ML20140G497
Text
.
p*
e oor ju UNITED STATES L,[
f
'h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
- %,7 i
W ASmN GT ON, D. C. M555
?% :.', E FEB 9 1379 Gus C. Lainas, Chief, Containment Systems Branch, DSS MEMORANDt;M FOR:
T. M. Su, Containment Systems Branch, DSS FROM:
J. A. Kudrick, Section A Leader, Containment Systems %
THRU:
Branch, DSS
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS GROUP TO DISC
SUBJECT:
THE STATUS OF SRV RELATED LOADS ON CONTAINMENT On January 19, 1978, a meeting was held between representatives of Mark II owners group, General Electric, the NRC consultants (BNL) and The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the staff.
Safety Relief Valve (SRV) related loads on the Mark II containment.
The meeting agenda, attendee list and presentation material are attached.
The significant results of the meeting are summarized below:
1.
Methodology of Ramshead Load Prediction The Mark II owners indicated that the methodology described in the Dynamic Forcing Function Report (DFFR) and the topical report (NED0-24070) will be used for predicting the rarrshead loads on the This method utilizes the current GE analytical containment structure.
model to predict loads for first SRV actuation. For subsequent actuation, a multiplier of 1.4 is used for po:itive pressure and 1.6 The Mark II owners have stated that the use for negative pressure.
of these multipliers in conjunction with the DFFR methodology prosides a bounding load on the containment.
However, we pointed out that two additional items should be included These are leaking valve effects and bubble oscillating in the method.The Monticello test results show an increase in SRV loads frequency.
corresponding to leaking valves. Since a leaking valve is a highly possible event, its effects should be addressed.
In addition, the bubble oscillating frequency measured from the test deviates substantially from the predicted value. We indicated that the model should be modified in order to predict this important parameter within a reasonable error band. A representative of the Mark II owner's group stated that the bubMe efficiency is being investigated in light of the Monticello test results.
Contact:
T. M. Su, CSB 492-7711 h$$40fg34860114 FIREST005-665 PDR 1 >_
s c*
G. C. Lainas S 7973 2.
Method of Calculating Multiple-Valve Actuation Loads Currently, the DFFR uses the SRSS (square root of sum of the squares) approach for combining loads from multiple-valve actuations. Our consultants, however, disagreed with this approach on the basis of i
the Monticello test results. A study made by our consultants currently shows that combining multiple-valve loads by the absolute sum method results in calculated loads closer to the Monticello results. Loads calculated by SRSS are in general lower than measured loads. Since the design loads on structures is substantially different between these two methods, we recommended that the Mark II owner's group conduct further investigations of these two methods.
3.
Submerged Structure Loads For submerged structures, the Mark II owner's included water jet loads and drag loads in the investigation. Their program includes analytical model development and experimental confirmation for a single structure within a pool. We stated that the approach of this investigation appears reasonable.
However, we directed them to study the effect of a second body on the velocity and pressure fields because in an actual plant design there will be more than one structure in the fields that result from either the discharge of a SRV or from LOCA related phenomena.
4.
Fluid and Structure Interaction (FSI).
GE stated that an analytical approach is being developed to investigate FSI effects associated with SRV loads. This work is expected to be completed by June,1978. This late submittal may result in a slip in the review schedules associated with our A-39 and A-8 generic review programs. We will have further discussions with the Mark II owner's group for this matter.
On the basis of their current assessment, the Mark II owners maintain that FSI effects are insignificant for SRV loads. Dr. Bedrosian of Burns and Roe made a presentation to demonstrate that the loads measured in the Monticello steel torus are conservative for application to a Mark II concrete containment. His method uses a classical text book single degree of freedom model to show that flexible walls amplify the actual loads if the frequency ratio of the source and the tested facility falls within a certain range. He stated that the Monticello SRV loads fall within this range. We believe that this method of assessing the importance of SRV FSI effects has merit and should be
s
(
G. C. Lainas FEB 9 1c78 pursued further by the Mark II owners. The Mark II owner's group should provide a formal subnission of this evaluation of FSI effects including a detailed description for our evaluation on a schedule consistent with our lead plant review efforts.
5.
Pool Temperature Limit We recommended that each Mark II owner accelerate their schedule to provide us the information related to pool temperature transients which we requested several months ago. We stated that this information is relevant to our evaluation of plant operability. The results of this evaluation will have an impact on the selection of the SRV discharge device; i.e., ramshead vs. quencher. Delays in receipt of this information will be reflected in our licensing review efforts for the lead Mark II plants.
g T. M. Su, A-39 Task Manager Containment Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety Attachments:
As Stated Distribution:
Central File NRR Reading File CSB Reading File E. Case R. Mattson S. Hanauer R. Fraley, ACRS (16)
R. DeYoung D. Vassallo D; Skovholt R. Tedesco J. Glynn D. Ross I&E(3)
NRC PDR Local PDR M. Kehnemuyi J. Kudrick T. Su
e
(
MK II S/R VALVE PHENOMENA MEETING Attendance I
A. R. Smith G.E.
W. M. Davis G.E.
i A. J. James G.E.
E. M. Mead PP&L R. M. Crawford S&L H. C. Brinkman CG&E L*. H. Frauenholz GE S. B. Mucciacciaro S&W H. Chau Lilco i
B. R. McCaffrey Lilco C. Tung BNL MIT (BNL) (BNL)
P. Huber Princeton G. Bienkowski R. H. Scanlan Princeton (BNL)
T. M. Su NRC/CSB J. A. Kudrick NRC/CSB C. J. Anderson NRC/CSB George Maise BNL A. Hafiz NRC/SEB G. Lainas NRC/CSB J. Glynn NRC/ DSS R. L. O'Mara S&W S. C. Chow Stone & Webster C. Lin S&W K. J. Green S&L J. S. Abel
- Commonwealth Edison R. E. Schaffstall G.E.
M. G. Mosier NMPC H. S. Lu Ebasco E. A. Rukos CFE T. Zazueta CFE C. Oppenheim ENK A. F. Deardorff Nutech(MkI0.G.)
R. J. Muzzy GE H. T. Tang GE D. C. Baker Burns & Roe H. M. Schoenhoff Bechtel E. McFarland Bechtel T. Huang NRC/CSB l
M. R. Granback NIPSCO A. P. Olson NSC R. F. McClelland GE
.i Bedros Bedrosian B&R G. L. Gelhaus WPPSS K. K. Roe s
B&R i
L. Sobon GE
i e
4
'l INTR 0DUCTI0N 4
i 0
MEET:NG OBJECTIVES 0
CONTINUlllG MK II OWi!ERS GROUP POLICY OF FREQUENTLY ADVISING NRC 0F PROGRAM TECHNICAL PROGRESS AND STATUS i
0 SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PHENOMENA PROGRAM O
PRIMARY EMPHASIS ON RAMSHEAD TECHNOLOGY z
{
0 MK 11 QUENCHER TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS i
e MK 11 S/RV SEQUENTIAL ACTUATION APPROACH i
i 1
1/78 i
L '!.,
e
i j *<
SRV MEETING AGENDA - MARK II OWNERS GROUP /NRC l
1.
INTRODUCTION i
11.
METHODS FOR LOAD PREDICTION - RANSHEAD
~
e METHODOLOGY o
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES j
e OVERVIEW e
APPLICATION MEMORANDUM Ill.
METHODS FOR LOAD PREDICTION - QUENCHER e
METHODOLOGY e
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES IV.
MONTICELLO DATA AND MARK 11 FSI e
EVALUATION OF FSI DATA FOR S/RV MODEL i
VERIFICATION.
i e
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF FSI IN MK 11 l
CONTAINMENTS.
l V.
POOL TEMPERATURE LIMITS e
REPORT
SUMMARY
l e
TRANSIENT ASSUMPTIONS 1
l
,I I
. MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS l
LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DUE TO SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH l
A RAMSHEAD DEVICE l
1 1
e DISCUSSION OF SUBMERGED STRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY e
OVERVIEW 0F RANSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURE PROGRAM e
DOCU'1ENTAT10N e
SUMMARY
OF RAMSHEAD ASSUMPTIONS AND APPLICATION TECHNIQUES l
]
e CONCLUSIONS i
l j
j i
e MARK 11 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS 1
WATER JET LOADS e
SOURCE OF JETS
- MAIN VENTS DURING LOCA
- RAMSHEAD OR QUEflCHER DURING SRV ACTUATION e
LOADING MECHANISnS
- WATER DRAG / IMPINGEMENT e
BASIC APPROACH
- PROVIDE JET DEFINITION AND CALCULATE LOADS FROM KNOWN DRAG COEFFICIENTS OR IMPlNGEMENT CALCULATIONS
I
.4 i
S A R W Il hSESSJ.Es St.ippnessiaiu..
~
i 00/JTRUJi AE/JT 0KSTDDS i
l i
GJATER Jc~.7 L.ORDS_
4
( UCl
-- - -,i
(
(
V
('
/
=f i
\\
)
2 5
r = Cc. v'/z y I
1
/
C
=F w
w 1
C T, /
\\
F= M. Ai. v2 27 4
77 i,<,,
,.,o j-:
s
---...-...---~.-----.---.-.-..-,..._..---,.,--.-,----.,,-.,...-n--.-,.-,
= _..
MARK 11 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS
' BUBBLE' TYPE LOADS f
e SOURCE OF BUBBLE fMAINVENTSDURINGP0OLSWELL
~
- RAMSHEAD OR QUENCHER FOLLOWING AIR CLEARING
- MAIN VENTS DURING CONDENSATION OSCILLATIONS AND CHUGGING e
LOADING MECHANISM 2
- STANDARD DR4G ( ' V ) PRODUCED BY VELOCITY FIELDS
- ACCELERATION DRAG (.c V) PRODUCED BY PRESSURE FIELDS i
e BASIC APPROACH l
- PROVIDE DEFINITION OF VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION FIELDS
]
AND CALCULATE DRAG FROM KNOWN DRAG COEFFICIENTS AND
]
ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES.
i
)
V(e,9ce
/
p-
/
i Z,[
(GTATTONAF-Y
(
sTeucroa:
j
/
\\
kg
'x z/
FLOW / FtELD (NDUCED LOADS F = F, + Pn TAMDARD DRAG F = Cok o VLtf
,v V(tf s
Zec.
ACCELEP_.ATION DEA 6 A
P
= Vi f N
QL+)
A
,v S
1
\\
o i
- * * ~
- - ~ +
=
i
\\.
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES LOADS l
o REPORT TITLE - NED #21472-P l
ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR LIQUID JET PROPERTIES FOR PREDICTING FORCES ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 1
l j
e REPORT TITLE - NED #21471-P l
ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING DRAG FORCES ON i
RIGID SUBMERGED STRUCTURES CAUSED BY LOCA AND l
SAFETY RELIEF RAMSHEAD AIR DISCHARGE APPLICATION METHOD l
u REPORT TITLE - fled #21730 e
{
MARK 11 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEf1S LOADS O!! SUBMERGED STRUCTURES - AN APPLICATION MEMORANDUM i
i i
i I
I
4 f1 ARK 11 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION C0flTAINMENT SYSTEMS RAMSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURES PROGRAM 4
INCORPORATE INTO UATER JET DFFR REV. 3
^
i THEORY FOR LOCA AND APPLICATIONS SRV (flEDE-MEMORANDUM (1.E., USERS STRUCTURAL
'21472)
~
I GUIDE)
ASSESSMENT NEDE-21730 (BY A.E.'S)
AND RAMSHEAD CONFIRMATORY AIR BUBBLE TEST PROGRAM DAR l
LOADS (!!EDE-AND MODEL/ DATA l
21471)
COMPARIS0NS MODEL/DFFR j
REVISION IF i
NECESSARY
]
v CONFIRM I
STRUCTURAL l
ASSESSMEllT i
1 l
l MARK 11 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS RANSHEAD WATER JET LOAD i
MAJOR ASSU'iPTIONS e
UNSTEADY SUBMERGED JET WITH NO DIVERGENCE OTHER THAN PREDICTED BY MASS /M0 MENTUM EQUATIONS.
CONSTANT FLUID PARTICLE VELOCITY I
I VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION FROM THE DFFR PIPE CLEARING e
l MODEL l
i
{
e FORCE IS DRAG OR IMPINGEMEf!T DEPENDING ON GE0 METRY i
j e
DISSIPATION OCCURS WHEN LAST PARTICLE REACHES JET FRONT i
i
l; l'
ir'
)
'teo0 M
s tRO uE T 8
tn2FA NJ L
d 2r A U C
ORL cT t
A C
(
9 M
er 8
.l t
G u
o e
d AN TR E mTE e
A)
I Jt R
TAR c
E K
,DT I
7 Eu U e
YU o
DA V
L p Y L
P HaET
,AU T
r rMC RL E TuHCi j
T j
e T
STU tO P
yg DC S 8 cTU fY R s
oSR e
L A A OL T TIT N
L S eHS d
TC D
a U
v k
S P
~
te J
1 2
e r
u i
Lg
- I F
3 e8 '
... 3
.l
. 8 Y
A T
o f
T CY N
Y o
A OR YSO rYR m
D LO wTO 1
3E TOT 4
E T
3 JRA OIT se VS r
- WT f
I i
so OH U
H 1 EHE MT L
Tm T. E 7 TCL TfE s
C 8
U RM ASE I
MVm o
R EI WDC A
T C
T o
T T
A
.S A
t W
' i
.'. S
(
t Sn;g*( *. 9'4 j
3 s,
)k(h M Mt u >=
1
\\,
1 1'
- 'l
,l iljj111I!
jlij<,!1llllJlj.!;
}:!
{
l MARK 11 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS
^
RAMSHEAD AIR BUBBLE LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES j
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS e SPHERICAL BUBBLE FLOW FIELE DESCRIBED BY A POINT SOURCE.
FINITE BUBBLE EFFECTS CONSIDERED, j
s UNIFORM FLOW FIELD e
BOUNDARIES ACCOUNTED FOR WITH METHOD OF IMAGES e
AIR 15 IDEAL GAS e
AC0USTIC EFFECTS NEGLIGIBLE j
l e
BUBBLE RISE CONSIDERED e
TWO BUBBLES IN PHASE i
I e
i i
s
RA!1SHEAD AIR BUBBLE APPLICATION U!EDE-21730)
STEP 1 STRUCTURE DATA V
STEP 2 BUSSLE ANO IMAGE LOCATIONS y
STfP 7 ACCELERATIOff DR AG FORCE STEP 3 CALCULATION SUSSLERf9E A
CJTT\\,0,, cASITa Br* '
er t OR COMPUTER 909988 DYNAMICS OfVIOE U.
SOLUTION AND U COUPLED IDfTO VECTORS t
?
COMPUTER SOLUTION 9
STfP S SUSSLE DY98AMICS ACC LER 8088 FIELD
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS RAMSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS CONCLUSIONS e
LOADS CONSERVATIVELY DEFINED AND DOCUMENTED e
CONFIRMATORY PROGRAM IN PLACE l
o DESIGN ASSESSfiENT STUDIES UNDEFI WAY
'j. a
\\{;
l
.\\
- 1 RAMSHEAD CONDENSATION INSTABILITY e
REVIEW 0F LIMITS BEING USED l
e REVIEW 0F DATA BASE G.E. MOSS LANDING G.E. SAN JOSE FIELD DATA e
SUM l1ARY l
RAMSHEAD CONDENSATION INSTABILITY LIMITS BEING USED 2
9 MASS FLUX:
G.6 40 LB/FT SEC (REACTOR PRESSURE G 200 PSIG)
O LOCAL WATER TEMPERATURE:
NON-ATWS EVEllTS T
4 160 F L
ATWS STUDIES TL 4 1700F T=TBULK + 10 F 6
POOL THERMAL DISTRIBUTION:
L 1
i
(
RAMSHEAD DATA BASE 3
G.E. MOSS LANDING
- 3 TESTS OF lt-INCH RAMSHEAD:
152 To 163 F 0
G.E. SAN JOSE
(
- 4 TESTS OF 3/4-INCH RAMSHEAD:
170 To 176 F
2
.1 TEST OF 3/4-INCH RAMSHEAD:
NO. THRESH 03 (<40B /FT -SEC g
- 13 TESTS OF h-INCH EBOW:
160 To 172 F
- 7 TESTS OF 3/4-INCH EBOW:
146 To 170 F
- 17 TESTS OF 1-INCH EBOW:
147 To 170 F
2
- 2. TESTS OF 1-INCH EB0W:
NO THRESH 03 (<40 B /FT - SEO g
(
c
l P#1SHEAD DATA BASE e
PN1SHEAD PLANT DATA
- PLANT A:
165 F NO INSTABILITY
- PLANT B:
150 F NO INSTABILITY l
- PLANT C:
ll46 F NO INSTABILITY
~
- PLANT D:
129 F NO INSTABILITY
- PLANT E:
122 F NO INSTABILITY 4
i
.i i
SUMMARY
I e
140 OBSERVED DEVICE-SIZE EFFECT ON THRESHOLD TEMPERATURE e
LIMIT C0!1 FIRMED BY 3/4 INCH RAMSHEAD DATA e
LIMIT SUPPORTED BY FIELD DATA TO OVER 165 F i
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINi1ENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS PRODUCED BY SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A RAMSHEAD DEVICE AN OVERVIEW 0F LEAD PLA!1T STATUS
SUMMARY
OF METHODOLOGY DOCUMENTATION
- REVIEW 0F:
1.
NED0-24070, RAMSHEAD SAFETY RELIEF VALVE LOADS METHODOLOGY
SUMMARY
2.
GEN-0394, MARK II BWR SRV RAMSHEAD BUBBLE DYNAMICS ANALYTICAL MODEL COMPARIS0NS WITH TEST DATA.
- SIPNARY OF LEAD PLANT STATUS
c MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAltriENT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING RAMSHEAD BUBBLE LOADS ON POOL BOUNDARY o
METHODS DEFINED IN DFFR SECTION 3.2 AND REFERENCES
- PIPE CLEARING
- BUBBLE DYNAMICS
- METHOD OF IMAGES
- COMBINATION OF MULTIPLE BUBBLES
- LOAD CASES
- TIE DOWN LOADS e
NED0-24070 PROVIDES "ROADMAP" 0F MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION.
- PHENOMENA
- METHODS SU"fiARY
- EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
- APPLICATION
- FUTURE WORK i
- CONCLUSIONS
s' hTDO-24070 77hTD251 Class I October 1977 l
MARK II CDSTAI!!ME}.*T SUPPORTINC PROGRAM REPORT RAMSH"AD SAFET!/ RELIEF VALVE LOADS METHOCCLOGY
SUMMARY
Prepared by C.L. Andersen i
scmres WAria giac7ch pac.g;Ts ;Esaa rega r e ggt.gaAg g;g;;a;; gwAJ SAN JC5t. CALIFC AN8 A 95823 GENER AL & ELECTRIC
MARK II PRESSURE SUP?RESSI0fl CONTAINME?ti SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION
- PURPOSE AND CONTENTS OF REPORT SECTION 2:
PHE.'10MENA
- LINE CLEARING (WATER / AIR)
- BUBBLE OSCILLATION
- STEADY STEAM FLOW SECTION 3:
DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS
- LINE CLEARING
- BUBBLE DYNAMICS
- METHOD OF IMAGES
-SUPERPOSITIO(10FLOADS A.
LINEAR ADDITION IF SEQUENCING CONSIDERED 3.
SS ADDITION FOR SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE 1
\\
jf ARK II PREssugE SL'.'PRESSION CONTAIN EEVIE'd CF NEDO-20070_
SEC~ ION 4:
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF MET TESTS:
1.
QUAD CITIES (1972) 2.
SMALL SCALE TEST TANK (1974) 3.
MONTICELLO (1975)
CONCLUSIONS 1.
QUA3 CITIES
- 1972 MODELS BOUND PIPE PRE
-- REASONABLY PREDICT NEGATIVE PRES
- MODEL REFINEMENTS IMPLEMENTED i
- DFFR METHODS FOR POOL BOUNDA
\\
I I
i l
o s!l:
i MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION C0t!TAINMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 2.
SMALL SCALE TEST tai 1K
- M01 ACCURATELY DESCRIBES BOUflDARY CONDITIONS
- LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LINEAR ADDITION AtlD SRSS SO L0tlG AS BUBBLE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS SATISFIED.
I h
\\
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAIN"ENT SYSTEls REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 3.
MONTICELLO
- FOR SINGLE VALVE TESTS, DFFR METHODS CONSERVATIVE FOR POSTIVE PRESSURE AND ACCURATE FOR NEGATIVE PRESSURE
- FOR MULTIPLE VALVE TESTS, DFFR METHODS BOUND POSITIVE PRESSURES '(EXCEPT 1 LOCATION) AND ARE GENERALLY WITHIN THE RANGE OF OBSERVED NEGATIVE PRESSURES
- FOR LEAKING VALVES, DFFR PREDICTIONS COMPARABLE TO DATA
- FOR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATIONS, DATA UNDERPREDICTED BY DFFR FIRST ACTUATION METHODS.
1
e MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAlf1 MENT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 5:
APPLICATION
- STRUCTURAL ASSESSNENTS PROVIDED IN INDIVIDUAL PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORTS
- CONSIDER e
SINGLE VALVE DISCHARGE (CONSECUTIVE) e ADS DISCHARGE (FIRST ACTUATION) e ASYMMETRIC CASE (PLANT UNIQUE) (FIRST ACTUATION) e ALL VALVE DISCHARGE (FIRST ACTUATION)
- NO SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION OF LEAKY VALVES IS NECESSARY
- C0t!SECUTIVE ACTUATION :
USE MULTIPLIER ON EXISTlilG DFFR FIRST ACTUATION PREDICTIONS.
i I
0
\\(
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAIN".ENT SYSTEi!S REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 6:
SUPPORTING PROGRAMS
- REFINED SRV ANALYTICAL N0DELS
- FSI EFFECTS ON MONTICELLO CONTAINMENT LOADS DATA
- EVALUATION OF FSI EFFECTS ON MARK II CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES DURING SRV DISCHARGE, e
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEiS P.EVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 7:
CONCLUSIONS 1.
LOAD PRODUCING PHENOMENA HAVE 1EEN IDENTIFIED.
2.
ANALYTICAL MODELS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.
3.
SUPPORTING EXPERIMENTAL DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED.
4.
DFFR MODELS INCLUDE ALL KEY PARAMETERS AND GIVE CO REASONABLE LOADS (GIVEN A MULTIPLIER IS USED FOR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATIONS).
5.
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENTS ADDRESS ALL LOADING C0.'iDITIONS.
6.
SUPPORTING PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED.
ZIMMER C0iiTAINMENT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV LOAD FSI CONSIEERATIONS e ASSESSMENT PROGRAM COMMENCED IN 1975 AWARE OF POSSIBLE FSI IN SUPPRESSION POOL; ALSO AWARE OF AMPLE RESERVE CAPACITY TO CARRY SRV LOADS e ASSESSMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERED TWO ALTERNATES:
- 2. NEGLECT FSI TO ASSESS MARGIN FACTORS EXPEDITIOUSLY, IF FSI EFFECTS ARE RELATIVELY SMALL AND CAN BE BOUNDED BY AVAILABLE RESERVE CAPACITY e ALTERNATE 2 WAS USED IN ZIMMER CNK 1-19-73
SRV FSI EFFECTS CONSIDERED NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE:
HENCE FSI EFFECTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SMALL.
- 2. SRV LOAD COMBINATIONS D0 NOT GOVERN CONTAINMENT DESIGN.
RESERVE CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO CARRY SRV LOADS IS AMPLE.
(SEE DAR TABLES 4 1-1 AND 4 1-3 AND DAR SUPPLEMENT).
- 3. FORCES INDUCED BY SRV LOADS ARE SMALL COMPARED TO THE TOTAL DESIGN LOADS (SEE DAR SUPPLEMENT).
THEREFORE, FORCES DUE TO FSI WOULD BE EVEN SMALLER.
- 4. CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE MARGIN FACTORS ARE NOT VERY SENSITIVE TO EVEN LARGE VARIATIONS IN SRV LOADS (SEE INTERACTION DIAGRAMS IN DAR SUPPLEMENT).
t'..
y-(RPV s,
8t
.;-2k,
.%, }s t.
lb o
+
M cONTAIN, VENT
.t,
1 9
SACRI;:tclAL, e
wlme 3
't.
VW, au s42.s'q
-r,
..=
<u a t-7i Rascree
.,.,2 PamasTA L etsz(-d,'3
,3 l
i
.v.
+/
3 I74
.74 21 54'-9Y3
- .,T3s
?'"7 c.
~;
u st sO k~'
I 4
+
7S Wal!Thb 4jh.
+7
, ' ' 9 -l
/
'.']
/
. <. -7.
nus-w.,o-)
DA4sE enLA 3
,s
. +.,
.,.. iK.
- 9..
T.::.;....
' s 'o V
- gY
~
. T j
b Y
T k.,..-
5
~
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARM ll DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT f
FIGURE 4.1-9 DESIGN SECTIONS - PRIMARY CONTAINMENT, REACTOR SUPPORT AND BASE MAT
e i
e ZFS-leMARK !! DAR e
e l
m3 6
m 9*
W M
M M
MO MO M
NO e
.(
e e
M M
M CO DO M
OO
<l e
m O
O O
O MC MC O
MO
- C e.e
.I e
.ee o
g
~
e,e m.
O j-O es s
e e
m M
ce me e I as v
- m. m
=
- I e t me l as e
se me se se se e e ge m
es l
f e
3#
g
.3 m e e a e e as se e
e e e T
u.
O 3
t.
4.
.* e 6
0 e
t 8 e 0 0 1
F e 3 3 we e a
se ne A
t.
e, es se s e
e.
3 e en.
n
=o u as m
e n.
e e e e e=
e W e h C.
O
- T ad 8
9 8
OO OO OO 8
p n
o.
v C g 0
1 me e e.
e me se me p.
6 em c b2 SE g
2 2
e-ee m e ew E as e.
e.
0 I
I e
OO OO g
OO o
m em o=
9 se se*
se se*
0 m c e a mA me m
- e.e e
6e es e
e e *e
==
w e.
h C E er O eS m
e aE o e-as e =
M M h.
- 6. e4 O A.
E a.
Pe se O
e 0
0 8
- 6
- 9 9
- 3 3
3 8
3 3
e 4.
we se es
.M m
-g g
W S.
$=
as 8.
et se E
M se O
==
a 6.q s
t I
a
- 3 e a e
- I p
e g
en ne me e.
ee.
I a.
O IE W
Ed W
M J
D O
O. Oe se6 m
4 0
0 I
e 8 0 0
=
c
- C C
W
==
==.=8 M
ed C
5 h
,e e.
m oo **
e e as M.
M I 8
= e 8
0 $
e e e 5 g
W G
I Q
Gna a
a **
m2 s 9 e 3
e==
a
.o e 4 F
.a A
h es O es 3 e e
n.
O O
O e
en e
> e e.
8 8 0 0 0 I e as e e n
ee W eL me
==
es e
b a
3 as e e e > e e2 g e e me a sw e h e
e e me h
e e sh O
O.
O s >=
a.
a.
==
4 e 8 0 O I e e me se 8
6 me se au 9 e es es es e ena a e e e a
.a..s.
o e e.
me ee e3 ed t
ed as as De as se e
e.
e.
e.
an O
an e e O
O O*
8 0 t B
=
e e.
e a
e, 4 9 e >
4==
e.
e.
e e
=
se se se e **
e h em em g e
e
.J e.
O O O m O 8 9 9 9
9 0 9 9
bl
=
O O
OO OO O
OO O
- =
O O >s O
ee se se
.e me se se me se me a
O el m.
m e.
we W gl e.
O.
O O.
O. O.
O.
O. O.
pe en we se
. en se me se me O.
O.
O. O OO O
OO e
gl e
e o
e e
e e
es e
se se se se se en se e
s c
= = >
9 m >
a
.e ff a c
rs C es 5 ee a me i.#
t a ses em a.e
$W cO ee cE q
m m +
e t.
e m
- O o
cz a
E. M
== 0 m
m.
D C
C D 6 **
SO a n.8 u
o%
0%
O
- s a
ae on
<6 El G 6 6
G3 6 3 8 G*
4.1-5
TABLE 4.1-3 HARCIN TABLE FOR CONTAINHENT ALL VALVE DISCllARGE i
LOAD flPONENT
"^
COMBIdATION MARCIN#* CRITICAL ***
HARCIN CRITICAL MARCIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1
NA NA 2.8 1
1.8 6
2 8.6 9
2.3 13 1.5 8
3 2.8 11 2.2 1.
1.5 8
N 4
3 NA NA NA NA NA NA r
f 7
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA 5
w 5
g NA NA NA NA NA NA U
Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA N
e 6
2.5 11 2.2 1
1.5 8
7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA
- Refer to Table 4.1-1
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress
- Ref er to Figure 4.1-9 NA = Not Applicable o
I o..
s FT e 80 0 238 F *C 8 4.50 538 8 e 18.00 le f a 44.00 3m 1 Ilm) SS 81stl 80.45 1.54 45.04 1.54 8
a
=<
8 a3' 5.
h-* *
~
,r 8
7.'
?
1
.e r FC a 0.78SF*c C*
78 e 0 9007,C FC e 0 850'*
to 5:
- a 2.'*.'
E:
Se..
Y c8 r Pc. 0.s00r c e
Ft e 0 600!*t Fs e O stars E
a,.
- o e.
.'reo.oe
.t.0 00
.~200 00. iso.co.ito.co
.'so.co
.~40. A.VV 40.00 80.00 sto.co iso.co 200.00
- 0.00 t'80.00
~
f10 MENT IN L'AIPS 11,0' 8
k' u-n........,. u n.. I
- n....u.,
an.,
LOAD SYMBOL COMBINATION l
A I
o 2
x 3
4 e
5 0
6 7
e 1
WM. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT I MARM II DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE 4.1-13 TYPICAL INTERACTION DIAGRAM FOR CONTAINMENT
h;
^
n
~ ~. )
I Q,
ilEICitT LINCllES)
W M
m N
5 b'
5'.
m:u u i~
wo
- c o N
g g
i CENTER LINE OF DRYUELL SLAB 564.75
,o N h n..
e' :
i'l W :<'1 l
g l
m i
mJ WITl!OtlT Fr.UID
-WITl!OUT FI,UID w'u cm
-4 t=.22920 t=.10725 o.3 H
l-m I
t 'l to a
g WITII FLUID t=.22090 WATER LEVEI, 272 inches N
a N
~..
f 000412 l
5
~~
- WITil J
P l.U T I)-
'r'
.000419
.000153
-(..,3323C
.000422
. 000161 - -l "i
.000164 --,
f a
c:
O o
Q 1. 50 t3.75 e3.00 v '2. 25
-*1.50 ab 75
+].00
-O'.75
-l'.50 i'_s
, 10 3I DISPLACEMEllI (INCilES) (21 DDMPIllC) i i
)
J llElCitT (INCilES)
?<
m t.!
m ji b
~
g x
< ;n*
u mo n
x>
a N
C' O
I O g$
CENTER LINE OF DRY WELL SLAB 56 l.75
,~N"
'.P
- ,
- [*
16 h, w ii a
i:i m,9
/
o
'o 4
WITil F1,UID
~
- o
)
o.
t=.14745 L,
WITilOUT Pl.UTD r' I t=.07410 s's ei WITilOUT FI,UID
\\
WATER LEVEL t=.14400 272 INCllES N
v w
3 m
i
.\\
)
l 'i i
y WITII FI.tlIn
~
t=.19245
.000167
.000442
.000225,,
H o
.000479 o
o c
- 1 Q i.00 I
t I.00 t3.00 22.00
+1.00 10 -)60. l O-l '. 00
- 2'. 0 0
- 3 '. 0 0 3
e m
DISPLACEMENT (INCilES)(2% DOMPINC)
\\
MONTICELLO AND MARK II l
FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTI0il 8
EVALUATION OF FSI DATA FOR S/RV MODEL VERIFICATION (GE) 1 i
1 0
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF FSI IN MARK II l
i CONTAINMENTS (S&L) 4 r
I l
r HTT 1/78 j
n.
n
,n....
.., ~.- -,, -_,. _,. -,. - - -,.
EVALUATION OF FSI EFFECTS F
e NRC QUESTION HOW RESULTS OF FSI STUDIES FROM MONTICELLO CAN BE APPLIED TO MARK II CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS i
9 RESOLUTION ACTION TASK B/0 i
i 1
a 4
i HTT 1/73 i
i TASK B/0 8
OBJECTIVE ASSESS SRV FSI IN MONTICELLO DATA 8
METHODOLOGY DIFINEAPRESSURESOURCE es REPRESENTATIVE OF SRV se USE A COUPLED HYDRO-STRUCTURE MODEL es ANALYZE TWO CASES ese RIGID ese AS-BUILT i
HTT 1/78 u
i.
8 METHODOLOGY (CONTD.)
Il CALCULATE INTERFACE PRESSURE AT WALL se COMPARE RESULTS OF RIGID AND AS-BUILT CASE se CRITERION FOR ASSESSING FSI INSIGNIFICANT IF PRIGID e PFLEXIBLE HTT 1/78 I
f
PRESENT STATUS O
COUPLED HYDRO-STRUCTURE CODE IN PLACE 4
DEFINING PRESSURE SOURCE e
MODELING MONTICELLO 4
INTERFACE RESPONSE PRESSURE TO BE GENERATED 8
REPORT 20/78 I
!'I:
I HTT 1/78
\\
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS PRODUCED BY SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A i
QUENCHER DEVICE AN OVERVIEW 0F LEAD QUENCHER PLANT STATUS c
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS e
STRUCTURAL LOADS CONSIDERED AND IDENTIFICATION OF LOADING METHODOLOGY STATUS e
CA0RSO TESTS e
SUMMARY
OF LEAD QUEHCHER PLANT STATUS
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS i
VALVE OPENIflG WATER LEG CLEARING AIR BUBBLE FORMATI0tl AIR BUBBLE OSCILLATIONS f
STF.AM CONDENSATION VALVE CLOSURE 1
w-er-w yr -
v
-ppr'--
w w= - -*-
-v--
y,---
yy--
w
<<w g
e
,e em 1
w e-y w
T--t a M '
sp-'
-T--+ga v'
7 c-v-7 4'--wt
-rg-
-r-r-
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUEliCHER i
STRUCTURE:
SRV DISCHARGE PIPING LOADS:
- PIPE PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE
- FLOW REACTION LOADS (STEADY AND UNSTEADY)
METHODOLOGY:
- FOR UNSTEADY FLOW, USE THE PIPE CLEARING MODEL IN DFFR SECTION 3.1.2.1*
- FOR STEADY FLOW, CLASSICAL ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES
- SAME AS MODEL USED FOR RAMSHEAD.
i i
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAlf1 MENT SYSTEMS I
DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCfiARGE THROUGH A QUEHCHER 4
l STRUCTURE:
QUENCHER LOADS:
- TOROUE l
- LATERAL LOADS
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS FROM ADJACENT QUENCHERS METHODOLOGY:
- DFFR SECTION 3.3.10 FOR TORQUE / LATERAL LOAD
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURES APPLICATIONS NEMORANDUM (T0 BE ISSUED FOR QUENCHERS) l l
I
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUENCHER STRUCTURE:
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES 1
LOADS:
- WATER JET
- STANDARD AND ACCELERATION DRAG DURING AIR BUBBLE OSCILLATION METHODOLOGY:
REPORTS BEING PREPARED J
i i
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUENCHER STRUCTURE:
SUPPRESSION POOL B0UNDARY l
LOADS:
OSCILLATING PRESSURE CAUSED BY AIR BUBBLES i
DFFR SECTION 3.3 METHODOLOGY:
. m,,,.
EMPIRICAL CORRELATION FOR POSITIVE PRESSURE INDEPEf1 DENT OF LINE CLEARING MODEL 2 Ro/R ATTENUATION i ~ ^ ~'
MULTIPLE VALVES ADDES,
.3,,.~,
LOAD CASES SAME AS GESSAR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATION CONSIDERED i
i 1
NOTE:
IMPROVEMENTS IN LOAD DEFINITION MAY BE POSSIBLE AND WORK IS UNDERWAY IN SOME AREAS.
l I
l
4
)
i I
j CA0RSO SRV DISCHARGE TESTS I
l STATUS t
i 8
FUEL LOADED i
i l
O EXPECTED HEAT-UP START-END OF l
JANUARY 1978 i
l l
0 START FIRST TEST SERIES - MARCH / APRIL 1978 i
i i
1 T
i i
I r
.,._,,,.,,,_m.__.~,,...
~
CA0RSO SRV DISCMRGE TESTS TESTS PLANNED e
SINGLE VALVE INITIAL ACTUATION ($ 22 TESTS) e MULTIPLE VALVE ACTUATION
(* 12 TESTS)
- 2 ADJACENT VALVES (2 TESTS)
- 3 ADJACENT VALVES (1 TEST)
- 4 ADJACENT VALVES (4 TESTS)
- 4 VALVE
. SYMMETRIC AROUND POOL (1 TEST)
- 1 TO 8 VALVES (* 3 TO 5, NOFliAL STARTUP) e SINGLE VALVE CONSECUTIVE ACTUATIONS (+ 7 TESTS)
- 5 ACTUATIONS/ TEST
}. 31
?
r MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS CA0RSO QUENCHER TEST PROGRAM
SUMMARY
. 0F POST-TEST ANALYTICAL STUDIES FOR SINGLE, MULTIPLE AND CONSECUTIVE VALVE ACTUATIONS, EVALUATE DATA ON:
- POOL B0UNDARY LOADS
- BUBBLE PRESSURE
- PIPE CLEARING TRANSIENT (PRESSURE / WATER LEVEL)
- DISCHARGE LINE REFLOOD HEIGHT FOLLOWING VALVE CLOSURE
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS (SPOT CHECK)
- CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
- QUENCHER LOADS AND RESPONSE
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS APPLICATION OF THE QUENCHER
SUMMARY
OF LEAD QUENCHER PLANT STATUS ALL QUENCHER RELATED DYNAMIC LOADS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND CONSIDERED CONSERVATIVE METHODOLOGY IN PLo.CE WORK UNDERWAY TO IMPROVE QUENCHER METHODS CA0RSO TESTS WILL PROVIDE CONFIRMATORY DATA l
QUENCHER SUBMERGED STRUCTURES i
8 METHODOLOGY SIMILAR TO RAMSHEAD 4
l 0
REPORTS TO BE SUBMITTED 2078 i
8 AIR BUBBLE MODEL 8
WATER JET MODEL
)
e APPLICATION MEMORANDUM UPDATE 1
4 I
J
i ZIMMER C0iiTAliiMENT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV LOAD FSI CONSIDERATIONS e ASSESSMENT PROGRAM COMMENCED lii 1975 AWARE OF POSSIBLE FSI IN SUPPRESSION POOL; ALSO AWARE OF AMPLE RESERVE CAPACITY TO CARRY SRV LOADS e ASSESSMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERED TWO ALTERNATES:
- 2. NEGLECT FSI TO ASSESS MARGIN FACTORS EXPEDITIOUSLY, IF FSI EFFECTS ARE RELATIVELY SMALL AND CAN BE BOUNDED BY AVAILABLE RESERVE CAPACITY e ALTERNATE 2 WAS USED IN ZIMMER, t
CNK 1-19-73 D-85
SRV FSI EFFECTS CONSIDERED NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE:
HENCE FSI EFFECTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SMALL.
- 2. SRV LOAD COMBINATI0flS D0 fl0T GOVERN CONTAINMEllT DESIGN.
RESERVE CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO CARRY SRV LOADS IS AMPLE.
(SEE DAR TABLES 4 1-1 AND 4 1-3 AND DAR SUPPLEMENT).
- 3. FORCES INDUCED BY SRV LOADS ARE SMALL COMPARED TO THE TOTAL DESIGN LOADS (SEE DAR SUPPLEMENT).
THEREFORE, FORCES DUE TO FSI WOULD BE EVEN SMALLER.
- 4. CONTAINMEllT STRUCTURE MARGIfl FACTORS ARE il0T VERY SENSITIVE TO EVEN LARGE VARIATIONS IN SRV LOADS (SEE INTERACTION DIAGRAMS IN DAR SUPPLEMENT).
O 1
9
?
,i'.1 t
6.
y" 1
d.RPV l
4
/,
i
' *A.ft:
?*.o 13
\\\\
k CONTAINMENT D
\\O
'l+,
g
- s SAcitlFICI A L g
t.
'. g D
wiaLD EL547'5'q
- C8
- i7l ABACTolit t-PaDESTAL %
2
- e. 523'4}'3
.,3
+
,.v.
3 i
etSW.d'3 4
74 7s 2 3 c.
h EL497'- c.3 -
I
+
.g 33 W a l, _I h ks' 4 r, t
.n,-
47 -
r:
. 1;
/
.-,s
. s..
owa.u.=
E L 4'M'-lo'^
- 4 s ;;
/
2 j;. e.,.,, 9 9...
g'
~
. 7
..a
=le
?
T y
J.
4 N..T co n
i 1
WM. H.28MMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 11 DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT j
FIGURE 4.1-9 DESIGft SECTIONS - PRIMARY CONTAlflMENT, REACTOR SUPPORT Afl0 BASE MAT
1 2PS-1-fuRK II DAR 1
a 6
4 C
u u
u no no n
no l
i aa M I w
x oo oo x
oo i
o o
oe uo Mo o'
Ma g
l
=
t 8
I
>i e
n o.
El 4
.: i.: '
4' J I 4'
1:
1*a 7
I I
.13a 13..
X;
- I'. 5 3 02
- mi i
e i
-w ti 1".
g.t.'g.
EII 35.2 99 99
- 9
.1 g&.
.a, 11
- a.,
ao ao ao 2,**
"I a
1 o.
e
.C
.b. A =. =..
9 8
4 i
M
. m
- 4. E 23ola%E g 1 El g ~
3
.o
,1, e
i e
i; i;
e I
-g g
ins a.
D=
m as 9
~
E.
4
~
i t
e 5
e o.
- a. o.
w
>=
g 5
5 n
1 E
a 4
44 3j413 2 3 t.
a.~
o o
o i
e e ie e
y b.g;-w g..
.IH E5 y;...
53 9
9 4
se 222=1 3:
2.%.
o o
o o
4 4
4 4
a&aa e. oi1*1o1 a8 e
o o
e oo ao o
ao "I
4 4
4 44 44 4
44 o aw
.o.o. m.
o
. w P=
n o oo oo o
oo di 4
4 4 44 44 4
44 I
e o
o oo oo o
oo at 4
.: 4.:
.: 4 4
.: 4 j
- -i i
I.w E US
-6 gw 22 3 a
3 2
SR bO C
C D h W W
30 k-h g
h) k) kM N
M tl 66 6
Sa e : @
eA 4.1-5 e
TABLE 4.1-3 MARGIN TABLE FOR CONTAINNENT ALL VALVE DISCNARGE LOAD C ?PONENT COMBINATION MARCIN** CRITICAL ***
MARCIN CRITICAL MARGIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1
NA NA 2.8 1
1.8 6
2 8.6 9
2.3 13 1.5 8
3 2.8 11 2.2 1
4 1.5 8
y NA NA NA NA NA NA w
?
h 7
4a NA NA NA NA NA NA E
u g
NA NA NA NA NA NA N
Sa NA NA NA NA NA NA s'
- =
6 2.5 11 2.2 1
1.5 8
7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a
~
NA NA NA NA NA NA
- Refer to Table 4.1-1
- Margin Factor = Allowable Stress / Actual Stress
- Refer to Figure 4.1-9 NA = Not Applicable
J
- \\
FT e 60.0 Est
.d' S
P'C e 4.50 pst 1: '(
0 s St.00 la p
T e 48 00 It I lims is igegl 10.48 l.54 4
48.04 1.58 E
ag.
2 E
aw E
l 2.
H'
,r 3
- d.
I o
r-FC a 0 765F'C L
FC e 0.esov 't
=
, g, FS e 0.900FF e.
en SE x;
.z.S OaS 05.
g-
{
5 ag 7 e. 0 300, c F
7 f,: : : :::::c l
i g.
- e o
- 200.00
- 240.00
- 200.00
.'l8J.00
- l20.00
-90.00
- 4 0.A.V_ 0/
40.00 00.00 l'ro.00 l'80.00 2b0.00 260.00 2'00 03'
~
~
NOMENT IN M4IPS 11,0' E
Ilnet t Ceufelmatet = S(Cftee i stato. #timreettstet LOAD SYMBOL COM81tlATION A
I o
2 i
x 3
4
- e 5
0 6
7 e
i i
i WM. H. IlMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 M ARM la DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT FIGURE 4.1-13 TYPICAL INTERACT!0tl DIAGRAM FOR CONTAlflMENT
)
p.,
-s
^
g HEICHT (INCHESI A
H m
- k. -
s d
m o
i t-e O
o d
CENTER LINE OF DRYUELL SLDB 5611.75
.h Nn.>
a:
l'1
)M w
U C
l U
N 2 WITitOtJT FT.UID a'
FWITl!OUT FLUID m
c
,a t=.22920 0
t=.10725 y
a.
H I'*
M I
ti to g
WITil FLUID t=.22090 WATER LEVER, 272 inches m
?
s
,~
h
.000412 1
y d WITII Ii Pl.U TI)
.000419
.000153 t -.13'2 3 '
.000422
. 000161 --M
'1
.000164 3
o e
o d
.50 t3.75
-t 3. 00
- d. 25
-el.50 4b 75
+3.00
-O'.75
-l'50 u
1
. 's t
- 10
,1 IJ DISPLDCEMENT IINCilES) (2% DDHPING)
. )
~
HEICHT (INCHES) b 10 m !4
- o
< f, mo H
- 2 a
N C'
O I O (d
M*
CENTER LINE OF DRY WELL SLRB 56 1.75
?? ?.
no
- o n a
co N =0 h
O o
)
WITII FLUID
/
5 t=.14745 t
-L, WITI!OUT PLUTD r'
I'l t=.07410
(
.)
rn 1
WITilOUT FLUID g
I WATER LEVEL t=.14400 272 INCIIES
,n v
0 r
i E
W I T II P l.tl I D 1
m t=.19245 i
/
\\
j
.000167
.000442 3
.000479
.000225,,
i a
o o
a i
c if Q3.00 l
,10 qp
- l '. 00
- 2'. 00
- 3'. 00
-tl.00 t3.00 22.00 1.00 0.
m DISPLACEMENT (INCHES)(2% DAMPINC)
{
i MONTICELLO AND MARK 11 FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACJ10d i
9 EVALUATION OF FSI DATA FOR S/RV MODEL VERIFICATION (GE) 4 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF FSI IN MARK II CONTAINMENTS (S&L)
HTT 1/78
l-EVALUATION OF FSI EFFECTS 8
NRC QUESTION HOW RESULTS OF FSI STUDIES FROM M0flTICELLO CAN BE l
APPLIED TO MARK II CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS 1
l 0
RESOLUTION ACTION TASK B/0 i
i j
i j
l
.I l
1 f
1 i
llTT 1/73 L
o 1.
i TASK B/0 l
i i
e OBJECTIVE 1
i ASSESS SRV FSI IN MONTICELLO DATA 0
METHODOLOGY se DEFINE A PRESSURE SOURCE i
REPRESENTATIVE OF SRV i
se USE A COUPLED HYDRO-STRUCTURE MODEL se ANALYZE TWO CASES i
ese RIGID ese AS-BUILT l
)
I l
.I 4
i i
HTT 1/78 i
s
i i
e METHODOLOGY (CONTD.)
te CALCULATE INTERFACE PRESSURE AT WALL se COMPARE RESULTS OF RIGID AND i
AS-BUILT CASE es CRITERION FOR ASSESSING FSI 1
INSIGNIFICANT IF PRIGID ~ PFLEXIBLE 4
t
)
I i
i l
O
--,-,.,-n
l I
i I
.i j
PRESENT STATUS i
4 0
COUPLED HYDRO-STRUCTURE CODE IN PLACE 8
DEFINING PRESSURE SOURCE 0
MODELING MONTICELLO i
3 0
INTERFACE RESPONSE PRESSURE TO BE GENERATED I
O REPORT 20/78 i
4 1
i 1
1l
\\
HTT 1/78
4
..b 9
[
, ~..
I 2
.. i-1 j
.i e
n -3 ; y -
h!
ls h
? -,
A 4
_ N, yt z _. _m
~^
' =
g a
a g
4 il i
e
- e 3) e
- 4. A V.
k h
,.3 l..
a
't !My;;a;.Y
}m e
j
\\
1 I
s l
Mathematics e.
l J
er 1.li g c
h Mechanics of Rigid Bodies i
. I?ihi,l l
I l
Theory of Structures t :,.,
.rg,,_
Elasticity
(
.94,
.e, s
Plasticity and Viscoelasticity F.
,glj,4
[, _ ' #
!g.[}~ l
(.
Vibrations l
Fluid Mechanics
' J's. *;f.A e.
~
a
.i j
- g. --
?
i i
i i
r.
. /-
l
. c.: -
l s
> W. FLU ee e eoiron.is.csier e..
. c1;
=
3v.
- ee;
>2
} f f
~
s ',... i, y <, '> '1 '.^.. "
- l t
e f
e
' ' Q, _
e
- l'?
,jI i
.J.
I '
I
-'F
- "]n%%$~F4-_
C w
A s..,
5W C*s t
4 56-22 MBRAMONS tinu for the displacernent being 2
=
sin 2r 0 < t < If ti (56. W )
I In the second region !st atarted at t = 0, and a second excitation -(4f.itd(t - lifD s i
Thus,7>y'su~perimposing the above solution, we arnve at the equation
= }{t.
}
i
- f1 -
+2 2 sin f f t - )f t ) - sin 2r
=
i 1 t2i<t<t (56.9$6 )
i tion (2fi/td (f - te) started at i = la the result beingIn i
5 i
2 2 sin '(t - !st ) - sin
- =
f I>t (t - t ) - ein i
i i
(56.96c) i In all these equations the variable f/r can be wntten as i t t
the parameter governing the response j, no that t l, becomes i
l Thc dynamic response factor n - kr /f.is r l s/
20
$,/
P/
si I
I 4Ky l
l
- r.....
t 5
l i
i i
/
r A 3g
-x i
l i
~
(t - h t.)
0 i
2 3
4 5
i i
r,ir Fio. 66.25. Triangular pulse as superposi.
Fro. 86.29. Dynamie response taetor for tion of three hoes.
triangular pulse.
very similar to that for the siriusoidal pulse.
As f /r is inereued from sero, the 6tst peak rmponseincreance. and the peak time approaches t as f /r i
is evident from differentiating Eq. (56 06c) and equating to aero, w i
i peak. time ersuation
'(;f - 0 5) - cos 2r h j - 1) - cos 2 ros
.I f
2 i t,, g j
,g 9.,,
ji If we let t,/f response occurs in the region t, > t for ti/r < )f.i = 1.0. the pa I
i
?
l
- an differentiate Eq. (56.W) and obtain the equatiTo i
1 s
i.*'-
on
! - cos 2, b b = 0 i
e ti
- (56 9*l-If f /fi is set equal to if. the parameter ti/r = 2.
i jf < Is/r < 2, the peal response occurs in the region if tThus for the range o i
4 must be used.
i < t < t, and Eq (5/> W i
\\
1 l
....~..; _,, ;. m e **c ; i<
,y,,,,,., :3. r 7,4.f AgA*2;8-- ~~~
~
I
- ;,... i,h'3'h*^- 2,. EUrb4
=
- ' %., i. Y,.1...,.,, -;: w.u
.. -.'F,%.,.%;?;*;"%:
, rh.)
.., <. q[.-
g.
M v
- ~ '
,e
- I *
,e y,,e,;,t
.t
%....s n 4'*
rl.
..w
.;e M
N 2:,11C -
M*^
t 7
pfbC' '4/kg;[fh h~
'~. l s
'. s +
, a r,t Il 1$
7'g]'
1 6
e[.I 8YSTEMS OF ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM 56-21 jyl Introducing the initial conditions : = t = 0 and replacing w. by 2r/r, the solution to
'Q ;I the continuous sine-wave excitation started et t = 0 becomes
- I q
2
- < is (56.90a)
, = k(r/2ti - 2ti/r)(em g _23,1,.t)
, y,,
<3,,,,,,
p i
3 f
r is i
- y The solution for i > ti can be obtained by adding to Eq (56.94a) the same solu-
[
.dda M b7 t, to i
tion, with the time i replaced by (f - ti) f
,t.
-,i sin 2r f -- h sin,h + (sin 2r ' ~ b i
',l t) 8 g,/2t i
2t /,)
i i
3 (56.90(,)
E sin E (i - f ) _
i > fi (56.946)
I
[
e
~- f g - f' is ob% "
la determining the peak response,it is necennary to annign a numerical value to the i
g pa,ameter t /, and note whether the peak occurs in the region i > t or i < t. It is i
i i
evident that for small values of toe, the peak response occurs in the region i > to and g
(56.91)
Eq (56.94b) must be used. The dynamic response factor n - ks /Ts will,in this case. ineresse with t /r, as shout in the first part of Fig. 56.27.
.,.,;f ).
ll i
1 JkI(
.t.
I0
,j~
=
l l
a r
Wf) kj j
,5:
i ri
.uds for a y g, N
l
, ;(y
'l
,,,o i
,a f
~~~
.*r a=r a
~II.
-rr (56.921
'\\
/
\\
l
\\ t t
- a 11>
G.25.
r n
i k r, y
"*- #. " 5
- 'i k ;
r s i
0 3
I
/ $
f 0
2 3
4 S
6 l
f *
'," f "i
,, /
,,. /
t, /7
]
Fio. 56 26. S:nusoidal pulse as superposi.
Fla. 56.2't. Dynamic response factor for hon of sh.ifted sine waves.
sinusoidal pulse.
,g h g
I I
'[
As t /e continuen to increase, the peak response will occur in the region i < t, and m
i 3
e i
a 4
Eq. (56.944) must be used. Different4ating it and equating to sem, the time 1, t
.j mrrespondag to the peak responna i= given by sohing the equation p
- I!
tor for con.
D*
- f'
= cos 'f' f
- . [
coe (56.95) l i
?
l
?
bv the si.
l It is evident from this equation that the $alue of fue which produces a peak response a ri at t, - si is t /, = If. Thus. for all ti/r > ti, the peak response idtl occur in the
{.'
e i
of the sys.
l Interval t, < ti, where Eq. f 56 94o) must be used. As an example, when ti r = 2.0.
[
,j
{
e,-
/
in be con.
't /ti = 72', and its substitution into Eq (56.944) resulta in n = 1.27.
e
.t I
a tarting at Triangular Pulse H
f system.
g.,, g The trisegular pulse of Fig. 56.28 is another appmmimation often umi for simulat-
' *4 h
- k {;1
- Ad 88 are impact loading. For the derivation of the equation for response, the triangular 3
C l,
ii Pul$c can be conaidered to be the superposition of three straight lines shown dotted in
[I (56 938 Tit 56 28.
I%< g'N
(
in the. region 0 < t < Jff, the response is due to the excitation 2F.t/l, the equa.
[
i i
l
,f.
y..
- e*
9
}
6 MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DUE TO SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A RAMSHEAD DEVICE 4
e DISCUSSION OF SUBMERGED STRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY
- e OVERVIEW 0F RA'1SHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURE PROGRAM e
DOCUMENTATION e
SUMMARY
OF RAMSHEAD ASSUMPTIONS AND APPLICATION i
TECHNIQUES
- l e
CONCLUSIONS T
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS WATER JET LOADS e
SOURCE OF JETS
- MAIN VENTS DURING LOCA
- RAMSHEAD OR QUENCHER DURING SRV ACTUATION e
LOADINGfiECHANISMS
- WATER DRAG / IMPINGEMENT e
BASIC APPROACH
- PROVIDE JET DEFINITION AND CALCULATE LOADS FROM KNOWN DRAG COEFFICIENTS OR IMPINGEMENT CALCULATIONS m
r __ _,.
g i
1
[0ARis'7/
EFEssjnE Supmyss;o,u nuO/JTRi/Ji AE/JT Sr;5 tem 5 LUATER J2^.~
L oi9Ds__
s
/>
(
(
ucl, V wg
(
)
U
)
\\/
5 r = Cc. / /2 7
/
C
&F w
N JET V M
F = K.ll,.y2 2 7 e
ro v
).'.i~b
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESS!0N CONTAlflMENT SYSTEMS SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS
' BUBBLE' TYPE LOADS e
SOURCE OF BUBBLE
- MAIN VENTS DURING POOL SWELL
-- RAMSHEAD OR QUENCHER FOLLOWING AIR CLEARING
- MAIN VENTS DURING CONDENSATION OSCILLATIONS AND CHUGGING e
LOADING MECHAtlISM
~
- STANDARD DRAG ( ^ V ) PRODUCED BY VELOCITY FIELDS
- ACCELERATION DRAG (.t V) PRODUCED BY PRESSURE FIELDS e
BASIC APPROACH
- PROVIDE DEFINITION OF VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION FIELDS AND CALCULATE DRAG FROM KNOWN DRAG COEFFICIENTS AND ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES.
\\
(
/
VCt), UCt) F
/
w v.
i g
n srpmONAE.Y
~
{
s r z o c.T o z 5
/
kg
'T z/
PLOW RELD INDUCED LOADS F = F, + Pg STANDAR.D DRAG F = Coh o VLtf V(t.
s fv Zec.
ACCELER.ATtON DEA 6
(
~Fg = y y ACO Q(i) y S
C
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES LOADS o
REPORT TITLE - NED #21472-P ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR LIQUID JET PROPERTIES FOR PREDICTING FORCES ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES e
REPORT TITLE - NED #21471-P ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING DRAG FORCES ON RIGID SUBMERGED STRUCTURES CAUSED BY LOCA AND SAFETY RELIEF RAMSHEAD AIR DISCHARGE APPLICATION METHOD e
REPORT TITLE - NED #21730 MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES - AN APPLICATION MEMORANDUM 9
i e
e c-.
f1 ARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION C0tlTAlilMENT SYSTEMS RAMSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURES PROGRAM INCORPORATE INTD" WATER JET DFFR REV. 3
^
THEORY FOR LOCA AND APPLICATIONS SRV (flEDE-MEMORANDUM (I.E., USERS STRUCTURAL
'21472)
GUIDE)
ASSESSMENT NEDE-21730 (BY A.E.'S)
MODEL FOR LOCA AND RAMSHEAD CONFIRMATORY AIR BUBBLE TEST PROGRAM DAR LOADS (ilEDE-AND MODEL/ DATA 21471)
COMPARISONS MODEL/DFFR REVISION IF NECESSARY
%/
CONFIRM STRUCTUPAL ASSESSMEllT t
\\
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS RAMSHEAD WATER JET LOAD MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS e
UNSTEADY SUBMERGED JET WITH NO DIVERGENCE OTHER THAN PREDICTED BY MASS /M0 MENTUM EQUATIONS.
C0:iSTA:iT FLUID PARTICLE VELOCITY e
VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION FROM THE DFFR PIPE CLEARING MODEL e
FORCE IS DRAG OR IMPINGEMEf!T DEPENDING ON GE0 METRY e
DISSIPATION OCCURS WHEN LAST PARTICLE REACHES JET FRONT 4
1
.NEID STEP 1 (g
STMUCTURE DATA W
72 U
F.
.'Gs STEP 2 i
t g
WATER JET VELOCITY g[
j TIME HISTORY STEP S
}
STANDARD DMAG q)
CALCULATION s.,. )
g it, j
Tu, 3 L
g)
WATE R J27 DISCHARG E YES
{
ACCELERATON p
p y
j STEP 7 w*
l 1P STEP 9 e
DOES THE JET pao PULLY SUalAERGE h
[
I STEP 4 STM URE CALWTON s
l JET PRONT p
VfLOCITY TIME HISTORY n
i
\\
(
if t
r-STEP S BTEPS f '
VfLOCITY Title.
1 LOADlHO PERIOO i
((
!' J '
STRUCTURf HIITORY AT 8
- d...
)
l.
3 t
7 F Lgure 2-1.
Jet h ads Procedure h
g
i di
' i.,
t MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS RAMSHEAD AIR BUBBLE LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS e SPHERICAL BUBBLE FLOW FIELD DESCRIBED BY A POINT SOURCE.
" FINITE BUBBLE EFFECTS CONSIDERED.
e UNIFORM FLOW FIELD o
BOUNDARIES ACCOUNTED FOR WITH METHOD OF IMAGES
. e AIR IS IDEAL GAS e
ACOUSTIC EFFECTS NEGLIGIBLE e
BUBBLE RISE CONSIDERED e
TWO BUBBLES IN PHASE I
J t
+
c
RAMSHEAD AIR BUBBLE APPLICATION G!EDE-21730)
STEP 1 STRUCTURE DATA V
STEP 2 BUOOLE AND IMAGE LOCATIONS y
STEP 7 ACCELERATION DRAG FORCE STEP 3 CALCULATION SU88LE RISE EE E CAL U TI CALCU TION 0
OR COMPUTER SUDO(E DYNAMICS OfVIDE U.,
SOLUTION AND U COUPLED INTO VECTORS P
h COMPUTER SOLUTION 9
STEPO STEP 4 y
UNIPORM SL'99LE DYNAMICS ACCELERATION FIELD
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS RAMSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS 1
CONCLUSIONS e
LOADS CONSERVATIVELY DEFINED AND DOCUMENTED i
e CONFIRMATORY PROGRAM IN PLACE o
DESIGN ASSESSMENT STUDIES UNDEFI WAY
8 i
RAMSHEAD CONDENSATION INSTABILITY 4
e REVIEW 0F LIMITS BEING USED e
REVIEW 0F DATA BASE i
G.E. MOSS LANDING G.E. SAN JOSE FIELD DATA l
l 4
e
SUMMARY
l f
Y
t RAMSHEAD CONDENSATION INSTABILITY LIMITS BEING USED 2
e MASS FLUX:
G 4 40 LB/FT SEC (REACTOR PRESSURE 6 200 PSIG)
O LOCAL WATER TEMPERATURE:
NON-ATWS EVEllTS T
4 160 F 0
L ATWS STUDIES TL 4 1700F i
i e
POOL THERMAL DISTRIBUTION:
T=TBULK + 10 F L
1 1
5
(
RAMSHEAD DATA BASE e
G.E. MOSS LANDING
- 3 TESTS OF lt-INCH RAMSHEAD:
152 To 163 F 8
G.E. SAN JOSE
(
- 4 TESTS OF 3/4-INCH RAMSHEAD:
170 To 176 F
2
- 1 TEST OF 3/4-INCH RAMSHEAD:
NO. THRESHOLD (<40B /FT -SE g
- 13 TESTS OF h-INCH E BOW:
160 To 172 F
- 7 TESTS OF 3/4-INCH EBOW:
146 To 170 F
- 17 TESTS OF 1-INCH EBOW:
147 To 170 F
2
- 2 TESTS OF 1-INCH EBOW:
NO THRESHOLD (<40 B /FT - SE g
G
=
4 RAMSHEAD DATA BASE e
RAMSHEAD PLANT DATA
- PLANT A:
165 F NO INSTABILITY i
j
- PLANT B:
150 F NO INSTABILITY
.l
- PLANT C:
146 F NO INSTABILITY
- PLANT D:
129 F NO INSTABILITY
- PLANT E:
122 F NO INSTABILITY j
l I
1 i
i l
1 l
4 l
e I
1 4
e
i
SUMMARY
e NO OBSERVED DEVICE-SIZE EFFECT ON THRESHOLD TEMPERATURE t
e LIMIT CONFIRMED BY 3/4 INCH RAMSHEAD DATA e
LIMIT SUPPORTED BY FIELD DATA TO OVER 165 F h
e
(
h b
O I
i
.i e
e e
4 e
?
C MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION s
CONTAINi1ENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS PRODUCED BY SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A RAMSHEAD DEVICE AN OVERVIEU OF LEAD PLANT STATUS
SUMMARY
OF METHODOLOGY DOCUMENTATION REVIEW 0F:
1.
NEDO-24070, RAMSHEAD SAFETY RELIEF VALVE LOADS METHODOLOGY
SUMMARY
2.
GEN-0394, MARK II BWR SRV RAMSHEAD BUBBLE DYNAMICS ANALYTICAL MODEL COMPARISONS WITH TEST DATA.
SUMMARY
OF LEAD PLANT STATUS 9
~
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSI0tl CONTAINt1Elli SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING RNiSHEAD BUBBLE LOADS ON POOL BOUNDARY o
METHODS DEFINED IN DFFR SECTION 3.2 AND REFERENCES
- PIPE CLEARING
- BUBBLE DYllAMICS
- f1ETHOD OF IMAGES
- COMBINATION OF MULTIPLE BUBBLES
- LOAD CASES
- TIE.DOWN LOADS e
NED0-24070 PROVIDES "ROADt1AP" 0F MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION.
- PHENOMENA
- METHODS
SUMMARY
- EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATI0fl
- APPLICATION
- FUTURE WORK
- CONCLUSIONS
NIDO-24070 77ET.D39 7 Class I October 1977 HARK II CDNTAINMENT SUPPORTING PROGRAM REPORT RAMSHEAD SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE LOADS METHODOLOGY
SUMMARY
i Prepared by C.L. Andersen i
i l
i l
SC864NG WATEM AE AGTO A PRO,EGTS CEPAM 7 MENT eGEAE AAb ELEGTMiG 6GWAW SAN JC51. CALIFORNrA 951:5 GENER AL h ELECTRIC i
v
-~ ~--~~ ~-* '- - '- '
n).x 3
\\
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSI0fl CONTAINMEilT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION
- PURPOSE AND CONTENTS OF REPORT SECTION 2:
PHENOMENA
- LINE CLEARING (WATER / AIR)
~
- BUBBLE OSCILLATION
- STEADY STEAM FLOW SECTION 3:
DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS
- LINE CLEARING
- BUBBLE DYNAMICS
- METHOD OF IMAGES
-SUPERPOSITIO(10FLOADS A.
LINEAR ADDITION IF SEQUENCING CONSIDERED B.
SS ADDITION FOR SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE S
\\
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 4:
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF METHODS TESTS:
1.
QUAD CITIES (1972) 2.
SMALL SCALE TEST TANK (1974) 3.
MONTICELLO (1975)
CONCLUSIONS '
1.
QUAD CITIES
- 1972 MODELS EOURD PIPE PRESSURE AND POSITIVE WALL PRESSURE
-- REASONABLY PREDICT NEGATIVE PRESSURE
-- MODEL REFINEMENTS IMPLEMENTED i
\\
- DFFR METHODS FOR POOL BOUNDARY LOADS CONSERVATIVE, i
1
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION C0t!TAINMENT SYSTEMS i
REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 2.
SMALL SCALE TEST TAHK
- MOI ACCURATELY DESCRIBES BOUllDARY CONDITIONS
- LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LINEAR ADDITION AtlD SRSS S0 L0tlG AS BUBBLE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS SATISFIED.
i
O MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAltll1ENT SYSTEiS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 3.
MONTICELLO
- FOR SINGLE VALVE TESTS, DFFR METHODS CONSERVATIVE FOR POSTIVE PRESSURE AND ACCURATE FOR NEGATIVE PRESSURE
- FOR MULTIPLE VALVE TESTS, DFFR METHODS BOUND POSITIVE PRESSURES (EXCEPT 1 LOCATION) AND ARE GENERALLY WITHIN THE RANGE OF OBSERVED NEGATIVE PRESSURES 1
- FOR LEAKING VALVES, DFFR PREDICTIONS COMPARABLE TO DATA
- FOR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATIONS, DATA UNDERPREDICTED BY DFFR FIRST ACTUATION METHODS.
t 1
,n,
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION C0tlTAlflMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-2l1070 SECTION 5:
APPLICATION
- STRUCTURAL ASSESSf1ENTS PROVIDED IN INDIVIDUAL PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORTS
- CONSIDER e
SINGLE VALVE DISCHARGE (CONSECUTIVE) e ADS DISCHARGE (FIRST ACTUATION) e ASYMMETRIC CASE (PLANT UNIQUE) (FIRST ACTUATION) e ALL VALVE DISCHARGE (FIRST ACTUATION)
- NO SPECIFIC CONSIDERATION OF LEAKY VALVES IS NECESSARY
- C0f!SECUTIVE ACTUATION :
USE MULTIPLIER ON EXISTING DFFR FIRST ACTUATION PREDICTIONS.
e e
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEIS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 6:
SUPPORTING PROGRAMS
- REFINED SRV ANALYTICAL MODELS
- FSI EFFECTS ON MONTICELLO CONTAINMENT LOADS DATA 1
- EVALUATION OF FSI EFFECTS ON MARK II CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES DURING SRV DISCHARGE,
i 10 4
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS PRODUCED BY SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUENCHER DEVICE AN OVERVIEW 0F LEAD QUENCHER PLANT STATUS e
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS 1
e STRUCTURAL LOADS CONSIDERED AND IDENTIFICATION OF LOADING METHODOLOGY e
CA0RSO TESTS STATUS i
e
SUMMARY
OF LEAD QUENCHER PLANT STATUS l
l.
I i
1 MARK II PRESSURE $UPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
- VALVE OPENING
- WATER LEG CLEARING
- AIR BUBBLE FORMATI0fl
- AIR BUBBLE OSCILLATIONS
- STEAM CONDENSATION
- VALVE CLOSURE O
e
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUEiiCHER STRUtiURE:
SRV DISCHARGE PIPING LOADS:
- PIPE PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE
- FLOW REACTION LOADS (STEADY AND UNSTEADY)
METHODOLOGY:
- FOR UNSTEADY FLOW, USE THE PIPE CLEARING MODEL IN DFFR SECTION 3.1.2.1*
- FOR STEADY FLOW, CLASSICAL ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES i
- SAME AS MODEL USED FOR RAMSHCAP.
m e
e r-..
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS ~ DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUE!1CHER STRUCTURE:
QUENCHER LOADS:
- TOROUE
- LATERAL LOADS
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS FROM ADJACENT QUENCHERS METHODOLOGY:
- DFFR SECTION 3.3.10 FOR TORQUE / LATERAL LOAD
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURES APPLICATIONS NEMORANDUM (T0 BE ISSUED FOR QUENCHERS) i 1
)
m
9 MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUENCHER STRUCTURE:
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES WATER JET LOADS:
STANDARD AND ACCELERATION DRAG DURING AIR BUBBLE OSCILLATION METHODOLOGY:
REPORTS BEING PREPARED e
MARK II PRES?.!RE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUEtlCHER STRUCTURE:
SUPPRESSION POOL B0UNDARY LOADS:
OSCILLATING PRESSURE CAUSED BY AIR BUBBLES DFFR SECTION 3.3 METHODOLOGY:
EMPIRICAL CORRELATION FOR POSITIVE PRESSURE INDEPENDENT OF LIllE CLEARING MODEL 2 Ro/R ATTENUATION
,_i_
MULTIPLE VALVES ADDES SS g
LOAD CASES SAME AS GESSAR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATION CONSIDERED NOTE:
IMPROVEMENTS IN LOAD DEFINITION MAY BE POSSIBLE AND WORK IS UNDERWAY IN SOME AREAS.
e
,~
?-
j 1
1 i
CA0RSO SRV DISCHARGE TESTS STATUS 4
t
' FUEL LOADED 1
8 EXPECTED HEAT-UP START-END OF JANUARY 1978 8
START FIRST TEST SERIES - MARCH / APRIL 1978 t
1 i
i; i
i I
i e
1 l
,-_--.~.__ _._,--.
}-
UNITED STATES y
- o
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
,f M
, T-E W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20565 g
l
' \\..]
yf
z.
,, S 1979 gg-,,
Gus C. Lainas, Chief, Containment Systems Branch, DSS MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. M. Su, Containment Systems Branch. DSS FROM:
J. A. Kudrick, Section A Leader, Containment Systems % ~
THRU:
Branch, DSS
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH MARK II OWNERS GROUP TO
SUBJECT:
THE STATUS OF SRV RELATED LOADS ON CONTAINMENT On January 19, 1978, a meeting was held between representatives of Mark II owners group, General Electric, the NRC consultants (BNL) and The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of the staff.
Safety Relief Valve (SRV) related loads on the Mark II containment.
The meeting agenda, attendee list and presentation material are attached.
The significant results of the meeting are sumarized below:
1.
Methodology of Ramshead Load Prediction The Mark II owners indicated that the methodology described in the Dynamic Forcing Function Report (DFFR) and the topical report will be used for predicting the ramshead loads on the (NE00-24070)
This method utilizes the current GE analytical containment structure.
For subsequent model to predict loads for first SRV actuation.
actuation, a multiplier of 1.4 is used for positive pressure and 1.6 The Mark II owners have stated that the use for negative pressure.
of these multipliers in conjunction with the DFFR methodology provides a bounding load on the containment.
However, we pointed out that two additional items should be included These are leaking valve effects and bubble oscillating in the method.The Monticello test results show an increase in SRV loads frequency.
corresponding to leaking valves.
Since a leaking valve is a highly In addition, the possible event, its effects shou'd be addressed.
bubble oscillating frequency measured from the test deviates We indicated that the model substantially from the predicted value.
should be modified in order to predict this important parameter within a reasonable error band. A representative of the Mark II owner's group stated that the bubble efficiency is being investigated in light of the Monticello test results.
Contact:
T. M. Su, CSB 492-7711 4
g,
4 0 9 1973 G. C. Lainas.
2.
Method of Calculating Multiple-Valve Actuation Loads Currently, the DFFR uses the SRSS (square root of sum of the squares) approach for combining loads from m"Itiple-valve actuations. Our consultants, however, disagreed with this approach on the basis of i
the Monticello test results. A study made by our consultants currently shows that combining multiple-valve loads by the absolute sum method results in calculated loads closer to the Monticello results. Loads calculated by SRSS are in general lower than measured loads. Since the design loads on structures is substantially different between these two methods, we recommended that the Mark II owner's group conduct further investigations of these two methods.
3.
Submerged Structure Loads For submerged structures, the Mark II owner's included water jet loads and drag loads in the investigation. Their program includes analytical model development and experimental confinnation for a single structure within a pool. We stated that the approach of this investigation appears reasonable.
However, we directed them to study the effect of a second body on the velocity and pressure fields because in an actual plant design there will be more than one structure in' the fields that result from either the discharge of a SRV or from LOCA related phenomena.
4.
Fluid and Structure Interaction (FSI)
GE stated that an analytical approach is being developed to investigate FSI effects associated with SRV loads.*, This work is expected to be completed by June,1978. This late submittal may result in a slip in the review schedules associated with our A-39 and A-8 generic review programs. We will have further discussions with the Mark II owner's group for this matter.
On the basis of their current assessment, the Mark II owners maintain that FSI effects are insignificant for SRV loads. Dr. Bedrosian of Burns and Roe made a presentation to demonstrate that the loads measured in the Monticello steel torus are conservative for application to a Mark II concrete containment. His method uses a classi:al text book single degree of freedom model to show that flexible walls implify the actual loads if the frequency ratio of the source and the tested facility falls within a certain range. He stated that the Monticello SRV loads fall within this range. We believe that this method of assessing the importance of SRV FSI effects has merit and should be l
-R 3
j
G. C. Lainas FEB 9 1978 pursued further by the Mark II owners. The Mark II owner's group should provide a formal submission of this evaluation of FSI effects including a detailed description for bur evaluation on a schedule consistent with our lead plant review efforts.
5.
Pool Temperature Limit We recommended that each Mark Ik owner accelerate their schedule to provide us the infonnation related to pool temperature transients which we requested several months ago.
We stated that this information is relevant to our evaluation of plant operability. The results of this evaluation will have an impact on the selection of the SRV discharge device; 1.e., ramshead vs. quencher. Delays in receipt of this infonnation will be reflected in our licensing review efforts for the lead Mark II plants.
(T. M. Su, A-39 Task Manager j
Containment Systems Branch Division of Systems Safety Attachments:
As Stated Distribution:
Central File NRR Reading File CSB Reading File E. Case R. Mattson S. Hanauer R. Fraley, ACP.S (16)
R. DeYoung D. Vassallo D. Skovholt R. Tedesco J. Glynn D. Ross I&E(3)
M. Kehnemuyi J. Kudrick
]
T. Su
MK II S/R VALVE PHENOMENA MEETING Attendance A. k. Smith G.E.
W. M. Davis G.E.
i A. J. James G.E.
E. M. Mead PP&L R. M. Crawford S&L H. C. Brinkman CG&E L.. H. Frauenholz GE S. B. Mucciacciaro S&W H. Chau Lil:o B. R. McCaffrey Lili:o C. Tung BNL MIT (BNL) (BNL)
P. Huber Princeton G. Bienkowski R. H. Scanlan Princeton (BNL)
T. M. Su NRC/CSB J. A. Kudrick NRC/CSB C. J. Anderson NRC/CSB George Maise BNL A. Hafiz NRC/SEB G. Lainas NRC/CSB J. Glynn NRC/ DSS R. L. O'Mara S&W S. C. Chow Stone & Webster C. Lin S&W K. J. Green S&L J. S. Abel
- Commonwealth Edison R. E. Schaffstall G.E.
M. G. Mosier NMPC H. S. Lu Ebasco E. A. Rukos CFE T. Zazueta CFE C. Oppenheim ENK A. F. Deardorff Nutech (Mk I 0.G.)
R. J. Muzzy GE H. T. Tang GE D. C. Baker Burns & Roe H. M. Schoenhoff Bechtel E. McFarland Bechtel T. Huang NRC/CSB M. R. Granback NIPSCO A. P. Olson NSC R. F. McClelland GE Bedros Bedrosian B&R G. L. Gelhaus WPPSS B&R K. K. Roe L. Sobon GE
9 INTR 0 DUCTION 0
MEETING OBJECTIVES S
CONTINUING MK II OWNERS GROUP POLICY OF FREQUENTLY ADVISING NRC 0F PROGRAM TECHNICAL PROGRESS AND STATUS 8
SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PHENOMENA PROGRAM S
PRIMARY EMPHASIS ON RAMSHEAD TECHNOLOGY t
MK II QUENCHER TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS 0
MK II S/RV SEQUENTIAL ACTUATION APPROACH 1/78
SRV MEETING AGENDA MARK II OWNERS GROUP /NRC I.
INTRODUCTION II.
METHODS FOR LOAD PREDICTION - RANSHEAD e
METHODOLOGY e
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES e
OVERVIEW e
APPLICATION MEMORANDUM III.
METHODS FOR LOAD PREDICTION - QUENCHER e
METHODOLOGY e
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES IV.
MONTICELLO DATA AND MARK II FSI e
EVALUATION OF FSI DATA FOR S/RV MODEL VERIFICATION.
e ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF FSI IN MK II CONTAINMENTS.
V.
POOL TEMPERATURE LIMITS e
REPORT
SUMMARY
e TRANSIENT ASSUMPTIONS i
e
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS
.\\
LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES DUE TO SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH ARAMSHEADDEVICE e
DISCUSSION OF SUBMERGED STRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY e
OVERVIEW 0F RAMSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURE PROGRAM e
DOCUMENTATION e
SUMMARY
OF RAMSHEAD ASSUMPTIONS AND APPLICATION TECHNIQUES e
CONCLUSIONS i
-. - - - -... _ ~ -..
\\
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS WATER JET LOADS 1
e SOURCE OF JETS
- MAIN VENTS DURING LOCA
- RAMSHEAD OR QUENCHER DURING SRV ACTUATION e
LOADING MECHANISMS I
- WATER DRAG / IMPINGEMENT e
BASIC APPROACH
- PROVIDE JET DEFINITION AND CALCULATE LOADS FROM KNOWN DRAG COEFFICIENTS OR IMPINGEMENT CALCULATIONS e
-n-,
,n.--
_ -,.,_.,, -.y_.
s i
MARi,' 7/~ fagssung Suppp;ssi6ja__
nc 0/JTRUJi dE/JT 0 MSTc~mS LOATER JE~i~
l.ORDS_
f Cl3
,1
(
(
G V
f
=f
\\t 5
r = Co. v'/2 y
/
C
=F w
N JET, /
F=K.Ai.v/27
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS
'BL'BBLE' TYPE LOADS e
SOURCE OF BUBBLE
~ MAIN VENTS DURING POOL SWELL
- RAMSHEAD OR QUENCHER FOLLOWING AIR CLEARING
- MAIN VENTS DURING CONDENSATION OSCILLATIONS AND CHUGGING e
LOADING MECHANISM 2
- STANDARD DRAG ( A V ) PRODUCED BY VELOCITY FIELDS.
- ACCELERATION DRAG ( A V) PRODUCED BY PRESSURE FIELDS e
BASIC APPROACH
- PROVIDE DEFINITION OF VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION FIELDS AND CALCULATE DRAG FROM KNOWN DRAG COEFFICIENTS AND ACCELERATION DRAG VOLUMES, 1
l
s a
/
VG0, ya) F
/
i
(
f_
(STADONAi?.Y srcocroce j
uu
-x z/
? LOW / RELD 1tOUCED LOADS I: = % + Pg STANDARD DRAG F = Coh 0 V(if V(t[
s y
26 c.
3-ACC.E _.EE.ATtOK DEA 6 k
T
=- M f N
9S)
A fv Sc C
8 p-.~.
e
.e o
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES LOADS o
REPORT TITLE - NED #21472-P ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR LIQUID JET PROPERTIES FOR PREDICTING FORCES ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES e
REPORT TITLE - NED #21471-P ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING DRAG FORCES ON RIGID SUBMERGED STRUCTURES CAUSED BY LOCA AND SAFETY RELIEF RAMSHEAD AIR DISCHARGE APPLICATION METHOD e
REPORT TITLE - NED #21730 MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES - AN APPLICATION MEMORANDUM i
MARK II PRESSilRE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS RAMSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURES PROGRAM INCORPORATE INT 0 WATER JET DFFR REV. 3
^
THEORY FOR LOCA AND APPLICATIONS SRV (NEDE-MEMORANDUM 21472)
(I.E.,ISERS STRUCTURAL GUIDE)
ASSESSMENT NEDE-21730 (BY A.E.'S)
MODEL FOR LOCA
.,L AND RAMSHEAD CONFIRMATORY AIR BUBBLE TEST PROGRAM DAR LOADS (frI)E-AND MODEL/ DATA 21471)
COMPARISONS MODEl/DFFR REVISION IF NECESSARY
%f CONFIRM I
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMEllT
f MARK 11 PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS
~
i RAMSHEAD WATER JET LOAD f
1 i
MAJOR ASStP1PTIONS a
i e
UNSTEADY SUBMERGED JET WITH NO DIVERGENCE OTHER THAN f
PREDICTED BY MASS /M0 MENTUM EQUATIONS.
CONSTANT FLUID i
PARTICLE VELOCITY e
VELOCITY AND ACCELERATION FROM THE DFFR PIPE CLEARING MODEL l
e FORCE IS DRAG OR IMPINGEMENT DEPENDING ON GE0'iETRY f
e DISSIPATION OCCURS WHEN LAST PARTICLE REACHES JET FRONT 2
l l
I I.-.
t>OUO pp>
f8 itRO UE I
T g T p N3FA L
g EN m
U pMAC WTA RL C
i O
o e
p
=
e
.' l r
E u
G G
t d
AN TR E eTE e
AO g
EJE R
rAR c
DI g
7 M U e Yu o
T 07 DA y
E P H BET rY T r
L L
a TRC P
1 RL S TUHC j
t j
rOu T AU T
TC D
a U
v S
P o
I te J
1 2
e r
Lg u
- 1 g
8 n
.l F
3
.)i l e*
.,, 1 il
...d v
e A
f o
f T
CY N
Y o
A oR TtO Y R e
D tO EoT 4
T se O
R I
2 e 1 E T
P RAR g
OH sa 3 JRA IT P R f
P vS P.
r CS P
I I
E E TH E EHE U
y)L iu T
T S T S 4. E T TCL g
I gVM EE s
C S
m ASE U
nW WDC I
R a T C
T T
Y A
.S A
w i\\
.e
.w
/
e.
3p gQa, n a%r4 QL J(
.i.,.
t, ig' MtMP W b
+
7
MARKIIPRESSURESUPPRESSION. CONTAINMENT 5YSTEMS RAMSHEAD AIR BUBBLE LOADS ON SUBMERGED STRUCTURES MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS e SPHERICAL BUBBLE FLOW FIELD DESCRIBED BY A POINT SOURCE.
FINITE BUBBLE EFFECTS CONSIDERED.
e UNIFORM FLOW FIELD e
BOUNDARIES ACCOUNTED FOR WITH METHOD OF IMAGES e
AIR IS IDEAL GAS e
ACOUSTIC EFFECTS NEGLIGIBLE e
BUBBLE RISE CONSIDERED e
TWO BUBBLES IN PHASE i
il
RAMSHEAD AIR BUBBLE APPLICATION
(!!EDE-21730)
STEP 1
~
STRUCTURE DATA V
STEP 2 SUSSLE ANDIMAGE LOCATIONS y
STEP 7 ACCELERATION DR AG FORCL STEP 3 CALCULATION SUBBLE RBSE A
CALCU CALCU TmN U"I U8, OR COMPUTER 9000(S DYNAMICS DIVIOE U.
SOLUTION AND U. COUPLEO PfTO VECTORS F
h COMPUTER SOLUTION 9
STEP S p,, 4 UNIPORet SUSSLE DYNAMICS ACCE LERATION FIELD
i MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS 4
RAMSHEAD SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS i
CONCLUSIONS e
LOADS CONSERVATIVELY DEFINED AND DOClf1ENTED i
e CONC!RiiATORY PROGRAM IN PLACE o
DESIGN ASSESSMENT STUDIES UNDEF WAY i
6 l
4 l
I t
i 4
\\
l RAMSHEAD CONDENSATION INSTABILITY e
REVIEW 0F LIMITS BEING USED e
REVIEW 0F DATA BASE G.E. MOSS LANDING G.E. SAN JOSE FIELD DATA e
SUMMARY
e
_-a
RAMSHEAD CONDENSATION INSTABILITY i
LIMITS BEING USED 2
2 8
MASS FLUX:
G 4 40 LB/FT SEC i
(REACTOR PRESSURE @ 200 PSIG) 3 i
O LOCAL WATER TEMPERATURE:
NON-ATWS EVENTS T
4 160 F L
ATWS STUDIES TL 4 1700F T=TBULK + 10 F l
0 POOL THERMAL DISTRIBUTION:
L i
i i
l
(
RAMSHEAD DATA BASE i
l e
G.E. MOSS LANDING
- 3 TESTS OF 1k-INCH RAMSHEAD:
152 To 163*F 0
G.E. SAN JOSE
(
- 4 TESTS OF 3/4-INCH RAMSHEAD:
170 To 176 F
- 1 TEST OF 3/4-INCH RAMSHEAD:
NO. THRESHOLD (<403 /FT'-SEC 3
- 13 TESTS OF h-INCH EBOW:
160 To 172 F
- 7 TESTS OF 3/4-INCH E BOW:
146 To 170* F
- 17 TESTS OF 1-INCH E30W:' 147 To 170* F
- 2 TESTS OF 1-INCH EB0W:
NO THRESH 0LD (<40 B /FT*- SEC) g I
c --
,.r,
.m
,.c
-ww--
+-
)
RAMSHEAD DATA BASE e
RAMSHEAD PLANT DATA s
- PLANT A:
165 F NO INSTABILITY i
- PLANT B:
150 F NO INSTABILITY
- PLANT C:
146 F NO INSTABILITY
- PLANT D:
129 F NO INSTABILITY
]
- PLANT E:
122 F NO INSTABILITY l
l I
5 1
t S.
b
4 i
I SUflMARY e
NO OBSERVED DEVICE-SIZE EFFECT ON THRESHOLD TEMPERATURE e
LIMIT CONFIRMED BY 3/4 INCH RAMSHEAD DATA LIMITSUP50RTEDBYFIELDDATATOOVER165F e
D I
MARK II PRESSilRE SUPPRESSION
-CONTAINi1ENT SYSTBIS DYNAMIC LOADS PRODUCED BY SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A RAMSHEAD DEVICE AN OVERVIEW 0F LEAD PLANT STATUS S(ICARY OF METHODOLOGY DOCUMENTATION d
REVIEW 0F:
1.
NED0-24070, RAMSHEAD SAFETY RELIEF VALVE LOADS METHODOLOGY
SUMMARY
2.
GEN-0394, MARK II BWR SRV RAMSHEAD BUBBLE DYNAMICS ANALYTICAL MODEL COMPARISONS WITH TEST DATA.
Sl!EARY OF LEAD PLANT STATUS
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINtiENT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING RAMSHEAD BUBBLE LOADS ON POOL BOUNDARY o
METHODS DEFINED IN DFFR SECTION 3.2 AND REFERENCES
- PIPE CLEARING
- BUBBLE DYNAMICS
- METHOD OF IMAGES
- COMBINATION OF MULTIPLE BUBBLES
- LOAD CASES
- TIE DOWN LOADS i
e NED0-24070 PROVIDES "ROADf1AP" 0F MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION.
- PHENOMENA
- METHODS Slf. MARY
- EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION
- APPLICATION
- FUTURE WORK u - CONCLUSIONS 4
h*IDo-24070 77hT.D251 Class I Cetober 1977 I
l MARK II CONTAINNENT SUPPORIING PROGRAM REPORT RAMSHEAD SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE LOADS METHODOLOGY SLW.ARY Prepared by C.L. Anderson scab.t4G vvA7sa AE AGTON PRO.E;T4 Gta AA TMt.NT eGE.N4dA iLiGTA4C G, WAIT SAN JCSI CALIFCANIA 95t*S GENER AL & ELECTRIC
e MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSI0fl CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION
- PURPOSE AND CONTENTS OF REPORT SECTION 2:
PHENOMENA
- LINE CLEARING (NATER/ AIR)
~~
- BUBBLE OSCILLATION
- STEADY STEAM FLOW SECTION 3:
DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS
- LINE CLEARING
- BUBBLE DYNAMICS
- METHOD OF IMAGES
-SUPERPOSITI0tl0FLOADS A.
LINEAR ADDITION IF SEQUENCING CONSIDERED 3.
SS ADDITION FOR SIMULTANEOUS DISCHARGE l
l
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW OF NED0-20070 SECTION 4:
EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF METHODS TESTS:
1.
QUAD CITIES (1972) 2.
SMALL SCALE TEST TANK (1974) 3.
MONTICELLO (1975)
CONCLUSIONS 1.
QUAD CITIES
- 1972 MODELS BOUND PIPE PRESSURE AND POSITIVE WALL PRESSURE
-- REASONABLY PREDICT NEGATIVE PRESSURE
- MODEL REFINEMENTS IMPLEMENTED
\\
- DFFR METHODS FOR POOL BOUNDARY LOADS CONSERVATIVE.
m 9
% 1
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION C0t!TAINMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 l
2.
SMALL SCALE TEST TAHK
- MOI ACCURATELY DESCRIBES B0utlDARY CONDITIONS
- LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LINEAR ADDITION AfID SRSS S0 L0tlG AS BUBBLE B0UNDARY CONDITIONS SATISFIED.
1
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT S.YSTEMS i
REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 3.
MONTICELLO
- FOR SINGLE VALVE TESTS, DFFR METHODS CONSERVATIVE FOR POSTIVE PRESSURE AND ACCURATE FOR NEGATIVE PRESSURE
- FOR MULTIPLE VALVE TESTS, DFFR METHODS BOUND POSITIVE PRESSURES (EXCEPT 1 LOCATION) AND ARE GENERALLY WITHIN THE RANGE OF OBSERVED NEGATIVE PRESSURES
- FOR LEAKING VALVES, DFFR PREDICTIONS COMPARABLE TO DATA
- FOR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATIONS, DATA UNDERPREDICTED BY DFFR FIRST ACTUATION METHODS.
MAfiK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAlflMENT SYSTEMS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 5:
APPLICATION P
- STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENTS PROVIDED IN INDIVIDUAL PLANT DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORTS
- CONSIDER e
SINGLE VALVE DISCHARGE (CONSECUTIVE) e ADS DISCHARGE (FIRST ACTUATION) e ASYMMETRIC CASE (PLANT UNIQUE) (FIRST ACTUATION) e ALL VALVE DISCHARGE (FIRST ACTUATION)
- NO SPECIFIC CONSIDERATI0ft 0F LEAKY VALVES IS NECESSARY
- C0flSECUTIVE ACTUATION :
USE MULTIPLIER ON j
EXISTING DFFR FIRST ACTUATION PREDICTIONS.
r i
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEIS REVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 6:
SUPPORTING PROGRAMS
- REFINED SRV ANALYTICAL MODELS
- FSI EFFECTS ON MONTICELLO CONTAINMENT LOADS DATA
- EVALUATION OF FSI EFFECTS ON MARK II CONTAINMENT STRUCTURES DURING SRV DISCHARGE.
D
~
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS PIVIEW 0F NED0-24070 SECTION 7:
CONCLUSIONS 1.
LOAD PRODUCING PHENOMENA HAVE iEEN IDENTIFIED.
2.
AtlALYTICAL MODELS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.
3.
SUPPORTING EXPERIMEt!TAL DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED.
4.
DFFR MODELS INCLUDE ALL KEY PARAtiETERS AND GIVE CO REASONABLE LOADS (GIVEN A MULTIPLIER IS USED FOR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATIONS).
5.
STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENTS ADDRESS ALL LOADING CONDITIONS.
6.
SUPPORTING PROGRAMS IDENTIFIED.
ZIMMER CONTAINMENT DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SRV LOAD FSI CONSIDERATIONS e ASSESSMENT PROGRAM COMMENCED IN 1975 AWARE OF POSSIBLE FSI IN SUPPRESSION POOL; ALSO AWARE OF AMPLE RESERVE CAPACITY TO CARRY SRV LOADS e ASSESSMENT PROGRAM CONSIDERED TWO ALTERNATES:
- 2. NEGLECT FSI TO ASSESS MARGIN FACTORS EXPEDITIOUSLY, IF FSI EFFECTS ARE RELATIVELY SMALL AND CAN BE BOUNDED BY AVAILABLE RESERVE CAPACITY e ALTERNATE 2 WAS USED IN ZIMMER 1
CNK 1-19-73
J SRV FSI EFFECTS CONSIDERED NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE:
HENCE FSI EFFECTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SMALL.
- 2. SRV LOAD COMBINATI0flS DO NOT GOVERN CONTAINMEllT DESIGN.
RESERVE CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO CARRY SRV LOADS IS AMPLE.
(SEE DAR TABLES 4 1-1 AND 4 1-3 AND DAR SUPPLEMENT).
- 3. FORCES INDUCED BY SRV LOADS ARE SMALL COMPARED TO THE TOTAL DESIGN LOADS (SEE DAR SUPPLEMENT).
THEREFORE, FORCES DUE TO FSI WOULD BE EVEN SMALLER.
- 4. CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE MARGIN FACTORS ARE fl0T VERY SENSITIVE TO EVEN LARGE VARIATIONS IN SRV LOADS (SEE INTERACTION DIAGRAMS IN DAR SUPPLEMENT).
l 1
e
=
1 l
y' h
i (RPV
- J'*)
/,
i
4!-jp -
Q'l.k >
,.. 3is
\\\\
4 7
6 '
l CCNTAINMENT
\\0
'.4,
3 r.'
SACJitlFICIAL y,.
9 SpHISL.D L*..
6 5 *'
E L 54 d 5' q
< a I
I.
ReacTost PapasTAL --.
42
- i eLsu'*1'3
.._,3
..v.
..... +, p zIl*
-74 EL5M'.9E3
....., tqs
- Yl7c,
~
I augf.G3"
+.
m
- +
75
'i WC t
s tj gr rL
- n 3;,.1 ~:
/
e >:
. '.'.' [
,I /
O t
i
'.~
em us at *w-io*-)
...."1 7~-.,....,.,, s s...
y.
it
.o y
p'~.r w
?.
b,
_4 N.. -
a n
WM. H.ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK II DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REl' ORT FIGURE 4.1-9 DESIGN SECTIONS - PRIMARY CONTAINMENT, REACTOR SUPPORT AND BASE MAT l
e ZFS.I. MARX II f)AR
.a O
as U
w w
w no no w
wo I
d!
mI u
m oo oc w
oo 41 c
st i
o o
o o no no o
no 6
I 5
e e
en
- o. i
- o..
.a.
m.
m.
m.
ee.
- n..
A i
l v.
.e
.3 3**
g-.
a 1
.1."
- o..
.1 i
i i.
.e -
2.
0.
35 '
2 'I..E
- o. o.
- o. o
- a. o.
.1
.., 1
.e e
.e 2
- 1.
- e.
3 1 i.*
o o.
ao
- a. o.
1 I. se 1
9 wt
- e. a I
I B
.g
. d
.e.e.n. d o
d
.a a
en we a.
- e. 3 o es a.
o.
re
.e e e e e e
e
,1, i
e s
e; e
i E
4 el 9.44
. et g
g e.
EE he em
- o. 9
.e E
ce.
.e 4
0 9
I 8
= i 0
>=
e.
.
- e. g
.e e.
g e
u w
e
- o. a.
w A.c 8
c 4
I I
I t t t aq:
o u
e
.e e
D.
.J e
4 5
,e.
3.,.. 3 8
0 0 8
I t 0 W
o 23 1
\\
e.
o.
o.
,. t.3 i.
.?!.
3.
2
,...F. A 3' s e.
o.
o.
.?1 i
1.
.e l
.. =.
j
.s
...t.
D.e J
.4 e
e.
o.
o.
o.
e?1
.D.
.e S
.3 e.
o o oM o
- m. ]
e.
o.
o.
- a. o.
- a. o.
o.
- a. o.
.e
.e
.e
.e.e
.e
.e.e o.o o. er o S
.3 h.
D.
S W5 m Jg m.
o.
- o. o.
- o. o.
o.
- o. o.
e.
.e
.e
.e
.e
.e
.e.e 4
o o oo oo o
oo N
N N NN ON N
NN O
D
.=.D D.
.* 9 C
2
.) f E fC C
C 1
e.
5
.* W d
e W
W Qo s.eDe 85 5 5
w t.
k G.*.
C
- at 2 3
E O
O.
C QQ t.o g he 9e h.
9 C
C D.
- )
n A n t.
A 2%
.g "o
A.C
.J U WB 4M EW 4 lal 83 m 3 El G 6 6Ge# 6 G 6.1-5
s TABLE 4.1-3
_HARCIN TABLE FOR CONTAINHENT ALL VALVE DISCHARGE LOAD C tlPONENT
'" ^
COMBINATION MARCIN** CRITICAL ***
HARCIN CRITICAL HARCIN CRITICAL EQUATION
- FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION FACTOR SECTION 1
NA NA 2.8 1
1.8 6
2 8.6 9
2.3 13 1.5 8
--s pa.:-
3 2.8 11 2.2 1
1.5 8
4 N
NA NA NA NA NA NA b
u, s,.*
y 4a g
NA NA NA NA NA NA u
5 g
NA NA NA NA NA NA Il 5a NA NA NA NA NA NA N
es 6
2.5 11 2.2 1
1.5 8
7 NA NA NA NA NA NA 7a NA NA NA NA NA NA
- Refer to Table 4.1-1
- Hargin Factor ='llowable Stress / Actual Stress A
- Ref er to Figure 4.1-9 NA = Not Applicable
e FT e 80.0 238 F*C s 4.50 s3l e s 82.00 le T a 40.00 le 3 limi SS llett 80.45 8.80 45 04 8.50 8aW j
i I
dK 3
5.
H' 9r j
e 5.
\\
r FC e 0.705F *C
-C FC s 0.950F *C
,g FS e 0.900FT l
ers
)
it
- e zi
\\
~~
$8 4.
EcER
{FCa0.300F*C i
g (ll:: llP 1
3 a
f.
o 3
.'200 00
-240.00
-200 00
-800.00
-820.00
-80. 0 40.
4.
00.00 L20.00 l'80 00 t'00.00 2'40.00 200.00
~
~
~
?-
IIRRCO C947Rl W SI - S(Cflee I atAlp. MinFesttMet LOAD SYMBOL COMBINATION A
1 o
2 x
3 4
e 5
a 6
7 WM. H. 21MMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 MARK 18 DESIGN ASSESSM ENT REPORT FIGURE 4.1-13 TYPICAL INTERACTION DIAGRAM FOR CONTAINMENT
A) m 4
-,)
s
- g IIEICitT (INCilES) t x
N p!
r-m= u
< a 18 v'
t~
n.
R x o H
to m
i CENTER LINE OF DRYUELL 5 LAB 5611.75 n.
t.1 O
.: s's u.
WITIIOtlT FT.UID
-WITilOUT FLUID 3
t=.22920 t=.10725
@s s
H
. i, n
I
(*)
ga WITII FLUID i
g
=.
090 -
WATER LEVEL.
272 inches y
x F
A
~
~
.000412
/
E d
kH Til Pl.UTl)
F
.000419
.000153 U=.152 3 C
.000422
. 000161-vl
l
.000164 8
o c:
o
-u d
.50 t3.75 e3.00 r).25
-*}.50 ab 75 e 3. 00
- O'. 75
-l'.50 i's 1
, 10 #1 io 015PtnCEMENT !!NCIIES)(21 DnHPING)
. )
/
1 IIEICitT (INCilES)
<;f,,
T lil U
N mj N
I w
< q,
~
ma n
- c >
w N P O
i o ed gg CENTER LINE OF DRY UELL SLAD 56 l.75 m,,i.
Mt 16 h wi a
Y.i R
.A m a l
WITII eturn
/
u
{
t=.14745 g
_ 979,1100T FI,UTD
'i ri's t=.07410 e9 WITilOUT PLuTD
\\
WATER LEVEL t=.14400 272 INCilES N
Y d
~
5 j
d s
1\\
\\
I i
l E
WITil Pl.tlID t=.19245
\\
.000167
.000442
. 00 0 ? "2 5,,
H o
.000479 o
a c
i1 d.i. 00 141.00 t3.00 SE 00
+1.00 3
, 10 -}t0. ( D
- l'. 0 0
- 2'. 00
- 3'. 0 0 i-i
+
DISPLRCEMENT LINCilES)(21 00HP1HG)
MONTICELLO AND MARK II FLUID STRUCTURE INTERACTI0il 9
EVALUATION OF FSI DATA FOR S/RV MODEL VERIFICATION (GE) e ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS OF FSI IN MARK II CONTAINMENTS (S&L)
I 1
k h
{
HTT 1/78
e 0
8 e
4 O
EVALUATION OF FSI EFFECTS o
S 8
NRC QUESTION HOW RESULTS OF FSI STUDIES FROM MONTICELLO CAN BE APPLIED TO MARK II CONCRETE CONTAINMENTS O
RESOLUTION ACTION TASK B/0 HTT 1/73
e TASKB/0 0
OBJECTIVE ASSESS SRV FSI IN MONTICELLO DATA 4
METHODOLOGY ee DEFINE A PRESSURE SOURCE REPRESENTATIVE OF SRV se USE A COUPLED HYDR 0-STRUCTURE MODEL se ANALYZE TWO CASES ~
ese RIGID ese AS-BUILT i
l I.
i i
HTT 1/78 I;
P l
~
4 METHODOLOGY (CONTD.)
te CALCULATE INTEdFACE PRESSURE AT WALL se COMPARE RESULTS OF RIGID AND AS-BUILT CASE se CRITERION FOR ASSESSING FSI INSIGNIFICANT IF PRIGID ~ PFLEXIBLE HTT 1/78
[l i
{
i
e g
m e
O e
e a
PRESENT STATUS O
COUPLED HYDR 0-STRUCTURE CODE IN PLACE 4
DEFINING PRESSURE SOURCE 8
MODELING MONTICELLO 4
INTERFACE RESPONSE PRESSURE TO BE GENERATED 8
. REPORT 20/78 O
i f,
'i Ii I
HTT 1/78 i
c
^
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS PRODUCED BY SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUENCHER DEVICE AN OVERVIEW 0F LEAD QUENCHER PLANT STATUS e
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS e
STRUCTUPAL LOADS CONSIDERED AND IDENTIFICATION OF LOADING METHODOLOGY e
CA0RSO TESTS STATUS e
SUMMARY
OF LEAD QUEHCHER PLANT STATUS
e g i G
MARKIIPRESSURESUPPRESSIONCONTAINMENTSYSTNMS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS VALVE OPENING WATER LEG CLEARING AIR BUBBLE FORMATION AIR BUBBLE OSCILLATIONS STEAM CONDENSATION VALVE CLOSURE t
l l
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUEiiCHER STRUCTURE:
SRV DISCHARGE PIPING LOADS:
- PIPE PRESSURE / TEMPERATURE
- FLOW REACTION LOADS (STEADY AND UNSTEADY)
METHODOLOGY:
- FOR UNSTEADY FLOW, USE THE PIPE CLEARING MODEL IN DFFR SECTION 3.1.2.1*
- FOR STEADY FLON, CLASSICAL ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES
- SAME AS MODEL USED FOR RAMSHEAD.
1
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION' CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS'DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUE!1CHER STRUCTURE:
QUENCHER LOADS:
- TORQUE
- LATERAL LOADS
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS FROM ADJACENT QUENCHERS t
METHODOLOGY:
- DFFR SECTION 3.3.10 FOR TORQUE / LATERAL LOAD
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURES APPLICATIONS MEMORANDUM (T0 BE ISSUED FOR QUENCliERS)
I s
I
\\
i
MARKIIPRESSURESUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUENCHER STRUCTURE:
SUBMERGED STRUCTURES LOADS:
- WATER JET
- STANDARD AND ACCELERATION DRAG DURING AIR BUBBLE OSCILLATION METHODOLOGY:
REPORTS BEING PREPARED
')' h.
,4 c
L iW
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS DYNAMIC LOADS DURING SRV DISCHARGE THROUGH A QUENCHER STRUCTURE:
SUPPRESSION POOL B0UNDARY LOADS:
OSCILLATING PRESSURE CAUSED BY AIR BUBBLES DFFR SECTION 3.3 METHODOLOGY:
..m,
EMPIRICAL CORRELATION FOR POSITIVE PRESSURE INDEPENDENT OF LINE CLEARING MODEL 2 Ro/R ATTENUATION C '- ~'
MULTIPLE VALVES ADDES,
SS Ap.
r LOAD CASES SAME AS GESSAR CONSECUTIVE ACTUATION CONSIDERED NOTE:
IMPROVEMENTS IN LOAD DEFINITION MAY BE POSSIBLE AND WORK IS UNDERWAY IN SOME AREAS.
9
\\
0 8
9 CA0RSO SRV DISCHARGE TESTS STATUS 8
FUEL LOADED 0
EXPECTED HEAT-UP START-END OF JANUARY 1978 0
START FIRST TEST SERIES - MARCH / APRIL 1978 v
-N
-ww---
w-
,,,_,,e-v7
-.-,my.,,,y,,,
y 7
y g_,
CA0RSO SRV DISCHARGE TESTS TESTS PLANNED e
SINGLE VALVE INITIAL ACTUATION (* 22 TESTS) s MULTIPLE VAU!I ACTUATION
(+ 12 TESTS)
- 2 ADJACENT VALVES (2 TESTS)
- 3 ADJACENT VALVES (1 TEST)
- 4 ADJACENT VALVES (4 TESTS)
- 4 VALVE SYMMETRIC AROUND P0OL (1 TEST)
- 1 TO 8 VALVES (+ 3 TO 5, NORMAL STARTUP) e SINGLE VALVE CONSECUTIVE ACTUATIONS (+ 7 TESTS)
- 5 ACTUATIONS/ TEST
".=
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS CA0RSO QUENCHER TEST PROGRAM
SUMMARY
OF POST-TEST ANALYTICAL STUDIES FOR SINGLE, MULTIPLE AND CONSECUTIVE VALVE ACTUATIONS, EVALUATE DATA ON:
i
- POOL BOUNDARY LOADS
- BUBBLE PRESSURE
- PIPE CLEARING TRANSIENT (PRESSURE / WATER LEVEL)
- DISCHARGE LINE REFLOOD HEIGHT FOLLOWING VALVE CLOSURE
- SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADS (SPOT CHECK)
- CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
- QUENCHER LOADS AND RESPONSE
---,_-..-,-,._,,,--,.w-
~
MARK II PRESSURE SUPPRESSION CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS APPLICATION OF THE QUENCHER
SUMMARY
OF LEAD QUENCHER PLANT STATUS
- ALL QUENCHER RELATED DYNAMIC LOADS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND CONSIDERED
- CONSERVATIVE METHODOLOGY IN PLACE
- WORK UNDERWAY TO IMPROVE QUENCHER METHODS
- CA0RSO TESTS WILL PROVIDE CONFIRMATORY DATA
~
a QUENCHER SUBMERGED STRllCTURES 8
METHODOLOGY SIMILAR TO RAMSHEAD 8
REPORTS TO BE SUBMITTED 2078 9
AIR BUBBLE MODEL 8
WATER JET MODEL 8
APPLICATION MEMORANDUM UPDATE e--_
.-4
,-_c..
3 _-,,,- -,, -
,,_y__g_.g__w,.
p_,
_me_,,,
,,2.
_,-. -.,-,,.,,.