ML20212D601
| ML20212D601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1987 |
| From: | Williams J TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212D606 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM 1338, NUDOCS 8703040154 | |
| Download: ML20212D601 (23) | |
Text
,- - - - - - - - - - - . -
TOLEDO
%mm EDISON JOE WILUAMS, JR.
s-va n we-earw
[419)249-2300 Docket No. 50-346 (*'Sl eds m3 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 February 24, 1987 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Centlement This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1986 (Log No. 2044 concern-ing NUREG-0737 II.D.1 - Request for Additional Information (RAI). The questions related to (1) valve operability and (2) thermal hydraulic and structural analysis of the inlet and discharge piping. On October 14, 1986 (Serial No. 1308), Toledo Edison submitted complete responses to Questions 2, 3, 4 and 10 and a partial response to Question 5. Responses to Questions 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are submitted at this time.
Very truly yours, j)r.
JW:MGF:pif Attachment cc: DB-1 Resident Inspector A. B. Davis, Acting Regional Administrator (2 copies) 0703040154 DR 070224 ADOCK 05000346 PDR THE TOLE 00 EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISCN AVENUE TOLEDO, OHIO 43652 P(
Docket NJ. 50-346 Lic:nna Nr. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 Attachment Page 1 Question 1: The Toledo Edison submittal states that the only transient resulting in liquid discharge through the safety valves was the feedwater line break and extended high pressure injec-tion with expected temperatures ranging from 400 to 640*F.
EPRI testing on the 3K6 (Test 438) and 6M6 (Test 932) with water inlet temperatures of 532*F and 463*F, respectively, resulted in chatter and the tests were terminated. Test 431a on the 3K6 with an inlet water temperature of 616*F, performed stably with liquid discharge. Provide additional information discussing the operability of the Davis-Besse 4H1 6 safety valve on liquid discharge. Since testing with 400*F liquid was not performed on any Crosby safety valve, discuss how valve operability will be shown for this inlet condition. What actions will be performed by Davis-Besse subsequent to a safety valve lift, such as disassembly and inspection of the safety valves, after discharging say 550*F or less liquid to assure future operability? If instability is not expected, explain why.
Response: Information concerning the " cold liquid" (temperature ranges from 400* to 640*) was compiled by Davis-Besse's NSSS vendor. In this case Babcock and Wilcox, utilizing conservative FSAR data, wrote EPRI report NP-2352, Valve Inlet Fluid Conditions for Pressurizer Safety and Relief Valves for B&W 177-FA and 205-FA Plants. A review of the Davis-Besse Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR),
Chapter 15.2.8, indicates that loss of normal feedwater (including a feedwater line break) would result in a maximum reactor coolant system pressure of 2512 psia. Per Chapter 5.2.2.3 of the Davis-Besse USAR, the pressurizer
- safety valves are set to lift at 2525 psia. In the case of high pressure injection, please refer to EPRI report NP-2352, Pages 4-34 and 4-35. Davis-Besse is a 177-FA raised loop plant with low head HPI pumps (maximum pressure
<1900 psi) when piggy backed with LPI pumps, and, as such, sees no surge flow due to HPI only. In summary, the safety valves would not be expected to see liquid discharge for a design bases event.
To ensure that the valve's operability is maintained, the l plant's procedure for recovering from a reactor trip l involving a safety valve actuation is in the process of modification. Plant Procedure PP 1102.03 (Trip Recovery) shall require that should a pressurizer code safety relief valve lift and, if during Post Trip Review it is ascertained the valve may have discharged liquid, the valve shall be inspected per Maintenance Procedure MP 1401.02 (Pressurizer Code Relief Valves - Removal, Disassembly, Repair, Assembly, Installation, Testing and Reinsta11ation).
i l
t
Dock 2t Ns. 50-346 Lican22 No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 Attachment Page 2 ,
Question 5: EPRI tests on the Velan gate valve with the SMB-00-10 actuator demonstrated successful operation with torques as
. low as 82 ft-lbs. For purposes of comparison, provide the present Davis-Besse block valve torque switch settings and.
the corresponding torques produced. If the torque produced by the plant block valve operator is less than 82 ft-lbs, it is the staff position that it is not adequate to con-
- clude proper operation based solely on manufacturer's
! calculations. The problems encountered with the Westing-house gate valve on closing, which was traced to the calculations used to size the operator torque requirements, indicate the need to experimentally verify the adequacy of the block valve / operator combination. Toledo Edison should
- provide test data to demonstrate the SMB-00-10 operators at Davis-Besse are capable of providing adequate torque to
, close the block valves.
Response: Toledo Edison's PORV Block Valve (RC 11) was included in the Motor Operated Valve Improvement Program and full differential pressure tested on December 7, 1986.
]
i The valve was shut from full system pressure of 2,150 psi with the pilot operated relief valve open. There were no
! observed problems. An absolute torque value was not
{ obtained due to inaccessibility of equipment in containment
. during the test. However, valve performance was monitored I from the breaker (BE 1602) using the MOVATS (Motor Operated I Valve Analysis and Test System) MCC unit. Prior test data verified that the torque switch trip was 7,795 lbs. thrust at a setting of "2" on the dial of the torque switch. This 1 is equal to a maximum torque produced by the operator of l 94.7 ft-lbs. This was more than sufficient to close the valve under the test pressure. Analysis of the MCC power 4 trace indicated that there was approximately 40% margin to l
torque switch trip when flow was shut off. This corresponds
! to about 60 ft-lbs. of torque needed to close the valve against l
a differential pressure of approximately 2150 psid. Attach-
! ment E provides the records of power vs. time.
Question 6: The Teledyne Engineering Services Report TR-5639-2, as part of the Davis-Besse submittal, identified the subcooled water discharge at 400F and 2500 psig transient on Page 11 as the worst case load producing transient. On Page 87 of 1
the same report, the saturated steam with hot loop seal
, transient is identified as the worst case loading tran-sient. Since the original structural analysis was complet-l ed, the loop seals upstream of the PORV's have been eliminated. This eliminates the hot loop seal transient from consideration as the worst case loading transient.
1 l t i
4
.Dockst Na. 50-346 Licta a Ms. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 Attachment Page 3~
Considering the new inlet conditions for the PORV, review ,
the thermal-hydraulic and structural analyses completed for '
Davis-Besse. Demonstrate that the transients analyzed include the worst case loading transient. Provide a comparison on the calculated and allowable stress for the
- most. highly loaded locations for the worst case transient.
Response: Teledyne Engineering Service (TES) report TR-5639-2 con-
- tains a typographical error. Page 11 should state that the 1
second case is the worst case. The second case is the
- saturated steam with hot loop seal blowdown. This is consistent with Page 87 of the same report.
Since the original structural analysis was completed the r i loop seal upstream of the PORV has been eliminated.
j' Therefore the hot loop seal discharge is no longer the governing transient. Teledyne has provided further analy-sis considering the new system configuration (i.e., without l a loop seal) and determined the worst case based upon the '
- remaining potential transients. This' analysis confirms that the subcooled water discharge at 400*F and 2500 psig
< is still the worst case. All piping stresses are within i the design basis allowables for Davis-Besse.
l Question 7: The submitted report TR-5639-2 states that the structural i analysis of the PORV valve piping system was conducted-using Teledyne Engineering Services computer codes TMRPIPE j and TMRSAP. No discussion or detail of the TMRPIPE code l
was provided. To allow for a complete evaluation of the
- methods employed, provide a detailed description of the l TMRPIPE code and its solution technique. Provide a discus- 3 i sion and evidence on how the program has been verified. '
l Discuss the applicable modeling techniques and parameter
- (i.e., node spacing, time step, etc.). Discuss the rela-
.i tionship of TMRPIPE with TMRSAP in performing the structur-al analysis.
]
Response: THRPIPE is a system of computer programs prepared by TES i which includes a thermal analyzer, structural analyzer, and i
! assorted pre and post processors. !
A more detailed description is provided in Euclosure A. I 4 Verification is described in Enclosure B.
Question 8: Discuss the important parameters used in the THRSAP Program such as lumped mass spacing, time step, structural damping i and cutoff frequencies, and the rationale for the values e selected.
i 6
j-
Dock;t No. 50-346 Lic:nca Ns. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 Attachment Page 4 Response: Teledync Engineering' Services provided the following-response to this question:
The nodal spacing is chosen so that there are nodes at changes in direction, branches, concentrated masses, changes in cross-sectional area and support points. In addition the span spacing is based on a first mode frequen-cy criteria where the first mode frequency between the node points must exceed 33 hz.
The minimum time step was chosen be .001 seconds. This allows for 10 points of fine modeling for frequencies as high as 100 hz and 4 points of coarse representation for frequencies as high at 250 hz.
The direct integration method was used to solve the blowdown problem with the structural damping provided by Rayleigh method where the alpha and beta are based on bounding frequencies of 1 and 100 hz and damping values varying from 0.5 to 1.0% of critical damping.
Since the direct integration method was used to solve the Davis-Besse blowdown problem, a cutoff frequency was not used.
Question 9: The submittal provided insufficient detail on the key parameters used in RELAPS-FORCE thermal / hydraulic analysis for Davis-Besse. Provide information on the node size and time step and discuss the selection rationale. The node spacing downstream of the PORV (volume lengths from 0.789 ft to over 2.5 ft) appears to be too large to accurately calculate the piping forces due to valve discharge.
Justify that the node spacing selected bounds the forces expected at the plant or redo the analyses with smaller node sizes. Also, since the maximum time step should be small enough to prevent the shock wave from passing through a volume in one time step, the maximum time step used needs to be reevaluated if the analyses is redone with smaller nodes. Provide a discussion and evidence on how the force program was verified. Provide comparisons of EPRI/CE data to results calculated with FORCE.
Response: The RELAP node spacing was determined on a trial and error basis. The nodal spacings were reduced until the peak forces in the force time history no longer changed by more than 10%.
The RELAP node spacing was determined by a sensitivity study as explained on Page 11 of TR-5639-2.
Docket N3. 50-346 Lic:nsa N2.-NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 Attachment Page 5 A sensitivity study was done on the exciting model by introducing more control volumes and thus small control volume lengths. As a result of this analysis, the results of the existing model were found to be satisfactory.
University Computing Company (UCC) performed the verifica-tion of the RELAPS-FORCE program. The verification manual (parts of it are provided in Enclosure C), shows the verification procedure and has comparisons with EPRI/CE tests.
Question 11: Toledo Edison used the loads from an earlier stress analy-
! sis as the design loads in performing the structural analysis for NUREG-0737. Provide a copy of the TES report, TR-1495-10a (1973), for our review. The report should include the load combinations analyzed and a comparison of the calculated loads to the allowables for these load combinations.
Response: The loads generated in TES Report TR-1495-10a are no longer relevant to the system. Calculations exist to support the new design loads that have been generated under the new configuration. The loads generated from these later ,'
t analyses are used as the current " design" loads. Toledo
( Edison does not establish maximum load allowables for pipe
! supports as a part of the support design but evaluates the generated " design loads" in light of the project design basis stress allowables (i.e., bending, shear, torsion, bolt pullout, etc.).
l Question 12: Safety valve nozzle loads were tabulated on Page 151 of TR-5639-2. These were compared to the loads from an earlier structural analyses, TR-1495-10a (1973). The 1973 loads were considered the design load. This table shows some of the new forces (Fy and Fz) and moments (Mx and Mz) l exceed the old, design loads. Discuss what will be done to reduce the new loads and forces to within the design loads and forces. Also, this table did not consider blowdown loads. These must be considered when discussing what will be done to reduce forces and stresses to within design i
limits.
Response: Because some of the safety valve nozzle loads, tabulated on Page 151 of TR-5639-2 (new loads), exceed the 1973 design loads, these new loads were used on Page 148 in a Biljaard type analysis to show that they (new loads) create pressur-izer shell stresses which are small enough to be considered negligible and therefore these loads are acceptable.
Docket No. 50-346 Lic:nsa No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 Attachment Page 6 The blowdown loads are not included in the table on Page 151 of TR-5639-2 because the new configuration of the safety valve discharge line (the tee at the safety valve dis-charge) results in a symmetric and therefore a self equili-brating discharge load and therefore no bending moments.
The possibility of unequal discharge from the tee was considered on Page 145 of TR-5639-2 this was found to create an My moment of 46,646 in-lbs. There is also an Mx moment of 70,434 in-lbs which will increase the Au stress shown on Page 148 of TR-5639-2 from 1,556 psi to 2,306 psi.
This shell stress is well below the Class 1, 1.5 Sm allow-able of 25,050 psi. Refer to the response to Question 10 of our October 14, 1986 submittal.
Question 13: On Pages 144 and 145 of the TES report TR-5639-2, the load on the safety valve nozzle to flange weid were calculated.
The calculation included a seismic load but did not identi-fy whether the load was due to an OBE or SSE. Since the safety valves were analyzed, the load should be due to an SSE. Identify the seismic load used.
Response: The seismic loads used on Pages 144 and 145 are due to an OBE.
On Page 145 the Equation 9 stresses, due to the OBE loads on the safety valve, are calculated and compared to 1.5 Sm which is the allowable for Normal and Upset Conditions.
When the SSE seismic loads are used in Equation 9, this becomes an Emergency condition and the allowable is 2.25 Sm.
The equation 9 stresses for this Emergency condition are not shown on Page 145, but they have been calculated and found to be 27,427 psi. This is less than 2.25 Sm which is 37,575 psi.
Page 145 also combines safety valve blowdown (assuming an eccentric load) with SSE seismic. This is considered to be a Normal or Upset condition and compared to 1.5 Sm. The SSE loads are not shown on this page but they have been calculated and combined with the eccentric safety valve blowdown loads. This is an Emergency condition with an allowable of 2.25 Sm. This Equation 9 calculation shows the stress to be 30,427 psi which is still less than 2.25 Sm (37,575 psi). Therefore, the safety valve is shown to satisfy this condition also.
Question 14: The response to question 10 in the December 6, 1985 letter stated the hanger / restraint design loads were based or the worst case combination of thermal, deadweight, seismic , and blowdown loads. The allowable stress was not provided, however. Provide the allowables used in the
Docket No. 50-346 Lic;ns: N3. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338 Attachment Page 7 hanger / restraint analysis. If only the basic allowable was used for all load combinations the analysis is acceptable.
If a multiplier was used with the allowable for other than the normal condition, then the analysis performed may not be sufficient, and Toledo Edison should justify that the load combinations and allowebles used are conservative.
Response: TES has reviewed the Support Analysis Packages for TES Project 5639 and concludes that we have designed hangers and restraints using the basic allowables given in Section 1.5 of the AISC Code (7th Edition). No credit has been taken for the larger allowables that are sometimes used with loads such as seismic.
Question 15: The response to question 10 of our request for information referenced a TES technical report E-1495-17, Rev. A, that was used to certify the PORV upstrei-m piping. Provide a copy of this report for our review. If not included in this report, provide the load combinations and allowables used in the analyses. Also provide a comparison of the calculated and allowable stresses for the most highly loaded locations. Also, since the PORV loop seal water was drained, discuss what impact, if any, this may have on the previous analysis. Justify the previous analysis still bounds the stresses resulting from all possible transients.
Provide the same data for the piping supports.
Response: (a) A copy of TES report E-1495-17, Rev. A is provided with these responses as Enclosure D.
(b) The loop seal created a thermal stress condition in the Class 1 pipe during discharge because the loop seal was at a lower temperature than the steam behind it. This condition is the major contributor to the fatigue usage factor.
The draining of the loop seal removes this thermal stress condition and does not introduce a new thermal condition in the Class 1 piping because there is no change in temperature in the Claas 1 pipe during this simple steam discharge. Therefore the previous analysis (E-1495-17, Rev. A) still bounds the stresses resulting from all possible transients because the loop seal created more severe stress conditions which resulted in a conservative fatigue usage factor. With the loop seal removed those stress conditions no longer exist and no new condition is added.
r-Dock;t Ns. 50-346-Liczn32 Ns.'NPF-3 Serial No. 1338
' Attachment Page 8 A new analysis has been performed to evaluate the changes subsequent to TES report E-1495-17 Rev. A and therefore there is no impact on this report from these modifications.
Question 16: The information received on the Class 3 piping analysis did not include a comparison of calculated and allowable stresses for the piping supports. Provide such a comparison.
Response: As stated previously in-the response to Question 11, Toledo Edison does not establish maximum load allowable for pipe supports as a part of the support design. The design is performed to a " design load" generated from the piping analysis and the resulting member stresses are compared to the project design basis stress allowables.
Question 17: The response to question 10 of our request for information discussed the loads used to certify the Class 3 PORV piping in accordance with Equation 9 of the ASME code. From the information received, it is not clear what were the occa-sional loads analyzed. Was the PORV discharge combined with the OBE load or was the OBE load considered alone?
Discuss in more detail the load combination.
Response: The load combination utilized in TES report TR-5639-2 was PORV discharge plus OBE load for Equation 9. This is shown on page 153 of that report.
Question 18: The response to question 10 also stated that two Class 1 checks were performed on the Class 3 piping. Discuss the reasons for performing Class 1 analysis for a Class 3 system. Provide a comparison of calculated and allowable stresses for the Class 1 analysis performed.
Response: The two Class 1 stress checks in question were performed on the Class 1 portion of the PORV line. The response to Question 10 does not say that a Class 1 check was made on Class 3 piping but that a Class 1 check was performed in addition to the Class 3 checks. The Class 1 check was performed only on Class 1 piping.
I b
\
l i
Docket No. 50-346 Lic:=2 Ns. NPF-3 Serial No. 1338
. Attachment Page 9 ENCLOSURES DESCRIPTION j A. THRSAP description and solution technique.
B. THRSAP Verification Statement.
t C. The RELAPS-FORCE verification manual except.
{. D. Copy of TES Technical Report E-1495-17, Rev. A E. RC 11 Closing Signature Trace.
I a
1 l
Docket No. 50-346 Lic;n ] No. NPF-3
- S;risi No. 1338 Enclosure A Y Technical Report SEMCES TR-5872-1
1.0 TMRPIPE INTRODUCTION UNCONTCLLED COPY TMRPIPE is an integral system of computer programs for the complete linear elastic analysis and evaluation of nuclear power piping systems to the requirements of ASME Section !!!. This system of computer programs has been developed by Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) through its many years of I performing such analyses.
A desirable feature of the system is the independence of each of the parts.
If desired, a separate and distinct analysis may be performed using any one of the programs by itself.
The integral package consists of the following individual programs:
- TMRTEMP for generation of thermal models and determination of
_j (Ref. 1) temperature distributions i
!] TMRSAP for the linear elastic static and dynamic stress analysis of piping systems (see Sections 2.0 - 20.0) q ;
[~ TMRPASS for tabulating the reactions and displacements generated
] (Ref. 2) by TMRSAP, calsalating the support design loaos, performing a stress evaluation on selected data points, lC '
and printing the information in technical report format w
k NUCPIPE for evaluating the stress results in accordance with the d i (Ref. 3) ASME Code, Subarticle N8-3600 SAPt.0T for plotting piping geometry generated by THRSAP (Ref. 10)
N Each program is briefly described on the following pages.
- TMRTEMP was formerly composed of two separate programs, TEMPGEN and i TMRTEMP.
W.
- TE M Technical Report ECO TR-5872-1 u 1.1 TETEW : Automatic generation of one- and two-dimensional thermal models. Determination of temperature distributions for 3
arbitrary shapes and complicated boundary condition.
d TMRTEMP (Ref.1) was developed to f acilitate the thennal analysis l of nuclear power piping systems. TMRTEMP consists of a pre-processor computer program (formerly TEMPGEN) and a main processor computer program (formerly THRTEMP). The pre-processor and main processor have Deen combined to function as one program. The pre-processor was develope 3 to eliminate much of the tedious work required to generate finite difference nodels for the main processor.
1 The pre-processor can generate four basic mcdel geometries, each W
with its own fixed nodal configuration, with allowanca for variable I dimensions. The four basic geometries defined by the pre-processor are as follows:
(1) Maltiple one-dimensional models which define a geometric discontinuity such as a valve-pipe junction or pipe-elbow junction.
(2) Two-dimensional geometric approxination of full-size and E reducing tees or pipe-to-pipe connections.
f (3) Two-dimensional geometric approximation of half-couplings and weldolets.
E (4) Two-direnstonal geometric opproxima:1on of a tapered transition or reducer.
The ..a l n processor of TMRTEMP ts e:;ed *o solve 'he transient j
temperature distribution for any one , two , cr three-dimensional models.
In addition to solving heat conc. action pec A ms i r, structural elemcots, TMRTEMP may also be used for forced convection, free convection, l or
I' TF WNE Technical Report BGEstNGSBWICES TR-5872-1 radiation, where the output will yield temperatures and heat fluxes for points on the surface of the structure.
Input to the program consists of structural geometry, physical properties, boundary conditions, internal heat generation rates and coolant flow properties and rates.
The program solves the transient heat conduction equations using a first forward difference method. Since the method of solution is based on a nodal representation of the geometry, any type of configuration can be handled through the evaluation of the " equivalent resistances" of the nodal
~
connectors.
I 1.2 THRPASS: A report generator for piping support systems The TMRPASS (Ret. 2) program is a post-processor for TMRSAP. Input j to the program consists of the mathematical model describing the piping i geometry, and the , internal forces, moments and deflections resulting frcm the !
t flexibility analysis for various load conditions (deadweight, hyorotest, thermal, seismic inertia, and attachment displacements). The program '
functions cs a report generator for a piping support system and surmiarizes in
(
a tabular, report-style format the following items:
(1) nozzle and anchor reactions (2) hanger and restraint reactions and displacements (3) a stress summary of selected data points in accordance with ,
the rules of t4C-3652 for sustained loads (Equation 8),
occasional loads (Equation 9), and thermal expansion (Ecuations 10 and 11) for Class 1 and Class 2 components (4) a stress summary in accordance with the rules of f48-3652 for the primary stress-intensity limit (Equation 9), for Class 1 components only 1
TF M Technical Report SEMCES TR-5872-1 1.3 NUCPIPE: Stress and fatigue evaluation in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, N8-3650 l NUCPIPE (Ref. 3) evaluates the stress analysis results of TMRSAP in accordance with ASME Section III, N8-3650. The evaluation addresses the follwing items:
(1) membrane or catastrophic failure (2) fatigue or leak type failure.
Two general types of loads are considered:
I (1) non-self-limiting loads, which are applied loads such as internal pressure and weignt. Membrane analysis is performed
] by considertng all non-self-limiting loads.
(2) self-limiting loads or those loads induced as a result of restraint of deformatien of the structure. Fatigue analysis is performed by considering both self-limiting and non-self-limiting loads.
E In order to evaluate a piping system in accordance with the rules of Section III, it is necessary to perform several flexibility analyses and to use the moments obtained from these analyses to satisfy:
(1) the primary stress-intensity limit (Equation 9)
(2) the primary plus secondary stress-intensity range (Equation 10)
(3) the peak stress-intensity range (Equation 11)
If Equatinn 10 is nnt satisfied, the program nill perform a simplified elastic-plastic discontinuity analysis per 48-3653.6.
A
E mamme E O p Technical Report TR-5872-1 An optional capability of NUCPIPE permits the generation of sets of moments, representing the stress conditions required for this
~ evaluation. This opti;n:
(1) combines seismic inertia loads with attachment motion effects to be used with the deadweight loads in the evaluation of Equation 9, and (2) generates intrarp') lated or extrapolated thermal expansion moments for additional temperature conditions.
~
1.4 *SAPLOT: For plotting of undeformed piping system geometry generated by TMRSAP The SAPLOT (Ref. 10) program is used as a design aid to plot piping system geometry generated by TMRSAP. THe original SAPLOT program has been slightly modified to allow for input of non-sequential user defined node numoers. Although the original SAPLOT program has a variety of options and capabilities, only two are used; the generation of undeformed geometry and the labeling of node locations / numbers. The options can be controlled in the TMRSAP program through the use of the PLOT and NVIEW cards (Sections 11.5.1 and 11.5.2, respectively). The output file generated by TMRSAP as input to SAPLOT is TAPE 21.
1.5 Sumary.
The flow chart illustrated in Figure 1-1 depicts the interrelation of the various computer programs just described. A more detailed description and user-oriented guidelines are presented in the Programs User Manuals (lefs. 1, 2 and 3).
- SAPLOT - Copyrighted 1974 by Ashraf Habibullah.
i
.m f?
A y
Technical Report NM MS TR-5872-1 _'.>
?
r- TMRPIPE
_J -
TART I f ,
'~
- TMRitMP' [ ,
Automatic Generation of 'W PSAP' Cottonal Card or ~
l & 2 Dimensional Geo- Flexibility Analyses. Taoe Cutput of metric System Components. We19nt. Thermal. Response Internal Forces.'
- Thermal Analysts of Spectrve and Force-Time Pbments. & De-
+
Selected Transient History Asialyses flections for -
Conditions for Deter- Eacti Load mining t.Tj . 4 T . Conci tion.
2 TT g gas Defined in Section !!! of the A1ME Ectler and Pressure Vessel Code.
A!ME v .,
SECTICN !!! N yn i CLA15 I I ANALYSIS REQUIRE [
l l
I L-_____________q l
f t
'880CPftt'~
Nuclear rwer pipina pregram used to
- p 45 5' perform stress & f atigw analysts f or Deport Generator for protection acatnst 1) werane or Piptng Analysts Sucocrt catastroot te f ailure and 2) f atigue or System Par NC *652 leak type f ailure considering self- of t.*e A5ME BPVC limitirq leads 5 con self Ilmiting loacs.
- N
/
FIG'JRE 1-1 Flowchart Depicting Interrelation of TMRPIPE Programs
TF E Technical Report b TR-5872-1 :!
2.0 TMtSAP INTRODUCTION c d The TMRSAP computer program provides a linear elastic analysis of com-
~
plex piping systems subjected to static and dynamic loading conditions.
_d TMRSAP is a modified version of the SAP IV computer program (April 1974 version, Ref. 5). The main differences between TMRSAP and SAP IV are as j follows:
I
- 1. THRSAP has an integral pre-processor program which utilizes a piping system language similar to the ADLPIPE (Ref.11) format. ,
This format allows point-to-point :cordinate input and arbitrary node numbering for ease of modeling and for implementing geometry changes into existing models without having to re-do the entire input data. The pre-processor transforms the ADLPIPE format input file into a SAP IV compatible intermediate file in card image format. SAP IV subsequently reads the input data from the intermediate file and proceeos with the analysis.
- 2. TMRSAP has an integral banowidth minimization prcgram based on the l Cuthill-McKee (Ref. 8) resequencing strategy, which reduces the bandwidth of the system stiffness matrix by efficiently ordering the nodes, thereby reducing the storage and cost of the analysis.
- 3. TMRSAP has been modified to include a closely spaced frequency criteria in accordance with the " ten percent method" defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92 C.l.2.2 (Ref. 9) for combining the modal-response in a response spectrum dynamic analysis, i
i
- 4. TMRSAP calculater pipe element forces and moments in both the local and global coordinate systems for static and dynamic analyses.
- 5. TMRSAP calculates a summary table of the following items: l
- a. Maximum pipe element forces and moments (local and global)
- based on absolute value for a dynamic response analysis. -
l
~
WTF1 FD(NE Technical Report SNICES TR-5872-1 b. Maximum pipe element forces and moments (local and global) based on the ten percent closely spaced modal summation method
- (Ref. 9) for a response spectrum analysis,
- c. Maximum nodal point displacements based on absolute value for a dynamic response analysis.
- 6. TMRSAP calculates a tar,le of pipe element stresses and applies stress intensification factors to elbows and some branch geometries in accordance with ANSI B31.1 " Power Piping" (Ref. 4).
- 7. TMRSAP generates an output file (TAPE 11), in card image format, J which contains pipe element forces and moments, in the global coordinate system, and displacements for each load condition (see Appendix C). These files may then be manipulated and merged to become a single input file to the post-processing programs.
- 8. TMRSAP generatas an output file (TAPE 21), in card image format, which contains the information necessary to generate a geometry plot of the piping system model using the SAPLOT (Ref.10) plotting package. The geometry plot will be labeled with the Uscr defined node numbers.
- 9. TMRSAP has a banner at the top of each page of output. The banner I contains the following information:
i
\
- a. Program name
- b. Program revision date and time (for traceability) l
- c. Program rodification name l
- d. Machine name
- e. Job name E f. Job date 9 Job time
- h. Page number
- i. Analysis title (from TITLE card)
i W F W NE Technical R'eport S N ICES TR-5872-1 _9 l
The constraints on the size of a model which may be processed by TMRSAP apply to the pre-processor which translates the ADLPIPE input format into a SAP IV format. These limits are defined below.
q ,
_] Maximum number of nodes 999 i Maximum number of ANCHOR cards 50 Maximum number of FLEX cards 200 l Maximum number of JUNCTION cards 200 J Maximum number of LUMP cards 50 Maximum number of RESTRAINT cards 200 Maximum number of VALVE cards 200 t Maximum number of response spectra definition points (FREQUENCY, AMPLITUDE,G) 30 l Maximum number of frequencies in eigenvalue solution 100 Maximum numoer of different material property sets 100 Maximum number of different section property sets 100 The pioing systems to be analyzed are composed of two basic element types: (1) pipe elements (tangent and bend), and (2) boundary elements. The l pipe element can be represented by a straight member (tangent) or a circularly curved member (bend). The types of structure loads contributed by the pipe elements include gravity loading in the global directions, loads due to thermal distortions, and deformations induced by internal pressure. The boundary element is used to constrain ~ nodal displacements to specified values, to compute support reactions, and to provide linear elastic supports to nodes.
n In addition to a static analysis, four types of dynamic analyses can be performed by the program. These are listed as follows:
- 1. Determination of system mode shapes and frequencies only.
- 2. Dynamic Response Analysis for arbitrary time dependent loads using mode superposition.
- 3. Response Spectrum Analysis.
- 4. Dynamic Response Analysis for arbitrary time dependent loads using step-by-step direct integration.
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 "p g g Sarial No. 1338 3IGNE9tlNG SEMCES Enclosure B
- THRSAP VERIFICATION UNCONTROLLED COPY As additional information on January 7-11,1985, NRC personnel conducted an inspec-tion at TES' facility in Waltham, Massachusetts (NRC Inspection Report and Docket No. 99900513/85-01 dated July 11, 1985). The purpose of this inspection was to review TES' Quality Assurance Program in the areas of computer code verification, computer code error handling procedures, and pipe support design calculations.
Regarding computer program verification, the following is an excerpt from the Report:
"The development and verification of the computer program TMRSAP, which is used by TES in the design of safety-related items was reviewed during this inspection. Technical Engineering Procedures TEP-1-005, Application Computer Program Development, was reviewed and utilized throughout the inspection of TMRSAP.
The computer code TMRSAP, which was developed internally by TES, is used for static and dynamic analysis of linear piping systems. It employs a finite element solution technique with a library consist-ing of curved and straight pipe elements, and a boundary element for simulation of pipe restraints. TMRSAP provides capability for analysis of such static loading as capabilities for dynamic analysis include response spectrum and time history (both modal and direct) analysis. Solution methods include Gaussian elimination for static solutions, and determinant search for subspace iteration for the modal dynamic solutions. Direct integration is performed with the Wilson-W-method.
TES verified TMRSAP by a comparison of the output of 22 verification problem so'Jtions with either the results of hand calculations or the outrt of other computer codes (STARDYNE, EPIPE, ANSYS, and ADLPIPE). During this inspection all verification problems were l reviewed. Although the verification of this code was done accord-l ing to a general design control procedure (Scction 3.0 of the TES Quality Assurance Manual), it was found to meet the requirements of the latest TES procedure controlling computer code verification f
I (TES-1-005),withoneexception. The exception was that the source code listing and computation outputs were not included in the l verification manual. However, the computation output includes a source code listing that was clearly identified in the verification manual and was readily available at the TES office. No violations or nonconformances were identified during this part of the inspec-tion."
l l
l l _ _ _ -
. Docket No. 50-346 l License No. NPF-3
- W Serial No. 1338 ;
) Enclosure C H
L L
r UNCONTROLLED COPY l Verification of the RELAPS-FORCE F
Hydraulic Force Calculation Code t
L 1
UCGL G
1 VERIFICATION OF THE J RELAPS-FORCE HYDRAULIC FORCE CALCULATION CODE BY 4
J. M. CAJIGAS GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 1498 READING, PA 19603 May 1984 5
g .
I 3
1 1
2*
L
(
b
1.0 INTRODUCTION
RELAPS-FORCE (1) is a modified version of RELAP5/M5D1(2) which includes a hydrodynamic forcing function calculation option. This version generates time-dependent force functions for piping segments defined by the user.
RELAP5/ MOD 1 has been modified to solve the hydrodynamic force equation for the requested RELAPS volumes, at each time step, and write the resultant force to the RELAPS output print and plot files.
This report documents and verifies the accuracy and validity of the changes to RELAPS/ MOD 1. The verification process will include:
- 1) RELAP5/ MODI Changes verification. This verification will show that the RELAPS-FORCE modifications have not adversely altered One precision of
.a the RELAP5/ MODI calculation.
- 2) Hydraulic Force Calculation Verification - EPRI/C-E PWR SRV Tests. This verification will show the adequr.cy and accuracy of tne RELAPS-FORCE force calculation methodology by comparison to test cata from the EPRI/C-E PWR SRV Test Program (3).
l
- 3) Hydrualic Force Calculation Verification - Edwards' & Hanson's Pipe Experiments. This verification will snow the adequacy and accuracy of s"
the RELAPS-FORCE force calculation methodology by comoarison to test data p reported by A. R. Edards(4) adn G. H. Hanson(5). This data is particularly significant because it allows a better verification of the blowdown force cotion of RELAPS-FORCE than the one permitted from the EPRI/C-E PWR SRV Test configuration and data.
~
l M Nore usr rye ceuptg 7g Ma picgg g,. ,g ) ,,,( ,,,g FRoM / 7"S A u rho R.s .