ML20207R496
| ML20207R496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1987 |
| From: | HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207R491 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703170284 | |
| Download: ML20207R496 (139) | |
Text
_
O
SUMMARY
REPORT RESPONSE SPECTRUM PIPING STRESS ANALYSIS USING MULTIPLE SUPPORT INPUT RESPONSE SPECTRA WITH ASME CODE CASE N-411 DAMPlNG SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNITS 1 & 2 DOCKET NOS. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 l
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY 1
FEBRUARY 27,1987
.0 w u88= =888:,e A
. - - -.... -..... -. -. - -.... -. - - -, _ _ _. _,. ~.. _. - -. - - - -, -. - _. _...... -.... _. _.... _. - - -. -... - - -.. _ _. -..
TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Illustrations 11 Executive Summary iii 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 BACKGROUND
2 2.1 Analytical Methodology 2
2.2 Licensing Background 3
3.0 SCOPE DEFINITION 6
3.1 STP Total Plant Scope - NSSS 6
3.2 STP Total Plant Scope - B0P 6
3.3 STP MRS+N-411 Scope - 80P 6
3.4 STP Study Calculations - B0P 10 4.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 21 4.1 Loading Combinations and Stress Limits Criteria 21 4.2 Piping Stress Results 21 4.3 Pipe Supports Results 28
5.0 CONCLUSION
S 31
6.0 REFERENCES
33 Appendix A - MRS+N-411 Scope - B0P Stress Calculations Al Appendix B - MRS+N-411 Scope - B0P Pipe Supports B1 Appendix C - Analytical Results Sumary - Piping C1 Appendix D - Analytical Results Sumary - Pipe Supports D1 Appendix E - Study Calculation Stress Isometric Drawings El i
lO l
4206s/0122s i
l
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS e~'
(
Figure 1 STP-80P ASME Piping Design Scope 7
Figure 2
.STP-80P ASME MRS+N-411 Scope 9
Figure 3 RC8 Natural Frequencies 14 I
Figure 4 MEAB Natural Frequencies 15 Figure 5 FHB Natural Frequencies 16 Figure 6 Stress Calculation RC5109 Natural Frequencies 19 20 Figure 7 RCB Enveloped Floor Response Spectra Figure 8 B0P ASME Class 1 Piping Loading Combinations 22 Figure 9 B0P ASME Class 2/3 Piping Loading Combinations 23 Figure 10 BOP ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 Pipe Support Loading 24 Combinations Figure 11 B0P ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 Piping Stress Limits 25 Criteria
(}
Figure 12 B0P ASitE Class 1, 2 and 3 Pipe Support Stress 26 Limits Criteria i
i
(
L l
{
l ()
l 4206s/0122s ii
_... _ _ _. _ _. - - _. _ _, _. _. ~. _ _...
/'
EXECUTIVE SUlHARY
(
This Summary Report on the use of multiple support input response spectra (MRS) in the response spectrum method of dynamic analysis in combination with damping values provided in ASME Code Case' N-411 (N-411) for piping seismic stress analysis for South Texas Project (STP) Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. STN 50-498 and STN 50-499, has been prepared at the request of the staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the extent to which MRS+N-411 has been used for STP plant piping stress analysis and to provide a detailed discussion of study calculations which were performed to demonstrate that the use of MRS+N-411 methodology for piping stress analysis is an appropriate method for demonstrating the adequacy of the safety margins which exist in the STP plant piping and pipe support designs.
In April, 1985, the Applicant requested NRC approval of the use of the increased damping values allowed by ASME Code Case N-411 in piping stress l
analysis for pipe stress and pipe support optimization and pipe stress verification to reduce the need for seismic restraints, to reduce piping stresses and pipe support loads, and to preclude the need for hardware modifications. NRC staff review and approval of this request was received by the Applicant by letter in May,1985.
Amendment 53 to the STP Final Safety Analysis Report subsequently documented the Applicant's use of the Code Case and the NRC-approved conditions and limitations on its use.
MRS+N-411 methodology was subsequently used for final STP piping seismic stress analysis in 57 Balance-of-Plant ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 piping stress calculations encompassing 1915 large and small bore pipe supports. Twelve (12) plant process systems are partially or totally encompassed by these 57 piping stress calculations. After discussion with the NRC staff, the Applicant committed (January,1987) to perfonn study calculations using other NRC-accepted methodologies for piping seismic stress analysis to demonstrate that safety margins existing in the STP plant piping and pipe support designs 1
4206s/0122s 111 I
l-EXECUTIVE SUWiARY
%/
(Continued) l are adequate. Eighteen (18) piping stress calculations were selected for reanalysis based upon criteria jointly established by the Applicant and the NRC staff. Each of these 18 piping stress calculations was reanalyzed using two alternate NRC-accepted piping seismic stress analysis methodologies. The study calculation results show that piping stresses and pipe support designs (maximum and average) meet Code allowable stress criteria using at least one of two alternate analysis methodologies and that changes in available design margins from one methodology to another are inconsequential 1y small relative to the available design margins in the existing plant design. Line mounted components (valves, etc.) remain qualified for the calculated changes in excitation level determined using the two alternate methodologies. Calculated nozzle loads remain within vendor acceptable limits. All pipe break postulation criteria has been met; no change to current postulated pipe break locations in the plant design occur. Leak-before-break (LBB) analyses (crack stability studies) were re-examined and required margins are maintained and previous LBB conclusions regarding crack propogation being mitigated remain valid. No hardware modifications to the existing plant were necessary. No technical basis for restricting the use of ASME Code Case N-411 damping values in combination with multiple support input response spectrum piping stress analysis could be found.
4 O
4206s/0122s iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Summary Report on the use of multiple support input response spectra (MRS) in the response spectrum method of dynamic analysis in combination with damping values provided in ASME Code Case N-411 (N-411) for piping seismic stress analysis for South Thxas Project (STP) Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. STN 50-498 and STN 50-499, has been prepared at the request of the staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the extent to which MRS+N-411 has been used for STP final plant piping stress analysis and to provide a detailed discussion of study calculations which were performed to demonstrate that safety margins existing in the STP final plant piping and pipe support designs are adequate.
This Summary Report provides a background discussion of piping stress analysis methodology used for STP, a surmary of the piping stress analysis licensing background for STP and a detailed discussion of the study calculation program which was undertaken using other NRC-accepted analytical methodologies for pipe stress analysis. Study calculation results and conclusions are presented. The study calculations discussed in this summary report are currently maintained on permanent file at the i
Applicant's offices in Houston, Texas.
l l
All Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) references contained in this Summary Report reflect Amendment 53 unless stated otherwise.
O i
4206s/0122s - - - - -
7
2.0 BACKGROUND
(d 2.1 Analytical Methodology Analyses of piping systems in the STP Balance-of-Plant (B0P) scope and Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) scope are performed using the methods described in Subsection 3.7.3A and Subsection 3.7.3B, respectively, of the plant Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Ref.1). For B0P, the response spectrum method of dynamic analysis discussed in FSAR Subsection 3.7.3A.1 is employed utilizing Bechtel computer code ME101 (FSAR Subsection 3.9.1.2.2.1) when performing dynamic seismic response spectrum analyses of ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 piping. Modal contributions to uni-directional piping system response analyses and the total piping system response are determined utilizing the methodology provided in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.92 (Ref. 2). When using Bechtel computer code ME101, seismic input motion for the piping system seismic response spectrum analysis is defined in terms of a response spectrum which envelopes all applicable piping system support point response spectra (i.e. enveloped input response spectra) or in terms of multiple support point input response spectra which envelop all applicable groupings of piping support point response spectra (i.e. multiple support input response spectra). The enveloping method requires the user to input a single response spectra curve for each input direction which envelopes the spectral input from all applicable anchor and pipe support points of the piping system.
ME101 treats this spectral input as uniformly applied at all piping connections to equipment and structures, such as pipe anchors and pipe supports, when performing the response spectrum l
analysis. The multiple response method requires the user to group the input response spectra for each input direction into several sets of single response spectra curves.
Each set of response spectral curves envelopes the input from one or more pipe anchors and pipe supports.
ME101 treats these spectra inputs one set at a time when performing the response spectrum analysis and combines the resultant response for each set analyzed by absolute summation. These methods are as discussed in FSAR Subsection 3.7.3A.9.
Damping values for the piping system seismic i
4206s/0122s.
j response spectrum analysis are determined using the criteria provided in NRC RG 1.61 (Ref. 3) or in ASME Code Case N-411 (Ref. 4, 5) as discussed in FSAR Subsection 3.3.3A.15.
The time-history method of dynamic analysis discussed in FSAR Subsection 3.9.2.1.2 is utilized when performing dynamic Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA) or dynamic transient (steam / water hammer) analyses of ASME Class 1,-2'and 3 piping.
Damping values used for dynamic LOCA or dynamic transient response analyses are in accordance with the criteria provided in NRC RG 1.61.
2.2 Licensing Background The STP FSAR was first submitted to the NRC on May 10, 1978.
Subsequently Amendment 34 to the FSAR (Ref. 6) was submitted to the NRC to clarify, in FSAR Subsection 3.7.3A.9, that dynamic seismic response spectrum analysis for B0P piping was performed using either an enveloping input response spectrum or multiple support input response spectra.
At that time, all STP piping stress analyses were performed using NRC RG 1.61 damping value criteria.
ASME Code Case N-411, which provides alternate damping values to those given in Code Table N-1230-1 for use in I
seismic analysis of Class 1, 2 and 3 piping systems, was adopted for use by ASME in September,1984 and was later accepted for use by the NRC staff in June,1986 via NRC RG 1.84, Revision 24.
i In April,1985 (Ref. 7), the Applicant requested NRC approval to use increased damping values allowed by ASME Code Case N-411 in piping stress analyses for pipe stress and pipe support optimization and pipe stress verification as follows:
(a) Support Optimization, where feasible, to reduce the need for seismic restraints (i.e. snubbers).
(b) Pipe Stress Yerification, where feasible, to preclude the need for hardware modification.
l (c)
Pipe Stress Optimization in ongoing piping analyses, O
where feasible, to reduce piping stresses and pipe support loads.
4206s/0122s -
4 O
The Applicant also proposed specific conditions and limitations on the use of ASME Code Case N-411 in the above mentioned pipe stress analyses.
NRC staff review and approval of this request was received by the Applicant in May,1985 (Ref. 8). The NRC staff found the request to use ASME Code Case N-411 to be acceptable for use at STP Units 1 & 2 in the dynamic seismic response spectrum analysis of piping systems, subject to the following commitments on the part of the Applicant:
(a) To use the case for piping systems analyzed by response spectrum methods and not those using time-history analysis methods.
(b) To indicate if the case is to be used for new analyses or for reconciliation work and for support optimization.
(c) Due to the increased flexibility of the system, to
~
check all system predicted maximum displacements for adequate clearance with adjacent structures, components and equipment and that the mounted equipment can withstand the increased motion.
(d) When the alternate damping criteria for this Code Case are used, that they be used in their entirety in a given analysis and shall not be a mixture of Regulatory Guide 1.61 criteria and the alternate criteria of this Code Case.
i Via Ref. 8, the NRC staff also approved reflecting this change in a subsequent amendment to the FSAR. FSAR Amendment 53 (Ref. 9) was submitted to the NRC, annotating in FSAR Subsection 3.7.3A.15 the i
Applicant's commitment to conform to the above mentioned conditions and limitations on the use of ASME Code Case N-411 in STP piping stress analyses. Commitment (a) above was interpreted by the Applicant to mean that the following combinations of response spectrum methods of analysis and damping valve criteria were acceptable for STP piping stress analysis:
(1) Multiple support input response spectra with ASME Code Case N-411 damping.
c (2) Enveloped response spectra with ASME Code Case N-411 i
l damping.
lO
\\
4206s/0122s d
p (3) Multiple support input response spectra with RG 1.61 damping.
e (4) Enveloped response spectra with RG 1.61 damping.
In subsequent correspondence (Ref.10,11) and meetings with the NRC staff in late 1986 and early 1987 regarding the use of " coupled" piping analysis for 12 inch diameter and larger piping connected to the reactor coolant loop, the Applicant was advised that the NRC had not envisioned giving STP the approval to use methodology (1) above. On January 22, 1987 a meeting was held at the NRC offices in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the STP use of MRS+N-411 methodology in piping seismic stress analysis and to establish a program through which the Applicant would be able to provide justification to the NRC staff of the acceptability, for STP, to use MRS+N-411 methodology for piping seismic stress analysis.
The agreed upon program (Ref.12,13) and its results are summarized in this report.
O 4206s/0122s __
O 3.0 SCOPE DEFINITION 3.1 STP Total Plant Scope - NSSS NSSS piping (reactor coolant system piping and associated lines analyzed under the Westinghouse NSSS scope) was analyzed as described in FSAR subsection 3.7.3B and did not utilize MRS+N-411 in seismic stress analysis. NSSS piping is thus not discussed further in this report.
3.2 STP Total Plant Scope - B0P The final BOP ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 piping and pipe support design for STP Units 1 & 2 consists of 239 pipe stress calculations containing approximately 5466 pipe supports, both large and small bore, per unit.
Since STP Unit 1 and Unit 2 are physically separate, slide-along facilities, the pipe stress and pipe support design calculations and associated physical designs are identical for each unit, except where unit specific conditions have necessitated unit unique pipe stress analyses or pipe support designs. Of the 239 B0P ASME pipe stress I
calculations,17 are ASME Class 1 and the remaining 222 are ASME Class 2 f
and 3.
There are 1231arge bore and 34 small bore ASME Class 1 pipe l
supports and 46691arge bore and 640 small bore ASME Class 2 and 3 pipe supprts in these pipe stress calculations (Figure 1). Each of these pipe stress calculations utilized one of the four possible combinations of response spectrum methods of analysis and damping value criteria previously discussed in Section 2.2 for the seismic stress analysis l
portion of the calculation. Additionally, these response spectrum l
analytical methods were used in the stress analyses associated with pipe I
stress and pipe support optimization and pipe stress verification as previously discussed in Section 2.2.
1 I
3.3 STP MRS+N-411 Scope - B0P For STP Units 1 & 2, 57 of the 239 B0P ASME pipe stress calculations discussed in Section 3.2 utilized the MRS+N-411 methodology for seismic O
Included in these 57 calculations are pipe piping stress analysis.
l 4206s/0122s - - - _ _ _ _ - _.
STP - B0P ASME PIPING DESIGN SCOPE l
l l TOTAL NO. ASME STRESS I
CALCULATIONS l
l 239 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l
\\
I I
I l
ASME CLASS 1 STRESS l
l ASME CLASS 2/3 STRESS i
I CALCULATIONS l
l CALCULATIONS l
l 17 l
l 222 l
l l
l I
I I
l I
I I
1 I
I I
I I
I l
I I
I I
I I
I lLB SUPPORTSI lSB SUPPORTSI lLB SUPPORTSI lSB SUPPORTSI I
123 l
l 34 I
i 4669 I
I 640 l
I I
I I
I I
I I
i
- O FIGURE 1 1
4206s/0122s _
. ~. _
(
stress calculations associated with support optimization (i.e. snubber G
reduction) and pipe stress optimization (i.e. load reduction). MRS+N-411 i
methodology has also been utilized in the STP As-Built Reconciliation (ABR) program for Unit 1 (i.e. piping reconciliation) where necessary to perform reconciliation for any of the 57 stress calculations which were originally completed using MRS+N-411 methodology.
i Of the 57 BOP ASME pipe stress calculations which used MRS+N-411 methodology,11 are ASME Class 1 and the remaining 46 are ASME Class 2 and 3.
The ASME Class 1 stress calculations include both Class 1 and Class 2/3 piping and pipe supports within the boundary of the stress calculation as required to properly model the piping system for stress analysis. There are 123 large bore and 21 small bore ASME Class 1 pipe supports and 1488 large bore and 283 small bore ASME Class 2 and 3 pipe supports in these 57 stress calculations. All 11 ASME Class 1 pipe stress calculations included support optimization and 22 of the 46 ASME Class 2 and 3 pipe stress calculations included support optimization
/3 (Figure 2). Further, the same 11 ASME Class 1 pipe stress calculations, U
and 21 of the 46 ASME Class 2 and 3 pipe stress calculations have dynamic transient loadings such as LOCA, steam hammer, water hammer, etc. which were analyzed using time-history analyses.
The following 12 plant process systems are partially or totally emcompassed by the 57 piping stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 j
methodology for piping seismic stress analysis:
Class 1 Piping:
RC - Reactor Coolant System l
CV - Chemical and Volume Control System RH - Residual Heat Removal System SI - Safety Injection System O
t 4206s/0122s,
STP -- B0P ASME MRS+N-411 SCOPE -
I I
I TOTAL N0. STRESS CALCULATIONS I 57-1 l
I TOTAL NO. PIPE SUPPORTS I
l 1915 I
I I
I l
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l ASME CLASS 1 STRESS CALCS I I ASME CLASS 2/3 STRESS CALCS l
11 l
l 46 l
l ASME CLASS 1 PIPE SUPPORTS l l ASME CLASS 2/3 PIPE SUPPORTSI l
123 LB 21 SB l-l 1488 LB 283 SB l
l 144 Total I
i 1771 Total I
Oi i
i i
l l
I I
l l
l l
l l
1
-1 l-1 I
I I
I l
(
4 l
I W SUPT OPTIMIZATION l lW/0 SUPT OPTIMIZATIONI I W SUPT OPTIMIZATION l W/0 SUPT OPTIMIZATION (
I I
I l
l l
ASME CLASS 1 STRESS-l lASME CLASS 1 STRESS I
lASME CLASS 2/3 STRESSI IASME CLASS 2/3 STRESS ICALCS 11 l
lCALCS 0
l ICALCS 221 ICALCS 24 I
I I
I I
I I
lASME CLASS 1 PIPE l
lASME CLASS 1 PIPE I
- ASE CLASS 2/3 PIPE ASME CLASS 2/3 PIPE ISUPPORTS l
l SUPPORTS I
, SUPPORTS l SUPPORTS l-1 I
I I
I I
i i 123 LB 21 SB l l 0 LB 0 SB l l
l 144 TOTAL I
I 0 TOTAL l
l 984 TOTAL I
I 787 TOTAL l
l l
l l
l l
I f
l l
l i
O Figure 2
~ 4244s/0122s.
t' O
Class 2 and 3 Piping A
CS - Containment Spray System CV - Chemical and Volume Control System
- CC - Component Cooling Water System FC - Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup System RH - Residual Heat Removal System
- AF - Auxiliary Feedwater System RC - Reactor Coolant System
- MS - Main Steam System SI - Safety Injection System
- SL - Sludge Lancing System SB - Steam Generator Blowdown System FW - Feedwater System
- Included in Class 1 and in Class 2 and 3 piping stress analyses.
Appendix A provides a listing of the 57 piping stress calculations which utilized f1RS+N-411 methodology, identifies the plant system encompassed by the stress calculation, lists the plant building, plant elevation, pipe size and pipe thickness schedule and provides a general description of the boundary of the piping stress calculation.
Appendix B provides a summary of the pipe support types and quantities included within each of the 57 piping stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 methodology.
3.4 STP Study Calculations Scope - B0P The Applicant performed study calculations utilizing NRC-accepted methodologies to demonstrate that design margins contained in the STP plant piping designs and pipe support designs are adequate. The study calculations were also perfomed to show that, o_n the average, piping system responses and available design margin is relatively insensitive to the specific combination of response spectrum analysis methodology and damping value criteria chosen for the piping system seismic stress analysis.
4206s/0122s.- - _ - _ - - - -
The study calculations consist of piping stress analyses and pipe support
/
i
\\'
design capability analyses.
Selected existing plant configuration piping stress analyses previously completed using MRS+N-411 methodology were reanalyzed using the same final plant configurations and the following NRC-accepted methodologies for seismic analysis:
(a) Multiple support input response spectra with RG 1.61 damping, (MRS+RG 1.61) and (b) Enveloped response spectra with ASME Code Case N-411 damping (ENV+N-411).
To adequately encompass the numerous characteristics of the specific piping system designs contained in the 57 ASME MRS+N-411 piping stress calculations, the following criteria were jointly established by the Applicant and the NRC staff (Ref.12,13) for inclusion within the scope of the study calculations:
(a) include a significant number of piping stress D
calculations in the study base relative to the total Q
number of piping stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 methodology, (b) include all plant systems where MRS+N-411 methodology was used, (c) include all piping sizes (nominal diameter) where MRS+N-411 methodology was used, l
(d) include piping stress analyses for all plant buildings where MRS+N-411 methodology was used, I
(e) include piping runs where MRS+N-411 methodology was used which encompass, to the extent possible, those plant elevations where piping runs traverse both horizontally and vertically through the plant buildings, and (f) include all pipe support types where MRS+N-411 l
methodology was used.
To meet criteria (a) and (b), the following 18 stress calculations (31%
of the total MRS+N-411 stress calculation scope) which encompass all 12 affected plant process systems were selected:
4206s/0122s. --,
/
Plant System Stress Calculation RC RC5101 (ASME Class 1)
CY RC5106 (ASME Class 1)
RC5108 (ASME Class 1)
RH RC5109 (ASME Class 1)
RC0,117 (ASME Class 2/3)
SI RC5114 (ASME Class 1)
RC5026 (ASME Class 2/3)
RC5001 (ASME Class 2/3)
RC6314 (ASME Class 2/3)
FC RC0067 (ASME Class 2/3)
RC0092 (ASME Class 2/3)
MS RC5038 (ASME Class 2/3)
Piping with the following nominal diameters are contained within the 57 piping stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 methodology: 1/2",
3/4", 1 ", 1 -1/2", 2", 3", 4", 6", 8", 10", 12", 14", 16", 18", 20", 24" and 30".
As shown in Appendix A, the 18 stress calculations chosen for the study contain piping with these nominal diameters (criterion (c)).
The 57 piping stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 methodology Reactor contain piping routed through the following plant butidings:
Containment Building (RCB), Mechanical and Electrical Auxiliary Building l
(MEAB), Fuel Handling Building (FHB), Isolation Yalve Cubicle (IVC) and the Turbine Generator Building (TGB).
Some of the stress calculations contain piping routed solely within a specific plant building and some of l O l
l 4206s/0122s. -. - -.
1 the stress calculations contain piping which traverses through two or more plant buildings or which traverses vertically thorough a single
)
' building. To adequately encompass criterion (d) and criterion (e), the study calculations encompassed the various pipe routings as follows:
piping contained solely within the RCB is encompassed in the study by piping stress calculations RC5001, RC5026, RC5038, RC5101, RC5106, RC5108, RC5109 and RC5114; piping contained solely within the FHB is
[
encompassed in the study by piping stress calculations RC0067 and RC0092; piping contained solely within the MEAB is encompassed in the study by piping stress calculations RC0035 and RC6314.
No piping stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 methodology contain piping routed solely within the IVC or the TGB.
Stress calculation RC0013 contains piping which is routed from the RCB through the FHB and MEAB. Stress j
calculation RC0117 contains piping which is routed from the RCB through (within) the MEAB. Stress calculation RC5656 contains piping which is routed from the RCB through (within) the FHB.
Stress calculation RC6526 i
contains piping which is routed from the RCB through (within) the IVC and stress calculation RC6539 contains piping which is routed from the RCB through the IVC to the TGB. Stress calculation RC6528 contains piping routed from the RCB through the IVC and MEAB and to a yard tank.
The study encompasses piping which is routed entirely within a single plant structure, piping routed from one structure to another, piping routed from low plant elevations to high plant elevations and piping l
routed at relatively constant plant elevations in order to address varying levels of seismic input to the piping system.
In general, a given structure will exhibit similar horizontal and similar vertical global vibration characteristics (natural frequencies) at various elevations throughout the structure.
However, buildings of differing geometries and structural configurations will generally exhibit dissimilar global vibration characteristics.
Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrate this for the STP RCB, MEAB and FHB, respectively. The interrelationship between the dominant building modes of vibration and l
the frequency content and energy level of the seismic input ground motion will be exhibited in the building seismic floor response spectra in the J
1 l-4206s/0122s
.- _ ~.... - -
-. _ - _ = _. = -.
~..
_ ~.-. _. _...
T' RCB NATURAL FREQUENCIES t
STF FSAR TABLE 3.7-3 1
REACTOR CONTAINMENT SUll. DING NATURAL FREQUENCIE5*
j Mode No.
Frequency (CPS)
Mode No.
Frequency (CPS) l 1
1.53 19 14.03 2
1.53 20 14.30 3
3.13 21 14.33 16.38 4
3.45 22
+
l 5
3.46 23 16.75 6
3.48 24 19.16
- l...
7 6.00 25 19.63 8
6.35 26 20.18 9
8.16 27 23.11 10 8.99 28 23.15 11 9.24 29 24.54 12 12.35 30 25.04 l
13 12.40 31 25.41 1
14 12.71 32 25.91 e
15 12.85 33 26.29 l
16 13.07 34 26.56 l
17 13.41 35 27.77 i
I-18 13.45 36 29.54
- These natural frequencies are obtained from the EHS sethod for $51 Analysis.
1 4
i i
i Figure 3 4206s/0122s 1 i
....~.--.-.-_-._.-___,......__-,.,.,__,.,--,--_,,__..n_
<-n
---n
-,- -,, --~
.,,.,-n.,._----
v 1
j.
MEAB NATURAL FREQUENCIES i
i 4
4 l
MECHANICAL-ELECTRICAL ACIf11 ARIES BUII.DINC NATURAL FREQUENCIES
- 4 Mode No.
Frequency (CPS)
Mode No.
Frequency (CPS) i 1
1.88 11 19.06 j
l 2
1.89 12 23.49 l
3 2.16 13 24.54 i
4 2.17 14 25.10 5
2.58 15 26.25 6
2.81 16 27.73 1
7 9.44 t
8 11.95 4
j 9
14.04 i
10 17.29 l
l i
l
- These natural frequencies are obtained from the EHS method for $51 Analysis.
t.
l i
t l
i i
il I
Figure 4 4206s/0122s r
... i i
.._--.m.
. _, _ _ _. ~.
~... -....
. j,,
^
. ~, ' -:
t /y
- f. p-
.I -.
FHB NATURAL FREQUENCIES' 1
j.'
1 i
.s i
TASLE 3.7-6 FUEL MANDLING BUILDING 4
NATURAL FREQUENCIES
- j' t
Mode No.
Frequency (CFS)
Mode No.
Frequency (CPS) 1 0.22 15 9.68 (Convective Mode)
/,-.-*
2 0.37 16 9.69
~#
(Convective Mode) 3 1.68 17 9.85
~
4 1.77 18 10.63 I
5 1.99 19 12.21
!l 6
2.23 20 15.19 i
~
7 2.68 21 18.47 8
3.27 22 19.35 9
3.43 23 19.54 10 3.49 24 19.61 11 4.47 25 21.04 12 4.78 26 23.36 13 5.13 27, 27.25 i
i 14 6.16 28 30.53 l
'l
- These natural frequencies are obtained free the EMS method for SSI Analysis.
1 l
l 1
L
(,
Figure 5 4206s/0122s,7
eg 3
p
- fe
'/
n o,
4 s.
1 c
form of amplified response at specific frequencies of vibration.
- Thus, those study stress calculations which contain piping routed solely within v
' a given plant structure (as described above) will address similar amplitudes of seismic input to the piping system at different piping system support points to the building structure for horizontally routed piping and will address varying amplitudes of seismic input at different piping system support points to the building structure for vertically routed piping.
In a similar manner, those study stress calculations which contain piping routed within and between two or more plant structures (as described above) will also address varying amplitudes of seismic input to the piping system at different piping system support points to the building structures for both horizontally or vertically routed piping.
The relationship between the dominant modes of vibration of the piping system and the building system floor response spectra will determine the degree to which the piping system absorbs the seismic input energy defined T
by the floor response spectra at the piping system support points to the y
l
(
building structure. To illustrate, Figure 6 shows the natural (modal) h frequencies of the piping system contained in study stress calculation RC5109 for comparison with the enveloped floor response spectra shown in Figure 7 for all RCB elevations up to and including El. +153.0 ft MSL.
i Figure 7 shows peak amplified response in the frequency range of 4-5 hertz l
(cps) and secondary peak amplified response in the frequency range of 5-9 hertz for horizontal seismic excitation.
Similarly, Figure 7 shows peak amplified response in the 11-14 hertz range and secondary peak amplified response in the 4.5-11 hertz frequency range for vertical seismic excitation. Those piping system natural (modal) frequencies contained in stress calculation RC5109 (Figure 6) which correspond to the frequency ranges of amplified response on the floor response spectra (Figure 7) and which also have high modal participation to total piping system response I
will detennine the highest level of seismic input to the piping system.
As summarized in Appendix B, the following types of pipe supports for both large and small bore piping are included in the 57 MRS+N-411 stress calculations: anchors, springs, rigids (both uni-directional and p
multi-directional) and snubbers (seismic or dynamic transient G
i l
'4206s/0122s '
s
C) restraints).
Thirty-eight (38) of the 57 MRS+N-411 stress calculations (67%) contain only large bore supports, while the remaining 19 MRS+N-411 stress calculations contain both large and small bore supports. To encompass criterion (f), the study stress calculations were chosen such that all support types, both large and small bore, are included. Ten (10) of the 18 study calculations (56%) contain only large bore supports, while the remaining 8 study stress calculations contain both large and small bore supports.
Appendix E containd isometric drawings which depict the stress calculation boundaries and the physical routings of the piping encompassed within each of the study stress calculations.
,/
r I
3 l
l l
l l
l
,)
i l
4206s/0122s j l
. - _. =. _.
t i
s' I.
STRESS CALCULATION RC5109 NATURAL FREQUENCIES l
8
?
+
MODE FREOUENCY CLOSELY SPACED (CPS)
MODE GROUP 3
1 4.480629 1
4 2
5.890119 2
3 6.304258 2
4 8.006211 3
5 11.075469
-4 6
11.823895 4
7 13.386078 5
8 13.789105 5
9 15.677705 6
10 16.847323 6
11 19.130185 7
12 20.815261 7
13 21.377875 8
14 22.529878 8
15 23.914182 9
l 16 26.393274 10 17 27.499924 10 l
18 28.046048 10 19 28.633553 to l
i r
i I
r l.
{'
l I
I r
Figure 6 I
~ 4206s/0122s -, - - -.., _ -. - _. - _ _ - - -. - - -..
RCB ENVELOPED FLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA STF INTELOPED FLOOR DES 1CR SPECTRA FOR 7NE RCB SUILDING AND AT ELETATIONS UP TO 153 FT.,
N S & E-W. S$t DANFINC 23 33 43 33 6.0 E
I5.0 1
6 l
4.0 N
3.0 t.0 g
1.0 O
-:::7-g 0.0 0.1 1.0 FREQtENCT(CFS)
STP ENTELOPED FLOOR DESIGN SPECTRA FOR THE RC3 BUILDING AND AT ELETATIONS UP TO 153 FT.,
TERTICAL. $$1 j
DAMPINC 23 33 42 53 i
1.s 1.4 1.2 1.0
-u
/
0.
0.6 s
0.4 h
l 0.2
,Y W
0 0.0 0.1 1.0 Js.
a-.
g{g,,)
Figure 7 l
4206s/0122s '
l
4.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS 4.1 Loading Combinations and Stress Limits Criteria The normal / upset and emergency / faulted operating conditions and associated design basis transients which form the basis for piping design for STP Units 1 & 2 are described in FSAR Subsection 3.9.
The design loading combinations for B0P ASME Class 1 components (i.e. piping, etc.) are shown in FSAR Table 3.9-2.3 (Figure 8). The design loading combinations for B0P ASME Class 2 and 3 components are shown in FSAR Table 3.9-2.3A (Figure 9).
Design loading combinations for B0P ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 component supports (i.e. pipe supports, etc.) are shown in FSAR Table 3.9-2.4 (Figure 10).
The stress limits criteria for BOP ASME Class 1 piping is shown in FSAR Table 3.9-7 (Figure 11). The stress limits criteria for B0P ASME Class 2 and 3 piping is shown in FSAR Tab.le 3.9-7A (Figure 11). The stress limits criteria for BOP ASME Class 1 pipe supports is shown in FSAR Table 3.9-7B (Figure 12) and the stress limits criteria for B0P ASME Class 2 and 3 pipe supports is shown in FSAR Table 3.9-7C (Figure 12). All piping stress analyses and pipe support design reviews for the study calculations were completed in accordance with the above criteria, i
4.2 Piping Stress Results All ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 piping included in the study calculation scope was demonstrated to meet stress limit criteria shown in Figure 11 for the critical loading combinations determined from Figures 8 and 9 using the alternate NRC-accepted methodologies.
Design margin existing in the plant piping designs is adequate when using MRS+N-411 methodology. For ASME Class 1 piping, upset loading combination (a) from Figure 8 nearly always t
controls the piping stress design basis for nomal/ upset conditions per ASME Code equation 9, subsection NB-3652 (service level B, NS-3223 or NB-3654). Faulted loading combination (a) or (c) from Figure 8 controls the piping stress design basis for faulted conditions per ASME code equation 9, subsection NB-3652 (service levels C and D, NB-3224 or j
NB-3652, NB-3655, NB-3225 or NB-3656).
4206s/0122s _
BOP ASME CLASS 1 PIPING LOADING COMBINATIONS STP FSAR TABLE 3.9-2.3 DESIGN LOADING COMBINATIONS FOR ASME III CODE CLASS 1 COMPONENTS (BOP SCOPE OF SUPPLY) l.
PLANT CONDITION DESIGN LOADING COMBINATIONS Design PD Normal PD + DW + TH Upset
-(a) PO + DW + OBE (b) PO + DW + RVC + OBE (c) PO + DW + FV (d) P0 + DW + RVO + OBE (e) PO + DW + DU Emergency (a) PO + DW + DE Faulted (a) PO + DW + SSE (b) PO + DW + SSE + RVO (c) PO + DW + (LOCA + SSE )
(d) PO + DW + DF (e) PO + DW + HER O
FIGURE 8 4206s/0122s 22
1 B0P ASME CLASS 2/3 PIPING LOADING COMBINATIONS J.
/
TABLE 3.9-2.3A DESIGN I.DADING COMBINATIONS FOR ASME III CODE CIASS 2 AND 3 COMPONENTS (BOP SCOPE OF SUPPLY)
PIANT DESIGN IDADING COMBINATIONS CONDITION Design PD Normal PD + DW O'
Upset (a) PO + DW + OBE (b) PO + DW + RVC (c) PO + DW + FV (d) PO + DW + OBE
+ RVO (e) PO + DW + DU Emergency (a) PO + DW + DE Faulted (a) PO + DW + SSE l
(b) PO + DW + SSE + RVO (c) PO + DW + HEB (d) PO + DW + DF f_
(e) P0 + DW + IhCA Thermal (a) TH + SAM (OBE) l O
FIGURE 9 I
4206s/0122S j
B0P ASME CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 PIPE SUPPORT LOADING COMBINATIONS O
i STP FSAR TABLE 3.9-2.4 DESIGN IDADING COMBINATIONS FOR ASME III CODE CIASS 1 2 AND 3 COMPONENT SUPPORT (BOP SCOPE OF SUPPLY)
PIANT CONDITION DESIGN IDADING COMBINATIONS Design DV Normal DW + TH Upset (a)- DW + TH + [OBE2 + SAM 2 (OBE)]
(b) DW + TH + [0BE2 + SAM 2 (OBE)) + RVO (c) DW + TH + RVC (d) DW + TH + FV (e) DW + TH + RVO (f) DW + TH + DU Emergency (a) DW + TH + DE i
Faulted (a) DW + TH + [SSE2 + sag 2 (SSE)]
(b) DW + TH + [SSE2 + SAM 2 (SSE)] + RVO (c) DW + TH + DF (d) DW + TH + [SSE2 + SAM 2 (SSE) + IACA )h 2
(e) DW + TH + HEB l
l O l
FIGURE 10 4206s/0li 2s i. - -
A B0P ASME CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 PIPING STRESS LIMITS CRITERIA STP FSAR TABLE 3.9 7 STRESS CRITERIA FOR ASME III CODE CIASS 1 FIFING (BOP SCOPE OF SUPPLY)
Fl. ANT CONDITION STRESS LIMITS Design NB 3221 or NB 3652 Normal NB-3222 or NB-3653 Upset NB 3223 or NB-3654 Energency NS 3224 or NB-3655 Faulted NB 3225 or NS 3656 Testieg NB-3226 or NB-3657 O
STP FSAR TABLE 3.9-7A STRESS CRITERIA FOR ASME !!! CODE CLASS 2 AND 3 FIPING (BOP SCOPE OF SUPPLY)
FLANT CONDIT10N
$ TRESS LIMITS Design and ASME III. NC-3600 and ND-3600 Normal Upset, Faergency and The piping shall conform to the Faulted requirements of.&SME Code Case 1606-1 (N-53) 4 4
4 FIGURE 11 i
4206s/0122s l
(N BOP ASME CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 PIPE SUPPORT STRESS LIMITS CRITERIA STP FSAR TABLE 3.9-73 STRESS CRITERIA FOR ASME 111 CODE CLASS I COMP 0NDIT SUPPORTS (BOP SCOPE OF SL'? PLY)
SL'PPORT TYPE PLANT CONDITION AND STRESS LIMITS Desige Normal Upset Energency Paulted Plate and shell NF-3221 NF-3222 NF-3223 NT-3224 NF-3225 design by analysis Linear type supports NT-3231 NF-3231 NF-3231 NT-3231 NF-3231 i
design by analysis Cerponent standard NF-3240 NT-3240 NF-3240 NF-3240 NF-3240 supports, design by analysis Component supports.
NT-3260 NF-3260 NF-3260 NF-3260 NF-3760 design by load rating O
k/
SYP FSAR TABLE 3.9-7C STRESS CRITF3fA POR ASMT fit CODE CLASS 2 AND 3 COMP 0NENT SUPPORTS (BOP SCOPE OF SUPPLY)
SUFFORT TYPE PLANT CONDITION AND STRESS LIMITS Design Normal Upset Enersency Faulted Plate and shell.
MF-3321 NF-3321 NF-3321 NF-3321 NF-3321 design by analysis j
Linest type supports NT-3330 NF-3330 NF-3330 NF-3330 NF-3330 l
design by analysis Component standard NF-3340 NF-3340 NF-3340 NF-3340 NT-3340 supports, design by analysis Component supports.
NF-3360 NF-3360 NF-3360 NF-3360 NF-3360 design by load rating FIGURE 12 1
(
4206s/0122s l
=
. -... ~ -
t l
For ASME Class 2/3 piping, upset loading combination (a) from Figure 9 I
nearly always controls the piping stress design basis for normal / upset I.
conditions per ASME Code equation 9, subsections NC-3652 and ND-3652.
Faulted loading combination (a) from Figure 9 nearly always controls the
' piping stress design basis for emergency / faulted conditions per ASME Code equation 9, subsections NC-3652, ND-3652 and ASME Code Case 1606-1 (N-53).
~
[
Appendix C provides a detailed summary of the study calculation pipfng stress analysis results. Table C-1 provides a summary of the maximum
{
calculated piping stress " design capacity utilized" for each of the study stress calculations for both normal / upset and emergency / faulted service-levels.
" Design capacity utilized" is shown as a percentage of the design j
(Code) allowable stress discussed above and is calculated as the ratio of the peak calculated stress to the design (Code) allowable stress at the single worst case data point in the piping stress calculation for 3 different combinations of response spectrum analysis methods and damping l
value criteria.
Additionally, for ASME Class 1 piping, the calculated
[
cumulative usage factors (CUF) are tabulated. Remaining available design I
I margin at the location of the peak calculated stress can be determined by subtracting the tabulated percentages of " design capacity utilized" from 100 percent.
In only two instances (stress calculation RC6539 using NRC-accepted ENV+N-411 methodology and stress calculation RC5026 using l
l NRC-accepted MRS+RGl.61 methodology) did the peak calculated stress exceed i
the Code ' allowable stress. For these same study stress calculations however, the peak calculated stresses are less than the Code allowable i
stress when using the other NRC-accepted methodology, t'
Figures C-1 through C-18 further illustrate the significant average available piping stress design margin. Each figure shows the calculated average piping stress " design capacity utilized" for a given study stress calculation for both normal / upset and emergency / faulted service levels, Average piping stress " design capacity utilized" is shown as a percentage of the design (Code) allowable stress discussed above and is calculated as the average of the ratio of the calculated stress to the design (Code) allowable stress for all data points contained in the piping stress I
calculation for each of three different combinations of response spectrum 1
4206s/0122s :.- - - -...
analysis methods and damping value criteria. These figures also show the average relative contribution of seismic stress to the total average V
calculated design stress. Line mounted components (valves, etc.) were shown to be qualified for the calculated changes in excitation level determined using the alternate NRC-accepted analysis methodologies.
Calculated nozzle loads were shown to be within vendor acceptable limits.
All pipe break postulation criteria, including the " coupled analysis" results for branch line piping connected to the reactor coolant loop, have q
been re-examined and have been met; no change to current postulated pipe
]
break locations in the plant design occur. Leak-before-break (LBB) analyses (crack stability studies) for the safety-injection accumulator line and the pressurizer surge line were re-examined. Required margins in crack progation postulations are maintained and the conclusions reached in these STP LBB studies remain valid.
4.3 Pipe Supports Results O
All ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 pipe supports included in the study calculation scope were demonstrated to meet stress limit criteria shown in Figure 12 using other NRC-accepted methodologies for the critical loading combination determined from Figure 10. Design margin existing in the plant pipe support designs is adequate when using MRS+N-411 methodology.
For ASME Class 1 piping supports, upset loading combinations (a) or (b) l from Figure 10 nearly always control the pipe support design basis for normal / upset conditions per ASME Code Subsection NF-3200.
Faulted loading combination (d) from Figure 10 nearly always controls the pipe support design basis for emergency / faulted conditions per ASME Code subsection NF-3200. For ASME Class 2/3 pipe supports, upset loading combinations (a) or (b) from Figure 10 nearly always control the pipe support design basis for nonnal/ upset conditions per ASME Code subsection NF-3300.
Faulted loading combination (a) from Figure 10 nearly always controls the pipe support design basis for emergency / faulted conditions per ASME Code subsection NF-3300.
l 4206s/0122s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
O As summarized in Appendix B, four (4) major types of pipe supports are included in the study calculation scope: anchors (six-way restraints),
springs, rigid supports (one-way, two-way and three-way restraints) and snubbers (one-way seismic or dynamic transient restraints).
Since spring supports are designed based upon dead weight (hot and cold) loads only, existing spring support designs are unaffected by the piping seismic analysis methodology utilized and were not evaluated in the study calculations. Of the remaining support types, rigid supports and snubber supports comprise the majority. Multi-directional supports (anchors and two-way or three-way rigid supports) typically have many possible maximum design capacities depending upon the combinations of load amplitude chosen for the design load vectors for each support type. For the purposes of the study calculation scope, multi-directional pipe support types were evaluated as follows to show design capability is adequate regardless of the piping seismic stress analysis methodology utilized.
The applicable design load vectors calculated for each multi-directional pipe support using the other NRC-accepted piping seismic analysis methodologies (MRS+RGl.61 or ENV+N-411) were compared with the existing design basis load vectors calculated from MRS+N-411 piping seismic stress analysis methodology.
If any of the design load vectors calculated from either MRS+RGl.61 or ENV+N-411 piping seismic stress analysis methodology exceeded the corresponding design basis load vector calculated from MRS+N-411 piping seismic stress analy:;is methodology, the existing pipe support design was re-evaluated using the higher calculated design load vectors to show that design capability is still adequate (i.e. code allowable stresses or component load ratings for the " weakest link" in the support design were not exceeded using any higher calculated design load vectors). The existing design capability was shown to be adequate for all multi-directional pipe support types included in the study calculation scope for which higher design load vectors were calculated' using the NRC-accepted piping seismic stress analysis methodologies.
Appendix 0 provides a detailed summary of the study calculation one-way pipe support (one-way rigid or snubber restraint) results. Table D-1 O
provides a summary of the maximum calculated one-way pipe support load
" design capacity utilized" for each of the study stress calculations.
Load " design capacity utilized" is shown as a percentage of the design i
4206s/0122s. _ - - - - - -
(Code) allowable load capacity and is calculated as the ratio of the peak b(3 calculated load to the design (Code) allowable load at the single worst case one-way pipe support in the piping stress calculation for each of three different combinations of response spectrum analysis methods and damping value criteria for either the upset condition or faulted condition load depending on which governs the pipe support load capability.
Remaining available design margin at the location of the peak calculated one-way pipe support load can be detemined by subtracting the tabulated percentages of " load design capacity utilized" from 100 percent.
In only 4 instances (stress calculations RC5109, RC0013, RC5026 and RC5001) using NRC-accepted methodologies did the peak calculated one-way pipe support design load vector exceed the Code allowable design load. For these same study stress calculations however, the peak calculated design load vector i_s less than the Code allowable design load vector using the other s
NRC-accepted piping seismic stress analysis methodology. Figures D-1 through D-18 further illustrate the significant average available one-way pipe support load design margin.
Each figure shows the calculated average p
one-way pipe support " load design capacity utilized" for a given study b
stress calculation for both normal / upset and emergency / faulted service level s.
Average one-way pipe support " load design capacity utilized" is shown as a percentage of the average design (Code) allowable load capacity and is calculated as the average of the ratio of the calculated design load to the design (Code) allowable design load for all one-way pipe supports contained in the piping stress calculation for three different combinations of response spectrum analysis methods and damping value criteria. These figures also show the average relative contribution of seismic loads to the total average calculated one-way pipe support design load.
Figures D-19 through D-25 show the average relative contribution of seismic loads to the total average calculated two-way or three-way pipe support design load based upon the calculated resultant design load (i.e.
square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of the two directional load vectors) for those stress calculations which contain two-way or three-way pipe supports.
I O 4206s/0122s _.
o
5.0 CONCLUSION
S Algorithims for perfonning response spectrum methods of piping seismic stress analysis are well documented and are conventional methods for use in the analysis of ASME Class'1, 2 and 3 piping. Analytical techniques for utilizing single, enveloping response spectrum input at all piping system support points or for utilizing multiple enveloping response spectra input at individual or groupings of piping system support points when performing response spectrum seismic stress analyses are also well documented and conventionally used in the analysis of ASME Class 1, 2 and 3 piping.
Acceptable values for piping system damping have been provided since October,1973 in NRC RG 1.61 and more recently (June,1986) in ASME Code Case N-411 (NRC RG 1.84).
Piping system seismic analysis using either enveloping or multiple support input response spectra in combination with damping values provided in NRC RG 1.61 or using enveloping input response spectra in combination with damping values provided in ASME Code Case N-411 have been acceptable to the NRC staff.
h Piping system seismic analysis using multiple support input response spectra in combination with damping values provided in ASME Code Case N-411 has not been acceptable to the NRC staff. The extensive analytical results obtained from the study calculations which are sununarized in this report have not revealed any technical basis for establishing one methodology as being significantly more or less conservative than another. As summarized in Appendix C, the variations in the contribution i
l of seismic loads to the average total calculated piping systems stresses l
at all data points in the piping stress calculation between response spectrum seismic stress analysis methodologies are not significant.
In no case did any one methodology always determine the lowest maximum piping stress at the single most critical data point in a given piping system stress analysis. The same conclusions can be drawn for calculated maximum and average pipe support loads, as summarized in Appendix D.
l O
4206s/0122s __
O The sample of 18 piping stress calculations chosen for this study are quite representative of-the total population of 57 stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 methodology for the piping system seismic stress analysis.
In many cases, the piping stress calculation in the study is but one of several stress calculations representing other redundant trains of the same plant system.
Since nearly identical design margins exist in multiple trains of the same plant system, the results of the study calculation can easily be extended to these piping stress calculations.
In other cases, the piping stress calculations in the study calculation j
have characteristics which are quite representative of the s~ me a
characteristics contained in the total population of 57 stress calculations which utilized MRS+N-411 methodology. Since the same analytical methodologies utilized in the study calculation would be used if other stress calculations of similar characteristics were added to the j
study calculation scope, the same conclusions drawn from the current study calculation scope will still apply and design margins will, on the average, be demonstrated to be adequate, while variations at an individual piping stress calculation data point or pipe support may occur as in the study calculation. Drastic changes in the average available design margins calculated in a given piping stress calculation did not occur when using differing piping seismic stress analysis methodologies. Larger variations were obviously present in some instances at an individual 4
piping stress calculation data point or pipe support, but total system l
capability was always demonstrated when using an alternate NRC-accepted l
l methodology. Significant design margins in the as-built plant f
configurations have been demonstrated and in no case has a hardware modification to the existing plant been necessary as a result of this study.
i O
4206s/0122s
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
Final Safety Analysis Report, South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499.
2.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.92, " Combining Modal Responses and Spatial Components in Seismic Response Analysis,"
Revision 1, February,1976.
t 3.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 0, October,1973.
L 4.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.84, " Design and Fabrication Code Case Acceptability ASME Section III Division I,"
Revision 24, June,1966.
5.
ASME B&PV Code Section III, Division 1, Code Case N-411. " Alternate Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Classes 1, 2, and 3 Piping Sections," dated September 17, 1984.
6.
HL&P Letter to NRC, J. H. Goldberg to H. R. Denton, ST-HL-AE-1013 dated October 14, 1983.
7.
HL&P Letter to NRC, M. R. Wisenberg to H. L. Thompson, ST-HL-AE-1196 dated April 12, 1985.
O 8.
NRC Letter to HL&P, Thomas M. Novak to J. H. Goldberg, ST-AE-HL-90619 dated May 24, 1985.
9.
HL&P Letter to NRC, J. H. Goldberg to H.R. Denton, ST-HL-AE-1622 dated April 9, 1986 10.
HL&P Letter to NRC, M. R. Wisenberg to V. S. Noonan, ST-HL-AE-1775 dated October 10, 1986.
11.
NRC Letter to HL&P, N. P. Kadambi to J. H. Goldberg, ST-AE-HL-91102 dated January 16, 1987.
12 HL&P Letter to NRC, M. R. Wisenberg to NRC Document Control Desk, ST-HL-AE-1839 dated January 30, 1987.
13.
NRC Letter to HL&P, N.P. Kadambi to HL&P, ST-AE-HL-91182 dated February 27, 1987.
- O i
j
)
4206s/0122s.
1 o
i i
l 4
APPENDIX A l
r MRS+N-411 SCOPE - BOP STRESS CALCULATIONS O
l l
l l
O 4215s/0122s
-Al-E
- A APPENDIX A MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P STRESS CALCULATIONS STRESS l PLANT iPLANT PLANT l
- PIPElPIPEI
- CALC. ISYSTEM, BLDG.
ELEY.
I CALCULATION DESCRIPTION lSIZElSCH.l I
I l
l l
l l
1 I
I l
lRC51001 RC l RCB l +32 - +47 l Pressurizer Surge Line - RCL4 HL to i 16 l 1601 l
l l
l l
Pressurizer l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
- RC510ll RC l RCB I +31 - +94 IPressurizer/ Auxiliary Spray Line-Pressurizer i 2 l 1601 l
l l
l to RCL1 & RCL4 CLs i
3 l 160l l
l l
l l
l 4 1 1601 l
l l
l l
l 6 l 1601 l
l l
l l
l l
l
- lRC5106l CV l RCB l +12 - +44 l Normal Letdown Line - Regenerative HX to l
2l 401 l
l l
l RCL3 XL l
2 1 1601 l
l l
l l
31 401 l
l l
l l
l 4 l 1601 1
I I
I I
I I
i lRC51071 CV l RCB l +32 - +46 l Normal / Alternate Charging Line - Regenerative l 2 l 1601 l
l l
l l
HX to RCL1 and RCL3 CLs l
4 l 1601 1
I I
I I
I I
I
- lRC51081 CV I RCB l -4
- +59 l Excess Letdown Line - Excess Letdown HX l
21 401 Ol l
I l
I to RCL4 XL l
2 l 1601 sI I
l l
l 3l 40 l
I I
I I
I
- l RC5109]
RH l RCB I -1
- +32 lRCL1 RHR Suction Line - RCL1 HL to RHR Pump A l 12 l STDI l
l l
l l
l 12 l 1401 l
l l
l l
l 14 l STDI I
I I
I I
I I
I IRC51101 SI l RCB l -7
- +34 lRCL1 Safety Injection Line - Accumulator A to l 6l 801 l
l l
l l
RCL1 CL: P-M18 and intermediate anchor to I 6 l 1601 l
l l
l l
RCL1 HL l
8 l STDI I
I I
I I
I 8 1 1601 l
l l
l l
l 10 l 1401 I
I I
I I
i 12 i STol l
I I
I I
i 12 1 1401 I
I I
I I
I I
I lRC51111 RH RCB I -1
- +32 lRCL2 RHR Suction Line - RCL1 HL to RHR Pump B l 12 I STDI I
I I
I I 12 l 1401 l
l l
l l
l 14 I 401 I
I I
I I
I I
I RC5112 !
SI RCB l -7
- +34 IRCL2 Safety Injection Line - Accumulator B to l 6I 801 i
i RCL 2 CL; P-M14, P-M15 and intermediate 1
6 l 1601 l
l l
l anchor I
6 l STDI I
I I
I I
8 l 1601 I
I I
I I
i 10 1 1401 I
I I
I l
l 12 i STDI l
l l
l l
l 12 1 1401 I
I i
l l
I I
I 4
- Study Calculation 4215s/0122s
-A2-
/7 APPENDIX A Q
MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P STRESS CALCULATIONS (Cont'd) 15TRE55l PLANT lPLANTI PLANT l
lPIPEIPIPEl l CALC. ISYSTEMlBLDG.!
ELEY.
I CALCULATION DESCRIPTION SIZEISCH.l l
l l
l l
l l
l lRC51131 RH l RCB I -1
- +32 lRCL3 RHR Suction Line - RCL3 HL to RHR Pump C l 12 l STDI I
l l
l l
l 12 1 1401 l
l l
l l
l 14 l 401 1
I I
I I
l l
l
- lRC51141 SI I RCB I -7
- +34 lRCL3 Safety Injection Line - Accumulator C to l 6I 801 l
l l
l l
RCL3 CL, P-M10, P-Mll and intermediate l
6 l 1601 l
l l
l l
anchor to RCL3 HL l
8 l STDI I
I I
I I
I 8 l 1601 l
l l
l l
l 101 1401 l
l l
l l
l 12 l STDI l
l l
l l
l 12 l 140l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l-l ASME CLASS 2/3 I
l l
I I
I i
l l
- lRC0013l CS IMEAB l +13 - +43 IContainment Spray Pump 1B,1C to RCB 1
3l 401 l
l l FHB I +13 l penetration M-13, M-9 l
6l 401 I
I I RCB l +1 I
l 8l 401 hAlRC50261 l
l l
l l
l l
l CS l RCB l+155 - +225l Containment Spray - Containment Dome 1
41 40l l
l l
l l
Upper Ring l
6l 401 l
l l
l l
l 8I 401 I
I l
l l
1 l
lRC00261 CV l RCB I +30 - +11 lRCB P-M46 to letdown and to Reactor Coolant l
21 401 l
l l MAB l +30 - +11 l Purification Pump - 1A I
3l 401 I
I l
l l
4I 40l l
l l
l l
1 I
lRC50221 CV l RCB l +30 - -6 lRHR Pump 1A suction line to RCB penetration l
41 401 1
I I
I I
M-53 l
l 1
1 I
I I
l 1
1 I
- l RC6314l CC lMEAB l +12 - +38 IComponent Cooling Water Line - From 24" to 10.5 1 801 l
l l
l l
HDR to centrifugal charging pump supple-l 1l 801 l
l l
l l
mentary cooler llA and 118 and lube oil l1.5 l 801 l
l l
l l
cooler for pump 1 A and 1B l
2l 801 l
l l
l J
l 31 40l l
l l
l l
l 41 401 1
I I
I I
l 61 401 I
I l
l l
l 1
IRC63151 CC lMEAB l +12 - +38 lSimilar to 6314 6l 401 l
1 l
l 1
I I
l
,RC00331 CC l RCB I +21 - +54 IComponent Cooling Water Lines - RCB I
8l 401 I
I IMEAB l +21 - +72 l Penetrations to 30 inch CCW HDR in MEAB l 10 1 401 l
l l
l l
l 12 l STDl l
l l
l l
l 14 l STDI l
l l
l l
l 16 l STDI l
l l
l l
l 20 l STDI l
- Study Calculation 4215s/0122s
-A3-
f]
APPENDIX A MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P ig STRESS CALCULATIONS (Cont'd)
ISTRESSIPLANT lPLANTI PLANT
-l JPIPElPIPEl ICALC.
SYSTEMIBLDG.I ELEY.
I CALCULATION DESCRIPTION SIZEl SCH. l l
1 I
I I
l lRC00341 CC l RCB l +21 - +54 l Component Cooling Water Lines -
l 8I 401
'l l
IMEAB l +12 - +72 l RCB Penetrations to CCW Pumps l 10 l 401 l'
I I
I I
i 12 l STDI I
I I
I I
l-16 i STDI
'l l
l l
l l 18 i STDI I
I I
I I
I 20 l STol l
I I
I I
I 24 l STDI l
l l
l l
l 30 l'STDI
l l
l l
Pumps to Hx to 30 inch header I 18 l STDI l
l l
l l
l 20 l STDI I
I I
I I
I 24 l STDI l
l l
l l
l 30 l STDI I
I I
I I
-l I
i 1RC01501 CC lMEAB l +28 - +54 l Component Cooling Water Lines - RCB l 12 l STDI l
l l RCB I +42 1
Penetration to 30 in header in MEAB l
l l
l l
l l
1 1
I 1
l l
l l
RHR Hx 1A l 20 l STDI l
l l
l l
l l
lRC50081 CC l RCB l +21 -
-9 IComponent Cooling Water Line - RCB P-M-27 to l
3l 401 l
l l
l l
RCFC llB & 128 l 10 1 401 l
l l
l l
l 14 l STDI I
I I
I I
I I
I lRC50lli CC l RCB l +48 IComponent Cooling Water Line - RCB P-M-23 to I
1l 801 I
l l
l l
RCFC llc and 12C l
3l 401 l
l l
l l
l 10 l 401 I
I I
I I
i 14 l STDI I
I I
I I
I I
I IRC56521 FC l FHB l +12 - +31 IFuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup Line - From i
41 401 l
l l
l l
10" FC-1013 and 4" FC 1103 to ED System l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
lRC56621 FC l FHB l +49 - +24 l Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup Line - From 1 10 l 401 I
I l RCB l +49 I
SFA to Pump 1A and Pump 1B I 12 I STDI i
l l
l l
l l 14 l STDI I
I I
I I
I I
I
- lRC00671 FC I FHB l +24 - +40 l Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup Line -
l 10 1 401 l
l l
l From SFP Pump 1A to Hx 1A 14 STD I
I l
- lRC00921 FC l FHB l +24 - +40 l Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup Line -
13/4 l 401 i
i l
l I
l From SFP Pump 18 to Hx 1B l
11 401 t
l l
l l
l l
41 401 l
l l
l l
l 10 l 401 j
- Study Calculation
(
4215s/0122s
-A4-
/3 APPENDIX A
(
)
MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P STRESS CALCULATIONS (Cont'd)
ISTRESSjPLANT JPLANTl PLANT l
l PIPE lPIPEl l CALC. ISYSTEMIBLDG.I ELEV.
I CALCULATION DESCRIPTION lSIZElSCH.l l
1 1
1 I
I l
l lRC1322l FC l FHB 1 +49 - +30 l Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup Line -
l 3l 40l l
l lMEAB I +30 - +53 l From SFP filter to 10 inch line l
41 401 l
l l
l l
l l
l
- RC01171 RH l RCB i +30 - +13 l Residual Heat Removal Line - RCB Penetrations 8l 40.
l lMEAB
+13 - +44 I P-M55, P-!1-76 to MEAB SI HDR l
I I
I I
i l
l l
lRC5020l AF RCB l +30 - +82 l Auxiliary Feedwater Line - RCB Penetration l
3l 801 l
l l
l M-83 to SG Nozzle ID l
6 l' 601 l
l 1
l l
l 6 1 1201 l
l l
l l
l 8l 801 1
I l
l l
l l
1 lRC50491 AF l RCB l +30 - +82 ISimilar to 5020 - RCB P-M95 to SG nozzle 1 A l
3l 801 l
l l
I l
I 6l 801 l
l l
l l
l 6 l 120]
l l
l l
l l
8l 801 I
I l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
1 l
l lRC50501 AF l RCB l +30 - +82 ISimilar to 5020 - RCB P-M84 to SG nozzle 1B I
3l 801
'l l
l I
l l
6l 80l VI l
l l
l l
6 l 1201 l
l l
l l
l 8I 801 l
l l
1 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I lRC50511 AF l RCB l +30 - +82 ISimilar to 5020 - RCB P-M84 to SG nozzle 1C l
3I 801 l
l l
l l
l 6l 80]
l l
l l
l l
6 l 120l l
l l
l l
l 8l 80l l
l l
l l
l l
l
- lRC65281 AF l RCB l +31 l Auxiliary Feedwater Line - AFW Yard Tank 11.5 l 1601 l
l l IVC l +12 - +50 l to RCB and AFW pump to RCB l
31 401 l
l lMEAB.l l
l 31 801 l
l lYard l +28 - +64 l l
3 l 1601 1
I l
l l
4I 801 l
l l
l l
4 l 1201 l
l l
l l
l 6l 801 l
l l
l l
l 8l 801 l
1 1
I I
l l
l lRC65291 AF l RCB l +31 l Auxiliary Feedwater Line - AFW Yard Tank l
1l 60l l
l l IVC l +12 - +50 l to RCB and AFW pump to RCB l1.5 l 801 l
l lPEAB l l
l1.5 l 1601 I
lYard I +28 - +64 l l
31 401 l
l l
l l
3l 801 l
l l
l l
l 3 l 1601 l
l l
l l
l 4l 801 Oll l
l l
l l
4 1 120l l
l l
1 I
6l 80l l
l l
l l
l 8l 801
- Study Calculation 4215s/0122s
-AS-
APPENDIX A MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P STRESS CALCULATIONS (Cont'd) lSTRESSIPLANT l PLANT l
PLANT l
l PIPE l PIPEl l CALC.
SYSTEM BLDG.
ELEY.
I CALCULATION DESCRIPTION lSIZEl SCH.l l
l l
l l
l lRC65301 AF I RCB l +31 ISimilar to 6528 - AFW yard tank to RCB l
1I 80 l l
l l IVC l +12 - +50 l and AFW pump to RCB 11.5 l 160 l l
l lMEAB l l
l 31 40 l
-l l
lYard I +28 - +64 l l
3I 80 l 1
l l
l l
l 3 1 160 l l
l l
l l
l 4I 80 l l
l l
l l
l 4 l 120 l l
l l
l l
l 6I 80 l l
l l
l l
l 8l 80 l l
l l
l l
l l
l lRC65311 AF l RCB l +31 ISimilar to 6529 - AFW yard tank to RCB I
1l 80 l l
l l IVC l +12 - +50 l and AFW pump to RCB l1.5 l 160 l l
l lMEAB l l
l 3l 40 l l
l l Yard I +28 - +64 I l
3l 80 l l
l l
l l
l 3 l 160 l l
l l
l l
l 4l 80 1 I
l l
I I
l 4 l 120 1 l
l l
l l
4 l 160 l Ol l
l l
l l
l 6I 80 l l
l l
l l
l 8l 80 l l
l l
l l
l l
- lRC50381 MS l RCB I +55 - +113l Main Steam Line - Loop 1 from SGA to RCB l 30 11.375 l
l i
l l
l l
l l
'l i
I l
l l
lRC50391 MS l RCB l +55 - +113lSimilar to 5038 - Loop 2 l 30 11.3751 1
I I
I I
l l
l lRC50401 MS l RCB l +55 - +113lSimilar to 5038 - Loop 3 1 30 l1.375l l
I l
l l
l l
l lRC50411 MS l RCB l +55 - +113lSimilar to 5038 - Loop 4 1 30 11.3751 l
l 1
l l
l l
l l
lRC50421 SI l RCB l +40 ISafety Injection Line - RCB Penetration to I
8I 40 l l
l l
l l
l RHR pump discharge, RHR pump to RHR Hx l 12 I STD l l
l l
l l
Train A l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
IRC50591 SL I RCB l +41 l Sludge Lancing Line - RCB Penetration to SG I
6l 40 l t
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
- lRC56561 SL l FHB l + 1 - +33 l Sludge Lancing Line - RCB Penetration to l
61 40 l I
I I RCB l + 1 I
FHB l
l l
3 1
I I
l l
l l
l IRC50641 SB I RCB I +26 - +47 ISteam Generator Blowdown Line - SG1 to RCB l 3/41 160 l l
l l
l l
1 l 160 l l
l l
l l
l 2
160 l l
l l
l l
l l
4 120 l Study Calculation i
l 4215s/0172s
-A6-l
- :x
$r
- A APPENDIX A y'
MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P STRESS CALCULATIONS (Cont'd) l STRESS l PLANT l PLANT l PLANT-l l PIPE lPIPEl-l CALC.-l SYSTEM BLDG.I ELEY.
I CALCULATION DESCRIPTION SIZE ISCH.i l
l l
l l
I i
l RC50651 SB l RCB I +26 - +47 ISimilar to 5064 - SG2 l 3/4 l 1601 l
1 l
I l
l 1
l 1601 1
I I
I I
I 2
1 1601 l-1 I
I I
I 4
l 1201 I
1 I
I I
l l
I lRC50661 SB l RCB l +26 - +47 lSimilar to 5064 - SG3 l 3/4 l 1601 I
I I
i l
I 1
1 160l l
l l
l l
l 2 1 1601 l
l l
l l
l 4 l 1201 l
l l
l l
l 1
l-lRC50671 SB l RCB l +26 - +47 ISimilar to 5066 - SG4 1 3/4 l 1601 I
I I
I I
i 1
1 1601 1
I I
I I
I 2
l 1601 l
l l
l l
l 4
l 1201 I
I I
I I
I I
i
- lRC65261 SB lRCB l +26 ISteam Generator Blowdown Line RCB l
2 l
401 l
l lIVC l +26 - +42 I Penetration to IVC Train A I
3 l
401 l
l l +11 l
l 3
l 1601 Oll l
l l
l l
4 l 1201
(./ l l
l l
l l
6 l
401 1
I I
I I
I 6
l 120l l
l l
1 I
I I
i 1RC65521 SB l IVC 1 +11 - +42 ISimilar to 6526 - Train B l
2 l
401 I
I I RC6 l +26 I
I 3
l 401 1
1 l
l l
l 3
l 1601 l
l l
1 I
l 4
l 1201 l
l l
l l
l 6
1 401 l
l l
l l
l 6 l 120l l
1 1
I I
I I
I IRC65541 SB l IVC l +11 - +42 ISimilar to 6526 - Train C l
3 l
401 l
l l RCB l +26 l
l 3
l 1601 l
l l
l l
l 4
l 1201 l
l l
l l
l 6 I 401 l
l l
l l
l 6
l 1201 1
I I
I I
I I
I lRC65551 SB l IVC l +26 - +42 ISimilar to 6526 - Train D l
2 l 401 l
l l RCB l l
l 3 l 401 l
l l
l l
l 3
l 1601 l
l l
l l
l 4
l 120l J
l l
l l
l 6 1 401 l
l l
l l
l 6
1 1201 l
l l
l l
l l
- LRC65391 FW IRCB l +48 lFeedwater Line - RCB Penetration thru l
8 l 1201 1
IIVC l +37 l
IVC to TGB - Train 10 l 16 1 1201
)
l ITGB l +47 - +30 l l 18 l 801 v
I l
l l
l 18 l 1201
- Study Calculation 4215s/0122s
-A7-
-APPENDIX A O
MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P STRESS CALCULATIONS (Cont'd) lSTRESSIPLANT IPLANTI PLANT l
l PIPE l PIPE l l CALC.
SYSTEN BLDG.I ELEV.
I CALCULATION DESCRIPTION l SIZE ISCH.l l
l l
l l
l lRC65401 FW_ l RCB l +48 ISimilar to 6539 - Train 1C l 8 l 120l l
l l IVC l +37 l
l 16 l 1201 l
l l TGB 1 +47 - +30 l l 18 l 801 l
l l
l l
l 18 l 1201 I
l 1
l 1
l l
l lRC65411 FW l RCB l +48 ISimilar to 6539 - Train 1B l
8 l 1201 l
j l IVC l +37 I
i 16 l 1201 l
l l TGB l +47 - +30 l 18 1 801 l
l l
l l
18 l 1201 l
l l
l l
l I
I lRC65421 FW l RCB l +48 lSimilar to 6539 - Train 1A 1
8 l 1201 l
l l IVC l +37 l
l 16 l 1201 l
l l TGB l +47 - +30 l l 18 l 801 l
l l
l l
l 18 l 1201 I
I I
I I
I I
I
- Study Calculation O
l l
l l
r l
!O l
l 4215s/0122s
-A8-
O 4
i i
APPENDIX B MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P PIPE SUPPORTS l
l l.
(
I O
l 1
4247s/0122s
-B1-l
- - -. -. ~ -,
W N ww WM-.
'O' APPENDIX B MRS&N-411 SCOPE - B0P PIPE SUPPORTS l STRESS l PLANT IPLANTI TOTAL I ANCHORS SPRING l
RIGID SNUBBERS I SUBTOTAL I
e 4
CALC.
SYSTEMIBLDG.I SPPTS l LB l SB LB I SB l LB l SB LB l SB l LB l
5B l
L l
l-ASME CLASS 1 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l lRC5100**l RC l RCB l 2
l -- l -- l -- l -- l 2 l -- l -- l -- l 2
l l
l l
l l (2/-)
l 1
l l
l 1
1 I
l (2/-)
l l
- lRC5101**l RC l RCB l 82 l -- l -- l 10 l 3 l 34 l 261 5
4l 49 l
33 l
l l
l l(56/26) l l
l l
l l
l l (47/2) I (9/24)l
- lRC5106**l CV i RCB l 29 l
1l 1l 5l 11 4l 3 l 13 l 1l 23 l
6 l
l l
l (5/24) l l
l l
l l
l l
l (4/19) l (1/5) l lRC5107**l CV l RCB l 35 l -- l 1l 9 l -- l 20 l 3l 2l 1l 31 1
4 l
l l
l l (1/34) i l
l l
l l
l l
l (1/30) l (-/4) l
- lRC5108**l CV l RCB l 41' l
1l 1 l -- l 7l 4 l 28 l -- l -- l 5
l 36 l
l l
l l (5/36) l l
l l
l l
l l
l (-/5) l (5/31)l
- l RC5109** l RH l RCB l 13 l -- l -- l 3 l -- l 9l 1 l -- l -- l 12 l
1 l
l l
l (11/2) l l
l l
l l
l l
l (11/1) 1 (-/1) l lRC5110**
SI l RCB l 63 l -- l -- l 2 l -- l 50 l 4l 7 l -- l 59 l
4 l
l l
l l(18/45) l l
l l
l l
l l
l (14/45)l (4/-) l O ll RC5111** l RH l RCB l 14 l -- l -- l 5 l -- l 5l 11 3 l -- l 13 l
1 l
l l
l (12/2) l l
l l
l l
l l
l (11/2) I (1/-) I d lRC5112**l SI l RCB l 118 l -- l--
l 8 l -- l 95 l -- l 15 l -- l 118 l
l l
l l
l(18/100)l l
l l
l l
l l
l(18/100)I l
lRC5113**l RH l RCB l 9
l -- I -- l 2 l -- l 6l 1 l -- l -- l 8
l 1
l l
l l
l (6/3) l l
l l
l l
l l
l (5/3) l (1/-) l
- lRC5114**l SI l RCB l 78 l -- l -- l 7 l -- l 60 l -- l 11 l -- l 78 l
l l
l l
l(10/68) l l
l l
l l
l l
l (10/68)l l
l l
l ASME CLASS 2/3 l
l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
- l RC0013 l
CS l MAB l 53 l
6 l -- 1 5 l -- 1 42 l -- l -- l -- l 53 1
l l
l 1 FHB l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
RCB l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
l
- lRC5026 l
CS l
RCB l 56 l 6 l -- l -- l -- l 50 l -- 1 -- l -- 1 56 l
l l
11 l
l l
1 I
I l
l l
l l
l l
lRC0026
?
CV l
RCB l 42 1
3 1 l -- l 36 2
-- l 42 l
1 l
l MEAB l
l l
l l
l l
l l
i l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
lRC5022 l
CV l
RCB l
23 l -- l -- l -- l -- l 23 l -- l -- l -- l 23 l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
-- l 35 l
18
- lRC6314 I
CC l MEAB l
53 l -- l -- l -- l -- l 35 l 18 I
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
lRC6315 l
CC l MEAB l 74 l -- l -- l -- l -- l 36 1 38 l -- l -- l 36 1 38 l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
I l
l l
l l
lRC0033 l
CC l
RCB l
51 1 4 l -- l 12 l -- l 34 l -- l 1 l -- l 51 l
l l
l l MEAB l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
- Study Calulation l
4247s/0122s
-B2-i
c
/~'T APPENDIX B ly MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P PIPE SUPPORTS r
c (Continued)
'f; s
l STRESS n PLANT PLANT
. TOTAL I ANCHORS SPRINGS I RIGID I SNUBBERS SUBTOTAll l CALC.
i SYSTEM BLDG.
I SPPTS LB l SB LB l SB I LB i 5B l LB l 5B LB l SB l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l 1
11 l
lRC0034 I
CC l
RCB l
85 l 3 1 -- l 11 1 -- l 61 l -- l 10 1 -- I" 85 1 -- 1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
- 1RC0035 i CC l MEAB l
50 l
5 l -- l 3 l -- l 42 l -- I -- l -- l 50 l --+!-
l l
1 I
I i
1 lRC0150 l CC RCB l
16
, -- l 2 1 -
, 14 1 -
, 16 I --
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I l
l l
l l
1
- lRC5001 l
CC l
RCB l
22 l -- l -- l 3 1 -- l 19 I -- I -- l -- l 22 1 - 1 I
I I
l l
l 1
l 1 --
l -
. 36. -- 1 IRC5008 l CC l
RCB I
36 l -- I -- l 2 l --
34 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
l i
1RC5011 l
CC l
RCB l
46 l -- l -- l 1 1 -- l 45 l -- l -- l -- l 46 l -- 1 I
I I
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
I I
IRC5652 l
FC I
FHB I
26 l 2 l -- I -- l -- l 24 1 -- l -- l -- l 26 l -- 1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I i
1RC5662 l
FC I
RCB l
22 l -- l -- l 3 l -- l 17 I -- l 2 l -- l 22 1 -- 1, i
I I
I I
I I
I l
l l
l l
l 1
- lRC0067 l
FC I
FHB l
2 l -- l -- l -- I -- l 2 l -- I -- l -- l 2 1 -- 1 l
l l
l l
1 I
I I
I l
l l
1 I
k
- lRC0092 I
FC l
FHB l
4 l
1 1 -- I -- l -- l 3 l -- l -- l -- 1 4 l -- 1 I
-- l<61 57 1
RC1322 FC FHB 61 3
I l
l MEAB l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 I
I I
I l
l l
l l
1 I
I
- lRC0117 l
RH l
RCB I
13 l -- l -- 1 5 l -- l 8 l --
-- I -- l 13 l l
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
(
l
'l., I lRC5020 l
AF l
RCB l
23 l -- l -- l 1 l -- l 16 I -- l 6 I -- l 23' l -- l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l'
I i
1RC5049 l AF I
RCB I
16 1 -- I -- l 1 1 -- l 8 l -- l 7 l -- l 16 I -. 'l I
I I
l l
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1RC5050 l AF I
RCB l
27 l -- I -- l 3 l -- l 11 1 -- l 13 l -- l 27 l -- 1 i
i l
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
1 l
lRC5051 l
AF l
RCB 28 l -- I -- l 2 1 -- l 18 I -- l 8 l -- l 28 I -- l I
l l
l l
1 1
1 l
l l
l l
l
- RC6528 l
AF I
RCB l
49 l
4 I -- l 3 I -- l 36 l 6 l -- I -- I 43 1 6
l l
l ivc I
I l
l 1
1 I
I I
I I
l
.6 I
I l MEAB I
I 1
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l YARD l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
AF RCB l
37 l -- I -- l 3 l -- l 26 1 7 l -- I -- l 30 1 7l RC6529 ivc I
I I
(
l i
I I
I I
I l
l I
l l MEAB l
l l
l l
l l
l H
l l
l l
l YARD l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
I I
l O
- Study Calculation l
f 4247s/0122s.-
9
'\\
P 4
,.p APPENDIX B MRS+N-411 SCOPE - B0P
'g t'
PIPE SUPPORTS (Continued) l STRESS
, PEANT I PLANT l TOTAL I ANCHORS SPRINGS RIGID SNUBBERSI SUBT0 TALI 4
CALC.
SYSTEM BLDG. I SPPTS I LB l SB i LB SB LB l SB LB l 5B l LB l SB I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
l 77 IRC6530 l AF l
RCB I
38 l
1 l -- l 3 l -- l 27 I 7 l -- l -- l 31 1 7l l
'f I
l l
IVC l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
l l MEAB I
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
^
l' l
l YARD l
l l
l l
l l
l I
I I
1.
I I
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
l l
RC6531 l
AF l
RCB l
30 1 1 l -- l 3 I -- l 19 I 7 l -- l -- l 23 I 7l 7l1 l
l IVC l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l v
l l
l NEAB I
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l YARD I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
- lRC5038 l MS l
RCB I
9 l -- I -- l 2 l -- l 4 l -- l 3 l -- l 9 l -- l I
l l
l l
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l
lRC5039 l MS l
RCB I
9 l -- I -- l 2 1 -- l 3 l -- l 4 I -- l 9 I -- l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
lRC5040 l MS l
RCB 1
10 l -- I -- l 3 l -- l 3 1 -- l 4 l -- l 10 1 -- l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
lRC5041 l
MS l
RCB l
10 l -- l -- l 3 l -- l 3 l -- l 4 1 -- l 10 l -- l C'
I i
l l
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
l g
RCB 39 l 2 l -- l 6 l -- l 31 l -- l -- l -- l 39 l -- 1 lRC5042' l
SI 1:
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
l RC5059 SL RCB l
27 I -- l -- I -- I -- l 27 l -- I -- l -- l 27 l -- l l
)
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
- lRC5656 i SL l
FH5 l
9 l -- I -- l 1 1 -- l 8 l -- l -- I -- l 9 l -- 1 I
I I'
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
lRC5064 1 SB I
RCB l
55 l -- I -- 1 -- l 2 l 13 l 351 4l 1 1 17 l 38 I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
'RC5065 l
SB l
RCB l
41 l -- I -- l 1l 1 l 11 1 18 I 4l 6 l 16 l 25 l 1,
I l
l l
l 1
I I
I I
I I
RC5066 l
SB l' RCB.
36 l -- I -- I -- 1 3 l 13 l 12 4l 4 l 17 l 19 I I
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l RC5067 i
SB l
RCB l
60 l -- l 1 l -- l 2 1 13 l 35 l 61 3 l 19 I 41 l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
- RC6526 l
SB I
RCB ml 30 l
2l 1l 3 1 -- l 14 1 2l 7l 1 1 26 I 4I L
I I
ivc' I I
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 27 l
21 11 3 l -- l 11 2I 7l 1 l 23 l 4l IRC6552 l
SB l, RC B IVC l l
l l
l l
I l
i I
I
,1 l
.l l
I I
I I
I I
I I
l l
l l
l RC6554 SB l
RCB 20 1 2 l -- l 2 1 -- l 16 l -- I -- l -- l 20 1 -- I l
ivc l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
I I
l l
l l
l l
l lRC6555 l
SB l
RCB I
28 I 21 11 3 l -- l 12 1 21 7l 1 l 24 I 4l q
l l
1 ivc l
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 l
l v
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
- Study Calculation t
4247s/0122s !
y --
r
/~'s APPENDIX B b)
MRS+N-411 5 COPE - BOP PIPE SUPPORTS (Continued) 1 STRESS PLANT PLANT TOTAL ANCHORS SPRINGS RIGID SNUBBERSI SUBTOTAL I l CALC.
SYSTEM BLDG.
SPPTS LB l 57 LB SB LB l 5B LB I SB l LB SB 1
~
I s
i l
l I
I I
I I
I I
'l
- lRC6539 i FW l
RCB l 10 l -- l -- l 5 l -- l 3 l -- l 2 l -- l 10 l -- l
'l l
l IVC l
l l
l l
l l
l l
.I I
l TGB l l
l l
l 1
1 I
I I
I l
l l
1
-1 l
l l
l l
l l
l
.lRC6540 l
FW l
RCB l
9 l -- 1 -- l 4-
-- l 3 l -- l 2 1 --
9 l -- 1 i.
- 1-1 I
ivc l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l TGB l
l l
l l
l l
l l
,1 l
l l
l 1
l l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
lRC6541 l
FW l
RCB 1
9 l -- l -- 1 4 1 -- l 3 l -- l 2 l -- l 9 l -- l l
l l
ivc l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l TGB I
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
RC6542 I
FW l
RCB l
10 1 -- l -- l 4 l -- l 4 l -- l 2 1 -- l 10 l -- l 1
l ivc l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
TGB l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l Study Calculation These Class 1 stress calculations have Class 2/3 piping and pipe supports included within the total stress calculation boundary. The distribution of Class 1 and Class 2/3 pipe supports in the str3ss calculation is noted thusly:
(Class 1/ Class 2/3).
1 U
4247s/0122s -
O
~
i APPENDIX C ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SUMMARY
- PIPING O
4 i
i i
O
....-..~...
-Cl-4248s/0122s
i TABLE C-1 i
STUDY CALCULATIONS MAXIMUM CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
I I
l ASME CLASS 1 l
I I
l l
l 1
l l
l CODE EQUATION 9 (B)
CODE EQUATION 13 CUF I
l STRESS l MR5 + '
MRS + 1 ENV +
MRS + l MRS + l ENV + l MRS + l MR5 + l ENV + l l
CALC. I N-411 l RGl.61 1 N-411 l N-411 1 RGl.61 l N-411 l N-411 l RGl.61 l~ N-411 l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
I l
l l
l
'l RC5101 l 68.1 l 84,1 1
67.6 l 77.2 1 88.4 l 76.1 l.9532 l.9550 l.9554 l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l RC5106 I 50.1 l 54.1 l
53.4 I 75.7 l 83.7 l
83.4 l.1507 I.1510 l.1510 l l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
l RC5108 l 61.6 l 80.1 l
65.6 l' 86.4 1 97.1 l 89.3 I.0661 l.0760 I.0674 I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l i
l RC5109 l 63.7 l 65.5 I
64.1 1 89.9 l 91.2 l 89.7 l.3850 l.3870 I.3847 l I
I I
I I
I l
1 I
l l
O l RC5114 I 57.0 1 76.6 l 49.3 l 95.3 I 96.2 l
95.7 l.4829 I.4849 l.4839 l l
l l
l l
l l
1 l
l l
1 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
I I
l l
l CODE EQUATION 9 (D) l l STRESS l l
l l
l CALC. l MRS + N-411 l
MRS + RGl.61 I
ENV + N-411 l
l l
l l
l I
I I
l RC5101 l 91.0 l
93.2 I
95.7 l
l l
l l
1 i RC5106 l 98.6 l
99.9 l
100.0 l
l l
l l
l I
l RC5108 l 95.3 l
98.6
- l 96.5 I
l l
l 1
l l RC5109 l 78.5 l
77.6 1
75.3 l
l l
l l
l l
l RC5114 I 82.0 l
87.5 I
82.0 l
l l
l l
l l
O
('
4248s/0122s -
1 1
.l TABLE C-1 i
STUDY CALCULATIONS i
MAXIMUM CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) l ASME CLASS 2/3 i
I I
I I
l l
CODE EQUATION 9(B) l CODE EQUATION 9(D) l I
I I
I i
I l STRESS I MRS +
l MRS +
l ENY +
l MRS +
l MRS +
1 ENV +
l l
CALC. I N-411 1
RG1.61 1
N-411 1
N-411 l
RGl.61 1
N-411 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l 1
I I
I l RC0117 l 48.4 l
59.8 I
50.3 1
33.5 l
39.9 l
35.8 I
l l
l l
l l
1 l'
l RC0013 I 31.3 1
38.8 1
35.5 l
20.8 I
26.9 I
26.9 1
1 I
I I
I I
I i
l RC5026 l 51.8 l
71.4 1
46.1 1
81.8 l
104.8 l
69.4 I
l 1
l l
l l
l l
l RC0035 l 66.7 1
70.1 1
65.4 1
38.1 l
39.5 1
38.1 l
l I
l l
1 l
l l
1 RCSC01 1 40.6 I
49.0 l
43.2 l
39.2 1
45.7 I
44.4 i
I I
I l
l 1
1 I
RC6314 41.1 45.4 41.0 l
23.0 l
24.3 1
23.2 I
I I
I I
I I RC0067 l 12.8 l
17.2 l
15.7 l
9.8 l
12.2 1
13.0 I
I i
I I
l l
l l RC0092 l 24.8 l
29.2 1
21.8 l
17.2 1
22.0 1
15.8 I
I I
l l
l l
l l
1 RC6528 1 66.2 l
80.9 l
72.1 1
40.2 1
47.0 1
48.6 l
54.9(I)l 54.9(I) l 54.9(I) 1 33.2(2)l1 33.2(2) lI 33.2(20)I l
l l
l I
l l RC5038 l l
I I
I I
I I
I I RC5656 1 38.0 1
52.4 l
57.8 l
27.7 l
34.8 1
40.6 I
I l
l l
l l
i l
l RC6526 1 64.3 l
78.7 I
73.6 1
39.4 l
45.9 l
44.1 1
I I
I I
I l
l l RC6539 89.0 l
97.0 l
113.4 l
62.3 l
68.8 I
90.9 l
l l
l l
l l-l (1) Maximum Stress Controlled by Steam Hammer Transient Loading (2) Maximum Stress Controlled by LOCA Transient Loading 4248s/0122s
-C3-
m STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
YfYYf/k ff/Iff/)
YfYffff/b
- Pacssa nc l
fl,
- %'ais e r h,e C&As s I, 2, 3 O
ffff/j flfl f
- NssE'+ tuA' f SSE h
ik hk Pucssane m j)'
ll,
!f, w' eta H T -
n.
-EA
- - S a.
Legend For Figures Cl to C18 l,
4279s/0125s
-C4-
(]-
STUDY CALCULATIONS ld r
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC5101 fon. sos Maximum:
1 2
3 EQ.9B(PSI) 17370 21450 17245 s o.cos.
EQ.13(PSI) 39379 45090 38789 C.U.F.
.9532
.9550
.9554 l,, ",,' ~.
e O 43 CDs -
I 3C CST -
U EU*
<__._i<,-,
f&.' 5lU,1yl<,% l Off-lY.'YlWhf'"
'N N
aces p
1 2
3
(
i eers...ii f 2,4rs.i n f3 cmN.ii PIPING STRESS RC5101 toum:m so MaximumEQ.9Dstress(PSI):
~
1 = 46400 2 = 47540 3 = 48803 so ent -
Allowable = 51000 PSI re cus -
5 g sness-i
- secos-40 ces -
I 3 0.OCs -
20 CDs -
_ hk hf ", '
f _ [.'., f 'If f
k 1000s -
f e
M..NWN.
MMM\\\\d
..,os 1 6Af;+k411/ 2fAf 3+161 /3 tNWN411 p,y Figure C1 l
l i
l 4279s/0125s
-C5-t
STUDY CALCULATIONS (m\\
\\
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPlf4G SEESS RC5106 taunca es Maximum 1
2 3
ee ecz -
EQ.9B(PSI) 12680 13549 13383 EQ.13(PSI) 37198 41135 40983 sc ons -
C.U.F.
.1507
.1510
.1510 rs act -
Allowables E0.9B = 25050 PSI EQ.13 = 49150 PSI g sanct-s p ect -
t 6 4e en -
p
.n,,,:1
';,:::::.':'y,:::b.
- gqq:,9f',
- . s;....,..,.....
- ...., w,,,
- 7 sg
-s s
$\\x s - MN
, - s s e cct -
l '.ON' e'.}'c';s )MN',\\$Qj s
N.syw$.
\\
- .';.>;6c; c;.;
.;s';.,sNJ.e,lc NN,c,
- c:.1 -
s ws;9 sy e w w ;sb,s, y
ses s
\\s,,, s e[5
.\\
y,
g* g
[N.
=
- \\\\,\\\\'
- s gg s
.ss 105L1
. !' /. / '! i.,
,,;,;<;;p.,.
, y,;,,;..$/,
iens..m fw n.istf m +,.n
\\
PIPlfJG STRESS RC5106 tconce sc Maximum EQ.9D stress (PSI) :
,,,pg, 1 = 49480 2.= 50170 3 = 50190 B C ttT -
Allowable = 50190 PSI rt t:1 -
W d
. s c c:t -
secos.
U
.p. ys <>...6
. k. V...',.. '.1 / o 0,'5,',(.'?.,;,Uf.'.k'4.','bi
.1 s a r, j s.
s j,i X. a '>'% '?h.'lsv$1,,:a </<4NUC l,-l$<'<'dd' ' l
.! < M,. i., : '<,' ', ': i
(
42 Cct -
,.. i a. n, - s
. '. 9 ::.::'<:=
' '.; :.6.'., ', .M...,'. ' '
\\
'.+,,:b'l * 'd '/'-:i,,,l',. S'4. ' %,., '.G l.':y- (&. Y<'/>
,'. 4 s
. ;. <. ',U '/O, 'w{ '/f/a :&* :
-l l
3 C Dct -
i,
< 's.
. 1 6
^. f r.., ;g;.'ld;g, 1,o <,
- !=s. W}i '-:16'::{;;, ;;,:rg.}p?,.,. on
/:
s'dp' l
,:',;s.. /,ic,.,,-; /. < ;,,a.r J
' ;w.-
/>,;',s!.
);,',,
- ti.
- sirs, s
. g ;, p.gui.,
,.s; l
3D DCE -
a, gain.si,..,64 s,,tists, ss,,, 'g:,<;f
- s.,,, a a <,. i,, s
/ s \\ \\\\. Nh'.
\\\\ ' \\\\\\'s
\\\\\\\\[kN.\\
~ NN\\\\\\
1CC t-
\\ ;
,h)
\\
.. $./
0 00T 1 9di+h411/29Al'h+1 s1/3 LNWN411 A
Figure C2 4279s/0125s
-C6-
STUDY CALCULATIONS 73 AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC5108 1se sos Maximum 1
2 3
" " * ~
EQ.9B(PSI) 15440 20055 16416 EQ.13(PSI) 43274 48668 44752 8'"*"
C.U.F.
0.0661 0.0760 0.0674 r e sts -
Allowables EQ.9B = 25050 FSI EQ.13 = 50100 PSI Iseses-e o ecs -
t 4 scs-30 scs -
sss'sssssa Ns N w s s mNNNw s
'l///////
/////////
/////////
g ggg T'N
?
i i
U i uru,.ii o.. n. u i o.r. 1, PIPlNG STRESS RC5108 scen a so MaximumEQ.93 stress (PSI):
" ' * * ~
1 = 47770 2 = 49406 3 = 48322 s c ots - Allowable = 50100 PSI i
f a ces -
s o ccs.
l s c ots -
aC mwww mwxxw mwxxw
,,g, 1
2 3
turpuest /J ws+1.si A.rwe,411 Figure C3 l
l 4279s/0125s
-C7-
r-l l
/
STUDY CALCUL.\\TIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC5109 tea ses Maximum 1
2 3
EQ.9B(PSI) 15710 16140 15810 EQ.13(PSI) 52986 53765 52867 esus-C.U.F.
.3850
.3870
.3847
" " * ~
Allowables EQ.9B = 24660 PSI EQ.13 = 58950 PSI E SD DCS -
45 C:t -
E S CCE O
1 2
3 1Mr&+ N 411 /2M 5+1.51 /3.trAN 411 PIPING STRESS RC5109 toum en
,,,, MaximumEQ.9Dstress(PSI) 1 = 38700 2 = 38256 3 = 37148 so ots -
Allowable = 49320 PSI F B CCE -
I D 001 -
E 30.001 -
45 CCE -
3B ODI -
" " *TMi&MA WMMM W 7A M h\\\\M h\\\\\\\\M h\\M
" " " ~
i s cox 1
2 3
1MtkN 411 /3M ht.01 /3:tW A N 411 O
Figure C4 1
4279s/0125s
-C8-
i y-)
(
STUDY CALCULATIONS v
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC5114 le s. sos Maximum:
1 2
3
~
EQ.98(PSI) 14280 19195 12342 EQ.13(PSI) 56159 56735 56388 e s.ess -
C.U.F.
4829 4849 4839 to.ons -
Allowables EQ.9B = 25050 PSI g senos-EQ.13 = 58950 PSI sc ons -
4c ons -
' an.cos -
3e ons - Mn'N&WM bbkhN' SSSMlM6'M) t o nos -
g e no.
1.uchu411 A wbl.si /3.twAu4u PIPING STRESS RC5114 los cos Maximum EQ.9D stress (PSI):
1 = 41100 2 = 43850 3 = 41100
~
Allowable = 50100 PSI r o ses -
s o nes -
l se nos -
h 4o.cos-t an nos -
sc ons -
b o cos xxxxxxxw'I xxxx'xxxw m s' w f o ons -
r 1
2 3
l 1:Mtb N 411 /3M S+1.s1 /3 -f WAN 411
%/
Figure C5 42795/0125s
-C9-
STUDY CALCULATIONS
,m
!V)
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC0117 touna oc 1
1 = 9112 2 = 11265 3 = 9468 ae-Allowable = 18840 PS!
s7-g 23-t h
04-E D3-
/ :.*s S '
?l1
]WbO'!9NON$
D2-'
m
/ ~'?,
i /,
s',, 9 i.i /,' i///
s>
1 2
3 t ur5+h4112 6f s+121 3 tW/+#411 PIPING STRESS RC0117 E:ena so
,,,,g, eo out -
1 = 12626 2 = 15020 3 = 13483 All wable = 37680 PSI ra ces -
g s o n:s -
2 se cos-1 e
4D att -
3090% -
2D DC% -
10.001 1'S??'l'.'$?':'k5^?f hk?kkk.$k$h 7/ @ Xpl{/QQQ',,'-lW ON5NN M'sWNM, xMS,N%NN i
e.cos l
1 2
3
,,m. 4,, 2,.,,,,, o m.,,,,
On U
Figure C6 i
-C10-4279s/0125s
STUDY CALCULATIONS O(h AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RCOO13 sauanoN n secon -
MaximumEQ.9Bstress(PSI):
)
i 1 = 4860 2 = 6016 3 = 5500 i
anoon -
Allowable = 15500 PSI vonos -
sooon -
.o _.
!.ooo= -
y r
moos-moon -
1onoK -(M/MMDM46 YSSSSSYSSA YE E E E E E / E /A s,\\,N,N,N,N,N,N,Y, s,\\,N,N,N,N,N,N,N, s,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,V, 1
2 3
1 :mRs+N411 A mRS+1.41 /3 ENV+N411 00 PIPING STRESS RC0013 souATloN DD 1CCooE MaximumEQ.9Dstress(PSI):
1 = 6448 2 = 8327 3 = 8340 somos -
Allowable = 31000 PSI 7ocos -
5 acoon -
t accon -
E
.o ooz -
y i
t moo -
moon-socos -
(
T'X'""", """C1
""""","""d V"""""""("'
i onot 1
2 3
i ines+N4t t A uns+1.st /3 ENv+N4ti N
Figure C7 4279s/0125s
-Cll-
I STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
FIPING STRESS RC5026 SOW 4CW 98 1ee. sat Haximum EQ.98 stress (PSI):
e s.ess -
2 = 13225 3 = 8544
~
1 = 9592 es ses.
Allowable = 18528 PSI 7 s.coz -
an ass -
F.
55.00% -
49 DCE -
E 3 3.05 % -
2 0 OD E -
Y w' S't?bEh!N'Ybb M&W:w e' v' /e 10 C:1 -
- wwwe g g,g s s. ' s.[ i. - f
' ?// s.
<?
1 3
3 1 WS+N411/298t5+?.51 /3 ENV+'t411 PIPING STRESS RC5026 twnca no t o o.est llaximum EQ.90 stress (PSI):
g o,gg _
1 = 30319 2 = 38849 3 = 25735 u est -
Allowable = 37056 F c ost -
a n. ens -
s c oot -
4C.SD -
3 r FEX -
- n sez -
I f
$bkh$$$$$
s.
>ses
.s g
u s'
- s. s.
s 1
s 3
1 68t$+p411/29df"T+1 s1 /3 (Nwu 411 Figure C8 i
l l
4279s/0125s
-C12-l l
.... ~...
(3 STUDY CALCULATIONS O
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC0035 tema ss Maximum EQ.9B stress (PSI):
u 1 = 12005 2 = 12609 3 = 11776
"~
Allowable = 18000 PSI a.7 -
n.s -
T C5-04-03-02-
'X5llill' ?'Xill'li
<.. ///. '///. W..'. '..
.i,i,,....,,.
N
/.'////
' / / / / /,' '
/////////
1 2
3 1 MP3+ N 411 2.65 5+ 1.01 3 [K/+ N 411 PIPING STRESS RC0035 lea nos Maximum EQ.9D stress (PSI):
1 = 13727 2 = 14207 3 = 13709
" " * ~
Allowable = 36000 PSI t o ens -
i
. 8 C DDt -
5 D ODT -
t 40.D03 -
3 B ODE -
30301 -
l 1 D.801 s\\\\NN\\NW sNNN\\NNNN
xN\\\\\\\\\\W E DQ%
1 2
3 1 Mrs+N4112 65 5+1.01 3 TW/+N411 O
Figure C9 4279s/0125s
-C13-
- ~. -..
STUDY CALCULATIONS
-~
/
s
)
(V AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC5001 coun ca u MaximumEQ.98 stress (PSI):
1 = 7315 2 = 8828 3 7783 s e ces -
Allowable = 18000 PSI ro oms -
2
$ st o:t -
d
- S O 0tI -
t b 4c ens -
Lk 3 e c::-
2 D L11 -
[k?Nh[','Y%N NpMO#<:s "d
,,,3 s _
',Qf g:;
,f'Q & Q
'l
..;:,;~:\\' 'j'g,%
u e:s 1 t4F'r+>4 e t /2ter341 s1 /3 [se wh4ti l
i PiFilJG STRESS RC5001 tra n c= so 1000:1 MaximumEQ.9Dstress(PSI):
,,,eg,
1 = 14118 2 = 16462 3 = 15972 8 P D:t Allowable = 36000 PS!
70 C:t -
N l
9 s::c:-
o d<. 5 0 CDT -
t-b 4L CUT -
3D C3% -
SC DC1 -
)$,,.?,h:
a; hj ;,
'% })
1 D CD1 -'.,, g >, g,.,o
,,s yc,w;s,
uct. w,,
e a:s -
s 1
2 3
1 9.4r3 +m411/ 2HrH1 s1 /3 (NWN 411 Figure C10 4279s/0125s
-C14-
STUDY CALCULATIONS
.//
4 AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPlNG STRESS RC6314 tou4 ce es Maximum EQ.98 stress (PSI):
1 = 7399 2 = 8178 3 = 7379
- * * " Allowable = 18000 PSI 10.0C% -
5 C.tr.3 -
< $ 0 tLI-e 4030". -
3 D t*1 -
2 2 3*% -
1 D COI -
j IE O, N I El
-g_-
3 OCT
'e d-4'r** '
1 2
3
\\
1 brb+N411/2Mr5+1.51/3 &nWwatt PIPlNG STRESS RCG314 tcc c cA to j
I = 8278 2 = 8732 3 = 8335 sc "rt -
Allowable = 36000 PSI 1 e c:2 -
E DRE -
l SCMIg r
b 4 tut -
I 33 CtX -
2 C.CCE -
10 B31 -
3.23' I
~
^
1 1
2 3
1 Nrl+N411/2MEs+1.51/3-tuwn411 l
Figure C11 4279s/0125s
-C15-
STUDY CALCULATIONS
,-q AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PlPING STRESS RCOOG7 la O sts MaximumEQ.9Bstress(PSI):
1 = 2414 2 = 3244 3 = 2953 30.001 -
Allowable = 18840 PSI r e scs -
- 1. sO.OOs-50001 -
t b 40 051 -
B 30.001 -
2 0 COE -
1 D OCE -
i..a T%%%'r'/ W/ '.% ;
(?. w r.
'i...
.N N N NNN s_N1
.\\\\ N N N s N N'
\\\\\\\\. N'.\\\\'
1 2
3 1Mrs+ N411 2 W 5+1.01 3 tw/+N411 PIPING STRES9 RC0067 COUMENs 30 169 031 -
1 = 3678 2 = 4584 3 = 4903 eD ocs -
Allowable = 37680 PSI r O Oct -
B O OCT -
50001 -
t 40 Oct -
30001 -
2 0 BCE -
i 15001 -
V.'/////1/. '. ' '/>i!.G 1
,i i 1,
m '/////>L '.'. '/. '/A.
s m
r r
Vio. '
1 1
s 1
2 3
1Mr$+N4112 W 5+1.51 3 tw/+N411 Figure C12 4279s/0125s
-C16-
i STUDY CALCULATIONS AYERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PlPING STRESS RC0092
~
te n. ens MaximumEQ.9Bstress(PSI):
as set -
1 = 3956 2 = 4660 3 = 3476 e s. net -
Allowable = 15960 PSI rs set -
- S O CCE -
R 5 0 C01 -
t:
h 4D DD1-B 3 D.001 -
2 0 Ot1 -
~
i'/nflWl'X%V'
_, v,,1,.
-s s x * ',
'y x-s
's x s 's s
4 1
2 3
a 1 Hr5+W4112 W 5+1.51 3 tF/+p411 PIPING STRESS RC0092 twm:* so Maximum EQ.9Dstress(PSI):
" " * ~
1 = 5497 2 = 7028 3 = 5030
" " * ~
Allowable = 31920 PSI in :% -
50 DDT -
5000% -
I b
4D 001 -
3 D DCE -
20 DCT -
I t 001 -
.. U.'
>. A V'X47MWfrXM9'l v/ .'s.' zw o.
O 90%
.7 i
s 1
2 3
1 MPE + N 411 2 W S+1.81 3.[W+ N 411
(
Figure C13 r
4279s/0125s
-C17-W'-
-Mm vt Tr
--w T
w w
r--
P 7nd
-=w-p m---aw-m ery----------ewaw w-v--wr--
-w
+
p' we---
- - + --
i STUDY CALCULATIONS i
e)
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(*. OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC6528 "d " "
inc ces s o ens -
MaximumEQ.9Bstress(PSI):
e n ess -
1 = 11914 2 = 14558 3 = 12982 Allowable = 18000 PSI rs scs -
s a ccz -
b 6 0 6L1 -
t b 4DC % -
b sa ces.
,, ?' -
2 D DCT -' t,,p',j_,,,g
' ig i
a-
,j,
' "" H'd'kihM dxMs$
$h%,
x n ets
/.,
//
1 2
3 1 Mrs+u4ti /2Mrs+1+1/3 tawu4ti FIF1NG STRCss ROG52e tcene so
,g Maximum EQ.9D stress (PSI):
1 = 14489 2 = 16902 3 = 17512 sc cet -
Allowable = 36000 PSI r a nnt -
s e ont -
b 50001 -
i e
b 40 pct -
E 3 D CD% -
2 0 Oct -
inecx-Msml2 M nysgAjipi p2Myfggg:#
bM\\NN' N\\\\ \\\\\\N N \\\\ M \\)
1 2
3 i urs+u411/29ts+1.si /s twwusti Os Figure C14 1
i l
l 4279s/0125s
-C18-
. ~, _
STUDY CALCULATIONS p)
IV AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC5038 toun ca no inn ont Maximum EQ.9B stress = 11529 PSI, governed by steam so set -
hamer loads.
Allowable = 21000 PSI en set -
r e pot -
a e cot -
$ se cot -
t 0 4c rat -
2
' 1 %'VM'%'f-l%'
' VM& M,', ',. _ _
3 g CQt -
r b3 Aa k
20 Cct -
O TDT 1
2 3
1 94Fs+ h411/2Mrs+1.81 /3 EkWN411 i
PlPING STRESS RC5038 EGUN C*l s0 t o o.cct Maximum EQ.90 stress = 13964 PSI, governed by LOCA loads.
so to s -
Allowable = 42000 PSI s o cct -
I ra cct -
i s o.cct -
5000s -
t b 4D CCI-B 30001 -
2 D.001 -
i mnn:nnw::
?%2XSmn%3A w <n w a e c.x h
\\
0001 1
2 3
I t urs+,4ti /2nrs+1 si /3 tnwu411 Figure C15 4279s/0125s
-C19-
l STUDY CALCULATIONS g
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC5656
- === se MaximumEQ.9Bstress(PSI):
se act -
1 = 7063 2 = 9747 3 = 10754 s e ses -
Allowable = 18600 PSI r o.ons -
- 50.001 -
< 5 0 DDI -
t b 4D Dut -
o 3 D C31 -
hh MNNN!NN!
' " ' ' ~
NkNkk NNNb N'NNb
' i ////, ' >'/
's'//// / ///
/,'j_,/ /// / /
4
'l
'2 3
4,,,,,,.,.,,...
4,,
PlPING STRESS RC5656 twassc
,c o cas MaximumEQ.9Dstress(PSI):
s o.cas -
1 = 10303 2 = 12953 3 = 15094
" " * ~
Allowable = 37200 PSI in ces -
EC C % -
g 6
5000%-
t h 4 C 001 -
E 30001 -
'h.'
x,N'gNNNN NN$
gNNNNNNN'V gg\\\\\\\\Ny,,
0.0D7
' [
1 2
3 1 $drS+p411,29d1+151,3 (NWh411 l
Figure C16 1
i 4279s/0125s
-C20-
1 m
STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PlPING STRESS RC6526 se n eN se 100 Ort MaximumEQ.98 stress (PSI):
1 = 8185 2 = 10015 3 = 9358 e D ces -
Allowable = 12720 PSI re ecs -
, L D.DC1 -
D
@ so ots -
t b 4C Ct% -
t, 6 ::orq l
f;....
3 4y :b'I.'&
q.;,::;+,, g;%
+yN%,,s@[
- [Qqi',9 r+
y
{'E'[
1 o C"-[.;s[;.;-(S;(>(;
~h HH++'-
- ^
',y, i c c:t I
9 $d1,#411/2*45+169 /3 EM' +a411 J
PIPING STRESS R06526 t w ic so ic nc s -, -
i l
,gy,jMaximumEQ.9Dstress(PSI):
1 = 10017 2 = 11670 3 = 11214 es ct } Allowable = 25440 PSI
/ fl LD*. -p V, 5: DCI J.
[
b l
k 2 0 00'4 -
l h
b 4D uct.
l!
l 3G LCT -
2 C C;t -
1 D DDt -
.4
,,,: p, ;'s,., g.. ;9 r..i.,.,s.
\\
~
~
~
~
[
\\,\\ 'g's, A N n,\\i 3 \\\\ \\'s, N'N','*3]
e.n:s 1 Mf5+p411/2Mf 5+1.81/3 (NWN411 Figure C17 4279s/0125s
-C21-l l
i r
I T
STUDY CALCULATIONS V
AVERAGE CALCULATED PIPING STRESS DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
PIPING STRESS RC6539 sconca en is o ces se ons -
MaxisunEQ.98 stress (PSI):
se not -
1 = 16027 2 = 17468 3 = 20407 d1lowable=18000 PSI 7, gg, _
g' 50 UC3 -
5 0 f*1 -
t O 40 ct -
f
.,,.,,,$,,hii,{f.,'i
- _. /. ;k;y (m,,,<,%l
.\\,%'t.'f,fplgjj:}
Q'4'<(
i n co1 -
MQ
' om
'\\ r T:c,.,
v.-m-enact-lxsseN'NNN
- N N N 9 6,x s.
- \\\\
N
- xNNy>g'W'sq hg'\\x -v.,&#}'N'.k'$$&Q xN
""' #NN'h&.ss su
,s x
77,"e I
,</<,./, :l
, p,,,
- terS+>* s t f 294b s+161 /3 (* ***11 PIF1NG STF ESS RC6539 tw.au so IOC001
=
s e.ons -
1 = 22422 2 = 24761 3 = 32706 s e c:t -
Allowable = 36000 PSI r o.cc s -
I g secas-H3 5 0 0D1 -
t b 4c ces -
l t
so ces -
' ' ' ~ %.7,,,9, k ',, :
QXQ'h'.y?y,l'Q
.N$$j}.*l&'5$$
x,',s N's\\ M b'N'MND gNs
. sisNA
- segh' X,D N
i n uns -
1
\\Nscs c oas 1 94r5+N411/264 5+161 /3 Lawu e11 Figure C18 4279s/0125s
-C22-
O APPENDIX D i
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SUMMARY
PIPE SUPPORTS O
1 O
4260s/0122s
-Dl-
TABLE D-1 STUDY' CALCULATIONS MAXIMUM CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)-
)
l L
-l r
l CALCULATED DESIGN LOAD (1bs)
DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED l l STRESS l MRS + N-411 i
MRS + RGl.61 ENV + N-411
l t
l CALC. I UPSET IFAULTEDI UPSET IFAULTED
. UPSET IFAULTEDI N-411 l RG1.61l N-411 l
I I
l l
l l
l l
l l
-l l
l l-ASME CLASS 1
-l 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
1 RC5101 l 1794 l 3844 l 1993 l 3998 l 2195 l 3989 l58.9(U)l65.5(U)l72.1(U) l l
l l
l l
l l
194.9(F)l98.7(F)l98.5(F) l 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l RC5106 l 88 l.1837 l 111 l 1842 l 177 l 1847 l 5.6(U)l 7.0(U)l11.2(U) l l
-l l
.I l
l l
187.5(F)l88.0(F)l87.7(F) l l
1 1
l l
1 l
l 1
l l
l RC5108 l 1.92 l 261 l 223 1 300 l 237 l 293 l60.9(U)l70.8(U)l75.2(U) l l
1 l
l l
l 182.9(F)l95.2(F)l93.0(F) I l'
l l
l l
l l
l 1
l l
]
l 14128 199.1(F)l121.5(F)l74.4(F) l
(
l RC5109 l l 23092 l l 18838 l I
~l l
l l
l l
l l
l 12826 l95.4(F)l97.3(F) 100.0(F) l 12479 l l 12242 l I RC5114 l l
l 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
I I
I I
I l
ASME CLASS 2/3 l
1 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l RC0117-l 2229 l 2846 1 2451 l 2969 l 2229 l 2846 l87.9(U)l96.7(U) 187.9(U)l 1
l l
l l
l l
184.4(F)l88.0(F) l84.4(F)l l RC0013 l 2539 l 2679 l 2829 l 2821 l 2565 l 2783 194.0(U)l104.8(U)l95.0(U)l l
l l
l l
l l
l69.6(F)l73.3(F) l72.3(F)l l RC5026 l 2278 1 4662 l 2687 l 5631 l 2164 l 4151 l65.0(U)l76.7(U) l61.7(U)l l
l l
l l
l l
l100.0 (F)ll20.8(F)l89.0(F)l l RC0035 l 8372 l 9124 !
8107 l 8806 l 8520 l 9083 l90.0(U)l87.2(U) 191.6(U)l l
l l
l l
l l
173.8(F)l71.2(F) l73.4(F)l l RC5001 1 4448 1 7226 1 5005 1 8252 l 4317 l 7442 l79.2(U)l89.1(U) l76.8(U)I l
l l
l l
l l
l96.7(F)l110.0(F)l99.6(F)l l RC0067 1 2980 l 3278 l 2980 l 3278 l 2980 l 3278 l80.0(U)l80.0(U) 180.0(U)l l
l l
l l
l l
l66.2(F)l66.2(F) 166.2(F)l RC0092 l 2193 l 2548 l 2403 l 2780 l 2186 l 2511 l67.7(U)l74.2(U) 167.5(U)l I
1 l
l l
l l
l 178.7(F)l85.9(F) l77.6(F)l l RC6528 l 810 l 1326 l 1276 l 1775 l 1048 l 1676 156.7(U)l89.3(U) 173.3(U)I l
l l
l l
l 169.8(F)l93.4(F) 188.2(F)l O
l RC5038 l 78067 I 80344178067 l 82492 l 78067 l 80274199.2(U)l99.
l l
l l
l l
l l
176.8(F)l78.8(F) l76.7(F)l i
I l
l l
l l
1 I
I l
4 1
4260s/0122s
-D2-4
TABLE D-1 STUDY CALCULATIONS MAXIMUM CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
(Continued) l I
l l
l l
CALCULATED DESIGN LOAD (1bs)
IDESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZEDI l STRESS I MRS + N-411 l
MRS + RGl.61 l ENV + N-411 l MRS + l MRS + l ENV + l l
CALC. l UPSET IFAULTEDI UPSET IFAULTEDI UPSET IFAULTEDI N-411 l RG1.611 N-411 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l RC5656 l 1763 l 2025 l 1892 l 2148 I 1843 l W'3 181.3(U)l87.2(U)l65.0(U) l I
I I
I I
I l
170.2(F)l74.5(F)l73.4(F) l l RC6526 l 2315 1 2507 l 2354 l 2531 1 2331 1 2519 192.4(U)l94.0(U)l93.1(U) l I
I I
I I
I I
175.2(F)l76.0(F)l75.6(F) l l RC6539 l 4009 l 7006 1 5128 l 8039 I 5792 1 9583129.5(U)l37.7(U)l42.6(U) l l
l l
l l
l l
138.8(F)l44.5(F)l53.0(F) l I RC6314 l 544 l 594 l 569 I 614 l 544 l 599 183.7(U)l87.5(U)l83.7(U) l I
I I
l l
l l
191.4(F)l94.5(F)l92.2(F) l I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
T' (U) = Upset
(
(F) = Faulted r
l i
i i
' O 4260s/0122s
-D3-l
e -
.h 1:
Q-
,..a T
d j
u (;
G STUDY CALCULATIONS V
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED l
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
I a
4
.x
.?'-
'/
/
d A
i
',/hf//
- C 8 si e t-.
s's G~
+p
',,/
C i oi, e
- , i Q'.,
Lec A (xr Arptu caua)
. v? j eg,
1 9,'-
U y%e.nr. racesau 4,,
'A'l/ //
^
~
/
\\
s
)
e, P
1 i ce% -
t l
l 9c Avs 2>ssis N AfAnsiw i
i) i yc Aw, %rau Desian Lean if I
/ /,k's
.i T
i Legend for Figures D1 to D18 1
1 4
D4-4280s/0125s i.... -.--..
.. _.... _ _ _ _,..,.. _ _... _.,,. ~. _ _ _. _ _ _... _., _ - - _ _,. _.
f STUDY CALCULATIONS
- q AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT to.
LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) p
<,6 6 LAG 9 I
(Ec Stol )
ypg} (osE WM REs7xA/N7~ sW""!) pg[3gp (TOTAL NO.
Si
)
c
.i fi4E SSE Gs,E DEE DBE 035 "a
0
42.;)
%l*/.
52 1,
- 6, 6,.-
32 )
35.11 38.G1 7
_ ('
{
go g r..o 3
p 32.2'3 mex 29,q gy40
/4 a.-
/
y,,i, w
", k V
h Ek 3"
a<<
a 57 9 53 0%
47.0%
gT,.[
g[
g r
UA) f/4
//)
i,..
as.i A 33.n 32 4 f/
h se -
WA
- /
M WN m
[]
(ME l (AG 2 g6p.3 p*e l a6E 2 M65 3 env.
Mt+
M$5 sqv.
y M5+
MGs 4tl
- m. i.6 / ae//
N 4!1 gg f gf ygff p
\\
UPET FAULTD 3,
5a,,,.
x v.
y.
l k
so.
}so--
aux an, a
e u.
o.21 a.ss sm g
2,.
y
- s..
g u.
l pA.-
f, L. s..
$w-
<v
<,v j#)
514 53.1%
54.1) l V//
ff"
{
5 m
sa.sz ad b b b
T
V4 V4 VA m.2 m.,
-i
.2
..s -3 p1gfr M R.s gNV Mt+
MRS EN Y.
O g*4ll g[,gf j,j 4 11 a.e6/
NW/
Figure D1 4280s/0125s
-DS-
STUDY CALCULATIONS O
V AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAM r
(V.C - 5/06 )
- '""" A FbtlLTEp Uf6ET *cr*om'"'a"o.^'"zi) i.
m@.
8si i.,.
g%
v.
8ss n
m sse sse a
b'
.g,,. M so.
Mi$
995 39 7)
M S@i@s{,
3 i
E
=x4 s
s
{f a,,.
fd
$"6 PJ 5
=
as r;;-
p up a,>'
{,^$10 fy.- y y,f i,
e-
-. y z9
- f
'*** <?3 38
?M
{" *' '"M h $
e
,s
,s k
19 uw.i me.2 c5,.3
.s,.i
..s.2
... 3 Os Y.L4 MRS gNv HR+
p1RS EN V.
klI KG t.6 / N4/l NkII
%s gg igj p4,j t
uf'6ET FAllLTED i
3 g
loo.-
hloo.
1 9
y.
h p.
so..
41sp
- asso, 3s-7d, h
to-f lo.
.mp u,g u,9 g
se.
4.
h 5*-
h 5.-
b YM
$$,40-- h f v,, -
<.v,,.
94 h
y-20 20 io rog ric 3G M
$NT M
g< is..
9(
un.g aw.1 ys.y ast-l u.E 2 uss'5 Mt+
M$5
'" v-I ptt+
Me.s eue
\\
shli g[,,gt jij
$ll RG !b' "4#
Figure D2 4280s/0125s
-D6-
STUDY CALCULATIONS O.
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAM 1
(KC - 5/06 )
yf6g (ONE W RES7RAINTSU.9'MT) yy3yp (rovf 4 Ac. 7 7
)
ou 73:
277 too-Q ls**- y,?
ff*
f
,o.
ynt err) orous p3 o
so.
'//, -
y' go..
/
gI v.
p ' w.
3 Nn 9\\
3 l so.
6..
tow esip a
{ 3 KN bQ p.-
q a.eA 24 58 k
ha s
h gg mg y.g 4x M5 mz
$j
,$f d
8#'
M W
EEK 4
t es un/.
en).
f p
go -
M NY
\\Y h\\\\
x\\N
.NNN 0
$I' W l YZ?
W Wi*
'Nv?
Nhli 4l,_ g, l4,,
4tl g[i.sI r?+/l UPGET FAULTED l
5 g
lo
&g.o-t 9
y.
h p.
}
go..
err,t n;
R17) t go.
wh w7.'s n) yo.
&0<
60<
s...
k kb7 1,l " g,h _h, 1,..
h
~
~
3 a g a 3.. - g 3 g wr> = w w y vs nhli g[,,g; jij
$ll KG. ! 6/
^'4/I Figure D3 4280s/0125s
-D7-
STUDY CALCULATIONS O
AYe,Ae,cALcVLA1<o e,<.
A,,1,< Segreer LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) i 6 LAM I
Occ - sio.9 )
"'^""*^'"'""""A UVT ' "'(707ML NO.
FAl1LTEp
'9
)
~
~
I I** '
l g$ s##'
c.st, s.s c s.s.c o-
"R re) 53
/
s.
b v.
/
j.t 3
El, 6,.
u-g s.
. /.
ygg..
u 4o L
4,.-
.a w :s
=m so mz es
/
/
0 WI' % l ?!?
%V'
- a*E' Att di.si a%,i Gn eti.a u%i UPsT FAULTm 3 '** ~
}I*#'
i 5
/
g9
- zzy,
<o.y ag;,
\\
y.
60 '
3 88 --
l f
2, -
to.
g l
o.
fe 4,.
W 5*'
M' is,.
- hij, i
s.
ge.
y tr.
p-p 3*
1**
g.. ;/
1 l..
W V'
"?%* ? ?
%V' T v.
All g[,3j j,,
Nil ra?th!
" 4 11 Figure D4 l
4280s/0125s
-D8-
l l
i (N.,
STUDY CALCULATIONS
{
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAM I
occ an4.) m ed
"'u sumia p3tjt75p UT+ET """(707Al. NO.
Ct'(0
)
/
i.,.
90 '
ss e a
a S
E b
v.
y' l ' so - h p
Q so" 3'
F0" V'
5 he--
V//E Q
M 40 y.
lo-
[ so -Si n a
/
g g
y l
v
% ?'
% ll 4 R:?
%;V' "?? ":?
$1I MG?L6)
N //
Nkil gg?,,gj g4,y Uf'sT FAULT @
l
/
8
(
g 100 --
( [op-i r
i f
v.
n.6%
32.6 %
$a--
3r.p.
go -
j h
to.
To.
f h
so-y 60-s,..
1, YU-sR 40--
L 70.2 1 g.n 67.6 %
V 0
$ '/
$ ' hx per l a+E 1 M*T a
/
g5s.]
me.g gg.3 Htt M$s ag v.
O pw.9 mms ew kli RG. Abl N4/I phil g[,,4j j,,
Figure 05
-D9-4280s/0125s
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _., ~ _
STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 x A r OCC -OH7 )
y(fG (ONE NAf RCS7)sAfW50POAh
( TO 7A L N o.
3
)
l*# '
G"E OBE ose
)
5' csE ssa sse W
em sa eu; om e.o; g
v-J Cl MK KZ a
M.R M$
g.g 38 '
WBE-ME; WR, 28-
- Tgrg, gg, fg I# "
xN
\\
CME l MG2 69.')
osE*\\
un2 sA6%'3 r\\}&
MRS gny MR+
Mg5 aNV.
H 4II YII MG. I.61 N4/l gg, ;.f t g4;j i
UPST FAULTED
}
z Y
lIUi,.t 9.4l, p 7,",
Wb
'SII*
'O #i i
60-k be -
l lo -
10-bl 60-40-
~
l m 50-Go-
~
~
43-e%, (o" 3-(3 20-20 3
p to -
l# <
~
R3b kW*
f f644
$c 6',-
N ^);
- 47d, (ME l MW2 d;A%.8) d'* f
- l mM2 M65-)
O rn+
Mr.s aug Ht+
"$5
- 2 V-Khtl g[,gj j,,
kII RG /b!
"4ll Figure D6
-D10-4280s/0125s
STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE)
&LA% rdE (KC.-00/3 )
yffp} (ONE WM RE57RAIM~SUMMh fyt}l,3gp (ro m i Mo.
33
)
I**
- sse ssa ssE l#'
SE Dx oss W/j:
M,8f,
$7f, "I'
43$
40A y.
90 t.'
f.W h,k k k h k$l k k k MI MK a
M.K M$
$1.g 38' ME,.
1)iER.
- IIIEr, f
id <
gg, gg, g
rz.9;,
- wri, ri.r;>
We, W1-p I' "
%N
@?
W go.
M AT M
O5 p+E l eM2 CAGE 3 M 6E-l M 4).2 gr.)
Mt+
M$s v.
YsL4 MRS sNV.
kII KG. t.6 / N4/l N4II ga.ygj g4;j i
UPET FAULTD 3
re-3l, y;,y, 76 3 ;,
14ll&
M!j; h
l x
y.
4
$a --
p-lo.
10-B 60 60 Fe'
% 5*-
gsw yy V-go-1':
- 3 R
- N N
3 73 77Ma
!HI-197l=
fiC'A 5 fi*
- f
- l pH1
- 65 3 (ASE-l MGE T 4A%.)
nt+
- g v-O rw.+
nes aw 4
II AG. / 6/
N4//
Nkll gff,ff yj Figure D7 4280s/0125s
-D11-
STUDY CALCULATIONS U
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) b Y $ lel Lec soeco )
yfS;p} WC WYRGM/W M Ah
( TO 7A L N o.
14-
)
l a.
pe.
E' M'
SJ 0
[T{
'f
$0-~
f ou
,5
{
w<
<gg sy
- Y9f,
'7 7
60' gy.
h..
45 M3 WZ a
Q,g pg g'
h I#'
- TNBI, Tikk.
N
,7 "g
N
- b. d M
O, 4ASE-l cAn.g gy.3 osy.l ug.1 CAGE 3 ML4 MRS
- gNV, Mt+
MRS EN Y.
1 NII
<[/.6/
3I
/.4 / N4//
N4//
UPST FAllLTED l00 <-
lo0-Z F-y'
[
h so -
6e --
I 7a <
70-g, il1*
6e-78 %
7A*
tt be.
g% 5e-Se-M--
R 40--
M-y- -
E s
[,'d $i a m
m.
(ASE-l (AG g $9.S
- f l mM1 sA6E 3 Me+
as Sv.
O
&ll g[,4j lij kil R$/61 N4/I es+
nes aw Figure D8 4280s/0125s
-D12-
STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6LA% 1dir Occ -coss )
" ' " " * " " ' " " ' # d FAl]LTEP UNET *"*(707?I4 ^10.
31
)
I**
- Q I** '
5 one ose csc sse sse es; ep;;
,g; St.tA a:p igy; y,
g so.
3[
33 bb o
& Q k $.
Y,i h h lh FE l kl.h, I
ex ex n
m.n e.
{g
(
g.
1m, m.
r,n,,
p-w; wt m.
a nz;
+n, an n
g M
M M
w n
m
%Y' "YY "Ev?
0
' N I ' % 2 l 4 Dl nhts d,.si 1,
- ss si.si n%
UPGET FAULTED 3[ I** ~
}
I*#'
st;;
esA
<?r; ra; 3e;;
xy t
9 y.
k y-N k-h go.
I t
lo -
Q so.
21 n
h p.
p-i
~
f40--
l s
p-p.
20 so.
l#<
f(
10
, je 1916 Mk R7A v32
'&th 6f
- h M$s *5 Y
Y v.
e Khli g[,,gj j,,
5II M !.6/
"4/l Figure 09 4280s/0125s
-D13-
O
' " " ^ " " ^ " " '
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6Lhe/r 141 (RC-Sool)
&fhy (ONU W NW/WN (ro m t ao.
It'
)
V M
caC ceg gg g;gg sy;g 9* *
"'I*
WA ff?),
g 90<
e7/p 71.7A A.!!,
88-g ea<
gYi,9,.
F<
I*
FO--
?
h N
i% B I* '
4 32-4zp3 gfp NI' N [ Yu7
$ h'
$ Ys Yv.
NN II KG /.61 N4//
KG j.6/
M4ll l
Uf'5T FAllLTD 97Jh Mtje ff.tj 47/p M7p
%)*,
$D <
$8 --
I 7a -
70-so.
so.
m }*
- Go-bO
s Y" y-p.
20
?
So<
l# <-
?
le <
eBIG 57 %
W3,%
13 7,5 R 7),
490's
${I "xh* W
$Y'
"$k* Yv.
N4ll g[uf j,f 4 11 s[/.6/
N4//
Figure D10 4280s/0125s
-D14-
I
^
STUDY CALCULATIONS U
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 Lass rim occ - 6s/4 )
U f6ET ""5 ""*"""""' "# FAtJLTEP (YO'ofL NO.
'7
)
I*'
2 gf,*,.
tit osc cee E
I**
- ssa sse w.
a a
n us:
g v.
.- 6 "
g p[.,,.
w.
I 4,~
sg e,.
7 E
\\
Ax k2
,h.:
m.:
m m.:
a mr.
w.
w e.
5 so.
w, m.
"d
"*A W
3 mU, Q
g,..
ss95 str>
w.z:
go.
ass w
w asE l an2 g6p.s use-l uss 1 uss 5 nc+
qs any.
ny?
ys du ea. i.s i usi suv.
s +11 ea. i.si arii Uf'GET FAULTED 3
- ~.off, I*#'
IIT5' Fr.g hI 13 5 a.u FA7;.
E y,
y E
88 --
68 -
h yo.
t 7,.
4..
M 4.
$ge...
h p.
so
{ge.
,x p.
p.
g so.
20
$x la.-
T(
10 MK 3
e3) e3A e7h 11 9:.
s.17.
n9A est-l ues 1 us1 3 aw.2 gs.y ps,n.l Met ne5 agx yy.
nes
,ug
]
Khli gg,,4; l,,
kil R$/.61 N4/I Figure Dil 4280s/0125s
-D15-
-]
iTUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED i
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 54E (RC-oo 67 )
Uf6Q @E W#ESRAiM4M4d F LTEP
( ro m L M O.
2
)
9 l*
W 237
'337 sea m
m m
g so -
7 77
?zs);
'77:.
y, q
3 s
c.
m y
y
' k f
Ef hw p'k Sg p"
g g,< -
g g
gw n f
p.
a p,..
8 g
cz m
ocs a
m.x mz g.,
95
$)
e?r.'
h go b
M M
M w
g O
M5+
Mgs M&E j M 5).2 M4, F.)
p*f l uSE 2 M65 3 suv nt+
M$s av.
n +Il Gn a.isi arii ea. a i n.ui l
l l
UPGET FAULTED l
3 5
g I##
- nij, so;,
im,
" T-
- /-
c'N to -
N So -
I 7a -
70-48-5 u.
% 58-Se-16e-- %
[b.--
g p-
..s-p i
-c; MsE-l 9452 4%.y osf-l utE 2
- 6%'&
nr.+
Mxs av nt+
nes
- " v.
O N*4ll g[aj j,,
$ll
,e$at N4/l Figure D12 4280s/0125s
-D16-
STUDY CALCULATIONS p
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) c w as r e x Occ -009z) a~d utwr <~(r~on~t no.swi~c) yarep c
d Y*-
s*
f,*.- a,,.
a xe n
n>
w ce R
t.
n g
a
&g g*
v -
g
}
Q,,
g g '.*'-k x
I b"T R Ny g Ip,.- $g y
I,_ "
3 g
e 4
b;:
i
. h a
','. Ni l,':.,!$
$,$ $[
i m
sss
=
.s O
wi' eri vu mit' we w 4"
d,,, A,
an 4z., s, ursT FAutup 1
=
Y l
'7'?
- rey, on; sy:
- ss),
ny I##
Y-so --
h yo.
N To -
j so.
3 6,,
J NNN p-l' l
% 58-kN40 i
Eh..
j v-J' V'
l gj.f
L
.?
30 b
so-3 i,..
t i,
K s74A
- rzy, at) s7;;
7i.g;,
hig,'
$I' YM N[
$$I' "xYi Yd'.
O-K*All ga?i,gj li,
$n dikt Nin Figure D13 4280s/0125s
-D17-
[')
STUDY CALCULATIONS V
AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 r 'r (Rc ~ 6928 )
yffg (ONE WAY RESTRAIMSWOAh p
)
(TOTAL A/O.
/9 4
i** '
tit ose ose a
as ase TG I** '
}
5.4%
3uA 3.7),
3.ija uf,f ssi.
y.
y.
g so.-
p.
g4 7*-
d.7s.
1 jpse ig+ro-
[c.
30 s
v WT. I 43 Wil WT.X 44 4.1 Mr.
M.
wr, g
re-Un,
- prg, rg v4
's e n:,
p
- s7y, w,1 e4,1 M
Sf NN9 KNS hNy O
ees.1 an.2 #6F.3 per l un2
- GE 3 r.t+
Mas say Mt+
rtes
- N v.
Hkll gf,37 YII FG 1.61 N4/l p4,y umr-~rcr6 <ss..,,n,.r 4 ~;;;6*'L"d-r f CLE Uf'5T FAULTED 3
5 5
I"
$I*#'
wi.t er; w;
wx ud mi.
p.
I p.
so -
?
Se --
t 7o.
f yo.
f to-bi
.o.
h p-so-1<v8 so.-
[g.p.-
p.
p.
20 so.
\\
lo
'k 9
fo.
. ~
~
K mt 5s +
w x
m2 es ara CME l M%.2 4%> b
- E'I "H
- 2 M*L'I tu.+
Mx.s eue nt+
Hjs
'g v.
O shtl g[,,y j,y
$li ca.i.61 "4ll Figure D14 4280s/0125s
-D18-
STUDY CALCULATIONS
,_s AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9
_E i zu~_~
OCC -5o38 )
1
- ' " * '" T *'"'oe d Up;T **(722794 AO.
FAlll.TEP
)
7 o.h, '-
g}
RME-956 anc sac ss.c s.se s
~;
a.r>
.w.
~, >
r.:.
F-
~
, 94 S*'
go.
m I#
3 p--
Y 40 1
44 Y
3$
y, e
go.
R g
y l'Jh; M tii uts m
6 m
~~
le -
m a
m l
W+E-l cAG.2 g$p.y psy.g ag.g yss.;
0' Y{9 MRS
- sNv, HR+
Mes gav.
G N 4'l elai sii Gus eEai A41 UNT fxilLTED l
u g
too.-
g g,o.
y-I p,
00 '
59.7j, HG*,
%?f,
$8 --
yjj g
9, 70 -
g p.
h 40 Et go.
$ se.
]
D% 5*-
I " h h k k
k v.>,t
- a47,
,s tsis
- H>
Wp 4:1 I
Q W+E-l cA% 2 4%.S est l ass 1 cAss 3 L
tu.+
Mrs aue nt+
ms an y.
l M411 g[uf l $,f 4 11 efa/
- +//
Figure D15 4280s/0125s
-D19-l
=. -..
N STUDY CALCULATIONS
[V AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 91dx (ec - 5s s6)
UMET ' "'(r"om'"L A/O.*'"Y'"""!)
FMLT5p 3
)
lw-goo.
$$y$
lh l{
SSG ssE ssE g
x{[. u--
w; m
e.y 4
74<
a 6, -
u-pm I5 fD 1
I h!-
NI El 3*
N
$l.
E P
\\* --
Q Q
o w m: en www KG 161 $4ll 50 s !61 ^'5Il Uf'GET FAULTED 3
W g
180 --
g ico-x y,
y.
h p-
"'I Wh
'59h go..
af; 4a,1 w;,
h yo.
t lo -
h 40 s.
4 bl 60-h v.
kke--
h\\\\
-s hk f*84-y e9 2 7).
atf.
HM N
fit /c s
=
=
=$1.61 n
=[i,y l,y Nll E4ll NhH g
1 Figure D16 l
4280s/0125s
-020-1
,.ewvm-----m---.
.,-.,,-y-m-w,-,..-
- - + - -
c-,--.--=--._.---.44.--.+.r--rm--~~-,------
STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6LA% 1 he (KC ~W Efo )
UMET (*'(r"o"n"t Mo.
""M'"'*'?) FMw
)
W*
I cas aeg
,,g
,,g l00 <
g,I;;
A'A
" '?)
'MA v.At zthp n
90 <
p y,
[ ':
-l I
y.
78 '
gi
- r p'
4,.
{ gg..
y
.y se s
kI",$.
l
.)
l
$4
@I nd.
p.
h Y
M'I gs.
Me W
H.m 19e?
yh:-
=
12.%;
wA rus) p I' "
- g (g
.m l*<
y' A%
.%?
v Y+'
$gs g?v.
l'-
S N
YII MG I.61 N4/l KG 161 N4tl l
Uf'5T PAULTED
}
g,,,.
I p.
y.
l y.
Mkb M'7A
- !*h go.
um say unrs 7,.
Es 3
gs NT g
p' ee.
P' 58-It f te:: R R R GAA n.x) nop
\\
l
(
(
4 h
CME-l unt 4%.s oor-l ues t uss &
rn +
Mxs any nt+
xes an y.
O Khtl gg i.sj j,y
$ll es?shi N4H Figure D17 l
4280s/0125s
-021-
STUDY CALCULATIONS O
l AVERAGE CALCULATED ONE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT LOAD DESIGN CAPACITY UTILIZED
(% OF ALLOWABLE) dbkN 1./ IL/
(lCC -b539 )
yffg (ONE u^f RESTRAINTSJPPORh yyp (wvel No.
2
)
$!.g #
'80/-
I'# '
44R 4.?E.
k (4E 486 436 i
S3 90-o 4,
gh5'
{fa" j
g!!",7 1::
n i :
,o w=w wyp Nhtl gg, g, l4,y
$ll
- m. i.s i N+/l Note: TNm su Tm twm
.s e si, w / s~n m rhama wh stanie Lom ser Awlamle.
UPET FAULTED l*
gI*#'
l
[
I'
- wij, stir, wp, st.77, us;;
54.g x
v.
y.
l h
so -
E 60 -
k to -
f 7a.
to<
bl 60-b E*-
2% $*-
1 1.
y G Q Ib: R t
? g ti-g g
g
{ i,- $
g u@!
w w[,,gj w w y
??
j,,
5l1
- a. /.61
^'4H nhli g
Figure D18 4280s/0125s
-D22-
l STUDY CALCULATIONS U
AVERAGE CALCULATED TWO-WAY OR THREE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT TOTAL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 I
(RC 5101 ) """#
Uf6ET *(m*a'tL NO."*'"3 FAULTEP
)
k N3 p
n.2:
msA sst sst sse s
go..
3f.g 37,gg g,,3
),
g... g A3
'$ S
^ s.
[pp.. k g
is.4 %
u 4e u.
p h
3e.
$3 4X
- 1 a
g.g m
g,g ff-Rf; y.h TM,,
Wt.
1sg p
M s\\\\s e
a.
a,2 u.,,.
f/X 7/4
- //4 i
C
%??'
%$8 ?!?'
%\\Y'
- a?v.*
Khli gf,_ g, j,,
4ll di.g p n%;
6 LAG 9 I
(RC 5l0l )
Uf4ETC'""* ' " '7"" " * " " # FAULTEP (wrAL No.
I
)
1.
1,4 m
s So N
y.
OBE 095 ogg p,
U[
g,,
6,..
- k t
- E42, 93.57,
,, m t
u t
kg Iri.
C4 Loca I#'
et 3.64
'//4 M
k'"^
k se.
414%
2 eat.
Pfa.
S i,..
TIT?
3
$II' $$8 782
%AY' $$*
",7v.*
Nkil g[f.gf Z,f 4Il di.4 /
a4//
O.
i l
Figure D19 l
4280s/0125s
-D23-
STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED TWO-WAY OR THREE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT TOTAL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAM r
(RC-S/08 )
&WO NAY RESTRAINT SUPPt92[]yygp yf6G (rOML No.
/0
)
l00 '
[
ssg l*# '
036 5
osE 43g 9e -
18.61
%.93 93 67 28.9) x er.zy n
- 7# '
- <h4.W--h h h b
/
pR f
g,.
e
- M wo v
sa~
aE9 rs.n 16 4
_ m '#
F8"
~
3 kY$ h
&q Q CI M1 WZ Q
- g. g' Q
p.g g$
f,I.i hj
%j
($
ge-gg
- 7gy, ggg M
$N' h
M le - y ys
f;f O
M+E l M41. 2 WFS
- F l eM2 M65 3 Mt+
M$S ENv.
YL4 MRS ENv
$ll ca. i.s t n+/I
- m. i.si iv411 6 LAM I
(RC - 5H4 )
yffg &WO WAY RES7RAINTSUPPORT) yygp (ro mL No.
5
)
I**
- G
~
p,Q
\\**
- sse sse
?#'
f5 fb Y'
90'
/
/I g;j f
,(g1. v -
,/
sa 8*<
p A
v-
/
l s--
/
I s..
n a
A f 5
f
/g.
y&s*'-
\\
F
\\pe Wi MR WK m.K gn p.s 3* '
ptF.
1}lEp.
- ggg, gd.
gg gg, g
c j
l go..
99.* %
M1-H5%
l0 M
M.'
RM MSE l M4!.2 WF.3 p*F *l MM2 M65 3 l
Mt+
- N v-l ML+
MRS sNv' Nkil gaif.gf f4ff 4 13 ea$/.6/ 24//
I Figure D20 4280s/0125s
-D24-
-a STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED TWO-WAY OR THREE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT TOTAL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 rdm (RC - o t/7 )
Uf62T('"(r"o7AL NO.' ""^'% '"") "U FMTEp l**
2 9
l**
- ase
- se
- se a
m sse 90 -
- 'A
+74/s M+,-
y
,o.
43) 17.1,1 usf.
C*-
g
.x e--
go. w.
v.
,,~
I hm 3*
F8' fo 1
40--
3.-
so -.
M5 g.s:
41 MK WZ M.K
[$
WBF; Sk.
- 4st, 28-gg, pg, g
NA d'A Wf.
St.7A diffs s4),
le.
g,,
KY, N\\\\
4\\*
KT s'hN h\\*
ps 4A5E1 t.Ast.2 WF.3 u+r l mot 2 cAs1. 3 nt+
ngs snv.
Q nt+
Mas guy N411 g[fgf f4,f 4Il dx6/ N/
6 L h & 9 r i al.
(KC - 00/3 )
UisGT('"(r*oTAL No.9'"") "# FMTEp
(** '
Q (90 -
cae ese
=e ase sse as nib MIA
- f94l, 9p.
f7fb O fN N6?e
_ %[
9 --
C*-
Gs gl v.
gl. v.
^ 58 g ^ 50--
13-ex 42 vers a
un,'
MS M.s M.K war.
wk.
- use, pg, g
- sul, m;;
m o
- asy, a.,;
a, Lh3 KT M
M KV KV 4A5El 4Ast.2 gr.3 u+r l u+5 2 cA*1 S nt+
Mas syv HR+
MRS EN V.
Nktl g[z6/
[4//
4'I
^'I I
Figure D21 l
4280s/0125s
-D25-
l (3
STUDY CALCULATIONS y/
AVERAGE CALCULATED TWO-WAY OR THREE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT TOTAL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 E.d u L (ec coes )
yf.$q(TWO NAy' RGSTRAINTSUM2h 3$p SE'
)
( m 7A L N o.
goo -
geo -
Y'
$5
$siE*.
Y 9# '
!Jn as t g;
p.-
g g
- =
p.
q 7* -
. 7s <
gf to -
u5 So' h
h p.-
aus sas aas p '>
Je; au x s* z sus A.K WZ M.K CK M1 KZ 28' WLF.
Ek.
- IiEr, id<
- Tpy, gg, fg p
eg g,
e nut asu id et h
49 M
M M
M s
use l uM2 MGL-3 4ASE-l 4Asi.2 vfy.3 MR+
- ES ENv.
Mr.+
Ngs guy kli MG i.6I N4/l Nhll g[,,gj p4,y 6 LAG 9 x#E (ec soze )
0m.E NAf R657 RAIN 7"""Y V%TE9 y
(m'rAL NO.
)
loo-go,.
hb es t 5
~
u-y v.
M y
g3
- To '
at,1, ff 1**
E de '
f 5
68" r~
I 1.m M
p--
+s was was s
yo<
us au s aus M.K M&
M.K Al MA W&
38 -
UtF.
WK.
- IlEr, h
T)ll),
Kg, fg 4147.
ef7t1 49 97f,
- 2 tC fog,*
- 52".
g I# "
h%
h3 I# '
usr l pe2 cA65 3 4ASEl 4 AGE f #6F.9 Mt+
M$5
- " v-
)
N5/l i
nr.+
Nas suv 5 11 NG. i.6 i nhtl gf,_ g,
,4,,
Figure D22 4280s/0125s
-D26-
O STUDY CALCULATIONS O
AVERAGE CALCULATED TWO-WAY OR THREE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT TOTAL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 rir (RC-00.35)
" "37" T '""""fl FAULTEP Uf6ET *"(TO7AL No,""//
)
I*' '
oss oss wg sse sse xss
}
f** *
- 953l, M.ff, M)
Ws 74 77,9),
g,,
9e.
_g' e.-
s.
l
.p.
7e.
-l ' ac.
g y
u.
y.
(
CI MK WZ
$1. K MS
$1. 5 TRT.
1)ER.
TliEl',
(
!A-g4 gg, g
g UA
':#A
"'I' p
g,,.
s'Tf.
WS%
- asj, i
y-NY M
M' M
h41 h4'.
4A9El 4 AGE 2 WF.3 per l u+E 2 4653 hts MRS d^l V.
%/
Yt.4 MRS ENv hU gf,gj kII K
t.6 / N ll g4fy 6 LAG 9 14.s (RC -500/ )
yf&yJ WWO WAY MSTRAINT SUPPOR[]
( 70 YA L N o.
l
)
19f I
f n
u p
y s'
s..
7#'
7d <
I 40 -
To-MN
.f i
j l- *" y..
I' yo.
s.
\\
W'-
(
. q,N.
h I
Nrt ch f
f*
F) wre n(r "f
c-I 10 SEA THf.c nw Q
gj 7gf
\\
S'8 4??*
Ml6 74>
4ASEj cast.2 gy.3 y,,. l uM2 46%3 l
YL4 MRS sNv nt+
ngs env.
Nd
<[/.6/
4 11 r[i.6 / N4//
a4//
Figure D23 4280s/0125s
-D27-l
STUDY CALCULATIONS AVERAGE CALCULATED TWO-WAY OR THREE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT TOTAL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6 LAG 9 r/m-(RC - 63 /4 )
U(6Q (TWO NAY M657 RAIN 7* SUPPtWT.)
p
( ro 7A L N O.
-1
)
lea.
goo.
p3 9* -
CBE oss one S
,o.
SSE sss sse 247A 90,t us/s a
t,.
y go.
my, stry os.sg F,kE l k l l lh.,'
$4 53 43
- 1 a.En a
- a n a a::
6 M +E-l g 4E.2 gr.3 usy.l u,g.2 4653 Mt+
M$s agv.
n}+
MRs any
$ll KG. i.61 N+/l N4II ga.ist a4it 6 Lass rs7ri-(RC - 69?8) yffy (TWO WAY RESTRAINT SUPPORT)y (7074L NO.
~2 3
)
I**
- 5 Q
I'# '
sse ese 03:
tas ess gg,,.
w.
33 m
o p
g.-
gs. v.
v-h h N k fg?.
L 4e.- f..q g q;,'
L 4"
'I*
a'"*.a.
2y A.
M,.
,f,
,h,
- a.,
m,N ex m3 e2 a
4 q
4 l
g mr.
w.
we, s
u.
3,,,
b l* '- h k
g M+E l 4492 Wr.3 use.1 u +t.2 uss ;
nt.+
MRs suv MR+
Mes env.
O Nbil g[f.6/
4tl r[i.6 /, NeI/
y4ff Figure 024 4280s/0125s
-D28-
. ~.
O STUDY CALCULATIONS
\\,3 AVERAGE CALCULATED TWO-WAY OR THREE-WAY PIPE SUPPORT TOTAL DESIGN LOAD COMBINATION
(% OF ALLOWABLE) 6LA% 141 (CC - 56 56) yffG(TWO WAY REMidSWAh Q3 (rOTAL NO.
S
)
g tea.
, po.
h_,n 90'
$3 Y'
ssg gsg so.
Wl*
ON Nb
. { 4. 1s.
??4)
% 61 M7) ff 7*'
G go.
60' N,E k b k W % 5 5 h
M.K W 4' g.g Cl M3 wr,'
re<
gg, pg, g
KZ Dir.
Ek-g
?Ir WE WA g
hN$
h\\?
.g ny, m;.
m; go.
43 l 43 s
g 4ASEl
(,ASE.7
- 6F 3 per l un2 CAGE 3 Mt+
MeS EN V.
YL4 MRS syv N 'YII II
- 6 /.6 /
"#//
G.16/ N4//
cLAs 14m (RC-69Z6 )
UffG (TWO NAY RESTRAIN 7* SUPPORT,,)
(7297AL No.
7
)
lw Q
l**o'- $
f
,o.
m ug cas
. ee cae 179-
'UTA see:
s p3 33
]
.. t:
g[y u..
1* '
i jg
'68' !]
- .~
E go.
l f
fo'-
I v &--
[N w:
p._
gw 5
J
4.g g ;'
g,'g '
43 4%
- 1 s
DtF; Mk w r.
re<
pg, pg, y
?
fM;*
MIA p
son,.
entre,:
esq:
la -
M M
M A4 QNNi Ny 4ASEj c,A4).2 pfp.3 u,y.l ug.2 M6% 3 YL+
MRS env nt+
nes env.
O
$II e$tst
$ll ka?i.s t N%I a4it Figure D25 i
4280s/0125s
-D29-
4 h
4 APPENDIX E STUDY CALCULATION STRESS ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 4
i i
4 l
1 i
l l
l l
4252s/0122s
.El-
g e
P j._
i
-LG 4
e I
i i
l
?
1 i
I l
6 1
f h
STRESS CALCULATION i
i RC5101 1
i t
ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 1
j IC369PRC457, SHT 06 4C369PRC457, SHT 07 i
i 4C369PCV417, SHT A02 SC369PRC457, SHT A09 t
i i
t l
I t
i i
l l
r 3
I i
i i @
i h
(
4252s/0122s
-E2-
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTG 492-8959 6
4
.a...
.~,,
i I
a
- i. '
1 E
F i '
1 1.
d.
i i
i
's 4
STRESS CALCULATION l
RC5106 i
i' ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS
- e f'
4C369PCV417, SHT 04 4C369PRC457, SHT 04 7C369PWL477, SHT A03 7C369PWL477, SHT 02 i
i 4,-
4 is %
s
\\
s t
s g
(:
1
[
E-
\\
l
(<
i l
4
/
\\.,
[
- \\
i t
IL@
%s i
I 4252s/dl22s
-E3-C
\\
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED
! SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS
- 0 l
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC l
FT5 492 = 8989 I
l
.?
L e
[
.....~.- -.--... _.---.
t i
e l
STRESS CALCULATION I
E5100 l
r ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS i
4C369PCV417, SHT A07 i
4C369PRC457, SHT A03 l
7C369PWL477, SHT A03 7C369PWL477, SHT 02 l
I f
b I
e I
i i
j i
4252s/0122s
-E4-j
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT l PAGE PULLED l
l-SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS i
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492 = 8989
F r
f t
l l
I i
e t
1<
l f
i 1-I I
e I
i i
r t
STRESS CALCULATION l
}
1 l
RC5109 l
l 1
ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS i
1 l
4C369PRC457, SHT 09 l.
4C369PRH459, SHT 04 t
i l
O i
i I
i i
I I
t i
i f
t i
e i
i i
O i
i 4252s/0122s
-ES-
E s
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS i
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 t
I l
STRESS CALCULATION RC5114 ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS SC369 PSI 472, SHT 03 4C369PRM459, SHT 06 2C369PRH459, SHT 05 4C369 PSI 472, SHT 07 0-1C369PRC457, SHT 05 4C369PRH459, SHT 01 2C369 PSI 472, SHT 08 O
4252s/0122s
-E6-
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 m
O i
i STRESS CALCULATION RC5038 ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 2C369 PRS 446, SHT 01 O
l O
4252s/0122s
-E7-
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED
- SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS 4
[
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989
O STRESS CALCULATION RC5656 IS0 METRIC DRAWINGS 5F369PSL584, SHT 01 O
1 O
l f
4252s/0122s
-E8-
= _
OVERSIZE
- DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS 1
NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS l
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492 = 8989 9
l
O STRESS CALCULATION RC0067 ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 5F369PFC530, SHT 01 O
O 4252s/0122s
-E9-f
- ~
~~""'"W,
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS l
NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS l
l l
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC I
FTD 492 = 8989 l
l
t O
1 STRESS CALCULATION RC0092 IS0t1ETRIC DRAWINGS 5F369PFC530, SHT 06 O
l l
O 4252s/0122s
-E10
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT
~
PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 l
O 9
l I
~,-e wme ne v=
-w
-w
_,mve,w
L@
p..
4 I
e i
i:
1 STRESS CALCULATION l:.
f-
's-RC6526 l-l ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 5G369PSB668, SHT 03 7G369PSB668, SHT 04 7G369PSB668, SHT A01 0
i i
t i
i i
4 i
i i
i i
i I
i 4252s/0122s
-Ell-
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTO 492-8989 i
STRESS CALCULATION RC0117 ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 2M369PRH259, SHT 02
} O f
f
(
O 4252s/0122s E12
a OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS 1
l APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FT5 492-8989 1
l t
I O
STRESS CALCULATION i
RC5001 ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS l
4C369PCC407, SHT 09 l
O O
4252s/0122s
-E13-
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED
- SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARC/HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492 = 8989
STRESS CALCULATION RC6539 ISCMETRIC DRAWINGS 2C3G?FW633, SHT 01 7C369PFl4833, SHT 04 O
I O
4252s/0122s
-E14-r
w OVERSIZE
- DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 M
r
,.--,m-.an,,-.
e--n-----
--n--,---,w--
- ----~~---wwee.
---w-eu,--
. _ = _ _. _ _ _ _.
k 4
O i
d STRESS CALCULATION 1
RC0013 i
ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 7F369 PSI 272, SHT 01 SF369 PSI 572, SHT 02 SF369 PSI 572, SHT 07 5F369PCS515, SHT 04 i
l 5F369 PSI 572, SHT 01 5F369PCS515, SHT 03 l
2F369PCS515, SHT 01 I
)
i d
i 4252s/0122s
-E15-
~
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 l
l r
O I
i
_ - -. - _, - ~ ~ - _ _
an-n,,n----,,-w
'O STRESS CALCULATION RC6528 i
IS0 METRIC DRAWINGS 4G369PAF602, SHT 04 3G369PAF602, SHT 18 2G369PAF602, SHT 11 3G369PAF602, SHT A01 s
2G369PAF602, SHT 12
{
7G369PSB668, SHT 08 f
SG369PAF602, SHT 17 2G369PFW633, SHT 07 1
i i
I i
i i
l l
l O
4252s/0122s E16-
= = = -
s OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGE$ FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS J
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 S.
t
- - - _ _ -.. ~ _
~.. - -.
.,S
=
.t
.s
{
C,,
i i
I i
.,y a
4 I
STRESS CALCllLATION RC0035 a
ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS 3M369PCC207, SHT 02 SM369PCC207, SHT 13 4M369PCC207, SHT 09 j
l SM369PCC207, SHT 12 SM369PCC207, SHT 08 SM369PCC207, SHT 10 l
3M369PCC207, SHT 14 y
i
)
4 f
!O i.
i.
4252s/0122s
-E17-
,g OVERSIZE DOCUMENT l PAGE PULLED L SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS 2
4 APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492 = 8989 I
i
,,..m..,-_,..__...
y._,e_.,_-_,__
.,g i
t i.
J i
i' f'
f l
P l
J STRESS CALCULATION i
RC5026 i
i ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS
)
2C369PCS415, SHT 03 2C369PCS415, SHT 05 l
2C369PCS415, SHT 06 2C369PCS415, SHT 07 2C369PCS415, SHT 08 i
.2C369PCS415, SHT 09 1
k 4
ii.
f l
f -
f 4
4 i
i i
L L
L r
4 i
1 6
1 r
4252s/0122s
-E18-
bf OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS i
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492 = 8989 1
~
r-u i
- \\
j i
s I
i
-i STRESS CALCULATION RC6314 l
f ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS l
\\
l.
3M369PCC207, SHT 21 SM369PCC207, SHT 24 SM369PCC207, SHT A03 l
SM369PCC207, SHT A05 i
SM361PCC207, SHT A13 i
i i
i t-4
(
1 4252s/0122s
-E19-
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT l PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS l
NUMBER OF OVERSIZE PAGES FILMED ON APERTURE CARDS APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVICES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 0
(
-