ML20214K196

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 861107 Meeting W/Util,Ge & Bechtel in Bethesda,Md Re Use of ASME Code Case N-411 Concerning Alternative Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Class 1-3 Piping.List of Attendees & Viewgraphs Encl
ML20214K196
Person / Time
Site: Limerick Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/21/1986
From: Martin R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8612020214
Download: ML20214K196 (39)
v • d • e


Text

_-. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

a M

November 21, 1986

. Docket Nos.: 50-353 I

I

LICENSEE
Philadelphia Electric Company 1

( FACILITY: Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF NOVEMBER 7,1986 MEETING ON USE OF ASME CODE CASE N-411 On November 7, 1986, representatives of the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) met with the NRC Staff in Bethesda, Maryland. The subject of the meeting was the use of ASME Code Case N-411 " Alternative Damping Values for Seismic Analysis of Classes 1,2 and 3 Piping Sections,Section III, Division 1" in the ongoing construction of Limerick Unit 2. A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure 1.

A brief chronology of this issue includes PECo's letter of March 27, 1986 on the optimization of snubbers on piping systems in Unit 2, the NRC staff response, dated May 30, 1986, to PECo's letter and two meetings between the staff and PECo on October 8, and November 7, 1986. During the October 8, 1986 meeting, PECo informed the staff that their analysis methods included enveloped response spectra or Independent Support Motion (ISM) in conjunction with N-411 damping values. The staff's letter of May 30, 1986 only approved the use of N-411 damping with the enveloped response spectra method of analysis. Therefore, the discussions in this meeting focussed on justification for the use of ISM with N-411 damping.

In the previous meeting on October 8, 1986 the NRC staff had indicated potential approaches for PECo would be to justify the use of the ISM method with N-411 damping by comparing the results of such analyses with time history analyses or to reperform the subject calculations using enveloped response spectra (ERS) with N-411 damping values. As shown in PECo's presentation material in Enclosure 2, results of analysis using ISM with N-411 were compared to time history calculations. PECo's slides show specific results of their calculations for the recirculation loop, the RHR return line, the main steamline, the feedwater line, and the RHR line outside containment.

In preparation for this meeting time history /FSAR damping confirmatory calcula-tions had been performed for approximately 90% of the systems within the General Electric scope of supply and for 2 out of 25 potential systems within the Bechtel scope of supply.

The staff concluded that the time history /FSAR damping analysis results were likely to be accepted as adequate justification for the systems in the GE scope of supply subject to a docketed submittal by PECo and further confirmatory staff review, i

m:588s

^

BW$r ,

l l

e, 9

The staff concluded that the two systems within the Bechtel scope of supply analyzed by time history /FSAR methods did not constitute sufficient justification for the remaining 23 systems. The staff indicated three alternatives that it could find acceptable for these systems.

1. Time history with FSAR damping;
2. ISM, group responses combined by absolute sum, R.G. 1.61 damping, 3 component direction combination per NUREG - 1061;
3. Envelope response spectrum, N-411 per Regulatory Guide 1.84.

PECo indicated that they would prepare a docketed submittal in response to the discussions of this meeting within several weeks.

Origirm % . by Robert E. Martin, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION

Dxket File l NRC PDR l Local PDR PD#4 Reading JPartlow WButler BMartin Vogler, OGC EJordan BGrimes ACRS (10)

O l RQf4/h PD#4/D /

tartin:ca WButler \

'1/3l/86 11/.g/86

W Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr Limerick Generating Station Philadelphia Electric Company Units 1 & 2 CC:

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Chairman Board of Supervisors of Conner and Wetterhahn Limerick Township 1747 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. 646 West Ridge Pike Washington, D. C. 20006 Limerick, Pennsylvania 19468 Barry M. Hartman Frank R. Romano, Chairman Office of General Counsel Air & Water Pollution Patrol Post Office Box 11775 61 Forest. Avenue Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Federic M. Wentz Dept. of Environmental Resources County Solicitor ATTN: Director, Office Radiologic County of Montgomery Health Courthouse P. O. Box 2063 Norristown, Pennsylvania 19404 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 4

Mr. John Franz, Plant Manager Mr. David Stone Limerick Generating Station Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.

Post Office Br~ A P. O. Box 761 Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Mr. Karl Abraham Thomas Gerusky, Director Public Affairs Officer Bureau of Radiation Protection Region I PA Dept. of Enviromental Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 2063 631 Park Avenue Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Gene Kelly Governor's Office of State Senior Resident Inspector Planning and Development U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Coordinator, Pennsylvania P. O. Box 47 State Clearinghouse Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 P. O. Box 1323 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102

Philadelphia Electric Company Limerick Generating Station 1/2 cc:

Director, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation &

Safety Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Robert L. Anthony Angus Love, Esq.

Friends of the Earth 107 East Main Street of the Delaware Valley Norristown, Pennsylvania 19402 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Helen F. Hoyt, Chairman Charles E. Rainey, Jr., Esquire Administrative Judge Chief Assistant City Solicitor Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Law Department, City of Philadelphia U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Reading Center Washington, D. C. 20555 1101 Market Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 David Wersan, Esq. Dr. Jerry Harbour Assistant Consumer Advocate Administrative Judge Office of Consumer Advocate Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1425 Strawberry Square U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Mr. Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Administrative Judge Associate General Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Room 840 Washington, D. C. 20555 500 C St., S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20472 Mr. J. T. Robb, NS-1 Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennylsvania 19101 Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director

' Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380 l

l

Enclosure 1 November 7, 1986 NRC/PECo MEETING ON N-411 NAME ORGANIZATION J. T. Robb PEco/ Licensing D. R. Helwig PECo, Power Plant Design L. B. Pyrib .

Mechanical Engineering H. Hollingshaus Bechtel-WPC - Manager of Engineering G. C. Lainas NRC/ DBL B. D. Liaw NRC/ DBL R. E. Martin NRC/ DBL / Project Manager R. G. LaGrange NRC/NRR/ DBL /EB Pei-Ying Chen NRC/NRR/PWR-B/ISAPD Y. C. Li NRC/NRR/ DBL /EB N. T. Patel G. E. - Licensing Glenn Sherwood G. E. - Licensing E. O. Swain G. E. - Plant Design Engineer Jeff Thompson G. E. - Piping Analysis David Terao NRC/NRR/PWR-A/EB Bob Bosnak NRC/NRR/DSR0/EIB Joel Page NRC/NRR/DSR0/EIB Dan Guzy NRC/RES Ronald R. Hess PEco, Power Plant Design Rod J. Pence G. E. - Limerick Project Engineer Lingagoud Memula Bechtel, SF Plant Design Chief Engineer W. R. Butler NRC/ DBL /BWD-4 M. Hartzman NRC/NRR/PWR-B/EB i

e .. . . _ - . ~ . ~ . _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __

O SNUBBER REDUCTION PROGRAM BACKGROUND o PIPING SYSTEMS HAVE CAPACITY FOR VERY LARGE DYNAMIC LOADS POWER PLANT EXPERIENCE IN VERY LARGE EARTHQUAKES TEST OF COMPONENT AND SYSTEMS AT EXTREMELY HIGH INPUTS 0 SNUBBERS NOT NEEDED TO PROTECT PIPE FROM COLLAPSE DUE TO DYNAMIC LOADS SNUBBERS INCREASE STRESSES DUE TO SEISMIC ANCHOR MOTIONS SNUBBERS INCREASE MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS t

MAINTAINS SAFETY AND IMPROVES RELIABILITY l

l

b.'.

  • COMPLIANCE WITH CODE & REGULATIONS o CODE SAYS MEET LIMITS OF EQ 9 TO GUARD AGAINST COLLAPSE

~

FAILURE MODE USE N-411 -- NO RESTRICTIONS ON ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY ,

o NRC POSITION BEFORE REVIEW 0F RG 1.84 o OBTAIN CASE BY CASE APPROVAL FOR APPLICATION OF CODE CASE N-411 AFTER REV. 24 0F RG 1.84 0 IF URS + N-411 USED, NO ADDITIONAL NRC APPROVAL NEEDED 0 IF URS + N-411 NOT USED, GET CASE BY CASE APPROVAL OF METHODOLOGY URS - N-411 NOT PRACTICAL FOR ALL BWR PIPING

y - _-

g. . l l

1 '

LIMERICK PLANT - PEAK ACCELERATIONS - 1% DAMPING i,  !

i - . . .

- 1

. b  : .

D R. ,

O, $,

<L4 ir -

i

! .( }

anaeroa n /

k .

rl

' - v l , -

~

G1e ' h, .

ws.

mv # $ av  % .

j-

'o b  !

V f 47 33]g~  :.

l Ih h, ~' ,

\r N> 6 -

~y9 -

y..

. .. t PEAK ACCELERATIONS (G'S)  :

!' " 3 E 3 W N0')E '0CATLON SSE AP SRV i l fj.< k 34 STEAMN022LE 24 5 7 8 6 2 l [g k 46 RECIRCN022LE .

l <;

' ~ ~ ' ' ~

$~ 69 SHIELD WALL 3.5 0.61.3 "l ".' "'.""

OlSCHARG fg

~

. s ,

f gy 47 PENETRATION 3 0.8 *0 ,

" ' p [g QU.66CHERI ,, il l

ig o

{,,, g .. . 4 ... %g 4 M58898W4.98K2%EiMiDB2M5

1 s -

l USEOFENVELOPERESPONSESPECTRAONBWRPIPING

! RESULTSINEXCESSIVENUMBEROFSEISMIC RESTRAINTSANDSNUPSERS

. f

COMPARISON - ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR BWR PIPING

- - memommmmmm,3mmsssmammme-- URS -

1.61

=== U R S -

N 41 1

---m==ammurem----sam---

i n i o un i n i o i i ISM -

1.61 i

i

! i i n i lSM -

N411 mwwxxwwxwwwwwxxxswwxxm Tl M E H I STO t 1.61RY MARGIN y c- ACTUA_LS -

l 0 - URS-N411 CONSISTEllTLY GIVES RESPONSES GREATER THAN ISM o - ISM-1,61 AND ISM-411 GIVE ABOUT SAME RESULTS

(

l

4 > '  ! i , , "l!l  ;

. 3 T w 1 1 S

I 1

6 1 1

H 4 1 4

E / / /

S D M M M R N I T S I

5 l U E _

G - _

E -

L .

S D 3 2

A .

s

A S

O -

0 LE - N'  : 2

/ / A S S RS

/.

/

V 9 y  : 1 E- g\ A S

B A \-

\

\

\-

7 R E

B P /

l

1 AB S

UO j j

7U M

NOL /

/ '

A S N S C R

/

j g/,e,  :

S AE R

KIC \g\ \ SB B

CER I \

\s\

\

\N^

\

ASU

/ff SN R /

, S E *

/ :A 4

M N S

I L & 3 f  ? :A S

/ f/- 2

/. A S

- - - ~ - - . - - -

- - ~ - - - - -

s o s.

  • a O ,. 0 s. 0 A A 3
  • L L , 1 h g@Os

. . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . ~ . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . -

5' PREVIOUS LIMERICK /NRC MEETING O PIPING SYSTEM DESIGNS PRESENTED AS BEING IMPROVED

~

SYSTEMS MORE FLEXIBLE STRESSES DUE TO SAM REDUCED DEFLECTIONS REMAIN SMALL .-

MARGINS RETAINED SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF SNUBBERS REMAIN MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PROBLEMS REDUCED CHANCE OF INADVERTENT SNUBBER LOCKUP REDUCED o NRC STAFF REQUESTED QUANTITATIVE BASIS FOR USE OF ISM-411 RATHER THAN URS-411 i

TODAY - MARGIN WILL BE SHOWN IN COMPARISON WITH TIME-HISTORY

p MATRIX OF LGS EVALUATIONS RESPONSE DAMPING ANALYSIS SPECTRA METHOD FSAR,' URS/ ISM ORIGINAL DESIGN SITE CONSTANT SITE N-411 ISM SNUBBER REDUCTION PROGRAM 1.60 N-411 URS REG. GUIDE 1.84 SITE FSAR, MODAL TIME REFERENCE CASE HISTORY I

i

7 CONSERVATISM OF REFERENCE CASE FOR LGS 0 ORIGINAL COMMITMENT OF DAMPING DIDN'T CONSIDER ACTUAL:

USE OF CLOSELY SPACED MODES PER RG 1.92 COMBINATION OF RESPONSES FROM THREE DIRECTION EARTHQUAKES 0 GROUND MOTION AND CONSERVATIVE STRUCTURAL DAMPING USED RG 1.60 AND RG 1.61 USE OF ORIGINAL DAMPING OVERLY CONSERVATIVE i

l l

l i

0' ISM - TIME HISTORY METHODOLOGY EARTHQUAKE AND ANNULUS PRESSURIZATION TIME-HISTORY O M0DAL SUPERPOSIITON 0 THREE TIME STEPS - PLUS AND 'MINUS 15 PERCENT o THREE COMPONENTS OF EARTHQUAKE TREATED INDEPENDENTLY PEAK RESPONSES COMBINED BY SRSS o COMPOSITE M0DAL DAMPING - WITH ELEMENT DAMPING FOR PIPE, EQUIPMENT AND SNUBBER ISM - RESPONSE SPECTRA o GROUP BY STRUCTURE AND ELEVATION o COMBINE WITHIN GROUPS PER RG 1.92 o COMBINE BETWEEN GROUPS SRSS FOR MAIN STEAM AND RECIRC ABS FOR ALL OTHER

i

- - 274 234 214 m 294 254

- ~

SAll 3A14 1 3 5

' Q 160- g'~

C {i SA2S ([C g-220 200 " 1 1 240 1 260 SA131 Q 500 1 SA12 1 SAIO FC 23-g_-g SA6 P C% SA7 SA9 SAS 140 SA18 28 SA2 SA3 SAI7 SA23 -

/

SA21 SA20 N N,,

b Q~(%

L SA22 ;,

64 105 40

( u.

7 SA19 RECIRCULATION LOOP A ORIGIflAL LI!!ERICK SNUBSERS 21 SNUBBERS

y. . . - ...... ...

I

- 274 234 .' 214 m 294 9 254 1

5 g  :. r.,

]160 -

m 200 240 260 220 SA4 SA5 500

_C SA6 SA7 HA2 140 HA1 28 SA2 SA3 7c Erri SA17 SA23 L C IX .

64 105 40

-( SA19

[

T RECIRCULATION LOOP A 1

SNUBBERS REMAINING AFTER SNUBBER REDUCTION PROGRAM l

10 SNUBBERS REMAINING .

- - , + . - , , - - . - . - . , . - - - . - . . - - .

.,e, ,,e .,. .,.u--

  • w ,y O y su

&'m &ANM

%9%%2% .

8 m

&'RN'%%NM m

h $ddddNN73d o  !

y; M N' %' % N'A M 8J =>

o- ?ll//% e 5L

&l NS&NN 2l y?

i S

O n.

4 g hM *i n E

VN////////b w 5

& & hNNN'NM

%%7/ '

8 b b, ' R \, \ R g O O O b O ,-

Osy) ssaw.s e

UE P

LIM ERIC < .

RECIRC LOOP A - AP + SSE SUPPORT LOADS 100 90 -

80 -

7 7 ,

70 - -;/, /,

/ ' /

I

^

60 -$/ / '$/ ---

s

$ /. / /, Z  ;

/,

6 o

50 - $ ,N

/)

/ ,

-)

j.

4 ' N \ /'

/ ,

40 - /f l/l\l '/ /_ .

S 7' _

/, -

/ s / \ / - / x / N / \ r

/

! ' ' s ' ~'

/ c 30 - / ,

/,

7 sq 7-y. j/ \:\'

,/\s 7 xs 7 20 -/N' /\'. '/ \ / \ j/q>x '

7/ '// T // /

/

i

//\' N / \ '/

/\

\ \

N /\

/\ //\ '/\

f 'N-

'N ' /z / \

' i

/ \' f \; '/[/

l

'/ \'

/\ fK f' '/

NQ '/ N' N' ,/

,/

10 - \' '

7 /]['\ h/ N / \ /\

/,N.~

['[N' s /

\N /[ ' ,'\$ '

/I\s

\ /N'\

/ ' N \ \

' '/\

s 0 ' \. '

f SA3 SA4 SA5 SAG SA7 SA17 SA19 SA20 SA23  !

SA2  !

SNUBBER NUMBER s l

le /l ISM /411 [x q TH/FSAP  ;

7. --

II

.5 A81 REctRC.

TEE SAR 2

  • m 1

I Q

.5AFA

.SARS v

3AR8 73 SAR6 3AR9 5AW7

.1

'SARlo CTAT. PENE.

1 3 g, r- y qq

- l .

ORIGINAL 10 SNUBBERS

g' Ob REciRC.

TEE

.' m

[r T><a f

.sA6a SARS 73 SAF6

/

CT/AT. PENE.

L R RE uTN AFTER REDUCTION 3 SHUBBERS

~

WA o

se dse 6

'S'1 _

a

@53 ms O* E7

-+ 5L z

la m w

LJ < $ .

!a $

2'

_z z J$ -

  1. 3 _i nw DN i i i i i

xmL ii

? E R n B (iss) ssaus

C2 ,'

LIMERICK ..

RHR RETURN - AP + SSE SUPPORT LOADS 20 19 -

18 - -

17 -

16 - ,

15 - )

~

[ -

g g e

e

fi' '- -

SS 1/

RPV 3 [1 9

SDS LS

  • r W SD9 - Containment O

P 72 62 A

> e m '

Guide GD1 49 E- SD2 SDI 47

, - SD5 43 23 82 SD6 T-1-

SD4 92 SD7 31 MAIN STEAM LINE D ORIGINAL LIMERICK SNUBBERS 8 SNUBBERS

. . ...._.;...._....._.__...me_.._....._-.__._-_ -

.cc, uJ If 3 (k 9

O 72 62 A l

e  % GD1 49 SD2 SDI 47 43 23 82 SD6 l

{

' 92 31 MAIN STEAM LINE D SNUBBERS REMAINING AFTER SNUBBER REDUCTION PROGRAM 3 SNUBBERS REMAIN I

i

9 3

LIMER CK '

MAIN STEAM D - OBE + SRV STRESSES 40 35 -

ALLOWABLE 30 -

r, 25 - s  :

w -

4 z

v s x N \ t g 20 -

- N \ .

w

% /\ \ _

t M r7 /\ /\ .

15 -

/\ /\ /\ 7 i

/\ f h /K r  !

,tx

/\ /\ /\ /\ /7 l 10 - _

/\ /\ /\ /\ l 7N /\ __

75 / \ /\ /\ /\, I

/\ /\ /\

/\ /\ D #\ '  !\ /  !\

5-/\ ' -

/\ /\ /\ /'N / N /\ /\ /N

/N /N ,

/\ /\, /\ / \ /\ /\ / \

/\ / N /\ /\ /\ /'\ / \ /\ / \ '

0 !

001 003F 031 N 023N 043 047F 62 092 i 009 031F 023F 049 72 082 003N NODE NUMBk47N R Q ISM /411 l ._ N TH/FSAR

,.s. .. -.........._,m....,_..._.

___m-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

p,.

i k'S32! _

= 5 2 t E /// ca E s! .

M El *i .

b

  • M e

I EMSF C

I l 4

l l j

(sm) avo,

f fl

.,i

,  ;:

  • I ';

y .

f ,

g oo Yh l

b I

\

N b .

,ev c

/

i~

se t

7 8

,/

y O s t

e I

1 1

S E

O VL2 P

R 2 a

=

a 9}e- 1 ,s

- N M, u

, m A.'k 7 n3 s

6 5

6

$ b nhgg) a s

- g p:

N O

A I

TS 's t  :: h R CR .

E E UE TR EB dO DB WF ERN RU D

E BES E B B2 5

F U N

S

( I l l f l ll l '

W~~

g.

~

Nm=.%m...,-,--_.._,._._._,. . , _ _ _ _ , , _

s t '

N N

c' RfN NO22LES O

FEEDWATER A AFTER SNUBBER REDUCTION 10 SNUBBERS V . .

k 1

W -@ .;

S  ;

e e 4 <  ;

g4XA w I .

>4 .

. y ..

Y

&n

.u.

.y ,

LINERICK ..

FEEDWATER OBE + SRV STRESSES 50 45 -

40 -

35 - .

h d$,

30 -

m

,'N x x .,

p 25 - _,_ g' .

Y w

/x , N' .

E 20 - 7 \g $/\'

. ,-y /\'

,/y' v> ,/y ,- -

g' sq q- \'

15 -/N /\ X / 7N m /\'

/N 1 .

/N /N X/ \ / '\s / \

/ '\ /e\

- \

/ '\

10 ,/N

-/ '$ /\ 75 /N y /\

7 7

/eN f N /N

/ / \- /N /N ,. N 7/N f 7N /N ,

/ N /\ /\

/N /\ ,/ \

/\. / \1 /N /N

/N ,/ N // \\ /N

/N i

/\ /N 5-/N /N // \ /N N N.' / N

/ / \ /\ /! \

\ N /

i

/ \N /N /\

'Y !

/

!\ '- # ' ' \ '

0 45 55 60 195 64 100 162 20 170 110 318 I NODE NUMBER M ISM /411 l\ N TH/FSAR

.!;I  ! :i g .

~

Mg6a 4

G p$ 1 9x k 7 S

D 9/ha 3 1 _

A O 0 R x:aYa L 3 A T

P.

O

'f 1 S F

/

P H P RT KUS 6 E

\r%xka 0 BJ -

C [s#xh/ MN 1

U N I V _

R N I .

RS E _

E+ r%x%

D MEB I

L O

R s#/ha 3 O 8 N 1

1 4

E q%

T A

W D

E p0a 6 6

/

M S

I 1

E F /

V r%xka 1

6

/#xh r%xk

~

4 2

0 8

6 s#/ha :

~,,;

3 4 '

2 2 2 1 1 a

._p..,

LlMERICK '

FEEDWATER SSE + AP STRESSES BU i I

i 70 -

ALLOWABLE .,

60 -

l a 50 - ,

g .

1e L  !;

os i

$ 40 - y v .;.

w -

7\

f N f N 7\ '/\ 7'\'

fN l

M 30 - /\ /N /\ /\

1

/\ /\ /\ /\ I

/\ /N /\ rX Il 20 -/ N

/\

/\

/N 7\'

, r/\

/\

/N

/\

/\

/\

N

< /\

/\ ,! r

/\

l

/\ /\ /N /\ 7N /\ / \ r/\ 7 \ 7-\' /\

I!

10 -/\ / N /\ / \ /\ /\ /N /\ /\ / \'  !!

l

/\ ~/\ /N /\ / \ /\ / \ /\ /\ / \' /\

/\ /N /\\ '/\ /\\ /\ / \ / N / \ / \' /\

!\

ii-

\ !Y \  !\ \ '

I O 45 55 60 195 64 100 162 20 170 110 318 f NODE NUMBER Q ISM /411 M TH/FSAR l' t

e

! i ffl

~

if  : I.

( f  ;;

4N 4

6 96 1 9 7 3

S 98- 1 N;

D A

O L

\ 0 3

R A

1 S T F R /

O H P

  • %% T KPU h*98 G

O J CSP I

1 r

O RA E+

MESS

(*%% \ 3 8

I LR E f*96 1 1

4 T

A %y 6 w W 6 D

E p*48 / S I

E  !

F /

  • %% 1 6

v f*98 .

\ (w%$N  ?

3 4

k[ sp8 - - -

0 4

5 3

0 3

0 2 " '

5 o i

4 ' 1203A OI *

'.' ,.pa4a F'"**

/N '

/*

g

,r'.

K201C h

Y

/

f V -

f

9 L

2

/,

sa

% s e

m ,

497 i U

in M

n *N ur l

35

'M y D l 45

[ ,

j 3,

\

Gz  ;

it N g a= .

ol4 -

f

M 4 ll \  ;

RHR OUTSIDE CONTAINMENT de y BEFORE /

SNUBBER REDUCTION 44 SNUBBERS .

0 0

e 11_1

'~

.' -l 4 q . -

/e '

ge * ,

$b;U a /

%s y

  • @ s a.?

r- ,

Yb @

jv 1

5 g

e i2 b y: z 9 t /

N < 5,H1*I 8

e utd a la x

5k 5

" / E N .

! :! i '

_ ' ,'. il i i! --

, ii

~

, . , , i->>'

N\\\\ 5 5

///// 3 sN\\N 0 4

3 S

<////

E S

S E

x\\\\\\ 5 8

4 R --///////

T R S A 0 S V

R s\\\

0 F S /// 5 /

H RT K+ E x\\\\\N\\\ ' 7O BE N I I

CBO p////////// 4 M N UI RTN E L

N EEM B A x\\\\\\ 0 E 4 D W 4 O MTN O L

L

///////// N I

O A LC N\NNN\\\\\ 0 1

1 E 3 4

/

D I

S 7 ////////// ~

4 M

S T I U

O \:\\\\\\\\\ 0 7

1

/

H R .//////////

p V

R s\\\\\\\ 5

- /////// 6 N\\\\\\\\\ 0 5

f////////

4 2 0 8 6 4 2 8 S 4 2 O 2 2 2 ' 1 ' 1 1

' -.,1 gW "

ll  ; - l' l l

= . -._ --. ..- - .-

. .u LIMERICK ...

RHR OUTSIDE CTMT. OBE + SRV SUP. LOADS 16  !

t 15 - .

i 14 - ,

13 - 7 ,

12 - /I  !.

8 11 - ' ' .

10 -

^ '. -

O .

/\

w

.t 9- e . i

' f.

V - '

8- , es s  ;;

r a 7 * '

4 7- , , ,

sx a\ ~

-\

S 6- :

-s -s .

. s es -s r es ^ y s /\ /\ '"

$-7g gg /s /

?,, , ss' /N - T l i.

s y p..\  ? m ,

f 7- /s.

4' ,s.., -

i ., ,s /r ,~,. ,-

,s e, / _

- -  ?

, -^ ~

/\ ?

  • l}

3- - s ~ s -x /*, ' ' '". 7', 'N /* - * ' ' ' * ' "

ys fx - s /s es  ? rs _

e% rs es e s /s ex /% _ _

_ 'N ^ ' N - 'N ' ' 'N ,{

ps , s e s es e x _s es n /s /w - - e - r - /s /s e s -

r . / * - ' ' /- % /N /\ ?'

I; x /% /s /s / * /'- - $ #\ f * 5 #5 #\ #5 \ * -l

/s /s / A r w, / e j_ f s /s ys e s -

w -

/% /\ ' * / ' /5 / \ ' '

ps ,f s ys /s s p s / $ /s ,-

  • r s si, / $ /s r - /* r I'

/ S  ;

O ,, o o , ,u , uo ,!

Um gn " <F *m 7

In J oN O hr-

  • tn getm,o m 'n 4 r-v [ g,s g e&

o n m m n e- r- * -

y m, in m l t

+g so o o - - r -8

. . t 8

y ISM /411 Q TH/FSAR l ;.

I

. .g.-l L' M ERICK *'

RHR OUTSIDE CTMT. SSE+SRV+LOCA STRESSES .

50 40 -

ALLOWABLE .

$' 30 - '

E  !

t3 r

M  ;

y 20 - , ,

7 -

i 7' '/ '/

/Y N 7 10 -

f

/\

'i R RS R R

f. \ /\ / \ /\ /

,_ R

\ / N /\ /

7,

\

7,

/\

/ \ /O \ /\ /\ /\ \ / \.

/

/

\ /

\'

/\ i' 1

0  ;-

70 430 440 470 500 485 340 355 j 50 65 NODE NUMBER I; G ISM /411 M TH/FSAR i

i i

- . ' f  : , ,i ,  ; * :l ' , '

r

s\,s , .

/ s - i. o__J-s, m,r r4s^s ^- .

xs s s m% s

, - . - - - ssnssNss.

< / e / / , i -

, sw s%,

z*,nr//s

/r /.

q,,.

.. s - , w sx s\, x w <

efs n// /s , / / f s ? -

m',, s. mem D n/

w L

5 s s, ~

' - f e. , / s ', ' - M P

, s ,

U s,

_- e / - o r^ R S ,

A A 7 ,

S F

C O /  ?

/

L H T - a T

+ sam KVR - - ,

_ sssx J mrv CS+ 7 / / /. /

5 s s s

//- - y Nry A.

p RES .,

^

%, s sxsss,. - ,,

// - ,/- / /

% s f/

ron ES i

7 j ,

. -s ssnssss r/ e/ ,

s rion MTMT I

7 / /i

, x s 7 f /,

s

r. s s , / -Oa l LC ,

/~

4, s , \

/// 4 1

1 4

E nss s

/

D  ; x x -,

_ / - / f / / / / n, 4n4 ci M

I S

T T . %

- f 1 me4 S I

U s, sw, O 7 / '

e e s ew, R

/

H n_s*. /y W**

V R - s s%. - s A 7 , / , , - o4 c

_- r '/ / ", /. gG

s. s s,

"_// p $

\ ss\, / ST

- / e

- ,, x 7

rns.e ////ss %

m4, 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 s 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

+ .

nQ 2*% AJ<

q. _ - .

utst CONCLUSION TIME HISTORY CASES ANALYZED FOR LGS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DEMONSTRATION OF SNUBBER REDUCTION PROGRAM ADEQUACY o FIRST "REAL" BWR ANALYSES O REPRESENTATIVE CASES ANALYZED o CONSISTENT RESULTS OBTAINED o USE OF ISM MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN DAMPING USED o REFERENCE CASE OVERLY CONSERVATIVE o REFERENCE CASE DEVIATIONS INSIGNIFICANT o SUBSTANTIAL MARGINS REMAIN

(

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20214K196&oldid=3090281"