ML20234D066

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Plant Unique Analysis for Torus Support Sys & Attached Piping for Pilgrim Unit 1 Nuclear Power Station
ML20234D066
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Pilgrim
Issue date: 07/26/1976
From:
Teledyne Materials Research
To:
Shared Package
ML20234A777 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-40 TR-2255(A), NUDOCS 8707070089
Download: ML20234D066 (120)
v • d • e


Text

. ww r av}w ymw

%fNW%mff.i ty.

j nm;p%g$;

e&sgm n

\\

qm ay

a. M hh k k h M k 4

vb i

vppp%w:g, pgMgg%yQ,

)

t g@g, 4 g@4 g g, g %g $g g[q

~ w W y @nSe 98 T'

W 1

W W 3pb.

w w ma gw;.m. gy?g, u.n9tm n m.,,, ' _. f y_

. kyx7 v ppMi&ffic f.

l s.

n ma m%,

a.

i m m a; y%pg# e # m&y&gd.is g$ 6 ". &q, y

mm

. m,,

y s

l Qf u.gy ; Q w x

y,.

g $ M M i $ M Q y d y d y [,s.

9 q

a.

n

.. g M hb %;MhM M j h M M Q

[qf 1"

~ ~

~

j

)

g R $ U ; W a @ H M S $ @ $ p @ i &y p g

?

i e

QQL

, &SL Qf; Y &

7' J _ ; '), ; ) j H q ,/ h % w w Q q % g%. m% y$p$) y 4 3s e q Q; i m&a g ' " L 1 A gwp a. 4 , q+vMQQfyQgygf 5 ;%. Q i b aj M 3R2ttS5(af g, ' / 'f lJ ,^h:,, t &ly j@j&y&f4 W N t Mhdl _g.fQ ~ gggQ @f fK yg y W$@ggg@ffff J WF gg 4 "g y [ % W bk t, 5y L y 3 by ~ TdNd 4. 3 PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT 70R.Tomis'SW90RTi j

ATTACHED PIPING FOR PILGRIM WITAMICLWut POWER g%yy

% ;g p g;p g %g %gg%gkyh dqu? yyggy K f.: a s< f h %y(NQy ,y pgj%g;gM[Ti;qr@ g dt g Q p p $ Q' $ pyf$gg/ y p

W q,pyQ,g$fgpyg
ppQppy

~ l : gg w w

p

~ lQ Q %fyd; ,, n;,g y g y'.; Q W yy:f m& m, $. w{g % Qa ,Q<.gf, ~ r v N&.y . n g-3 gygg&qf

'{

hfjYpk f d$ fDi1% f %g ~ \\ . m %f,m.n,g&gy:u.m%,gjkg,k* M g. yy m pp y 1 ug w < n$, x w ,,.,, s 4, y}m&.,, f,.

l[ y i

jQ _ l, i [ ( y a,y. u. s. 1 ,,g n' ,y ' h <r N, m um.s p d Q w,. 'p-up y j g% .s;,w msf e c,. t 1 ,s ' l?g ehhhk f f,.g g;n nn ff A n > c q:,c ml&, mf Og{aj;hy f' o,. g 1 % e w:f a W w wr %ss 1, '4no: < ~ y p y y kkf-lfh:h h7 8

  • Q 7 k

O$ N wm$A : 7 q l M q %w n w %lg p M % p a ,l.. 1, a u #3 a%e mwdymuppi W& 1 m g ggpMygg, W ) Q, %5Wy a 21 y, %; f ?.'w> g y f L s g f y(y:f]o] N g m,q)g.o, Q_Q.yyy g.fyQMQ& m$, %y %_gA, w %;' p +. %-{g m m% s _~

MQ l

$Qg g ,W Q Q g);;. ,;~ e,b, 2 k. n % +n+n% j l E4 spya s m..sD!h&mW%glWl,g$;gl m&lNba nn ma. w m w ;, w a h,g A W Q 9 $ i e gm q M y~ hpq@ v s %, e& &e+ n& f h W. 4PMQ L MQ%Whu pu b m,% wz.. gg wpeptw ymm md *u+&~ee w tynn m y . %g' 9%ngn. My.y%nf}w.9 Th,n#w,..,;es %.~.uW%n&w:s

W.

s, g4p n .p n qr n m - nrn m elwm*hy @MMfi dp,,:: b#Q,# ,f r ug;)$MkA$; y@nk %;Q. . d7 f T, y ' LE Qd fn ~. y (8% m R.^dyapejs g U d, j 7 N h M E W ; dp pd W gy@ 6 w i. .y_, y. wS& .k g @M f " #9 ADTF15rVNEhkim_iA 4 4 ~ > g @rvO3$$$MMMgJ4 ]4,[JejQw+U(GA$.: ~ m _ ~ M na7o=9 e7oe o L w v 1m ' THOMAS 87-40 PDR Mmmmmm?yThi. ..-O 3 ARE , a w W \\

y BOSTON EDISON COMPANY 800 BOYLSTON STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02199 TECHNICAL REPORT TR-2255(a) I PLANTUNIQUEANALYSISREPORYFORTORUSSUPPORTSYSTEMAND ATTACHED PIPING FOR PILGRIM UNIT 1 NUCLEAR POWER STATION i JULY 26, 1976 l l i f ) I l i i WTELEDGE MATERLALS RESEARCH ENGINEERS 3 303 BEAR HILL ROAD WALTHAM, M MASSACHUSETTS 02154 8 617 890-3350

WTvi m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0' PHENOMENA DESCRIPTION 4 3.0 COMPONENT DESCRIPTIONS 5 3.1 Torus Support System 5 3.1.1 Configuration' S 3.1.2 Support Columns 5 3.1.3 Ring Girders 6 3.1.4 Column to Torus Joint 6 3.1.5 Earthquake Restraint System 7 3.1.6 Vent Header Support Assembly 7 3.2 Piping Systems and Active Components 17 i 3.2.1 Piping and Venting System 17 3.2.2 Active Components 17 4.0 LOADS 4.1 Torus Blowdown Load 19 4.1.1 Torus Pressure Loads 19 4.1.2 Vent Header and Vent Pipe Loads 19 4.2 Other Loads 20 4.2.1 Deadweight 20 4.2.2 Seismic 20 5.0 METHOD OF ANALYSIS 21 5.1 General 21 5.2 3-D Computer Model (Torus Shell Model)- 21 3 5.2.1 General 21 5.2.2 Input Data and Assumptions 22 5.2.2.1 Mass Distribution 22 5.2.2.2 Damping 22 1 5.2.2.3 Boundary Conditions 22 5.2.2.4 Location of Ring Girder 23 l 5.2.2.5 Material Properties 23 5.2.3 Solution Technique 23 L

i WTEUENNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) TABLEOF. CONTENTS (Cont'd) PAGE 5.3 Earthquake Analysis Model 28 5.4 1-D Nonlinear Spring Model 32 5.4.1 General 32 5.4.2 Input Data and Assumptions 32 5.4.3 Solution Technique 33 5.5 Attached Piping 38 5.5.1 General 38 5.5.2 Field Inspection 38 5.5.3 Piping Computer Analysis 38 5.5.4 Evaluation of Active Components 41 5.6 Load Cases 42 6.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF THE TORUS SHELL AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE 44 6.1 Criteria 44 6.2 Component Analysis 44 6.2.1 General 44 6.2.2 Columns 45 l 6.2.3 Column to Torus Joint 67 6.2.4 Shell 70 6.2.5 Ring Girder 75 7.0 RESULTS 79 7.1 Torus Support Structure 79 7.2 Piping System and Active Components 84

8.0 CONCLUSION

S 88 8.1 Torus Support System 88 8.2 Attached Piping 88 REFERENCES 90 APPENDICES 1. Plots of Dynamic Response Data 91 2. Discussion of Program Related Information 110 l L o

( SPT1:1 m(NE l l MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) l LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 1. Torus Plan View 9 2. Torus Composite Cros's-Section 10 3. Inner Column 11 4 Outer Column 12 5. Torus Cross-Section 13 6. Support Column-Ring Girder Joint 14 7. Earthquake Restraint System 15 8. Vent Header Support Assembly 16 9. 3-D Shell Model 25 10. 3-D Shell Model 26 11. 3-D Shell Model 27

12. 3-D Beam Model 30 13.

3-D Beam Model 31

14. 1-D Non-Linear Spring Model 35 15.

Jump Height Displacement Versus Time 36

16. Column Load Versus Time 37
17. Typical Attached-Piping Model 40
18. Column to Torus Weld Joint 69
19. Torus Shell Stress Convention 72
20. Torus Ring Girder Schematic 77

_m

SNI m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report i TR-2255(a) LIST OF TABLES PAGE 1.0 Plant Physical Characteristics 8 2.0 Attached Piping Systems 18 3.0 Seismic Analysis 29 4.0 Total Column Loads 46 5.0 Maximum Torus Shell Stresses and Strength Ratios 73 6.0 Torus Shell Component Stresses . 74 7.0 Maximum Torus Ring Girder Stresses and Strength Ratios 78 8.0 Structural Evaluation Results - Base Case 80 9.0 Structural Evaluation Results - Sensitivity Case 1.0 down and 1.2 up 81 10.0 Structural Evaluation Results - Sensitivity Case 1.5 down and 1.2 up 82. 11.0 Structural Evaluation Results - Inpact following UPLIFT 83 12.0 Attached Piping Evaluation Results - Vital Piping 85 13.0 Attached Piping Evaluation Results - Non-Vital Piping 86 i '14.0 Vent Pipe Bellows Assembly Evaluation Results 84 i i i I l \\ l

i SPTA m/NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report l TR-2255(a) i I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

J 1.l' General - l This ' report describes an evaluation of postulated LOCA (loss'of coolant accident) pool swell effects on the torus support system and external attached piping for the Boston Edison Company's Nuclear Power Plant, Pilgrim Unit No..l. Previous generic studies have concluded that this load condition does not affect containment function. The purpose of this plant unique evaluation is to reinvestigate structural adequacy, eliminating any uncertainty associated with plant-grouping assumptions. i 1.2 Background and Purpose To understand the need for reevaluating the Mark I containments, it is helpful to review the development history for establishing the original design bases. Testing was initially performed on a pressure suppression concept for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant. Additional tests were also performed for the Bodega Bay Power Plant concept. The purpose of these initial tests was to demonstrate the viability of the pressure suppression concept for containment design, and the tests were instrumented to obtain quantitative information for establishing design pressures. The tests were designed to i simulate the loss of coolant accident (LOCA) with various equivalent pipe . breaks up to approximately twice the cross-section area for a design basis accident (DBA). The Mark I containment design, which is discussed in plant safety Analysis Report (SAR), is based on the experimental technology obtained from these tests. GE tested the Mark III containment concept in its Pressure Suppression Test Facility (PSTF). These tests were initiated for the Mark III concept

( mm p ( "RTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report W-2255(a) l because of the geometrical configuration difference over the previous contain-nent concepts principally in the utilization of horizontal vents. Steam had been ejected vertically downward previously whereas the Mark III design ejects steam horizontally. More sophisticated instrumentation became available for the Mark III tests as well as elaborate computerized methods for data reduction techniques. It was from the PSTF testing that the short tenn dynamic effects of drywell air being forced into pool in the initial stage of the LOCA event was first identified. Since the pool dynamic loads were not explicitly incorporated in the original Mark I Containment design, the Mark I Short Term Program (STP) ' was undertaken to examine the Containment Suppression Chamber Structure (torus) and other affected components to verify their integrity and functional capability for the most probable loads induced by a postulated design basis accident. Tests for STP were performed on a 1/12 scale torus model by GE and a 1/10 scale model by EPRI. From these tests and mathematical extrapolations from PSTF tests, LOCA related hydrodynamic loads were defined for Mark I Con-tainment. These are reported in Volume II of reference (9). Based on these loads, all suppression chamber elements were screened to identify potentially critical structural elements which were then generically evaluated in depth or structurally tested. As a result of the 1/12 model test investigations, it was concluded that torus supports and some of the piping outside the torus may have their safety factors reduced. To correct this situation, all plants began to operate at a minimum torus water level, and initiated a op fix (differential pressure between the drywell and the torus) to increase safety margins by decreasing LOCA loads. The application of ap (differential pressure between the drywell and the torus) tends to depress the water level in the downcomer. Under this condition, in case of LOCA, the drywell pressure at which vent clearing takes

n.. ypi pr?(NE i MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report 1 TR-2255(a) j f l h place is smaller, resulting in reduced torus pressures, which in turn cause j s smaller downward and upward loads on torus support system. i i Until now, safety margin estimates have been based on generic analysis results. This document gives results for plant unique analysis \\ of the torus support system and piping outside the torus, and makes comparisons with the acceptance criteria given in Sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this report. The hydrodynamic loads were provided by GE and are discussed in Section 4.0 in this report. I The criteria used is based upon the guidelines of Reference 1.

The, evaluation consists of three steps as follows:

1. Using the criteria of ASME BPVC, Section III, Subsection NF, or NE, whichever is applicable, for Design, Normal and Upset. l If the above criteria is not met, then the following two steps must be used: 2. Using the short term program criteria and compare the results of the analysis to approximately 1/2 of ultimate strength. 3. Using the STP criteria and using the worst sensitivity case (approximately 1.5 x load), compare the results of the analysis to ultimate strength. 1 !~ l l l l l 1. l l

L "eTELEDYNE L MATERIALS RESEARCH ' l Ter.hnical Report 'TR-2255(a) 4 l i I 2.0. PHEf40MENA DESCRIPTION Immediately following the LOCA, the drywell pressure increases, forcing the water initially standing in the downcomers into the pool. Immediately following downcomer clearing, a bubble of air starts to form at the downcomer i exits. Since initially the bubble pressure is essentially equal to the drywell pressure at the time of clearing, the bubble causes a pressure wave which is transmitted through the suppression pool water and results in a downward load on the torus. When the flow from the drywell becomes established in the vent system,. the initial bubble expands. Expansion of the air bubble results in a rapid rise of the suppression pool surface. During the early stages of this process, the pool will swell in bulk mode (i.e., a slug of solid water being accelerated upward by the air). During this phase of pool swell, structures close to the pool surface experience loads as the rising pool surface impacts the lower surface of the structures. This causes upward reaction on the torus ring girders through the vent header support columns. As the suppression pool surface rises, the air in the upper half of the torus is compressed and causes a net upward load on the torus. Data from General Electric's large scale Pressure Suppression Test Facility (PSTF) air tests indicated that after the pool surface rises between 1.5 and 2.0 times the initial submergence of the downcomer, there is a breakup of the slug of water as the compressed air breaks through into the bubble. Pool swell data have been confirmed by results from subsequent tests in a 1/12 scale model simulating the Mark I suppression chamber geometry. l

A

WTFI PTWNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 3.0 COMPONENT DESCRIPT10ft 3.1 Torus Support System 3.1.1 General Configuration As shown in Figs.1 and 2 and listed in Table 1.0, the torus is comprised of 16 sections or bays. Bays "B", of which there are 8, serve as the entry way for the drywell vent lines into the torus which, in turn, encapsulates the vent header system. The remaining 8 sections, bays "A", act as spacers between the individual ".B" sections; it is to these "A" sections that the main torus support systems are welded. The external support system is comprised of 32 columns, 16 outer and 16 inner, welded to the torus shell. The column base plates rest The columns on plates inserted into the floor af the reactor building. therefore are allowed to slide in both horizontal directions but have no vertical upward restraint. The earthquake restraint system completes the external support system. The internal support system is comprised of 16 ring girders, welded to the torus shell. Connected to the lower sector of these ring girders is the support structure for the vent header system. A more detailed der,cription cf the individual components of the torus support system is provided in the following paragraphs. 3.1.2 Support Columns Both the inner and outer support columns are fabricated I-beams,121/2" x 1 1/4" flanges and a 10" x 1 1/8" web, with the flanges of one end modified to provide greater area for attachment to the torus l The portion of the flange which is welded to the "A" section of l shell. ) ___-_-___________________________---------~---m ~

W TAFr?(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) the torus shell has been flaired, while the portion of the flange on the opposite side of the web has been partially removed to accommodate the column tie-in plates; the column tie-in plates bridge the torus shell seam and provide attachment of the column to the adjoining "B" section of the torus shell. The column web is also welded to the "A" section of the torus shell. Other than their welded connections to adjoining sections of the torus shell, there is no direct interconnections between columns (detailed in Figs. 3 and 4). The column base is welded to the base plate, and rests on plates inserted in the floor of the reactor building. By means of two struts (4 x 3 x 7/16 angle) welded to the base of the column and an anchor plate welded to the lower sector of the torus shell, the column l bases are further stabilized (detailed in Fig. 5). I 3.1. 3 Ring Girders Forming the rib cage of the torus, the ring girders are welded to the torus shell, their centerlines parallel to and offset 4" from the seams of the adjoining shell sections. The ring girder is a circular T-beam, 7" x 1 1/2" flange with a 1 1/2" thick web of varying depth. Welded to either side of the girder web, for approximately a 55 sector above and adjacent to the attachment area of the outer column to the torus shell, is a 6" x 3/4" reinforcing plate. (detailed in Fig. 5 ). I 3.1. 4 Column-Torus-Ring Girder Joints i Due to the configuration of the support cclumns (I-beams with the centerline of the web perpendicular to the torus shell) and ) the ring girders (T-beams with the centerline of the web parallel to I and offset 4" from the seams of adjoining shell sections, but not perpendicular to the torus shell), the common attachment area at the 4

r 'ItTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) ' l 1. i torus shell of the support. columns and their opposing ring girders has been strengthened with the use of auxiliary support members. Column and ring girder gusset plates provide strength and additional load-transmission l capability to the attachment area. The reinforcement on the ring-girder web in the area of the outer-column-to-torus-shell attachnient area also provides additional strength to the load transmission region (detailed in Fig. 6). 3.1.5 Esrthquake Restraint System Attached to every alternate "A" section of the torus shell, the earthquake restraint system is comprised of four earthquake tie assemblies or support saddles. The upper assemblies of the support saddles are welded to the torus shell, while the lower assemblies are anchored to the floor of the reactor building via 6 anchor bolts. A pin connects the upper assemblies to their mated lower assemblies. Each assembly has approximately 2" of free play to allow for vertical and radial movement of the torus (detailed in Fig. 7). 3.1.6 Vent Header Support System Connected to the. torus ring girder, the 16 vent header support assemblies tie the vent header to the torus support system. The support ring attaches directly to the vent header and the load transmitted to the ring girder via 2 support columns (6" 0.D. schedule 80 pipe), pin connected to the support ring and the ring girder (detailed in Fig. 8). I i l __-___-______A

WTA s:rf(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) TABLE 1.0 PLANT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS TORUS Inner Diameter 29'6" ( Number of Sections 16 i Shell Plate Thickness (1) Vent Pipe Penetration 1.125" ) (ii) Top Half Excluding (i) .568" (iii) Bottom Half .629" i SUPPORT COLUMNS Quantity Size Outer 16 I-Beams (12.5" x 1.25" Flange,10" x 1.125" Web) Inner 16 Base Assembly Sliding, Not Anchored RING GIRDER Quantity 16 Size T-Beam (7" x 1.5" Flange,1.5" x 20" (Average) Web) EARTHQUAKE RESTRAINT SYSTEM Quantity 4 Type Support Saddles DRYWELL VENT SYSTEM i Quantity Size j Vent Pipe 8 6'9" 1.D. j Vacuum Breakers (Internal) 10 18" 1.D. Vent Header Support Columns 16 pairs 6" Sch. 80 Downcomers 96 24" 1.D. { Minimum Submergence 4'0" { Water Mass at Minimum Submergence 340,285 lbs (1/16 Section Model) { i

"#PTF1 m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 9-FIG. 1 EXTERNAL SUPPORT COLUMNS Y l I t-I { I i A .. _y. p y B '( m T T f ,V (J 6 [ S d' B., /^3 ~ * ^ - ~ _ 4 _ _._. _. H pq \\ VENT PIPE H PENETRATION 9 /y / x q. x '^ 1 1 ,/ '/ y / 'g,N /B p 4_ g I l 1 i 1 TORUS PLAN VIEW aw

SM1:1 m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) l DRYWELL s 1 1 TORUS SPRAY HEADER ~m / VENT ' [ HEADER / VENT PIPE ACUUM~ l / BREAKER u BELLOWS ASSEMBLY p p [M ) / i i OWNCOMER N ING GIRDER s \\ / / i memEii illiamm i g l TORUS COMPOSITE CROSS-SECTION 1 FIG. 2

WTELED(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Anchor Bolt El Technical Report Fig. 3 , Holes (2) .TR-2255(a) f /0 j 3 8 i i j; s I ',<nD View C-C l ~~ N s ~# ] l } ~ j I Struts 8 f 9 , _ ~ Z F1oor Plate '. Torus' Shell A Column Base Plate Torus Shell -l 9 1/ Seam Line f 'V Tie-in /' Plate j 3 l li g j l ln l lt I p \\ ~ l I" Foid Lines ~ 1 1 ~ j l l Tie-in / l' 7 Plate d B 3 l l: l lsl - I s, g._. ~ l l i,ll M 8 ) l l View A-A l l Tie-in Plates )ViewB-B i g I c ? l l s Gusset Plate Inside Column .a

r Technical Report' 'TR-2255(a) $PTF1 FTf(NE UMWM Fig. 4 Torus Shell Torus Shell Seam Line f8 Tg l ' Fold Line wa. l l I Tie-in Plates l ll l I Tie-in' l Plates Jll 7 l l i--- j ll l 1 3 B - -. l l h g I ~~ ll Gusset Plate-l l Lg j -4k-4'- 5 ~ View A-A l 1l y C C i View B-B i i i I Tie.in Plates Anchor Bolt / m Column Base Plate Holes (2) j g Floor Plate y 4 <k e / m [ h ~ ly, O Struts View C-C Outer Column

W ui w uus WSM MU Technical Report .TR-2255(a) Fig. 5 l 7xl1 1 1/2 Thick Web ./ .'\\ / Reinforcing g \\ S [ h l l t \\ \\ \\ y \\ , =

1. _..

\\. [ s'x 'x4 V i / Strut i i I Anchor Plate Outside Column Inside Column Assembly Assembly l Torus Cross bection l

[ME Lp ';- m l le h S suro T ts / "g l o lee n h n o Si s l L a s e c um e ra S i p oe y TS T e [m 4 e t r a e e l gd A rt P r nr ea e ii dl t d RG n rP e r o i s i i Gt s G t e u c gs G g e ns n S iu n i R RG m u m l ( o C a N \\,, o f t c e S r

e' n SPTA AVNE Technical Report TR-2255(a) Fig. 7 Pin p .{ Torus Shell N [ %o_- UU UU t u '. '! - 'c,9 .c.,......- .s r, i l l Upper Assembly Lower Assembly 1 a Pin Upper Assembly rt n n n Lower Assembly 'ujjujjujjujp .~.. ', : : ( ';,*,.e

  • ,'.,r,-... ~.,,.'.";,-

View A-A Earthquake Restraint System ,m

SPTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 1 Fig. 8 Vent Header Support Ring + G-p 1 r1 Support i i a ~ Column i I l I I 9 LJ LJ ~$( Ring Girder I N Torus Shell 1 l ) i Vent Header Support Assembly

W TELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 17 3.2 Piping Systeng and Active Components 3.2.1 Piping and Venting Systems Listed in Table 2.0 are the attached piping systems which assist in the safe shutdown of the reactor. In Sections 5.0 and 7.0 the piping is l further classified as vital (evaluated to a stress limit of 3.0 S as per c 2 reference 1.0) and nonvital (evaluated to a stress limit of 5.0 S as per c reference 1.0). Other piping and venting systems, such as instrumentation and scmpling systems, were not analyzed and are not part of this report. 3.2.2 Active Components _ Designed primarily as expansion joints in the drywell-to-torus venting and vacuum breaker systems, the bellows assemblies compensate for movement between the torus and the drywell caused by thermal growth and dynamic forces. The be))ows assemblics are, due to their design, limited in the amount of axial and lateral movement that they can withstand. In addition to their primary function of allowing movement, the bellows assemblics must also serve as an integral part of the emergency core cooling systems ; the venting system provides the drain for the coolant return to the torus in the event of a postulated break in the reactor primary core cooling system. In addition to the vent pipe bellows, active components include valves located in several of the pipe lines attached to the torus. These valves were considered individually and are discussed in further detail in Section 5.5.4. See Table 12 2See Table 13 ___--___-______D

SPTAPTY(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) TABLE 2.0 l PIPING SYSTEMS l Diameter Thickness System Quantity (In.) (In.) RCIC Pump Suction 1 6 .280 RHR Pump Suction 4 18 .375 Core Spray Pump Suction 2 18 .375 HPCI Pump Suction 1 16 .375 Torus Spray Header 2 6 .280 Drywell Vent Pipes 8 81 .25 Suppression Chamber Purge 1 20 .375 RCIC Turbine E,- haust 1 8 .322 HPCI Terbine Exhaust 1 24 .375 RHR/Coca Spray Testline 2 12 .375 HPCI Turbine Drain 1 2 .21 8 RCIC Turbine Drain 1 2 .218 Building Vacuum Relief 1 20 .375

( - "#TF1FDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report I TR-2255(a) 1 4.0 LOADS 4.1 Torus Blowdown Loads 4.1.1 LOCA Pressure Loads' Based upon the data and methods presented in the G.E. Load Document (reference 2), the increase in air (P ) and water (P, P ' 6} 3 4 5 pressures due to LOCA were calculated for minimum submergence. The pressure distribution below water level was imposed using the stepwise method applied over the arc half the distance to the next pressure transducer location. Plant unique multipliers (Mup, down) were used to modify pressure loads for a.drywell pressurization of 1.5 psi. Since the minimum submergence used in the calculations was the same as thai listed in the G.E. Load Document. I no correction for submergence variation was used (reference 6). Loads developed by this method provided the basis of the base case analysis (para.5.6). Plots of input pressure loads P through P as input to the 3 6 program are included in Appendix 1, for~ the base case loads. 4.1.2 Vent Header and Vent Pipes Loads Based upon the data and methods presented in the G.E. Vent Header Load Document (reference 3), impact loads on the vent header and vent pipes due to the LOCA event were calculated. These loads, corrected for the specific plant characteristics as described in the load document, were then combined with the pressure loads from 4.1.1 during the up-loading condition on the torus, u_ - _ __ a

"/PTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a), 4.2 Other Loads M 4.2.1 _ Deadweight The torus structure was analyzed for the effects of a 1-G deadweight load, with the water level at minimum downcomer submergence. The weight of the primary torus structure (shell, ring girder, vent header system and support structure) was included in the load calculations. The weight effects of any piping or structures (such as platforms, walkways, manways, etc.) attached to the torus were considered to be negligible and were not included in the calculations. i 4.2.2 Seismic Loading 1 The effects of seismic disturbance on the torus were celc91ated for constant horizontal and vertical acceleration cases. The total weight (100%) of the water at minimum submergence and of the torus structure was used. Resulting loads are presented in Table 3.0 in Section 5.3. I l l l J l l I J l l' _AW_

mn "WTF1 Fr#NE MATERIALS RESEARCH L l Technical Report TR-2255(a) L 5.0 METHOD OF #4ALYSIS 5.1 General l Evaluation of the torus support structures was performed utilizing Two one-dimensional '(1-D) and three dimensional (3-D) finite element models. 3-D models were used, a shell model simulating a section of the torus and its support structures (1/16 section model) and a beam model simulating one-half of the torus and its supports (symmetrical model). The 1/16 section shell model was used to determine loads and stresses resulting from deadweight and LOCA pressurization cases. The symmetrical model provided the earthquake loading response data. By inputting selected results from the 3-D shell model into the 1-D model, the means was provided for the evaluation of the external support system under the influence of torus uplift. 5.2 1/16 Section 3-D Model 5.2.1 General As detailed in Figures 9,10 and 11, the 3-D structural model includes the ring girder,1/2 of the torus shell "A" and "B" sections bordering the ring girder, the external support structures, the vent header 4 and its supports', and the vent pipe; earthquake restraint system was not included in the final model as its effect on the torus for the LOCA event was considered to be negligible. The computer program Stardyne 3 Dynre 1, permitted the model formulation using 70 beam and 288 quadrilateral plate i elements, with 2136 degrees of freedom (DOF) in the static loading case and 350 DOF in the dynamic loading case. ] \\

"#TELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report l TR-2255(a). L l l 5.2.2 Input Data and Assumptions i 5.2.2.1 Mass Distribution Mass distribution in the vertical plane was done in accordance with the G.E. loads document (reference 2). The water mass associated with each node was taken as the water column centered on that node to a height consistent with 80% of the water mass associated with minimum. submergence. The horizontal mass associated with each node was taken as the mass of a horizontal column of water centered at that node and extending to the vertical centerline of the torus. H i \\ This mass distribution was used for all dynamic load casss run on the 3-D shell model. ? I 5.2.2.2 Damping ] A damping coefficient equal to 2% of critical was used for all response modes in the formulation. Selection of this value was l based primarily on estimates of the damping effects of the contained water. i 5.2.2.3 Boundary Conditions Boundary restraints were placed at both ends of the torus shell sections as well as at the base of the support columns and at the attach-rent cf the vent pipe to the drywell. [ The torus shell was restrained from longitudinal motion along the center line of each torus segment. Additionally, it was restrained estinst rotations about the vertical and horizontal axis through each end of l the shell segments. 1 1

WTF1 PTVNE Technical Report MATERIALS RESEAD TR-2255(a) The support columns were restrained for vertical motions. The torus support system is not restrained sucli as to restrict upward motion. The 3-D Finite Element Model is configured to prevent vertical motion at the base of the columns. During the initial downward loading phase due to the LOCA transient, f the loads in the various components of the torus (i.e., support columns, support i column to shell weld area, ring girder, shell) predicted by the model are obviously unaffected. During the upward loading phase, when the model is artificially restrained against upward motion of the base of the columns, the { resulting model predicted loads are felt to be conservative. As a result. the j maximum absolute value of loads and/or stresses that occur during the entire LOCA transient, regardless of whether they occur during the downward or upward j load phase, are reported herein. j f The attachment of the vent pipe to the drywell was accomplished via a 3 x 3 diagonal stiffness matrix taken from reference 4. 5.2.2.4 Location of Ring Girder In the actual structure, the internal ring girder is located 4 inches from the joint between torus segments. To ease modeling and help control model size, the ring girder was modeled at the intersection of the two segments. 5.2.2.5 Material Properties I The only material properties necessary for input to the shell model are density and modulus of elasticity. A modulus of 27.9 x 10 psi (A516 6 Gr 70 @ 100 F) was used for ell torus structure. 5.2.3 Solution Technique Solution of a problem with the 3-D shell model is a multistep operation ~ which includes checkout of the model with static load cases, solution of the characteristic frequencies and mode shapes of the undamped structure and finally multiplication by the appropriate load vectors. l I l l

i WTF1 PTVNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) The model was checked out statically by the application of 5 different load cases. These were: l (1) Deadweight of the empty torus (2) Deadweight of torus with water at minimum level (3) Deadweight with 80% of minimum water weight (4) Downward uniform pressure applied statically (5) Upward uniform pressure applied statically These load cases not only allowed checkout of the model itself but also provided accurate calculations of nodal water mass distribution and nodal pressure distri-bution for the subsequent dynamic cases. The next step in the solution was the solution of the eigenvalues and eigenvector, characteristic of the undamped structure. In this operation, a total of 147 mode shapes was extracted ranging from 0-75 hz. This is well above the highest frequency component of the forcing function (approximately 35 hz for the vent header) and should therefore provide a high degree of accuracy. At this point, two variations of the same model were solved for frequencies and mode shapes. All models had the same nodal grid but one had half the mass nodes of the model used and one had twice as many. The purpose of this evaluation was to test the sensitivity of the dynamic character-istics to the mass distribution to assure that the fineness of the mass distribu-tion was adequate. The results confirmed the distribution chosen for the original model. The final step in the solution of the problem is to apply the ) appropriate load vectors along with suitable modal damping to selected eigenvector of the problem. In our solutions all 147 eigenvector were used in all response calculations. ) I Response calculations were made at increments of.004 seconds during the down transient and.002 seconds during the remainder of the problem l (to.75sec). Response calculations consisting of displacements, velocities, l accelerations, and loads are printed out for selected nodes and elements for each of these approximately 275 time steps. ) l w )

4dlJri@ m ,Ri o t B h' 2 \\ 4 U \\X / sn /My fE \\\\ t o \\\\ / O z ~ \\\\ / mz,/ x%\\ // / l /# l e do M le h S A+ 3 D -s n" nm u r rl e eo %% w-d dC a a e et H H r / o t tp / n np e eu / V VS 1"r /M I 5 \\ B \\ i nm L. u lo c re e n p n i I P tne V I

"vPTF1 FDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a). Fig. 10 ,=,=; p =- -n

=.

l f1/ V A /\\/ V \\ \\ l V A / V X f\\ \\ X ~ l I JV A/V \\ \\ \\ J / Y lV A \\ \\ \\ Ill}\\ \\\\\\- 1 f: I l I a n i p-Ring Gi-der j j l I t V 411; / 3 \\ 4A \\ A \\! / 11 T I\\ V \\ /\\_ / / 1A V T /\\; Y V / if 1 l' 1 /\\ '\\_/ 'k / ~N A f / <j If \\/ V/7'i/N,?E,X ;_~K, / Inner D uter 0 [o Support Support Column Column 3-D Shell Model L. ..-.-------------_---u m--

yf j e, g / f p4

  • n s

l WTF1 m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) t 5.3 Earthquake Analysis Model The 3-D beam model used for evaluation of seismic loads is shown in Figs.12 and 13. This model is composed of beam elements which represent the individual torus segments in both bending and shear stiffness. The beam torus segments are connected with rigid links to the tops of the inner and outer support columns. The bottoms of the columns are allowed to slide. The earthquake ties are also modelled. The ties are allowed to move radially but are restrained in the vertical and longitudinal plane. Rigid bar offsets allow for application of the distributed G force at the combined center of gravity of the water and structure. 1 The ends of the torus segments are restrained against translation { along the X-2 axis (Fig.12) and rotations about the X-1 and X-3 axes. These boundary conditions require that the model will only give accurate results for horizontal loads applied in the X-1-direction. Column reaction loads due to.a horizontal earthquake were calculated by applying loads at each of the rigid vertical offsets equal to the total weight of water plus structure for that part of the torus. The resulting loads were scaled for the appropriate static G earthquake load. I I Column loads due to the vertical component of the earthquake were calculated by hand assuming all columns shared the load equally, i The 3-D beam model was run with the static routine of the Stardyne Computer Code. Results of the analysis are presented in Table 3. i l l 1 _a

I SPTF1 m(NE L MAWRIALS RESEARCH Technical Report-TR-2255(a) l. TABLE 3.0 SEISMIC ANALYSIS Input Accelerations.... Horizontal .15G Vertical .10G Axial Column Loads Inner Outer Horizontal Earthquake 8300 lbs 26800 lbs Vertical Earthquake 18650 21900 f l

J N1$ g T$ Y$ ? E N I SL UR RE \\ OT TN D E E C TL UA BC II E RP KT TY AN ST UI I QA D - HR TT FS RS OD AE A < ER NO - OL I T "G C E" R I D X W b S L 4 N D E F / M E D 2 U TS O 2 UE M L 1 O BS C I S M RA A R TM E G \\ S B E I N F f1 I D D I 3 \\ TN I AR TSE R E K 5 A 4 W U U \\ Q H L T O R C A E R E T U O l = li

SPTF1 m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a). / ( / NN .5 / E \\ O \\ s E-to N E h N = = c e 5 .s = = o e u. [ h d N 3 / /k& i/ V /\\ /\\ \\

L

SPTELED(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 5.4 1-D Non-Linear Spring fiodel 5.4.1 General For the purpose of evaluating torus uplift heights and fall-back reactions for the torus columns, a 1-D non-linear (Jump) model (Fig.14) was used. The model consists of a lumped mass connected to a spring in series with a gap. An additional spring with a low stiffness is in parallel with the column spring. This eliminates rigid body motion when the gap is open. The model simulates the action of the structure. When the columns are in compression (torus down load), the gap is closed. When the gap is opened, no load is transmitted through the columns to ground. This non-linear transient dynamic response model was run using the ANSYS computer code. ANSYS element type 40 was used. The slider and damper have been removed from the element. The element has only one degree of freedom. The element requires an iterative solution with the stiffness matrix reformulated each iteration. The parameters of the system are selected based on a simulation of the same 1/16 torus structure as the 3-D shell model. The spring simulates i the characteristics of two columns. 5.4.2 Input Data and Assumptions The mass and spring at the top of Fig.13 represent the same mass and structural stiffness as in the 1/16 3-D shell model. The mass was therefore f taken as the full structural weight plus 80% of the water weight at minimum depth for this segment. To simulate the total weight acting down, an accelera-tion was computed (1.20 g's) which when multiplied by the mass was equal to q 100% of the total weight of the structure and water. The spring rate used i j i

W TA AYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) was calculated to duplicate the bounce frequency of the 3-D shell model. This frequency may be taken directly from the plot of column response loads and shows up clearly as the column loads decrease after the maximum down load is passed. The spring stiffness calculated by this method is approximately 40%- lower than a spring based directly on axial stiffness of the support columns. The forcing function for the 1-D model is a combination of two separate loadings. The pressure load is the same as that used for the 3-D shell model (oP = 1.5 psi) except that the down loads are multiplied by 1.5 and the up loads by 1.2. This pressure load is added to the vent header column response loads taken from the results of the 3-D shell model. Use of the vent header celumn response loads as input to the 1-D model allows us to take ad-vantage of the structural attenuation of the vent header impact loads as cal-culated by the much more sophisticated 3-D shell model. The 1-D model is only allowed to respond in vertical translation. 5.4.3 Solution Technique, The accuracy of the non-linear solution is a function of the number of iterative calculations performed during periods of rapid transient responses. The numerical integration scheme inherently i'itroduces artificial damping into the system. The amount of such damping increases with the ratio of the integration time step to the period of the natural modes of the system. The incremental time step chosen for the analysis is 0.002 seconds. The natural period for the spring-mass system is 0.064 seconds. This results j in 30 solutions per peried. From Fig. 3.2.1.2 of the ANSYS manual, 30 or more integration points per cycle corresponds to a numerical damping ratio of less than 1%. Since the analysis did not account for mass or stiffness damping, the amount of numerical damping is not significant. The results of the analysis are plots and printout of mass displace-ment and spring load, each as a function of time (see Figs.15 and 16).

SPTwi myNE i MATMALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 34-Response calculations for the non-linear model were carried out to 1.8 seconds (1.05 seconds after the excitation had stopped) to assure identi-fication of naximum values. j1 l l .A L

SPTri prVNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) TORUS MASS LUMPED MASS STRUCTURE + 80% OF WATER g STRUCTURAL SUPPORT q, E MODIFIED COLUMN d

P STIFFNERS g:

(FROM 3-D RESULTS) GROUN SPRING (T0 PREVENT RIGID BODYMOTION) 1 GAP l///////// / / l-D MODEL l-D NON-LINEAR COMPUTER MODEL 1 FIG 14 i l

_w^ Ap . _e' T ",3 n*s y vO,+t Lme MkImE X .s v t h g i e H p e mm ui 1 JT m g .G N r. S 5 U. 1 Y 2 S g A i F 2 .0 0 Y 1 .c ii e [1 s p 0 7 . 6 ji . 3 n 6 l i r 9 = [< 3 e t U 3 'g' m i ( = T .4 l t t n n k e e m m e e c c i' a a U l l lk i p p Z l s s H i i D D 6 s 1 m m = F u u 0 m m S i i 0 x x I 1 M M f F a a t ~ 0 C ~ 0 H b. V R H T C U 3 6 H Z 1 l{.I! 5 f U \\Ijl .4 P L ${ 5 1 0 : .2 ? L E C E5 1 Ul9 i0 L L L Li L L r t T il e. 0 2 4 6 B 0 8 6 r

z. U M

0 0 1 3 2 1 0 4 1 0 4 G sQ5 L I llt

Technical Report SPTT1RVNE TR-2255(a) gg e no O"E N E.- r

s n

O to U> 7 t/)> ca er G e 3 D) 13 d .4 I 3 ~ "D. I_ ___ n. -y Z e il 14.

3

.yj.;, e e u th ow o u 3 S >I x - CO "1 " (; -g ns ,8 ~9y oo m ao oo aa o. xx to to ~ m. rx- ,3 H g-

3 if IL
  • ' V.

C J ta) n > a_ ca a a n ,rrF e e<- n n n ,r o u a o o o o o a a o a o o o a a a o o , r., O O O O O O C.) Fe .1 N 9 (D to o N q y i 1 0 8 O l 4 0 .J. 3803 a w

"RTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH i Technical Report TR-2255(a) ! 5.5 Attached Piping 5.5.1 General Based upon the guidelines of Reference 1, the attached piping was analyzed to the stress limitations of equations 4.1.2(a) and 4.1.2(b). Additionally, the LOCA-induced motion of the vent pipe bellows assemblies was evaluated to ensure that the design limitations of the assemblies for lateral and axial movement were not violated. The results of the analysis are reported in Section 7.0. 5.5.2 Field Inspection In conjunction. with the attached piping analysis, a field survey of the subject power plant was conducted for the purposes of veri-fication of piping restraints locations and investigations of any inter-ferences to the piping systems motion. Areas where potential interferences existed, such as limited clearance in pipe sleeves, etc., were considered in the piping. analysis. 5.5.3 Piping Computer Analysis Analysis of pipe stresses was accomplished with the use of small conservative pipe models solved with the ADLPIPE computer program. The pipe was considered anchored at its attachment point to the torus. It was modeled accurately (including rigid pipe supports) to a length where imposed motions would logically be accommodated and was rigidly fixed in 6 d.o.f. at that point. The anchored end at the torus was displaced the prescribed distance, i and pipe stresses were calculated. The displacement imposed at the torus end of the pipe model was equal to 2.0 times the calculated vertical deflection of the torus at that point, as determined from the 3-D shell model for the base case loads. Pipe stresses associated with sensitivity load cases were scaled from these. 1

, m 7-WTm mYNE MATERIALS '1ESEARCH Technical' Report TR-2255(a), 1 A typical computer plot of one of the systems analyzed is l presented in Figure 17. With this method, static analysis results conservatively bound piping response to dynamic displacement of the torus. A discussion of the static displacement criteria (2.0 times uplift) is included in Appendix 2. e i I I s

mn MTF1 prt(NE Technical Report MATERIALS N TR-225S(a) 49_ \\ v \\ JL 1 X f 1 \\ } i k P \\ 15 8 ) 8% 3 7 5 Fig. 17, Typical Attached Piping Model

l'R '1l l 4 1 "RTF1 FfWNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 5.5.4 Evaluation of Active Components Active components include the vent pipe bellows and valves in the piping attached to the torus. L Evaluation of the bellows requires that the maximum relative l displacement between the vent pipe and shell be compared to the manufacturer's design limits. The maximum relative displacement was taken from the worst case of the 3-D shell model results; the manufacturer's allowable displace-ments were taken from Reference 9. Detailed evaluation of the ability of the valves to maintain their required function during large pipe movement is a very time consuming analysis which requires the use of much more detailed information (dynamic) regarding pipe motions, loads, etc., than is available at this time. Be-cause of this, no detailed analytical evaluation was done for the valves. Instead, the valves were considered individually, for the following points: (a) Flexibility of piping between valve and torus, con-sidering existing restraints (b) Flexibility of piping downstream from the valve (away fromthetorus) (c) Magnitude of imposed deflections i (d) Type and function of valve Each valve was evaluated for these considerations by reviering drawings to ' determine their proximity to the torus and a judgment was made regarding the ability of the valve to maintain its function. l 1 w_

"vMT 1 FDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 5.6 Load Cases Considered In accordance with the guidelines of the short-term program described in Reference 1, three load cases were run for the 3-D shell model, a base case and two sensitivity cases. All pressure loads for these cases were de-veloped by adjusting for a drywell pressurization of 1.5 psi, the present operating condition of the plant. The base case was formulated with the pressure and vent header loads described in paragraphs 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this report (calculated from References-2 and 3). These loads were applied without further adjust-ment (load factor of 1.0) and were used to evaluate the torus support struc-ture for downward loads. The sensitivity cases were formulated by applying multipliers to the pressure loads from the base case. Vent header loads were not modified. The first sensitivity case was formed by multiplying the upward pressure loads by a factor of 1.2. The 1.2 factor is the product of a 1,5 load fac-tor and a.8 correction factor as given in Reference 1. The second sensi-tivity case is like the first except the downward pressure loads are multi-plied by a load factor of 1.5. The second case therefore has a multiplier of 1.5 on downward pressure loads and 1.2 on upward pressure loads. Results of the sensitivity load cases are used to help evaluate the capacity of the torus structure to resist upward loads. l The 1-D nonlinear model was run for the second sensitivity case only. This is consistent with the fact that the sensitivity cases provide the worst load condition for computing the maximum upward displacement and column impact load. The impact load resulting from uplift, as predicted by the one degree of freedom " Jump Model", is used in conjunction with the 3-D finite element shell model to predict resulting component loads and stresses. This is done by taking l the maximum value of the impact load for both the inner and outer support columns l

"veTA m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical P.eport TR-2255(a) and dividing this value by the sum of the loads on the inner and outer support columns due to the deadweight condition (metal weight + 100% water weight), to.obtain an " Impact Factor". The deadweight loads and/or stresses were then multiplied by this factor to obtain Impa'ct Values. The Impact Condition that is reported herein is for the most severe sensitivity case [ Downward Load Multiplier = (CFdown)(LFdown) = (1.0)(1.5) = 1.5; Upward Load Multiplier = (CFup)-(LFup) = (.8)(1.5) = 1.2]. The impact load for the base case is less than the initial down load during the LOCA transient and therefore results are not presented.

l L W TE m(NE I MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report ~44-TR-2255(a) 6.0 STRUCTURAL EVALUATION OF THE TOPUS SHELL AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES 6.1 Criteria Based upon the guidelines of Reference 1, structural calculations were performed on the external support columns, the column base and anchorage system, the column / torus joint, the ring girder, and the torus shell. Using the criteria of ASME Code Section III, Subsection NF, Appendix XVIII, Article 2000 (Reference 7), the columns, and the column / torus joint were analyzed for normal and upset conditions; the torus shell and ring girder were analyzed using the criteria of ASME Code Subsection NE. Those structural members not, meeting the Code requirements were then analyzed for compliance with the criteria section of Reference 1. The analysis methods are given in this sec-tion; results are sumarized in Section 7.0. 6.2 Component Analysis 1 6.2.1 General The Pilgrim torus support system is not restrained such as to restrict upward motion. The 3-D Finite Element Model is configured to pre-vent vertical motion at the base of the columns. During the initial downward I loading phase due to the LOCA Transient, the loads in the various components of the torus (i.e., support columns, support column to shell weld area, ring girder, shell) predicted by the model are obviously unaffected. During the upward loading phase, when the model is artificially restrained against up-ward motion of the base of the columns, the resulting model predicted loads are felt to be conservative. As a result, the maximum absolute value of l loads and/or stresses that occur during the entire LOCA Transient, regardless I of whether they occur during the downward or upward load phase, are reported herein. In addition, the Impact Load resulting from uplift, as pre-dicted by the one degree of freedom " Jump Model" is used in conjunction with

E "RTFI m fNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) the 3-D Finite Element Model to predict resulting component loads and stresses. This is done by taking the maximum value of the impact load for both the inner and outer support columns and dividing their value by the sum of the loads on the inner and outer support columns due to the deadweight condition (Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight), to obtain an " Impact Factor." The deadweight loads and/or stresses were then multiplied by this factor to obtain Impact Values. The Impact Condition that is reported herein is for the most severe sensitivity case [ Downward Load i4ultiplier = (CF00wn)(LFDown)=(1.0)(1.5)= 1.5; Upward Load Multiplier = (CFUp)(LFUp) = (.8)(1.5) = 1.2]. The impact load. for the base case is less than the initial down load during the LOCA Transient and therefore results are not presented. 6.2.2 Columns The columns were analyzed to determine their capacity to carry the imposed axial and moment loads. The torus support columns are assumed to be rigidly connected to the torus shell-ring girder junction and are able to withstand vertical load at the lower connection (i.e., the bottom connection is allowed to slide freely in a horizontal plane). Structural instability would occur if the top connection became a plastic hinge or if a great amount of yielding was tolerated. Therefore, any moment occuring at the top joint will cause a primary stress. Also, the axial load caused by the assumed loading conditions will cause a primary stress. Equations 19 and 20 of the ASME Section III, Appendix XVII were used to evalucte the primary stresses. If either of these equations could not be met, the criteria of reference 1 would be used. The componerts of the total column load are given in Table 4.

a t { i "feTELEDYNE e" MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) i l TABLE 4-l TOTAL COLUMN LOADS l INNER COLUMN OUTER COLUMN WEIGHT (KIPS) 185.0 220.0 SEISMIC (KIPS) 27.0 48.7 i BASE CASE (KIPS) 278.0 c 344,0 PRIMARY MOMENT 331.7 237.0 l' (INCH-KIP)-Mx PRIMARY MOMENT 61.8 29.1 (INCH-KIP)-My 1 j i I

u lll l ll l 4 "/PTELEDYNE Technical Report MATERIALS RESEARCH t la.2255(a) t COLUld PROPERTIES l f -INSIDE-l FOR EVALUATION OF EQUATIONS 19 and 20 0F APPENDIX XVII 0F A.S.M.E. SECTION III FOR PRIMARY STRESSES MAT 'l AREA I Z r 1 k1_ b p p. p p A 2 4 3 r in in in in in k k k k Sy 132 ji;2 iE2 tii2 k*l = F'*X ~ A516 I Z = r = = x x x r 49.8 GR 70 42.5 087 S= I29'4 0.85 14.76 f'ey " 25.1 28.5 Z r k = y 38 Y Y y d.= 18.7 408. 65. 3.10 ry 87.7 (f)2 MTE: 1-S 2C E c F = 5, 3(f-) (f) 3 8C 3 c BCc 2 12n E 7, 23(f)2 e 2,2g C = y \\ 3 K E = 27.9 x 10 in 1 L --__

Technical Report "vM ELEDYNE TR-2255(a) MATERIALS RESEARCH FOR EVALUATION OF MODIFIED EQUATION 19 0F APPENDIX XVII 0F A.S.M.E. SECTION III FOR PRIMARY STRESSES ACCORDING TO THE S.T.P. CRITERIA j -COLUtH PROPERTIES -INSIDE-l S.T.P. CRITERIA MAT't AREA I Z r 1 };.1-F F' Fb Fb b 2 4 3 r in in in in in k k k k Sy iis2 jij2 G2 in2 "I F *e " A516 I 2 = = r

  • x x

x = 70 x 1087 174 5.06 X ~ 42.5 129.4 0.85 44.67 95.5 38. 38. 5, = I 53.7 p 'e

  • 2

= = r = 3B y y y k)_ 35.g y - 408 65 3.10 ry ( )2 ~ 87.7 CTE: F= 1.6 1-S, a g 2C c l g nE y,e, (h)2

  • I,2E)1/2 p

Cc Sy 3 k E = 27.9*10 2 in Fxb = Fyb

  • Sy A

Technical Report "peTELEDYNE TR-2255(a) ~4a-ggg Egg FOR EVALUATION OF MODIFIED EQUATION 19 0F APPENDIX XVII 0F A.S.M.E. SECTION III FOR PRIMARY STRESSES ACCORDING TO THE S.T.P. CRITERIA COLUMN PROPERTIES -0UTSIDE-S.T.P. CRITERIA MAT 'l AREA I Z r 1 R p p. Fb Fb b 2 4 3 r in in in in in b k k k k y iii2 jii2 iii2 ii[2 k) pi A516 I Z = r, = x x x x 70 1087 174 5.06 X 42.5 S= 129.4 0.85 44.67 95.5 38, 38. 53.7 y I F'e = Z = = r = y y y k)._ 35.f ( 38 408 65 3.10 y - y )2 - 87.7 ( NOTE: F= 1.6 1-b ~ a 2 y nE

p.,

(h)2 e 2 1/2 l C *I ) c Sy 3 k E = 27.9*10 2 in Exb = Fyb " by l l l i

E "RTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) Metal Weight + Water Weight + Base Case Transient at t Time of Maximum Download (.288 sec) + Earthquake EVALUATION OF EQUATION 19 0F APPENDIX XV11 0F A. S. M. E. SECTION 111 FOR PRIMARY STRESSES - INSIDE - 1 \\ IN GENERAL: f Cm f x C f a b m by 7a f + 41.0 + _7 1 a 1-a F 4x Fby ex F'ey_ A + B + C AXIAL 6 PRIMARY fbx fby f LOAD MOMENT a +B+C $h h h KIPS in in-k P*f P*E p.g MAXIMUM FROM 2x Z P LOAD ALL AND/0R OR OR A EFFECTS Mxx & Myy 6 =.138 P6 +Mxx" x x i 489.5 .9 0.95 11.52 0.9311.0 6 =.021 Y P6 +M = y yy 61.8

i Technical Report "RTELEDYNE TR-2255(a) MATERIALS RESEARCH [: Metal Weight + Water Weight + Base Cnse Transient at K Time of Maximum Download (.288 sec) + Earthquake {.. r EVALUATION OF EQUATION 20 0F APPENDIX XVil OF A. S. M. E. SECTION 111 FOR PRIMARY STRESSES JL l - INSIDE - l', t-h IN GENERAL: [--. i L f fx I b + by 6 1,0 b a + .60S Fbx F y by [ h A + B + C r t-p i; 9 I' COLUMN [g A+B+C I TYPE hU kl I: PILGRIM j

i t

0.62 s 1.0 3UILT UP MEMBER -h,, 1 g a 2

om "WTELEDYNE Technical Report TR-2255(a) MATERIALS RESEARCH l Metal Weight + Water Weight + Base Case Transient at Time of Maximum Download (.288 sec) + Earthquake -0UTSIDE COLUMN-EVALUATION OF MODIFIED EQUATION 19 0F APPENDIX XVII 0F A. S. M. E. SECTION III FOR PRI!1ARY STRESSES ACCORDIl4G TO THE S.T.P. CRITERIA IN GEt4EPAL: f Cm f x C fby a b m + + g 0.5 ~ ~ Fbx Fby e{ A + B + C AXIAL 6 LOAD PRIMAP.Y fbx. fby f MOMENT a A+B+C $h $h $h KIPS in in-k p,g P*f P*E MAXIMUM FROM "Zx Z P y LOAD ALL AND/0R OR OR A EFFECTS Mxx & Myy 112x_ llyx Zx Zy Po +M x xx" o* =.170 237 610.7 1.36 0.45 14.37 ].37 1 0.50 o =.005 Po +M = y y 29.1 j I l I i l _A L

mr V~ "vPTELEDYNE l .$$f,)"*P't MATERIALS RESEARCH { Metal Weight + Water Weight + Base Case Transient at h' Time of Maximum Download (.288 sec) + Earthquake ( -IN31DE COLUMN-EVALUATION OF MODIFIED EDUATION 19 0F APPENDIX XVII 0F A. 3. M E. SECTION III FOR PRIMARY STRESSES ACCORDING TO THE S.T.P. CRITERIA } [ g. b IN GENEPAL: f Cm fx C fby b m a Fa f f z 0.5 + + 1 a 1 a p Fx Eby h b p. yrex ey A + B + C k f< AL 6 PRIMARY fx f b by f D M0 MENT a A+B+C k k k KIPS in in-k $p jp $p }l P*C P*E h i MAXIMUM FROM 2x Z P P*E k y i UAD ALL AND/0R OR OR A EFFECTS Mxx & Myy P6 +M = { ' '- x xx l 6 =.138 364.6 489.5 X P6 +M 2.10 1.04 11.52

0. 35 <_. 0. 50

'f 6 =.021 y yy d , y[- Y 68.2 1 i! t h\\ d:-; Moment values used herein are maximums occurring during the initial downward { loading phase of the LOCA transient. They occur slightly after the time of f maximum compressive load in the column. l I,

4 ~ "/PTELEDYNE Technical Report MATERIALS RESEARCH TR-2255(a) Metal Weight + Water Weight + Base Case Transient at Time of Maximum Download (.288 sec) + Ea thquake -0UTSIDE COLUMN- ~ EVALUATIO!! 0F fiODIFIED EQUATI0f1 19 0F APPENDIX XVII 0F A. S.11 E. SECTI0if III FOR PRIl1ARY STRESSES ACCORDING TO THE 5.T.P. CRITERIA IN GENERAL: ix Cm Iby f Cm b a + + d 0.5 I~ ~ Fby Fx b e{ A + B + C ^L 0 PRIl4ARY fbx iby i D M0!iENT a A4B+C $h h $h KIPS in in-k P*f _P

  • E p,g l%XIl104 FR0!i 2x Z

E OR y LOAD ALL OR OR A EFFECTS Mxx & 14yy y i P6 +Mxx" 6 =.170 x 610.7 411.8 2.37 0.97 14.37 0.42 1 0.5C 6 =.005 P6 +M = y y 63.3 Moment values used herein are maximum occurring during the initial downward loading phase of the LOCA transient. They occur slightly afteY the time of maximum compressive load in the column. L______-

,m Technical Report

    1. TELEDYNE TR-2255(a) MATERIALS RESEARCH Impact Following Uplift for Worst Sensitivity Case (LFdown =.5, LF
  • I*)

up (3.887)[Deadwe.ight Condition] -INSIDE COLUMN-EVALUATI0ll 0F MODIFIED EQUATION 19 0F APPENDIX XVII OF A. S.11. E. SECTION III FOR PRIl1ARY STRESSES ACCORDING TO THE S.T.P. CRITERIA IN GENEPAL: f Cm i x C iby a b m + + d, 1.0 7a f f". 1 a I~ Fbx F F'ex y cy by A + B + C O l{ihnY bxy by f, f I 4 ik h th2 KIPS' in in-k P*/ ' P*E P*E 1%X1 tium FROM 7 7-p OR LOAD ALL OR OR X EFFECTS Mxx & Myy .233 P6 +M 6 = = x x x 682.0 720.5 4.40 1.93 16.95 .5811.0 6 =.036 P6 +M = y y yy \\ 126.0 i 1 l l

pr q WTELEDYNE Technical Report MATERIALS RESEARCH l TR-2255(a) 1mpact Following Uplift for Worst Sensitivity Case (LFdown = 1.5, LFup"I'2) (3,887)[DeadweightCondition] -0UTSIDE COLUMN-l EVALUATION OF MODIFIED EQUATION 19 0F APPENDIX XVII OF A. S. th E. SECTION III FOR PRIMARY STRESSES ACCORDING TO THE S.T.P. CRITERIA IN GENEPAL: f Cm ix Cm iby b a 7a + Z 1.0 + 3_ a 1 a F F f'ey by l ex A + B + C AX1AL S PRIMARY fbx fby f LOAD M0 MENT a A4B+C $h h gh KIPS in in-k P*f P* E pg liAXIMUM FROM 2x Z E OR y LOAD ALL OR OR A EFFECTS Mxx & Myy plyy 2x Zy

    • e 6 =.311 P6

+Mxx" x 611.0 855 6 =.019 3.51 1,29 20.12' O.621 1.0 Y P6 +M = v. yy y j l i l 1 _ _.. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ ~

"vPTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report ) TR-2255(a)- INNER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN

  • 3 A

/ l ,7 f g Coordinate System for Loads x2 U x2 x1 y

  • I 0"MII -

h I = x3 Centerline l I Coordinate System for Displacements / Load Condition: Metal Weight + Water Weight I i 1 Torsional Bending Bending i Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment Moment Moment I

lumn (P)

(V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3)

nion (K1ps)

(Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) Top 184.8 -0.2 1.0 -0.1 -132.3 -25.8

ntom

-185.9 0.2 -1.0 0.1 2.7 0.6 4 Displacement Rotation . ' mn (Inches) (Radians) hx1 9x2 h x3 x1 x2 x3 1 1 Top .00007 .020 .0362 .000249 .000017 .000012 l I

ttom

.00912 0 .0237 .000561 .000074 .000103 k

"#TELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) OUTER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN x3 /l / / x2 7 y f Coordinate System for Loads x2 g V =- x 3 x1 Drywell, 4 Centerline Coordinate System l for Displacements l / l Load Condition: Metal Weight + Water Weight l Torsional Bending Bending Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment Moment Moment

alumn (P)

(V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3)

ation (Kips)

(Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) Top 219.4 0.1 -0.7 -0.1 88.8 17.4 Ecttom -220.6 -0.1 0.7 0.1 -4.2 -0.9 a Displacement Rotation Column (Inches) (Radians) otation hx1 hx2 h x3 x1 x2 x3 r__ Top .00001 .0240 .0497 .00047 .000001 .000002 ~. _ Sttan .00497 0 .0302 .00069 .000037 .00006 l _.----._---w

i 4 "vPTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report .TR-2255(a) INNER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN x3,- A / / Coordinate System for Loads .x2 ,f f x2 x1 V XI Drywell 4 q = x3 Centerline ~ Coordinate System for Displacements / (3.887)[ Metal Weight + Water Weight] Load Condition: 1,580,000 = 3.887 Impact Load /2 Columns = Deadweight Load 406,500 Torsional Bending Bending Axial Force Shear Force pihear Force Moment Moment Moment Column (p) (V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) xation (Kips) (Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) Top 718.3 -0.8 3.9 -0.4 -514.3 -100.3 Eattom -722.6 0.8 -3.9 0.4 10.5 2.3 Rotation i Displacement (Inches) (Radians) Column 0x1 9x2 9 x3 x1 x2 x3 a Top .00027 078 .1407 - 000968 .000066 .000047 ' Bottom .0354 0 .0921 .00218 .000288 .000400 - - ^ - - - - - - - - _

"/PTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Trichnical Report TR-2255(a) OUTER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN x2 x3,_ /1 / / f 7 Coordinate System for Loads x2 ( U XI Drywell _ 4 -- x 3 Centerline I i Coordinate System for Displacements / / (3.887)[ Metal Weight + Water Weight] Load Condition-Impact Load 1,580,000 = .887 /2 columns = Deadweight Load 406,500 Torsional Bending Bending Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment Moment Moment Column (P) (V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) Mation (K1ps) (Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) Top 852.8 0.4 -2.7 -0.4 345.2 67.6 fottom -857.5 -0.4 2.7 0.4 -16.3 -3.5 l 1 Displacement Rotation i r.olumn (Inches) (Radians) l otation hx1 hx2 h x3 x1 x2 x3 4 1 Top .00004 .0933 .1932 .00183 .000004 .000008 ottom .01932 0 .1174 .00268 .000144 .00023 1 l I 1 \\

"RTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) INNER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN x3_- A / / .x2 g f Coordinate System for Loads x2 g II - ----.- x 3 XI Drywell _ 4 Centerline Coordinale System for Displacements / Load Condition: Base Case, Transient al Time of Maximum Down Load (.288 sec.) Torsional Bending Bending Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment Moment Moment Column (P) (V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) Lo:ation (Kips) (Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) Top 277.7 .16 .85 .09 -114.0 -22.1 l l Bottom -277.7 .16 .85 .09 4.3 .9 Displacement Rotation Col umn, (Inches) (Radians) hx1 hx2 h x3 x1 x2 x3 = Top .000165 .0303 .0429 000303 .0000312 .000026 Bottom .009799 0 .0205 .000577 .0000854 .000105 h

mm "vPTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report 'TR-2255(a) OUTER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN x2 x3,- /1 / / f 7 Coordinate System for t.oads x2

  • x1 v

-x3 XI Drywell _ 4 Centerline Coordinate System for Displacements / Load Condition:. Base Case, Transient at Time of Maximum Down Load (.288 Sec.) I l Torsional Bending Bending ) Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment Moment Moment I f Column (P) (V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) '0:ation ( Kips) (Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) i Top 343.7 .03 .17 .03 27.6 5.4 Bottom -343.7 .03 .17 .03 -5.5 -1.1 Displacement Rotation l Column (Inches) (Radians) l 0 x, Ox2 0 x3 x1 x2 x3 c-f Top .00002 0375 .0327 .000507 .000001 .0000005 l Bottom .00165 0 .03906 .000583 .000012 .0000218 k- _____..__._______.___________j

W o--u uus t: MATERIALS RESEARCH i1 Technical Report I' TR-2255(a) l. INNER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN x2 x3,- A /' / f 7 g Coordinate Systx.m for Loads x2 x1 y Drywell _ I = x3 XI Centerline Coordinate System for Displacements / l Load Condition: Metal Weight + Water Weight + Base Case Transient at Time of Maximum Down Load (.288 Sec) Torsional Bending Bending Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment Moment Moment Column (P) (V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) .: cation (Kips) (Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) l . Top 462.5 .36 1.85 .19 -246.3 -47.9 i i i Bottom -463.6 .36 -1.85 .19 7.0 1.5 l Displacement Rotation Column (Inches) (Radians) '.ocat ion 'i hx1 hx2 h x3 .l x1 x2 x3 4 Top .000235' .0503 .0791 .000552 .000048 .000038 ~ icttom. .018919 0 .0442 .001138 .0001594 .000208 I e __________m u

M j i "A'TELEDYNE L MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) OUTER TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN l l 4 A / / x3,] 7 7 Coordinate System for Loads x2 d x2 x1 lI x1 Drywell _ 4

x3 7

Centerline j Coordinate System for Displacements / Load Condition: Metal Weight +. Water Weight + Base Case Transient at Time of Maximum Down Load (.288 Sec.) Torsional Bending Bending Axial Force Shear Force Shear Force Moment Moment Moment Column (P) (V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) .: cation (Kips) (Kips) (Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) (In-Kips) Top 563.1 .13 .87 .13 116.4 22.8 httom -564.3 .13 .87 .13 -9.7 -2.0 i Displacement Rotation blumn (Inches) (Radians) a:ation hx1 bx2 h x3 x1 x2 x3 t Top 00003 .0615 .0824 .000977 .000002 .0000025 httom .00662 0 .06926 .001273 .000049 .0000818

y W1 krN' "/PTELEDYNE 9 MATERIALS RESEARCH h Technical Report f{i IR-2255(a) ' i s fi I Pilgrim g.. Inner Tcrus Support Column t Maximun Component Loads 3 I 0 Axial Shear Shear Torsional Bending Bending f Force Force Force Moment 1 Moment Moment d (P) (V2) (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) I' Condition Kips Kips Kips (In-Kips) In-Kips lIn-Kips Base Case 277.7 .7 2.4 .3 447.5 87.0 [ 4 [3 l -25.8 [ Deadweight 184.8 .2 1.0 .1 -132.3 t E, 462.5 .5 3.4 l .2 315.2 l 61.2 h, Bare Case -380.0 .5 -3.5 .3 -309.3 -60.3 04 Deadweight 184.8 ,2 1.0 I -132.3 -25.8 7 -195.2 .7 k -2.5 .4 -441.6 -86.1 1.0 Dn,1.2 Up 277.7 .7 2.5 .3 445.6 86.6 Deadweight 184.8 .2 i 1.0 .1 -132.3 -25.8 I - r 2 462.5 .5 3.5 .2 313.3 60.8 4 T 1.0 Dn,1.2 Up -406.7 .5 -3.5 .3 -310.5 -60.6 W Deadweight -184.8 .2 1.0 .1 -132.3 -25.8

lM r-

{ -221.9 .7 -2.5 .4 -442.8 -86.4 'd 7 1.5 Dn,1,2 Up 91'.7 .7 2.6 .3 446.2 86.7 d. 8 9 Deadweight 184.8, .2 1.0 .1 -132.3 -25.8 1 1 ,(dg .5 3.6 .2 313.9 60.9 [ 1.5 On,1,2 Up -403.2 .5 -3.5 .3 -325.1 -63.4 Deadweight 184.8 2 1.0 .1 -132.3 -25.8 E -218.4 .7 -2.5 .4 -457.4 -89.2

"vPTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) Pilgrim Outer Torus Support Column Maximum Component Loads Axial Shear Shear Torsional Bending Bending Force Force Force Moment Moment Moment (P) (V2) I (V3) (MT) (M2) (M3) Condition Kips Kips Kips (In-Kips) In-Kips In-Kips i Base Case 343.7 .6 3.8. .4 367.5 71.9 Deadweight 21 9.4 .1 .7 .1 88.8 17.4 1 563.1 .7 3.1 .3 456.3 l 89.3 Base Case -308.6 .7 -2.9 .3 -484.7 -94.7 Deadweight 219.4 .1 .7 .1 88.8 17.4 I E -89.2 .6 -3.6 4 -395.9 -77.3 1.0 Dn,1.2 Up 343.7 .6 3.7 .3 372.6 72.9 Deadweight 219.4 .1 .7 .1 88.8 17.4 { 563.1 .7 3.0 .2 461.4 90.3 1.0 Dn,1.2 Up -344.7 .7 -3.0 .3 -480.0 -93.8 Deadweight 219.4 .1 .7 .1 88.8 17.4 1 -125.3 .6 -3.7 4 _ _-391. 2 76.4 1.5 Dn,1.2 Up '518I6, .6 3.7 4 365.3 71.4 7 [- Deadweight 219 .1 .7 .1 88.8 17.4 1 737.4 .7 3.0 .3 454.1 88.8 i 1.5 Dn,1.-2 Up -337.3 .7 -2.9 .3 -485.3 -94.9 Deadweight 219.4 .1 .7 .1 88.8 17.4 1 -117.9 .6 -3.6 .4 -396.5 -77.5 i i L J L k J --_lj

c-SeTF1 prh'NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report. TR-2255(a) 6.2.3 Column to Torus Joint The column to Torus weld joint is shown in Fig.18. The column web is welded to the Torus shell by a full pene-tration butt weld (thickness of web is 1 1/8"). The flanges and tie-in plates are welded.to the Torus shell welds. The tie-in plate welds were ignored in the analysis. The loads used for the torus-column weld joints analysis are found by combining the results of a base case pressure load, 00% of the water weight,'100% of weight of metal structure and seismic load. This combined load data case was investigated to find the maximum loads and moments about each axis regardless of the time at which they occurred. The result was the conservative combination of loads and moments given in Fig.18. The analysis for vertical loads was based on the conserva-tive assumption that the entire axial load was reacted in tangential shear by the full penetration weld between the web and torus shell. The resulting stress was compared to Section III weld allowables and an allowable axial i load was calculated. A strength ratio was also calculated based on the reference 1 short-term program criteria. a The moment loads were assumed to be taken by the flange l l welds only. A linear stress distribution was assumed. Section III imposes an allowable on through thickness tensile strength (imposed in this case by the weld faces on the torus shell surface). This allowable governed in calculating the allowable moments. j As a part of the plant unique analysis and evaluation, THR personnel made sample field measurements of the exposed fillet welds. The j l ( ,-j __-______---_D

3W w WTEEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report TR-2255(a) - p [ t i results showed that, on average, the welds were as good as or slightly better than those shown on the drawings. The field ' measurements yielded the follow-ing Nata: Design Size Measured ? 1 Weld Location (Inches) (Inches) Inner Column to Torus Full Penetration Visual - Always had weld build-up Outer Column to Torus Full Penetration Visual - Always had weld build-up Inner Column Tie Plate Single - 5/8" Fillet 1/2" to 3/4" Outer Column Tie Plate Single - 5/8" Fillet 1/2" to 3/4" Inner Column Flange Double - 5/8" Fillet 1/2" to 7/8" ~ Outer Column Flange Double - 5/8" Fillet 1/2" to 3/4" i The above data was difficult to measure due to the complex geometry of the in-i tersecting surfaces. i l l i I 1 l l' i I 1 i l l l Lu-- -- - o --- -- -

e "veTELEDYNE + MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) ~ Y a RING GIRDER h K SHELL l Z _f,, f f RING GIRDER GUSSET PLATE . GUSSET PLATE P,1 / ,w., Fig.18 Column to Torus Weld Joint

"#PTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 70 6.2.4 Torus Shell The Torus shell is represented in the finite element model by eight longitudinal sections of quadrilateral plate elements, each section containing thirty-six elements around the circumference. The elements ad-jacent to the ring girder were selected for stress determination. The stress components that were detennined were circumferen-tial (FY) and longitudinal (FX) bending and membrane; and shear (FXY). These stress components were detennined for the outside surface of the shell for each element in the section away from the' vent pipe, where the upper inside surface of the shell is unreinforced. In addition, these stress components were detennined for both the inside and outside shell surface, on both sides of the ring girder, in the region of the support columns and vent header columr. The torus shell stress convention is shown in Fig. 19. The loading conditions that have been considered are as fol-lows: (1) Metal Weight + 100%' Water Weight + Earthquake (2) Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight + Earthquake + Base Case Transient (3) Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight + Earthquake + Sensi-tivity Case Transient (1.0 Down,1.2Up) l (4) Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight + Earthquake + Sensi-tivity Case Transient (1.5 Down,1.2 Up) j (5) Impact (3.887 x Deadweight Condition) l ~ I i For the transient loading condition, each component of stress, i l for each plate element, was determined as a function of time. The maximum absolute value of each stress component was then extracted without regard for the time of its occurrence. These values were tabulated for each plate element. To these values, for each plate element, was added the absolute value of stress due to deadweight and the value of strest due to an Earthquake. 1 i

i "veTm Frf(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report j TR-2255(a) l The resulting table was then searched for the maximum value of each stress component, regardless of where it occurred on the shell. The results are shown in Table 5.0. These component stresses were then combined, using a Mohr's Circle approach, to give the maximum possible membrane plus bending values and shear values. These results are shown in Table 6.0. This method of combining stresses is conservative since the maximums being combined do not actually occur simultaneously or necessarily at the same location. The maximum shear stresses occurred in the region of the support column attachment and the maximum bending and membrane stresses occurred either here or in the region of the vent column attachments to l the ring girder. The stress components due to an earthquake were detennined by summing the 1oads on the inside and outside support columns due to the earthquake, and dividing this value by the sum of the loads on the inside and outside support columns due to the deadweight condition, to obtain an " Earthquake Factor." The deadweight stress components were then multiplied by this factor to obtain earthquake stresses which were then added to the various load conditions. The stresses as a result of impact were determined in the same c.annei using the maximum value of the impact load for both the inner and outer support columns. Condition 5 in Table 6, presents results for the nost severe sensitivity case (1.5 down and 1.2 up). The impact load for the base case is less than the initial down load during the LOCA transient and the stress values are therefore not presented. l l

9 F~ { e p - {'. p Technical Report { TR-2255(a) i i i i i s 8 Torus Shell Component Stresses M i SY f /,SXY J // // t.ongi tudinal SX m SX g7 7 Di rection ) s SXY ) Stress Convention Fioure 19 I l l: l l ) l I 1 i l -m

v "MTELEDYNE 4 MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) i TABLE 5.0 Pilgrim, AP = 1.5 psi' Maximum Torus Shell Stresses and Strength Ratios t .l Outside Shell Surface Inside Shell Surface I l S S" max S S" max s s i max max 2 2 2 2 Condition (1bs/in ) S.R. (1bs/in) S.R. (1bs/in) S.R. (1bs/in) j S.R. I I I 3,913 .054 2,872 .060 4,389 .061 3,107 I.065 2 15,601 .217 11.074 .233 18,863 .262 13,219 .278 3 15,502 .215 10.996 .23.1 17,144 .238 12,232 .257 4 16,142 .224 11,425 .240 '18,125 .252 12,829 .270 i t 5 12,825 .178 9,413 .198 14,384 .200 j 10,184 .21 4 g SX + SY)2 + ( XY)2 s " SX + SY, SX - SY)2 + (SXY)2 3 n max rax l l Material: A-516 GR. 70 F = 36,000 psi Ty F = 70,000 psi TU ( SEC (shear) = 0.68 F = 47,600 psi TU = 72,000 psi SEC (membrane plus primary bending) = 2 FTy -_-_ a u

l ' O, A "RTELEDYNE ( MATERIALS RESEARCH e l

  • i.

1 I y L ~ lechnical Report TR-2255(a) i:.:j TABLE 6.0 [ Pilgrim, AP = 1.5 psi h g. Torus Shell Component Stresses l i: ~ Outside Shell Surface Inside Shell Surf ace n U SX+3 SY+3 SXY+3 SX-3 SY-3 SXY-3 f I 2 2 2 2 2 l Condition (1bs/in ) (1bs/in ) (1bs/in) (1bs/in) (1bs/in) (1bs/in) 1 2629 2385 i 1401 3132 2052 1714 n l i h l I l 2 8243 8803 7072 7061 10856 9721 n J 3 8414 8322 7134 7183 7636 9732 j> ,l i j 4 8686 8310 i 7642 9016 8054 9578

h s

5 E617 7817 l 4591 10266 6725 5617 la. p Condition: (1) Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight + Earthquake Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight + Earthquake + Base Case !F (2) Ij Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight + Earthquake + Sensitivity ) (3) Case (1.0 Down,1.2 Up) [ Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight + Earthquake + Sensitivity

- p, (4)

Case (1.5 Down, 1.2 Up) oI c'ild' (5) Impact (3.887 x Deadweight Condition) li'I l

m !'l "vPTm mrNE 4 MATERIALS RESEARCH p Technical Report T TR-2255(a) hp 6.2.5 Torus Ring Girder Stresses { The Torus Ring Girder is represented in the finite element f rnodel by 36 beam elements. The model is shown in Fig. 20. If The stress components that were determined for each of the 3 beam elements were axial, shear parallel to the web and bending about an E L axis perpendicular to the web. In addition, in the region of the attachment of the support columns,. shear perpendicular to the web, bending about an axis parallel to the web and torsional stresses were determined. These h latter stresses are very small and consequently have not been reported, g hn The loading conditions that have been considered are as [j follows: [ p!

1) Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight D

U + Earthquake-Q'{ 2)' Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight l, ' !

g

[j;; + Earthquake + Base Case Transient j

3) Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight

+ Earthquake + Sensitivity Case d'[ Transient (1.0Down,1.2Up) iUf

4) Metal Weight + 100% Water Weight

[$ + Earthquake + Sensitivity Case Transient (1.5 Down,1.2 Up) 5) Impact (3.887 x Deadweight Condition) j. 1.; For the transient loading conditions, each component of load, for each beam element, was determined as a function of time. The maximum absolute value of each load component was then extracted without regard for the time of its occurrence. These values were tabulated for each beam element. The maximum value of the bending stress, the axial stress and the shear stress was then calculated. The maximum value of the bending stress was then added directly to the axial stress. To these values, for each beam 3 i i W-

I '#TF1 FrWNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) element, was added the absolute value of stress due to deadweight and the value of stress due to an Earthquake. The resulting table was then searched for the maximum value of each stress component. The results are shown in Table 7.0. This table also shows the Beam Element Number where the maximum stress occurs. This can be correlated with the ring girder schematic shown in Fig. 20 to determine the location of the maximum stress. The stress components due to an earthquake were determined by suming the loads on the inside and outside support columns due to the earth-quake, and dividing this value by the sum of the loads on the inside and out-side support columns due to the deadweight condition, to obtain an " Earthquake t factor." The deadweight stress components were then multiplied by their fac-tor to obtain earthquake stresses which were then added to the various load conditions. l I { The stresses as a result of impact were determined in the 'same manner using the maximum value of the impact load for both the inner and outer support columns. Condition 5 in Table 7 presents results for the most severe sensitivity case (1.5 down and 1.2 up). The impact load l for the base case is less than the initial down load during the LOCA Transient and the stress values are therefore not presented, i t / y li I

Wr ~i SPTELEDYNE hf-2255 ) MATERIALS NM i BEllDING p M0 MENT..- SHEAR 4 hxxxxx xxxx xx FORCE SECTION "A-A" - TYPICAL i@ l .g g L@ i l Q A{gg l TA ) (@ \\@h\\ VENT COLUMN j ATTACHMENT POINTS h 1 @O' OUTSIDE h h SUPPORT IflSIDE COLUMN SUPPORTS / -w-COLUMN TORUS RING GIRDER SCHEMATIC FIG. 20 i._.m._.___

1 7-r, Wpi m(NE J I MAM E N i; Technical Report TR-2255(a), TABLE 7.0 i PILGRIM, AP = 1.5 psi f' MAXIMUM TORUS RING GIRDER STRESSES AND STRENGTH RATIOS

I Primary Bending Shear Stress Plus Axial Stress

,4

  • axiai *

\\ Condition 5Y S.R. SU S.R. o 2 $l bending a! (1bs/in ) j 3 g (lbs/in ) m k i 1 26 9,895 .137 11 1,836 .039 b,, 4 L 2 21 23,226 .323 26 5,261 .111 l f: J 3 21 23,320 .324 26 5,460 .115 4 11 26,575 .369 26 5,656 .119 j p i' 5 26 32,429 .450 11 6,017 .126 i.y h[! [} i Material: A-516 GR. 70 l ^ l l F = 36,000 psi T Y l F = 70,000 psi jI TU I l \\ SEC (Shear) = 0.68 F = 47,600 psi t Tu = 72,000 psi i SEC (primary bending + membrane) = 2 FT Y 1 i l l .. Y

i i l l g i WTF1 mYNE j Technical Report MATERIALS RESEARCH TR-2255(a) -7g-7.0 RESULTS 7.1 Evaluation of Torus Support Structure The results of the torus support structure evaluation are summarized in Tables 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 for the base case and sensitivity cases Table 11.0 summarizes the results of the evaluation of the Impact following uplift The tables show whether ASME code or short-tenn program criteria were used, the numerator and denominator of the strength ratio ratio itself compared to the allowable value. , and the strength In addition, response plots of displacements and loads for selected teordinates of the structure are included in Appendix 1 i 5 i I

"/PTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report TR-2255(a ) f TABLE 8.0 t j

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS RESULTS j UASE CASE LOAD (aP =1.5 psi) ) } S ngth Component -[ Load / Stress wa IU Evaluation 5B S.$ 3 Calculated Capacity Act. Allw. Ring Girder Stress, psi Membrane + Bending X 23,226 72,000 .323 .5 Shear X 5,261 47,600 .111 .5 l l Torus Shell Stress, psi i Membrane + Bending X 18,863 72,000 .262 .5 l Shear X 13.219 47,600 .278 .5 l Column-Torus Weld Joint j Inner Column I I Web Weld (kips) X 489.4 1318.0 .371 .5 Flange Weld (in.-kips) X 466.2 4380.0 .106 1.0 1 X 90.9 742.0 .123 1.0 l i Outer Column j Web Weld (kips) X 611.8 1318.0 .464 .5 Flange Weld (in.-kips) { 4{g 4gg .: gg .g Column Buckling Inner Column Equation 19 X N/A N/A .35 .5 Outer Column Equation 19 X .42 .5 N/A N/A I l l l l l l y

"rPTELED'/NE i MATERIALS RESEARCH l 1R-2255(a ) 'l Technical, Report I -81 ' l 9 j TABLE 9

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS RESULTS SENSITIVITY CASE, 1.0 00WN AND 1.2 UP ( AP =1.5 psi) / n Component

S r th 1

,j Load / Stress m, Ra Evaluation-g gg I 5 Calculated . Capacity. Act. Allow.. Ring Girder Stress, psi-Membrane +. Bending. X 23,320 72,000' .324 l ~. 0 Shear X 5,460 47,600 .115: 1.0 f TorusIShell Stress, psi Membrane.+LBending X 17,144. 72,000 .238 1.0 Shear X. 12,232 ~47,600- .257 1.D. Column-Torus Weld Joint -Inner Column .WebWeld(kip (s) X 248.8 421.0 .591 1.0 Flange Weld in.-kips) X-467.4 4380.0- .107 1.0 1.0 Outer Column. i Web Weld (kip (s) X .174.0 421.0 .413 1.0 l F1ange' Weld in.-kips) X 477.9 4380.0 .109 1.0 I Y 93.5 742.n .196 1.6 1 i l c-r

??TELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a)' 82-i' TABLE 10

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS RESULTS SENSITIVITY CASE, 1.5 DOWN AND 1.2 UP ( AP = 1.5 psi) Component load / Stress b "9 Evaluation -j j Ra tio 5 Calculated Capacity Act. Allow. j Ring Girder Stress, psi 1 Membrane + Bending X 26,575 72,000 .369 1.0 i Shear X 5,656 47,600 .119 1.0 Torus Shell Stress, psi i Membrane + Bending X 18,125. 72,000 .252 1.0 Shear X 12,829 47,600 .270 1.0 v Column-Torus Weld Joint Inner Column 1 Web Weld (kips) X 245.3 421.0 .583 1.0 [ Flange Weld (in.-kips) X 482.0 4380.0 .110 1.0 '] X 94.0 742.0 .126 1.0 1 Outer Column i Web Weld (kips) X 166.6 421.0 .400 '.0 Fla'nge Weld (in.-kips) { 4fg.g 4gg.g {gf .0 7, a 4 i 'i c

f ~: "vPTm mYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) ' TABLE 11

SUMMARY

OF ANALYSIS RESULTS SENSITIVITY CASE. 1.5 DOWN AND 1.2 UP (oP = 1.5 psi) t i IMPACT FOLLOWING UPLIFT l Component , 5-Load / Stress m, Ra Evaluation y,3 gg 5 Calculated Capacity Act. Allow. l b Ring Girder Stress, psi j. Membrane + Bending X 32,429 72,000 .450 1.0 j-Shear X 6,01 7 47,600 .126 1.0 Torus Shell Stress, psi Membrane + Bending X 14,384. 72,000 .200 1.0 Shear X 10,.184 47,600 .214 1.0 Column-Torus Weld Joint Inner Column s) X 718.3 1318.0 .545 1.0 I Web Weld (kip (in.-kips) Flange Weld X 538.9 4380.0 .123 1.0 l X 105.1 742.0 .142 1.0 p Outer Column Web Weld (kips) X 852.8 1318.0 .647 1.0 FlangeWeld(in.-kips) X 361.7 4380.0 .083 1.0 X 7n R 7a9 n no5 1,n Column Buckling Inner Column Equation 19 X N/A N/A .58 1.0 Outer Column Equation 19 X N/A N/A .62 1.0 f

W TF1 m(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 1 7.2 Piping System and Active Components i 7.2.1 Piping Stresses-l j Tables 12 and 13 list the piping stresses calculated for I each system. Both upward and downward displacements were considered. This J table shows the maximum stress for each line irrespective of whether it [ resulted from a base case or sensitivity case analysis, i 7.2.2 Active Components ) 7.2.2.1 Vent Pipe Bellows The maximum vent pipe bellows motions and the maximum motions allowed by the original design are tabulated in Table 14 for both axial and vertical motions. TABLE 14.0 VENT PIPE BELLOWS DISPLACEMENTS (in) Actual Allowed ['$ Axial (in) .147 [.625 Lateral (in) .221 The numbers given for " actual" represent the maximum relative motion between ' the vent pipe and the adjacent torus shell at any instant in time. This infomation is taken from the 3-D shell model results. i L .sm

T~ ,~ W TELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH ' Technical Report TR-2255(a) I TABLE 12 i \\ _. j VITAL PIPING SYSTEMS i i STRESS VALUE (ksi) PIPING SYSTEM EVALUATED i j . CALCULATED ALLOWED RCIC PUMP SUCTION 22.5. 41.1 -j RHR PUMP SUCTION X22D 14.4 41.1 CORE SPRAY PUMP. SUCTION 30.9 41.1 HPCI PUMP SUCTION 10.8. 41.1 TORUS SPRAY HEADER SUPPLY 27.3 41.1 RCIC TURBINE EXHAUST 17.2 41.1 HPCI TURBINE EXHAUST 17.7 41.1 .a RHR PUMP SUCTION X222C 11.8 41.1 f j I m

V "WTri prVNE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report TR-2255(a) TABLE 13 NON-VITAL PIPING SYSTEMS i PIPING SYSTEM EVALUATED CALCULATED ALLOWED CORE SPRAY TESTLINE 15.5 68.5 { HPCI TURBINE DRAIN 37.6 75.0 RCIC TURBINE DRAIN 5.2 75.0 BUILDING VACUUM RELIEF 13.3 68.5 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PURGE 68.5 9 s I .g

  • System runs vertically off top of torus into a sheet-metal duct which is assumed to have sufficient flexibility to deflect

,.j and relieve stresses. s i 1 I i l I ( i 1 i i i l

M 1PTF1 mYNE: MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR2255(a) l 7.2.2.2 Valves. L Based on the approach discussed in paragraph 5.5.4, it is TMR's opinion that none of the valves attached to torus piping will l be subjected to loads high enough to impair their operation and prevent i-them from perfonning their intended function. l i

r -

i i 4 l 4 l l 1 j-1 3 l l J 3 ~ l _ d L_-

I

,M y h 9PTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report TR-2255(a) I

8.0 CONCLUSION

S 8.1 Torus Support Structure Tabulations of the results of the structural analysis in Section 7.1 shows all. moonents are acceptable. l The .'-t1 cal displacement from the 1-D jump model of 0.34 inches j is below the maximum tolerance of 2 inches for the earthquake restraint. Therefore the assumpt'.ns of the earthquake restraint not becoming active during the LOCA event is correct. i 8.2 Piping and Active Components The results of Section 7.2 shows that all of the pipi.ng systems meet the short-term program criteria. Also no rigorous evaluation of the t valves was ~ undertaken. \\ 5 .I ~ l I a 11

SPTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH , Technical Report. TR-2255(a)' 1 a ) i I j i I-i 1; I ' i L>; 1 l i ? A A i e 7 . t i i 1 'This pa'ge intentionally left blank.

f..

-l 's f '- ! m l 'h s, ?.il N. N l4*.j e 3 i.. .:1 {,p ,..] 1,.i .i e s e l ') ~l ,;y i 1 s p.. siq j I ,{ L.{ , g' "j ,o \\ 6. J'1 l ff.,3 n; l,o V,y' lhl . s,t s o c r [

q W TELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH g Technical Report ! TR-2255(a) + 6 REFERENCES a 1. " Description of Short-Term Program Plant Unique Torus Support Systems I and Attached Piping Analysis," Nutech Report MK 1-02-12 Rev. 2. June r 1976. e f " Mark I Containment Program Loads for Plant Unique Torus Evaluation," i 2. Rev.1. General Electric Co., 28 April 1976. " Mark I Containment: Pool Swell Vent Header and Vent Pipe Impact 3. Characteristics, Methods and Results for all Dcmestic Plants," MI-G-57, General Electric Co., 25 June 1976. 4. Torus to Vent Pipe Matrix Data, transmitted to Mr. J. A. Hayward Tele. dyne Materials Research, from Mr. K. Wiedner, Bechtel Power Corp., e 4 September 1975 I, 5. " General Description of a Boiling Water Reactor," General Electric Atomic Equipment Department. i ? 6. Letter from S. L. Rosen, Boston Edison Company, to Mr. J. A. Flaherty, j-i- Teledyne Materials Research, dated July 1,1976. NED # 76-45. 4 i'[ 7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Subsections NA and [ NE,1974 Edition with Addenda through Sunmer 1975. s j t 8. C.B.&I. Drawing 66 Rev.1, " Expansion Bellows". 1: N 9. " Mark I Coritainment Evaluation - Short Term Program," NEDC-2-989-P, q General Electric Co. 1 i i .] 'I

j k

p b -i

M "vPTELEDYNE BAATERIALS RESEARCH ,ical Report - :35(a) 91 APPEflDIX'1 i Table of' Contents PAGE Outer Column Axial Lead 92 ) Inner Column Axial Load 93' ) Outer Column Moment 94 Inner Column Moment 95 Outer Column Shear 96 Inner Column Shear 97 1 Outer Vent Column Axial Load 98 Inner Vent Column Axial Load - 99 Ring Girder Axial Load 100 { Ring. Girder Shear 101 i Ring Girder Moment 102 j ( Vertical Motion at Top of Inner Column 103 { Vertical Motion at Top of Outer Column 103 { Vertical Motion of Shell at Bellows Penetration 104 4 Vertical Motion at Bottom of Inner Vent Column 104 1 Vertical Motion at Bottom of Outer Vent Column 104 j Vertical Motion at Bellows on Vent Pipe 105 I P3 Forcing Function Amplitude 106 ) j{ P4 Forcing Function Amplitude 107 P5 Forcing Function Amplitude 108 ) P6 Forcing Function Amplitude 109 1 ? } i i t e

y-E "W I N MMNE TR 55a).- i.' u.. t,... ... c. em.... u n. n ..ri." c ? I l-. .. mon. " L )_ I I b 4 A ...o.. o t y' \\, I ..1 c i e e I i 3.cocosIo c, 1 l t 'l- .t.9000850 i I, ) _.4 4 w r \\.. i ... m . L h4'[ .4.0000s o " .e .snw .s m aa .soo m . oom ..oe m .uom .mm 7, n.c...tc. o. N Base Case AP = 1.5 psi '[ Outer Column Axial Load iT vs i Time Due to Transient Load l-i. ;. - ( 'L'., 5i j$ J tU. 3

V WM MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) 93 Man tomos munata de ,voc s ein.i n s a n..mn. " l ..n." l i j. s.m.n. ' 1 .3 O ~ f s.m.n. " I O i i i / I ~ _.. _.j, l 1 i .s. m us. " _ <. j - ' 'g f j T -t ..ms." i a~a a-i s,.e...e.. o. i l Base Case AP = 1.5 psi i Inner Column Axial Load vs Time Due to Transient Load I l l } _

%,c f 4 WTELEDYNE' MATERIALS RESEARCH .. Technical-Report TR-2255(a) 94 I i Mas leads bvneta 45 tTrC Pat. 4 4 >.o " : n l.9%3fl 0 ,P k l \\ r'\\ I l. \\ q j u \\ .s. mao " 1 l Il ? 1 i .umno " ( ) l I* . i ara . =ow . me= .ima n.... Base. Case AP = 1.5 psi Outer Column Moment

1 vs Time Due to Transient Load 3

I 4. h a- _________________u

WTF1 m(NE I'$NN."*P"* MATERIALS RESEARCH ) _gs. 1 .... t.... ..... a d 4.0009E 3 0 t 3.700Dt19 ,A l f,$Joelle [l i 1.4030110 Al h 1 r 1 N ~^ ~ y ] l i .s.mu s o " I I I I ej.. ( b l'!j ....n,. a i r f l Ed P l i i..=, i " g ,n i1 fa 8 J ,..c...cco o. Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Inner Column Moment. ,p vs 4-Time Due to Transient Load ai [ 1-sf l i l

s j

l 4 i 4 ._a___._.

y l SPTF1 s rf(NE MATERIALS RESEARCH l Technical Report TR-2255(a) -96 u,,,.... .,u. a w no ..n.. ...o.0s t 0 l 1 I ..e." 3 l I 1 000 810 l I l F e f Y I \\ i l ) i \\ l 4 7 f ,f L j'f; .s..oa.sso " ! 3; 5 ...c ...u.~.. e Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Outer Column Shear vs Time Due to Transient Load 7 -Jcf If-n f 5 + l l

i j W TELEDYNE 'IESSNsfa)"""* EN N _g7 i u.. s.c. .~. a, .a 1 i I

3. 10078.

{ l.. ort. " f j f k I ,J f 6 0 i +1. 0 11. i I i n Ee et.C9 3ES. q ' i. ji ......a 8 .x 1 ?t,. m .<..m.,." ) .i =.. .= ., m.. ...c...u m. Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Inner Column Shear vs Time Due to Transient Load +

SPTELEDYNE MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) .g3

  • oa t n a-u.

,m ....t,,, .. m i. " __ ..$00.II. i 8 0000130 1 .N

ii T'V \\ m

_gl\\ 1 ( w; 3 j v., 1 e ....m. i. " i I

J a

... ~. e..:.=.u.e. . Base Case t.,P = 1.5 psi Outer Vent Column Axial 1.oad vs Time Due to Transient Load

WTELEDYNE Technical Report MATERIALS RESEARCH TR-2255(a) l 0<. 60 0. ~.u. 0.., l ..Do00n o " l 4.t'000110 i i i I f.0000150 t a i I [f A n V %J i 1 of.000050 I i i i { i 2 +4,000010 ..f_ j

  • I N
  • 800000

+900000 . 00000 .gepoc, .g00000 .P90000 ...c.. ice m. Base Case tP = 1.5 psi 1 Inner Vent Column Axial Load vs Time Due to Transient Load fa s l f 1

1. t r

y, k .: t

V ~ l TM Technical Report TR-2255(a) -100- .,,a...

w.,s.

s. n n ...,,s.,,, 1 s.am i. " ] i..mn. " J f I i .. ui. " j b / I' ( l ~ i l .c, \\ i i 9 1 l i l I -.. m i. " l 1 1 j j i . i== .,= ,,n...u..o. a Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Ring Girder Axial Load vs Time Due to Transient Load s'I 1 i, nj l s P;: L_ F* 'I

WTEIDYNE Technical Report TR-2255(a) -1 01 - u. su.. ,,n. ,m u. I ..m.n. " ~ ,. m. n. " I i j. / f r i '..nm s. " [ I V t t g ...m....~ u I ij ) 1 l y i l i ....m n. " l ., ma ..ma

v. t...cc....

Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Ring Girder Shear vs Time Due to Transient Load v 1..

v Technical Report WTE.ED(NE TR-2255(a) -102-MATBtlALS RESEARCH i' H am LDaps stuwata 34 yyPC sin g g ~ i.. u. " r. [ l I t f i l T a ) E I l .r.moni. " ) t \\ ,!j i l i ij \\ l 3 I i l f i tII . ~o .s ~~ .so n o ..oo m ., on. ..,n. ,,,,a Ilki th SCC 0 hot Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Ring Girder Moment. j vs ) Time Due to Transient Load V~

V u SPTELED(NE i MATERIALS RESEARCH 1 Technical Report TR-2255(a) -103-q l l l.. .. n i. " 8.M8800 l., t s.mus. ... - ~ f# 1t e i M il ( 'O~ l e i ~m A'~/ rv \\4/ l u .m .~ q ...e. = u c.. j '1 Base Case AP'= 1.5 psi Vertical Motion at Top of In'ner Column I vs Time Due to Transient Load l ...m,.." I Af ,/"\\[ _ J} l\\P i e . i....... " M rJ\\J ~ \\ n/ V .s. m. .s. m. .s m o. ... m. ... m. ... m. . mn. .6MC th.C C.*ID S 9 Base Case AP = 1.5 psi I

j. $

Vertical Motion. at Top of Outer Column vs Time Due to Transient Load i 1 I l n. k 'e il l ' !$ w_____ ___ _ __ _- _ _ _.

P1 1 CLER/T 84C L MAN N g,,,,,,,.u -104- ..... - ~ .....-a Al\\ lm >'IfX!gA

j..

... ~ g *1.......-~ _ a r m \\ <f n \\ .gy V yg ....n. Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Vertical Motion of Shell at Bellows Penetration vs Time Due to Transient Load i ...~ n."' [., I / l n'A /' H ky tI ,n s, \\ / .s. n. .. 1 .i m .. n.. n. ~. Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Vertical Motion at Bottom of Inner Vent Column vs Time Due to Transient Load , - [ ~ _f f ..m.u.** t f bb i R D / VV" ~ \\f ...n..., .... n. n Base Case AP = 1.5 psi Vertical Motion at Bottom of Outer Vent Column vs Time Due to Transient Load 9 8

LV "RTP1 GT1(NE i MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report i i TR-2255(a) -105-u. .. i.cu....,. -.. l ..emne " t t 3.%00580 j l...mo... j f h e ]y / ...mn" ....exo. " l .e . r.,= > ., wm . mo. 4*.* .ionx ...ww .umo

n. mon,

e_. 3.6900510 a I n .h n f e l \\);l Y._ '.i.exoniocs ...mu. " 1, 3 ....on n e " t ,1 y!, .e .s m oo .unn .,mx .aoe m ., n=c .soo m .umo

    1. I

.x 3.4oopsIo l 2 a.m on -" q._; 1 ..xmi, " b .j ~ ~ t 1 l l j glN,g {y e n / 1 11 \\ ) D/ i ,i i U \\I I ..._....n t i I f 4 .e .se m o .s m e. .se, .. wm .s one ..,ma .,onoo i. =.~. u mo. i Base Case AP = 1.5 psi ~ Vertical Motion - at Bellows on Vent Pipe vs Time Due to Transient Load Is,

YM MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) -106- ...c... r-c,..... s.sw,n, " /

s. nan. "

i i e.mm a " i L I e t ~ e.emno " 8.MO$ti, / e j . n "m . m,ea ... m. .< m., ..,m,

e. c...cc

' Base Case AP = 1.5 psi. P3 Forcing Function Amplitude vs Time Due to Transient Load $t L.

TM i MATERIALS RESEARCH I . Technical-Report TR-2255(a) -107- , e.....e,....u. - s.a mn. '" ... n. " : e,ecoorso " I ~ 6.(00JIJC~ t

a. men -"

O ..m n -" j . m= .r m ,,m ,. c.. uc.... "^ Base Case AP = 1.5 psi P4 Forcing Function Amplitude vs Time Due to Transient Load 1 2_2 _... _.. _.. s~.

p W M NE MATERIALS RESEARCH i . Technical Report TR-2255(a) -108-a O m. a0, e...... i L .,0,0... a j i 1.0000kl0 i 8.0000s10 ( ,E t.CO?0fl0* e I E 4.O N Il0 v v t,000016 0 i e J l j s **0 .soo m .. m.0 ..O, .. c...c m. i ~ Base Case AP = 1.5 psi P5 Forcing Function Amplitude vs Time Due to Transient Load l ^y

~ W TELEDYNE Technical Report TR-2255(a) -109-g F9ACame rygcree,n ,g, 4 8 290CIle / s.n m s, / L' i... -,,.-c' i .. ~.,,-. W i 1 l 8 a** ... m. . m.,, f

v. c...cco o, Base Case 6P = 1.5 psi P6 Forcing Function Amplitude

~ vs Time Due to Transient Load L

I "MTF1 F0YNE: MATERIALS RESEARCH ' Technical Rep' ort

TR-2255(a)

-110-1 l APPEN. DIX 2. ] PLANT GETAANE DATA ) 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS -) I i 1.0 SEISMIC LOAD TREATMENT (BECHTEL) 2.0 CRITERIA.FOR. STATIC PIPE ANALYSIS (G.E.) .J 3.0. UPLIFT PREDICTION WITH ONE LUMP MODEL (BECHTEL) 1 i '4.0 UPLIFT EFFECTS ON VENT PIPE (BECHTEL) { '5.0 TABLE 1.0 - UPLIFT COMPARIS0N DATA AND REFERENCE PLANT (BECHTEL) l

l l

i NOTE: The discussions included in this Appendix were written by j the companies referenced above. They are included in this f document to provide background and understanding for some of the analysis techniques used. ) I o i s y i

E ."RT1:1 m(NE L MATERIALS RESEARCH j Technical Report TR2255(a) -111 ) N' l ] 1.0 ' SEISMIC LOAD TREATMENT This analysis has investigated the effects of seismic loads, added with LOCA pool swell loads and deadweight. The seismic forces included in this evaluation were derived by applying static coefficients used in the original design of the plant, as defined in the FSAR' document and Containment Stress Report. Both horizontal and vertical seismic forces were considered, and their effects were added to give resultant vertical forces in the torus support system., Seismic effects were included throughout the duration of the postulated LOCA event, except for studies of uplift in the absence of plant anchors. -For uplift studies only, seismic load was not combined during the upload phase. It is judged that the probability of seismic acceleration combining in phase with pool swell uploads at the instant of torus uplift is negligibly small. 2.0 CRITERIA FOR STATIC PIPING ANALYSI5 The analysis of piping attached to the torus has been conducted using static analysis methods with the static displacement criteria of 2.0 times predicted torus uplift. With this criteria, static analysis results con- ~! servatively bound piping response to dynamic displacement of the torus. The derivation of the static displacement criteria (2.0 times uplift) is explained in the following discussion. Piping attached to the torus behaves as a continuous beam with intermittent supports, responding to an imposed displacement time history at one end. The I peak response of the piping system depends on the relationship between the forcing function and natural frequency characteristics of the pipe. The input peak displacement may be magnified by dynamic amplification effects. Criteria for static piping analysis must account for the total potential amplification of input dynamic displacement.

1 WTA AT(NE ~ MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR-2255(a) -112-Dynamic amplification factor depends on the nature of the forcing function and the response characteristics of the piping system. The displacement function from' torus uplift varies in character Sepending on the relative severity of uplift loads. However, for the more significant uplift cases, the displacement s history can be characterized as a single one-half cycle pulse, roughly sinusoidal in shape. The piping response characteristics are very complicated, but simplifying assumptions can'be made. The dynamic response of a continuous beam (pipe) can be considered as the combination of a large number of sinusoidal mode shapes. Usually, first mode response is by far the most important contributor, to total response. For example, for a simply supported beam subjected to t . ground motion excitation, 94 percent of the total response is from the first mode. As an approximation, the response characteristics of attached piping can be estimated by modeling as a single degree of freedom system simulating first mode response. Response spectra, giving dynamic amplification as a function of ratio'of forcing function frequency to system natural frequency, are comonly available for single degree of freedom systems (in Engineering yibrations, by Jacobsen & Ayre, for example). These spectra show that in the worst case, where the length of the displacement pulse combines in the worst way with system response characteristics, the dynamic amplification factor is about 1.7. The criteria for static piping analysis has conservatively been selected to be 2.0 times torus uplift. j ( 3.0 UPLIFT PREDICTION WITH ONE LUMP MODEL 1 During the generic analysis of torus supports, results from a one lump model of the Reference plant torus were compared with 2-D ring model results. The column loads during the compression phase came out very close for the two models - the reason being the spectrum for the compression load is fairly insensitive to the frequency of the basic (up and down) mode-shape. The uplift 4 ~

L-SPTELEDYNE r MATERIALS RESEARCH Technical Report TR 2255(a) --113-from the two models also compared reasonably close even though there were minor differences in the two models; e.g., one lump model used five percent. da'mping whereas the 2-D ring model used two percent damping (see Table 1.0). The mass used in the 1-D model equaled 80 percent of water mass plus all of the structure mass. The spring constant was chosen equal to torus support column stiffness. 4.0 UPLIFT EFFECTS ON VENT PIPE Bellows between torus and vent pipes vary considerably in structural details and so they show great variations in spring rates. A. range of about 18:1 is' observed between stiffest and the softest units. The reference plant has torus bellows in the high-stiffness category. If a relative motion of 0.5" is assumed to occur between torus and vent, in the vertical direction, then the vent bending stress is estimated to reach 12 ksi. Since bellows units show linear behavior, then other displacements will give proportional vent stresses.

"dPTELEr#NE MATERIALS RESEARCH 1 Technicka) Report TR 2255 -114 l TABLE 1.0 ~! UPLIFT COMPARISON ON REFERENCE PLANT i _l-D Model 2-D Model TotalWeight-(kips) 575 575 Total Mass x g (kips) 534 535 Col. Spring Constant (kips / inch) 12400* 10940** Damping 5% 2% Uplift (inches) 0.050 0.069 At time (sec) 0.61 0 0.625 NOTES:

  • This is the slope of th'e elastic portion of the force-displacement curve inpijt to the 1-D model.

l 1

    • This is the spring constant input for the (ANSYS) gap-spring element.

I l l I l ~ --}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20234D066&oldid=5476138"