TXX-3678, Forwards Addl Info Re Unresolved Concerns from Seismic & Dynamic Qualification Review of safety-related Electrical & Mechanical Equipment

Forwards Addl Info Re Unresolved Concerns from Seismic & Dynamic Qualification Review of safety-related Electrical & Mechanical Equipment

ML20072G246
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/10/1983
From:	Schmidt H TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20072G236	List: ML20072G232 TXX-3678, Forwards Addl Info Re Unresolved Concerns from Seismic & Dynamic Qualification Review of safety-related Electrical & Mechanical Equipment
References
TXX-3678, NUDOCS 8306280400
Download: ML20072G246 (164)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. Log # Txx-3678 un unvw wmumu.anexu m'"" Fi1e # 10010 903.10 June 10, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No.1 Division of L censing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 SEISMIC AND DYNAMIC OVALIFICATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REF: NRC Staff memorandum from Vince S. Noonan to B. Joe Youngblood, entitled " Seismic and Dynamic Oualification Review of Safety-Related Equipment for Comanche Peak Unit #1"

Dear Sir:

The referenced NRC Staff memorandum specified unresolved concerns that resulted from the Seismic and Dynamic Qualification review of the safety-related electrical and mechanical equipment at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). The attachments to this letter provides a response to resolve these concerns. The referenced memorandum lists eleven generic concerns. These generic conerns are addressed in Attachments (1) through (10) as noted below. Attachment Items (1) Generic Item (1) - Equipment Installation (2) Generic Item (2) - Dynamic Loads (3) Generic Item (3) & (11) - Aging / Maintenance'& Surveillance (4) Generic Item (4) - Equipment Operability (5) Generic Item (5) - Damping Values 8306280400 BGKh621 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A PM

(6) Generic Item (6) - Semi-Rigid Equipment (7) Generic Item (7) - Qualification Status (8) Generic Item (8) - Westinghouse Scope (9) Generic Item (9) - Torque Requirements (10) Generic item (10) - Nitrogen Supply System Attached to the referenced memorandum was the " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Plant Visit Documentation Review Introduction and Summary" which contains the results of a Seismic and Dynamic Qualification review on 26 specific items at CPSES. Attachment 11 provides a tabulation of these specific items and response to many of the unresolved concerns. Several specific items require more detailed reponses and these responses are provided in attachments (12) through (22) as noted below: Attachment Items (12) Specific Item 4 - Isolation Equipment and Cabinet CR-16 (13) Specific Item 12 - Generator Control Panel (14) Specific Item 13 - Main Steam Isolation Valves (15) Specific Item 16 - Refrigeration Compressor Unit (16) Specific Item 19 - Motors Panel (17) Specific Item 26 - CRDM (18) Specific Item 27 - Letdown Heat Exchanger (19) Specific Item 28 - Centrifugal Charging Pump (20) Specific Item 29 - ECCS Accumulators (21) Specific Item 30 - RHR Pump (22) Specific Item 32 - Electric Hydrogen Recombiners c l Sincerely, H. C. Schmidt l DRW:grr I Attachments cc: Mano Subudhi - BNL ~, - - - ,r,- s-% r

---

y-p

,w--- ..w--

f bec: ARMS B. R. Clements - w/o attachments J. C. Kuykendall J. T. Merritt - w/o attachments A.'T. Parker N. S. Reynolds J. B. George - w/o attachments R. D. Calder M. R. McBay R. E. Ballard J. S. Marshall - w/o attachments R. A. Jones R. G. Tolson George Butterworth i K h i i 4 'f e 9 w m-, ,c~ -.-__y_ o..y-sa.w-,_yy, ,f m-w 9 7 -p 4yg%-,_-_ 7-y ppg 9,,y,,,p7%.- _,m..7y, w&9.,,_.y-,..e. ,m, ,yy.- .y.my,.me-

ATTACMENT 1 TO TXX-3678 Generic Item (1) - Equipment Installation "Most of the equipment inspected were not in a state ready for plant operation, for example temporary supports and straps, missing supports from accumulator line, missing nuts from U-bolts for charging pumps, spring mounted platform for compressor bottomed out. The deficiencies observed by the SQRT were compared against the check list that is maintained by the applicant to improve quality assurance (QA). However, the SQRT items did not appear in the QA check list." "The applicant should perform an independent inspection of the installation and supporting arrangement for seismic Category I equipment using ' personnel familiar with seismic qualification requirements, modify any deficiencies found, and provide a written report to the NRC staff on the inspection activity and the findings." CPSES Response: The applicant attempted to perfonn an audit of the seismically mounted equipment in order to provide the NRC staff with the confidence needed to close this item. Again, however, it was found that equipment had not received final acceptance and was not in a state ready for plant operations. The applicant will perform an inspection of installation and supporting arrangement for equipment classified at CPSES as seismic Category I. This inspection will be completed and deficiencies resolved prior to fuel load. Al-1

ATTACHMENT 2 TO TXX-3678 Generic Item (2) - Dynamic Loads "Other dynamic loads were not considered in some cases. Safety-related equipment must perform its function following seismic events as well as accidents. Accidents create mechanical loads and vibrations. Blowdown through relief valves and vibration created by two-phase flow condition in pumps are examples. In general the program did not address other dynamic loads, for example, vibratory loads on main steam relief valve during normal operation." "An evaluation should be performed to assess the expected or probable mechanical loads including vibration following loss of coolant accidents, steam line break and feedline break, to identify equipment exposed to such loading, and to indicate how such loading may have been accounted for in the qualification of affected equipment." CPSES Response: ] Design to preclude dynamic loads in pumps is accomplished by assuring that two-phase flow does not occur. This is achieved by ensuring that sufficient net positive suction head (NPSH) is available for the pumps, by proper piping layout and by proper sizing of components such as control valves and orifices. Dynamic loads have also been considered in the design of the TUSI main steam system. Specifically, both steam hammer and relief valve discharge were considered. The magnitudes of these loads will umbrella l the other transients during normal, upset and emergency conditions. A2-1

ATTACMENT(3)TOTXX-3678 Generic Items (3) & (11) - Aging / Maintenance & Surveillance "(3) Effect of aging on seismic perfomance was not considered for some mechanical equipment such as pumps and valves. Aging consideration of mechanical equipment with age sensitive material can be just as important as in electric equipment." It is necessary to perform an evaluation of failure modes of mechaniga,}equipmentassociatedwithperformanceofagesensitive material and to report the results of the finding including recommendations, if any." "(11) For many equipment in mild environment the qualified life is dictated by the behavior of age sensitive materials, for example the life of motor winding insulation discussed in item (4) above. The applicant should address the issue of degradation of seismic perfomance due to aging for all safety-related equipment, and indicate how a reasonable assurance of seismic capability of safety-related equipment throughout the plant life can be obtained." CPSES Response: The NRC concern is with how CPSES assures that mechanical equipment in both a harsh and mild environment can survive a seismic event at any time during its installed life. CPSES's assurance is based on the equipment design, procurement, installation, location, maintenance and surveillance. The system and equipment designs were selected to be reliable and to minimize failure modes that could prevent a piece of equipment from performing its safety-related function. The materials used were considered to avoid materials with significant aging or environmental problems. When the maintenance and surveillance program for a safety-related mechanical or electrical is established, consideration is given to equipment location, types of failures and A3-1

n-equipment functions with a plan based on manufacturer's recommendations, and good engineering judgement. The systematic method employed by the engineers in the development of this plan will assure adequate reliability for these items. Appended to this attachment is a summary description of the eng:neering method employed to establish and maintain the maintenance program. Included with the description are examples of preliminary maintenance programs that are being reviewed for several specific equipment items. e A3-2 J

ATTACHMENT (3) APPENDIX A to TXX-3678 CPSES Maintenance Program Summary INTRODUCTION A program was established to provide the plant staff with the maintenance data and information systems necessary to support proper planning and management of the maintenance program. The overall program consists of these basic elements: - Maintenance Procedures - Spare Parts - Computerized Maintenance Data Systems - Preplanning and Implementation Planning The Maintenance Procedures activity provides the administrative and implementation instructions to conduct the plant maintenance. The Spare Parts activity provides the information to: (1) Identify the type and quantity, (2) procure, and (3) store the parts required to support a maintenance program. The computerized maintenance data systems provide the rapid retrieval mechanism to: (1) File plant equipment technical data and work history records, (2) prepare work schedules, and (3) file and issue work instructions. The preplanning and implementation planning activity provides the basic maintenance data to describe, plan and manage the overall maintenance program. The maintenance planning data is intended to be used as a reference document for the other program elements (i.e., spare parts, procedures, etc.). In addition, this planning data contains reference maintenance l plans that are intended to be used as a base to initiate the preparation I of the implementation plans. For the purposes of this submittal, the information that follows is a synopsis only of the engineering methodology used to develop the l equipment maintenance planning data, l { , i ... T'

PLANNING DATA-PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The program being utilized to develop and maintain the electrical and mechanical maintenance data in a systematic process that consists of the following basic elements: (a) Select plant systems to be included in the plan based on consideration such as plant safety, reliability and availability, (b) Select equipment in each system based on the same consideration given above. (c) Research applicable plant documents to establish the known maintenance requirements for selected equipment. (d) Develop recommended maintenance activities based on the source document searches. (e) Develop and document the associated planning data for each activity (i.e., activity duration,- manpower, materials and special tools required). SELECT SYSTEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MAINTENANCE PLAN A set of criteria is used to establish the basis for selection of j systems and equipment to be included in the program. The criteria is criented toward plant safety, availability, and expense. A list of the systems considered for inclusion at this date and their respective disposition is shown on Table 1. The criteria used as a basis for system selection are listed in Table 2. l.

SELECTED EQUIPMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE PROGRAM The maintenance data and plans were organized around definable boundaries. The categories of boundaries used were: - Process Systems - Plant Flow Diagrams - Electrical Systems - Electrical One Line Diagrams - Package Units - Large Equipment Systems purchased or identified as a single unit (i.e., Diesel Generators) This approach was used to assure that all components in a system were considered by the engineer when selecting equipment for inclusion in the program. This method also assures that the engineer considers the component function within each system when selecting equipment. This criteria used for selection are listed in Table 2. 1 Once a component was selected for inclusion, the maintenance requirements were scoped to determine whether or not the known maintenance requirements addressed the selection criteria. As the program was to address electrical and mechanical maintenance, the maintenance activity definition was formed around this participation. I l 1 t --

PLANT / SYSTEM / COMPONENT STATUS The selection of the equipment status was based on the technical aspects of the procass or physical considerations rather than administrative or scheduling considerations. The regulatory rules and regulations were considered as technical restraints rather than administrative. To illustrate, an administrative requirement may have dictated that no valve repacking could be performed behind a single block valve or on the valve back seat. If the valve could be physically back seated for repacking, then the status was selected on that basis. A scheduling requirement may indicate that the condensate pumps should be serviced l when other work was being performed in the condensate system to assure better organization of the work during an outage, even though the condensate pumps could be serviced with the plant at power. In this case, the data would indicate that the plant status for the work specified would be "at power". This approach would not preclude scheduling the work during an outage. PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURE ESTIMATES The radiation exposure estimates for each activity are based on the radiation zone assignments or designations provided in the FSAR. Based l on the zone assignments, specific background radiation level estimates were prepared for each room in the plant. These estimates were based on the typical levels found in operating plants rather than the design basis estimates provided in the FSAR. MATERIAL AND SPECIAL TOOLS The materials specified are only those necessary to conduct the activity specified. Therefore, the materials are classified as the required expendables as opposed to those materials necessary to support a corrective maintenance activity. The special tools specified are those tools that are special or unique and thus, would not be readily available from a local source. Special tools would include items such as, fixtures or special devices provided with equipment or only available from an outside source. L

SELECTION OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES The maintenance activity, frequency and activity resource data was ~ selected from documents that exists in the plant data files. In addition, past practice and engineering experience considerations were utilized in the selection of the activities and assignment of resources. Source documents used are: - Final Safety Analysis Report and Technical Specification - Regulatory Guides as specified in the FSAR and Technical Specifications. - Codes and Standards specified by the FSAR and Engineering Specifications - Plant Process Flow Diagrams - Electrical One Line Diagrams - IEEE-323 Equipment Qualification Reports - Engineers Specifications - Vendor or Supplier Equipment Manuals - Plant and Equipment Drawings e To assist with the preparation of the maintenance activity selection, certain guideline documents for equipment such as valves, motors and pumps were prepared for reference. These guideline documents include direction on items such as: - the need to address shelflife for components (e.g., diaphragms) - the need to consider radiation - the importance of cleaning and lubrication - a " base" generic list of maintenance activities and frequencies for an equipment type r =

ACTIVITY DURATION AND RESOURCE ESTIMATES The maintenance activity duration and associated resource assignments were based on the following considerations: - Estimates must be correctable for specific plant procedural practices that could be subject to change, thus affecting the estimates. (Rad. Con., Security, Quality Assurance, etc.) - Estimates must be correctable to account for changes in organizational assignments. - Estimates must be correctable to account for changing craft assignments or shift work practices. Therefore, the estimates of activity duration and resources represent the productive time and manpower necessary to perform a given task. This method has been referred to as a " machine limited" estimate and is correctable for the considerations listed above. It should be noted that there are some cases where reasonable estimates cannot be provided due to the lack of plant data. In those cases, the required activity is noted and the estimate is not provided. l SKILL ASSIGNMENT The assignment of craft skill to perform a particular task was not intended as an organizational nor a craft agreement type assignment. Rather, the assignments were made to describe the typical skill required to perform the task based on " understood" industry practice. - _.

Planning Data

Description:

As the engineers perform these reviews and evaluations, the data is documented in a structural format to permit uniform use in a continuing in a continued planning process and to form a reference base for other related maintenance programs. A listing of the data types are shown on Table 3. To initiate the maintenance planning process, a study of this type was Performed early in the CPSES start-up phase. Examples of the data developed and documented in that study are shown on Table 4, 5 and 6. This data is undergoing a continued updating and review process as plant construction and design nears completion and the maintenance program enters an implementation phase. t l l

TABLE 1 SYSTEMS CONSIDERED SYSTEMS DISPOSITION Corrective Selected System Maintenance Squaw Creek Reservoir X D. C. Power X A. C. Distribution X Start-Up Power Distribution X Service Water X Potable and Sanitary Water X Fire Protection X Control Room HVAC X Battery Room & Misc. Ventilation X Water Treatment X Demin, & Reactor MaKe-Up Water X l Component Cooling Water X Turbine Building & Normal Sw Gr HVAC X Instrument Air X Service Air X Turbine Plant Cooling Water X Office & Service Area HVAC X Sewage Treatment X Condensate X Auxiliary Steam X Ventilation Chilled Water X Primary & Secondary Sampling X Vents & Drains X Primary Plant Ventilation X Condensate Filter Demin. X l Circulating Water X Condenser Vacuum & Water Box Priming X Steam Generator Feedwater X No. 1 & 2 Diesel / Generator & Aux. X Powdered Resin Disposal X Auxiliary Building HVAC X Chemical Feed X Main Steam X Heater Drains & Vents X Safeguards Building HVAC X Auxiliary Feedwater X Extraction Steam X Diesel / Generator Building HVAC X Fuel Handling X Liquid Waste Processing X Fuel Building HVAC X Turbine Oil Purification X S/G Blowdown & Cleanup X , Containment Ventilation X Containment Hydrogen Purge X Fuel Pool Cooling & Cleanup X Containment Spray X - -. L_ _ -. ~, - _. _ _.. - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _. - _ - _. - - -

TABLE 1 SYSTEMS CONSIDERED SYSTEMS DISPOSITION Corrective Selected System Maintenance Chemical Volume Control X Switchyard X Plant Gas X Plant Transmission X Computer X Turbine Gland System X Reactor Coolant X Boron Recycle X Safety Injection X Residual Heat Removal X Solid Waste Processing X Gaseous Waste Processing X Main Turbine & Auxiliaries X Main Generator & Auxiliaries X Reactor Protection X Containment Hydrogen Moaitoring X Nuclear Instrumentation X Hydrogen Recombiner X c Rod Control X Isolated Phase Bus Coolant X e _g_

TABLE 2 Selection of system / equipment categories that will be subjected to investigation for the maintenance plan is as follows: 1. Maintenance, which if not done would greatly accelerate wear and damage to the equipment, or cause major damage to the equipment. 2. Items that have limited access during power operations. 3. Items that will cause a plant outage if a failure occurs. 4. Items that will affect the length of an outage. 5. Items that require periodic testing or inspection as prescribed by the plant license. 6. Items that must be operated as part of a system safety function and are not included in (e) above. l 7. Items known to be troublesome or to have a high frequency of maintenance. 8. Items that can only be maintained or serviced during a plant outage. 9. Instrumentation that should be periodically replaced or cleaned and would r.ot be part of the routine test and calibration programs.

4 TABLE 3 The engineering methodalogy described for data collection results in a data set for each component type as illtstrated below: Equipment Data Description Equipment Name: Quanitity: Safety Class: System: Component Drawing: System Drawing: A/E Tag No: Mfg. Model: Mfgr.: Vendor: ~ Vendor Order No.: Util,ity Order No.: Equipment Manual: Equipment Manual Loc.: Equipment Activities Activity Activity Basis Activity Frequency Activity Time (Hrs.) Manpower Requirements Manhours /Org. Plant Status i Sys. Sve. Status Comp. Iso Req'd. Rad. Envir. (ar/hr) Rad. Exp. (Man-Rem) Material & Special Tool Reqmnts (Reference) Procedure Ident. No. Remarks 9 I

4....

y y y +w-.-w---.s, w-%,.,,-- v-v-_,,.,--ww-,-, 1 .. - --c.,

<~ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, INSPLo flON, AND TEST REQUIREMENTS Utahty TUGCO Sheet 1 oil Plant (Umt) Comanche Peak Umt 1 EOUiPMENT DATA DESCRIPTION REVISIONS N- E' APP*l Equipment Name: Cliilled Water M fgr. Mortel: Type CAP Westinghouse Shop Oroer No.: ti/A flecidiilatlon l\\inps Dirvjham Wallamette Carparn Equrpment Manual: ~ YM M f gr.: 1 5-18-81 X'72'A Ovantity: 2 Safety Class: 3 Vemlo,: Hirv) ham Willanette Ompany Maintenance Litrary Vent. Safety Gilled Water Vendor Order No., 1A658/61 Equipment Manual Loc.: gyg,,,,. ( Component Drawing. B-36093 Utahty Order No.: CP-0015C Equipment Loc.: CB 778, tan ll5A, Zone II 2323;MI 031U Iev. 2 Westinghouse Order No.: tVA 1.0 PetAir System Drawmg. ? f A/E Tag No.: CPI-OIAICP-05:06 Westmghouse Spin No.: IVA Hun Time (MTBM): Ira 1 Materist & Manpower Rad. Special Requuements Sy:. Comp. Rad. Exp. Tool Activity Activity Activity Time Man-Plant Sve. Iso. Envir. (Man-Regmnts Procedure Activety Basis Frequency (Hrs.) Ifours Org. Status Status Reg *d. (me/hr) Rem) (Reference) Ident. No. Remarks s A. Operational Checks: npipnent tally 1 1 IOP 1 In tb 1.0 .001 flone llorizontal, Centrifugal 7 Hanual

1. Visually inmect hil oil per nylpnent teariruj oil level Manual p. 14.

If a sut!- in tJe omstant. den (Ecp in tJe oil level oiler level occurs, dak for reservoir. leaks.

2. meck tie tearirvj arul lute oil tenperature.

1. meck tie suction arut discharge pres-sure gauges tn verify tlat tic punp is meratirvj correctly.

4. Check for proper Aljust glarul ruts per leakaje at tic Djuipment flanual twys stuf firvj tox.

17 arm! 18.

5. G eti ter signs of leakaje in the suc-tion arvi disclarge lines aivl in t!e auxiliaty piping.

I Prrpared by: J. It. tuvis Aggwoved by:_M.7/[ D a

( n EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND TEST REQUIREMENTS (CONT'D) is m 2 Sheet, 2-,,o g 2 Usehty TUGCO Plant (Umt) Comanche Peak Unit 1 Eqmpment Name: G illed Water Recirculation Punps Material & Manpuwer Rad. Special Requirements Activity Sys. Comp. Rad. E m p. Tool Activity Activity Time Man-Plant Sve. Iso. Envir. (Man. Regmnts Procedure Activity Basis Frequency (Hrs.) Hours Org. Status Status Req'd. In r/hs) Rem) (Reference) Ident. No. Remarks

6. Geck for noise aint vilxation.

H. Rin starwisy [nsip Dpipment Every 2 Weeks 1 1 10P 1 In Ho 1.0 .001 Hone 1his will ke<p the for 30 mimtes. Maruhil tearinry lubricatel and prevent cormlensation -y fran accunulatinj in tlw punp castrq. After the ptuvp has been stqped for nore than 30 days, tie bearirup should be hand lutricat<xt tefore startirg the pump (Dpipnent Marual p. 19). Not doin) this could result in d mage to the bearirw3s. C. Irservice Test, ASE Sect. Every Month 1 4 1 In Yes 1.0 .004 Tachometer check reference XI, IWP 1 IOP Vibration valves. 1 IIT Dpipment 1 ITE 1 1m D. Garvje pupp tearing Driipment Every 6 Months 1 2' 2tti 1 In Yes 1.0 .002 Oil For type of oil see lutricatinrj oil. Mamal Draipnent Manual p.15. E. Geck coiplirw] lutri - Djulpment Every Year 1 2 2PM 1 In Yes 1.0 .002 Ctease R<mwe tysard ard fol-cant f(r ptqwr leve Manual low Djulpnent Manual, Korpers Phlel B, SNp arvi rice if it is frer from contaminants. 9. See Motor Sheet for crease replac.ement. C. Sims 4~9 Prtpared hy: Approved byggg Is Page

) EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, INSPEv flON, AND TEST REQUIREMENTS Utility TUGCO Sheet 1 of J Plant (Unit) Comantle Peak Umt 1 EOUIPMENT DAT A DESCRIPTION REV';SIONS Equipment Name: Gillled Water Mly. Model: Frane 3241S, Sit 1P, Type IG. Westinghouse Shop Order No.: ti/A Rev. Date Approval 'liFcliliil3El(WFs7MErs UIC"""8~^lII" CP-0015C 0 l l-30-7tgyw MW Eqmpment Manual: 1 5-18-81 Myx, u Ilirv3 am Willanette Ctirpany h Quantity: 2 Safety Class: IE vendor: 1-50534 Maintenance 1.itrary Vent. Safety Chilled Water Vemfor Oeder No., Equipment Manual Loc.: I System: Component Drawin 51-815-610-401 Utelity Order No.: CP-0015C Equipment Loc.: CB 778, an ll5A, Zone II I ' *V ' 2 IVA 1.0 PU/lfr System Drawing: Westinghouse Order No.: A/E Iag No : CPI-GIAM'.I'05M, 06M Westinghouse Spin No.: 13/A. Run Time (MTBM): Ith Material & M*P " Red. Special Reciuirements Sys. Comp. Red. E x p. Tool Activity Activity Activity Time Man. Plant Sve. Iso. Envir. (Man. Regmnts Procedure Activity Baus Frequency (Hrs.1 flours Org. Status Status Reg'd. (me/hr) Rem) (Referencel Ident. No. Remarks A. q>erational Giecks: D]uipnent Daily 1 1 IOP 1 In th 1.0 .001 tione 20 IIP, S.F. 1.15, 3600 Manual IIIN, 460V, 60 112, 3 th.

l. Visually ing met for nr> tor contami-

'Ihe notor exerior siould kg)t free of oil, < kist, nants. dirt, mter armi dusni-

2. Omi notfr bearirvy cals. Air iritake openirv:

for excessive needs to te free of terrperature, foreirpi unterial.

3. Occk f<r rnise anil vitration.

4. Occk quace leater to unke faire it in q>erational on staamily nu>trr.

D. IAdricate learirvjs. D]uipnent Annually 1 1

1E1, 1

In Yes 1.0 .001 Grease Follow njulpnent Marual Manual Procedure, p. 12. C. Ibt<r qmration thJr. Anrually 2 2

IEt, 1

In tb 1.0 .002 Armeter 'Ihis struld te perforined tests, runnirvj cur-Judjenent Vitration alorry with tic punp In-rent, vitration, Meter service Test. tearirvj.uul stator 'I1:erno-noter tetilerature. Page 4-10 Prepared by: J.R. Invis Appenved by:-g Ygd

O . EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND TEST REQUIREMENTS (CONT'D) isrir 2 Utility 10GCO Shectiof1 Plant (Ums) Comanche Peak Unit i /j s Equiper.ent Name: Gillled Water Recirculation Ibsp Pt) tors _. / Rad. Special Material 8i e Manpower Hmuerements i Activity Sys. Comp. Rad. E m p. Tool Activity Activity Time Man-Plant Svc. Iso. Envir. (Man-Regmnts Procedure Activate Basis Ftrquency (fles ) llours Org. Status Status Req'd. (mr/hr) Rem) (Reference) Ident. No. Remarks ~ D. Mtyjer notor. FhJr. Every 2 Years 1 1 ICL 1 In Yes 1.0 .001 Megger Judyment E. Deci complirv) Engr. Every 5 Years 4 8 2MW l In Yes 1.0 .008 Dial Ind. 'Ib grevent treinattre aligrunent, clect Judjement Parallels bearin) falltre arul notor ord play, Tortjue cotpling wear. av) tor anl ptnip for Wrendi roisey tearirvjs, arul & ease on punp armi not(r unintirvj tolts f(r tightness. I I ) J.R. Ihvis Prepaseil hy: Approveel by47Eyjf [ 4> Page

EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, INSPEvIlON, AND TEST REQUIREMENTS ~ titilit y IllGCO Sheet 1 olL Plant (timt) Comam.he Pealt time 1 EQUIPMENT DATA DESCillPTION REVISIONS I ququnceit Name. Air Q>erated Control Migr. Mmlel: 657-Es Westnighouse Shop Orde. No.: tVA Rw. Date Appraal Valve (Glolar)_.__ g g,,,. Eqmpment Manual: Form 50]L_flarch. O 11-30-7 WW./ Fistier Controls Ouantity: 4 Safety Class: 2 Vemlor: Fisiter Controls 1973, ITI CI'0600 (Fisher Cmtrols) 1 5-18-81 4)e'# Maintenance I.llrary l* 'ICIY d'I I I"' ICC Verutor Order No. IVA Equipment Manual Loc.: syge m: Compimeine Drawmg-SM* Att aclWMI Latihty Order No.: CP-0600 Equipment Loc.: An 873-6, Itm 245, 21211H1:0111, sev. 2~ ~ Westinghouse Order No.: IVA Zone II, 1.0 Mt/llr System Drawmg. A/I lag No.: SMS Attacluxi Westmgliouse Spin No.: II/A Run Time (MTBM): IIM p Material & Manpowe' Red. Sgecial Activity Requaements Sys. Comp. Rad. E m p. Tool Activity Activity Time Man-Plant Svc. Iso. Envir. (Man-Regmnts Procedure Actmty liasis F requency (Hrs.) Blours Org. Status Status fleq'd. (mrAw) Rem) (Reference) Ident. No. Remarks val.VI: MAltil12WK1: Digiliraryn qwrator i A. Ikplaar pickiswj. tivjr. Every 4 Years 2 2 IIT 1 In Yes 1.0 .002 Valve Valve Selection e-i .fud enent PackfrwJ Gaith A, E i & Tools ()l1:! wit 11t MAltfl12tAIK't:

11. In ain t eepilatra armi l'twjr.

Every 2 Years 1 1 IIT I In Yes 1.0 .001 Solvent cle.ui iiiter. .iudjenent C. Clean exilesviid l'iv gr. Fvery 2 Years 1 2 21T I In Yes 1.0 .002 Solvent valve. .ludjenent 1). IkpliMe valve ia vir. Every 5 Years 2 4 21T 1 In Yes 1.0 .004 Dimhracyn eIimlit inpu. .h > bjenu?nt E. Ikplans air l'rujr. Every 5 Years 1 1 IIT 1 In Yes 1.0 .001 Iksjulator 'Ihis is to aqwjrade u pilator. .hmlijenent dim brisjm. F. Fqilaar exilerwald ll:I:E-32 3-4 Ye'ars 1 1 IIT 1 In Yes 1.0 .001 Solernid Asco Mxlel fio. MIX-vaive. 1974, 0.I1. Valve 8320-A107V. G. la place limit II:lI-321-7 Years 2 4 2tT I In Yes 1.0 .004 2 1.imit tW5U ttxkl in, uwi t clien. 1974, 0.I4. Switclien FA-170-31302 e Pap 4-14 Perpased by:J,[3,_j yy j; Appeavrilley:~ C Zg[- - O

o- ) EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND TEST REQUIREMENTS (CONT'D) ism 2 titel.sy B ilGCO Sheet 2 of 2 Pl.mt (ifmt) Comant. lie Peak tlnet 1 Equgunent Name: Air Olmerated Cositrol Valve (Glote) t i MaterW & Manpower RM. Special nequisements 6 Activity Sys. Comp. Rad. E m p. Tool Actively Activssy Time Man-Plant Sve. Iso. Envir. (Man. Reqmnts Procedme Actecely Bases Frequency lifts.) llours Or g. Status Status Heq'd. (me/hr) Hem) (Heterence) Ident. No. Remmeks IttiEINim 'luir i

11. Ilydr otest.

Ye1H XI INery 10 Years 5 Git Yes , 1. 0 Visual for le.*s. 1his is a systen test. Test time for inilvidual cangonents can not be estimatal. Y s 'I

• II* IDVI8 Pe ep.es ed ley:

4-15 7 X.C I m d.j / Pasie A,u ov.I liv

ATTACHMENT (4) TO TXX-3678 Generic Item (4) - Equipment Operability " Operability qualification of many complex equipment types was performed by analysis alone, for example charging pump, RHR pump, electric motors, compressors. Qualification by analysis alone can be accepted when structural integrity alone determine operability. Simulation of pressure, temperature, and flow effects combined with earthquake conditions cannot be satisfactorily incorporated in an analytical model. Equipment is required to be at its end of life condition before being subjected to seismic loading, it is then (after seismic event) required to perform its safety function during and after the accident condition. In the case of electric motors it is necessary to establish the qualified life through supporting test data." " Typical equipment representative of the types indicated above should be subjected to a confirmatory test program with a well defined schedul e." CPSES Response: This generic item reduces down to two specific concerns for CPSES. These concerns are the refrigeration compressors (see Specific Item 16 as addressed in attachment (15) to this letter) and a specific motor concern (see Specific Item 19 as addressed in attachment (16) to this letter). The operability of the refrigeration compressor is explained in the appended letter from CVI dated 8-6-82. t A4-1 k _. - ~

, (G b U i C N "b In corp ora t e d <r . v....... ... m. -: .s.......:...n. , ATTACHMENT (4) APPENDIX A to TXX-3678 August 6. iS82 Gibbs 5 Hill. Inc. 3fr3 South Seventh Avenue New Ycrk. NY 10001 Atten: ion :.\\fr. S. Mrano Ec!:rence; JPS.nd Oistribution Rooe Coolers Purchase Order CF-0G67 CVI h' ark Order C581 zad 3557

Subject:

Seis=ic Considerations for Recprocating Crepresscrs - Gentle =en: As we have discussed on several occasicas, to the extent of our knowledge. in-depth seis=ic andyses have never been considered to be necessary for reciprocating compres scrs. However. at your request and with your assis:ance, we have requested ana2yticM data which would percit modeling of co: press =s to, if possibic, determine resu :s of imposed loading cue to seis=c events. The resuhs of our cc=bined efforts to obi *in infrr=atian, as preicted. have not produced any informa* yhat-so-ever. In each esse we heve been advised that the ccepressor designs are many yea s old, at have been considered to have been successful and have experienced what their manufs:tures feel is "serare duty" in most esses this would include: continuous industrial usage, and various coMis countings as on beard ship and on field service vehi.les such as pick-up trucks. According to the manufacturers, the coepressors. properly maintained. have suffered no generic or typical hreikdowns frce the seve:e duty service. My experience, nearly 20 years closely associated with cc:npressor oparation, indicates that in a failure of a reciproca:isg compressor, whose des:gn was well established and backed by many years of field Tunning time, ninety percent of the time Iach of caintenance was the cause. The rest of the faDu:es were due to defective workmanship c. materia) and the faDure occurred very quickly after start-up. A reasonable engineering judgment. based on many years of observation of the operation of reciprocating cs=> pressors, thg into account the high crankshaft speed, the quick reversals of signi". cant masses and the cany bill.ans of cycles, in our opinion, would be that any known past ur. prudent}y predictable ~Mc events would be insignificant compared 9 e y g e m-w a = are m ..=-PM e

==e --v,-n. ,_n--. _.,,-.--y ,,_,,,n ,g,

a Gibbs E H.".. b;. Mr. 5. M :gro Page 2, __ /$ugust 6,1952 - ~ to act: al operating stresses. In all probabnity the forces experienced by the equipment being shipped over existing U.S. highways would be more severe than any seis=ic event. Please let me know if you feel that any more time should be expended in a:te=pting to develop analytical stress =odeling for reciprocating compressors. Very truly yours. CV3 INCORPORATED 4%LA / . David M. Wickersha:n. P.E. Product Manager Nuclear Coils E Refrigeration DMWidd cc: Een Mcdonald. Texas Utility Serraces l l ~ i l l l l l l

ATTACHMENT (5) TO TXX-3678 Generic Item (5) - Damping Values "In many cases it was observed that higher damping values representatives of SSE stresses were used in analysis without any regard for the actual stress level, for example 4% damping value may have been used for SSE where the stress level is well within the elastic limit and only 2% damping value should have been used." "A comprehensive assessment is necessary with a confirmation that the use of improper damping values do not change the qualification status of any equipment." CPSES Response: All damping values used in the qualification of NSSS equipment are in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.61 and WCAP-7921 AR which have been approved by the staff. All damping values are listed and discussed in Section 3.7N of the Final Safety Analysis Report. The concern relative to damping resulted from the review of CRDMs l during the S0RT audit. Specifically it was identified that Westinghouse had used damping values that were too high for the stress levels present in the CRDMs. Section C.3 of Regulatory Guide 1.61 states that "if the maximum combined stress due to static, seismic, and other dynamic loadings are significantly less than yield stress, damping values lower than this guide should be used". Reviewing the stress levels in critical elements of the CRDMs, indicates that stresses are not significantly less than yield for faulted condition l l loads. Therefore, damping values that were used are appropriate and in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.61. It should also be noted that the test results in WCAP-7921 AR indicate that even if stress values are significant less than yield, the damping values used by [ Westinghouse are still conservative. Based on the above, the use of the damping values defined in FSAR Section 3.7N are appropriate for faulted condition dynamic analysis. AS-1 l

For B0P equipment the use of damping values representative of SSE stresses per Regulatory Guide 1.61, in analyses performed for SSE conditions is justified when stress levels are considered. This is due to the fact that for stresses which are considerably low under SSE conditions, a reduced damping value does not cause an increase in stresses which would make them exceed SSE allowables. Referring to the example given in the Item 5 question, a comparison between floor response spectra for SSE at 4% and 2% damping values indicates that the average ratio of spectral accelerations at 4% damping to those corresponding to 2% damping does not fall below 85%. Thus, if stresses computed based on 4% damping are well within the elastic limit, a 15% increase of these stresses, resulting from a calculation at 2% damping would be acceptable. Furthermore, it should be noted that the average ratio of spectral accelerations for SSE at 2% damping and OBE at 2% damping does not exceed 1.5 when a comparison is made between exact response spectra for SSE and actual response spectra used for 1/2 SSE. Since, generally, the allowable stresses for SSE are 50 percent higher than those for OBE, having met the stress allowables for the condition of OBE with 2% damping also satisfies the allowables for the condition of SSE at 2% damping. A5-2 =:

L ATTACIEENT (6) TO TXX-3678 Generic Item (6) - Semi-Rigid Equipment " Equipment with lowest natural frequencies higher than 33 Hz (rigid equipment) was qualified by static analysis. This approach appears to have been used for equipment that are not rigid, for example, ECC accumulator with 22 Hz frequency." "A careful review should be performed and a confinnation provided to ensure that the qualification status of any safety-related equipment has not changed as a result." CPSES Response: This concern applies only to NSSS equipment that was qualified by Westinghouse. Westinghouse only uses static analysis for rigid equipment (i.e., lowest natural frequency greater than 33 Hz). For flexible equipment (i.e., more than one natural frequency less than 33 Hz) Westinghouse uses dynamic analysis. Westinghouse has also defined a third category of equipment termed semirigid. Semi-rigid equipment is defined as that equipment with only one natural frequency lower than 33 Hz. For this limited category of equipment Westinghouse employs quasi-static analysis methods. In this method, analysis is performed to demonstrate that the design "g" level is greater than the peak acceleration value of the actual response spectra at the equipment's natural frequency. Further discussion of the application of this analysis method is provided in WCAP-9714 (Section 3.2.1). The use of the quasi-static analysis method for semi-rigid equipment was discussed in detail during the Mechanical Engineering Branch review meetings. The MEB found this method acceptable but requested CPSES to provide additional information in Section 3.7N of the FSAR. The requested FSAR changes were made and accepted by the MEB. A6-1

ATTACHMENT (7) TO TXX-3678 Generic Item (7) - Qualification Status "Although the applicant indicated that 85% of equipment is qualified, the qualification file is approved and established, and the equipment is properly installed; upon detailed examination of two items selected at random from the fully qualified and installed list, it was determined that the items were not installed and had incomplete documentation for example electric hydrogen recombiner and nuclear instrumentation system." " Greater emphasis is needed to keep track of the qualification status of all safety-related equipment." CPSES Response: Adequate status of each piece of safety-related equipment is being maintained by the proper groups, including engineering, quality control, construction, startup or operations. The apparent discrepancies noted in this comment occurred whe-the applicant attempted to combine this various status information and present it in a summary form that would meet the minimum 85% figure required by the EQB to hold a SQRT audit. The process monitors all facets of the construction process related to qualification. From the receipt inspection through the QC installation inspection, the equipment is check against its specified requirements. Non-conformance reports are written against discrepancies including such items as failure to submit an approved qualification report. As the equipment is turned over to the startup group, additional inspections and tests are performed. By procedure, pr ch'. ems identified during the startup phase are documented and controlled by means of a Master System Punchlist. 4 A7-1 y .y_

Turnsver to the eparations group involves another set of inspections. System walkdowns are performed, the Master System Punchlist, test results, QA documentation (including qualification documentation) and applicable drawing are reviewed and outstanding deficiencies are identified and documented. Plans are developed to resolve all deficiencies prior to fuel load. 4 A7-2 w w rr- --v- --yp. 7

ATTACINENT(8)TOTXX-3678 Generic Item (8) - Westinghouse Scope " Equipment qualification files are required to be maintained in an auditable manner for the life of the equipment. Westinghouse maintains a part of the document on behalf of the applicant. A clear definition is necessary as to what part of the files will be maintained by Westinghouse and what part will be maintained in the local file by the applicant directly. Those parts of the file that will be maintained by Westinghouse should be clearly identified in the local file. NRC staff should be informed after this documentation effort is complete." "In the area of equipment for the balance of the plant (B0P), the files were in very good shape with clear statement of criteria, good test specification and test reports. However, information on maintenance and surveillance ' requirements were missing. These files should be upgraded to include this information." CPSES Response: l The portion of thi seismic and dynamic qualification files that are maintained by West.inghouse is clear to both Texas Utilities and Westinghouse. We:;tinghouse maintains design and qualification records for equipment suphlied by Westinghouse in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Regulatory Guide 1.88 and its endorsed ANSI Standard N45.2.9. The Westinghouse records program is described in Chapter 17 of the CPSES FSAR which incorporates WCAP-8370. WCAP-8370 has been approved by the NRC. At the site, CPSES maintains an equipment qualification file for electrical equipment which contains summaries of the Westinghouse documentation and any additional site specific information required. Westinghouse and their vendors maintain all mechanical equipment qualificaiton information for equipment supplied by Westinghouse. Westinghouse is responsible for assuring that qualification documentation for NSSS equipment is maintained for the life of the plant. A8-1

Maintenance and surveillance requirements (if any) are included in the maintenance / instruction manuals and seismic qualification reports. The operations group for CPSES is extracting this information and incorporating it into the overall plant maintenance and surveillance - program. t" 9 l A8-2

ATTACffiENT (9) TO TXX-3678 Generic Item (9) - Torque Requirements When qualification was established by Westinghouse through generic tests, often the basic mounting inforcation (number and size of bolts, required torque) was not specified. Similarly, when qualification is established by analysis frequently for equipment in both B0P and NSSS scope, the torque requirements are not specified. A thorough review of this issue is necessary. CPSES Response: This concern was based on one piece of equipment (i.e., hydrogen recombiner) supplied by Westinghouse. For this piece of equipment the qualification documentation (E0DP) was not complete at the time of the audit. Since the audit, the E0DP has been completed and submitted to the NRC as part of WCAP-8587. The E0DP clearly defines the size, type and number of bolts and torque requirements for installation of this equipment. (See Attachment 22 to this letter). The mounting requirements (number, size and type of bolts) are generally specified by the installation drawings. It is clearly recognized by Texas Utilities that the mounting requirements for safety-related equipment must be specifically defined and 'for that reason, efforts have been put forth to obtain and properly implement this information throughout the CPSES project. The torque requirements are either specified by the seismic qualification report (or referenced documents) or is established on site depending on the size and type of bolts specified. The following is a history of how the torque requirements of various structural connections were developed and thus specified. This writeup pertains to the Civil / Structural areas of responsibility unless noted a: a project wide criterion. A9-1

Expansion anchors - (Project Criteria) Actual testing of installed expansion anchors was performed in April 1978 such as to develop a correlation between torque and applied tension preload. The acceptance criteria for this correlation was in accordance with the proposed Design Specification 2323-SS-29 as provided by Gibbs & Hill (G&H). This proposed specification was returned to G8H without action since the Contractor would be furnishing 4 drilled-in expansion anchors in accordance with the provision of the design drawings. All expansion anchors that were to be utilized in Safety Related areas were to be products as supplied by one manufacturer; Hilti Kwik-Bolt or Super Kwik-Bolts. The Contractor had established a Quality Control Program and Installation Procedure that would assure compliance to the design drawings and installation instructions provided by the manufacturer. Torque requirements are provided in Civil Engineering Special Instruction CEI-20 which is applicable to all field installations of Hilti drilled-in expansion anchors. Subsequent to these provisions additional testing has been perfomed to check the performance of the expansion anchors (Ref. CP-EI-13.0-2). This test provided additional infomation on torque / tension correlation of expansion anchors (Ref. Test Report CPPA-26,039). This additional information had no impact on the previous published torque requirements. Structural Steel Bolts - (Civil / Structural) Torque requirements have been provided for all structural steel type connections. The torque provisions are divided based on the material grade of the bolts. For A307 type bolting materials the torque requirements are to reach a " snug tight" condition. Snug tight is defined as the tightness attained by a few impacts of an impact wrench or the full effort of a A9-2

man using an ordinary spud wrench or standard wrench. For connections that specify the use of A307 bolts, high-strength steel bolts are not required and pretension is likewise not important. (Ref. DCA-6130) For A325, A449 and A490 high-strength bolts the torque requirement are provided such as to reach 70% of the specified minimum tensile strengths of the bolts. These torque values are provided in DCA-11,817 R. I and DCA-15,028 R. 1. The values were obtained by testing per the requirements of paragraph 5(d) 1 of the "American Joints Using ASTM A325 or A490 Bolts", as approved April 26, 1978. Reports for A325 bolts of torque calibration tests as dated June 15, 1981, November 9, 1981 and December 8,1981 are in the QC Permanent Records Vault. Reports for A490 bolts of torque calibration tests are provided by CPPA-2'4,736. Nelson Threaded Studs - (Civil / Structural) Nelson Threaded Studs are used in some cases to attach equipment to embedded steel and other applications as a specific on Engineering design documents. The torque requirements for Nelson Threaded Studs are provided on the design document and/or installation operational traveler as prepared by the engineer. These torque values are provided in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendation and normally represent a pretension load in the stud equal to 60% of the yield strength. Some testing of 1/2" diameter Nelson Studs has been performed inaccordance with CP-El-13.0-5. The test report for this testing is filed under CPPA-21,620. Embedded Anchor Bolts - (Project Criteria) l Embedded anchor bolts are provided as detailed on the structural drawings. These bolts are torqued only if the drawings specify a torque value; otherwise, the bolts are snug tight. A9-3 l c,.

ATTACHMENT (10)TOTXX-3678 Generic Item (10) - Nitrogen Supply System " Electrical penetrations used in the plant require nitrogen pressure at all times to prevent potential for short circuit due to moisture ingress. However, the nitrogen supply system is not seismically qualified. The applicant should carefully review and justify why the nitrogen supply system should not be seismically qualified." CPSES Response: This concern was re-evaluated by Texas Utilities while the SQRT audit was in progress. Texas Utilities concluded (1) nitrogen pressure would probably not be lost following a seismic event and (2) nevertheless, the nitrogen supply system did not need to be seismically qualified. These results were explained at the SQRT audit exit interview. A. The penetration design is such that the nitrogen pressure maintained within the assembly during normal operations is primarily a means of demonstrating seal integrity while preventing moisture ingress which, over the long term, could eventually result in deterioration of cables, seals, etc. within the confines of the assembly. B. The orientation of the seals themselves lends greater sealing capacity if pressure on the reactor side exceeds internal seal pressure (the opposite of the normal condition). C. An alarm is utilized with the subject system to detect system or seal failure thus ensuring at any time prior to an accident that the seals are intact. A10-1 --~ l' ~~ ^

D. The system is installed utilizing structurally sound supports and well-protected tube runs. The material used (Swagelok fittings, Whitey valves and heavy wall copper or stainless tubing) is industry proven to withstand pressures and stresses far in excess of any anticipated in this application. Tnerefore, in summary, items A, B and C support the concept that the nitrogen blanket is not required during and after an accident. Moisture ingress and its adverse effects could not be reasonably expected to affect cable performance at any time following the accident especially during the time prior to restoration of the nitrogen system should it become disabled. Item D supports the previously stated conclusion that it is doubtful that a seismi,c event would disable the system. The status of the nitrogen supply system and the penetrations is monitored during normal plant operations. A low pressure condition occuring on an electrical penetration in the Safeguards or Fuel Building will be annunciated in the Control Room. On receipt of a low pressure alarm, the Control Room operator will dispatch an operator to investigate the problem. In addition to the Control Room alarm, local pressure indication is provided for each electrical penetration which will be monitored by operators on their routine plant tours. [ l l 4 l l A10-2 t

ATTACHMENT (11) TO TXX-3678 Below is a discussion of the 26 specific items reviewed during the plant visit at CPSES. Also included is the resolution for unresolved concerns on each specific item or a reference to the resolution. Note that the same numbering is used as was used in the plant visit report and numbers 5,17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25 are not used. r l l i f l i A11-1

Specific Item No. Title / Resolution 1. 45KVA Class 1E Lighting Transformers and Accessories / This equipment was found to be adequately qualified. 2. D.C. Switchboard and Distribution Panels / The only unresolved concern on this item was that installation was not complete. Installation will be completed prior to fuel load. 3. Electric Penetration Assemblies / The only unresolved concern on this item was the categorization of the Nitrogen Supply System as non-seismic. This concern is addressed in Attachment 10 to this letter. 4. Isolation Equipment and Cabinet CR-16/ See Attachment 12 to this letter. 6. Chilled Water Recirculation Pump Motor / The only unresolved concern on this item was the establishment of a proper maintenance schedule. A proper maintenance schedule will be established prior to fuel load. 7. Limitorque Motor Operator / This equipment was found to be adequately qualified.

8. & 18 in., 900 lb. Feedwater Isolation Valve with Pneumatic Hydraulic 10.

Operator / l The only unresolved concern on these items was final verification of design g-load against the piping as-built analysis results. The design g-load will be verified against the piping as-built analysis results prior to fuel load. l A11-2 l

9. Borg-Warner Pneumatic-Hyd. Operator 16 in.150 lbs. Gate Valve with Motor Operator / The only unresolved concern on this item was that the final as-built piping analysis results for the g-loads at the center of gravity should be verified against the g-load indicated in the SQRT forms. The final as-built piping analysis results fo'r the g-loads will be verified against the g-load indicated in the SQRT forms prior to fuel load. 11. Motor / This equipment was found to be adequately qualified. 12. Generator Control Panel / See Attachment (13) to this letter. 13. Main Steam Isolation Valves / See Attachment (14) to this letter. 14. Main Steam Relief Valves / This equipment was found satisfactory for seismic and dynamic qualification. 15. Filter Units: 1) Auxiliary Building Modular Train, 2) Hydrogen Purge Modular Train and 3) Control Room Makeup / The only unresolved concern was a final acceptance letter from Gibbs and Hill. Gibbs and Hill will execute a final acceptance letter prior to fuel load or the NRC staff will be notified and a justification for operation provided. 16. Refrigeration Compressor Unit / See attachment (15) to this letter. t A11-3 .. ~.

18. Control Panel / This review was not completed for the analytical portion of the qualification was still in progress. Final approval of this equipment will be provided by Gibbs and Hill prior to fuel load or the NRC staff will be notified and a justification for operation provided. 19. Motors Panel / See Attachment (16) to this letter. 24. Electronic Transmitters / This equipment was found to be adequately qualified. 26. 'CRDM/ See Attachment (17) to this letter. 27. Letdown Heat Exchanger / See attachment (18) to this letter. 28. Centrifugal Charging Pump / See attachment (19) to this letter. 29. ECCS Accumulators / See attachment (20) to this letter. 30. RHR Pump / See attachment (21) to this letter. 31. 24" Motor Operated Valve / The only unresolved concerns on this item were completion of proper installation and further verification of the valve design g-values to the as-built piping analysis g-loads. The valve design g-values will be verified against the as-built piping analysis g-loads prior to fuel load. Proper installation will also be completed prior to fuel load. A11-4

32. Electric Hydrogen Recombiner/ See attachment (22) to this letter. 33. Nuclear Instrumentation System / The only unresolved concern on this item that installation be properly completed. Proper installation will be completed prior to fuel load. I l i l i A11-5 -..- -....:...~..,..-.

ATTACHMENT (12) TO TXX-3678 4. Isolation Equipment and Cabinet CR-16/ The only unresolved concerns on this item are the correction of " walk-thru" findings and the justification for single frequency-single axis test. The " walk-thru" findings will be corrected prior to fuel load. The single frequency-single axis testing for this item complies with IEEE Std 344-1975. The resonance search test for the devices (Reference Forney Test Report A-302743-01, Rev. D, G8H Rev. 3) demonstrated that there was no resonance frequency below 33 Hz. In accordance with IEEE Std 344-1975, Section 6.6.2, "If it can be shown that the equipment has no resonances... single-frequency tests may be used to fully test the equi pment." Therefore, single-frequency testing is in conformance with the requirements of IEEE Std 344-1975. In support of the single-axis test, Forney Analysis Report A-302761-0, Rev. C, G8H Rev. I was presented to the NRC Seismic Qualification Review Team during the August 1982 audit (SQRT Item No. B0P/4, p. 2 of 2). This report indicates that high seismic accelerations in one horizontal (x) direction cccur at the vicinity of nodal points 71, 92 and 99 where the corresponding responses in the other horizontal (y) direction are less than 10% (pp. 2-29, 2-30). Similar results are observed at nodal points 15 and 16 for high accelerations in the (y) direction. This indicates that the panels amplify motion in one direction. The above nodal points are defined on pages iv, 2-5 and 2-7 and are located on the panels on j which the devices are normally mounted. According to IEEE Std 344-1975, Section 5.6.6, "If a device is normally mounted on a panel that amplifies motion in one direction... single-axis testing of the device may be adequate." l Therefore, the single-axis testing is in testing is in conformance with IEE'E Std. 344-1975. l { A12-1

ATTACHMENT (13) TO TXX-3678 12. Generator Control Panel / The only unresolved concerns on this item are: 1. That CPSES demonstrate tnat the components are being qualified to a seismic level that envelopes the seismic level that the components will see in this panel, and 2. That CPSES demonstrate that the qualification of the panel will not be altered when the seismic response of the components are considered (instead of dummy weights). The CPSES response to these concerns is as follows: 1. The overall qualification of the generator panel was perfomed in two steps. The panel with unaged components was first tested by shake table, and the responses at the mounting locations of the components were monitored. I Another panel with aged components was then tested by shake table, and the input motion was adjusted so that the response at the mounting Points of the aged components enveloped the responses recorded at l mounting points of the unaged components during the initial test. The aged components have therefore been qualified to a seismic level equal to, or exceeding, the level of accelerations applicable at their mounting locations on the original panel. 2. With the exception of a 21 lb weight, no dummy masses were used for the seismic qualification of the Comanche Peak panel (panel tested with unaged components). Based on information. furnished by RTE Delta (Reference GTN-65911 dated June 1,1983), the dumray weight was used to represent a set of seven relays which are not expected to have a A13-1 l l

I substantial response and, if any, its effect on the dynamic response of the panel would be negligible due to the small mass of the relays as compared fo the mass of the panel which weighs approximately 7000 lbs. i h A13-2

i ATTACHMENT (14) TO TXX-3678 13. Main Steam Isolation Yalves/ The only unresolved concern on this item were that measures should be implemented to ensure proper surveillance and maintenance especially upon actuators and that impact loading due to sudden valve closure should be addressed. Proper maintenance and surveillance programs will be established for these valves prior to fuel load. All valves in the main steam system are pipe mounted. The effects on the system piping, valves and supports due to the turbine stop valve closure have been accounted for in the steam hammer piping stress analysis. The dynamic effects of the main steam isolation valve closure are small compared to the effects caused by the closure of the turbine stop valve. This is because of the relatively slow isolation valve closure time compared to the stop valve closure time. The TUSI main steam system has been designed to take the full impact of turbine trip. This analysis umbrellas the effect of any dynamic -ffects due to isolation valve closure. e e i p-A14-1 r I "b 9 94 g bp p p g a .4 ,ee g g.

ATTAC W ENT (15) TO TXX-3678' ( 16. Refrigeration Compressor Unit / The only unresolved concern on this item was that aging effects prior to a seismic event be addressed and that functional capability of the equipment be established. An additional unresolved concern was that the mounting clearances, which were inconsistent in the field, would allow impact during a seismic event. N The CPSES response to these concerns is as follows: 1. Mounting i The mounting of the compressor-motor assembly at site on the six isolator springs has been investigated by Gibbs & Hill and is confirmed by the following non tinear analysis (Item 2). , 2. Adequacy of Analysis 1 s A nonlinear analysis using seismic time history has been perfomed on a mathematical dynamic model of the Control Room Air Conditioner Compressor - Motor Assembly. The dynamic model simulates the ' nonlinear behavior of the gap and the neoprene pads useds in the spring isolators. The computer program "ANSYS", which is suitable to ( l this type of analysis, has been utilized. l Based on the results of the above nonlinear analysis, it has _been ~ shown that the component stresses will not exceed the allowable values. A 3/4 inch minimum clearance gap between the upper floating l system and the lower skid has been recommended. This recommended l value for the clearance gap has been forwarded to CVI for their l evaluation and concurrence with respect to the compretsor's. normal l operation. l ~ s i A15-1 i

.,. 7, - The previous Dynatech analysis report has been superseded by the --gt present analysis report. ~ '3.; Maintenance. s ~ s A maintenance.and surveillance program for this equipment shall be .N' N s ,_,, s developed prior to fuel load. See the response to Generic Item (3) in

s. to t'nis letter. Based on the analysis above and environmental qualification documentation, the frequency for replacement of various parts as well as setting a specific and equal gap at all the six isolator springs shall be established. These programs adequately address the aging concern.

e ' 4. Operability m .A Operability is adequately addressed in the response to Generic Item (4) - Attachment 4 to th'is letter. N k, ,s T .w h ~. s A15-2 e-

ATTACHMENT (16) TO TXX-3678 19. Motor Panel / The only unresolved concerns on this item were that installation of the i motors was uncomplete and that analysis alone was used to demonstrate functional qualification. j Proper installation of the motors will be completed prior to fuel load. The documentation demonstrates the qualification of these motors in accordance with IEEE Std. 344-1975. The qualification of the insulation syctem was demonstrated by qualification, including aging, of these i motors. In several instances, qualification was perfomed on motorettes, in accordance with the methods specified in IEEE 334-1974, Section 9. The seismic simulation testing performed on the motorettes was only te simulate in-service vibrations. As stated in the motor qualification i report (Reference CVI No. B587-9936, Rev. B/ Westinghouse No. WCAP-9112, 5-1-78) the seismic qualification is by analysis, and the documentation is by report on the individual motor or a duplicate installation. The Westinghouse motor insulation system has a 40 year projected design 11fe obtained by using Class H (180 deg. C) insulation materials while limiting their operating temperatures to Class B (130 deg. C) maximum. The motorettes were aged for 4845 hours at 210 deg. C, equivalent to 142 years of service at 130 deg. C. A load test on the individual motor or a duplicate machine verifies the operating temperature at nameplate output. Westinghouse performed the seismic analysis in compliance with the requirements of IEEE 344-1975. The seismic analysis on the individual motor demonstrated that its structural integrity was maintained in combination with nomal operating loads during 5 or more OBE's. The ~ analysis considered the motor a e igid mounting base. External loads considered were load torques, thrusts and radial shaft loads from the ~ driven equipment. The analysis encompassed only the motor. Speci fic i A16-1

features analyzed were: shaft deflection, rotor displacements, shaft stresses, bearing loads, hold-down bolts, and stresses in the motor feet and flanges. The seismic analysis demonstrated that the natural frequency of the motor's components were all above 33 Hz. and on this basis a static analysis was used. The mathematical model super imposed the expected seismic stresses to the motor's operating stresses, while performing its 1E function. A determination was made of the adequacy of the strength of each point of concentration. The report of seismic analysis for the particular motor provides the documentation that the motor is qualified seismically as Class 1E equipment for a Nuclear Power Generating Station according to IEEE 344-1975. The testing and analysis is supplemented by the maintenance and surveillance program that will be established prior to fuel load. (See the response to Generic Item (3) in Attachment (3) to this letter). l A16-2

ATTACHMENT (17) TO TXX-3678 26. CRDM/ Control Rod Drive Mechanisms (CRDM) A revised SQRT fom on the CRDM is appended to this attachment. A meeting was held with the NRC staff on March 2,1983, to present additional infomation. The justification for open items is as follows: The slides presented by Westinghouse at that meeting are also appended to this attachment. A. Since bending moments provided on revised SQRT form demonstrated that faulted condition banding inoments were significantly higher than those moments at OBE values. Use of the 4% critical dampling value is permitted. B. Westinghouse performed the dynamic analysis of the CRDM using the WECAN Code which is able to take into account the effects of gaps (for LOCA) using time history and modal superposition techniques. ~ Methodologies used are outlined and verified in ASME papers "Model Superposition Method for Computationally Economical Nonlinear Structural Analysis" and " Dynamic Analysis of a Structure with Coloumb Friction" which demonstrates that the modal superposition method is equivalent to the direct integration methods. These papers are appended to this attachment. C. Westinghouse provided additional information concerning the fundamental frequency values for the insertion and withdrawal positions of the control rods that demonstrated good correlation of natural frequencies derived from test and analysis. Also, it was shown that the Model L105 CRDM tested in references (1) and (2) (see attached Xerox of slides presented during meeting) is similar in A17-1

length and properties to the L-106A CRDM with the shortest head adapter used Comanche Peak. Frequency correlation between these tests and the WECAN model is within 5% for the previously mentioned compari son. D. This item was resolved based upon generic review of WCAP-8446, WCAP-9251 and WCAP-7247. In addiion, Mitsubishi CRDM Seismic Testing was discussed and referenced. E. Site specific seismic qualification documentation was reviewed and referenced on SQRT fonn and found to be acceptable. F. Concern raised relative to incorrect drawing references were clarified and provided on revised SQR1 forms. 1 I A17-2 ~

T- .? ATTACHMENT (17) APPENDIX A to TXX-3678 Qualification Sunearv of Ecufoment (February 25,1983) I. Plant Name: Comanche Peak Svetam Mactric Station Tm 1. Utility: T' exas Utilities services. Inc. PWR NSSS-412 2. NS$3: Westinahouse 3. A/E: Gibbs & Hill. Inc. BWR II. ComponentName Control Rod Drive Mechanisms and Cacoed Latch Housinos 1. Scope: 000M555 C] BOP 53 CRDM's 2. Model Number: L106-A Quantity: 4 CLH's 3. Vendor: Westinahouse - Electro Mechanipal Div. 4. If the component is t cabinet or panel, name and model No. of 2e devices included: N/A t t 3. Physical Descriptinn 4 AppearanceW - Drawina 115E238. Rev. 20 Dimensions 20' H{gh x 3.8" dia. (115E238. Rev. 20 & 8380030. Rev.1) b. c. Weight s 1800 lbs W-Drawina (115E238. Rev. 20 & 8380016_ Rev. 1) 6. Location: Building: Containtment Elevation: RPV head and 860' at top

7.. Field Mounting Conditions F [ lolt (No.

. Size ) ~ Weld (Langen.2,Q,1 Inches)* (See Note 1) I Threaded Joint

• i 8.

a. System in which located: Reactor Coolant System b. Functional

Description:

RCS Pressure Boundary and Reactor Trip, c. Is the equipment required for [ ] Hot Standby C 1 Coinshutsown D(J Both [ ] Netser 9. Pertinent Reference Design Specifications: E-Soec 677470 Rev. ?A4 Note 1:

• The CRDM is mounted vertically on the RPV head adapters by a threaded joint, which is tl structural supporting member. There is also a canopy seal welded at this joint (and others), which is extremely flexibile In comparison to latch housing and head adapter, and. is therefore no.t.a seismic " structural", member. However, this weld is included in determining, " seismic" allowables.

e

• e

-2 ~ III. Is Equipment Available for Inspection in the. Plant: [X 3 Yes [ ] no !Y. Ecuipment Qualification Method: [ ] Test g I Analysis [ J Coeination of Test See Note 2. and Analysis Qualification Report *:__EM 4531, Rev. 1 & 2 (No.. Title and Date) " Stress & Themal_ Report of Tvoe L106-A & L106 1/31 Cospany that Prepared Repor/74 R18-19-75 R2 4-12-76. t:_ Westinahouse EMD Cospany that. Reviewed Report:__ Westi_nghouse PWR V. Vibration Input: 1,. Loads considered:

6. C'l Seismic only See Note 3.

h. C } Hydro @ntanc only

~

c. [X3 Coeination of (a) and (b) 1.

Method of Coeining RR1: C1AbscluteSua 5X23Rss t3 75 User, siacuyJ 3. Required Response Spectra-(attach the graphs): See attached ~ 4. Dasping Corresponding to ARS: CE *S% / 2% $3Ed,%jh,1 *_(R,QMfStructure 5. Required Acceleration in Each 3 fraction: [ ] ZPA [X] Other NA (sieciFy) 08E 5/5 N/A F/B =- N/A V= N/A SSE S/S *__ N/A F/1

• N/A

~ V* N/A 6. Were fatipe effects or other vibration loads considered? CX3yes []No IY yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification prcgram: Fatigue effects were considered as required by t' he ASME Code for Class 1 components.

• NOTE: If more than one report cospiete:itans IV thru VII for each report.

l ' NOTE 2: This' report is a generic stress and thermal analysis ~ 12/80 which defines the margins available in terms of bending moments for other dynamic loads. NOTE 3: itydrodynamic loads (i.e.."LOCA) a're considered in combination with seismic loads.

• Specifically. LOCA and SSE loads are combined by the SRSS method.

e

III. Is I:ui: ment Availatie for Inscection in the Plant: [ 3 Yes [].1o !Y. E:ui: ment Qualification.Metnoo: [ ] Test CX] Analysis C I Concination of Ten (See Note 4) and, Analyus Qualification Recort': HM-SSD-034. "CRDM and CRDM (No., Title _.andData) Support Analysis for TBX" 5/29/81 Corgany that Prepared Report: Westinghouse NTD Corgany 24t Reviewed Report.: _ Westinghouse NTD V. Vibration Incut: 1. Lsaas considered:

a. C 3 seismic only

h. C 3 Mydrotynamic only l

c. [ ] Coscination of (a) and (3) 2.

Method of Coseining RR1: (]AbsoluteSun C3SRS3 [] l ~~iiJiir, specim t 3.- Required Eesponse Spectra-{,,ttach the graphs): _ a 4. Dassing Corresponding to RR$: 08E SSE 5. Required. Acceleration in Each Oirection: [ ] ZPA [ ] Otner_ (spec,: ry ) 08E 5/5 = F/B = V= $3E S/5 = F/8 = V= 6. Were fatigua effects or other. vibration loads considered? C3Yes []No !Y yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in over:11 qualification program: l ' NOTE-If more than one report cassista items IV 2ru VII for esca recort. Note 4: Analysis of dynamic LOCA and SSE loads demonstrating that 12/80 t allowable bending moments calculated in generic analysis have not been exceeded. f O

---

* au -.i-----a

--mm____,_-w-, ---.-,.w.vw --y .--m.-, p -y -,wm --.c-.,-w-g

---

m e.---------3

3 v7. If Qualification by Test, then Comolate : Not applicabl,e o ~ (l lsine meat l rancc.: 1. [ ] Single Frequency [] Multi-Frequency: 2. L 3 Single Axis [ ] Multi-Axis 3. No. of Qualification Tests: 08E SSE Other 4.. Frequency Range: 5. NaturaT"7requencies in Eaca Direction (Side / Side. Front /Sact. Venical): 5/5 = F/B = V= 6. Method, of Determining Natural Frequen~cies [ ] Lab Test [ ] In-Situ Test [ ] Analysis 7. TRS enveloping RR5 using Multi-Frequency Test [ ] Yes (Attach TR5 & RR5 grapns [ 1 Ko 8. Input g-ieval T6st: CSE 5/5 = F/3 = _ Y= SSE $/S = F/B = _ Y= 9. Laboratory Mounting: 1 C } Bolt (No. $fze ) [ ] Wel'd (Langth ) [] 10. Functional operability verified: [ ] Yes [ 3 No C 3 Not Applicaole

11. Test Results including edifications ande:

12. Other test. performd (such as aging or fragility test, including results):

s = Note: If qualification by a.costination of test and analysis also corolate Ites VII. 12/20 ee e -,...,.,,----.,y.m--- -.-..m.~. -,,,o

VII If Qualification by Analysis. then c:lmoleta: l. Metacd of Artalysis: (EM 4513. strsss an'd thermal analysis) @ 3 Static Analysi.s [ 3 Equivalent. Static Analysis I LX 3 Oynamic Analysis: C I Time-History [ 3 Responsa Spec..w Thermal transient analysis 2. Natura T Frequencies in Eaca Directiui (Sida/5f en. Front /Bacx, Vertical): (see next page) 5/5 =. M/A F/8 N/A V= N/A 36 Modal Type: ( 3 3D $32D C 3 1.0 (X) Finita Element C 3 8eam C 3 Closeo Form Solu: tin. 4. CX3 Cossutar Codes: FEAAS-6 Frequency Range and No. of andas considered: S next page CX2MandCalculations 5. Mathsd of Coscining Dynamic. Responsas: ( 1 Absolute Sun C 3 SRIS i ~ [ 1 Other: NA (See next page) UiitciTy) ~ ~ 5. Dancing: GSE N/A SIE. - N/A Basis for the dancing used: (See next pagej

7. ' Support Consideratiians in the andal: Mounted on RPV as installed per 8.

Critical Structural liennnts:- See next page Governing Lead or Responsa Seismic Total Stress A. Idantification Location Combination Stress St.-es s Allowable Maxiaum Allowaole Deflec:1on~ f 8 Max. Critical to Assu m.Func: tonal Ocara-l Deflection Location b_i11ty t 12/SD 9 [ emmem

f '.* VII.. If Qualification by Analysis. then conolete: (See Note 5) 1. Method of Analysis: (LetterAM-SSD-034) i [ ] Static Analysis '( 3 Equivalent Static Analysis ( (X3 Dynamic Analysis: O(I Time-History D(3 Response Spectrum (LOCA) (SEISMIC). 2. Naturei Frequencies in Each Direction (Side / Side. Front /8acx, Vertical): 4.26 5.56, 6;82

• S/S = gggg, 94 F/8 Qm V'=A, e,_100 Hz 3]p yde, ge gy M M4 g_e as S/Sp W W a{a g le @

yp 3 C3FiniteElement D(3 Seas [ ] Closed For:n Soluthn. 4. [)Q Cosputer Codes: WECAN + ___=. .Frequenc;y Range and No. of modes considered:_ 0-6,0Jz 65_ modes []MandCalculations 5. Method of Costining Dynamic Responses: ((, ] Other:Absolutu Sus CKI SRSS i J 2 2 Faulted = 1 LOCA +SSE +DW UWJJ ~ ~~ ^ CRDM/ Structure See References 6. Dasping: 08E 5% ) 2% 53E51'/ 4% Basis for the daging used:ggo_ttom 7. Support Considerations in the andel:J h m gf,(artm L,gs.jnstalled 8. Critical Structural Elesents:- configuration) See Note 6 (E.M. 4531, R2) Seismic Go.verning Load A s Identification Location t on re s Allowable RTH Seismic Moment OBE 36 in-kip NA 45 in-kip ' RTH Moment LOCA + SSE 76.35 in-kip.120 in-kip Maxisus Allowable Deflection' 8. Nax. Critical to Assure.Functianal Opera- _ Deflection Location bility NA Damping References (1) Obermeyer, F. D., " Effective Structural Damping of the KEP L105 Control Rod 1 Drive Mechanism". WCAP-7427 January 1970. (Westinghouse Proprietary). (2) Obermeyer, F. D., WCAP-7427, Addendum I to Reference (1) above, December 1970. (Westinghouse Proprietary). (3) Letter Pti-SSA-1984, " Damping Values on 3D Plants", 7/9/76. i / e

ATTACHMENT TO TBX-CRDM-SQRT Note 5: l The analysis of the CRDM's is performed in two parts. First, a generic stress and thennal analysis is performed to determine maximum allowable moment loadings on the CRDM's (see report EM 4531, referenced in Section IV). Secondly a plant specific seismic response spectra analysis and a plant specific LOCA time history analysis are performed. The moments from this analysis are combined by the SRSS method (noted in Section VII, part 5) and are compared with the allowable moments (E.M.4531). The results of the plant specific LOCA and seismic are sumarized in Reference AM-SSD-034. Note that the detailed calculation notes and computer runs for these specific anaiyses are' maintained by Westin; house in the Commanche Peak CRDM file. Other interface leads are transmitted for approval by the ccgnizant group for the compcnent (i.e. head adapters). i Note 6: As noted by the comparison of specific plaat moments and the generic allowable moments, there is considerable margin in the design of the CRDM's for C'manche Peak, o i r l l l l l l

c

fste@

~ IN-STRUCTUR$REbPONSESPECTRRFOR: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF R.B. ELEVRTION: 860 00 FT. i EQUIPMENT DAMPING: 0 04 SSE ERRTHQURKE RX: N-S RY: VERT. RZ: E-W o o. o C.3 <e 1 1 o Ii e CA-l 7 R e/g o Uo ,l's py-o* \\ cc I g .1 s' i s ny \\ o<- / \\ i y ,i h __ e. o. i 8 4 i I

• ll.00 0'.15 0'.30 0'.45 0'.60 0'.75 0'.90 6a z.n ' PER100-SEC zozt TUSl

&Ni i i i ?..f. cibt~.e c HIII.In q I l usse. n n ._n.., en g ):,- ;- 8' {,\\ ~ l'.f,";'<, s ll I e ..1 , ::: p: u .... u.e w --..y_ ,m.

I ,s7 ai ~ IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR: l INTERNRL STRUCTURE OF R.B. ELEVATION: 860.00 FT. l EQUIPMENT ORNPING: 0 07 6 I SSE EARTHQURKE RX: N-S RY: VERT. AZ: E-H o O.. to O O l e o o ** 2 W EE N / Z 04- / T RX s / DE \\ /./gY a / \\ o e s l / \\ a I / \\ / e' 'N-j g.. e i %.00 0 15 0 30 0 45 0.60 0.75 0 90 t a e PERIOD-SEC l l Y 8 l i I T Olbh a C Hill. Irve. .enys. ~ '= m = 5*= . a.= r =* .. pu. .....,.,,,,j.,

s...,

~ s. - ~.

• /a

...IN-STRUCTURE' RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF R.B. ELEVRTION: 860.00 FT. EQUIPMENT ORMPING: 0 02 1/2 SSE ERRTHQURKE RX: N-S AY: VERT. RZ: E-H O O SD 4 O O. O O e,;- 2 .,,Rg o R uO s _.,c Z o *--.__.., g f cc s I l ,\\ ar i

x. 7 o

i s ~,, N. e s ,/ o. I i ii i 00 0'.15 0.'. 3 0 0'.45 0'.50 0'.75 0'.90 PERIDD-SEC ,,g .w 2 'Z.L DI lU I g g Olk% B Hl!!. losc. wase. ~ ~[_ l-m _ _ -- =.s g ~. g -.c :. _. e,y e i,, ..... y.... .- -...;._.2 .. y_..1 ~ * * *

• • • Y'"y

'*6e o e+

'/ * \\ rm &/; 1 IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRR FOR: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF R.B. ~ ELEVRTION: 860 00 FT. EQUIPMENT ORMPING: 0.04 1/2 SSE EARTHOURKE RX: N-S AY: VERT. RZ: E-W OO 10 Q O ~ v O O z e-e 4

• O 00 U *...

E AT O / \\ Q t 'g4 S .. 7_. / / s f / \\ / N l_ / g s O t O I l 8 i l t l e t S.00 0'.15 0'.30 0'.45 0'.60 0'.75 0'.90 PERIOD-SEC J_ TUS t j Gibbe C Mill. Inc. se..e. g m a n cze.w- - e gw,g g, I' U E,, ',, I tat i,#j

• =g* a*
• 4,

.. ~.. _ _

9 ATTACHMENT (17) APPENDIX B to TXX-3678 9 E SLIDES PRESENTED AT TBX-SQRT MEETING 3/1-2/83 BETHESDA l 1 .g

B l E55 e ,_______ggg____. E= m l 1 d i l I c I s 1 E E g i d m C I Ik E l e w " u, E WW

• o I

E e ~ Ed W Bo l W d" = $ ~W t g m l a 'l m E W l 8 a

2 l

w E"' e 12 w w i i aW J E

• O C

.ci v = sz s f" e I "E d B b^ fg E 5 g v .=g g* = a w - W d g ] &E 5s u. G. gts E C; o R* 52 4 O P a 0 go 5 v EE C E 5i EE d & WE 5C 5W$

• 8 3

m g m 8 g = 5 4 d d! = v a E E. 5 d u wf-d ER ~ W. m I >. o J we Na 5 EE J

• m to a

w W

m. m e.s W

phN E W E N W. T vm g c W m. E 3g !ES e ,= s s as e 5 <e s S E a e W. R s. i R l E I 0; I a~ W4 lO "W N .)

CRDM QUALIFICATION SUM 4ARY i 1) MAINTAIN INTEGRITY OF RCS PRESSURE B0UNDARY Qualified By Analysis per ASME Section III e Component analysis used to prepare code stress report and determine maximum allowable bending moment distribution. This is a generic analysis. (Reference 1). e System analysis used to demonstrate that actual bending moment distribution for both seismic and LOCA conditions is within allowables. This is generally a plant specific analysis. (Reference 2). e System analysis also provides verification that seismic support system and vessel head adaptor loads are within allowable limits. II) POSITION ON OPERABILITY i Operability is defined as the ability to insert control rods when desired. i e Since control rods fall into the core because of gravitational acceleration and loss of power to grippers releases control rods, the CRDM is a fail-safe component. e Rod drop time measurements during startup provide verification of operability of CRDM's. e Rod drop capability under abnormal conditions has been demonstrated by: e Prototype flow tests which were performed for flows in excess of 150% of design flow over a range of temperatures. (Reference 3). e Scram deflection tests on CRDM's. (Reference 4) e Scram deflection tests on guide tubes and fuel assemblies. (Reference 3 and Reference 5).

: = =.a L.

e In additio.n a Westinghouse licatnsee, W I, has performed dynamic ~ tests on a prototypic CRDM which provide additional evidence of the ability to insert control rods during seismic events. (Reference 6 and Reference 7). CONCLUSION CRDM operability is defined as the ability to insert control rods and this is assured by the fail safe CRDM design employed. Periodic rod drop time tests provide confirmation of acceptable CRDM perfonnance. Furthennore, capability under abnormal conditions has been demonstrated by tests performed by Westinghouse in~d Westinghouse Licensees. h =.....

REFERENCES

1) Stress and Themal Report of Type L106-A and L106-B'CRDM,1/31/74 Rev.1 - 8/19/75. Rev. 2-4/12/76; (Westinghouse Proprietary).

2) "CRDM and CRDM Support Analysis For Comanche Peak", (Letter No.

AM-SSD-034), 5/29/81 (Westinghouse Proprietary).

3) WCAP-8446, 17 x 17 Drive Line Components Tests, 12/74 (Westinghouse Proprietary).

4) WCAP-7427, Addendum - 1. Effective Structural Dam)ing of the KEP L105 Control Rod Drive Mechanism 12/70 (Westinghouse >roprietary).

5) WCAP-9251, Scram Deflection Test Report,17 x 17 Guide Tubes,12/77 (Westinghouse Proprietary).

6) Summary of Report No. 2504717A, Study on Vibration Characteristics of Control Rod Driving Mecha'nism, (Mitsubishi Proprietary).

7) "A Preliminary Sumary of Vibration Characteristic of Control Rod Drive Mechanism of PWR, Part 2",12/17/74, (Mitsubishi Proprietary). ~ ( l e 1

CRIN SYSI1N ANALYSIS' SEISGC I. EDEL OVERVIBf A. Beam Model with lumped masses (3-D WECAN andel) B. Five CR34s are modeled with different length head adapters. C. Simplified RPV model attached to head adapters and lifting legs by rigid links. D. RPI plates modeled by linear springs between CRIN's. II. Nim G 01M IES A. u - Response Spectra, Method (20 second transient) B. Model responses canbined by W method of closely WM modes. C. Easponse Spectra of the operating deck is supplied to ground points, including RV supports. WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 i

OtD4 SYS11N ANALYSIS IDCA i I. EDEL OVERVIBf i A. Similar to seismic model. B. Similar CRD( nodelling to seismic,except no itsuped masses. C. There are five CRIN's modelled in the IOCA systen model. Each of the five CRIN's represents 10 actual CRIN's. i D. OtIN/RPI plate inpacts are represented by-springs and daspers with a gap. II. MEmiCDOIDGIES A. Time history andal super position analysis (0.5 second transient) B. Input is from vessel IDCA analysis, head motion. WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIE - y ::. _9

/ - v. Flette gt ,g %,, i.n [

== . Sof.mit Snoperg pgegp, " Il 45 ti qi y, s., ,d> T1e R.as j t > W3 1811 1811 4> 4> ' I'8 'i'I ' il -- E1918 Lt.as ll --<=is m. i 1,l'ji

• {' f i f j'

= = sa.: ll/ 1 1 l7 l / t / j> /p*= ' 1 / I L,

• en9 t

==.n i u h ,M M mens C.L F f.. -3 NW '.K./ RPY Model included ,,,,a for seisade only. T i Het aw w so, m men i.. % g n CRDMs and btDM Support Structure % del TINGHOUSE Mt0PRlETARY CL --~ s-

CRDM Frequency Correlation Mitsubishi performed a vibration test which determined CRDM frequency with varying parameters.- Typical results are shown below CRDM WITH RPI COILS FREQUENCY (HZ) 1) (Rod withdrawn fully). 6.75

2) Rod fully inserted.

6.70 From the results presented, it is evident that drive rod position has little effect on CRDM frequency. As additional verification, a comparison of first frequencies of the L-106A CRDM from analytical models showed that even if the entire drive shaft mass is included as lumped masses along the CRDM pressure housing, frequency reduction is small. Less than a 10% first frequency change occured for this very conservative verification between a fully inserted and a fully withdrawn drive shaft CRDM model. T l ~ -., - ..----,-,,.-.l,.., ^

BASIS FOR DAMPING VALUES USED IN CRDM/CRDM SUPPORT SYSTEM DYNAMIC ANALYSIS i e For CRDM's, 5% damping is used based on test data: - CRDM testing perfomed by Westinghouse

Reference:

WCAP 7427 Test Configuration Full size CRDM Assembly including CRDM Support Plate Assembly and RPV head adaptor assembly. Test Conditions Internal pressure of 2250 psi various temperatures. Test Procedure Transient vibration tests were. conducted. During these tests, the CRDM was deflected a specified amount, then suddenly released. Variables Investigated - Drive Shaft Position - full in, half out, full out - Clearance at CRDM Support Plate: 0.0,.015.005,.06.010 - Initial Deflection .125,.25,.375 Conclusion - Mean Damping value of 9.2% over 1 cycle and 7.7% over 5 cycles, for all tests. - Damping of 5% or greater for all conditions evaluated with minimum upper support clearance of 0.04 inches. e For remaining structures, 2% damping used in OBE analysis and 4% damping used in faulted condition analysis. Basis: - Faulted loads are significantly greater than OBE loads. - SSE and LOCA loads are cod ined to obtain faulted loads. l '~ ":_l*~~ 2 X ;:: -._ _

c l BASIS FOR PERFORMING A RESPONSE SPECTRUM SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CRDM/CRDM SUPPORT SYSTEM GAPS ARE SMALL AND FAR REMOVED FROM CRITICAL REGIONS OF CRDM'S o (.04 .1 INCH GAP LOCATED MORE THAN 100 INCHES FROM CRITICAL REGIONS). e ROD TRAVEL HOUSING IS QUITE FLEXIBLE AND CONSEQUENTLY ANY IMPACT AT THE RPI PLATES IS ONLY A LOCALIZED EFFECT NEAR THE TOP OF THE RTH. - STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WHICH DEMONSTRATE THE INSEN-l SITIVITY OF CRDM LOADINGS TO DEFLECTION OF THE TOP END OF THE CRDM. ~ - THE LOADING CONDITIONS 5T THE TOP OF THE CRDM ROD TRAVEL HOUSING ARE SUCH THAT THE STRESS DUE TO THE SEISMIC LOADING IS ON THE ORDER OF 300 PSIJ CONSEQUENTLY, THIS IS NOT A CRITICAL REGION. e RESPONSE SPECTRA TECHNIQUES USED IN THE SEISMIC ANALYSIS ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE: - SEISMIC INPUT AT THE CRDM UPPER SUPPORT IS USED AT ALL SUPPORT LOCATIONS, INCLUDING THE RPV SUPPORTS. THE ACTUAL ACCELERATION AT THE RPV SUPPORTS, IN THE CRDM FREQUENCY RANGE, IS ROUGHLY 50% OF THE ASSUMED LEVEL. - COMPARISON OF LINEAR TIME HISTORY AND RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS HAS SHOWN THAT THE RESPONSE SPECTRA TECHNIQUE IS CONSERVATIVE.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 I L 35.000 30.000 25.000 HAXIMUN WOMENT gg,ggg SPECTRUM ANALYSIS g 15,000 10.000 .E ~ 1 5000 l l J f i 1 = 0 r Ij' \\ -5000 i l \\ ~ -10.000 I I I l l l l l l -15.000 0 0.35 0.70 1.05

1. 40 1.75 2.10 2.45 2.80 3.15 3.50 TIME Figure 5-10. CRDM Maximum Bending Moments I

5-24 W. e. 9

i s s e PERFORM LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYSIS WITH VARIOUS DEFLECTIONS OF IOP END oF RTH ~ FOR A.5.15=.35" ADDITIONAL DEFLECTION, THE MAXIMUM RESULTS: MOMENT AT THE CRITICAL SECTION INCREASES BY 77865.6 -75999.7 - 1865.9 IN-1BF CHECK: FOR AN ADDITIONAL DEFLECTION OF 1.0.5= 5" THE MAX MOMENT SHOULD INCREASE BY 1865.9 *'Ji._ = 2665.57 + 77865.6 + 2665.57 - 80531.17 .35 ~ AND COMP. RUN INDICATES 80531.1 WHICH CONFIRMS RUN. S0 FOR A POSTULATED DEFLECTION OF 10 x.1 = 1" THE MAXIMUM e MOMENT AT THE CRITICAL SECTION INCREASES BY ~ B 1865.9 1.0 = 5331 IN-1 F AND THE ALLOWABLE IS .35 120000 IN 1 F. THIS REPRESENTS 4.5% INCREASE 9 CONCLUSION IS IHAT BECAUSE OF MARGIN RELATIVE To ALLOWABLE AND CONSERVATISM IN USE OF OPERATING DECK SPECTRA AT RPV SUPPORT LEVEL, THERE IS NO CONCERN. l

1__ -- .g m m ys m Q.1 f'[;J * <; - p i-MTk 7 ".*

• 78.PVP-70? J.b

-"l - ~~- -#".ETP fKQ k- ...-- s..a- ..y. _*g-- ~ w n.~ .~. ; u y g_ g,A (.1k _ " hhurumg"~ ~ }_*:g- (_ ~ N .i ha f 4

.ycrinz aut H MH l

E The Society shall not be responsible for statements or opmions acenced in peoers or m escass.on er meenngs of the Society or of tra Dvis.ons or Sectons. or pnnted in its pubhcahons Oscusseon is Annteo ATTACHMENT (17) APPENDIX C to TXX-3678 anry s tne osoer e pue=nea n en esus,oum., or proc eengs. Re eased for general pubhcanon upon presemation Fue credtt snouk2 De grven te ASME. the Tec9mcal Dension, and the $3.00 PER COPY W 'k $1.50 TO ASME MEMBERS Modal Superposition Method for Computationally Economical Nonlinear Structural Analysis V. N. SHAH PWS Systems Dnnsion. Assoc Mem ASME G. J. BOHM Westing %use E>ectre Corporation. Pittsourgh. Pa Mem ASME A.N.NAMAVANDI Professor. Engineenng and Apphed Sciences. Columbia Univers4ty. New York. N Y A modal superposition method for analyzing nonhnear structural dyna"lics probiems invo'veg impact between components is developed and evaiuatec Tne finite e.ement method es used to express the ecuations of motion with nonhneanties represented by pseuc:: force vector Three tes1 problems are solved to verify this method This has demonstratec tt e appheacikty of this method to seesmc analysts of large. complex structura'syste s 11 's concluded that the moda'superposation method has a signit. cant cost aavantage over the direct integrabon method for probiems with large wave fronts and tne source et non-hnea'- rtes restncied to a hmated portion of the structure. Contributed be ete Presamte Veenees & Piping Division of The Asnerican Sociefs of Meenamical Engineers for preenrerson at the Joems ASME/CSME Pressere Vessels a Pipeng Conference. Montreal. Caands. June 25.10.19"1 Mansecripe received as ASME Headquarters March 29.1978. C .nranae ruMa-.i.im. s ,OF bbCAL bb UNITED ENGINEERING CENTEA. 345 EAST 47th STREET, NEW YORK. N.Y.1c017 w- ,,__,m. w_._ -~

Modcl Suparpositisn Mcthsd far eComputationally Economical Nonlinear Structural Analysis V. E E4AH &AM A E NAHAVAm E AggTgACT d grees-of-freedom for which the response spectra has to be :enerated. A modal superposition method for smalysing ace-For nonlinear analysis, direct integration meth-linear structural dynamics problems involving impact eds are videly used but their cost for the seismic between components is developed and evaluated. The analysis of a coupled nonlinear building and reactor finite element method is used to supress the equa-coolant loop system is prohibitive. In order to re-tions of motion with monlinearities represented by duce this cost, the application of the modal superpo-pseudo force vector. Three test problems are solved sition method to nonlinear analysis is considered. to verify this method. This has demonstrated the ap-Two different approaches using model superpost-plicability of this method to seismic analysis of tion method for monlinear problems have been investi-large, complex structural syst as. It is concluded gated. The main objective is to find an approach that the modal superposition method has a significant which has most of the cost saving features of the cost advantage over the direct integration method for linear andal superposition method mentioned earlier. problems with large wave fronts and the source of ase-In the first approach, referred to as the incre-I linearities restricted to a limited portion of the _ mental method [4.5.6), the nonlinearities are included structure. in the effective stiffness matrix, and the modeshapes e and natural frequencies are updated at each time step. INT 3000CTION The algorithms used in this approach are accurate but its computational cost is high for large problems.- es' The nuclear power plaats are designed to with-In the second approach [7.8.9), the nonlineari-stand hypothetical accidents due to earthquakes and ties are presented as pseudo force. The mass and pipe breaks. This requires dynamic structural anal-stiffness matrices are calculated only once and the ysis of a coupled building and reactor coolant loop corresponding mode shapas and natural frequencies are system. This system is analysed by a finite elment associated v,th the linear systen staulating initial " model consisting of more than 200 elements and 600 state of the undamped structure with no external force degrees-of-freedom with nonlinearities restricted to a acting on it. This state of the structure is hereaf-limited portion of the structure due to impact between ter referred to as the reference state. various components. The seismic ancitettee is of fif-h approach taken by Stricklin [7]. and Molnar. teen seconds or longer duration and consists of fro-et al. [8), results in reduced cost and demonstrates quencies up to 35 Es. The emeitation due to blowdown the feasibility of nonlinear modal superposition ap-loads (pipe break) is of shorter duration, but coa-proach for certain types of analyses. The main pur-sists of much higher frequencies. Therefore, the ace-pose of this paper is to develop a method based on linear time history analysis of these hypothetical ac. modal superposition using finite element formulation cidents requires a considerable mount of computa-for the dynamic analysis of large structural systems tional cost, with a source of mon 11near effects restricted to a Most solution procedures used for the transient limited portion of the structure and represented by a analysis can be divided into two categories: 1) Di-pseudo force vector. Most cost-saving features of the rect integration method, and 2) Medal superposition linear modal superposition method mentioned earlier. l aethod. are incorporated in this method to achieve further For linear analysis, andal superposition method economy. h generalised pseudo force is represented is widely used [1.2), and its computational cost-with first order extrapolation and the uncoupled modal i effectiveness is due to the following reasons: equations are integrated analytically with no numer$- 1. In contrast with the direct integration, the cost cal damping or phase distortion present. associated with model superposition anthod is ta-Three problems are solved to illustrate the veri-dependent of the wave front or bandwidth. fication and application of this method to nonlinear 2. For seismic tias history analysis, the mode shapes elastic structures. In the first problem, a canti-with lower frequencies are significant. For this lever beam with nonlinear elastic supports, subjected reason, only these mode shapes are included La the to seismic excitation is analysed. h results are

analysis, verified by comparing then with those obtained by di-3.

The uncoupled sodal equations are integrated ana-rect integration method. In the second problem, a lytically, which allows larger integration time reactor coolant loop with nonlinear supports, sub-steps. jected to nodal force time histories is analysed and '4. The element stresses can be caluelated by super-the results are compared with thest published in ref-r M posing the model stresses (3). Thus, the physical erence [8]. In the third problem. dynamic response displacements need be calculated only for those of a reactor coolant loop system subjected to seismic 1 ~ .s l

ecy~ escitation is analysed. N results are compared with and those obtained by the man-Cou-senefield method [10]. [E,g] = [E) + [I] (2) b re [C] and [E) are the desping and stiffness matri-The understanding of the modal superposition ces representing the reference state of the structure, method for monlinear structures requires the discue- [C] and [I) are the damping and stiffness matrices, sion of the following three topics: dependent on velocity and displacement. Equations (2) 1. Model analysis. are substituted in equation (1). This gives: 2. Troostent analysia. [5]{k)+IC)(i)+[E]{Il={F)-{F,g) 3. Notlinear behavior due to impact. W Medal Aa& lysis b re, the pseudo force vector is defined by N modal analysis methods can be divided into {F,g) = [2] {I) + lh (I) (4) two categories - Transformation Methods and Iterative Methods. In transformation methods, the generalised as the nonlinear properties are restricted to a small eigenvalue problem is converted to a regular eigen-portion of the structure, only a sus 11 number of fi-value problem. All the frequencies and mode shapes alte elements with nonlinear properties are used to are calculated simultaneously. h Jacobi method model the structure. So the matrices [2] and [K) are (11). Givens method [12), and Bouseholder-QR method sparse, and the cost of calculation of the pseudo 1131 belong to this group of methods. These methods force is small if computations are performed at ele-are generally used for problems with less than a few ment level. The homogeneous, undamped equation of hundred degrees-of-freedce. action representing the reference state of the struc-In the iterative methods, the generalised eigen-ture ist value problem does not need to be converted to regu-lar eigenvalue problem. The frequencies and mode [N){}+[E]{E)={0) (5) shapes are calculated one at a time. The inverse power method [14]. subspace iteration method [15]. Ist ['m ) and [$) be the natural frequency and normal-and determinant search method [16) belong to this imod mode shape matrim associated with equation (5). group of methods. h following transforestion. The natural frequencies and mode shapes can be found by reduced modal analysis or full modal analy- {1) = [$) {q) (6) sie. N selection of dynamic degrees-of-freedom is required for the reduced andal analysis but not for is substituted in equati a (3) pre-aultiplied by [$)T, the full modal analysis. The proper selection of the employing the orthogonality relationa expressed by dynamic degrees-of-freedom is difficult for large, complex structural system. So, a full modal analysis [$]Tgy) g,j,gg) by an iterative method should be used for such sys- [$)T[C] [$] = ['2C)w).] tems. Transient Analysis and The natural frequencies and mode shapes for the [$)I[E] [$) = ['w.), nonlinear structure are obtained by one of the methods discussed previously. N oe frequencies and mode the resulting andal equations become shapes represent the reference state of the nonlinear {q)+['2C)w).]{II)+['w)2.)(q)={Q)-{Q,g) structure. During the time history analysis, as the (7) nonlinear behavior comes into action, the true fre-quencies and mode shapes change. The effect of the

where, variation of the true frequencies and mode shapes from the original ones is represented by pseudo forces on C = percentage of the critical damping for the jth the right-hand side of the equation of action.

3 mode. The generalised equation of action of a structure [M](k)+[C,g]{i)+[E,g){K)={F) (1) {Q,g) = [$) {F,g) = generalised pseudo force vector b re. Arrays {q). {II) and {q) are the modal displace-ment, velocity and acceleration vector respectively. [M] is a mass matria. h generalised pseudo force vector is a function of displacement and velocity. For a given time step it [C,g) is a monlinear desping matriz, dependent upon can be approximated by Taylor series as follows: velocity and displacement. [E*g) displacement. is a sonlineer stiffness matrix, dependent upon {Q,g)l,=k=0 h [ 4,gHT *~ I {1).{I).{k)and{F)aredisplacement, velocity,ac-d celeration and applied force vector. T<t<T4T Let [C,g] = [C) + [2] 2 l l m -

squation (7) represents a set of uncoupled equa-where c is a constant coefficient of viscous dt. ping tions. These equatioes are integrated analytically to and k is a linear spring-constant presumed tg match eliminate n eerical damping or frequency distortion the force-approach law. The damping force ex. and the during integration. gquation (8) represents the.ea-spring force km in equation (9), are combined and trapolation of generalised pseudo force vector by Tay-plotted as a hysteresis loop 0AgCO as shown in lor series. The n eber of terms that can be included Figure Ib. The area inside the loop represents the in the Taylor series is determined by the continuity seergy loss during the impact. of {Q,g) and its time derivatives. The more the nua-ber of terms the larger the alloweble integration C time step. The outrapolation is done in the modal g space, which is of relatively small size. gach addi- = ear tional tera of the series will require eas11 addi-amass mass y tional storage in computer core. For the moet practi-O O W g caltopplications. it suffices to include only the first J two terms of the Taylor series. For a given time step. andal equations of action are integrated analytically. Then the displacement and velocities of the nodes associated with the non-Fig. 2 Dynamic element to represent impact linear elements are calculated. This inforestion ta

behavior, used to calculate the generalised pseudo force vector and its time derivatives. Then the modal equations are integTated for the next time step.

In this study, the impact behavior is repre-seated by dynamic element (17] shown in Figure 2. in Isonlinear Behavior Due to Impact the finite element madel of a structure. The initial clearance between two impacting mass. points is defined in this study. impact behavior is confined to by the parameter GAP (G). The spring and damping elastic bodies impacties one another at fairly low ve-forces as functions of relative displacement and ve-locities. The impact takes place in the elastic range locities of the centers of mass of two impacting bodies are: which leaves both impacting bodies unchanged in dimen-sions and properties. While most of the elastic strain Spring force = K (U -UJ - C) if UJ ~< UI-C energy is restored during the impact a small portion 1 of it is dissipated as heat. =0 if Uy>Ug-C r, Desping Force = C (O - O ) if U, 5 Ug-C g y g espacTses ens f 4 mass m f goog os sesso soov =0 if U >U -C (10) J I / / g For seismic analysis of a coupled reactor coolant vetociTvos espactuscuass loop and building systes, the damping value c for the AT Tws uonsmT os sespact dynamic element is much less than critical damping co-efficient. The maximum damping force is then auch man 11er than the maximum spring force. 'Il % soutvalseeY g L6eesan petusG COST I I The computer cost for dynamic analysis of the I na nonlinear structures by the modal superposition method g I is significantly less than that by the direct integra-l tion method. The reasons for lower computer cost for l the long time history analysis are as follows: a. 1. Only mode shapes with natural frequencies lower "^ than the significant frequencies are included in [ the analysis. A 2. Computer cost is independent of the bandwidth or g wave front. 3. Nonlinearities are restricted to small portion of of the structure. Fig. 1 (a) Mass impacting on "ti. zed" body 4. Displacements and/or velocities are calculated for small number of degrees-of-freedoms. (b) Bysteresis loop fer single 5. The stresses for linear elements are calculated by impact

• maltiplying modal coefficients and modal stresses.

6. The computer cost of modal analysis, calculation To simulate this behavior, the relative estion of two impacting bodies is of ten represented as half of a of natural frequencies and mode shapes, is a small damped sine wave. according to the Kelvin-Voigt model. fraction of the computer cost of analysis by the The equation of motion governing the period of contact direct integration method. Generally, the cost comparison of different inte-during a single impact between a mass and a fined body gration methods are based on the size of the largest shown in Figure la in the absence of any other enci-

• • II'" A88 allowable time step. This comparison might be mis-leading. A more realistic comparison should be based aii + cx, + km = 0 (9) on the cost per time step and the size of the largest 3

-~ ~ ~ v c

w m v o. allowable time step. One of the anjor factors in de-a 8 g termining the computer cost is how a method la incor-poteted in a program. The cost also depends on N qp yp Y whether a method is lepinnented for general use or Q Jf IL 3 special use. The implementation of a method is af-p II'

II

/ facted by the ecst algorithm used on a particular d suppont s Nt a computer which is a weighted everage of central proc-J essor time, core storage, number of disk scosses. 1/0 C C activities etc.. The model superposition method is incorporated in the W3CAN (yestinghouse Electric Computer g alysis) computer program already equipped with direct integra-tion methods. It is implemented mainly for seismic analysis'vith nonlinearity due to impact between 1' " structural components. The pseudo force due to in-x pact is extrapolated by the first order term in the i ( [ Taylor series, as discussed earlier. The storage of elemental data for linear and nonlinear elements is separated. The data for the linear elements are s~ stored on disk, while the data for the nonlinear ele-monts are stored in core. Since only a small number of nonlinear finite elements are present in the e i structural model, the storage required by them is wum also small and can be conveniently stored in core. This reduces significantly the I/O activities re-se suic tactTarios quired during the analysis which results in a reduc-tion of the computer cost in contrast with the direct Fig. 3 Cantilever beam with nonlinear elastic integration method. supports. In WECAN a direct integration anthod based on the Chan-Cox-Benfield method is available for the ,. nonlinear transient' analysis. This method is designed iss-for general application and it can. handle nonlinear 1-a ties due to impact and elastic-plastic material prop-I arties. The impact behavior is represented by updat-g i ing the damping and stiffness matrices. The storage j i of linear and nonlinear elements is not separated. g 1 During the analysis. I/0 activities are relatively g I l large. It is estimated that the computer cest of the x l direct integration will be reduced by twenty percent moi sii if the tapact behavior is represented by a pseudo 8l8 force. tune esci TEST PROBLDIS i i Three test problems are solved to verify and .ig evaluate the modal superposition method. In Prob-less 1 and 3. a structure is sebjected to base ac-celeration. This acceleration represents a small Fig. 4 Base acceleration time history applied to segment of the seisnie excitation which is suffi-the cantilever basa shown in Fig. 3. cient to evaluate the subject method. In Problem 2 (1 in/sec = 25.4 am/sec) a structure is subjected to transient external forces, j The computer cost to solve each test probles by modal (12.7 x 10-5 mm). The first type of support has zero superposition and direct in dgration methods are com-desping while the second type of support has nonsero pared. damping - c = 10.0688 lbs - sec/in (1.76332 N-sec/sm). The a>dal damping is assumed to be sero and all Test problem 1 the mode shapes of transverse vibrations are included in the analysis. The displacements are calculated The dynamic response of a cantilever beam sub-for all the degrees-of-freedom. ject,ed to seismic excitation is analysed. The beam For the first type of support, the displacement has two nonlinear elastic supports as shown in results are conversed for a time step size of.00003125 Figure 3. The time history of base acceleration is estonda. Figures 5 and 6 show the transverse displace-given in Figure 4. The y ulus of elasticity forghe ment for modes 10 and 21 as obtained by modal superpo-beam materials is 30 x 10 psi (20.6843 x 1010 N/m ) sition and direct integration methods respectively. and the soment of inertia of the cross-section la It is observed that dynamic element A has opened and 2 in' (.332 a'). The beam is modelled by twenty two-closed three times while dynamic element B has opened dimenktonal beam elements. The nonlinear supports are and closed once. These two figures show that there is modelled by dynamic elements as discussed earlier. a good agreement between the results free modal super-The root mean square (R.M.S.) of the wavef ront for position and direct integration analyses. this medel is 2.98. For the second type of support. Figure 7 and The response of the beam for two different types Figure 8 show the time history of spring force in dy-of supports is studied. Both supports have same namic element A for AT .00003125 seconds as obtained stiffness - K = 2 x 105 lbs/in (3.503 x 103 N/a), and by nodal superposition and direct integration methods. same initial clearance - C = 0.5 x 10-5 in. respectively. Similarly. Figure 9 and Figure 10 show 4 +

A ~ m I h l i.. i i I I\\ r I '\\ /1 1 m i L / ll is i y J = m ia ,e ( Tiest

• so.2: c, I i.

\\ \\Of f Fig. 7 Spring force in dynamic element A with 47 = g Je .00003125 seconds for support type 2 - modal f superposition method. (1 lb = 4.448 N) ou b /t v v v 1 1 A es Ja as se i;n is 3 tiest a ir sseci f.as a .i \\ /1i Fig. 5 Transverse displacements of nodes 10 and 21 with AT =.00003125 seconds for support Y l f {f type 1 - model superposition method. (1 in = 25.4 mm) j v es a as se sJe is tense

• is-2feeci as Fig. 3 Spring force in dynamic element A with ;T =

l s .00003125 seconde for support type 2 - direct integration method. (1 lb = 4.448 N) .f

• \\

JB to a f n 1 f / A / a i h A g / Ti l d Jass t s, \\ vfs f-v s 4 s. I g I I \\ F em m .es .s. sJe is Y I ft r y 1 y tiest

• sr egsg3 Fig. 9 Damping force in dynamic element A with 47 =

00 22 me as sa is .00003125 seconds for support type 2 - modal r tiese a ir eseci superposition method. (1 lb = 4.448 N) Fig. 6 Transverse displacement's of modes 10 and 21 sans with AT =.00003125 seconds for support type g j 1 - direct integration method. ,f A f (1 in = 25.4 mm) I Anna the time history of damping force in dynamic elene at A. l f { kf ~ The comparison of Figure 7 and Figure 9 shows that [ \\ 1 maxima damping force acts at the beginning and the end of the impact. During impact, the damping force is ( sero when the spring force is enzime. This observation la consistent with equation (9). The sezimina damping 84 m se se iJs se force is of much smaller magniende than the maximum spring force. ,,,,g. ig.2 cese, %eratiosofthecomputercostsofdirectinte- '*gration to that of modal superposition analyses are Fig. 10 Desping force in dynamic element A with 10.9 and 8.9 for the first and second types of sup-AT =.00003125 seconds for support type 2 - ports, respectively. direct integration method. (1 lb = 4.448 N) 5

Additional time history analyses of the beam sup-ported by the first type of support are performed to evaluate the effect of model damping. For four percent andal damping. the dynamic response of the beam con- ) verses for a time step sine of.000125 seconds, and {,,,, -a / 3 only ten mode shapes are needed to be included in the a e *8" analysis. l Test problem 2 l l-a The model superposition method is applied to p3 analyse the nonlinear dynamic response of a three-assa-a s dimensibnal reactor coolant leo, shown in Figure 11. j The loop is supported by three monlinear elastic sup-l ports and is subjected to nodal force time histories aa, sa os i shown in Figure 12. The outer diameter of piping is 20 inches (50s an) and the wall thickness is 1 inch es sJ (25.4 um). The radius of curvature for the centerline want intes of the elbow is 50 inches (1270 sus). The modulus of elasticity for the piping asterial is 30 m 106 psi Fig. 12 Nodal force time histories applied on the (20.6343 x 1010 N/m2), and the Poisson's ratio is 0.3. loop shown in Fig. 13. (1 lb = 4.448 N) No damping is included in the analysis. The properties of the nonlinear elastic supports shown in Figure 11 The loop is modelled by nine elastic pipe elements are given in Table 1. and two elastic elbow elements. Three nonlinear elas-tic supports are modelled by dynamic elements. The inertia of the loop is represented by lumped masses. SUpFORTS The R.M.S. wave front of this model is 7.25. This PROPERTIES

• • * *** I'*

'"P'#P *** "" A 3 C integration methods. First eighteen mode shapes are included in the a dal superp siti n analysis t btain Spring Constant. 0.2E + 07 0.3E + 07 0.15E + 07 converged solution. Only the translational displace-K (1bs/in) ments at each node are calculated. The results of this problem are compared with those obtained by Molnar [8). where the uncoupled a dal equations are integrated by sec /in.) 2.0 2.0 2.0 the 4th-order Runge-Kutta method. The comparison of the time histories of the dis-Cap. G (in) .25 .125 .C62 placement of code 7 in Y-direction is given in Figure 13. The comparison of time histories of the Table la Properties of nonlinear elastic supports - displacements of the other nodes and spring forces in (1 in = 25.4 am 1 lb supports are not presented here', but they do show good and 1 lbs - secE n =s/in =.017513 N/s..1751263 N - sec2/um) agreement among these methods [13]. Additional dy- /i nemic analyses of this test problem are performed with four percent sodal damping in the loop. The time step size of 0.0005 seconds and fifteen mode shapes are re-quired for a converged solution. [ [ The computer cost of the modal superposition method in WECAN is 13.6 time less than that of the direct in-e ,34 'O tegration method for this problem. To evaluate the ef-12 8m fact of wave front on computer cost. the elements in 3 the loop model are rearranged so that the R.M.S. vave [e front is increased to 24.75. This resulted in an in-su'*0at e crease in the computer cost of direct integration by a factor of 2.0, while this has no effect on the cost.of ef #7 modal superposition method. The computer cost of the il j modal superposition method in WECAN is approximately u s equal to that of the method presented by Molnar [8). l l d' l s 1

gusoat, Tese problem 3 i

4 i The dynamic response of a nonlinear reactor cool-i ont loop system subjected to a three-dimensional base 4 )/ l excitation is analyzed by the modal superposition method. The typical model of this systes includes: a steam generators, reactor coolant pumps, pressuriser Y and reactor coolant loops. This system is subjected p g to a base acceleration of 0.010 seconds duration and a it is same for all three directions. This base accel-7, t erstion is given by following equation: t ise. / 2 gase acceleration = 1000t in/sec Fig. Il Finite element model of three dimensional = 25.400t m/sec2 piping system. (1 in = 25.4 ass) ogtj.010 seconds. 6 m. T ^

..e '88 ta e, I II I

• • 1 l

l ^ l ] I I l I= ill I I., i 11 I i iI ll t l~_ 11111 l; t ' lil:lll I ll, il,li r lllM\\ \\ \\llt '*gl\\Ill \\ illI i \\ IEll f_ lIll i lllVVlll 11llli [.,11 IV IllIlll V11 ( lll i ) I f 'll V il ' ' \\1 l' l I i 'l 11 'l .,,l ' l ' 9 .,e 5 44 .se Jo a sa .so Je .as sa .t a as an Tuse esc 3 Tiene uno tiene eseca (a) Modal superposition method (b) Direct integration method (c) Modal superposition method with AT =.00025 seconds. with AT =.00025 seconds. by Molnar, et. al. Fig. 13 Comparison of displacement responses of mode 7 in T-dire-tion. Various structural elements from WECAN. i.e.. FREQUENCY RANCE

1. IWDES beam, pipe general matrix (substructure with two (EZ) aodes). lumped asas and spring element are used to model the system. This model includet: 200 elements.

0 - 30 61 93 nodes. 396 primary degrees-of-freedom and 166 30 - 60 33 degrees-of-freedom with inertia. The R.M.S. wave front of this model is 147.7. The natural frequencies 60 - 100 34 and mode shapes are obtained by full modal inverse 100 - 200 27 power method. The summary of these results is given in Table 2. 200 - 650 11 In the model superposition analysis modal damp-ing is assumed to be sero all the mode shapes are 0 - 650 166 included, and the displacements are calculated for all f the degrees-of-freedom. Table 2: 5 - ry of computer runs for andal Two time steps. AT =.00025 seconds and AT = analysis using inverse power methods. .000125 seconds, are considered to compare the modal ICDA1. SUPERPOSITI(NI DIRECT INTEGRATION (Displacement, in.) (Displacement, in.) pode f D.O.F.

• AT =.00025
• AT =.000125
• AT =.00025
• AT =.000125

+ UK .236642-3 .236489-3 .236348-3 .236420-3 319 UT .264496-3 .264346-3 .264174-3 .264274-3 U2 .292460-3 .292457-3 .292489-3 .292483-3 ++ UK .330638-3 .330627-3 . 330695-3 .330665-3 3J9 UY .327914-3 . 327896-3 .327931-3 .327923-3 UI .329275-3 .329275-3 .329312-3 .329306-3 +++ UI ..343301-3 .343301-3 .343406-3 .343355-3 369 UT .329903-3 . 329902-3 .330002-3 .329952-3 U2 .260566-3 .260566-3 .260504-3 .260563-3 ++++ UI .352520-3 .352520-3 .352548-3 .352553-3 913 UT .352566-3 .352566-3 .352591-3 .352598-3 U2 .195864-3 .195840-3 .195732-3 .195808-3 Table 3 Comparison of displacement at t =.01 second (1 in. = 25.4 in) + steam generator. lower ++++ top of pressuriser lateral support size of time step in seconds ++ main steam morale y +++ reactor coolant pump lateral support 7

e o cuperposition and dirtet 1 tigr: tion method 3. The 4. Eisk311. R. E., "Nonlinerr Dyna 21cs by Mods Super-displacements at time t =.010 seconds are given in tosition." AIAA Paper No. 74 341. AIAA/ASME/SAE Table 3. These resulta verify the use of the mon 11a-15th Structures. Structural Dynamics and Materials aar modal superposition method for large structural Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada. April 17-19, 1974, systems. American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics. The computer cost of modal superposition method ta New York. 1974. WECAN is found to be 13.7 times less than that of di-5. Borii. E. and Kavaliers. M.. "A Numerical Analysis rect integration method for this problem. With four on the Dynamical Response of Structures." Proc. percent sodal damping. the time step size of 0.00025 19th Cong. for Appl. Mech.. Tokyo (1969) seconds and 100 mode shapes are reqeired for a cas-6. Clough. R. U.. "Sasic Principles of Structural verged solution. Dynamics." Lectures on Tinite Element Methods in Continuum Mechanics, editors. J. T. Oden and CONCLUSIONS E. R. A. Oliveira. Univ. of Alabama Press Nunts-ville 1973. 495-511. 3. 1. The results of the two test problems (Test Prob-7. Stricklin. J. A. and Raisler. W. E., " Formulations lens 1 and 2) verify the application of the modal and Solution Procedures for Dos 11near Structural superposition method to nonlinear transient dynamic Analysis." Comput. Struct. 2 125-136 (1977). analysis. 8. Molnar. A. J., Vashi, K. M. and Gay C. W. "Ap-2. The analysis of the nonlinear reactor coolant loop p11 cation of Normal Mode Theory and Pseudo Torce system. Test Problem 3. proves the applicability of Methods to Solve Prolens with Nonlinearities." l the modal superposition method to seismic analysis Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Entrs. 93. Series J. 151-156 ~ of large, nonlinear structural eystems. (1976). 3. The presence of nonsero modal damping permits a 9. Riesd. S., " Nonlinear Response Using Neraal Modes." larger time step size and a smaller n eber of mode AIAA/ASME/SAE 15th Structures. Structural Dynamics shapes to obtain a converged solution. and Materials Conference. Las Vegas, Nevada. 4. The computer cost of long time history analysis of April 17-19. 1974 American Inst. of Aeronautics nonlinear structures by modal superposition is sig-and Astronautics. New York. 1974. nificantly lower than by direct integration.

10. Chan. S.

P., Coz. M. L. and Benfield. W. A., "Tran-sient Analysis of. Forced Vibrations of Complex ACENOWLEDCIMENT Structural-Mechanical Systems." J. Roy. Aeronaut. Soc. 66. 457-460 (1962). B. T. Williams. M. Rayound, and C. Cunn assisted

11. Metrovitch. L., Analytical Methods in vibrations, to incorporate the modal superposition method in Macmillan New York, 1967. 104-109.

UECAN. Drs. W. N. Guilinger and E. R. Johnson helped

12. Ralston. A., A First Course in Neerical Analysis.

in the practical application and development of this McGraw-Eill. New York, 1965. 232-290. method.

13. Wilkinson. J.

The Alsebrate Eigenvalue problem. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1965. p. 290. REFERENCES

14. MacNeal. R. E., editor. "The Nostran Theoretical Manual." NASA-SP-221(01). December 1972, pp.

1. Rathe. E. J., Wilson E. L. and Peterson F. E., 11.3 11.3-13. " SAP-IV. A Structural Analysis Program for Static

15. Bethe, K. J. and Wilson E.

L., Numercial Methods and Dynamic Response of Linear Systems." EEPC-73-11 in Finite Element Analysis. Prentice-Hall. Engle-June 1973. Revised April 1974. wood Cliffs. New Jersey, 1976. 494-506. 2. Riggio. M. D. and Shah V. N., " Verification of 16. Ibid., pp. 484-494 Modal Superposition Method in Structural Computer

17. "WECAN. Westinghouse Electric Computer Analysis.

Code." in Pressure Vessels and Piping Computer Pro-User's Manual." Westinghouse Research Laboratories. gram Evaluation and Qualification. PVP-PD-024, pre-1976. sented at The Energy Technology Conference. Nous-

13. "WECAN. Westinghouse Electric Computer Analysis, ton. Texas. September 18-23, 1977 The American Verification Manual. Westinghouse assearch Labora-Society of Mechanical Engineers. New York 1977.

tories. 1974. 3. Wilson. E. L., "The Static Condensation Algorithm." Inc. J. Num. Methods Eng. 8, 198-203 (1974). r

7 ma mspecan socev or teemumen swanssas 82-PVP-18 =a. orsi.n va,s.m.v. m he geeney afes not be. _ ler _ _ er esemane moueuses ta goose er en g annuemen a messines of se seemsy or as ses 0mienne er smenene er ennene se no j Oneusema e sanne emy N sne pesar e auseense m me aanse amoans. for generaf sumfemen usan prueenesteen. stel causit eneute be gnun 3 aWM. one Teenne.W Osweesen, ano the aerustab poenre are ausseems fuese Aasma ter noe summe Wter Ipe sessieuS possessseueA ATTACHMENT (17) APPENDIX D to TXX-3678 L OTHANIC ANALYS!$ OF A STRUCTURE WITH COULOMB FRICTION N 4 T. 5. Shah C. B. Cilmore sagineering Specialist Senior Engineer sC&G Idaho Inc. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Idaho yells. ID S3A15 pittsburgh. pA 15230 Hon. ASIE Moe. AsME A30 TRACT may slide and tip during a seismic event. In addi-tien, a fuel rock may collide with other racks or A medal esperpositisco method for the dynamic with the pool valle during an earthquake. In the analysis of a structure with coulomb friction is seismic analysis of the freestanding fuel racks. the presented. The finite eteneet method is seed to possibilities of sliding, tipping, and collisione derive the equatiose of motion, and the mentinear-inset be evaluated. The main purpose of this paper ities due to friction are represented by a pseudo-is to present a computationally economical *mettiod force vector. A structure standing freely on the to perform a seismic analysis of a freestending fuel ground any slide during a seismic event. The rela-rack. tive displacement response may be divided into two The direct integretion methode[1.2] are widely partes elastic deformation and rigid body action. used for the nonlinear dynamic analyses, but their The presence of rigid body no. tion necessitates the computer cost for the seismic analysis of a free-inclustee of the higher modes in the transient standing fuel rock is prohibitive. In order to analysis. Three single degree-of-freeden problems reduce computer cost the application of the modal are solved te verify this mothed. In a fourth prob-superposition mothed to menlinear analysis is lem, the dynamic reopease of a pistform standing considered. freely on the groised is analysed during a seismic la the model superposities,methode, two sweet. approaches are used to integrate the nonlinear equa-ties of motion. In the first approach, referred to INTRODUCTION se the lacremental approach [3], the equation of seties is converted to an incremental form and non-Same campemente is nuclear peuer plante are not linearities are treated by updating the natural anchored to the ground and may slide d es subjected frequencies and made shapes. In the second to outernal forces. These componente are designed approachl4.5.6] the mentineer terne are represented to withstand hypothetical accidente resulting free se peevdeforce. In both approaches. the uncoupled as earthquake. In the selenic analysis of these medal equations are integrated analytically without componente, it is necessary to model the sliding introducing any artificial damping or phase ~ between the congensato and the grossed. For distortion. instance, ese such component is a fuel rack to etere In the dynamic analyses of the sonlinear struc-the spent fuel assemblies in a water filled peel. tares, such as spent fuel rock. the source of non-Generally the fuel rocks are anchored to the fleer linearities is restricted to a small portion of the of the peel; bouever. some applicatione de not per-structure. In the finite element anlaysis, a larse mit the fuel rocks to be anchored to the fleer. The portion of such moelinear structure le modeled with emanchored fuel rocks, steading freely on the fleer. linear elemente, d ite the reesining small portion -- + - -, - - - - -im,

1 Pdemon i is modeled with mentinear elemente. The computational force j cost of the pseudoferee approach to analyse such men. l tinear structume is louer thee that of the incre-l i mental approach!$1. Nrefore. the pseudeforce appersch is developed for the subject smalysis. p pg N gliding of the structure is modeled with aid af P I Coulomb friction. pe N = the model superposition mothed using the pseudo-l force approach wee originally developed to analyse 3 the structures subjected to single-point treastational 3 excitations. The nonlinearity due to impact between 8 l =ari>ue structural components wee permitted. Later, i i the scope of this method was espanded(7) to analyse the linear and nonlineer structures subjected to mul" fklahve displacement tiple support motions. Recently, this mothed has getween contact been further developed to analyse the structures surfaces with elastic-plastic meterial properties [41. This method has now been esponded to analyse the struc-tures with coulomb friction which is the subject of this paper. In the peut section, se element representing Coulomb friction ist described, followed by the dio-mEL 2 eenoJ cussion on the pseudoferee approach. N a the use F g.1 Aporouteete fraction behavior simulated ey of the friction element in the seismic analysis is friction element shown an Figure 2 discussed. The resulte of four test problems are presented to verify the subject mothed and to gain y same insight in the use of the mothed. Cilmore!91 has applied the subject mothee to the seismic anal-yeis of a freestanding fuel rock and reported a significant sewings le the computer cost. se00AL SUptRp0gITIOR 3ETN00 X m discussion of the model superposition ,K I Et mothed is divided into the following three topics: //g s r aAp 1. Friction element / 2. pseudoforce approach / g g Cy 3. Seismic analysis. "I Friction Element coulomb fractM is used to represent the energy dissipation reeutting from the sliding between two contact surfaces. N esternal force g,,,,,, acting on the contact surfaces has two componente one acting normal to the contact surfaces and the Fig.2 Friction element to represent approximate other acting in the plane of contact. N latter fricties behavier shown in Figure 1 component is referred to se shear force. A friction force esists between the contact surfaces and acts in contact surface. Nede E is fined in the space. The i l a direction opposing the sheer force. The magnitude direction O is along the direction of sliding. The "of the friction force le equal to that of the shear friction spring (Eg) between modes E and I simu-force. As the magnitude of the shear force increases. lates the friction behavior between two contact sur-the magnitude of the fricties force increases until faces. The damper (Cg), spring (Eg) and the its magnitude becomes equal to the product of the parameter CAP between two nedeo I and J simiste the merest force (p ) and a static coefficient of fric-possibility of separation of and impact between two y tien (e ). Amy further increase la the shear force contact eurfaces. In the absence of the friction will cause the two contact surfaces to slide along spring, the friction element reduces to a gap ele-the direction of the force. During sliding, the fric-meet. In a gap element, the aselinearity due to tien force is equal to the product of the eermal impact la represented by a pseudoforce se described forde and the dynamic coefficient of friction la Reference (gl. In the following discussion. ana-(ed

• IFois of only sliding behavior is Fresented. When I

N elidtag between two contact surfaces takes the force in the friction spring is greater than the place e en the sheer force becamee greater them the static frictise force e p. sliding takes sy static friction force (e,p ). This ideal place. At the initiation of sliding. the relative g friction behavior le appreminately simulated by the displacement between two eurfaces in the direction friction element. The friction element allows a of sliding to mensero and is equal to e p /Eg. As sy small amount of relative displacement between two the stiffaeas of the friction spring increases. the contact surfaces before the sheer force becemos magnitude of the relative displacement decreases; 3reater than the static friction force. h appren-and the behavier simle ed by the friction element inste friction behavier simulated by the friction will be eleser to the ideal behavior. The magnitude element is shown in Figure 1. of Ef is selected such that the relative displace-meet e py/Eg is a small fraction of the total The two-dimensional fricties element is shown s in Figure 2. Nodes I and J are located on each displacement due to sliding. 2 I ~ m>-~.~ v- --. -. -, - ----e ww

o pseudolorce Approach 7 In this approach, the nonlineer dynamic analy. (el (Ml[el = !!! sie of a structure is divided into two parts: model analysis and transient analysis. In the model anal-y yeis the nonlinear structure le lineerised by ($1[C]!el=t-2 Cps).) treating the friction spring as a lineet spring. Then. the made shapes and the natural frequencies and of the linearised structure are esiculated. In the transies analysis, these mode shapes are used to uncouple the equation of motion. Mode shapes and [,]T[g][,1 = [.23 the natural freguoncies of the linearised structure 3 are not epdated during the tramaient analysis. The equation of motion of a structure with the resulting model equations becomes Coulomb friction is (g) + t-2t = 3J{g) + t =2 J{g) = {0} - {0,gi (6) 3 3 IMI{xl

• ICl{x). It,gl {al - {F)

(1) were where tj percentage of the critical damping [M] ease matris for the jth mode = damping astris (C) = mentineer stiffness matria IE g] T = g {F) generalised n = applied force Arrays {I). (5). {~Il. and (F) are vector the displacement, velocity accelerotion. and [,]T {F ) applied force vectors, respectively. gg g .generalise = pseudoforce Let vector. Arrays {g). {Ill and {*g) are the IE l

• IEI
• I I (2) model displacement, velocity and acceleration vec-st tors respectively. For a given time step the pseudofroce is approxiested by the first two terms

'b'F* of a Taylor series, provided the friction force is continuous during the previous time step. The c stiffness matrix representing the pseudoforce is expressed as [El linearised structure (Il stiffness metria representing the d{g,,) = + (t-T) Tct<T+E (7) {g,gl neetinearity due to Coulseh friction. {g ) = t T T Substitution of Equation (2) in Equation (1) gives where (M] {I) + [Cl{1) * (El{Il = (F) = {F,g} (3) {g gg IQat r T - 4T d where T If the friction force is met contievous during {F,Ll = (Il{I) = pseudeforce vector. (4) the previous time step then ( Initially, the pseudoforce vector is sero and {g j.{ } T < t < T + AT. (8) 81 it remains sero se long as the force in the friction t T opring is less than the static fricties force. When the force la the fricties spring escoede the static For a gives time step. Equation (6) is inte-fricties force, the sliding faitistes and the pseudo-grated analytically. Thea. the displacements and I force becomes nommero. The reouttant of the force velocities of the modes associated with the friction in the fricties spring and the pseudaforce is equal elements are calculated. This infomation is used to a friction force acting ou mode 1. pseudoferce to calculate the generalised pseudeforce vector and is a piecewise-lineet function of displacement and its time derivative needed to integrate the modal velocity of mode 1 relative to sede J. Let l's.1 '9"**'*** during the mest time step. and !*l he the natural frequency and ne matised .we sha,e -tria a.eeciate..ith the u arised. andamped strustere. The tramaferustion ,g , gesic analysis of a structure sub-jected to single-point treastational escitatione[101. {g). [gj{g) ($) i.e., all supports are subjected to the same trans-1stional oscitatisma; it is a somst practice to le substituted in Equaties (3) preesitiplied by calculate the displacement response relative to a 191. Then, employing the orthegemality fixed point en the ground. If the structure is T relatises espressed by anchered to the ground, the displacement response 3 . g....... y-w wr-y- -y---y y y---,-----T-

is calculated relative to its fined base. The y relative displacement response consists of the elas-(' tic deformation end con be eiseleted by the lower mode shapes of the structure. For a lianer struc-ture anchored to the ground, the number of mode K shapes to be included in the analysis is determined by the frequency content of the seismic escitation. MQ if a lineer structure is standing freely on the Nss a m e.3 ground, its displacement response is calculated with /g/ggg/g/g respect to a point on the ground that is initially negL 2 ens 1J la contact with its base. If the structure slides during a seismic event, its relative displacement Fig.3a Spring-mass system with Coulomb friction response consists of the elastic deformation super. ' imposed on the rigid body motion of the structure. The presence of the rigid body motion influences the y selection of the mode shapes. The finite element model of a freesteading structure consists of friction elements between the base of the structure and the ground. The stiffness of the friction springs is kept high so that the base of the structure esperiences little relative displacement before actual sliding takes place. In K W s 1000 2s(coacweigh0 the model analysis of a freestanding structure, the ga "gp 'y friction springs are treated as lineer springs. In ,I - X the lower mode shapes, these springs act like rigid members, while in some of the higher mode shapes the Kf E R gap u -0.16tL(preload) strain energy in the friction springs dominates the total strain energy. These higher mode shapes should be included in the analysis to simulate the g gCy rigid body action. Thus, in the seismic smalysis of a freestanding structure the selection of the KI mode shapes depende upon the frequency content of the excitation and the stiffness of the friction oprings. Test problems Fig.3b Finite element model of a spring-mass system The andal superposition method described in this paper is incorporated in the W3CAN (Westing-g gg g g house Electric Computer Analysis) computer friction (ud) progras[gl. This program also has a direct integra-tion method [2] to perfore the treasient dynamic Normal spring stiffness (g ) g 10.000 lb/in. = analysis of a structure. Four test problemerare (1.75 a 106 N/a) solved to verify the modal superposition method in et a op ng et ness g) O = "b) two problems, respectively, free s and forced vibrations of a e,pring-mass system with Coulseh friction are analysed. In the third prob-cap -0.1 in. = Iem, forced vibrations of a spring-eses-damper (-0.254 m 10-2.)* system with Coulomb friction are analysed. In the fourth problem. the seismic analysis of a platfore gh MhMN (4443.2 N) acting along the negative Y-direction. supported freely on the ground is presented. The fourth problem is solved by the direct integration The deadweight to balanced by the preload in the settod and by the model superposition method. The normal spring. The transient displacement response comparisons of the corresponding results and the of the mass M consists of only the X-component. computer costs are given. Test problem 1. The free vibrettons of the The spring-esse system analysed in the first spring-mase system with coulomb friction are anal-two problems is shown in Figure 3. In the third I' P 'I*I **" probleu, a viscous damper parallel to the spring is added to the system. The physical parameters of the 4.7 in. (0.1194 m) X = spring-eses system are g g ), Spring stiffness (E) 1000 lbfin. = The pseudoforce acting on the sliding ames is (1.751 a 103 N/s) i given by one of the following four expressions. e i c 0 (eses sliding along negative 2 59 lb-sec2/in, Nase (M) = g, (1.1743 kg) 3.1273 Ms F,,= = M I

• e,p,)

X>0 g Natural fregeoecy (m ) = 0.3 statie coef ficient of = F,g = - IK W = y y,) xc0 friction (us) g d 4 yy w w-,w --,,-r-nw---w -w m

For I > 0 (mese sliding along peef tive = 25.736 in. 1-esis) (30.1657 m). F,g = = (E 1 - u,p,1 1>0 The dynamic response of the asse M calculated g by the model superposition method is shown in Figure 6. The amplitude of the steady state die-F,g = - (E W + s,p,) IC0 placaneet response varies free 5 6367 in. (0.1432 m) g to 6.068 in. (0 1536 m). N everage frequency con-test of the response over the test three cycles is 2.5062 Es-appraminately equal to the excitation where frequency of 2 5018 Es. pp dead weight = 1980 lbs. = The analytical result for the decay la ampli-l tude of vibratione per half cycle is given by(11] Decay in amplitude 2 a friction force Illll ll1 Il,IItilinillhIlliiinI per half cycle K 0.. in. (0.0:324.>. = The decay in amplitude per half cycle is coastant. This problem is solved by the medal superposi= as"" tion method using two dif ferent time step eisest g af = 0 01 see and af = 0.005 sec. Table 1 gives the a decay in the amplitude of vibratione per half cycle 8 veing both time steps. The resulte show that for a ses11er time step, the decay in the emplitude per half cycle is closer to the sorrect answer of 0 6 in. (0.01524 m) and is approaimately constant .sa during the analysis. T ABLE 1. OgCAY IN AW LITUDE ptR MALF CYCLE DURING IIli IflIIIIIIIfIfIIIIllfIfIIIfIII!IIII TRE FREE VISRATION Resp 0NSE OF A SPRING l 4lleIllllglllll4lll[lllllllll e I Mass sYsTsn witu COUL0an DA w 1NG ll (1 in. = 0.0254 m). ~ Decay in Amplitude I per Ralf Cycle .ma (in.) e as as ta ma ma me rue ese at = 0.1 (sec) AT = 0.005 (sec) Fig.4 Displacement response of a spring-nese eye-ten with coulomb friction, subjected to sin-First half cycle 0.73588 0.62676 usoidal forcing function psinut, second half cycle' n.72621 0.61840 e = 2.50186 Es (1 in. = 0.0254 m) %ird half cycle 0.74538 0.61798 Fourth half cycle 0.47A43 0.61410 W. The ratio of the friction force (F) rifth half cycle 0.64979 0.6056R During 51sth half cycle 0.A339A 0.606710 over the applied force (p) is tese than e/4. resonance, se explained la Reference (121. the amp-litude of the displacement response is unbounded. g,r: t :e ;;i; t ; g, y y ::,;;; g:; t :=es, Teet,robi 2. Tie. fo .d vibrou en. of a of the displacement response is 3.1250 Ms-sppromi-ty this to 1 T maae le it 11 e "'.I*II '9".*I ** ""' ********* I"'9"'"*I 'f rest and has sero displacement. The harmonic force 3 12 j p$inac is acting on the mass in the 1-direction. problem 3 The forced vibrations of a The two cases considered are spring-mase-damper system with Coulomb friction are analysed in this problem. The opring-esse system 1 2160 the (9341 N) shown in Figure 3 is modified by adding a viscous i Case 1: y = 2.SalRe us damper (model damping coefficient = c) in parallet e = ?t00 the (9341 N) to a spring between nodes I and E. The asse is case 2: p = 3.1273 Nt (=.) initially at rest and has sero initial displacement. = = ~ 9,33,,1,. The analytical results for the steady "h' g ,,,gygg,,g state amplitude are givee by[12) solution of this problem. The nJoerical results for the amplitude (A) of the forced vibrations are plot-p E-(4F/4 ) ted in the amplitude diagrame. The horisontal amis 2 represents the frequency ratio (m/mg) and the steed, state amplitude = A = *g I"*2#"a vertical amis represents the magnification factor l l 5 l l c -y--- s -.e ,e--- ,w ---.--,w --w

1 l 28 = 0.0301513 (Case 1) = 0.0497519 (Case 2). squation (e) gives the modified model damping coef ficient for a single degree-of-freedom probles. ~ l The modified demping coefficients for a multidegree-l ef-freedom system may be calculated as follows. In the modal analysis of a systee. the presence of the I l friction springs may or may not modify the original l natural frequency of a mede shape. If the natural fl frequency is not modified, then the modal deeping coefficient need not be modified. If the natural ag frequency of the ith mode shape is modified, then AJ the modified damping coef ficient to,i may be le calculated from (w I .t' i C. i - z (10) 1 .,i 1 l m l I ..r e I I I I I I I mi original natural frequency .ma e as 18 ts as as as as as "m.i modified natural frequency = tg .= modal damping coef ficient. Fig.5 Displacement response of a spring-ease eye-Case 1. For this case, the frequency ratio toe with coulomb friction subjected to sin-m/en = 0.8, and the force ratio F/P = 0.2. From the usoidal forcing function PSinest, e = 3.1273 amplitude diagree for C = 0.1 (Figure 8 in Refer-(= ag system frequency) (1 in. = 0.0254 m) esce [131), the magnification factor is 2.26. The amplitude A of the steady state response is given by (A*K/p). In each of the amplitude diagrams, several A = 2.26

• I curves are plotted for a cerastant value of the model K

damping coef ficient. Along each curve the ratio of the friction force (F) over the amplitude of the 3.39 im (0.08H 1 M = applied force (P) is constant. These disgrees are used to calculate the amplitude of vibratione for The displacement response of the asse M celtv-the following tuo cases, and the results are com-lated by the model superposition method is shown in pared wath,the corresponding results from the model Figure 6. During the last four cycles, the empli-superpositton analysis. tude of the steady state displacement response ver-es um. 927 in. M.08617 m) to 3 2M2 in. ' 15'0 1ho (6472 N) Case 1: P

• 0 (0 08370 m). The frequency content of the response

2. 0184 us is 2 5067 R -sppresinately equal to the excitation

= e frequency of 2.5018 Hs. 250 1ho (1112 N) case 2: =P =

1. e IU-{. For this case, the frequency ratio 2 So m as u q ual to 0.3 and the foru u tio M = 0.4.

= m

• • n O*5 From the amplitude diagram for C = 0.5 (Figure 12 in Reference [13]), the magnifiestion factor is 0 6.

The magnitude of the remaining physical parameters ' "*I***"*""" remain unchanged free those defined in Test given by Froblem 1, escept in Case 2 obere coefficienta of friction are reduced from 0.3 to 0.1 and the stiff-anos of the friction spring is increased from A=0.6*f 10,000 lb/in. (1.75 x 106 5/m) to 100,000 lb/ia. (1.75 x 107 N/a). = 0.15 in. (0.00381 m). The natural frequency of a spring-sees system is increased due to the presence of the friction The displacement response of the mass M calcu-spring. This increased frequency is used in the lated by the modal superposition method is shown in transiest analysis. Therefore it is necessary to Figure 7. During the last cycle, the amplitude of modify the model damping coefficient g. The med-the steady state displacement response varies free ified model damping coefficient to is calc

• 1sted 0 14A4 in. (0.00368 m) to 0.1655 in. (0.00369 m).

from The frequency content of the response is 2 4956 ns. It should be noted that during each cycle, the

• C (9) p opon u cu ne as a 8C portion near its peaks.

m E+K Wo sliding takes place in this flat portion. This C = g 6 '-*N-"M

• 9%&

M SSWDMNON * * - N 99e

• W Gggh h

-*"W4 ' s ee =mu = gg j. =s-

~ as sia "' { 1 lllilill lii tiliillill,Ililliiil ,,l 11111111 1111lll1111111111111lll aaJillllllll,lllllllllllllllllllilli r~ I a. E O O O M llO M O M H H P $"~ e.: - l. ElWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWE t a swwwwmwwumumwwwwwwwww .sa lllllll lll[ []llllll lllllll lll Fig.8 Finite element model of a long, freestanding -sa ll 1 I l l 1 l 3 Ig I IIyI g i3331gi gi platform. F = 1288 lbs. (5729.3 N). (1 in. = 0.0254 m) l,l l I I I l l l l I I I I l l l l l l l 3 I l 8 i l l l Il the nonlinearity due to friction is handled by mod-ifying the stiffness metrix. In the modal superpo-sition method the nonlinearity due to friction is p g g g "'" handled by the pseudoforce approach as described in

• '8 this paper. D e impact between the mese a and the platform is modeled by a gay element (5,8] and is M8 ""

Fig.6 Displacement response of a spring-eses sys-used with both methods. The platform properties are ten with combined Coulomb and viscous damp-ing. = /en = 0.8, F/P = 0 2 and t = 0.1 Modulus of elasticity = 2.8 a 107 lb/in.2 (1 is. = 0.0254 m) (19.3 a 1010 Fe) i li'nii l.eas (0 0391 2) aat 60.6275 in.2 Crose-sectional area = in.' I i 1 f f f Area moment of inertie = 4, ass aan ama aar ass ese 1.5343 x 10-3 lb-o2/in.' tem een Density = Fig.7 Displacement response of a spring-mese eye-(42.47 kg/m3). ten with combined Coulomb and viscous damp-ins e/*n = 0 8. F/P = 0.4 and t = 0.5 The friction element properties used with the (1 in. = 0.0254 m) nodal superposition mothed are 8.351210j N/m) lb/in. particular characteristic of the displacement Wormal sprias stiffness = (1.46 a 10 response is also predicted in aeference (13]. (Eg) Test problem 4. The transient dynamic response 8.351 a 107 lb/in. of a long platform supported freely on the ground Friction spring stiffeees = and subjected to seismic escitation is analysed in (Eg) (1.46 a 1010 gje) this problem. The platform is supported at both 1.0 x 10-6 in. ends se shown in Figure 8. The pistform is repre-GAP = eentative of the base of a opent fuel rock and its (-0.254 s 10-7 m) eupports are representative of the support pode of 0.0 lb-e2/in. the rock. A concentrated esse, s is located at the Maes (M) = center of the platform. There is a clearance between the ease and the pistform along the horison-Coefficient of friction = 0.8. tal directies, and the mese is free to move relative (o,= ug) to the platform. During a seismic evoet, the assa may collide with the platform. The impact between The friction element used with the direct inte-the mass e and the platform is a simplified repre-gratisemethodhasthesamepropertlegexceptthe sentaties of the impact phenomena between the feel merest spring stiffenes is 8.351 x 10 lb/in. eseeablies and storage cells is s opent fuel storage (144 a 1010 af.), rack. The magnitude of the concestrated mass. m. at This problem is selved by the direct integre-the center of the platform is equal to 4.0 lb-e2 in. / tion and the medal superposition methode present in (1.8144 kg). The initial clearance Ce between the the UgCAN program, noth methods use different frie-mese a and the platform is equal to 0 2145 in. tien elemente. In the alrect integratise mothed. (0.005443 m). The energy less due to impact between 7 __ ' ~,, _ Z _" C

asse a and the platform is neglected. la the Ele detailed documentatie= ef this problen(14]. the energy lose due to impact to takes into account. ~ The deadweight of the platform is modeled by thtee concentrated forces acting at the Nedes 1. 3. and 5. The magnitude of each force is 1233.0 lbe (5729.3 N). see The transient displacement respeace of the platform ceneists of sely the a-consement. The platform is modeled with two two-dimensisaal been elemente. The finite element model has ten degrees of freedea; aime ore associated with the map platters and the tenth is associated with the ese-generated uses a. The andal maalysie of the plat-tae form gives tea astural frequen:les and mode shapes. The first frequency is 0 0 Rs and is associated with the concentrated asse. The seat ein frequencies gie represent the bendias mode shapes of the platform. The three hightet frequencies are 990.9 Ns. 8 1323 0 Ns. and 1336.0 Ms and represent the asial mode shapes of the platform. A rigid hedy motisa of the platfore can be represented by the linear superposition of these three mode shapes. Seismic escitation applied to the platform I I I I I I I 1 I along the x-directies is shown in Figure 9. The 4as e E1 42 eJ e4 es. platform any slide during the seismic analysis, and Test reaccucen its displacement response consists of the rigid body motion superimposed on the elastic deformation. A. (a) Model superposition emplained earlier. the three asial ande shapes amat be included in the modal superpseition analysis to represent the rigid body motion. g sets 1 3 ases 1 3 ges l ame E I A I sJe l e i V 5n_

.,ses i

I .,e . sees e . sos, y 1 I I I I .,e e 63 en en en 12 mus seco_: g g .Ese Fig.9 Acceleration time history applied to the e at 62 62 eA es freestanding platfore in I-direction Test seconos 2 (lin/sec2 0.0256 m/sec ) (b) Direct integration Results of the medal superposition and the direct integration analyses are presented in Figures 10 to 13. All the mode shapes are included Fig.10 Displacement response of Mode I along in the model superposition analysis. The displace-X-direction. Test problea 4. eent response of Nedeo I and 6 respectively, along (1 in.

• 0.0254 m) the I-direction is shown in Figures 10 and 11. The time history of the friction force at Mode 1 is pre-seated in Figure 12. The time history of the impact CONC 1,Ug10N force between.maso M and the platform is shown in Figuire 13. The comparison of time history resulte 1.

The model superposition method any be used to in Figures le to 13 show that the model superposi. analyse a structure with coulomb friction. ties mothed and the direct integration method give 2. The dynamic analysis of a structure with appresiastely the some results. The cesputer cost Coulomb friction requires that the mode shapes with of using medal esperposition mothed is found to be higher frequencies be included so that the rigid four times lose than that of using the direct body motion due to sliding of the structure is integretion asthed[14]. correctly represented. 8 - - = -

i e_se toes .as I-l ue I_ Ie l *" l 4ee { a { I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .sessa e = = = = e u u u e. u runs tosconosa vues rencomem (a) Medal superpeettien (a) Model superveeftien s_as t_ essa y I g ue e au 1-o !l= [, j .se I I I I I 'l I I I g 1 I I I l l I l .ienes e u as u en es e u u u es es Tusstunconos tues tesconom Fig.11 Displacement response of the" concentrated Fig.12 Transient resposee of the friction force at ases e et Nede 6 along X-direction the lef t support of platform, element 1 (1 16 = A.M8 N) (1 in. = 0.025A al 3. The computer cost of using the model superpeel-2. Chas. S. F., Cos. N. L., and Beefield. W. A., tion method is less than that of using the direct "Transiest Analysis of Forced Vibrations of integration method to analyre a structure with complex Structural-Mechanical Systems." Jegruel of the Royal Aeronautical Society. 66. 1962 Coulomb friction. pp. 457-660. 3. Nickle. R. E.. "Non11aser Dymanice by Mode ACKNOWLtac E NT Superposition." Computer Methods in Applied The authore wish to thank D. F. Miller for Mechamies and taaineerina. 7 1976, pp.107-129. Providing encouresement on this project and for A. Stricklin J. A., and naister. W. E., "Formala-eussecting saference (131 A. J. Emensel's seeis-tions and Setutione Procedures for Nealinear tance in selving the fourth test problem is ateo Structural Analysis." Computers and Structures, No. 7.1977, pp.125-136. ackmouledged. 5 Shah. v. N.. Sohn. C. J., and Nahavendi. A. N., " Medal Seperposition Method for Computationally EEFERENCES Eceaemical Monlinear Structural Analysis " ASME 1. Neubalt. J. C.. "A tecurreece Matris Solution Journal of pressure Tessel Technolony. for the Dynamic Response of Elastic Aircraft." Tel. 101. May 1979, pp. 13A-141. Journal of Aeronautical Science. Tel. 17, 1950, 6. Nelaar. A. J. Toshi. E. M., and Cay, C. W., i pp. 560-550. " Application of Normal Mode Theory and 9 8 4 r'E*e gamy 4, ,y g--.- m.,,

y y, .mp -MA E asu Y E man d = aEka M R.seau = meu N meu i I i

1. I I

I I I I i I I i 1 I I l l 1 m e e u es u u es e e sa u u u Test (Mcceem Tues rescoseDW (a) Medal Superposition (b) Direct integration Fig.13 Transient response of impact force on the concentrated mass a (1 lb = 4.448 us Feeudoforce Methods to Selve problems with

10. SIgge. J. M., tetroduction to Structural Nonlinearities." ASE Journal of pressure L namie. McCraw-Hill. R.Y.,19%. pp. 245-248.

Tessel Technotomy. May 1976, pp.151-156.

11. Tee. F. S.. Morse.1. E., and Winkle R. T.,

7. Shah. V. N., and Martaana. A. J., "Nonlinest Mechanical Vibrations. Frentice-Rall. 1963 Dynamic Analysis of a structure Subjected to pp, 175-178. Multiple Support Motions." ASE Journal of

12. Timesehenko. S., and Towns. D. W., vibration Pressure vessel Technoloav. Vol 103. February problems in Enaineerina. 3rd Edition.

1981, pp. 27-32. D. TanNoerend. 1955. pp. 92-95. 8. WECAN User's Manual, ed. A. W. F11strup.

13. Den Nortes. J. F., " Forced Vibrations with Westinghouse Research Laboratories.

Comained Cautomb and Viscous Friction". ASE 9. Cilmore. C. S., " Seismic Analysis of Transactions. Vol. $3. 1931. pp. 107-115. Freestanding Fuel Backs". Suhaitted far

14. "14CAN. Westinghouse Electric Computer presentation at 1982 Orlando prenevre vessel Analysis. Verification Manual." Westinghouse and pipina Conference.

Research Laboratories. 10 ~ -- g-- - -.

MNGHOUSE PROPRIET g WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DIVISION ATTACHMENT (17)APPENDIXEtoTXX-3678 ~ C R h tr) VM E Q M & UC V ) 0, 5 PROJECT AUTMOR . DATE CME *D. SV ~ OATE CME *D. S v OATE GIN WW rWte W EueS 7/rJ B.O. C p.NO. PILS NO.)-#f) GROUP 4ENW7 G JM z iTr% / bu <p as e. _: 7~o us Wy -Ah e. frtyu<nei<s o a Ia. u.I e 4 < fo e M< -/fr cRhen'a,/s' a// o a n do' fior7 r )?t lt t L nt' 2 C ti) " c. R E m Vis e.a -4 ru i ya.g4 pap <7) (Pre. lien not ) L c h - c K h m ~~2.- 1 In 1 7.5 u 8 T H1 N E A T/ Y 2 N h v i 7 C D. ~.. [!G A 1 1e s (*2.) e + +rt c.b ed a e. s h e e d s U ) ?B T ~ N7 .O SLlt/LnGf (l\\ Sh 4 Y b4IS Yb < C N b /YI b e.r"l t'rsgy s ncy & 4 '51o 2c hy) Y n o +.sg n ol.<>nfy in flu en c e. d b d e i v <. n d., r od. pas e ran, e, < l wa4v s'n VAc R h er], ha fA. /<u~, p a s <., /< // i ) ll1,' l i.s n m m e < >' s., t d b le.u, l 9. h m st< / / &. -: al

tl a

g '.s L.- I O S W ,,.4, -l by we shciN on % s % ! h

• n'<e "__ ( h d')

i 3e e l 5 . ;t I. I~pl} %dS G. i V b 'I [::: I ~2. ,tk vo wh A() 3

3.,

noJy tys ts. 7 0 ikf 4 rn.s < v.-t e d ' no 4. '7 & l$l 'S, Alo d riv t % 's ~1. I T G. Mod no J. 21 S.7'M, srn % f AUTMOR DATE CME'O. S v OATE CM E*D. S v OATE g g y, gg y, NO. DATE WESTINGMOUSS FORM 883130 I .n . =

WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DWM400SE PROPRIETARY CLASS 1 C Kh in PEGQ t1rr/CV i. .P P R OJE CT AUTM R DATE CH E*D. B y OATE CHE*D. S V DATE GLTN ' A sari, worsad, W>> S.o. CAf.NO. // PILE NO. GROUP dir EN'*//7 4fN9/7 3 EP f 5 $ Also pu /oem e d' wa.s a cuae,w /r/ od a i a m /ytis cs*~) cen t c.j9 L tY) f L-io (o A) 4)t c.o n.st r Va -tive.ly a dda d at // 4h 4 ms.3 of fhe drive ro d do 4h r penSun n v ".; i n,y -h, o b+a o n a. vv y s o m s e r ve,-1, r. i:.we r / P re g u.t n c Yh t. droet /o d su.e t 3 ha /3 2. ths y,a 4 x +4rld -+o (s '2. ho/aus 4he %pof rhe rod 4ravtI ko uS! h *) d *f. h 4, d esiog. ll5 EG00 q 0/ ) /4 o - ;I O '> w AJJ <J. ma s.s p <.- nuJc at I p,7 ^ D< / r 4, z. /62 2 s-1. '?c ' N p 1 /y?4.:- 3J.c 3 4. i St } rn9.a 0. z: o 4 4 p< # ~~'e, n, p is 3,, l d o_ 1 ". =. o n , s

a...

~.. ag 3-.. eio e. n A rt nz i>,,, .~>>,...i..,, 2J7. ) (.II41 Cy 7.--~- - Y-e,.* AUTHOR DATE CHE*D.SY DATE CM E*D. Sv DATE RE REW NO. DATE WESTINGMOUSE FORM SS2130 ~ - - - -

WESTINGHOUSE NUCLEAR TECHNOLggggd9,fNt0PR10ARY CLASS 1 I CR b17) MrSQuswc)/ *k,, g PROJE CT AUTMOA DATE CMK'D, Sf DATE CMKD.av DATE W % +% c ttf.ueA dn a Cp NO. PILS NO. GROUP E.0 GEA) //7 XP/5 & f")~ r s e incs) w.,r /.e n e(cce J -to tyi5~in9 78I CR bM 'm ocM /. ( lo s a Id 9 ) rn ' 33

• H

/ s f4w n os s 3! > L<>2C R /Li ?m t tbsTn d yr.g,

u. (s ? 24 19 '

^ = t, 740 f st) 13 M/F 0, I IS 7 Q. Fr< s u.e n c 1f_51_ L-l O G 4 - leno N A mf su s# dv s vt vu d_ w/u d<, a s. J / s.O 3 7 A7 '-~ 4l ipr-j-4 e L /'2>r /3 I ha /3. W40 h 1- .5 'b O, =g 3 4g 32* ktT n > !?%cl e

• /,

do c r # c5 < _ w, -t h & *2.n f. L Wg' =Lui i. I 9.44 % 2 6.t f i. 3 7. F V /. d e.. Eur - +4 / s c o n t e e vs h e t:- a pprooCL. w, iy 0ke n)45 4ht f r ef LAJr'Ly b12 Yh & n /u "/s. AUTHOR DATE CM K'D.8Y DATE CMK'D. s v DATE R E v. REv. NO. DATE WESTINOMOUSE PORM 883130 ..-..g.. .. - - - - ~ ~. - s ^ ' ^ " ' "

NUCLEAR TECHNOL N DIVI M 1

• yrE5DNGaouSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2

.f ' 'C

c. R b /r?

VpGGa2AJC y' y ,,.c m .........f 6)C $h W} Soff Y 3/f.1 ....o.. ..hPVSk f.. 649t/ 7/ 3 DOC 5HEET h Date / J Run Number Program & Versi.n U.)EC A N 2., 2-o/-o 46 ,,,j (( q,Q p7

Purpose:

79 gn r m o de / c,n g OIOOAb"'Od&lh/d

h. a c n L maag Co

References:

Input: Cards Tapes l r.a.es.,>. y .es ou,,u...,,. l Paper Tapes aufwem DATE Coen'0 ev SATE cuso.sv OATE ,g, ,g y, see SATS uttST.NCMOUSE Popes SS313C - I. ~'_l' 'f-.-.. ~

E. ^ NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY DIVISION i. '$ifEShNGH0'JSE PROPRIETMtY C'vG31 ( *- C K h M,,. > ~ 2 E Q C c E A k /. ....... 5.. s '.. OAT..M...... .T O. ,,0,$, Ed .kun% Mb %tswl2h5 B.O CA NO. PsLE sec.' /v/ Gmoup c,a d - H 7 Gan DOC SHEET Run Numbtr N Y hNh Date 2 /7 ,f f Program & Version Cdd(M dr DO[ ~O [ 3

Purpose:

y c< n cg me don./ / o n c, g<>p$ ( CR bm m ade / ( l / 0 $ f b w 7'Jz a>egr+ offal dnv< so I /ampet Qn 't h L CRb m p&lter'L Qu s t O

References:

j Input: Cards l Tapes l Output: Microfiche / pages, plots ges Paper N Tapes ( 4 AufseOA DATS CM.'O St SATS.ME 0. s v DATE gg y, gg y, 80 0 OATE UWESTINGMOUSE FORM SS213C . ~

ATTACHMENT (18) TO TXX-3678 27. Letdown Heat Exchanger / A meeting was held with the NRC staff on March 2,1983. As discussed at the meeting, all natural frequencies were verified to be above 33 Hz. Additionally, a generic acceptance by the Staff of WCAP-8230 mitigated the 2D-3D concern. The analysis for the 1" D pipe line off the heat exchanger will be completed prior to fuel load and the proper hangers installed. e i e i A18-1

ATTACHMENT (19) TO TXX-3678 28. Centrifugal Charging Pumps A meeting was held with the NRC staff on March 2,1983, to present additional information on this item. A revised SQRT form on the centrifugal charging pumps was provided and is appended to this attachment. Also, information was provided concerning full scale charging pump test to support previous information relative to charging pump qualification and information was provided to upgrade qualified life of pump motor from 3.8 to 5.0 years. l l A19-1 I l

~ O / ATTACHMENT (19) APPENDIX A to TXX-3678 Quaf f fication Sumar-i of Eouiement (February 25, 1983) I. Plant Name: Comanche Peak 7 1. Utility: Texas Utilities pun 4-Loop 2. MS33: Westinghouse 3. Afg; Gibbs 8-Hill gyg II.' Comoonent7ame Charging Punip/ Motor 1. Scope: [X] MESS 2-1/2 RLI(J, 11 Stage )30p Pump: 2. Model Mumber: Motor: 6808-5 Quantity: 2 e 3. Vendor: Pacific Pumps / Westinghouse Large Motor Division 4. If the component is a cabinet or panel, name and mocal No. of 3e devices included: N/A 5. Physical Description a. Appearance Horizontal pump / gear / motor assembly b. Gimensions Overall Length = 234"; width = 62"; height = 55" ~ ~ c. Weight Total weight - 22.030 lbs. 6. Location: 8vilding: Aux'iliary Elevation: 810 feet 7. Field Mounting Conditions X[ lolt (No. 16, size 1" ) Weld (Langen ) CVCS + SI a. Systes in wnich located: , 8. b. Functional

Description:

Charging and Safety Injection Flow c. Is the equipment required for [] Not Standby [] Co k:Shu:::wn Oc] soth t] Nar:n=r 9. Pertinent Reference Design Specifications:.W. E-Spec 678815 Rev. 2 (Gen. Ptarp),.W E-Spec 952516 Rev. 2 (Plant Specific Pump), 1 E-Spec 677474 Rev. 0 (Motor), y P.O. 236901 12/80 e e 9 ...-...M* ~ ~ --

g.. 2-c e s lII. Is icuicment Availaole for_ Inscettien in the Plant: [x 3 Yes [] no lY. Icuipment Qualification. Method: (Motor) [ ] Test [X3 Analysis C I Cometnation of Test. aan Analysis i Qualification Recor.*: Motor Seismic l

• (No.. Title anc Data)

S.O. 75F60169 2/16/77 Corgany that Prepared Report: MLMD l Cospany that Reviewed Report: 1 LMD/E NTD

Title:

Siesmic Analysis-of Centrifugal Charging / Safety Injection Pump Motors for C Yibration pggggpe Peak Nuclect Stations V. 1. Loads considered:

a. [X] Saismic only See Note 2

b. [ ] hydrodynamic only

c. [ ] Costination of (a) and (b) l 2.

Method of Cosetning RRi: C 3 Absoluta sus C3SRSS [] N/A 73WeIsiecuyJ 3. Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs): See attached 4. Dasping Corresponding to RAS: 08E .02 SSE .04 5. Required Acceleration in Each Otraction: C X3 ZPA [ ] Otner (iieciT#

• 08E S/S.

.25/1.05 r/B. .25/1.05 y. .5/1.05

• SSE S/S =

.35/z.1 F/B =__.35/z.1 Y= . 8_/_2.1

• Plant Specific / Generic Qualification Level 6.

Were fatigue effects or other vibration loads considered? C3Yes (X3No !Y yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program:

• NOTE:

If more than one report cospleta itess IV thru VII for esca report. Note : This equipment is located outside c6ntainment and is not subjected to hydrodynamic loads such as LOCA. Additionally.WBO this motor has been qualified under the generic W IEEE 323-74 program (seenextpage). 9 e em e e e we e e

• e

-,.,.--,-,,m -q-,-a-w gs-w- m- --'e -**^--e--*--r*N*"'"**W-'- --~ ' " ^^-^~^ ^

-Z-III. Is Ecuiement Availaole for Inspection in the Plant: [X 3 Yes [] no ~ IV. Ecuiement Qualification Metnoo: (Pump) [ ] Test [x3 Analysis C I Connination of Test ann Analysis I Qualification Resort': Pump Seismic

• (No., Title,. ana Date)

K-435 Rev. 2 10/25/78 Comany that Prepared Report:_ Pacific Pumps Cogany that Reviewed Report: Pacific Pumps / Westinghouse D (Par. No. 54)

Title:

Nuclear Service Pep Design Analysis Report V. Vibration Inout: l. Loads considered:

a. CX] Seismic only See Note 1

b. [ ] Hydregnamic only

c. [ ] Costination of (a) and (b) 1.

Method of Cosetning RA1: C 3 Absoluta Sun (x3SRSS () 73&r, spectrn i 3. Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs):__ See JLtda,q,h,ed 4. Daging Corresponding to RAS: 08E.02 SSE .04 5. Required Acceleration in Eaca Direction: (x 3 ZPA C 3 Otner (spec:ty F 'CBE 5/5 =.25/1.05 F/8 = .25/1.05 V= .5/1.05 $$SE S/S * .35/2.1 F/B * .35/2.1 Y* 35j.2.1 Were fatipo efcific/ generic qualification level.fects or other vibration loads considerec7

• Plant sp 6.

[3Yes (X]No IY yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program: ' NOTE: If anre than one report cogista items IV thru VII for eacn recor'.. NOTE 1: This equipm'ent is located outside containment and is not 12/80 subject to hydrodynamic loads such as LOCA. Additionally, nozzle loads are specified to limit loads transmitted to the pump through the piping' system.* t I w

r -Z- !!I. Is Ecutoment Availacle for Insoection in the Plant: (X3 Yes [] no ~

Y. I:uioment Qualification Method:

(Gear) [ 3 Test [$ Analysis [ I Comnin? tion of Ten ann Aralys.is Qualification Resort *: _ _ _ Gear Seismic

• (No., Title.,and Data) __

76-R-61075 Rev. A 11/5/77 Coagany that Prepared Report:_ W MG Cospany that Reviewed Report:_ E MM&G/E NTD Seismic Analysis - Pacific Pump Incorporated, GO-LA-18810 Item 1. SO 76-l

• Ti tle:

l Y. Vibration Inout: R-61065. l 1.

l. cads considered:

a. CX3 Setssic only See Note 3 l

b. ( ) Hydrodynamic only

c. [ ] Coseination of (a) and (b) 2.

Method of Coneining RR1: C3AbsoluteSus t]SRSS [] 75EfteCsiec1Tn 3. Required Response Spectra,-{ attach the graphs): See attached 4. Darping Corresponding to RR5: OBE .02 SSE .0a ~ 5. Required Acceleration in Each Oirection: CX3 ZPA [ ] Otner(iiieUTy)

• 0BE 5/5 =

.25/1.05 F/B = .25/1.05 Y= 5/1.05

• SSE S/S =

. n/ z.1 F/B * .35/2.1 Y* 8/2.1

• Plant specific / generic quatirication sevel

~ 6. Were fatigue effects or other vibration loads considered? []Yes Qt3No I'f yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall. qualification program:

• NOTE:

If more than one report cospleta itess IV tam VII for esca resort. NOTE 3: This equipment is located outside containment and is not subjected to hydrodynamic loads such as LOCA. Additionally,12/B0 nozzle loads are specified to limit loads transmitted to the gear through the piping system. r e emum ---g wgm e----er ..,. _ _ _.., - -. _ -, ~., - - - -,.,, - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - - -

Z.

II. Is Ecuicment Availaole for Inscection in the Plant

[X 3 Yes

[] No !Y. Ecuicment Qualification Method: (Motor) ( 3 Test CX3 Analysis C I Comtnation of Test, ano, Analysis Qualification Recor.': Motor Seismic

• (No.. Title. and Date)

S.O. 76F60169 2/16/77 Congany that Prepared Report: 1LMD Comany that Reviewed Report: W LMD/E NTD

Title:

Siesmic Analysis of Centrifugal Charging / Safety Injection Pump Motors for C Vibration gggpe Peak Nuclear Stations V. 1. Loads considered:

a. (X) Seisste only See Note 2

b. [ ] Hydrodynamic only

c. [ ] Comination of (a) and (b) 2.

Method of Comining RR1: ( 3 Absoluta Sun (3SRSS (3 N/A i 75EfGCsiacun 3. Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs):_ _ _ See attached 4. Darping Corresponding to RRS: OBE .02 SSE .04 5. Required Acceleration in EachIlirection: (X3ZPA ( ) Otner (iiecifyT~

• 08E 5/5 =

.25/1.05 F/g. .25/1.05 y. . 5/T.05

• SSE 1/5 *__.35/z.T F/B = _.35/z.1 V*

.8/2.1

• Plant Specific / Generic Qualification leevel 6.

Were fatigue effects or other vibration loads considered? I [ 3 Yu D3 No IY yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program:

• NOTE: If mort than one report cosciata itess IV thru VII for eacn report.

Note : This equipment is located outside c6ntainment and is not subjected to hydrodynamic loads such as LOCA. Additional'ly,12/80 this motor has been qualified under the generic y IEEE 323-74 program (seenextpage). i e -men o eman ene em e m e e

m. ames e

.-._,,_,..-l- .N,.-..-,,,..,...,--.,n ,n,,,,._,v--, .m. ..n _-,,_ _.....,,,

L-3- y1* 'f Nalification by Test, then Comolate' (Motor Insulatiorj System) Cy ranac.- 1. [ ] Single Frequency CX3 Multi-Frequency: X sine seat f J 2. [ ] Single Axis CX3 Multi-Axis 3. No. of Qualification Tests: 08E 5 SSE 1 Otner 4 Frecuency Range: 1-70 Hz 5. NaturaT" Frequencies in Eaca Direction (Side / Side. Front /Bacx., Venical): 5/5 =_ _ N/A F/8 N/A V= N/A 6. Method,of Determining Natural Frequen'cies N/A C3LabTest C3In-SituTest [ ] Analysts 7. TRS enveloping RR$ using Mult.i-Frequency Test [X] Yes (Attaen TRS & RR5 gra::ns [ ] No 8. Input g-level Test: 08E 3/5 = N/A F/8 = N/A V= N/A SSE 5/5 = N/A F/8 = N/A Y= N/A 9. Laboratory Mounting: ~ ~ l CX } Soit (No. 4 512e 3/4a ) [ 3 Wel'd (Langtn ) []

10. Func.ional operability verified:

(X 3 Yes [ 3 No (3NctApplicaole

11. Test Results including edifications made: Test results demonstrata that insulation system, and therefore the motor, meet IEEE 323-74

12. Other tut. performed (such as aging or fragility test, inclucing results):

Per Note 4 the environmental and seismic tests were perfo_rmed in i l

• accordance with IEEE 323-1974 sequence requirements.

' Note: If qualification by a coseination of test and ar.alys s also c:::alete item VII. l 12/20 e 9 e e e6 M** ~ ~

.o. VII. M alification by Analysis, then c:molete: (MotorAnalysis) 1. Method of Analysis: [X 3 Static Analysts C 3 Equivalent Static Analysis C 3 3ynamic Analysis: C I Time distory C 3 Responsa See tmm 2. NaturaT Frequencies in Eaca Direction (Side / Side. Front /Bacx, Vertical): S/S = >35 Hz pfg. >35 Hz -- -=== y. >35 Hz 3. Modal Type: (X33D []2D [ 3 10 See Note 7 (X)FiniteElement []Saam C 3 Closed Form Solu:im. 4. DC 3 Cosputer Codes:_ _ _ ME9032 (W LMD internally verified) Frequency Range and No. of modas consicared: N/A C3HandCalculations 5. Method of Cosetning Dynamic Responsas: CX[ Other:Absoluta Sum C 3 SR C,, U;ec. ry ) 6. Danging: OBE N'/A SSE -N/A Basis for the dancing used: 7. Support Considerations in the andal: _ Assumed rigid attachment to building with actual support corIfigYration 8. Critical Stmcsural Elements:- See Note 8 Governing Load or Response Seismic Total Stress A. Identif3ation Location Combination Stress Stress __yowable A Support Feet Motor Normal + SSE 8204 psi 8400 psi 20,291 psi Maximum Allowabla Deflection 8. Nax. Critical to Assure. Functional Opera-l Deflection Location bility .0047" Motor Rotor Allowable =.03" No adverse effect on operability NOTE 7: The analysis perfomed was 2D. WCAP 8230 was used to convert the 2D accelerations to equivalent 3D accelerations. NOTE 8: As indicated in Item VII.8 and Item V.5. there is considerable l margin between actual and. allowable stresses and also between plant specific and generic acceleration levels. W SO i r l

.o VM. If Oualification by Analysis, then ccmotete: (Pisnp analysis) ~ ~ 1. Method of Analysis: CX] 5tatic Analysis [ ] Equivalent Static Analysis ( 3 Dynamic Analysis: [ ] Time-History [ ] Response Spectrum 2. Naturai Frequencies in Eaca Direction (Side /5f oe. Front /Bacx, Ver.: cal): 5/5 =_,>35 Hz F/5 =_>35 Hz y=

• >35 Hz

= _ ..= 3. Mode.1 Type: [X 33D C 3 2D C310 See Note 5 C 3 Finite Element [] Beam [ ] Closed Form Solu:in. 4. [ ] Cosguter Codes: N/A Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: (X3HandCalculations 5. Method of Cosetning Dynamic Responses: [X[j Other: Absolute Sum ( 3 SRSS. C U WeiTy) 6. Dancing: 08E_ N/A SSE _.N/A Basis for the dancing used: 7. Support Considerati'ns in the sedal: Assumed rigid attachment to building o 8. Critical Structural Elements:- with actual support configuration.

• O Governing Load or Response Seismic Total St ress A., Identification Location Comnination Stress Stress Allowabl e Suction Nozzle Pump Normal + SSE 9,016 psi 16,600 psi Discharge Nozzle Pump Nonnal + SSE 11.168 psi 16,600 psi Maxinum Allowable Deflect:en B.

Max. Critical to Assure Funct:onal Goera-Deflection Location b_ility .00126" Pump Casing Allowable =.005" ( No adverse effect on operability [ WCAP 8230 was used to l NOTE 5: The analysis perfonned was a 2D analysis. l convert the 2D accelerations to equivalent 3D accelerations. NOTE 6: As indicated in Item VII.8 and Item V.5, there is considerable margin between actual and allowable stresses and also between plant specific and generic acceleration levels. i 12/80 s f M mom

1. 1. e en e emm e ese e se e e ane e

e+ eem eunum o e -r me ** 3-- ,,...,-m. .y-w

4. VII. Malification by Analysis, then c:molete: (GearAnalysis) 1. Method of Analysis: CX] Static Analysi.s C 3 Equivalent Static Analysis C 3 Dynamic Analysis: [ I Time-iitstory C 3 Response See trum 2. Naturat Frequencies in Eacn Direction (Side / Side, Front /Bacx, Ver.1 cal): S/S =gyz _ F/5 >35 Hz y. $35 Hz 3. Mode.1 Type: 333D C 3 2D C 3 10 See Note 9 C 3 Finite Element [] Beam C 3 Closed Form Solu: inn. 4. [ 3 Cosguter Codes: N/A.- Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: [$ Hand Calculations 5. Method of Concining Dynamic Responses: CX Absolute Sum [ ] SRSS C [ Other: IUJaccITy) 6. Dancing: OBE_ N/A SSE _ - N/A Basis for the dancing used: 7. Support Considerati'ons in the sodal: Assumed rigid attachment to bldg. 8. Critical Structural Elements:- with actual support configuration. See Note 10 Governing Lead or Response Seismic Total Stress A. Identification Location Combination Stress Stress Allowable Shaft Gear Normal + 23,284 psi 53,500 psi SSE Maxinum Allowaole Def! action'

8. hx. Critical to Assum Functional Opera-Deflection gcation bility Not applicable Note 9: The analysis performed was 20. WCAP-8230 was used to convert the 2D accelerations to equivalent 3D accelerations.

Note 10: As noted in Item VII.8 and V.5, there is considerable margin between actual and allowable stresses and also.between plant specific and generic acceleration levels. 12/80 - 2 /* f DOOom U.....____.__.___.___,.,_..

v r EN-STRU.CTURE RESFONSE SPECTRR F0R: AUX'ELERRY. BUILDTNG ELEVRTE0N.:. StG.E FT '. E2U.EPrfENT ORf1f"ENE: G.0Z ~ t/E SEE ERRTMEURKE RK. E-4 RT: VERT - RI: N-S a* 1 i 10 i i t i .... ~..... g e. ... ~.......... ... + l t.c ::... ...... :..M...+.;..,c..=. d -v '%.. ' -:... l ' ".'. 4 +- N. W. d..i. '. '.... ..;. - m.....

• ' " ~~- Y, *.

? l l 7. C. + : m :. 5 - L ' i,. ::.,;.=.: * . V. w./wgr @.: ?.,5. !W.Nmi,'7.J.;D.cc a i c.r e.:,.. ~.. f.-'.;w.:,w:7.e4.:n ,t,..,,.,s, ye...e...m..,. 4 ww o - e- .~ a m. .~, ~ = ..s..$v%e ;j a.. n st,: ;;.. 80'5 ..u~....,......i.... a.... ... w-,..

n.......

x s. e....s-- --.. w. e x.,., m,:.:rii;.p m:.hcse..%, ds.wk.+. - - .z. .r-:.2. - .;e. ~-u.a ..e.m.e

• t"n.: s-M.w=e.sw Ot

wu

.Q&54.. q"..< u. w;d.d...< ....es .. +. . w, b$.:$ &w u=~ w$$.9 ..l. l"v b. y

4

-a C2* i.g

.' ~ c?.1.A.W3 W.,. & f.a%"% -

L' -@h .:i:.r:.i Q:.<;$. ; n.%.;;.a. - tr.:.... :. a

• C

=. ...,..e*..... ,. ~. - .g. a r n,.. ,? .t . r ^ ,;. a, ..v....: x.. w. .. ~.. a; }. . g W*g W,.. 4.m., 4. s m. . :o.p w. (=m.A.ch".tk w r .a - g.. n. i : w.:.<. p.... = a,,: ~ 5 3 4 5 4 i th.an .... e ts.ia:m.as v tr.4s m.an s 7s a.sa M$@ EC. .2M. ;,-WS m.w..i.ic r.6.FEREQU-E ...c..,.. .......w.,,,.. .,., : s,.. ~.....-:....,..,.... :..........,. u.. - 77 m.. s,v. 5.m. .... q. J,. 1 ~..... ..;..n TUS 4 4 i i 8 a-4 e s l l e i @Other C A#N. /f'US. ' esanr. e t t 8 8 Elemmen.samune.ammeuuspun. e g -,* **

• e -se e p.

$N t.m.m.m,

v. i s-G EN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA F RUXTLERRY SUTLD.ING ' l .. MRTION. ETU.5' FT ij i EcurPrtENT' DRrPENG: G.G4 SSE SR.THQURKE RKs E-W RY: VERT RE:. N-5 e i C i W3 C ~ P 1

• • [.
• s C

,:a~. ' ~, 'i. id. 4..

I C ..fr-A t3,~*n q + fe_% ;*fgs;.5 %.. ; 9. E.: 7. "' U i :;.:r t. -k.. N. g- .....,.,.,.. ~,, . e,.... 1. ...,.r.-~.. m... a. r. ..:.... v ..--.g. w,-y.t--..,:- " W :y='pt'"..tt.'.9 :. 3... 3,,. .,.,- p. w.

==. .. ;.:..s, Q

• -+i-h w.

...-.'w.'*'... '. ' " ~ ' .. v..-W. .... ap.,,.... - >.. OCC s.~- e. -.. . f....;+.m.;;*.D '.r;.. ~..qk.~;- 5n. JG.L.,; :..r....:. e.. ....:~ . -. e...x.~.~ ' . pm ;a.:** .w jN. .. y <s .o . :s %. J.....:s

,,2<-

r* 't's'.,:.v.%:*s rpee;-.., * ~.' L .. ~ - , g. .. r;

Je q e-T;.

a r ~ g s., C g ? k f .mu. I s % m ( n. ..,o - . t.... 1.. ~. v'..*.... ;

c..,..,. a. a:.s.. ef.r 5=,.*...s,..;,.

... T, ~.i..*.f.,*" ...-',T..*..~.e..'....d* p... 1" g * . &. A;.' ::: ..s g 6.- ~$. .= .<'t. ~ \\ O O.' ' M $ [.'.I "..*.'. =N e.N

• N T.. / -5. fW,.n.h..sQiMF.:i.d-. FEREGE-SEC~

.y., ...w. s...p...,. sv. r1..'. t ....u.... l .. o.;.._.w ;.ss. ~. - *

• -5*.

T'. .. r~s 'rioW*d*@f.".f' *f T.r.!"*$.Nf'.y.N. ~',. 3 ,,.....n %. .,e. t s. .' e .s .~ . - ~ - ~- TUS i. i e i e i 1

• I stands gMgr/pous emane.

I I 8 1 ,-6 , - t... e pgg,am,ap A

z;g-Q % % =% 1tN 3 co k g4 = 9 k* L = mk

• 1R,%

u!!(4 { es k o DD iQ tk. a4 sN 2 fc4

• 3*4 e

M $y {t M k, N g 3 t U g 9 3 W h 71 N \\ } %e t%- \\8% 1 ~ tqs D o!t i I'i! wLo w[s= 04 g OO -%---,-.---..,m- -m-, -,m. v---

1 J i ESTINWOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 O. L t.,e a SSE E 100.4. m -~ 1 -+ ~W..ea:4 4 -b. Etk%f m

=

g = 1 10J,.. = :

.E.*

N.6 -3s -e u }=..- -. = .e..- ;,.i 1 -- 3

== M, = _ _ _. - , a-w - _a i 1.r.. d a ,.....__m I Y I I I E, J ] E E I E I E 1 I I o.1 1.o Freousner(sia.) 1o.o 100.0 Figure 28. Stator-SSE Position No. 1 Test Response Spectr a Control Accelerometer 5% damping s 53 =. -- =. ... ~.

ESTINGH0USE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 s r \\

• • Le sst lo0.lb, m

. ~. -.,., _ ~~ t Ld W -A, -a w i q =- m ..:1.'" E t 3,j i kB ~Nk+13 D M. ~ E -.g32 4.:qw..d = j 3-x_Le s.iiME I ., e _ _ _. - - _ . _y.___ emg,- Jf i l + i

1. F..

9 .s =- . 2 J' -- r ~.4 -m c.1 .......= e.1 1.s namency (ns.) 10.0 100.0 Figure 30. Stator-SSE Position No. 2 Test Response Spectrum Control Accelerometer 55 damping J 55 G 8D g es ee

e. e

_ea --g- -war-----rmr- --p-e-y--- ---7e-e n-w rm-e ,- - =ww we -w e r ---'w---m - - * =

ESTING400$E Mt0PRIETARY CLASS 2 = m m sst too.rb, m ~~ -T ; -die 4 m + - B ~ - db8 ..1:- so.e. t =. - - -. 6,, - s w _. _ =. - W, Z,.,..zmi~M:E '

=.-

-E = _;, - _.w ,.. ~., 7 g= =.. . Q,. a- - .m. 3 i -w -4 + i.e,... _ _ _. - l -._.._4 l ....e er__ i l 8.1. c.1 1.o mieuency(us.) to.o ion.o .w J Figure 32. Stator-SSE Position No. 3 Test Response Spectrum Control Accelerometer 5% damping s' 57 l

. n ; ' -

. _ _,_. _... _ _ _.___.,.. _ __._-. ___.~_____ _ _

y WESTINDOUSE PROPRIETA':# CLASS 2 r-

s. _

na 88E too.a A ( ea-1 I e we. 2. ~~ I' -b: 8s M r l 1.e ~ -.-.n _? J e.1.. e.1 1.o moeusacy(mm.) 10.0 100.0 -m a g Figure 33. Stator-SSE Position No. 4 Test Response 7 Spectrum Control Accelerometer 55 damping J 58 t l l --*y 9 -*--.,qy,- w y 1g-1,y w b TM-- 7-aw=-ww

• 's*eNN WN-""""-'-

m ug wc o o," I WRD-NTD Equipment Engineering w. Mechanical Design and Qualification m 249-5429 m May 17, 1982

1. p'

~ w Comanche Peak Auxiliary Pump . ' a-Motor Serial Numbers n . A. Petronis - ITTC cc: D. Rygg - ITTr E.J. Rusnica - MNC 323 7 t - MNc. sus, A.T. Parker - MNC 529 TAa anderso6 - -- c.w e M. Torcaso - MNC 528 M.J. Zegar - MNC 30b File:206(EQ)/4-1 J.M. Snider - MC 306 206(EQ)/4-3 M.E. Kamenic - MC 306 Attached are the motor serial numbers and seismic report numbers for the Class IE Auxiliary pumps supplied to Comanche Peak. This attachment includes the missing seismic report for the RHR that was missing on our letter AEE-AP-184 dated August 24,1981. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Uprovedq'dDf Y A R.L-D_ J R. Wessel L.I. Walkei, Manager Mechanical Equipment Qualification Mechar.ical Equipment Qualification JJ attachment v-

o. '. O I \\ Utility-Texas Utilities Plant-Comanche Peak 1 & 2. T8X/TCX EQDP AE-2 applies to the following motors E Applicable Seismic P w.D Serial No. Report (1) Residual Heat Removal TBX 76-F-66285 M010101 TCX 76-F-66286 M010101 Safety Injection TBX 76-F-60181 76-F-60903 ~ TCX 76-F-60182 76-F-60903 Charging / Safety T8X 76-F-60168 76-F-60169 Injection TCX 76-F-60171 76-F-60169 Notes: (1) Aeports am on file at Westinghouse. They are ava,ilable for audit. l +.e e-e4 - se came e**

• M*

,-wey -w- +-,,--- -m---w-- -m y--w ,,~y-e-----e --r------ m er

---

n-www

~ Utility-Texas Utilities Plant-Comanche Peak i A 2, 7BX/TCX EQDP AE-3 applies to the following motors Applicable Seismic .P.JEE. Serial No. Report (1) Boric Acid Transfer TBX-19853-121 A-16799(2) TBX-19853-122 A-16799(2) TCX-19853-137 A-16799 (2) TCX-19853-138 A-16799 (2) Boron Injection TBX-19853-125 A-16799(2) Recirculation TBX-19853-126 A-16799(2) TCX-19853-139 A-16799(2) TCX-19853-140 A-16799(2) Notes: 1 (1) Reports are on file at Westinghouse. They are available for audit. (2) See P.O. 169470 Transfer from CSL. eqm m eoge 'O -Cv" =- y g. w----..--,-,.,,-, y_--..

ATTACHMENT (20) TO TXX-3678 29. ECCS Accumulators / A meeting was held with the NRC staff on March 2,1983 to present additional information on this item. A revised SQRT fonn on this item was provided and is appended to this attachment. As discussed at the meeting: A. NRC indicated acceptance of WECAN Computer Code for linear elastic analyses on the accumulator. B. NRC/Brookhaven examined and generically accepted WCAP-8230 as a valid code for 2D-3D conversion. C. Qualification of the accumulator was demonstrated at both the 832.5' and 842.5' elevations. A20-1 _ c_ : :'-

ATTACHMENT (20) APPENDEX A to TXX-3678 Qualification Surmiar-i of Ecuf ement (February 25,1983) ~ I. Plant Name: Comanche Peak Tvoe; 1. Utility: Texas Utilities PWR 4 Loop Z. M333: Westinghouse 3. A/E: Gibbs & Hill BWR II. 'Comoonent7ame Accumulator (Four) 1. Scosa: (X3Nsss (3gop 3 Z. Model Mumber: _ 1350 ft size Quantity: 4 3. Vender: Southwest Fabrication and Welding, Inc. 4. If the component is a cabinet or panel, name and model No. of te devices included: N/A 5. Physical Description a. Appearance vertical Cylindrical Pressure vessel (Tank b. Diserrsions 138" dia. x 253" height ~ c. Weight 50,000 1bs (empty), 103,000 lbs (operating) React'r Building 6. Locatton: Suilding: o Elevation: 832.5 ft(3) 842.5 ft(1) 7. Field Mounting Conditions [ Wald (Langtn 8 cit (No. 28. Size 21/41' See Note 1 ) , 8. a. Systas in wnich located: Safety Injection System D. Functional Oescription: Provide low pressure emergency core cooling c. Is the equipment required for CX3 Hot Stanoty C 3 ColnShu::cwn [ ] Both ( 3 Nemer 9. Pertinent Reference Oasign Specifications: 'E-Spec 679065 Rev. 3 I Equipment Data Sheet EDS-AT-038 Rev. 4, Purchase Order 215208 NOTE 1: The number and size of bolts has been confirmed by Texas Utilities. _.....-..= ~ III. Is Ecuiement AvailaDie for Inspection in t.te Plant: [X3 Yes [ ] no IV. Ecuipment Qualification Metnod: [ ] Test Cx] Analysis C 1 Coseination of Test. and Analys,is Qualification Report *: Desian Report on Two,1350-Cubic Foot Accumulator Tanks (No.. Title,.and Date) _ BTI-PJ-75015 Coogany that Prepared Report: _ Basic Technology. Inc. Company that Reviewed Report:___ Southwest Fabricating and Welding, Inc. Westinghouse V. Vibration Input: 1. Laads considered:

a. {X3 Seisste only See Note 2

h. ( 3 Hydro %' unit only

c. [ ] Coseination of (a) and (b) 2.

Method of Cosmining RA1: C } Absoluta Sun (X) sass [] ~TiiNer, specsty 3.- Required Responsa Spectra-(attach the graphs): See attached and Note 3 Provided by Gibbs' & Hill GTH-10508, FRB-6R 4. Dasping Corresponding to RA3: CBE 2% S3E 4% 5. Required Acceleration in taca Direction: [ ] ZPA (X3Otner Nat. Freq. (specit 83'2.5/860

• 08E 5/5 =

359/.409/.539 F/8.- .259/.459/.539 y. 20g/y)09/.59 .3 832.5/860 ~* $3E S/S

• 58a/.60g/1.069 /8 *_

.45g/. /dg/ s.069 Y =.50g/.50g/1.og F

6. Actual plant / generic qualification level Were fatigua effects or other vibration loads considered?

C3Yes (X3No IY yes, describa loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program:

• HOTE: If more than one report consista itaus IV thm VII for each resort.

NOTE 2: Slowing effects have been considered for accumulators and considered to be negligible. This equipment is located in 12/80 the Class 2 portion of the 5,I system. Hydrodynamic loads (such as LOCA) which may be transmitted through the piping system are limited by specifying maximum nozzle loads which must not be exceeded by the piping designer. r ,p---- .-,,w-w w-eww-- ,,.y gm--w,-- ,,,-*p-,-- e--------,y

~ NOTE 3: The response spectra for the 832.5 ft. elevation is attached. There is no spectra for the 842.5 ft. elevation. To demonstrate qualification of the accumulator at this elevation Westinghouse used the spectra for elevation 860.0 ft. L I l i l

} .z. !!!. is Ecutement Availacle for Inscection in the Plant: [X3 Yes [].lo Y. Ecuioment Qualification. Method: [ ] Test CX] Analysis [ I Concination of Test. -ann Analys,is Qualification Recor-': S.I.S. Agcumulators (1350 ft ) 3 (No.. Title.,and Data) 34-22-7 Rev. 1, 2/25/83 Cossany that Prepared Report:__ Westinghouse NTD Cospany that Reviewed Report: Westinghouse NTD V. Vibration Inout: 1. l.oads considered:

a. CX] Seismic only See Note 2

- 4. C ] Hydrodynamic only l

c. [ ] Coseination of (a) and (b)

z. Method of Coneining RRS.: (3AbsoluteSun CX]SRSS

[] 75T.E'eCliacun 3. Required Response spectra-(attach the graphs): Etos.#134A & 116A (E1. 832.5), 133A&115fTE1.84CS) 4. Dasping Corresponding to RRS: 08E 2.0% 33E 4.0% ~ 5. Required Acceleration in Each Qirection: C 3 ZPA [X 3 Other Nat. Freq. (IWcIG) 832.5'/ 860' 08E 5/5 = .35/.40 /.53 F/8 = .25/.45 /.53 Y= .20/.30 /.53 532.5'/ 860' SSE 5/5 = .58/.60 /1.06 F/8 = .45/.75 /1.C V = .53/.50n.0 Actual plant / generic qualification level 6. Were fatipe effects or other. vibration loads considered? [3Yes (X] No IV yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program: = NOTE: If more than one report cosciata itess IV thru VII for each report. 12/80 e e O - ~ -.

1-III. is I:uipment AvailaDle for Inscoction in the. 31 ant: [ $ Yes [] no

V. I

vi: ment Qualification Method:

[ ] Test Cx] Analysis. ( I Concination of Test. anc Analysis Qualification Report *: SIS Accumulators 1350 ft3(as-builtnozzleloadrequalifi-cation) (No., Title.,anaDate) 342203 12/21/82 Corgany that Prepared Report: Westinghouse NTD Coepany that Reviewed Report: Westinghouse NTD V. Vibration Inout: 1. Loads considered:

a. D ] Seismic only See Note 2

b. ( 3 Hydrodynamic only

c. [ ] Coscination of (a) and (b) 1.

Method of Concining RRi: []AbsoluteSun (X] SRSS []liifeCliacun 3. Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs):___See attached and Note 3 4. Dancing Corresponding to RRS: QBE 2% s3t 4% ~ 5. Required Acceleration in Each 0irection: [ ] ZPA [ ] Other Nat. Feeq. (iiiscITi) .832.5/860 OBE S/S = . 359/.40g/1. 53o F/B = .259/.459/1. 53g V= .20g/.30g/.539 I.832.5/860 SEE S/5 * . 58a/.60s/1.069. F/B * .45a/. 75a/1. F9 Y* . 50a/. 50c/ l. 06g Actual plant / generic qualification level i 6. Were fatipe effects or other vibration loads considered? [3Yes @ 3 No IY yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program: MOTE: If more than one report cosciata itens IV thm VII for eacn recort. 1 12/80 I e e y -~

VI. If Oualification by Test, then Cemalete*: Nat Applicable 1 ram 1. [ ] Single Frequency [ 3 Multi-Frequency: l sins : mat 2. [ 3 Single Axis [ ] Multi-Axis 3. No. of Qualification Tests: 08E SSE Otner 4 Frecuency Range: 5. NaturaT" Frequencies in Eacn Direction (Stoe/Sice. Front /8acr.. Ver.ical): 5/5 = F/B = V= 6. Method, of Determining Natural Frequen'ct es C 3 L.at Test C3In-SituTest [ ] Analysis 7. TRS enveloping RAS using Mult,1-Frequency Test [ ] Yes (Attacn TRE & RRE grasas [ ] No 8. Input g-level Test: 08E 5/5 = F/8 = V= S3E 5/5 = F/8 = V= 9. 1.aboratory Mounting: ~~ l C ] Bolt (No. 3fze ) C 3 W1'd (t.eng:n ) [] 10. Functional operability krified: []Yes []No [ ] Not Applic4 Die

11. Test Results including maifications ases:

12. Other test performed (sucer as aging or fragility test, including results):

Me: If qualification by a comination of test and analysis also enaclete Itas VII-12/20 e '-~ __ - __~ ~ 1

See Note 4 VII. If Qualification _by Analysis, then comotete: (BTIAnalysis) 1. Method of Analysis: $X3 Static Analysis C 3 Equivalent. Static Analysis i t 3 o namic Analysts: t I Time wistory C3nesponseSpec.ma r 2. Naturai Frequencies in Each Of rection (Side / Side, Front / Sacs, Ver.ical): See Note 4 5/5 = P/t =. Y= L 3.. Modal Type: []3D [ 42D C 3 10 C 3 Finite Element (3leaa [ ] Closed Form Solu:hn. 4. [X3 Cossuter Codes: ANSYS Frequang Range and No. of modas considered: N/A C3HandCalculations 5. Method of Cosetning Dynamic. Responses: CX] Absolute Sun C 3 3R55 [ ] Other: II)e~ city) 8. 04ssing: 08E N/A SSE. N/A Basis for the dancing used:

7. ' Support Considerati'ns in the adel: Rigidly mounted in floor same as o

Installed con 3I*tToT 8. Critical 5tmetural Elements:- 3" N ' Governing Load or Response seisst e Total Stress A. Idantification Location Coseination Stress 5t ess Allowable Support Skirt Lower Faulted 486 6,500 Element

1. 9 Anchor Bolt Faulted 7591 24,000 Maxims Allowable Deflec: ton' 8.

Naz. Critical to Assum. Func: tonal Goera-Deflection Location b_ility Not applicable NOTE 5: Note the substantial margin between the actual and allowable stresses. 12/80 1

NOTE 4: The vendor performs a static analysis of the accumulator to the generic qualification levels (1.5g/1.0g) specified by Westinghouse. This analysis is perfonned by the vendor assuming that the equipment } is rigid. Westinghouse performs a dynamic analysis to detemine the natural frequency of the accumulator. This analysis indicates that one natural frequency is less than 33 Hz. To demonstrate specific plant applicability Westinghouse uses WCAP 8230 to convert the vendor's 2D analysis results to 3D accelerations. Westinghouse then compares the actual plant accelerations at the specified natural frequencies to the generic qualification levels to demonstrate its qualification specifically for Comanche Peak. In addition, Westing-house has performed an analysis to demonstrate acceptability of specific plant piping loads on the accumulator nozzles. O GMG g. -+-., y-----, -,,-4 +-,p.9,,.,w,-p-e.- ,.e7 e_-,-- w-,--

See Note 4 Vil. If Oualification by Analysis, then comoiste: (WIstinghouse 34-22-7) 1. Metaod of Analysis: ( ) Static Analysis C 3 Equivalent Static Analysis [X3 Dynamic An. lysis: C I Time-History [ 3 Response SpNtrum 2. Naturai Frequencies in Eaca Direction (Side / Side Front /Bacx, Vert: cal.): 5/5

• 2LHz F/8 =

_ J2, Hz V*

• _ Eyg, 3.

Modal Type: [X33D [ ] 2D [ ] 10 (X) Finite Element () Beam ( 3 Closed For:n Soludin. 4. [ ] Cosputer Codes: WECAN Frsquency Range and No. of modes considered: All significant modes []HandCalculations 5. Method of Coreining Dynamic Responses: (l' Absolutesum(3$RSS. [,, Otaer: N/A TIEa~ cit ~y) 6. Dasping: OBE 2i $5E _ - 45 Basis for the dancing used: 7. Support Considerations in the sodal: __Rici adlgntgd.19.f.199EL. m g as installed condition 8. Critical Structural Elements:- Governing Load or Response Seismic Total Stress A. Identifgation Location Combination 5 tress Stress _ ypable A See previous page Maxisum Allowable Deflect 1on 8. Nax. Critical to Assure. Functional Coera-i Deflection Location bility l Not applicable l NOTE 6: As noted in Item V.5, there is margin between the acual plant required accelerations and the qualified acceleration levels. 12180 l r M eOOoM +em - N ee e,g a p.en esse e e e-e em a e me * = , = - -. _ - - ,____,..L_.,

0 ~ VII. If Oualification by Analysis, then comolete: (Westinghouse-342203) 1. Method of Analysis: 1 C ] Static Analysi.s (X3 Equivalent Static Analysis C 3 Oynamic Analysis: C I Time-History [ 3 Response Spectrum 1. Natural Frequencies in Eaca Direction (Side / Side. Front /Bacx, Ver.1 cal): 3/5 = 22 Hz F/B. 22 Hz y. 71 Hz =_ 3. Modal Type: ( 3 3D C 3 2D C 3 10 CX3 Finite Elesent [ ] leaa [ ] Closed For:s Solu: inn. 4. [X3 Cosguter Codes: WECAN Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: N/A C 3 Hand Calculations s 5. Method of Cosetning Dynamic Responses: C ] Other: Absolute Sun (X3 5 A (3 UiFCITy) 6. D4sping: 08t_ 2% _ SSE_ J% lasis for the casoing used: ... ~.. c l 7. Support Consideratiians in the model: _ Rigidly mounted to floor: same as installed'Toii3HIoT~~~~ 8. Critical Structural Elements:- Governing 1.oad or Response Seismic Total Stress A Identification Location Comnination 5 tress Stress Allowable See previous page 4. Naxisum Allowanle Deflec ton 8. Nax. Critical to Assure Functional Coera-Deflection Location bility Not applicable. 1 \\ 1 l 12/B0 l F =

.s IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR INTERNRL STRUCTURE OF R.8. ELEVRTION: 832,50.FT. EEUIPMENT DRMPING: 0 02' 1/2 SSE EARTHQURKE RXt N-S RY s. VERT,. RIr E-H e e. e e.. w ,a Q$~ 2 \\ .e um C Q =/' 'g / r e e.. s RX-I \\ 1 o, / ~~ % ~ ~- ,/ \\- ~ ,g 4,og o',g s o'.ag o'.4s o'.so o'.7s o'.so PERIOD-SEC i TUS. i i e i iiiiie GIbbs S )diff lawk i e i t i e i iI i l I e i i i e i i =tc:y"5 f: i i i i e

== l 5,, ...- e% i qu,.f 9,,.,,,,,.._ -. _..-. _.- ,,,,f,,,,_,,

\\ IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRR FORi' ~ l INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF R.S. 1 ELEVRTION: 832.80 FT. EQUIPMENT ORMPING: 0.04 SSE ERRTHQURKE RX N-S AYn VERT,. RZ: E-W Lo o., m ~ O c. go ci-z f' lE '8 ug- ' s,J. E I RX j E s .~& ,/ ~ '~ } l \\X f C k.00.rir O'.15 0'.30 0'.45-0'.80 0'.75 0'.S 0 PERIDO-SEC TUS ~ 6 i i i i i e i i i i e e i i -e aree, g um,,,, i e i e e e i e -t a g,,= 1tc sm ..-. em i i i i i i i i 9 :,; g ;. -. -. -. 7 -... ,, g a ,--..---.--w-, ,m,--.,----,-e.,m,..v. g--.,,-,,-,m,-- ,,,,--,---,------s

J ...IN-STRUCTURE' RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR: INTERNRL STRUCTURE OF R.B. ELEVRTION: 860.00 FT. EQUIPMENT DRMPING: 0.02 1/2 SSE ERRTHQURKE RX: N-S RY: VERT. RZ: E-W O O 80' O O. OO CDk* N z .* RX =O s' AZ ue g~- y \\ 5 I l i ar O \\. s/ g O \\ y j \\ I ,8 s s o A oO k.00 0'.15 0'.30 0'.45 0'.60 0'.75 0'.90 PERIOD-SEC TUSI d i f i 1 Gibbe B HI!!. freer. unr* su.s m see m cm.=r m -wR4 8

=

"IG.OC 5 IE3 A seu %, j. ; =g ;- - -,-- --_;- - - 2ni, - A w - w-,-,,--w g ,,,a.,,, .,,,,,.e .,.,_,w,

o IN-S,TRUCTURE RE,SPONSE SPECTRR FOR: INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF R.B. ELEVRTION: 860 00 FT. EQUIPnENT ORnPING: 0 04 $$E ERRTHQURKE RX: N-S RY: VERT. RZ: E-W 1 e o..; i 8 1 OC $~ oO CN" ......~ ~ '- g. MI / L .e i um U *- /\\ Ax C 1 g I \\' f g ,s Rr \\ l s ct / \\ (- a N ~v J / ,/ ./ e T.00 O'.15 0'.30 0'.45 0'.50 0'.75 0'.90 e. PERIOD-SEC TUSL i i i i

• f erssa c urittna.

m. e s 6 ~ 7,"* " =icc= !)5 A .w. .~., e s, e t __ u,..

ATTACHMENT (21) TO TXX-3678 30. RHR Pump / A meeting was held with the NRC staff on March 2,1983, to present additional information on this item. A revised SQRT form on the residual heat removal pumps was provided and is appended to this attachment. Open items were resolved as follows: A. A footnote was added to the SQRT form that states that motor natural p frequencies were gotten by test. B. WCAP-8230 was examined and accepted generically. C. Westinghouse supplied a letter upgrading qualified life from 3.8 years to 5.0 years for the pump motor and a copy of that letter is also appended to this attachment. A21-1 r w--- w,--

ATTACHMENT (21) APPENDIX A to TXX-3678 ~ Ouaitfication fumar-r of E uiement (February 25, 1983) I. Plant Name: Comanche Peak 1. Utility: Texas Utilities py, 4-loop 2. N533: Westinghouse 3. A/E: Gibbs & Hill gyg II.' Comoonent7 ame Residual Heat Removal Pump / Motor 1. Scope: (,X3M133 (3 BOP Pump Motor 2 2. Model Mumber: 8X20WDF/5810P39 Quantity: 3. Vendor: Ingersoll Rand / Westinghouse Large Motor Division 4. If the comoonent is a cabinet or panel, name and mecal No. of 3e devices included: N/A l 5. Physical Description a. Appearance Verticle. Single Stage Centrifugal Pump b. Dimensions 90" high and 40" diameter (pump / motor assembly) c. Weight Total 9500 lbs. (pump / motor assembly) 6. Location: Building: Safeguards f.levation: 773.5 feet lolt (No. 3 , Size 2" } X[ Wald (Langen 7. Field Mounting Conditions ) 8. a. System in wnich located: Residual Heat Removal b. Functional

Description:

Residual Heat Removal l c. Is the equipment required for [ ] Hot Stanaby [X3 Col: Shut::cwn ( C 3 Both [] Nanter l 9. Pertinent Reference Design Specifications: HE-Spec. 678815 Rev. 2 (Gen. Pump)..W E-Spec. 952516 Rev. 2 (Plant Specific Pump), W E-Spec. 677474 Rev. 0 (Motor),W P.O. 181971 12/80 i --ma-i9,,--n

---

y e9. - - -, + - -

.-,+-.,.,-e-,, -m n-.,,, - -

3 !!!. is I:ui:m: int Availaele_ for Insoection in the Plant: [X] Yes [] :to IV. huicment Qualification Metnoe: [ ] Tes: [X] Analysis C I Comination of Ten ana Analysis Qualificatton Recor ':__ Pump Seismic 10/9/79

• (No.. Title.,and Date) _ME-174 olus Add._Mo. 1 Cospany that Prepared Report:_ Mcdonald _Engra._

Cogany that Reviewed Report:JngersollRand/WestinghouseNTD

Title:

Structural Integrity and Operability Analysis of Residual Heat Removal Pump V. Vibration Inout: 1. Loads considered:

a. CX] Seismic only Sie Note 1.

b. [ 3 Hydro @namic only

c. [ ] Coseination of (a) and (b) 2.

Method of Coseining RA1: []AbsoluteSun (X)SRSS [] 75i.Er7 s5ecun 3. Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs):__ See attached 4. Daming Corresponding to RR5: OBE .02 13E .04 ~ 5. Required Acceleration in Eacn 0irection: [ X] ZPA [ ] Other (iieciFyF 0BE S/S = .25/1.05 F/B. .25/1.05 V= .5/1.05

• 15E 5/5 *

.3/2.T F/B * .3/2.1 Y= .7/2.1

• Plant specific /generici qualification level.

~ 6. Were fatigue effects or other vibration loads considered? C3Yes [ $ No !Y yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program: l ' NOTE: If more than one report cospieta items IV thm VII for eacn report. NOTE 1: This equipment is located outside containment and not subject to any hydrodynamic loads such at LOCA. Additionally,/80 12 nozzle loads are specified t,o limit loads transmitted to pump through the piping system.

l. !!!. Is i:ui: ment Availaelt for Inscection in the Plant: [X] yes [] ;ga lY. E:ui: ment Qualification Method: [ ] Test B3 Analysis C I Cone 1r.ation of Test. anc Analys.is Qualification Recort*: Motor sei:mic

• (No., Title.,ana Date)

M010101 7/30/82 Costany that Prepared Report: _ Westinghouse NTD Cospany that Reviewed Report: Westinghouse NTD

Title:

Seismic Analysis Report for the Residual Heat Removal Pump Motor V. Vibration Incut: (motor) 1. Loads considered:

a. CX] Seisstc only See Note 2

b. C 3 Hydrodynamic only

c. C 3 Costination of (a) and (b) 2.

Method of Coscining RRE: [ ] Absolute Sun (X]SRSS [] 75ITsiCliecuyj 3. Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs): See attached 4. Dasping Corresponding to RRS: OBE .02 SSE .04 ~ 5. Required Acceleration in Each 0irection: [X] ZPA [ ther (iiieciiv7""

• 08E S/S.

.25/1.05 F/8 = .25/1.05 Y= .50/1.05

• SSE'

$/5 * .30/2.1_ F/8 *__.30/2.1 Y* .70/2.1

• Plant specific / generic 6.

Were fatipe effects or other vibration loads considered? C3Yes CK 3 No !Y yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualificaston progras: ' NOTE: If more than one report cospiete; items IV thru VII for eacn report. NOTE 2: This equipment is located outside containment and not 1U80 subjected to any hydrodynamic loads such as LOCA. Additionally, this motor has been qualified under the generic W IEEE 323-74 prograni (see next page).

1- !!!. Is hui: ment Availacle for Inscection in the slant: [X] Yes r] ,.g o

• V.

huiement Qualification Method: (MotorInsulationSystem) CX 3 Test [] Analysis C I Cominatien of Test ann Analys.is Qualification Recort*:__ EOTR - Westinghouse LMD Hotor Insulation (Environmital Testing) (No.. Title.,ano Data) _IOTR A02A Rev.1. July 1931 Costany that Prepared Report:__ Westinghouse NTD__ Cospany that Reviewed Report: Westinghouse NTD (see attached auditable link Tetter for applicability t5T5Enche Peak). V. Vibration Inout: (See Note 3) 1. Loads considered:

4. (X3 Seisste only

b. ( 3 Hydrodynasic only

c. [ ] Costination of (a) and (b) 1.

Method of Comining RRi: ( ) Absoluta Sus (X] 3R33 () 73Uiir 15ecun 3.- Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs): See attached 4. Dasping Corresponding to RRS: OBE.02 SSE_ . 0,5 5. Required Acceleration in Each Direction: [ ] ZPA [ ] Otaar (iiiecifiF 08E 5/3 = N/A F/5 = N/A Y= N/A 33E S/S = n/A F/B

• N/A Y*

N/A 6. Were fatipe effects or other vibration loads considerec7 [X3Yes [ ] No !Y yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program: i _Five OBE's were performed prior to SSE testing. ' NOTE: If sort than one report cospleta itass IV this VII for esca report. NOTE 3: The insula. tion system was tested in accordance with IEEE 323-1974 to qualify the critical portions of the motor $80 which are subject to environmental effects. Seismic testing of the insulation system was included in this test sequence to demonstrate that environmental effects do not degrade the ~2 capability of the critical components in the motor to withstand a seisnlic event. r l l ~ ~ ~ ~ A ,-m-..--m ,,w -,.-,.,,3-

---

__---,.-----,.n,.w w-.,c.-..,

Y!. If Nalification by Test, then Comolete*: (Mottr Insulation System) I, t eaace.: 1. C 3 Single Frequency CX3 Multi-Frequency:.!,Xl sine neat 2. C 3 Stagle Axis ~" [X3 Multi-Azis 3. No. of Qualification Tests: 08E 5 SSE 1 Otner 4 Frequency Range: 1-70 Hz 5. Naturar" Frequencies in Eaca Direction (Sice/ Side, Front /Bacx, Ver.ical): 5/5

• N/A F/B.

N/A y. N/A 6. Method, of Determining Natural Frequen'cies N/A [ 3 Lab Test []In-SituTest (3 Analysts 7. TRS enveloping RAS using Multi-Frequency Test (X3 Yes (At acn TRS & RR5 gra:ns C 3 No 8. Input g-level Test: CBE 3/5 = N/A F/3 N/A y. N/A 53E S/S. N/A F/B. N/A y. N/A 9. Laboratory Mounting: ~~ ~ 1- [X } Bolt (No. 4 5ize 3/4" ) [ ] Wald (Lang:n ) (3

10. Functional operability verified:

O(X) Yes ( 3 No (3NctApplicaole

11. Test Results including modifications made:

Test results demonstrate that insulation system, and therefore the motor, meet IEEE 323-74.

12. Other test. perforned (such as aging or fragility test, including results):

Per Note 3 the environmental and seismic tests were performed in saccordance with IEEE 323-1974 sequence requirements.. ' Note: If qualification by a coseination of test and analysis also ccrrelate Item VII. 12/20 9 6 e r emup M** e, e es> esuum=e me -..-m--- ---w -v,

~ VII. If Oualification by Analysis. then comolete: (Pisnp analysis) 1. Method of Analysis: e [X] Static Analysts C 3 Equivalent Static Analysis C 3 Oynamic Analysis: C 3 Time-History C 3 Response Spectrum 2. Naturat Frequencies in Eacn Direction (Side /5f ee. Front /Bacx, Ver.: cal): 3/5 * >15Hz F/8

• _3}35Hz Y=

>35 Hz 5 3. Modal Type: (X)30SeeNote4 ( ] ZD C]10 CX] Finite Element []8eam [ ] Closed Form Soluthn. 4. Q(] Computer Codes: ICES-STRUDL and NASTRAN Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: 1-50 Hz, 2 modes [ ] Mand Calculations 5. Method of Cosetning Dynamic Responses: (X[ Other: Absolute sum C ] SRS [j DIInciTy) c 6. 04sping: OBE. N/A 33E 4f/A Basis for the dancing used: 7. Support Considerations in the model: Assumed ri gid attachment to building with actuSI support configTIation 8. Critical Structural Elements:- See Note 5 Governing Load or Response seismic Total Stress A. Identif3ation Location Combination Stress Stress Allowable Hold down bolts Pump Norm.+SSE+Hozz. (Tensile) 22,671 psi 38,940 psi Loads (Shear) 10.969 psi 17,556 psi Flange Bolts Pump 21,518 psi 24,36.0 psi ~ Maxirum Allowable Def! action' 8. Max. Critical to Assure. Functional Opera-Deflection Location bility N/A NOTE 4: The analysis performed was a 2D analysis. WCAP 8230 was used to convert the 2D results to equivalent 3D accelerations. NOTE 5: As indicated in Item VII.8 and Item V.5, there is considerable margin between actual stresses and allowable stresses; and the plant specific accelerations relative to generic 12/B0 qualification accelerations. f e N EGG 6 eoe .*ee e e +4 ee

==w g -w_. _,- - --,- 7 _-_,._,,yer.,* q* w ._,._m

.-p b a s s 4. VII. If halification by Analysis, then comoyt (Motor Analysis) 1. Method of Analysis: CX3 Static Analysi.s C 3 Equivalent Static Analysis [ 3'3ynamic Analysis: C 3 Time-History [ 3 Response Spe trum 2, Natural Frequencies in Eaca Direction (Side /Sios. Front /Bacx 'tertical): 8 5/5 = >35 Hz F/B =_ k _H7 _ 3,5,Hz_ >3 Y* 3. Mode.1 lype: $33D ( 3 2D C 3 10 $ 3 Finite Elesunt (X) Beam 3 Closed For:s soluth. 4. [X 3 Corputer Codes: WECAN Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: N/A (3HandCalculations 5. Method of Concining Dynamic. Responses: CX[ Other: Absolute Sum ( 3 SA [a UWciTi) 6. Danging: Ogg N/A SSE.N/A Basis for the dancing used: 7. Support ConsiderEtiims in the andel: Motor rigidly supported by pump 8. Critical Structural Elements:- See Note 6 Governing Load or Response Seismic Total Stress A. Identif3ation Location Combination _ Stress Stress Allowable Hold down bolts Motor D.W. + SSE + (Tensile) 30,395 52,000 operating (Shear) 2,343 21,700 Maxinus Allowanla Deflection 8. Max. Critical to Assu s Functional Ocara-Deflection Location Qy 0031 in. Rotor-Stator Clearance Allowable =.0225" l No adverse effect on operability ~ NOTE 6: As indicated in Item VII.8 and Item V.5, there is considerable margin between actual and allowable stresses and also between plant specific and generic acceleration levels.

• Motor frequencies were determined by test by W_ Large Motor Division for shop order numbers 76-F-66285 and 76-F-66286.

12/20 f y

= EN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA F0F SRFEGURRDE BUI1J2ING EE.EVRTION.e 77I.E FT i '. ' EDGEPMENT GRMPING: 0.02. =- T/2" SSE ERRTHQURKE ~- i AX.* E' # RY VERT RIt N-E B m L i cr. o ...e.. -. .....,-. s. :.G.: ;.:v. : +.. .....x .,,,:.'.r-w- e . n. ~..w.. ~c v ... ~ .....:*..'y.9pn.?L,.y;. . - '.:.' 4 '.su.v 0. - : ~P J

",. w

p y-. eden b.Gr 9 '.-. * +'.s.** r.

• j g

.c.:;/.;r a.f..m c-;,,.,;. g... <. y,:k:.. ;. l..E. f,. J .b-b n,:.-: :- 4 .'N. 'a.".,,>,..Jo ...x..u..,... .. r<......M.

n. p...,.:.,.c...

+

s..;c,.

...A.. g ..., g3 .. w . a. ......- ir_. %..,a,.--.- .-.........a.,.,..s w. ..r.

.~. :v,.,. 3m

. ;4.t=.En-#S@.n.,,..,-. ~.@;;& :w$.; W.. :. - fw.@.m x:mc r ..r. -j.rr.e r;: : ** ~ '. Z., - l. 6

4.., :.:.,,.,3..:

r. :.y:.w.

w. .~.

r. t.,.C+.#m <' ?k. k. d. -:.

.<..n.. : '~:: - a?:.,. ~,.. r. e u <-M f G L.? - r. c.*:"'" -

- er

. >.g. M, M S.

...: :.s -..a %.a.'! n i s;a4 fiQ@ct.! '.l.74 '.'.L

..CACL .w,- .. m.. e .a -...a.c.,,1...w,,.v..,:.c + ...-.....s..a,..... w -.s_... ..,.,,,,c y s. s. g a s s g. Rr. em

.. - ~.

.... k.: ..a.,;,;i. y.. t . y

y., --

'i . x mmm, ....e. gy ./. ....;-,... u *... w.M s.. 85, f......s. .~..:.... lr.. . +.... a e,..... r..... W ::-id.ns: & d.sa d.ss-a stt a 75 a.sa n :w. i ' 6:.fM. t f.m s - W W w.e RE!EIau.-SEC ..::m g.:: ~-'www=.:4.M.:. c-. ...pu..ars:m.;.y.w...w4 + u...y ~ :- l t . -..'n.- .2.....

. ; c. -

~ 1 i 6-i I t 49ttes KNIFr/= ennen I ammmmmm.amumma camsummun. .;ta m w en ses.umn. E MEems..- mmm,.! no i sun l mme,.,,,, eme um, ,,,,. 7 g,.7,,y,. A e y --v w w-w--w- -mw-----yy--,,-g-

f g i c.-f. IN-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRR FOR : 4 [ ".,,aE-;..,: M.. " SRFEDURRDS* SUTT. DING ...: y.~v.. ..- EE.EVRTt0N.: 773.5 FT ~ 1.. 2-:;,T.; ',0.% W EQUIP!1ENT' DRMFLNG: a 04 SSE ERRTHQURKE p RX S E:4L R't' VERT Rt:. N-S g C2.- 13 .? i.i,. { ' - ~ i. ..s >.:.: o...; c.. n.m.. i - . gg. m q =' M,w..,. :.. .:.t. %:l.-agr L,D...:f.-ar '..:. k?. A... :.. ~. .4.. .C f 4 . ri.v. 574..M*.W. t ". #.:.&.. r.M..:'...-- 9.. . u. t-* T- /

g.

.a ... s.

v..se....

..;. p~.g:W:nfr.;,.. -.. y.. s M.. ~ g,,, cia-,;...~. ;%,.ec a i.e -n 3.=t.'...+,~'.4 .k. .w g , 4. - '.&. A ..... P' t r? ' m,::.c. &:-M:.. :..:.n. r:. n : L. r *? m.: ' q:g,gA..a.&;.. s .m. ...a.M =W e.on unieg.p,4;g,-.w. 4,<., C3 r .qs .-. W.; >.

y.. 7 i....M 9 e.e ia ;r

,.w.. >....s m.._ 4:. r;.y - *-. .s g,C2

• .,.t.,;...,,.

.vmw__ __ ~- - - -.m.. 1 :..,.. J. .. v e " <r.' s.m7nwoners.e.:. :. r <,. - b---.. ~ ..,<d P. ' N.. - T ~4FM' @' ' fMM.m,- a,m+. a.... B.s

y. -

2.,c.w.:.;;-g ge.....: MM'S - - ~ 3P l ' '.,,$O k.4$-.,, h j.hjaqiif...;.4... my .x y].5 ='.'. '-.

• Q=.v I

.3 W.s j ~ .. yQ** *'. E

f.. if * ~,','. 4M,.

, Q gyQ.I.;.!N. ;.%' f 'y a ..- *,;4 . : -*?. .? .5' . na* s: ' . o. p. <1 .... s;.,.. .e \\ e. ( c ., p..,..: :. C e na .'..n.-.......v. .;.h,.,;;.;,,,,.;.,;; :n p: g,.t,;a.z.: >.... q.y : _ s- .s.c..:.. s. a....,. t.,. g.. ,e 'E3, a _,4,w.. s. p .c s. y. ,, n,.... a . F.;. -:n .a : - -:-,e.%M}...;f 4.f-y. L,g,<v:..,.m. -- '.e.;.-. m.. - n.y>- 4':... Y~4::. - .,.. p:. -. w s... - r -...: ....'W:. =. : a.o + ~-:.w er s -t. .a ; L 5 b e :.'W..,JWm s.i.xCts'.:Md.axv. =:!. d 45 ' c-sti 11s a.sa.

• = * '

< -r : -u-i: h&EiEMe PERIGII-SEC. 1.;.*. *.. a.d. ss.i%.,,,, s1-C'%r*f.:.".6= w. =.?)h.'f..f i .Ly.,' la.J.. !,. f.. s, 6 .e ,g * .t. ...v....,,- 1. - c s.e. . in.'n@m 4.w.u. p.r. ,,,..o- ..:...%. 4.,s.,..glf.I$,v e..%..u.1 ~:-

l..-

.........:..,..c. p. .m. [ I I I gree E MFr. hem, waar. W88" fM M ME S6 U T*g Wh% 4,., = -. e.= ,,me,umn, g r e, g

ESTINGIOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 ) 6...e 2 ) SSE 1 loo.tw r t t icJ. y, ., _,s 3,,. i. -u- -.r.: : t 1; W 8 M ~ 1.r =._. 8 ,i r e ..a -.7 o.1 : 2 o.1 1.o reveuency (sia.) 10.o 100.0 ,.A' i i Figure 28. Stator-SSE Position No. 1 Test Response Spectrum Control Accelerometer 5% damping v 53 1 l i e , J ---,,-_,,.-_.__wm.,_- n n -e _,,________s_

ESTINGH0USE PRDPRIETARY. CLASS 2 ~. 5.:.c sst ico.m i 8 IoJ. e

7..'

O Ja p. ~ 3 1; M. 1.r:. = 3 C 8l' .....a o.1 1.o Freeuency(us.) 10.0 100.0 0 Figure 30. Stator-SSE Position No. 2 Test Response F Spectrum control Accelerometer 55 damping %,./ 55

.. ~ 1 ESTING400$E PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 D m sst 100.tk. A \\_ J e .+ 10.a. 4 ?'. g E', ._+.. y t M, M ~ 1.6, ~ l i t a = f' v 0.1., e s...,..= 0.1 1.0 Frecuency (183.) 10.0 100.0 j Figure 32. Stator-SSE Position No. 3 Test Response Spectrum Control Accelerometer 5% damping '~ v' 57 l

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 1

s. _

e. e .t.:.t sst too.th, - p = _ - =1.. ....i j _= w w . _. =a= = = __, _..). -. -::=.= 10.s.._ 0 'g __..'m.-$__

• h* EW P '-b9" W

~_ __ m; w_. pg .r . - x_.- ~ O =_- tca-3 =:. .h. '. ~ _ _ - _ ~ _ Q F3.M_ en t At .s 1.6 _= _.____4.__- _ _. __ _-_ n__.. = _. _ _ -, p-_ 7 ..m %..q >, q_wy e.l e. .......= o.1 1.o revoisency (sis.) 1o.o 100.0 e Figure 33. Stator-SSE Position No. 4 Test Response Spectrum Control Accelerometer 55 damping 58

~~ WRD-NTD Equipment Engineering Mechanical Design and Qualification J'/, 249-5429 n m May 17, 1982 ,Ip w Comanche Peak Auxiliary Purip Motor Serial Numbers to A. Petronis - ITTC cc: D. Rygg - 1TTP E.J. Rusnica - MNC 323 m 'cr - MNc auen A.T. Parker - MC 529 TAA Anderson ~- nm Ab] M. Torcaso - MNC 528 M.J. Zegar - MNC 300 File: 206(EQ)/4-1 J.M. Snider - MC 306 206(EQ)/4-3 M.E. Kamenic - MNC 306 Attached are the motor serial numbers and seismic report numbers for the Class IE Auxiliary pumps supplied to Comanche Peak. This attachment includes the missing seismic report for the RHR that was missing on our letter AEE-AP-184 dated August 24,1981. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Approre&\\ y M% w' t R. Wessel L.I. Walkei, Manager Mechanical Equipment Qualification Mechanical Equipment Qualification JJ attachment necmo om: I

Utility-Texas Utilities Plant-Comanche Peak 1 & 2. TBX/TCX EQDP AE-2 applies to the following motors Applicable Seismic Puno Serial No. Report (1) Residual Heat Removal TBX 76-F-66285 M010101 TrX 76-F-66286 M010101 ~ Safety Injection TBX 76-F-60181 76-F-60903 TCX 76-F-60182 76-F-60903 Charging / Safety TBX 76-F-60168 76-F-60169 Injection TCX 76-F-60171 76-F-60169 Notes: (1) Reports are on file at Westinghouse. They are available for audit. to e*e eenee-a me e e, oce en agem W e - r y

---

g-

~ -., - - - - - - - - -, - w ,e. .e--------ww w 4 w,-- v-rav w,- -w--v---

4 4 Utility-Texas Utilities Plant-Comanche Peak 1 & 2. TBX/TCX EQDP AE-3 applies to the following motors Applicable Seismic P.,gg, Serial No. Report (1) Boric Acid Transfer TBX-19853-121 A-16799 (2) TBX-19853-122 A-16799 (2) TCX-19853-137 A-16799 (2) TCX-19853-138 A-16799 (2) Boron Injection TBX-19853-125 A-16799(2) Recirculation TBX-19853-126 A-16799 (2) TCX-19853-139 A-16799 (2) l TCX-19853-140 A-16799(2) Notes: (1) Reports am on file at Westinghouse. They are available for audit. (2) See P.O. 169470 Transfer from CSL. e . ~.... g ._..a .r..

. PAO ATTACHMENT (21) APPENDIX B to 'XX-3678 Westinghouse Water Reactor mancomnew Electric Corporation DMsions 08""*'55'**a eens PmsewghPenrepvane15230 WPT-4910 Ref.: MDQ-EQ-264 L Mr. J. T. Merritt Engineering & Construction Manager Texas Utilities Services, Inc. P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION NRC Environmental Qualification Audit l I

Dear Mr. Merritt:

During the recent (8/30-8/31/82) NRC Environmental Qualification Audit, some specific questions arose concerning EQDP (AE-2) for large Pump Motors as well as questions with regard to EQDP-AE-3, ESE-6 ESE-21, HE-4 and SP-1. This letter will address the AE 2 concerns. The remaining EQDP questions will be l answer thru separate correspondence. Qualification of the large pump motors is documented in WCAP-8587 EQDP-AE-2 and WCAP-8687 Supp. 2-A02A.. The items requiring clarification relate to the qualified life of the Comanche Peak motors in an ambient temperature of 50'C. The ambient in the pump area is 50*C with or withogt ventilation according to a telecon with J. R. Zengler of Texas Utilities Generating Company on September 8,1982. The Large Motors for Comanche Peak consist of motors for the Residual Heat Removal, Safety Injection, and Charging / Safety Injection pumps. The motors were qualified for a life of 3.8 years at a motor internal (hot spot) temperature of 130*C. Motor temperature rise is determined by Naticnal Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) . standards No. MG 1 part 20.40. The allowable temperature rise for Class B insulation 'is 80*C by resistance or 90'C by embedded detector for a motor operating in an ambient of 40*C. The allowable temperature rise for class B insulation is 70'C by resistance or 80*C by embedded detector for a motor operating in an ambient of 50*C, ror a-motor operating in an ambient of 40*C or 50*C, it can, therefore, be seen that the total temperature of the motor, as measured by embedded detector is 130*C. This is the reason why the motor life of 3.8 years is referenced to this temperature. The actual temperatura rise for a particular motor is dependent on the detailed design of the motor, and the load imposed by the driven equipment. The temperature rise for the motor will vary depending on the flow rate of the pump and, therefore, will . vary according to the pump duty cycle; The actual hot spot temperature has been l calculated to be a maximum of 122*C,112*C, and 108'C for the Residual Heat Removal, Safety Injection, and Charging / Safety Injection pump motors respectively. This i l ~ I l

Mr. J. T. Merritt WPT-4910 September 13, 1982 assumes the ambient temperature is 50'C and also includes 8'C margin as suggested by IEEE 323-1974. Calculations are on file at Westinghouse which show that based upon temperatures above, the motors are qualifled for five years plus one year of operation after an accident for the Comanche Peak plants. On September 9,1982, the NRC identified an additional concern relating to mounting of the large pump motors. The question relates to providing a link between the seismic qualification and the actual mounting in the field. The motors are to be mounted in accordance with the instruction mar.ual as specified in EQDP AE-2 section 1.2. The motor is qualified for the seismic event by analysis as explained in part 4 of the EQDP. Paragraph 4.2 of the EQDP provides the specific parts of the motor which are considered in the motor analysis. The motor report states that the mounting configuration is to be analyzed by the pump supplier. The pump seismic reports listed below and the motor seismic reports 76F60093(SI), 76F60169 (charging /SI}, and M010101(RNR) identified in the TBX auditable link document assure that the motor is mounted horizontally or vertically using the motor feet to a baseplate which is mounted to the floor. Vertical motors are mounted vertically and are mounted on top of the pump. They are attached to a motor support by a flange located at the base of the motor. The pump seismic reports which consider the mounting are on file at Westinghouse and are referenced below. M Report No. Safety Injection Pump K-436 Charging / Safety Injection Pump K-435 Residual Heat Removal Pump ME-174 If there are any additional questions, please contact me. Very truly yours. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION k A. T. Parker, Manager WRD Comanche Peak Project ATP/tlj cc: J. T. Merritt lL R. D. Calder IL H. C. Schmidt il R. E. Ballard IL J. C. Shenly 1L J. C. Kuykendall IL

6. C. Creamer IL ARMS lt

ATTACMENT (22) TO TXX-3678 32. Electric Hydrogen Recombiner/ At a meeting held with the NRC staff on March 2,1983, additional information was provided on this item. A revised SQRT form on the hydrogen recombiner was provided and is appended to this attachment. This revised SQRT form outlines references, pertinent reports, site spectra, mounting information damping values, and sequential testing information. A22-1

4 ATTACHMENT (22) APPENDIX A to TXX-3678 Qualification Sumarv of Ecuf oment (February 25. 1983) l I, Plant Name: Comanche Peak 7&, Texas Utilities X 1. Utility: 2. N533: Westinahouse 3. A/E: Gibbs & Hill 3WR l II. Comoonent7ame Model B Electric Hydrogen Recombiner i 1. Scope: (X 3 RS33 (3 BOP 2. Model Number: Model B Quantity: 2 per unit 3. Vendor: Westinghouse 4. If the component is a cabinet or panel, name and model No. of 2e devices included: Ref. Westinghouse Drawing 8965D40 5. Physical Description a. Appearance Cabinet Structure ] I b. Dimensions 47" x 55" x 96" ~ c. Weight 00 lbs. 8. Location: Suilding: Containment' Elevation: 905' 7. Field Mounting Conditions Q Bolt (No. 8 . Size 1" ) Weld (Langtn ) 8. a. Systes in wnich located: Hydrogen Recombiner System Recombines hydrogen in PWR reactor b. Functional

Description:

containment followina a costulated LotA. c. Is the equipment required for [ ] Not Staney [ ] Cata5 hut:cwn C 3 Both 0( 3 N e?:str 9. Pertinent Reference Design Specifications: ' Electric Rydrogen Recombiner Model B Technical Manual E Spec 953426 l 12/80 O e

• e h b88*h & 4 Wee
• h et em 59 owe e me* M ese ease wom _

.Z. 111. Is Ecutoment Availacle for_ Inspection in the Plant: [X3 Yes [ ] no IV. Ecuioment Qualification Metnod: [x3 Test C 3 Analysis [ I Concination of Test. and Analysis Qualification Report *: WCAP 9345 ,(No.. Title.,and Data) lualification testing for Model B Electric 1 Hydroaen Recwbiner Coscany that Prepared Report:_ Westinghouse Cospany that Reviewed Report: Westinghouse V. Vibration Input: 1. l.oads considered:

a. CX3 531ashc onlyI A C 3 Hydrikynamic only

c. ( 3 Coseination of (a) and (b) 1.

Method of Coneining RA1: C3Absolutesus CX)5R55 []7EMr~ specun 3. Required Response Spectra-{ attach the graphs): See attachgFigure 1. 4. Dasping Corresponding to RR5: 08( _ - SSE' 4%, 5. Required Acceleration in Each Direction: [ ] ZPA []Other NA (sFCITil OBE 5/5 = NA F/5 = NA Y= NA SSE S/5

• NA F/5 *__ _ _ _. NA V*

NA 6. Were fatipo effects or other vibration loads considered? C XI Yes [ 3 No !Y yes, describe loads considered and how they were treated in overall qualification program: 5 OBE tests were performed in the initial _ orientation (multi-frequency / multi-axis) ' NOTE: If sere than one report cospieta itass !Y thru YII for each report. 12/80 This equipment is only subjected to seismic loads; there are no other dynamic loads on this equipment. Environmental effects are considered as part of IEEE 323-1974. test seguence. e y e ~

4

• 2 VI.

If Qualification by Test, then Comolate*: (multi-frequency)- l [FX1 ranac.:: Xl sine neat (single freq.) 1. [X 3 Single Frequency ( 3 Multi-Frequency: ,,, 5 beats (10 cpb) 9 each 2. [ ] Single Axis CX3 Multi-Axis test frequency 3. No. of Qualification Tests: OK 5 55E4 multi-Other freguency IUitiIYyT 4 Frequency Range: 1 33 Hz 48 single freq. ' 5. NaturaT'Trequencies in Eact Direction ($1de/ Side. Front /Back, Ver ical): 11 7 5/5 = 12.0 F/5 = y. >33 Hz 6. Method, of Determining Natural Frequen~cies Ex1 Lab Test t3In-SituTest ( 3 Analysis 7. TRS enveloping RAS using Mult,i-Frequency Test (X3 Yes (Attaen TRS & RR5 gra;:ns (,3No (see attached figures 2&3) 8. Input g-level Test: QE 5/5 = 'NA F/8 = NA y. NA SSE 5/5 = NA F/8 = NA y= NA 9. Laboratory Mounting: 1-8 unc 4 Socket Head Cap Screws Torque - 12,500 in-lbs. 1 CX} Bolt (No. 8 $12e I" ) [ 3 Wel'd (Langen ) [] ~

10. Functional operability verified: (X3Yes []No

[ ] Not Appl 1caole

11. Test Results including modifications ande:

Test results were acceptable and structural integrity demonstrated. No modifications were made t eh! ment.

12. Other test perforsed (sucir as aging or fragility test, inclucing results):

WCAP 9346 - Sec. 4-2 " Qualification Testing for Model B_ Hydrogen Recombiner" TEEE-323-1974 - Sequence Testing l =Hote: If qualification >; we#>.ation of test and analysis also cormlete Ites VII. 2 Single frequency sine beat tests and multi-frequency sine beat tests were performed in four (4) orientations, each 90 degrees apart. 12/20 l 8 e e r w e-1 l

-4 l V21. Q alification by Analysis, then conolete-N/A 1. Method of Analysis: [ ] 5tatic Analyst.s [ ] Equivalent static Analysis [ 3 Oynamic Analysis: [ ] Tlas-History [3ResponseSpec. rum 2. Naturei Frequencies in Each Direction (Side / Side. Front /8acx, Vertical): 5/5 =_ F/3 = y= 3. Modal Type: [ ] 3D []ZD [ 3 10 []FiniteElement [] Beam [ ] Closed For:n Solutiin. l 4. C 3 Cosouter Codes: l Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: [ ] Mand Calculations t 5. Method of Cosetning Dynamic Responses: ( Absolute sus [ ] SASS L [J Other: TiiiciT~yJ l 8. Daging: 08E , SSE - Basis for the dasping used: 7. Support Considerati'ns in the adel: o 8. Critical Structurel Elemnts:_ Governing Load or Response seismic Total Stress A. Identif3ation Location Coeination Stress Stress Allowable l l l Maxirum Allowable Deflection' B. lias. Critical to Assure. Functional Opera- __ Deflect 1on Location bility 9 12/E0 e e e e me go, n +,

• pew g g-,w--

g 9 y-w,w,m ,-yy wy-w,- yf-, -,_.------w--- -,,-,,eray. wee-en-wy----

FIGURE.1.0 ( .~ IW-STRUCTURE RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR: casiat stauctuRE w n.s. vat 1ews sos.7s rt. IPf1ENT Dat1PIWgs c.04 1 mRTM9UaKg s AYs VERTe az: E.W 8 y l Q .4* ,,, big y S ,g jg sp - s t g .~ g \\ s t e t .s G R g yY l \\V s = s / s r r N. g .00 O'.15 0'.30 O'.45 0'.80 o'.75 ' c'.so PERIOD-SEC TUSI ~ i Or66e a um m ~u .m w__ ,1... %, yw. - r PIC O c.E !!S A = = un. A ~/G # .,-.,.;...,..,__.y,.7.,. .{ .. * = ...a 1

FIGURE,2.0 , I EQUIPMENT: ELECTRIC NYDROGEN RECOMBINER MODEL 8 1 I I 1 I 1 Y I I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 l 1 1 Y ] I I i .........................................................................................................................[ l \\ = 3. ~ 100.0 i I t \\ l!' l e n-n a A; r fl% v %r a y 8 [ d ' V j ! li0.0 J J ! I \\ n uanyinis. I \\ nn < ane,n a i-m, se. II H s A, .m 1-+- n, m.,., ;. III I i \\ At i 6 3/ 11) \\ \\ l i 1 18' G \\ \\ ! lt i ~ . /M/ / \\ \\\\ l l ii i [ [ l Y l \\,l l ) 1.0 u 1 x m s i t V / I i i .i I I i n s / f / LAmm,r1

FIAK t 1 ux/iLi) i l

/, /

• f RF. ACTOR BLIG. (; NTERNAL STRljC1 -)

f J / L.;;VAI NN: 9D5, 75 FT J n l J I I r_etri an r.u. u. e, e-a 1 I g / 5E DAMP (NG 1 =,....... ..!...i.,....;.. .......l.4-l I i i l i III I I I i 11 II11 1 I I I I I I I I E.. ,i.

1. .1

~ 1.0 vneoususymal i0.0 100.0 ~ \\ l t l

==/*) m. i e s -i-,--+-t Pamwp-,v ww-ww+-yg--p-==---w-myc.

---

m-www.e w e

-.-----w-mw,w-w - - =, -., - -. - -. -

's FIGURE 3.0 EQUIPMENT: ELECTRIC HYDROGEN RECOM81NER .MODEL B g y 3 I I I I E I Y I I I I 1 1 I I I I y 1 1 1 y ... = n. 7 ~ 100.0 i e

• t I I f

e 11 l I. a A f T t. ,lv is r %.r g J. ' 'h h [Nd m b k 10.0 J j i X rnam,4 rut nAna \\ s gar n tuefue. 1 1 F I II H e i . A e a i i i / i x xi i ,1_ ; V L \\ \\ l ! /d ' \\ \\ i l i 8N \\ \\.' i t 6 i JVt / r / N ~ i f l ,Y 1.0 t, i am u, x u r i s .. i Y / I / ,t I / / f f / WFm,rL rtMR g i,)A/ i L,,() j g; i- ./ NC RL llJP DLUh. ( 11t i t;MML2 IMhlG1 l l i- / / / LLUM lJU1 EJD. r3 Pi i l '~ )f / / WFD1 Tra t I I ~ l l l 51 EM ING i i i i a-l . m._,,..........g.........g........g. ..... 3..... 3.........g........g ............. 4........ ....... g........ 3 ..,....E. l IIII l I I I I llil I I I I I IIlli l i l i ,i. . 1 1.0 'Pmeopency *W 10.0 100.0 v j -g- .. -...- y.. _.-.-.-- t T gr** ""'e*w---*'w+'rN-wr-w -'*'T-rr*'we-wwww as r-w me - nwe ew ,e---woree e ee---- --<-ye_w.--wi--e e gi--+-m.

• 'r-%vr'-

-r--- -iw-- &-e}}