containment system.
T12 main steam pipe has the following parameters: , OD = 32.0 inches; r = 16 inches t = 1.25 inches *
= 14,246.3 (in)4 I
J = 28,592.5 (in)4
;$dditional stresses. indticed du'a.to the eccentricity would,
~
be:' I -
'Eending = -(W) (of f set) .x r -
. . c I Torsion = . (W) (of fset) xr .,. -
J Using W = 2000 lbs and an offset of 3'-6" for deadweight: .
* ( = MOO) (42) (16) = 94.08 psi -
14,296.3
%= (2004)_(42) (16l = 47.04 psi 28,592.5 .
For seismic the maximum effecti can be approximated by:
* (7b ) (Peak "g" value) 4 v .
( T .) -(Pe "e ak. s."g:":s alu.e) c - r . . .
. . ' .%, =.. ..y. ,
. . . . c_
The peak "g" value is Sr therefore the effect would be:
-( = 5 (94.03) == 470.4 .
I T,.= 5 (47 04) a 235.2 I The eccentricity stress effects of this nature are considered L negligible when conside'tation is given that the allowable stress j (sh) for the main steam piping mater.ial is 17,500 psi. f . . , . ....... . .. .
. . . . .v. , ,
p t - - _
.. ...._... . .... n....---
The effect of eccentric weights was Chosing alsosupport addressed from the MS-1-03-014-c72k view point of local stresses. as a typical case of heavy eccentric mass and large moment arm, the results are: Lon> - 200o 16 s. HoM E MT = 2000 *(4 2 - It-) = 52,oco in-lbs @ pipe wnu. .
\,
' i.CN4/TypgL . S HEAk .= 2000. @$
,CiNeuMFfhTinL SHEAE 1c 20Co .Os '
j NAMf ' M, coo 'in 4s
/** O '
,y .
r UN&tTub/NRL CtfCUHF2EWT/AL McMENf = S
) cAss, 7pg 4i LCAO y FOR THE abo VE WAS l.bCAL STR&sS M AfI />?uM
/g ,
To RE /7/4 psi F00^!D m is . is naoKT to */, c;= s i, (17, c CONS / DER /N4 THE INCREASED AI.L o tAJ A /31E'.S /A/ WELDED /?i~f)1C//ML RA/ALYSt.s , 7HIS LOCAL . SYR E.SS 1s j I OF NO C C NC E.2.N. - [. :
.- .: i . . . . , . . : .- .
1 . ... < .. , _ . . . e.n _ ; . .
2.- G&H concurs'with CYGNA.that the weight of support MS-1 The 010-C72k (1681 lbs) is missing from the analysis.
total pipe weight of the main steam pipe is approxim 17,930 lbs (between support MS-1-003-011-C72K and MS-1-003-008-C72k). This represents approximately 9-percent of the
- In.
it.should be..oted that n ,
.. . ... ... . .. total span weight.115-1-03-010-C72K is loc, addition,..ated (2) similar approx
...: lateral.. supports and'the span length between twoThis proximity would supports is approximately 35 feet.
indicate that the out-of-plane excitation would be minimal
, * (at mid-point' kould be maximum) .
s.~.. .
- . * - - - _- ._m ____._,_--m.- - _ . - , , , _ _ . , _ , _ _ , _ _ _ ,,-y ,--_.-- _ --.,-,.,- ,.-s- -,c
.g
W 9 t 3a. The penetrations were qualified to a maximum of 1,200.8 kips. The axial steam hammer load used was 45.2 kips. This load' has no ef fe'ct' on'both pipe str'ess 'or ' support loads. t
- s. . ~ .. . .
T he. results 3b. G&H has evaluated the differences noted. are correct for the-following reason:
~
li 54 b tz43 . l' .. p *F S + Ts . Ltii s i _-4 l q__.g' J,$.g.se4. cot- C77.K - i .
'. _5__[Eq]
i . . l ics For the peak load of 18.5k in leg 5 there exist counter I.egs 3 and balanci 7 wou loads of 6.,4k in leg 3 and 4.4 kips in leg 7. * -
... , . . . . ,:. alsosinfluence the response of MS-1-004-007-C72K. -
oe O G& 11 responr,es to CYGNA teloi opiini quest itm on 3/19/84. G& H does not have a specific procedure to account for the possibility of. overlapping SIF. In general, the local bending 1. stresses induced by branch connections are localiin nature ad rapidly d<caying to zero as you move away from t.he point dis- , continuity. 4 s toe 'B" s t.~D$a'A' gg, g * . v- -- - q 3,ce 'g sd A - r-
' 1, , ..
i .- zi' -
* - g_ . .
~
- - -: .. '.' ._. - ~ ~ - L o'
..o
. .. . 8 - - a.a a.* l o
/ y..
- 40 -
- . t.. o
. / '. ~
4 's i 4 s !, 5 t--- # .
. 'I
'.* IMLue4CE .
'd N E "
-- J -
pg_og sies. A" yfg s i; :.g**s e,
~ _ J,
\
.* ;*o g EME NC VENT Ao a 1 (,. y*)
. ,f " [ R 'L * .
.ph: , .
I - [ 2 p M, 4.fsx) j.
. gxt.. 2*D t .
f , c . r ,a3 . ' - i
'g3-
. g- is.s 7s '
b = /2(/-V U - -
.f t. z s From Timoshenko, ." Theory of Plates & .S hells", the effect of edge moments are discussed, and was shown that at an edge distance Ex=2,
- the discontinuity moment is less than 10% of its original value.
l 1 l As shown on the plot of the influence of side A on Side B, and visa versa, the effect is minor.
- . . .r..
. .s . . . , .
.. . ,s .
I . __________________m _ _ _ _ _ - - - -
1984 RESPO::CES TO CIC.::A QUESTIONS TE1 ECOPJ ED M.N<CH 12, 2. A sensitivity analysis for the main steam lines was perforr.ed This using the main. steam Ioop 2 as a typical example. sensitivity study addressed'the effects In of time orderstep and to separate number of dynnnic degrees of freedom.. the ef fects of time step and mass points, a separate analysis was performe.d varying time step and then number degrees of
,freedome. Th,e results ,o f this, analysis, was compared against the origir.al or reference analysis.
- a. Car.e 1 - Add an additional ~12 degrees. of freedom;. -
Time step .001 . ....
.. .... -.. .x Case 2. -- Double, the .integr.ation time step. from .001 b.
to .002 seconds; .ori,ginal number of degrees
' ' of' .freedome . .
.(2) cases are presented Displacer.ent plots of the above two No differences in the along with the r'eference analysis.
piping response were noted. ._
.MM
* ' CISP
'.D";?.0 L RE.V E RI4C E.
AcWS15 .
.CDG -
e-
.3*A M -
i I I. < ii f . lq.i}
.xa;.
, [ ,
E .: . . . t I- t , .. -.. ,. . f f
.m:w .
. I f
\
\ };\\ \ .
%, F ! '
} - - ..
.._>v3 l!
..m:w .
I
,i{ t ill i
~
{) {
.m m
, (O.[l u . < .... . .
. . .. . . .ww .
. Z f "-l O
e
* * . Time
. e
.~0._.
.= 4 33 .. .
. s 1 o.*, ( ii.)
../:
- . . o -
ilg Et . i n v.t STC.? .c.otsec
,i _
.BLO - .
4
.CC"JO -
I I ll l
. co - I ,
fI ; } l . . . . y-
. .ttLIC l aim t);k{
<- l . .
. .. . . w , s= -
L .
)\
- i. .
1
.. , . i I ,
.,m
. .c .
. E
- ..Cc450 - t
.c
/
i e i _ ._ _ a T!ri e
' , j , i i 3.20 3.50 d.33
,j 2.40 , 2.80
~ ~
40 .50 3.20 1.E3 2.00
. . . ' ", 00 . . , .
u ass- a
. - ggg TLSI CPSCS W.-.F.CT .c. CC-7223 ,C30 41 . d e**
.D21*D -
)6?ti>5) . <.
. .tc4s3 -
/ C .<. E 9 : AttiTic h -
' l' p yy p, g i c. D EM Gi_
. . tc5cc -.j g pusccq .
g, . l.
.. .. .. i
( .\ l \
.m:so .
{ {.} . 3 .
- 1. ass l
. .CffCC . 'I -
1
/.
( i.{
. . -. 6 ; { l j . . mis: -
k ( . 1 7
. .ocxo - l
,i
. i l >
'). ...' , . . .
j
'.fr. ,...;- ..- . ....~.. .. ,. . . , . . ._.;,.., ., ,
i I' ..CCaSD - j . P
. , .x. i.30- .-
/ .
R ,1 ,
. . . . Tirt 3.20 3.53 d.30 1.50 2.*X: 2.ac 2.53
~
g .g3 1.20
*
- CM~e &@D 4
. . e e e
- mo.
DIC' (*
.DCD L .
1 RET ErRE.+4c.E.
.C150 -
.. . . (. .
q.
.DICD - . - .
II I
.c .so - f l
}
. . t l
- i ; i i i i -
I '
\
i
. . .mM -
\
i {a ; . l
.. ciao
. **=
. 0150 -
. 02"4 . - -
..C053 -
e e i *i ._ a 11.E
~
, . 2 i' 2.M 3.23 3.53 4.00
. ' C.3"C .53 1.20 1.50 2.30 2.40
- .00 40 ' (SECT aas TuSI CCS NCT N3. to-23::3-C30 .
t..
- . . ~. ) . .
.S
=
- s ..
9 * :
-.-~~ - m. ._..
clco ( 84)
.CV3 i.
c C fsS E. 7. - T I'A E STQ ***" 8*C .
.csED -
.oim . . . . . . . .
[ {' ,
- l ,f . . ... -.e,xo . . - .
I r ; t 58 i C3;C I [ I 1 { II ( I I i i
.tcs0 -
\ \ ; - .
. i ). .
I 1
.0100 -
I
. .c:E2 -
.:::'00 -
s . ..e.
. .m . .
*- J._. s. _A.._.2-- 2 TleE
,, 3.o ,
_i n .- i 2.83 3.23 3.C 4.C3 40 .EC -1.E3 2.00 2.40
.00 1. 20 , .
' N, U'f I f'#JT S 8 TJ1 CMis W. CT 4.':C.222 2 at..e.,,-
,-* < . ' - C - -
. 'n . ... s . ..s. * .
~
O e
. * . e n . .
s . . .
e. i o,ap (.M
.c=n ' . ..
d/.SE.1 - AbMT Io tJ A L- D%ElHE 5
. @ T-R et b c $ .
,,,s3 . ,
. . .osco -
1 *. . l
.f'I I i .
. . csso -
f
> u t \
.M {
I l I I{I l ' '
.:co -
) i ( Iij I Ii 1 \
.cim .
.oiss
... e2x ... . .
l .
.c: w -
T;-I
,. . i a u =. 2.= =
.cro; .6 .;o ..;o i.6 2.m z..= 2.=
ACS I (S E-C ) u, ac.s , c.e= c. e-=== . .
-.e .;, . c
- . - - ~ . .
. e%
e
- e r
Q1l7
.ca~a0 L .
CE FE EEMC.C
. .cr.m - . '
. . . . r.
,0150 - - .. . . .. .
0133 -
. '.f
* )!
! l
' },
.- q { -
k j
. . .c so -
I 1
.0100 ,
l l1 l I . - . . s. - - t l . !*
* . . . .0153 -
l.. ..
.. M -
* * ' " TIPE
, e J. _
2.M 3. C 3D dU
~~~'
.M 1.20 1. M 2.Z 2.40
,m 40 s GTS 2 l
[ i fusi lPtis W CT 4 . W 323-C30 s I l ( .
~ * * '
~~~
. . .. , . . . . .,.q, .'.....*- .r r .
l t l O * .
+ .
a n . n _
._....me=
.o, e o
i
,, (, It4) - pg{ *4TCp . 0 02 SAC.
[g,m L CASE 2 ,
\
.01C3 -
I
. t 0120 - f
; ) . .. ..
. .CC33 . - . .. } }' .
l)i\; w= - \ C3'O *s f [ l 1{ 1 L teuf l ]
. .WO -
l
, I -
.. . . 0 I
..Cc n -
{ \ - i (
..C120 - i I
i
. 0160 -
'
- 3;. L * : . .~ u - ,
. 1P,-
,.,. s. ... *~. . . ... . ~. ..'. * ;' .. . . . .
- _, _,__ e - __ s 3.g3 4.C3
' 2.40 2.S3 3.23 1*ho 1.60 2.Cc gg g.ms 2
. . CO.:3 03 40 . .3 1.51 C*r.5 r.r c.~.T W. @7C-N
- 31 s ,s .tv-i l
l . j . . . . . l \ . L- ~
. . 1 1
- - r. ..
- l l
1 Dl:P
. 0'..~ 3 ' L CME.1. AYDITIDM A L D6 tie *d2 5.
op p ? c I G er M
.ce.o - -
. i
.oiso -
l . I 1
,.Dico . ,
3g. ,
~~
.CoS3 -
(( f 9I
.oxo St.sr N
k - j
)
..:cs3 - j t l I
. 01: * - l s
. 0150 .
). . .~
* - ..: . . ; . '. . . < :. . : '.~ . . .
c..
- . ..:<. .C200 ~..L ,.. . . ,. ,,
* * * ' ' ' i n. -
'._....a T I P.E
. ,m r__ _
2.40 2.63 3.20 2.63 4.33
.03 43 .80 1.20 1.EO J. . 00
" .- .t.13.60 .
* .
- C STS '2 TLS: C "ZS F *.C E.T 4. CC 2322 0.33 M eo/ t
.. r . . .a . . , . .. . .. .
. , ~
p ! ' 5
, r DIP
.CSC L g gTCacM W
.C240 -
. *p *
.crgo . * * .
.0160 - * .
T .
.0123 -
A
. C33 - .
.J"40 - 3:.t
/
i
\n S.,
.CC:X3 ) i j ,
. .p*o . .
l ' .;.i s . l .s . .p.,, ,, , l,
. .=EC - ) .
'..- M. '- J i.* 13
~ 1_
5 . 3.23 3.60 d.00 e ' 2.33 _ 2.40 2.83 l
,,;.pg L 1.50 l . ,
40 .N3 1.20 8. 3Y5
. 00. '
tuSI OTS N t.CT M3. Co.2T2 033 I I
. * *e . .
r '** .. p
.. . O '
g # t O 9 w r- . - - , , _ , _
'"**vev-y gg g y 9. , ,
, , ,Y i
. ise
.c.m L
~ '
cAs c .f.. Tsu s' s ye? = .o o 2 sEc_ .
.C240 -
, . ?, . .
. . . .c oo . . .
s .
.0860 -
.c:20 -
I p .
.c::4 - l 17 4
~
- I .
>)" )l
~ . k- - .
j !
- 6.
, i ti i
.cc4o -
l
. : ,, 'l .
.,g; l .
.M -
i I A' -s * ._ -J .3 TIM
.,0:y0 > 's _._ _s 11 -s '
2.53 3.23 ,3 . W d.C3
.80 1.20 1.60 2.CC 2.40
.00 40 ' , e sys 3 tuS1 CW.$ 6 *0.K OT *c. 0*-23".2-C'1C .n..-
f l l t i I f \ -
. . .e . .
i D
.. . . 8 .
O f . . .
0, 8, I
.. i D88 T E.4R E l l@D'T D
.cLo '
usE t
~
ep y. g C Y T. DM
. .. . .czno - .
.\ . .. . . . . . . .
.rzo - . --
I
.cssa - - ,
.ciro -
l
. . 1- .
.ans
. .coe -
l , g j , g
.o = r '
- l 1 /
I \
\ -
1
,d.; .o .y f
1
. .com ..
kl
. 0T3 - .
I mt
, ___.a_.__--___
3.53 d.C3 f .
'- 2.83 3.23 1.so z.co 2.40 .
40 .so 1.23
.m l nst ns run m. w-M3-='3 ,. . e uer 1
i l .. . . .... .s........ 1 l .
~. .. . . .
I
.......n.-.... ...-..--- _._ .-.. - - _
e. e 0 *s. 8
- 8 Regarding the missinginw'elded anchors 61A wereattachment anlyzed work at theon AB-1-61A, time of Rev. 2, original the two (2) CC-1-004-016-A43A is filed with calculation book AB-1-61B; analysis. (apparently CC-1-087-004-A83A is filed with ca3 culation book AB-1-61Asupports were no overlooked by CYGNA). The three (3) tha time of original analysis since the corresponding BRH drawings site (CC-1-02 8-713-3 3 3K ; CC 02 8-02 2- 3 33K ;
were not furnished byBEH's were subsequently requested however analysis CC-1-031-010-3433).
- was not performed. .
-
- Analysis'is' presentlyFinal beingresults performed will be and preliminary supplied when results available. indicate.
' no' stress problems. - . .
. i .:
.....:....., a . . . .' , : . .c : . , . ..
- e et e
*e e e e y
. 9
- y M*
me monno =*e.* 9 H.6m On W %n *
't I., , . '
1984 Tc0 c x Jir.m_ 9 of March 19n . In reg: rd to the differences in design philosophy employed for the (inclusion of support weights and trapeze ef fects) Main Stea.m inside containment as opposed to other systt.ms at ' Comanche Peak, the following should be noted:
- l. The main steam system (inside. cont ainment) rests entirely on spring supports for deadweight loading and snubbers for dynamic loading. ,
- 2. The OD'of'the pipe'is~32 inches and 1.25 inches thick and -
weighs approximately .. 520 lbs/ft.
.s
- 3. . Thi . operating temperature of ,the. line..is 545 degrees F. .
Due to the heavy pipe involv.ed and the resulting heavy supports,
~
it was felt t. hat these addition'al weights'should'be included in the analysis to more accurately determine the deadweight load on This exercise would minimize field adjustments spring hangers. necessary to balance the line. and support Due to the large loads ' (seis: .i'c 'and steam harr.er) Upon review locations, it was necessary to use trapeze supports. of the system, it was decided to acc.,unt for trapese effects for the following reasons: values used in seismic analysis (about 5 "g" max. )
- 1. High "g"
- 2. Large eccent arm
. , r; ; . ., .,-
.. ... .. 9 3., . , High oper ating . t;emper ature .
.3 ,.., .. -. ,,
l t
. ~ .- .. . ., .
1
. . - .}}