Topical Rept Evaluation of SL-5159(P), Methodology & Verification of Gapp Program for Analysis of Piping Systems with E-Bar Supports. Staff Finds Topical Rept Acceptable for Referencing in Licensing ApplicationsML20207E382 |
Person / Time |
---|
Issue date: |
03/02/1999 |
---|
From: |
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
---|
To: |
|
---|
Shared Package |
---|
ML20207E377 |
List: |
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 9903100251 |
Download: ML20207E382 (7) |
|
|
---|
Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20217L8831999-10-21021 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Alternatives to Code Requirements Described in RR-V17 & RR-V18 ML20217L9371999-10-20020 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Licensee Proposed Alternative from Certain Requirements of ASME Code,Section XI for First 10-Yr Interval Request for Relief for Containment Inservice Insp Program ML20217K3301999-10-19019 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 195 to License DPR-61 ML20217J0721999-10-18018 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept EMF-2158(P),Rev 0, Seimens Power Corp Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors, Evaluation & Validation of Casmo-4/Microburn-B2. Rept Acceptable for Licensing Evaluations of BWR Neutronics ML20217H8991999-10-18018 October 1999 SER Approving Licensee Requests for Relief NDE-R001 (Part a & B),NDE-R027,NDE-028,NDE-R029,NDE-R030,NDE-R032 & NDE-R035. Relief Request NDE-036,denied & Relief Request NDE-R-034, Deemed Unnecessary ML20217J4791999-10-18018 October 1999 SER Approving Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR73 for Zion Nuclear Power Station,Units 1 & 2.NRC Concluded That Proposed Alternative Measures for Protection Against Radiological Sabotage Meets Requirements of 10CFR73.55 ML20217K9441999-10-15015 October 1999 SER Accepting Util Alternative Proposed Relief Request RR-ENG-2-4 for Second 10-year ISI Interval at Stp,Units 1 & 2 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i) ML20217K9151999-10-15015 October 1999 SER Authorizing Util Relief Request RR-ENG-2-3 for Second 10-year ISI Interval of Stp,Units 1 & 2 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i) ML20217G0931999-10-15015 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-10179P,Rev 3, Safety Criteria & Methodology for Acceptable Cycle Reload Analysis. Rev 3 Found Acceptable & Accurately Include Conditions & Limitations for Applicability of References ML20217K0651999-10-15015 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-10193P, RELAPS5/MOD2-B&W for Safety Analysis of B&W-Designed Pressurized-Water Reactors. Rept Acceptable for Referencing in Licensing Applications ML20217G0191999-10-15015 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Licensee Followed Analytical Methods Provided in GL 90-05.Grants Relief Until Next Refueling Outage,Scheduled to Start on 991001.Temporary non-Code Repair Must Then Be Replaced with Code Repair ML20217G2161999-10-15015 October 1999 Errata Pages 2 & 3 for Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 168 Issued to FOL DPR-63 Issued on 990921.New Pages Change Description of Flow Control Trip Ref Cards to Be Consistent with Application for Amend ML20217K9931999-10-14014 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 234 to License DPR-56 ML20217H8501999-10-14014 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 197 to License DPR-64 ML20217G9961999-10-14014 October 1999 SER Accepting First 10-year Interval Inservice Insp Requests for Relief for Plant,Units 1 & ML20217G2041999-10-13013 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 179 to License DPR-28 ML20217J1101999-10-13013 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108727, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Bwr Lower Plenum Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guideline (BWRVIP-47). Rept Will Provide Acceptable Level of Quality for Exam of safety-related Components ML20217D3061999-10-13013 October 1999 SER Accepting Licensee Proposed Changes to Edwin I Hatch Nuclear Plant Emergency Classification Scheme to Add Emergency Action Levels Related to Operation of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ML20217C9121999-10-12012 October 1999 SER Input Authorizing Licensee Proposed Request to Modify Definition of Core Alteration in Section 1.0 of TS & Update Sections 3/4.1,3.4.3 & 3/4.9 to Reflect Proposed Definition Change ML20217C1311999-10-0808 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 153 to License DPR-3 ML20217B5401999-10-0606 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 193 to License DPR-40 ML20217B1641999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-10228P. Science. Rept Acceptable for Licensing Applications,Subject to Listed Conditions in Accordance with Fcf Agreement (Reference 4) ML20212M2141999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Topical Rept EMF-2158(P), Rev 0,acceptable for Licensing Evaluations of BWR Neutronics Designs & Applications,As Per SPC Agreement (Ref 9) Subj to Stated Conditions ML20217B4331999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 233 to License DPR-56 ML20212L0881999-10-0404 October 1999 SER Accepting Licensee Requests for Relief 98-012 to 98-018 Related to Implementation of Subsections IWE & Iwl of ASME Section XI for Containment Insp for Crystal River Unit 3 ML20212J6311999-10-0101 October 1999 SER Accepting Request for Relief from ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section Xi,Requirements for Certain Inservice Insp at Plant,Unit 1 ML20212J9251999-10-0101 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee Relief Request IWE-3 for Second 10-year ISI for Plant ML20212L1141999-10-0101 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Granting Request for Exemption from Technical Requirements of 10CFR50,App R,Section III.G.2.c ML20212J8631999-10-0101 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Licensee Proposed Alternatives to Provide Reasonable Assurance of Structural Integrity of Subject Welds & Provide Acceptable Level of Quality & Safety.Relief Granted Per 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(i) ML20212J2011999-09-30030 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Transfer of Dl Ownership Interest in Pnpp to Ceico ML20212K9781999-09-30030 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting USI A-46 Implementation Program ML20212J1301999-09-30030 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Topical Rept WCAP-12472-P-A,Addendum 1, Beacon-Core Monitoring & Operations Support System, Acceptable for Licensing Applications Subj to Pertinent Restrictions ML20212J9141999-09-29029 September 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108724, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Vessel Id Attachment Weld Insp & Flow Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-48) ML20212J9661999-09-29029 September 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-107285, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Bwr Top Guide Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-26), Dated Dec 1996.Rept Acceptable ML20212F7671999-09-24024 September 1999 SER Granting Relief Request C-4 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(i) for Unit 2,during First 10-year ISI Interval & Relief Requests B-15,B-16 & B-17 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(g)(6)(i) ML20216H7091999-09-24024 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 229 & 232 to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,respectively ML20212F4761999-09-23023 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 246 & 237 to Licenses DPR-77 & DPR-79,respectively ML20212F5641999-09-23023 September 1999 SER Concluding That All of ampacity-related Concerns Have Been Resolved & Licensee Provided Adequate Technical Basis to Assure That All of Thermo-Lag Fire Barrier Encl Cables Operating within Acceptable Ampacity Limits ML20212E6341999-09-23023 September 1999 Suppl to SE Resolving Error in Original 990802 Se,Clarifying Fact That Licensee Has Not Committed to Retain Those Specific Compensatory Measures That Were Applied to one-time Extension ML20212F0831999-09-23023 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Granting Relief from Certain Weld Insp at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2 Pursuant to 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(ii) for Second 10-year ISI Interval ML20212F5261999-09-22022 September 1999 SER Approving Request Reliefs 1-98-001 & 1-98-200,parts 1,2 & 3 for Second 10-year ISI Interval at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 ML20212H2381999-09-22022 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 228 to License DPR-49 ML20212E6911999-09-21021 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed EALs Changes for Plant Unit 3.Changes Meet Requirements of 10CFR50.47(b)(4) & App E to 10CFR50 ML20212J0501999-09-21021 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Re Licensee Implementation Program to Resolve USI A-46 at Plant,Per GL 87-02,Suppl 1 ML20212D3831999-09-20020 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Proposed Rev to Withdrawal Schedule for First & Third Surveillance Capsules for BFN-3 RPV ML20212D1911999-09-20020 September 1999 SER Accepting Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50,App A,General Design Criterion 57 Closed System Isolation Valves for McGuire Nuclear Station,Units 1 & 2 ML20216F9831999-09-20020 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 11 to License R-115 ML20216H9901999-09-20020 September 1999 Proposed Final Rept Impep Review of South Carolina Agree- Ment State Program 990712-16 ML20212D4471999-09-20020 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 31 to License R-103 ML20212C2551999-09-17017 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 175 to License DPR-28 1999-09-30
[Table view]Some use of "" in your query was not closed by a matching "". Category:TOPICAL REPORT EVALUATION
MONTHYEARML20217J0721999-10-18018 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept EMF-2158(P),Rev 0, Seimens Power Corp Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors, Evaluation & Validation of Casmo-4/Microburn-B2. Rept Acceptable for Licensing Evaluations of BWR Neutronics ML20217K0651999-10-15015 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-10193P, RELAPS5/MOD2-B&W for Safety Analysis of B&W-Designed Pressurized-Water Reactors. Rept Acceptable for Referencing in Licensing Applications ML20217G0931999-10-15015 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-10179P,Rev 3, Safety Criteria & Methodology for Acceptable Cycle Reload Analysis. Rev 3 Found Acceptable & Accurately Include Conditions & Limitations for Applicability of References ML20217J1101999-10-13013 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108727, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Bwr Lower Plenum Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guideline (BWRVIP-47). Rept Will Provide Acceptable Level of Quality for Exam of safety-related Components ML20212M2141999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Topical Rept EMF-2158(P), Rev 0,acceptable for Licensing Evaluations of BWR Neutronics Designs & Applications,As Per SPC Agreement (Ref 9) Subj to Stated Conditions ML20217B1641999-10-0505 October 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-10228P. Science. Rept Acceptable for Licensing Applications,Subject to Listed Conditions in Accordance with Fcf Agreement (Reference 4) ML20212J1301999-09-30030 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Topical Rept WCAP-12472-P-A,Addendum 1, Beacon-Core Monitoring & Operations Support System, Acceptable for Licensing Applications Subj to Pertinent Restrictions ML20212J9661999-09-29029 September 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-107285, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Bwr Top Guide Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-26), Dated Dec 1996.Rept Acceptable ML20212J9141999-09-29029 September 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108724, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Vessel Id Attachment Weld Insp & Flow Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-48) ML20216F4771999-09-16016 September 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108823, BWR Vessel & Internals Project,Bwr Shroud Support Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-38).Requests That BWRVIP Be Reviewed & Resolve Issues & Incorporate Concerns in Revised BWRVIP-38 ML20211Q3171999-09-0909 September 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting BWROG Rept, Prediction of Onset of Fission Gas Release from Fuel in Generic BWR, Dtd July 1996 ML20212B2501999-09-0202 September 1999 Safety Evaluation of TR WCAP-14696, WOG Core Damage Assessment Guidance, Rev 1.Rept Acceptable ML20211K5711999-09-0101 September 1999 FSER by NRR Re BWR Vessel & Internals Project,Instrument Penetration Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-49), for Compliance with License Renewal Rule (10CFR54).TR Acceptable ML20209H9571999-07-15015 July 1999 Safety Evaluation Accepting EPRI Rept TR-105696-R1, BWR Vessel & Intervals Project:Reactor Pressure Vessel & Internals Examination Guidelines (BWRVIP-03) Rev 1, ML20209J1131999-07-15015 July 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept NSPNAD-8102,rev 7 Reload Safety Evaluation Methods for Application to PI Units. Rept Acceptable for Referencing in Prairie Island Licensing Actions ML20209F1571999-07-0808 July 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108695, BWR Vessel & Internals Project,Instrument Penetration Inspection & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-49). Rept Acceptable.Rept Demonstrates That Aging Effects of Rv Components Adequate ML20209F1261999-07-0808 July 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108709, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project Low Alloy Steel Vessel Materials in BWR Environment (BWRVIP-60). Rept Acceptable for Assessment of SCC Growth in BWR Low Alloy Steel Pressure Vessels ML20209D9651999-07-0707 July 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept WCAP-14750, RCS Flow Verification Using Elbow Taps at Wesstinghouse 3-Loop Pressurized Water Reactors. Changes to TS Bases Acceptable ML20196J3791999-06-30030 June 1999 Safety Evaluation of TR WCAP-14750, RCS Flow Verification Using Elbow Taps at Westinghouse 3-Loop Pwrs. Rept Acceptable ML20196G6321999-06-15015 June 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept EMF-2087(P),Rev 0, SEM/PWR-98:ECCS Evaluation Model for PWR LBLOCA Application, Rept Acceptable ML20195J2681999-06-14014 June 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108726, BWR Vessel & Internals Project,Lpci Coupling Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-42). Rept Acceptable for Insp of safety- Related LPCI Coupling Assemblies,Except Where Staff Differ ML20207H1521999-06-0909 June 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108708, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Underwater Weld Repair of Nickel Alloy Reactor Vessel Internals (BWRVIP-44), Sept,1997.Rept Acceptable ML20207G4971999-06-0808 June 1999 Safety Evaluation Re Mods to TR CENPD-266-P-A, Application of Dit Cross Section Library Based on ENDF/B-VI. Rept Acceptable ML20195D3061999-06-0202 June 1999 Safety Evaluation of TR SCE-9801-P, Reload Analysis Methodology for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,Units 2 & 3. Rept Acceptable ML20207C7321999-05-26026 May 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-2248, Demonstration of Mgt of Aging Effects for Reactor Vessel Internals. Rept Provides Individual B&W Nuclear Power Plant Utility Owner with Technical Details for for License Application Renewal ML20195J2271999-05-25025 May 1999 Safety Evaluation of CE Owner Group Topical Rept CE NPSD-951 Rev 1,justifying, Reactor Trip Circuit Breakers Surveillance Frequency Extension ML20207A6251999-05-21021 May 1999 Safety Evaluation of TR WCAP-14449(P), Application of Best Estimate Large Break LOCA Methodology to Westinghouse PWRs with Upper Plenum Injection. Rept Acceptable ML20207B0241999-05-18018 May 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-107285, BWR Vessel & Intervals Project,Bwr Top Guide Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines (BWRVIP-26), Dtd December 1996.Rept Acceptable ML20206K7691999-05-0808 May 1999 Topical Rept Evaluation of CENPD-389-P, 10x10 Svea Fuel Critical Power Experiments & CPR Correlations:SVEA-96+. Rept Acceptable ML20206D5441999-04-28028 April 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-107284, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Bwr Core Plate Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guideline (BWRVIP-25). Rept Acceptable for Insp & Flaw Evaluation of Subject safety-related Core Interal ML20206D4951999-04-26026 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Topical Rept BAW-2251, Demonstration of Mgt of Aging Effects for Rv ML20205L9441999-04-0808 April 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept CENPD-289-P, Use of Inert Replacement Rods in Abb C-E Fuel Assemblies. Rept Acceptable ML20205L9671999-04-0707 April 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108727, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Bwr Lower Plenum Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guideline (BWRVIP-47). Rept Found Acceptable Except Where Staff Conclusions Differ from BWRVIP ML20205F0251999-03-21021 March 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept TR-108727, BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project Vessel Id Attachmant Weld Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guidelines. Rept Acceptable ML20207E3821999-03-0202 March 1999 Topical Rept Evaluation of SL-5159(P), Methodology & Verification of Gapp Program for Analysis of Piping Systems with E-Bar Supports. Staff Finds Topical Rept Acceptable for Referencing in Licensing Applications ML20203H7381999-02-18018 February 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept BAW-2328, Blended U Lead Test Assembly Design Rept. Rept Acceptable Subj to Listed Conditions ML20203A2581999-02-0505 February 1999 Safety Evaluation of TR DPC-NE-3002-A,Rev 2, UFSAR Chapter 15 Sys Transient Analysis Methodology. Rept Acceptable. Staff Requests Duke Energy Corp to Publish Accepted Version of TR within 3 Months of Receipt of SE ML20203C1841999-02-0303 February 1999 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept NEDC-32721P, Application Methodology for General Electric Stacked Disk ECCS Suction Strainer, Part 1.Concluded That Use of GE Hydraulics Design Method Acceptable for All Plants,With One Noted Exception ML20203A7461999-02-0202 February 1999 Safety Evaluation of Siemens Power Corp Topical Rept EMF-92-116(P), Generic Mechanical Design Criteria for PWR Fuel Design. Rept Acceptable ML20199L6651999-01-25025 January 1999 Topical Rept/Ser of BAW-10186P, Extended Burnup Evaluation. Rept Acceptable.Staff Finds That Improved Methodology Adequate & Acceptable for Fuel Reload Licensing Applications Subject to Listed Conditions ML20198G1851998-12-15015 December 1998 Safety Evaluation for Topical Rept WCAP-14572,rev 1, WOG Application of Risk-Informed Methods to Piping ISI Topical Rept ML20196A4191998-11-19019 November 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting QA TR CE-1-A,Rev 66 Re Changes in Independent & Onsite Review Organization by Creating NSRB ML20195F7941998-11-17017 November 1998 Safety Evaluation of EPRI TR-106708 & TR-106893.Repts Found to Be Acceptable for Replacement &/Or Repair of BWRVIP Vessel & Internals Project,Internal Core Spray Components ML20195F7041998-11-17017 November 1998 Safety Evaluation Accepting Topical Rept NEDC-24154P, Supplement 1,for Referencing in Licensing Applications to Extent Specified & Under Limitations Delineated in Rept ML20195C6721998-11-10010 November 1998 Safety Evaluation of Topical Rept WCAP-15029, Westinghouse Methodology for Evaluating Acceptability of Baffle-Former- Bolting Distribution Under Faulted Load Conditions ML20155G3901998-11-0505 November 1998 Safety Evaluation of TR GENE-770-06-2, Addendum to Bases for Changes to Surveillance Test Intervals & Allowed Out-of- Svc Times for Selected Instrumentation Tss. Rept Acceptable ML20155G3031998-11-0505 November 1998 Safety Evaluation of TRs NEDC-30844, BWR Owners Group Response to NRC GL 83-28, & NEDC-30851P, TSs Improvement Analysis for BWR Rps. Rept Acceptable ML20155B6121998-10-28028 October 1998 Safety Evaluation of TR SNCH-9501, BWR Steady State & Transient Analysis Methods Benchmarking Topical Rept. Rept Acceptable ML20154F0711998-10-0606 October 1998 SE of TR WCAP-14036,Rev 1, Elimination of Periodic Protection Channel Response Time Tests. Rept Acceptable ML20155G2611998-10-0505 October 1998 Corrective Page 9 of Safety Evaluation of TR WCAP-14036,Rev 1, Elimination of Periodic Protection Channel Response Time Tests. Typos Made in Original Rept Re Components Covered by Solid State Protection Sys Were Corrected 1999-09-09
[Table view]Some use of "" in your query was not closed by a matching "". |
Text
!
\
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH DIVISION OF ENGINEERING TOPICAL REPORT EVALUATION l
TITLE: Report SL-5159 (P)," Methodology and Verification of the GAPP Program j for Analysis of Pip.ng Systems with E-BAR Supports" ;
ORGANIZATION: Sargent and Lundy L.L.C. (S&L) and LISEGA, Inc. I
1.0 BACKGROUND
S&L and the German organization LISEGA, Inc., have developed proprietary, patented, piping
! support devices known as E-BARS. These devices are proposed as replacements for snubbers, to be used for restraining piping systems during seismic or other transient events.
l E-EARS have creset gaps that permit free thermal expansion under normal operation. Under j sufficiently large displacements experienced during abnormal dynamic conditions, the gaps ;
close and the E-BARS act as elastic or elastic-plastic axial restraints. The load-deformation l characteristics of these devices are therefore nonlinear in nature. l The nonlinear analysis of piping systems with E-BARS is considered impractical for production design since it is highly complex and requires experienced analysts. S&L and LISEGA have l therefore developed the proprietary computer program GAPP for the static and dynamic !
analysis of piping systems containing E-BARS. The GAPP program calculates equivalent linear l elastic load-deformation characteristics of the E-BARS, thus permitting the application of l standard linear-elastic dynamic piping analysis techniques under all ASME Section ill, Service I Levels B, C and D loading conditions.
2.0 EVALUATION An E-BAR is equivalent to a pin-connected linear support with large gaps. During a seismic event or other abnormal transient condition, if the local dynamic displacement exceeds the gap i distance, the gap closes and the support acts as a pipe restraint. The device is designed to '
absorb the impact energy through plastic deformation of the outer metal housing of the device, thus limiting the pipe displacements and stresses to acceptable values.
2.1 E-BAR Construction The E-BAR consists of an outer tube with slightly flared ends, and two wedge-shaped thick discs, mounted on an inner shaft which slides within the tubular body. The outer tube is attached to the pipe and the inner shaft is attached to the structural support, or vice-versa. The shaft has a fixed and an adjustable stops. The distance between the stops is adjustable to any l prescribed gap. When the gap is closed under the relative motion between the pipe and the !
supporting structure, one of the stops presses against the corresponding disc. The tube I deforms e!astically by the wedging action of the disc into the flared end of tne tube, until the disc expands the tube and the tube yields at a certain axial load, thus deforming plastically and Enclosure
]
9903100251 990302 PDR TOPRP EECSALE C PDR
o 1 i l I
I absorbing the energy of the irnpact. This load is termed the working load, and remains constant during the plastic deformation. The load deformation curve of this stage corresponds to that of an elastic, perfectly plastic material. This is also the load acting on the pipe and the supporting structure. The inelastic deformation is limited by an inner stop on the housing, after which the device acts like an elastic strut untilits design capacity is reached. The maximum load is considerably larger than the working load. The complete load-deformation curve is therefore highly nonlinear, 2.1.1 E-BAR Design
. E-BARS are designed and fabricated in accordance with applicable provisions of ASME Section Ill, Subsection NF (Reference 1), and ASME Code Case N-420 (Reference 2), which is accepted by the staff in USNRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.84 (Reference 3). The material properties used in tiie design of the E-BAR components correspond to those of ASME Section 4
II,1989 Edition (Reference 4) and ASME Code Case N-240 (Reference 5), which is accepted by the staff in USNRC RG 1.85 (Reference 6).
Although LISEGA stated that the design of E-BARS is based on all editions of ASME Section 111, Subsection NF, since 1974, the staff recommends that the design of E BARS be based on the Winter 1985 Addendum to the 1983 Edition of ASME Section 111, Subsection NF, and later
- editions. This Addendum specifies the rules of ASME Section lli Appendix F (Reference 7) for the design of component supports under Service Level D loading.
1 2.1.2 E-BAR Oualification l The topical report describes a representative qualification test report for an E BAR model,
, labeled Type 32. LISEGA performed static tests on the components (tube and cone, and tube and travel stop) of various sizes of this model, to determine their working loads (the load at -
which a tube deforms in the plastic range) and the safe maximum loads. For the size with the largest capacity (78600 lb.) the maximum safe load, determined as the load required to deform a built-in travel stop, was at least three times the working load.
. LISEGA also performed cyclic dynamic tests to evaluate the E-BAR performance under dynamic conditions. Two types of tests were performed:
- Displacement controlled endurance tests up to 2x10E6 cycles at 0.04 inch amplitude, to 2 determine the wear of the guide bore. Results showed no wear in the guide bore or change in diameter.
.
- Dynamic cyclic tests, consisting of low frequency tests (1-3 Hz) and higher frequency tests (> 10Hz) until the working load was reached. The purpose of these tests was to determine the load-displacement characteristics of the energy absorbers under dynamic conditions.
. Static overload tests were also performed to determine the ultimate staSc loads. These tests
, were performed on the units used for the endurance tests. The test loads corresponded to the
- loads determined from analysis for the various ASME Service Levels. Service Level D corresponded to 1.72 times the working load. The tests were terminated when the test loads reached four times the working loads. No failures were reported under these loads.
2
i I r j The staff has evaluated the test methodology and the results of the tests, and finds the
- methodology and the results reasonable and in accordance with current engineering practice, and therefore acceptable.
4 2.2 Program GAPP i The dynamic analysis of piping systems under all ASME Service Levelloading conditions is j crdinarily perfarmed on an elastic beh, using either response spectrum methodology or time-
} history enalysis. Both procedures are based on the modal superposition approach, which
- requires that modai responses be combined by various approaches to obtain total responses.
- Currently acceptable methods for combining modal responses under ASME Service Level
- loading conditions are specified in USNRC RG 1.92 (Reference 8). S&L has specified a number of modal combination methods used in GAPP, including those currently specified in the j Regulatory Guide. The staff finds this acceptable.
2 With installed E-BAR devices, the behavior of a piping system is nonlinear under both static and l
j dynamic loads. S&L has adopted an equivalent linearization procedure found in the literature for 4 analyzing nonlinear structures (References 9 and 10), which permits the inclusion of gapped
, supports in a standard linear elastic analysis of piping under transient loading. This procedure
- forms the basis for GAPP, applicable to problems where the conditions of linear elasticity and j small changes in geometry are approximately valid.
1 l GAPP has the capability of performing static analysis, uniform support acceleration response j spectrum analysis, and time history analysis under support acceleration or displacement time history inputs and force inputs. These analyses are based on modal superposition principles.
1 Time history analyses are based on a combination of modal superposition, the pseudo-force method (Reference 11) and numericalintegration of the dynarnic modal equations to determine I
the system displacements. Since the time history methodology is capable of performing analyses with independent support excitation, it should conform with the applicable conditions j for application stated on pp. 2-2 and 2-3 of Reference 12.
T( 'ccount for the nonlinear characteristics of the E-BARS, GAPP calculates an equivalent linear stiffness by an iterative technique, which depends on the displacements of the piping.
- Similar procedures were previously evaluated by the staff and its contractor, the Brookhaven s
National Laboratory, in connection with the review of a similar device and a similar computer
- program (References 13 and 14), and found to be acceptable. However, this similar device does not depend on plastic deformation of its con.ponents for energy absorption. An extensive
! discussion of linearization techniques, and a comparison of calculations and test results is also
] presented in Reference 15.
2.2.1 GAPP Damping ,
)
S&L stated that the analysis of piping systems with E-BARS based on the GAPP Time History 1 l method of analysis will use damping stipulated in USNRC RG 1.61 (Reference 16). The staff finds this acceptable, provided this RG is applicable to the particular plant for which the use of
- - E-BARS is being considered.
1 5
The uniform response spectrum methodology of GAPP also requires that damping be specified. I S&L has stated that the proper damping values to be used in the analysis of piping systems 3 ;
i o
i with E-BARS are those based on ASME Code Case N-411-1 (Reference 17). This Code case j was approved by the staff, subject to certain limitations stipulated in USNRC RG 1.84 l (Reference 3). One such stipulation is that this Code case is not appropriate for analyzing the dynamic response of piping systems using supports designed to dissipate energy by plastic deformation. The staff, therefore, recommends that the analysis of piping systems by GAPP
- with E BARS should be based on damping values no larger than those specified in USNRC RG 1.61, provided this RG is applicable to the particu!ar plant for which the use of E-BARS is being
! considered.
2.2.1 GAPP Verification S&L performed limited benchmarking of the GAPP program by comparing calculated results l
with measured results from tests described in the EPRI report NP-644219eference 18), and by comparison with calculations performed with industry accepted piping ana ysis computer programs with similar analytical capabilities as those in GAPP.
i
! 2.2.1.1 Comparison with Test Results i EPRI NP-6442 describes shaker table tests with seismic time history input of two simple piping l l systems with gapped supports (not E-BARS), labeled System 1 end System 2. These supports i were designed to deform only in the elastic range. System 1 consisted of a 3" diameter schedule 80 straight pipe, simply supported at the ends, containing a vertical gapped support at a
midspan. The fundamental frequency for this system was observed as 6.4 Hz, and the damping ratio was reported as .25%. System 2 represented a simple three dimensional 3" diameter schedule 80 piping configuration called a "Hovgaard Bend." The configuration contained a vertical gapped support on a horizontal leg, and a horizontal gapped support at one i location on a verticalleg. The first mode frequency was observed to be 4.9 Hz. No damping j ratio was reported. However, based on a recorded strain time history shown in EPRI NP-6442, the staff determined an approximate damping ratio of 1.1%. The staff has evaluated the tests
- described in this report, and finds the results of these tests acceptable for referencing in
- comparisons of calculated and test results, j Using GAPP, S&L calculated support loads and stresses for the two systems described above, i and compared these values with the measured values. Using a response spectrum analysis
- based on a .25% damping acceleration response spectrum, S&L calculated the highest support
- loads and stresses for 10 tests of System 1. A comparison with the test results indicates that GAPP-support loads overestimated the test support loads in 9 out of the 10 tests. The bending stress was underestimated in 8 of the 10 tests Mthin 10% or less, except in one test. where the bending stress was underestimat . .i by about 20% S&L also performed a resp %se spectrum analysis of System 2, for 3 tests o 1 different gap configurations, again using a .25% damping acceleration response spectrum. S&L calculated selected maximum bending moments, and compared these with measured moments. The comparison indicates that the calculated i moments were overestimated. However, there is no assurance that the these moments woe'd ;
have been overestimated M response spectra based on higher damping values had been used ,
l in the calculations of the w..onts. !
2.2.1.2 Comparison with Other Calculations S&L also performed verifications of GAPP by comparing GAPP solutions with those calculated 4
-, , , . , - - - - ,.-.,,,.g. , y , ,
. - ~ . -- - -- .- . _ _ . . --- -. -.- - - - - - - - . -
i d
I l using a similar program, RLCA-GAP, and the commercial general purpose program ANSYS
- (Reference 19), for the test systems described in EPRI NP-6442. The later solutions were also
- based on .25% damping acceleration spectra. S&L also performed verification of the time history analysis features of GAPP, by comparing GAPP solutions and those calculated using the commercial non-linear program ADINA (Reference 20), for the *Hovgaard Bend" contiguration. The pseudo-force approach to time history analysis was also verified by comparing GAPP solutions with those of Reference 11.The GAPP solutions were found to be :
reasonably close to those obtained using the other programs (which have been accepted by the staff in other applications), and therefore the comparisons are acceptable.
The staff has examined the comparison of the GAPP analyses, reported tests described in 2
EPRI Report NP-6442 and other calcolated results, and concludes that the GAPP results correlate reasonably well wlh the test data shown in the EPRI report. These results also support the staff conclusion that the damping used in GAPP calculations for systems with E-BARS should not exceed the damping values stated in RG 1.61.
3.0 CONCLUSION
> \
} Based on its review, the staff finds, this topical report acceptable for referencing in licensing l applications, subject to the following conditions:
- 1. The design of E-BARS should be based on the Winter 1985 Addendum to the 1983 i Edition of ASME Section lil, Subsection NF, and later editions. 1 I
- 2. The daniping values used in GAPP dynamic response calculations should be those j approved by the staff for piping analysis of the specific facility, but not to exceed those j listed in USNRC RG 1.61 (Reference 16).
I j 3. The methods of Uniform Response Spectrum modal combination in GAPP should i correspond to those in USNRC RG 1.92 (Reference 8).
- 4. For independent support motion analysis, the modal and directional components should be combined in accordance with rules listed on pp. 2-2 and 2-3 of NUREG 1061,
! Volume 4 (Reference 12).
i 4
This concludes our review of the subject topical report.
4 5
i
-i l
, . i l
, .1 1 l
4.0 REFERENCES
i
- 1. Subsection NF," Component Supports," of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code f (B&PV) Section lil, Division 1, all valid editions through the latest edition listed in 10 CFR Part 50, Q50.55a
- 2. ASME B&PV Code Case N-420," Linear Energy Absorption Supports for Subsection NF, Classes 1,2, and 3 Construction, Section lil, Division 1" i 3. USNRC RG 1.84, " Design and Fabrication Cod 9 Case Acceptability, ASME Section ill Division 1," Revision 30, October 1994
- 4. ASME B&PV Section ll, latest edition accepted by the staff
- 5. ASME B&PV Code Case N-249, " Additional Material for Subsection NF, Classes 1,2,3 ,
and MC Component Supports Fabricated Without Welding," Section Ill, Division 1"
- 6. USNRC RG 1.85," Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section lli Division 1,"
Revision 30, October 1994
- 7. ASME B&PV Section Ill, Appendix F," Rules for Evaluation of Service Loadings with Level D Service Limits," 1986 edition to latest edition accepted by the staff
- 8. USNRC RG 1.92, " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic '
Response Analys:s," Revision 1, February 1976
- 9. Iwan, W. D.," Predicting the Earthquake Response of Resiliently Mounted Equipment with Motion Limiting Constraints," World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Proceedings of the 6th Conference, New Delhi, India,1977
- 10. Iwan, W. D., " Application of Nonlinear Analysis Techniques,"in Applied Mechanics in Earthquake Engineering, AMD-Vol. 8, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,1974
- 11. Molnar, A. J., et al.," Application of Normal Mode Theory and Pseudo Force Methods to Solve Problems with Nonlinearities," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, ASME, May 1976
- 12. NUREG 1061, Volume 4, " Report of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Piping Review Committec, Evaluation of Other Dynamic Loads and Load Combinations,"
December 1984
- 13. Letter of April 11,1995, from B. W. Sheron, USNRC, to R. L. Cloud, Robert L. Cloud &
Associates, Inc., with enclosed evaluation of the topical report "A Topical Report on the Methodology, Verification and Applications of Computer Program GAPPIPE,"
RLCA/P94/04-94/009, June 1,1994 i
- 14. Letter of May 21,1990, from P. C. Shemansky. USNRC, to T. J. Kovatch, Commonwealth Edison Company, with enclosed Safety Evaluation Report 6
a r
4 i 15. NUREG/CR-6559,"Large Scale Tests of Main Steam and Feedwater Piping Systems j with Conventional and Energy-Absorbing Supports," prepared by Y.-J. Park, et. al.,
- Brookhaven National Laboratory, for the USNRC, August 1998 ]
' )
- 16. USNRC RG 1.61," Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants,"
October 1973 l 17. ASME B&PV Code, Code Case N-411-1, " Alternative Damping Values for Response 5
Spectra Analysis of Classes 1,2,3 Piping, Section 111, Division 1," dated February 20, 1986
- 18. EPRI Report NP-6442,"A Simplified Piping Support System with Seismic Limit Stops,"
July,1989 i
ANSYS Structural Analysis System, Swansen Analysis Systems, Houston, Pennsylvania 19.
i
! 20. ADINA - Automatic Dynamic incremental Nonlinear Analysis, ADINA R&D, Inc.,
- Watertown, Massachusetts j
i 1
i i
e f
1 s
7 i ,
J e - -, w--- - 6