TXX-5006, Forwards Revised FSAR Pages Scheduled for Future FSAR Amend. Changes Resulted from Requalification of Class 2 & 3 Piping & Class 1,2 & 3 Pipe Supports

Forwards Revised FSAR Pages Scheduled for Future FSAR Amend. Changes Resulted from Requalification of Class 2 & 3 Piping & Class 1,2 & 3 Pipe Supports

ML20210B181
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	09/12/1986
From:	Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
References
TXX-5006, NUDOCS 8609170482
Download: ML20210B181 (177)

Text

E Log # TXX-5006 File # 10010 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY RKFWAY TOWER . 400 NORTH OLIVE frTREET. L.B. 81

• DALLAS. TEXA8 78201 September 12, 1986 ES$"AfSfE*.S Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn: Vince S. Noonan, Director Comanche Peak Project Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

DOCKET NOS. 50-445 and 50-446 FSAR AMENDMENT

Dear Mr. Noonan:

Enclosed is an advanced copy of FSAR changes scheduled for a future FSAR amendment. These changes result from the requalification of Class 2 and 3 piping and Class 1, 2 and 3 pipe supports being performed by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC). The content of these changes were discussed with the NRC staff in the Bethesda meeting of August 28, 1986.

The FSAR changes consist of changes to FSAR Section 3.78, changes to FSAR Section 3.9B and the creation of Appendix 3B. All new, non-editorial changes in Sections 3.78 and 3.9B are identified by an amendment bar with "Rev."

printed adjacent to it. Past changes will have an amendment number adjacent to the amendment bar. Since Appendix 3B is new, it has no amendment bars.

NRC review of these changes is requested as soon as possible.

Very truly yours, 175 W. G. Counsil BSD/amb Enclosure c - C. Trammell (0 + 20 Copies) 02 860912 kD[300cx03000445 A

PDR A DIVENION OF TEXAN 81Til2TIEN E12CD'NIC notPANY BooI q 19

CPSES/FSAR 3.78.1.3 Critical Damoino Values The specific percentages of critical damping values used,for Category I structures, systems, and components are based on the materials,

. stress levels, and type of connections of the particular structure or component. They are determined in accordance with the recommendations of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61 and Reference [14]. For piping systems analyzed by the response spectrum method, ASME Code Case N-411 damping Rev.

values may also be used in lieu of the damping values in Regulatory Guide 1.61.

Structure and component damping values used in the response spectrum and time history analyses are given in Table 3.7-1. Damping factors associated with foundation springs ~are discussed in Section 3.7.2.4.

Damping values for Westinghouse equipment are shown in Section 3.7N.

4 3.78-4a i

CPSES/FSAR paints of support the total number of degrees of freedom is reduced by the number of constraints at these points. Reduced degrees of freedom are acceptable provided the analysis adequately and conservatively predicts the dynamic response of the equipment. '

b. A dynamic analysis is performed to determine the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the mathematical model.

c. The participation factors for each direction of support motion are calculated.

d. For each signific. ant mode a spectral response value corresponding to the modal. natural frequency is determined from the applicable floor response spectra.

e. The modal responses consisting of modal absolute accelerations, 20 modal relative displacements, and modal inertia loads are calculated for a sufficient number of modes. The results are combined by the SRSS method as described in paragraph 3.78.3.7 or other methods in conformance with USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.92.

The number of modes chosen is considered adequate provided the inclusion of additional modes does not result in more than a 10%

increase in responses, or based upon evaluation of the dynamic participation factors to assure that all significant modes have t

been included.

An analytical technique, developed in accordance with NUREG/CR-1161 (Reference 41), is used for piping systems to account for Rev.

( the modal contribution above the cutoff frequency.

j Structurally simple equipment and systems, which can be l represented either by a single degree,-of-freedom model or a L simple mathematical model, and equipment and subsystems which have been found to have no natural frequencies below 33 Hz are 20 generally analyzed by the equivalent static load method as

described in Section 3.7B.3.5.

l l

! 3.7B-58a

CPSES/FSAR The seismic response loads obtained by either the modal response a'nalysis or equivalent static load method are combined with all other external loads such as operating loads, hydrodynamic loads, and piping interaction loads for design purposes. Non-linear responses of subsystems are considered on an individual basis where such phenorrena are identified as existing, and are 20 accounted for by analysis. Such an analysis was performed to-account for the predetermined support clearance tolerances of the Service Water Intake Structure pumps.

For further details on seismic analysis methods, see Section 3.78.2.1.

Rev.

3.78.3.2 Determination _of_ Number of_Earthouake_ Cycles The number of maximum amplitude loading cycles is specified for seismic Category I structures, systems, and components as a minimum of 20 l 600 loading cycles for the OBE, and 120 loading cycles for the SSE.

For ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems including supports for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping a minimum of 50 loading cycles for the Rev.

OBE and 10 loading cycles for the SSE is specified.

3.78.3.3 Procedure _Used__for_Modelina The dynamic analysis of any complex system requires the discretization of its mass and elastic propercies. This is accomplished by concentrating the mass of the system at distinct characteristic points or nodes, and interconnecting them by a network of elastic springs representing the stiffness properties of the systems, which are computed either by hand calculations for simple systems, or by finite element methods for more complex systems. Nodes are located at all mass concentrations and at additional points within the system,

~

l selected in such a way as to provide an adequate representation of the mass distribution of the system. At each node, degrees of freedom 3.7B-58b

CPSES/FSAR corresponding to translations along three orthogonal axes, and rotations about these axes are assigned. The number of degrees of freedom is reduced by the number of constraints, where applicable.

2 For equipment qualification, reduced degrees of freedom are acceptable provided the analysis adequhtel'y and conservatively predicts the response of the equipment.

For additional description of modeling procedures see -Sections 3.78.2.3 and 3.78.3.1.

3.7B.3.4 Basis for Selection of Frequencies In general, subsystems can be analyzed using time history or model response spectrum methods, or both.

1 l

l l

l 1

I i

3.7-58c

CPSES/FSAR Critical areas of valve and piping inside the Containment are affected '

by relative motion between the Containment Building and the internal structure. Similar criteria are followed in these areas, especially at elevations where relative movements between Containment wall and internal structure are greater.

Piping is analyzed as an elastic system subject to thermal loadings and given displacements at anchor points.

Two analyses are made to determine the following:

1. Stresses imposed by thermal movements between equipment and anchors and by anchor movements between structures Rev.

2. Dynamic stresses imposed by seismic loading as a result of relative motion of buildings Each piping system is idealized as a mathematical model consisting of lumped masses connected by elastic members. In order to adequately represent the-dynamic and elastic characteristics of the piping

~

system, lumped masses are located at carefully selected points.

Sufficient mass points are located to ensure that all modes with frequencies less than 33 Hz are -considered in the analysis. The 20 number of degrees of freedom is verified to be equal to or greater than twice the number of modes with frequencies less than 33 Hz. In the modeling of the piping system, valves, reducers, tee and branch connections attached to the pipe are included. The location, type and stiffness of supports provided are reviewed and included in the analysis.

46 Anchors with all six degrees restrained have thermal movement included in the analysis (i.e., anchors at equipment nozzles, containment penetrations, or embedded pipes).

3.78-61

CPSES/FSAR There are three (3) categories of displacement for each direction of earthquake. -Two of these categories represent rigid body motion of the structure, motions that are common to all points on the structure.

Thethirdcategory.represen[ts'deformationofthestructure,thatis relative displacements of points on the structure.

20 When all of the points of fixity are located on a single structure, the rigid body motions of the structure, translation and rotation, do not result in relative motion of the points of fixity. Since the third category of displacement, deformation of the structure, represents a small portion of the total displacement profile, the effects of this displacement on the points of fixity are neglected.

For piping passing between buildings or equipment mounted on individual structures or foundations (such as big tanks), the relative displacement of support points located in different structures is considered in piping stress analysis.

Maximum relative displacements in two horizontal and the vertical direction between piping supports and anchor points between buildings are used as equivalent static displacement boundary conditions in order to calculate the secondary stresses of the piping system.

Relative seismic displacements used are obtained from a dynamic 20 analysis of the structures, and are always considered to be out-of-phase between different buildings and the equipment if applicable to obtain the most conservative piping responses.

l 3.78.3.8.1.1 Simplified Design Method Class 2 and 3 piping systems, whose nominal diameter is 4-inches or 38 l less and whose temperature is less than 2000F, may be analyzed by this Simplified Design Method.

20 This method considers all loading resulting from pressure, deadweight, seismic, thermal expansion and anchor movements for all piping within 3.78- 62 L

CPSES/FSAR the scope of this procedure. Each loading or combination of loads is evaluated for the stress requirements specified for the plant operating conditions as defined in the ASME Code Section III for Class 2and3pipingsystemsand[ Table 3.98-1B.

The Simplified Design Method uses a conservative static seismic analysis based on the stress criteria as outlined below in order to establish the span between seismic support and to determine seismic loads on piping supports, anchors, and equipment nozzles. It provides spacing between deadweight supports and the corresponding loads acting on them.

The Simplified Design Method presents also a method of evaluating

thermal flexibility of the piping systems and determination of thermal loads.

The basic steps included in the simplified design method are as follows:

20

1. Seismic support spacing is calculated based on the stress criteria. The individual stress contributions in the eg. 9 of the ASME Code,Section III, Subsection NC are as follows: the stress due to dead weight is equal to 0.1Sh , the stress due to pressure is equal to 0.5Sh and the stress due to seismic loading is equal to 0.6Sh-In order to evaluate the seismic stress level in the piping, the value of seismic acceleration is o' tained b by the SRSS method from three applicable response spectra, one vertical and two horizontal. The response spectra of the building and/or structure are selected for the highest elevation of the analyzed piping.

?

3.78- 62a  ;

CPSES/FSAR Reducing factors are used to obtain the seismic support span for piping with concentrated masses such as valves and for piping with bends, reducers, tees, etc. The reduction of the seismic span assures' compliance with allowable stress limits of the ASME Section III code.

2. Thermal expansion of piping system and thermal and seismic anchor movements are used in order to select the type of seismic supports. The piping system is subdivided into simple configurations such as a guided cantilever, expansion loop, etc. The thermal expansion is evaluated for each piping configuration and the type of pipe support (rigid or snubber) is established in order to meet the allowable secondary stress level SA-20

3. A simplified conservative method is used to obtain the thermal and seismic loads acting on pipe supports and anchors.

High Energy Fluid Piping Systems, as defined by NRC BTP APSCP 3-1 are not covered by this method unless break locations are postulated at every fitting, valve and welded attachment.

Piping systems that are subject to the occasional loads such as water hammer and the dynamic effects of LOCA are not covered by simplified method.

Normal and Upset Opera' ting Conditions The effects of pressure, weight and other sustained mechanical loads must meet the following:

l PDo .751 MA Rev. (8) + 1Sh Sst = ,

4tn Z r

3.78-62b

CPSES/FSAR where:

P = internal design pressure, psi Do -outsidediametero'fpjpe,in.

tn = nominal wall thickness, in.

MA = resultant moment loading on cross section due to weight and other sustained loads, in-lbs.

i - stress intensification _ factor (0.75111)

Z = section modulus of pipe, in3 Sh = basic material allowable stress at design temperature, psi 20 Occasional Loads During the upset conditions the effects of pressure, deadweight, other sustained and occasional loads, as defined in the design specification

for upset conditions must meet the following requirements

Pmax Do 0.751 (MA+M) B (9) SOL + 1 1.2 Sh l Rev.

4tn Z Terms same as (8) except:

1 Pmax = peak pressure, psi MB = resultant moment due to occasional loads, such as earthquake (use half range only). Effects of anchor displacements due to earthquake are included in Equation (10).

20 Thermal Expansion The requirements of either equation (10) or equation (11) of section NC-3652.2 must be met. .

3.78- 62c

s CPSES/FSAR (a) The effects of thermal expansion must meet the requirements of equation (10) i Mc . .

(10) SE" .I SA Z

Terms the same as in equation (8) except:

Mc - range of resultant moments due to thermal expansion.

Also included moment effects of anchor displacements due to earthquake.

20 SA - allowable stress range for thermal expansion.

The effects of pressure, weight, other sustained loads and thermal expansion shall meet the requirements of equation (11).

P Do 0.751 (MA) i Mc (11) STE " + + 1 (Sh+S) A 4 tn Z Z Emergency Conditions During emergency conditions the effects of the stresses due to internal pressure, deadweight, other sustained loads, jet impingement Rev. loads, dynamic emergency events, and pipe impact' loads must meet the requirements of equation (9) with an allowable stress of 1.8 S h-Pmax Do 0.75 (MA+M) B (9) SOL - + s 1.8 Sh Z

4 tn 3.78-62d

1 '

CPSES/FSAR 3.78.3.8.2 Basis for Computing Combined Responses ,

For the seismic design of piping, the horizontal and vertical loadings are obtained from the in-st.ru'cture response spectra.that have been generated for the appropriate structures and elevations as outlined in Subsection 3.78.2.1.2, and References [30], [31], and [36].

Rev.

Restraints are designed for loadings that are obtained from the piping 20 analysis. -

3.78.3.8.3 Amplified Seismic Responses.  !

l For the seismic design of piping, input loading is obtained from the vertical and two horizontal modal response spectra curves for the 1 appropriate damping of the building and/or struc'ture.

! Where a piping system is subjected to more than-one amplified response spectrum, such as support points located in different structures or different elevations of the same structure, either of the following two methods'shall be used, to generate loads at the pipe supports of f the piping system.

l' l 1) Envelope all the amplified response spectra and apply to the i piping system 52

2) Utilize independent support motion by applying the applicable amplified response spectra to each pipe. support of the piping system.

l l

l l

3.78- 62e

., . - - w . . - - - , - - - _ . . - , _ - - - _ . . , - _ - . , - - - . _ - - . . . , . . - _ , . , . . . - .- - . - _ - - _ - , - . . - . - . - - .

CPSES/FSAR 3.78.3.9 Multiole Succorted Eauiornent Comoonents with Distinct Inouts The seismic analysis of mul'tiply supported seismic Category I subsystems and equipment subjected to differential support motion within a building or between two buildings is performed in three parts, using lumped mass mathematical models, as follows:

1. Modal response spectrum analysis is performed for all three principal orthogonal directions' of support motion for each direction of ground excitation using appropriate in-structure response spectra, constructed on the basis of superimposing the spectra for all support points and enveloping them as stated in Subsection 3.78.2.5. The vertical analysis is combined with both horizontals as described in Subsection 3.78.2.1.2, Item 1.

2. The same multi-mass lumped parameter model is subjected to a static analysis for the differential displacements of the support points. The displacements used are consistent with the directions of structural excitation considered in the spectrum analysis. This results in basic differential displacement loading conditions.

3. The results obtained from the spectrum analysis and differential displacement analysis are then combined Rev. absolutely. The effects of these loading conditions on the components and the supporting structures are determined.

3.78.3.10 Use of Constant Vertical Static Factors l

Constant static factors are used in some cases for the design of seismic Category I subsystems and equipment. The criteria for using this method are presented in Subsectiqn 3.78.3.5.

3.78-62f f

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

CPSES/FSAR 3.78.3.11 Torsional Effects of Eccentric Masses The criteria used to account for the torsional effects of valves and other eccentric masses (e.g ,'.v'alve operators) in the seismic piping analyses are as follows:

1. When valves and other eccentric masses are considered rigid, the mass of the operator and valve body or other eccentric mass will be located at.their respective center of gravity. The eccentric components (i.e., yoke, valve body) will be modeled as rigid members.

Rev.

2. When valves and other eccentric masses are not considered i rigid, the dynamic models are simulated by the lumped masses in j discrete locations (i.e., center of gravity of valve body and valve operator), coupled by elastic members with properties of

. the eccentric components.

i l

i i

l f

3.78-63 4

..__. ..,..-.,,__-__ _ ___ ._,_ ,... __ .,_...___ m.. . . _ . _ . _ - , _ _ _ _ _ , _ . , . , . , _ - . _ . - . . _ _ - - , _ _ _ _ . . . _ . - . - . _ . -

CPSES/FSAR

35. Stoykovich, M., Use of Floor or Ground Response Spectrum Proceedings-Symposium 'on Structural Design of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, December 1972.

36. Stoykovich, M., Methods of Determining Floor Design Response Spectra, Proceedings-Symposium on Structural Design of Nuclear Power Facilities, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, December 1972.

37. Stoykovich, M., Variation of Input Parameters Considered in Determining Floor Response Spectra, Proceedings- Symposium on Structural Design on Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, December 1972.

38. Stoykovich, M., Seismic Design and Analysis of Nuclear Plant Components, American Society of Civil Engineers Proceedings-Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear _ Plant Facilities, Chicago, Illinois, December 17-18, 1973, Vol. I, pp. 1-28.

39. Pauw, A.,1953, A Dynamic Analogy for Foundation - Soil Systems, Symposium-Dynamic Testing of Soils, Amer !can Society for Testing and Materials Special Technical Publicatico No.

156.

40. Leonards, G. A., Ed., 1962, Foundation Engineering, McGraw-Hill l Book Company, Inc., New York.

l

41. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1161, Recommended i Revision to Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Seismic Design Rev.

Criteria, December 1979.

3.7B-79 i

+ a. _a_ ,_ - L w- -.s W.h -a . -_ m_-i.-a CPSES/FSAR

, 3.7B(A) COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED IN DYNAMIC AND STATIC ANALYSES  !

3.7B(A).1 INTRODUCTION i .

Computer programs used in the dynamic and static analyses of seismic 4 Category I structures, systems, and equipment are described herein and l listed in Table 3.7B(A)-1. Program version, software or operating system, computer hardware, and status of recognition in the public domain are also specified in Table 3.7B(A)-1. The recognized computer programs in the public domain presented in Section 3.7B(A) have sufficient history of use to justify their applicability and validity without further verification. Other computer programs presented in

, this section were developed by Gibbs & Hill. These programs are occasionally linked and modified by G&H to suit a particular need for the solution of a problem. They are made operational on the CDC 6600 l system. The applicability and validity of these programs are ,

demonstrated by comparing the results obtained from each computer

! program witih the results derived from a similar program available in

the public domain. Verification of these programs is completed and maintained at G&H. See also Section 3.98.1.2.

~ Additional computer programs used in the analysis of ASME Code Class 2 Rev.

and Class 3 piping systems, including supports for ASME Code Class 1,

2, and 3 piping are provided in. Appendix 3B.

i i 3.7B(A).2 COMPUTER PROGRAM (QUAKE) j The QUAKE program performs the dynamic analysis of a lumped mass system. The input includes mass data, structural stiffness, foundation spring constants, structure and foundation damping values, and other data related to the dynamic analysis model. The output provide modal shears and moments of statically determinate structures and combines them by the square root of the sum of ,the squares of modal values, by j absolute sum, and by algebraic sum. QUAKE is comprised of selected subroutines presented in Reference [1]; the program is verified by

3.7B(A)-1 1

CPSES/FSAR system component requiring its isolation from the system and transients due to loss of load or power. Upset conditions include any abnormal incidents not resulting in a rced outage and also forced outages for which the corrective a. tion does not include any repair of mech'anical damage.

3. Emergency conditions (infrequent incidents)

Those deviations from normal conditions which require shutdown for correction of the conditions or repair. of damage. The conditions have a low probability of occurrence.

4. Faulted conditions (limiting faults)

Those combinations of conditions associated with extremely low 20 probability, postulated events whose consequences are such that the integrity and operability of the nuclear energy system may be impaired to the extent that consideration of public health and safety are involved. Such considerations require compliance with safety criteria as may be specified by jurisdictional authorities.

5. Testing conditions Testing conditions are those pressure tests including hydrostatic tests, pneumatic tests, and leak tests specified. Other type of tests shall be classified under normal, upset, emergency or faulted conditions.

Normal Conditions Th.e following primary system transients are considered normal conditions:

3.98-2

CPSES/FSAR

1. Heatup and cooldown at 1000F per hour.

2. Unit loading and unloading at 5 percent of full power per minute.

3. Step load increase and decrease of 10 percent of full power.

4. Large step load decrease with steam dump.

5. Steady state fluctuations.

6. Feedwater cycling at hot shutdown.

7. Loop out of service.

8. Unit loading and unloading between 0 and 15 percent of full power.

9. Boron concentration equalization.

10. Refueling Voset Conditions The following primary system transients are considered upset conditions:

20

1. Loss of load (without immediate reactor trip).

2. Loss of power.

3. Partial loss of flow.

4. Reactor trip from full power.

5. Inadvertent Reactor Coolant System depressurization.

6. Inadvertent startup of an inactive loop.

7. Control rod drop.

8. Inadvertent Emergency Core Cooling System actuation.

9. Operating Basis Earthquake.

3 Emeraency Conditions The following primary system transients are considered emergency conditions:

3.98-3 i

CPSES/FSAR 20 l 1. Small loss of coolant accident.

2. Small high energy line break.

Rev. 3. Complete loss of flow.

Faulted Conditions The following primary system transients are considered faulted conditions. Each of the following accidents should be evaluated for 20 one occurrence:

1. Reactor coolant pipe break (large loss of coolant accident).

Rev. l 2. Large high energy line break.

3. Feedwater line break.

4. Reactor coolant pump locked rotor.

20 5. Control rod ejection.

6. Steam generator tube rupture.

7. Safe. Shutdown Earthquake.

3.98.1.1.2 Component Ooeratino Conditions Component operating conditions are categorized under the same categories as plant conditions (Normal, Upset, Emergency, Faulted, and Test). These component operating conditions do not necessarily correspond to the plant conditions. Combinations of loadings associated .with various plant conditions are categorized and specified as one or more component operating conditions.

All combinations of loads imposed on active components, which are relied upon to operate normally in the course of accomplishing a safety function under all plant conditions, are specified as normal component operating conditions and as design conditions for ASME B&PV Code, Section III design of the component.

l 3.9B-4

CPSES/FSAR For inactive components which accomplish a safety-related function by virtue of their pressure retaining integrity and are not required to perform a mechanical motion, some loading combinations are to be 20 specified as upset, emergency, or faulted component operating conditions in addition to norinal conditions.

3.98.1.2 Comouter Proarams Used in Analyses Computer programs that can be used in the dynamic and static analyses of seismic Category I piping systems are described herein. Developed by G&H and others, these programs are also occasionally linked and Rev.

modified to suit the need for a solution to a particular dynamic problem. See also Section 3.7B(A). Additional computer programs used in the analysis of ASME Code Class 2 and Class 3 piping systems, including supports for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping, are 46 provided in Appendix 3B.

1. Finite Element Comput.er Program (ANSYS)

This is a general purpose computer program for the solution of a large class of problems in engineering. This computer program, identified by the acronym ANSYS for engineering analysis system

[1], provides a flexible framework for implementation of the finite element analysis technology. The program has the capabilities for static and dynamic, elastic and plastic, fluid flow, and transient heat transfer analyses.

l The matrix displacement method of analysis, based on finite element idealization, is used throughout. A library of more than 40 finite elements is available for static and dynamic analyses.

There are various types of these elements, e.g., plane stress, axisymmetric triangles,- three dimensional solids, springs, masses, dampers, plates, axisymmetric shells, general shells, and friction interface elements. -

l The program uses a direct solution, developed by the matrix displacement method, for the system of simultaneous linear equations.

3.98-5

CPSES/FSAR Plotting subroutines are available.

2. Computer Program (ADLPIPE) 46 The ADLPIPE [2] computer program performs static and dynamic analyses of complex nuclear safety class 1, 2 & 3 piping systems.

The input data is preprocessed and plots are made for input and model evaluation. The output automatically includes a stress analysis in accordance with requirements of ANSI B31.1 (1967),

ANSI B31.1 (1973), and ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Classes 1, 2, and 3.

The analysis in ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Class-1 includes fatigue usage and simplified elastic-plastic analyses. All forces, moments, deflections, and a summary stress report are included in the output. Additionally, the program has orthographic, isometric, and stereoscopic plotting capabilities to aid in checking input and interpreting computed results.

The static loads on the piping systems are thermal internal pressure deadweight, static equivalent of seismic forces, externally applied forces and moments, and wind effects.

The dynamic seismic loads are computed using normal mode theory and seismic response spectra, or time history forcing functions.

Normal mode technique in conjunction with the three-dimensional -

response spectra is used for obtaining seismic response. The resultant internal forces and moments are computed from the SRSS of their modal values and for closely spaced modes, ADLPIPE has an option to take absolute sum of forces and moments. Algorithms used in this program for the extraction of eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors are the Jacobi rotation scheme and the Givens-Householder scheme with modification [3]. The program is based on the systematic use of transfer matrices.

3.9B-6 l

t

CPSES/FSAR One of the techniques used is documentation by benchmark calculations. This type of documentation transcends the complex mathematics, programming, and computer systems that are involved in program solution and Al' lows direct comparison of computed results. The benchmark calculation is the principal form of documentation of ADLPIPE, and a number of these benchmarks are presented in part in this section.

Two auxiliary methods of problem solution evaluation are also included in ADLPIPE. The first is a detailed input error check routine, and the second is an intermediate printout of mathematical manipulations and calculations. There are three types of documentation of ADLPIPE. The first is the multitude of hand checks that are made during the development and change of

, the program. The second is by the many user groups, who have their own method of evaluation and documentation, both analytical and experimental; these groups have coritributed immeasurably to the current state of ADLPIPE reliability.

The third type is the documentation and internal checks that Arthur D. Little, Inc., has generated. This type of

documentation and internal checks is in four forms as f'ollows

52

common errors are checked for and automatically reported; all I internal program data can be printed during problem solution; sample problems (benchmarks) are compared to other solutions; there is a description of the mathematical techniques that are used.

a. Input Check An automatic message for 52 different types of input error is provided ['4].

A i

3.98-7 l

~

CPSES/FSAR

b. Intermediate Data

1) Force vectors are printed to inversion of the stiffness matrix.

2) Deflection vector is printed after stiffness matrix.

3) Member data is printed out after input is read.

4) Contracted stiffness matrix is printed prior to inversion.

5) Eigenvectors or dynamical matrix are printed after eigenvalue routine.

6) Eigenvalues of dynamical matrix are printed after eigenvalue routine.

7) Dynamical matrix is printed after formation from stiffness matrix.

8) Flexibility matrix is printed after inversion of stiffness matrix.

9) Reduced stiffness matrix and mass vector are printed after reduction of stiffness matrix to order of dynamical matrix.

10) Flags, properties, stress coefficients, and moments for each member are provided.

11) Modal effective mas,s for dynamic model/ solution evaluation are provided.

3.98-8

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

i '

CPSES/FSAR

c. Typical Benchmark Calculations Table 3.9B-9 ' defines and references eight benchmark calculations typical of the yerifichtlon that has been done with ADLPIPE.

The first four are illustrated in Appendix A of Reference [4], ,

where each problem is briefly defined and solutions from other sources are compared to the ADLPIPE solution.

~d. Description of the Analytical Techniques

The following documents describe the mathematical techniques that are used

1) Generalized Piping System Response to Ground Shock Spectra by I.W. Dingwell, Arthur D. Little, Inc.

4 i

2) A Method of~ Computing Stress Range and Fatigue Damage in a j Nuclear Piping System by W.B. Wright and E.C. Rodabaugh, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 22, 1972.

l. 3) Method of Calculating Static and Dynamic Moments for j Stress Evaluation at Tees and Branches, Arthur D. Little,

. Inc., May 1973 i 4) Method of Calculating Thermal Stress Range for.T1, T2, Ta, and Tb Terms, Arthur D. Little, Inc., May 1973.

1 4

5) Mathematical Analysis and Logical Procedure, I.W. Dingwell and R.T. Bradshaw, Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1970.

3.98.1.2.3 Comouter Proaram (SUPERPIPE)

SUPERPIPE is a general purpose piping program which performs comprehensive structural analyses 'of linear elastic piping systems for dead weight, thermal expansion, seismic spectra or time history, 46 l arbitrary force time history and other loading conditions. Analyses a

3.98-9 i

i >

I... - . _ . _ - . . , . , _ . . . . - _ _ . _ , _ . . . - , - - . . - . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ - - - _ . . , ~ , . . - . _ -

CPSES/FSAR are performed to ASME requirements for Class 1, 2 and 3 systems. See Reference [23] of Section 3.7B(A).

A piping system is idealized as a mathematical model consisting of lumped masses connected by massless elastic members. The location of lumped masses is chosen to accurately represent the dynamic characteristics of the system for a dynamic analysis, and to adequately represent the weight distribution of the system for dead load analysis. Static or dynamic equilibrium equations are formulated using the direct stiffness method, in which element stiffness matrices are formed according to virtual work principles and assembled to form a global stiffness matrix for the system, relating external forces and moment to joint displacements and rotations. Appropriate stiffness modifications for curved components are included. Diagonal mass and damping matrices are assumed.

46 ,

Static equilibrium equations are solved using Gaussian reduction techniques on the global stiffness matrix. For dynamic problems, the equilibrium equations may be solved using either step-by-step direct integration of the coupled equations of motion, or by first calculating natural frequencies and mode shapes and transforming the system into'a set of uncoupled equations of motion. For seismic analysis of piping systems the latter approach is typically used in the dynamic analysis techniqua known as the response spectrum mode super-position method. In this technique, the earthquake excitation is characterized by acceleration response spectra, and the total response of the system is evaluated as a combination of the individual responses of the significant natural modes of vibration of the system.

Natural frequencies and mode shapes are calculated using the determinant search technique. The method of combination of model responses can be selected from any one of those~specified in Regulatory Guide 1.92. Earthquakes acting in all three directions simultaneously may be computed. ,

3.98-10 i

CPSES/FSAR SUPERPIPE has been verified for a comprehensiye set of sample problems. This has included bench marking ag? inst the ASME Sample Problems 1 and 6 contained in ASME publication fPressure Vessel and Piping 1972, Computer Progrhm Verification", and against a Class 1 sample problem contained in' ASME publication "Sampl.e Analysis of a Piping System, Class 1 Nuclear", 1972. Extensive bench marking has also been performed against the programs, PIS0LIA and PISOL3A which 46 are well recognized and utilized throughout the industry.

Additionally, the program has been bench marked against the programs such as HUPIPE, ADLPIPE, PIPESD and EDSGAF. SUPERPIPE has been used on t a number of domestic and foreign nuclear plants.

3.98.1.3 Exoerimental Stress Analysis Experimental stress analysis methods will not be used in the desigr. of R?,v .

code or non-code components for tne faulted plant condition.

3.9B.1.4 Considerations for the Evaluatioq_qf ,

the Faulted Conditions

1. ASME Code Class 2 and 3 Components The ASME Code Class 2 and 3 components are ccnstructed in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code, SEction III, Subsections NA, [

NC, and ND, respectively. The methods for the dynamic analysis for the Class 2 and 3 components are defined in Section 3,98.

In the event that the' design stress limits permitted in the design criteria exceed the yield strength of the material, analysis is performed in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Article NB-3000. The following types of analyses are used:

i 3.9B-11 e

.,..-.-.7- > -i. . -- -_ .,%e _

--e- _ _c, _ - .n-_ .__--7,.,g - -yw g

CPSES/FSAR

a. Elastic analysis for the design of Class 2 and 3 components in accordance with subparagraph NB 3227.6 of ASME B&PV i

Code,Section III.

b. Limit analysis is done at a specific location when the limits on local membrane stress intensity and primary bending stress intensity do not satisfy the limits of ASME B&PV Code,Section III, subparagraph NB 3228.2.

Rev.

2. Bolts For the Code Class 2 and 3 components not in Westinghouse's scope, the following are the criteria for the design of bolting:

a. Colts for Comoorent Supoorts i

20 Kgrmal and Voset Conditions - The design limits are as per Q112.13 ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Article XVII-2460 and NRC 45  ! approved ASME Code Cases as indicated in the specification.

Emeraency Condition - The bolt allowables are 1.33 times the allowable used in the normal and upset conditions.

20

-Q122.13 Faulted Condition - The bolt allowables for normal and upset conditions are increased by a factor which is the lower of 1.2 Sy/Ft) or 0.7 (Su/Ft). However, the total

- allowable stress shall not exceed 0.9 Sy in any case.

Sy - Yield stress Ft - Allowable tensile stress l Su - Ultimate tensile stre,ss t

3.98-12 l

1

CPSES/FSAR

b. Studs & nuts for pipe flanges larger than 24 inches, where the design pressure and temperature do not exceed 100 Psi or 2000F conform to the requirements of Code case 1744.

20

c. Bolts for componerits do not exceed the Code allowable Q112.13 stress limits.

d. Anchor bolts for component and component supports are discussed in Section 3.8.3.3.3, 3.8.4.3.3 and 3.8.3.5.4.

3. Non-ASME Code Class Components The supplier of the mechanical components not covered by the ASME B&PV Code must demonstrate by experimental testing or calculation that the design stress limits (with use of applicable codes and standards) are sufficiently below the elastic limits to ensure operability.

3.98.2 DYNAMIC TESTING AND ANALYSIS 3.98.2.1 Preocerational Vibration and Dynamic Effects Testina on Pioina The purpose of preoperational vibration and dynamic effects tests of the piping systems and their supports, as described below, is to 20 confirm that these piping systems, restraints, components and supports Q112.12 have been adequately designed to withstand flow induced dynamic loadings under steady state and operational transient conditions anticipated during the life of the plant, and that normal thermal motion is not restrained.

3.98.2.1.1 Thermal Expansion Test 57 Thermal expansion (hot deflections) test will be conducted on the 20 i

following piping systems: Q112.12 3.98-13 l

1

CPSES/FSAR Reactor Coolant System Main Steam Steam Supply to Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine Main Feedwater .

Pressurizer Relief Line RHR in Shutdown Cooling Mode Auxiliary Steam (within seismic Category I Structure)

Steam Generator Blowdown Safety Injection System (those line adjoining RCS which experience temp. > 2000F)

Auxiliary Feedwater CVCS (Charging line from Regen. Hx to RCS, Letdown Line from RCS to Q112.12 Letdown Hx)-

During the thermal expansion test, pipe deflections will be measured or observed at various locations based on the location of snubber, hangers, and expected large displacement. One complete thermal cycle, (i.e., cold position to hot position to cold position) will be monitored. For most systems, the thermal expansion will be monitored at cold conditions and at normal operating temperature. Intermediate temperatures are generally not practical due to the short time during which the normal operating temperature is reached. For the Reactor Coolant System and the Main Steam System, measurements will be made at cold, 2500F, 3500F, 4500F, and normal operating temperatures.

Acceptance criteria for the thermal expansion test verify that the piping system is free to expand thermally (i.e., piping does not bind or lock at spring hangers and snubbers nor interfere with structures or other piping), and to confirm that piping displacements do not exceed design limits, as described by ASME Section III, (i.e., the induced stresses do not exceed the sum of the basic material allowable stress at design temperature and the allowable stress range for expansion stresses).

3.98-14

CPSES/FSAR 3.98.2.1.2 Dynamic Transient Response Testing 57 Instrumented dynamic transient response testing will be performed on the following piping systems under the conditions shown:

41 Main Steam piping foe Main Turbine trip at 50%, and 100% steam flow Q112.12 Steam supply to Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine response to Main Turbine trip (1 test at full flow)

During the dynamic transient response testing for the above lines and conditions, sufficient points will be selected to monitor piping displacements and pipe support loads. The acceptance criteria for dynamic transients is based on the allowable design stress limits for occasional loads, as described by ASME Section III, such that the 20 induced stress does not exceed 1.2 of the basic material allowable at design temperature. Other lines, a., defined by 3.98.2.1.1.3 will be Q112.12 visually observed during normal operational transients, such as pump starts, trips, valve closure and/or control valve modulation to determine acceptability of piping deflections induced by such transients.

If evidence of excessive piping motion is observed, the line(s) will be reviewed to determine what remedial action, if any, is necessary.

Repetition of these transients may be required to make the determination of acceptability.

3.9B.2.1.3 Steady State Vibration Tests 57 Steady State vibration tests will be conducted on ASME Code C. lass 1, 2, and 3 systems including branch connections and instrument lines and high-energy piping systems as defined by Table 3.68.1. It is believed ,

20 that the vibration of moderate-energy piping systems located in Q112.12 i Seismic Category I structures.is not critical, however, any normal vibration of these systems during preoperational or initial startup and power escalation will be noted and instrumented if necessary to determine acceptability of such vibration.

3.98-15

CPSES/FSAR During the normal modes of operation, qualified engineers familiar -

with the subject piping systems will observe the lines to detemine the acceptability of the steady state vibrations. Vibration induce:

stress in pipe as a functiori ef. deflection, size, span and 57 configuration. By observing / measuring the maximum deflection during steady state vibratory testing, the maximum induced stress can be QH2d2 determined. The acceptance criterion (to be used by qualified engineers) for steady state vibration, is a maximum induced stress not to exceed one half the piping material endurance limit. One of the following resolutions will be applied if observed vibrations exceed the acceptance criteria: (1) the piping will be monitored by suitable instrumentation at those. locations which appear excessive to 20 demonstrate that the measured amplitude does not cause ASME Code stress and fatigue to be exceeded, (2) the cause of the vibration will 2

be eliminated, or (3) the support system will be modified to reduce the vibrations to an acceptable level.

57 3.9B.2.1.4 Test Performance and Acceptance Where practical, the above tests will be performed during the preoperational testing phase of the startup program. Those tests that cannot be performed as part of the preoperational testing phase due to required plLnt conditions will be performed as part of the' initial 20 startup and power escalation phase.

Q112.12 For those piping systems in which corrective action is required, the

. vibration and/or thermal expansion observation shall be repeated to determine that the movements have been reduced to an acceptable level.

Detailed test procedures will be prepared and approved as described by Chapter 14.2.

4 3.98-16

CPSES/FSAR Design personnel familiar with the systems to be tested will review the test procedures and acceptance criteria for technical adequacy and evaluate test results. The test results will be compared with the expected results and acceptan'c.e' criteria to determine acceptability.

3.98.2.2 Seismic Qualification Testino of Safety-Related Mechanical Eauioment All safety-related mechanical equipment which is required to retain structural integrity or structural integrity and operability taring and after a postulated earthquake is subject to seismic qualification.

Active pumps and valves which must perform a mechanical motion during the course of accomplishing a system safety function include the active ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code Class 2 and Class 3 pumps, Code Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 valves, and their respective drives, operators, and vital auxiliary equipment. This equipment is qualified by testing, or analysis, or both, in accordance with the criteria given in Subsection 3.98.3.2 and the recommendations of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.48 and as described in the following paragraphs.

Analysis without testing is accepted if it can be conservatively demonstrated that structural integrity alone can ensure operability of the seismic Category I equipment. When a complete seismic test is impracticable, combinations of testing and analysis are performed.

Seismic qualification by analysis is applicable to mechanical equipment which has relatively simple configurations and which can be modeled accurately. When analytical modeling is used, the equipment is modeled as a network of lumped masses and elastic springs in discrete parts. The response spectrum method is applied to calculate stresses and deformations resulting from the base excitations characterized by 3.9B-17

CPSES/FSAR the required OBE and SSE in-structure floor response spectra of the seismic Category I buildings, and for the seismic analysis and testing of all seismic Category I subsystems and equipment located in the seismic Category I buildings as described in Section 3.78.

The calculated seismic stresses are combined with the design load and thermal stresses for the various plant conditions defined in the ASME B&PV Code,Section III. It is ascertained that for each condition the resulting stresses are within the limits,specified by the code and the recommendations of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.48.

When structural integrity alone cannot ensure operability for mechanically or structurally complex equipment not amenable to modeling and dynamic analysis, structural integrity and operability during and after a postulated earthquake are ensured by testing. This method consists of mounting the equipment to be qualified on a shake table, which is vibrated in such a way as to equal or exceed the required OBE and SSE in-structure floor response spectra applicable at the equipment locations in the seismic Category I buildings. A minimum of five OBE tests and one SSE test are performed. Equipment is tested in its operational condition; and, when possible, during the tests, operating, thermal and seismic loads are applied simultaneously.

Operability is verified both during and after the tests.

Multi-directional seismic loading effects and dynamic coupling of the

. equipment are considered through the use of multi-axis testing techniques as recommended by IEEE 344-1975, IEEE Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Q112.16 Generating Stations, and described in Section 3.78.2.1.3. When dynamic Q130.22 analysis is used for seismic qualification, the dynamic coupling effect is considered by modeling the equipment with masses with a sufficient number of degrees of freedom and elastic properties representing the multi-directional sti.ffness of its various interconnecting parts. Multi-directional seismic loading is accomplished by performing the response spectrum analysis for each of the three orthogonal directions of earthquake excitation and combining 3.98-18

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

CPSES/FSAR

. the results by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) technique.

l A general classification of,' safety-related mechanical equipment and applicable quality standards is given in Table 3.2-1. Fluid system 11

! components and the applicable codes are classified in Table 17A'-1.

4-A detailed description of seismic analysis and testing procedures is given in Section 3.78.2.1.3.

The seismic qualification program for safety-related mechanical

equipment is conducted by the equipment vendor. The procedures

! proposed for ' qualification and the results obtained by analysis or testing, or both, are submitted to the Applicant or his Agent for

! review.

i

] All supports of seismic Category I mechanical equipment are j seismically qualified to ensure their structural capability to

] withstand seismic excitation. The seismic qualification is accomplished by analysis, testing, or a combination of both for a

particular support or a support representative of a group of supports.

! If supports are similar and justified as such or if the worst case support determined by consideration of dynamic response (stiffness, structural strength, supported load) is chosen from a group of

. supports to be qualified and justified as such, only one of the similar supports or the worst case support requires a complete dynamic

seismic analysis or a full-scale test, or a combination of both.

Justification of this procedure is based upon a simplified comparison analysis or by past experience indicating that the supports to be i qualified are similar or that the worst case has been chosen. Upon

such justification and dynamic analysi,s, or full scale testing, or a

{ combination of both of the similar or worst case support, the group of supports being investigated is accepted as seismically qualified. .

i 1

3.98-19 I.

i

- , - - - - - - , , - , , ,_--,,,,ye--,,--.- _ - - - - ---w _, ~ . . - , , , -- . . ,,,_,-.---w,,,,,-a-,,,, -

. - , , , . - . - , ~ , , . ...--n,.m+----,--a,v., ,~,

CPSES/FSAR-The criteria gsverning tha analysis or testing methods for seismic qualification of supports are presented in Section 3.78.2.1.3 l

3.98.2.3 Dynamic Response Analysis of Reactor Internals Under Operational Flow Transients and Steady-State

Conditions. l See Section 3.9N.2.3 3.98.2.4 Preoperational Flow-Induced Vibration Testing of Reactor Internals See Section 3.9N.2.4 3.98.2.5 Dynamic System Analysis of the Reactor Internals Under Faulted Condition See Section 3.9N.2.5 3.98.2.6 Correlations of Reactor Internals Vibration Tests with the Analytical Results See Section 3.9N.2.6

3.98.3 ASME CODE CLASS 2 AND 3 COMP 0NENTS AND COMPONENT SUPPORTS l

The ASME Code class components are designed and fabricated in accordance with ASME B&PV Code,Section III requirements.

The qualification of ASME Section III Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems and their supports are in accordance with:

I t

3.9B-20 l -. - . _ - ._ . . - . . - . . - _ _ - - -_ .-

CPSES/FSAR ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1 Nuclear Power Plant Components,1974 Edition including the Summer 1974 Addenda Subsections NC and hD, and 1974 Edition including the Winter 1974 Addenda Subsection NF. ,' ~

In addition to the above, as permitted by paragraph NA-1140 of the 1974 Edition of the Code, specific paragraphs in more recent editions and addenda of the ASME Code have been invoked.

Specific ASME Code Edition, Addenda and Cases utilized for the qualification of ASME Section III Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems and supports are documented in design, purchase and construction specifications.

3.98.3.1 Loading Combinations, Design Transients, and Stress Limits Design pressure, temperature, and other loading conditions that provide the bases for design of fluid systems for ASME B&PV Code Class 2 and Class 3 components are presented in the sections which describe

.the systems.

3.98.3.1.1 Design Loading Combinations Design loading. combinations and stress limits for ASME B&PV 20 components, piping and piping supports are provided in the following tables:

3.98-21

CPSES/FSAR Loadina Combinations Stress Limits Components 3.9B-1A Note 1 l

Piping 3.9B-1B ' 3.98-1B Piping Supports 3.98-IC 3.98-1D 3.98-1E Note 1 Stress limits for each of the loading combinations are presented in Tables 3.98-2, 3.9B-3, 3.9B-4, 3.98-5 and 20 3.98-6 vessels, inactive

• pumps, active pumps, inactive valves, and active valves respectively.

The design loading combinations are categorized with respect to normal, upset, emergency, and faulted plant conditions. (Refer to Section 3.98.1.1 for definition of plant conditions). Peak dynamic resp nses from loadings shown in Table 3.98-1B are combined using the Rm Square Root of the Sums of the Squares (SRSS) technique. This method of combining dynamic responses is consistent with the position outlined in NUREG-O'484, " Methodology for Combining Dynamic Responses,"

20 Revision 1 dated May, 1980. Active ** pumps and valves are discussed in Subsection 3.98.3.2. Table 3.98-8 lists all non-NSSS active and inactive pumps and valves by systems. Table 3.98-10 lists all non-NSSS active valves including their design parameter and safety 11 function. The component supports are designed in accordance with subsection NF of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III.

3.98-22 l

CPSES/FSAR

• Inactive components are those whose operability is not relied upon to perform a safety function while being subjected to the loading combinations associated with the respective plant operating condition categories.

• • Active components are those whose operability is relied upon to perform a safety function while being subjected to the loading' combinations associated with the respective plant operating condition categories.

3.9B.3.1.2 Functional Capability Systems which are required to operate during and after a postulated plant accident condition comply with the functional capability requirements delineated in References (5], [6], [7], and [8] in addition to the ASME Code requirements.

This requirement will ensure that the piping system will maintain its Rev.

capability to deliver the rated flow and retain its dimensional stability under events specified above.

References [7] and [8] provides an alternative functional capability evaluation for stainless steel elbows and bends.

3.98.3.2 Pumo and Valve Ooerability Assurance A list that identifies all active Code Class 2 and 3 pumps and valves 20 is presented in Table 3.9.B-8.

3.98-23 l

1 l

CPSES/FSAR Design specifications for active pumps and valves include the requirements fer operability under the specified plant conditions.

The design specifications define the design loads and the corresponding stress limits'as' discussed in Section 3.9B.3.1.1, relevant environmental conditions and operability requirements.

Active pumps and valves are qualified for operability in accordance 20 with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.48. Pump and valve supports are designed in accordance with ASME B&PV Code Section III, Subsection NF. The following qualification methodology is used in the acceptance review of a vendor's operability program to ensure active valve or pump operability.

All active pumps are qualified for operability by first being subjected to rigid tests both prior to and after installation in the plant. The in-shop tests include the following:

1. Hydrostatic tests of pressure retaining parts to 150 percent 40 l times the design pressure.

2. Performance tests, while the pump is operated with flow, to determine total developed head, minimum and maximum head, net positive suction head (NPSH), and other pump / motor parameters. ,

Also monitored during these operating tests are bearing temperatures and vibration levels. Bearing temperature limits are determined by the manufacturer based on the bearing material, clearances, oil type, and rotational speed.

In addition to these tests, the safety-related active pumps are qualified for operability during an SSE condition by ensuring that'the pump is not damaged during the seismic event and that the pump continues operating after being subjec,ted to the SSE loads.

3.98-24

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

CPSES/FSAR The pump manufacturer is required to show that the pump operates normally when subjected to the' maximum seismic accelerations and i maximum nozzle loads associated with the plant faulted condition. It is required that a test or i dynamic analysis be used to show that the lowest natural frequency of'the ' pump is greater than 33 Hz. When having a natural frequency above'33 Hz, the pump is considered i

essentially rigid. This frequency is considered sufficiently high to

~

avoid problems with amplification between the component and structure for all seismic areas. A static shaft deflection analysis of the j rotor is performed with conservative SSE accelerations. The deflections determined from the static shaft analysis are compared to the allowable rotor clearances. The nature of seismic disturbances

dictates that the maximum contact (if it occurs). is of short duration.

I To avoid damage during the faulted plant condition, the stresses 5 caused by the combination of normal operating loads, SSE, and dynamic system loads are limited to below the material elastic limit (s), as 20 i indicated in Table 3.9B-4. The average membrane stresses (r ) for i the faulted condition loads are maintained at 1.0 S, and the maximum stress in local fibers (r +mbending stress c. ) is limited to 1.5 S.

i In addition, the pump casing stresses caused by the maximum seismic nozzle loads are limited to stresses outlined in Table 3.98-4. The maximum seismic nozzle loads are also considered in an analysis of the l pump supports to ensure that a system misalignment cannot occur.

j Performing these analyses with the conservative loads stated and with the restrictive stress limits of Table 3.9B-4 as allowables can ensure that critical parts of the pump are not damaged during the faulted condition and that the reliability of the pump for postfaulted

condition operation is not impaired by the seismic event.

l If the natural frequency is found to be below 33 Hz, an analysis is

} performed to determine the amplified input accelerations necessary to j perform the static analysis. The adju,sted accelerations are l determined using the same conservatisms contained in the accelerations used for rigid structures. The static analysis is performed using the ,

3.98-25 1

. - - , . - . . , _ - , . _ . . _ _ - . . - _ _ . ,-f_ m... .emo, m. ...y,- _-,~,,,,,,.,_m ,.cm_-,-_.___,-

CPSES/FSAR adjusted accelerations; the stress limits stated in Table 3.98-4 must still be satisfied.

The second criterion necessary'to ensure operability is that the pump functions throughout the SSE. The pump / motor combination is designed to rotate at a constant speed under all conditions unless the rotor becomes completely seized; i.e., there is no rotation. Typically, the rotor can be seized five full sec before a circuit breaker shuts down the pump. To prevent damage to the motor, however, the high rotary inertia in the operating pump rotor, and the nature of the random, short duration loading characteristics of the seismic event prevents the rotor from losing its function. In actuality, the seismic loadings cause only a slight increase, if any, in the torque (i.e.,

motor current) necessary to drive the pump at the constant design speed. Therefore, the pump does not shut down during the SSE and it operates at the design speed despite the SSE loads.

To complete the seismic qualification procedures, the pump motor is independently qualified for operation during the maximum seismic event. Any auxiliary equipment which is identified to be vital to the operation of the pump or pump motor and which is not qualified for operation during the pump analysis or motor qualifications is also separately qualified for operation at the accelerations it will be subjected to where it is mounted. The pump motor and vital auxiliary equipment are qualified by meeting the requirements of IEEE 344-1975.

If the testing option is chosen, sine-beat testing for electrical equipment will be justified by satisfying one or more of the following requirements to demonstrate that multi-frequency response is negligible or the sine-beat input is of sufficient magnitude to conservatively account for this effect.

1. The equipment response is basically due to one mode.

2. The sine-beat response spectra envelop the floor response spectra

, in the region of significant response.

3.98-26

CPSES/FSAR

3. The floor response spectra consist of one dominant mode and have a narrow peak at this frequency.

The degree of coupling in the equipment does, in general, determine if a single or multi-axis test is required. Multi-axis testing is required if .there is considerable cross-coupling. If coupling is very light, then single-axis testing is justified; or, if the degree of coupling can be determined, single-axis' testing can be used with the input sufficiently increased to include the effect of coupling on the response of the equipment.

From the previous arguments, the safety-related pump / motor assemblies are not damaged and continue operating under SSE loadings, and therefore, they perform their intended functions.

These proposed requirements take into account the complex characteristics of the pump and are sufficient to demonstrate, and ensure, the seismic operability of the active pumps.

The functional capability of active pumps after a faulted condition is ensured because only normal operating loads and steady-state nozzle loads then exist. Because the pumps are not damaged during the faulted condition, the postfaulted condition operating loads are identical to the normal plant operating loads. This is ensured by requiring that the imposed nozzle loads (steady-state loads) for normal conditions and postfaulted conditions be limited to the magnitudes of the normal condition nozzle loads. The postfaulted 20 j condition capability of the pumps to function under these applied l loads is proven during the normal operating plant conditions for active pumps. Safety-related active valves must perform their l

mechanical motion in times of an accident. Assurance is supplied that l these valves operate during a seismic , event. When full scale tests are not performed, tests accompanied by analyses are conducted for all 20 l

l active valves.

! 3.98-27 l

L

CPSES/FSAR 2

The safety-related valves are subjected to a series of stringent tests l prior to service and during the plant life. Prior to installation, j

the following tests are performed:'shell hydrostatic test to ASME B&PV Code,Section III requireme'nt's, backseat and main seat leakage tests, i disc hydrostatic test, functional tests to verify that the valve opens

] and closes within the specified ' time limits when subjected to the design differential pressure, operability qualification of motor operators for the environmental conditions over the installed life (i.e., aging, radiation, accident environment simulation, and so forth) according to procedures specified in IEEE 382. Cold hydro

! qualification tests, hot functional qualification tests, periodic l inservice inspections, and periodic inservice operation are performed I

in situ to verify and ensure the functional capability of the valve.

These tests guarantee reliability of the valve for the design life of I the plant. The valves are designed using either stress analyses or

~

the pressure containing minimum wall thickness requirements. On

active valves not subject to dynamic testing for SSE conditions, an

analysis of the extended structure is also performed for static 3 equivalent seismic SSE loads applied at the center of gravity of the i extended structure; the maximum stress limits allowed in these analyses show structural integrity and are the limits recommended by

! ASME for the particular ASME class of valve analyzed.

F In addition to these tests and analyses, representative valves of each

. design type are tested for verification of operability during a simulated seismic event by demonstrating operational capabilities within the specified limits. The testing procedures are described as follows: I The valve is mounted in a manner which conservatively represents typical valve installations. The valve includes the operator and all j accessories normally attached to the valve in service. The

operability of the valve during SSE is demonstrated by satisfying the i following criteria

i 3.98-28 1

CPSES/FSAR

1. Active valves are designed to have a first natural frequency which is greater than 33 Hz. This can be shown by a suitable test or analysis.

2. The extended structure of the valve system is statically deflected an amount equal to that determined by an analysis as representing SSE accelerations applied at the center of gravity of the operator alone in the direction of the weakest axis of the yoke. The design pressure of the valve is simultaneously applied to the valve during the static deflection tests.

3. The valve is then operated while in the deflected position. The valve must perform its safety-related function within the specified operating time limits.

4. Motor operators, pilot solenoid valves, and limit switches necessary for operation are qualified as operable during SSE by appropriate IEEE seismic qualification standards, prior to their installation on the valve.

5. Operability may be demonstrated on a shaker table with the valve body at rated pressure and temperature in lieu of the static 4 deflection tests.

The accelerations which are used for the valve qualification are equivalent, as justified by analysis, to (3.0g) in two orthogonal horizontal directions and (2.0g) in a vertical direction. The analyst will verify that valve seismic accelerations do not exceed the design 20 g values above. If the frequency of the valve is less than 33 Hz, a dynamic analysis of the valve is performed to determine the equivalent

deflection which is applied during the static test. The analysis provides the amplification of the input acceleration with consideration of the natural frequency of the valve and the frequency l content of the applicable plant floor response spectra. The adjusted accelerations are determined using the same conservatisms contained in the (3.0g) horizontal and (2.0g) vertical accelerations used for rigid 3.98-29 i

CPSES/FSAR valves. The adjusted accelerations are then used in the static analysis, and valve operability is ensured by the methods previously outlined in steps 2 through 4, using the modified acceleration input, i

This testing program applies to valves with extended structures. The testing is conducted on a representative number of valves. Valves from each of the primary safety-related design types are tested.

Valve sizes which cover the range of sized in service are qualified by the test; the results are used to qualify all valves within the intermediate range of sizes.

Valves which are safety-related but can be classified as not having an extended structure, such as check valves and safety relief valves, are considered separately.

The check valves are characteristically simple in design and their operation is not affected by seismic accelerations or the maximum applied nozzle loads. The check valve design is compact and there are no extended structures or masses whose motion could cause distortions

which could restrict operation of the valve. The nozzle loads caused by maximum seismic excitation do not affect the functional capability of the valve since the valve disc is designed to be isolated from the casing wall. The clearance supplied by the design around the disc prevents the disc from becoming bound or restricted because of any casing distortions caused by nozzle loads. Therefore, the design of the valves is such that once the structural integrity of the valve is ensured, using standard design or analysis methods, the capability of the valve to operate is ensured by the design features. In addition to these design considerations, the valve also undergoes in-shop i hydrostatic tests, and in-shop seat leakage test, and periodic in situ valve exercising and inspection to ensure the functional capability of i

the valve.

3.98 30

CPSES/FSAR Using the methods described, all the safety-related valves in the systems are qualified for operability during a seismic event. These methods conservatively simulate the seismic event and ensure that the active valves perform their.'s'afety-related function when necessary.

3.98.3.3 Design and Installation of Pressure Relief Devices Rev.

The piping systems are designed to accommodate the effects of weight, dynamic blowdown thrust loads, and bending torsional and axial loads.

Deflections resulting from these loading conditions are calculated in the stress analysis. Nozzle size and corresponding wall thickness are selected to ensure that the requirements of the design pressure and temperature are met and that the allowable stress limits are not exceeded.

The relief / safety valve stations in seismic Category I piping systems are shown in Table 3.98-7.

20

1. Installation Criteria The relief / safety valve nozzles, the exhaust stacks, and the piping on which the valves are installed are designed to withstand the thrusts that are imposed on the piping system when the relief / safety valve opens.

The requirements set herein are in addition to all requirements of the applicable specifications, codes, and standards.

Piping systems subject to relief / safety valve reaction forces are provided with shock absorbing devices if necessary. This does not interfere with normal or intended thermal movement of the piping system.

I 3.98-31

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

CPSES/FSAR

~

The discharge piping is suspended, supported, restrained, guided, or anchored to avoid interference with structural members or equipment as well as to accommodate insulation limitations.

2. Design Criteria

a. Open Systems ,

i For relief valves which are vented to the atmosphere and mounted in seismic Category I piping systems, Equation (9) of paragraph NC 3652, of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, is used with the M8 term to include the reaction force moment. In addition, the criteria of ASME Code, Section Rev. III, Appendix 0 are met.

Total resultant forces on the outlet elbow of pressure relieving

, devices are determined as follows:

1 20 Total resultant forces - W V + P A - Fv + Fp .

i

, 9 where: W = lb/sec i

A = area of pipe, in2 V - velocity, ft/sec i

i

P - pressure, psig l g - 32.2 ft/sec2

! Fv - thrust due to velocity, lb 4

Fp - thrust due to pressure, Ib 3.98-32 r

.,,___..._.___..-_.m___ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . , _ _ _ , _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ . . _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ , . _ _

CPSES/FSAR

b. Closed System A closed relief system may be either a system in which fluid discharge [s 'into a closed vessel or an open discharge system with a long discharge pipe. Of particular concern in closed relief systems are the large forces that may occur on piping that contains water seals (slug flow), two-phase flow, or if there is a water column in the discharge piping.

To establish the forcing functions necessary to perform a structural analysis of the piping, thermal / hydrodynamic models of the piping system are constructed. These models consist of one-dimensional representation of the piping system divided into reservoirs, pumps, valves, lengths of piped segments, branch connections, and other special piping components. Effects such as flow restrictions and Rev.

frictional resistance are considered. The time dependent pressure, temperature, density, velocity, and momentum are i computed. Unbalanced segment forces are then obtained as a function of time.

The forcing functions are then applied to the piping structural model and system responses are determined by performing a time-history dynamic analysis.

As an alternative to using dynamic analysis to generate fluid transient forcing functions, conservative hand calculations may be performed to develop bounding pipe segment forces. These forces then may be analyzed statically, with a Dynamic Load Factor (DLF) of 2.0, or j dynamically to obtain piping structural responses.

4 3.9B-33 l

CPSES/FSAR 3.98.3.4 Component Supports 3.98.3.4.1 Nuclear piping (ASME Class 1)

Class 1 pipe supports are d'esigned in accordance with FSAR Table 3.98-1D and 3.98-lE.

3.98.3.4.2 Nuclear Piping (ASME Class 2 and 3)

Class 2 and 3 supports are designed as follows:

1. Component Standard Supports Rev.

Normal Condition Load Rating - T.L. x 1.0(S or Fall)/Su Upset Condition Load Rating - T.L. x 1.0(S or Fall)/Su Emergency Condition Load Rating - T.L. x 1.33 (Fall /Su)

Emergency Condition Load Rating - T.L. x 1.2 (S/Su)

(Plate and Shell Type) where T.L. - support test load equal to or less than the load under which the component support fails to perform its specified support function Fall- allowable value for the type of stress in XVII-1100 of the ASME III Code S - allowable stress value at the design temperature (NF-3112.2) from the applicabl,e table of Appendix I of the ASME III Code 3.98-34

CPSES/FSAR Su specified minimum ultimate tensile strength of the material used in the support as given in the applicable table of Appendix I of the ASME III Code Faulted Condition - Analyzed in accordance with Tables 3.9B-10 and 3.98-lE.

2. Linear Supports

a. Normal l The allowable stresses of Appendix XVII, as referenced in subsection NF, of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, are used for normal condition limits.

b. Upset Stress limits for upset conditions are the same as normal Rev.

condition stress limits. This is consistent with subsection NF of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III (see Subarticle NF-3230).

c. Emergency For emergency conditions, the allowable stresses or load ratings are 33 percent hie ier than those specified for normal conditions. This is consistent with subsection NF of ASME B&PV Code,Section III (see Subarticle NF-3231.lb),

in which limits for emergency conditions are 33 percent greater than the normal condition limits.

d. Faulted The allowable stresses of NF-3231.lc subsection NF, of the ASME Code Section III ore used for the faulted condition.

3.98-35

r CPSES/FSAR R v. 3. Plate and Shell Supports j

a. Normal Normal condition limits are those specified in subsection NF of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III (see Subarticle NF :

3320).

b. Upset Limits for upset conditions equal normal condition limits and are consistent with subsection NF of the ASME B&PV Code,Section III (see Subarticle NF-3320).

c. Emergency For emergency conditions, the allowable stresses or load ratings are 20 percent higher than those specified for normal conditions.

d. Faulted Limits for faulted conditions are the same as those for linear supports.

For active Class 2 and Class 3 pumps, support adequacy is proven by satisfying the criteria in Subsection 3.98.3.2.

Rev.

The requirements consist of both stress analysis and an i-evaluation of pump / motor support misalignment. In general, j active valves are supported only by the pipe attached to i the valve. Exterior supports on the valve are generally not used. <

l 3.98-36 m,,-.+,, _.....m ,_. --m.__- . ,, . w,v,,._.r, -,,..,,_..m,, _,m . . .,._,mm,,._,,,m-_m.w

CPSES/FSAR The plant conditions and load corbinations for Class 2 and Class 3 components are shown in Table 3.98-1A. The safety related component '

supports are designated with the same safety class as their respective i components and are subject 'to-the same plant conditions and loading r combinations. i

! 3.98.3.4.3 Instrument Impulse Tubing Supports for l ASME III Class 2 and Class 3 Safety I l

Related Applications i

a. All instrument impulse tubing, valves and fittings connecting ,

{

instruments to ASME III Class 2 and Class 3 piping root valves will be seismically supported.  !

j  !

j b. All instrument impulse tubing, valves and fittings connecting l l nuclear safety related instruments to Non-ASME piping or ducting i will be seismically supported. C

c. The support design will consider pressure, gravity, seismic and 10 thermal loading combinations and will conform to the ASME stress

.allowables for class 2 and 3 components when combined in accordance with the loading combinations specified in ASME -

Section III Equations 8 thru 11.

i d. Any welding of the support system will be per AWS specifications

consistent with that performed on other nuclear safety related, i Non-ASME supports, t

e. Subsection NF supports will be employed on the ASME III main line j piping including the instrument root valve.

f. The material used for fabrication of the tubing supports will be purchased with certificates of compliance to applicable ASTM l standards.

3.98-37 i

j I

CPSES/FSAR

g. Other seismically designed support systems such as cable tray supports, pipe supports or conduit supports may be used for 10 tubing if paragraph c above is met. Any necessary re-analysis will be performed to justify the additional loads.

3.98.4 CONTROL R00 DRIVE SYSTEM (CRDS)

Refer to Section 3.9N.4 3.98.5 REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS Refer to Section 3.9N.5 3.98.6 INSERVICE TESTING 0F PUMPS & VALVES i

l 3.98.6.1 Inservice Testina of Pumos 3.98.6.1.1 Scope Inservice testing of pumps shall be in accordance with Subsection IWP of Section XI, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,1980 edition, 53 Winter 1981 addendum.

3.98.6.1.2 Test Program Establishment of reference values and a periodic testing schedule shall be in accordance with IWP-3000. The allowable ranges of inservice test quantities, corrective actions, and bearing temperature tests shall be in accordance with IWP-3200 and IWP-4300.

3.98.6.1.3 Test Frequencies and Durations Test frequencies and durations shall be in accordance with IWP-3400 53 and IWP-3500.

s 3.98-38 1

CPSES/FSAR 3.98.6.1.4 Methods of Measurement Methods of measurements shall be in accordance with IWP-4000.

3.98.6.2 Inservice Testino of Valves 3.98.6.2.1 Scope Inservice testing of valves shall be in accordance with Subsection IWV of Section XI, ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, 1980 edition, i Winter 1981 addendum.

3.9B.6.2.2 Valve Test List The IST Program Plan lists all Code Class 1, 2, and 3 valves except those used for operating convenience only, such as manual vent, drain, and test valves, and valves used for maintenance only. The IST 53 Program Plan categorizes valves in accordance with IWV-2200; each i valve requiring testing is listed by type, identification number, and code class.

3.98.6.2.3 Test Procedures Valve test provisions in Technical Specifications shall meet the conditions of IWV-3000.

REFERENCES

1. Swanson, John A., Engineering Analysis System, User's Manual (ANSYS), Swanson Analysis System, Inc., Elizabeth, Pa.

2. Dignwell, I.W., Static, Thermal, Dynamic Pipe Stress Analysis, Input Preparation IBM 1130 for Gibbs & Hill, Inc., (ADLPIPE),

Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., Sept. 1972. ,

3.98 39 ,

4 .

--. __ . - . - - - , - . _ . . , , - - , _ _ , - , . , , - _ . ~ -~ ..

, , , . . _ - _ _ _ _ , , . _ ~ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - . . , .._.n.-

CPSES/FSAR

3. Greenstadt, J., "The Determination of the Characteristic Roots of a Matrix by Jacobi Method," Mathematical Methods for Digital Computers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1959.

4. Documentation of ADLPI'PE 'for Static and Dynamic Loads and Stress Evaluation, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Mass., Sept.,

1973.

5. NED0-21985, Functional Capability Criteria for Essential Mark II Piping, September 1978, prepared by Battelle Columbus Laboratories for General Electric Company.

6. NRC Evaluation of Topical Report, Piping Functional Capability Criteria, May 1980.

Rev.

7. Stress Criteria for Demonstrating Functional Capability of ASME Class 2 and 3 Stainless Steel Elbows, Westinghouse Letter No.

NS-LT-9447 TBX/TCS-4705, September 1981.

8. TUGC0 Letter to NRC Proposing Stress Limits, TXX-3414, October 6, 1981.

e 3.9B-40

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3.98-1A DESIGN LQ&Q COMBINATIONS EQB ejLE faQE CLASS 2 ANQ CLASS 1 COMPONENTS (EXCLUSIVE OF PIPING AND PIPING SUPPORTS)

Plant conditionsl Loadina combinations Normal Design pressure + design temperature 2 +

deadweight + thermal ex

~1oads + nozzle loads 3 +pansion + sustained occasional loads, as applicable. 20 Upset Design pressure + deadweight + thermal expansion + sustained loads + occasional loads + 0.5 SSE + transients + nozzle loads 3 Emergency Design pressure + deadweight + sustained loads + thermal expansion + nozzle lRev*

loads 3 + occasional load, as applicable Faulted 4 Design pressure + deadweight + sustained loads + SSE + pipe rupture and/or impingement effects where applicable +

nozzle loads 3 + thermal expansion +

occasional load, as applicable.

NOTES:

1. For active components the plant conditions listed are all considered normal corrponent operating conditions and are specified as design conditions. For inactive components, the plant ocnditions listed may be 20 specified as component normal, upset, emergency or faulted conditions, depending on the function to be performed by the component.

2. Design temperature is used to determine allowable stress only.

3. Nozzle loads are those loads associated with the particular plant operating conditions for the component under consideration.

4. For the faulted condition. For the purpose of analysis, a pipe rupture i shall be considered for any pipe connected to the component. The results of the analysis shall demonstrate that the effects of a pipe rupture will not cause any other pipe connected to the component to rupture, or cause j the component to move from its foundation.

l

l' CPSES/FSAR

TABLE 3.98-1B

. LOADING COMBINATION AND STRESS LINITS FOR ASME III CLASS 2 & 3 PIPING (SHEET 1 0F 3)

Plant Loading Allowable Stresses Condition Combination Load Definition (Paragraphs NC and ND-3650) 20 Normal / Design pressure Sustained Sh (eq 8)

Testing deadweight Temperature (6) Thermal expansion .SA (eq 10) Sh+SA (89 11)

Thermal Anchor Movements Anchor Movements Containment Displacements (10] Rev.

Upset Design press. (3) Sustained Sh (eq 8) ' .'

Deadweight 1/2 SSE inertia Occasional 20 1/2 SSE anchor movement (2)

Dynamic Upset Events (4) 1.2 Sh (e4 9) Sh+Sh (eq 11) (5)

Temperature (6) Thermal expansion SA (eq 10)

Thermal Anchor Movements Anchor movements 1/2 SSE Anchor Movement (2) Rev.

l CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3.98-1B LOADING COMBINATION AND STRESS LIMITS FOR ASME III CLASS 2 & 3 PIPING (SHEET 2 0F 3) ,

Plant Loading Allowable Stresses Condition Combination Load Definition (Paragraphs NC and NO-3650) 20 Emergency Design pressure (3) Sustained Deadweight Jet impingement loads (7) Occasional 1.8 Sh (89 9) lRev.

Dynamic Emergency Events Pipe Impact Loads 7 20 Faulted Design pressure (3) Sustained ' .~

Deadweight SSE Inertia Jet impingement loads (7) Occasional Dynamic Faulted Events 2.4 Sh (89 9)

Pipe Impact Loads (7) Sh+SA (8) Rev.

LOCA (eq 11)

Temperature (12) Thermal expansion Thermal Anchor Movements Anchor Movements SA (eq 10) (8)

Containment Displacements (11)

SSE Anchor Movements 9

m-' _

[

CPSES/FSAR.

, TABLE 3.98-1B LOADING COMBINATION AND STRESS LIMITS FOR ASME III CLASS 2 & 3 PIPING (SHEET 3 0F 3)

Notes

1. Based on ASME Code Case 1606-1 " Stress Criteria Section III, Class 2 & 3 piping subject to upset, emergency and faulted operating conditions."

2. Anchor movement included in Equation (10) if omitted from Equation (9).

3. Design pressure is used since pitak pressure and earthquake are not taken to be acting concurrently.

4. Dynamic upset events include: Relief Valve Actuation Steam / Water Hammer, etc. . .

! 5. Does not include occasional loads. Equation (11) - Equation (8) + Equation (10).

i

6. Temperatures used correspond to Normal / Upset system operating conditions.

7. For es.sential' piping only, as identified in Damage Study Analyses performed in accordance with FSAR Section 3.68.

8. Applicable to those piping systems whose ' normal function is to prevent or mitigate the consequences of events ,

associated with a plant faulted condition (i.e., containment spray and safety injection systems) and which are -

! designed within limits specified for emergency condition.

9. Deleted.

10. Containment displacements due to Preoperational Containment Structural Integrity Pressure Test and subsequent Containment Integrated Leak Rate Pressure Test. Rev.

11. Containment displacements due to pressure and temperature response of the containment during a faulted plant condition (LOCA).

12. Temperatures used to correspond to faulted plant conditions.

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3.98-1C LOADING COMBINATIONS ASME SECTION III CLASS 1, 2, AND 3 PIPING SUPPORTS SYSTEM CONDITION LOADING COMBINATION Testing Deadweight, Thermal, Containment Pressurization Normal Thermal Expansion Deadweight Equipment and Insulation Weights Upset Thermal Expansion Deadweight Equipment and Insulation Weights 1/2 SSE (Inertia and Anchor Movements) - -

Plant Upset Dynamic Events (2) -

Emergency Thermal Expansion Deadweight Equipment and Insulation Weights Rev.

Pipe Impact Loads (1) (2)

Jet Impingement Loads (1) (2)

Plant Emergency Dynamic Events (2)

Faulted Thermal Expansion Deadweight Equipment and Insulation Weights 1.0 SSE (Inertia and Anchor Movements)

Pipe Impact Loads (1) (2)

Jet Impingement Loads (1) (2)

Plant Faulted Dynamic Events (2)

Containment Anchor Movements Notes

1. Not to be considered simultaneously

2. When applicable i

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3.9B-10 ALLOWABLE STRESSES ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III CLASS 1 PIPING SUPPORTS

Allowable Stresses and Component Classification Type System Component Non-Standard Supports Component Standard Supports Analysis Condition Plates & Shell -Linear Plate & Shell Linear

~

Design Normal Fig. NF-3221.1 NF-3231.l(a) Fig. NF-3221.1 NF-3231.l(a)

Upset Elastic Emergency Fig. NF-3221.1 NF-3231.1(b) Fig. NF-3221.1 NF-3231.l(b)

Faulted (4) Appendix F NF-3231.I(c) Appendix F NF-3231.l(c)

(NA-2140) (NA-2140) Rev.

Load Normal Upset Rating Emergency NF-3262.2 NF-3262.3 NF-3262.4 NF-3262.4  !

Faulted (4) Note (2) Note (2) Note (2) Note (2)

Notes:

1. Limit Analyses per Appendix XVII, Article 4000 may be used for elastic analysis' of linear supports.

2. Guidelines not available. Faulted condition analysis to be performed with elastic analysis.

3. Loading combinations provided in Table 3.98-10.

4. Piping supports in systems whose normal function is to prevent or mitigate the consequences of events Rev' associated with a plant faulted condition (i.e., containment spray and safety injection systems) are designed within the limits specified for emergency condition.

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3.98-1E ALLOWABLE STRESSES ASME B&PV CODE SECTION III CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING SUPPORTS Allowable Stresses and Component Classification Type System Component Non-Standard Supports Component Standard Supports Analysis Condition Plates & Shell Linear Plate & Shell Linear Design NF-3321.1 NF-3321.1 Normal NF-3321.2(a) NF-3231.l(a) NF-3321.2(a) NF-3231.1(a)

Upset NF-3321.2(b) NF-3321.2(b)

Elastic Emergency NF-3321.2(c) NF-3231.1(b) NF-3321.2(c) NF-3231.l(b)

Faulted (4) NF-3321.2(d) NF-3231.1(c) NF-3321.2(d) NF-3231.l(c)

Load Normal Upset -

Rating Emergency NF-3262.2 NF-3262.3 NF-3262.4 NF-3262.4 Faulted (4) Note (2) Note (2) Note (2) Note (2)

Notes:

1. Limit Analyses per Appendix XVII, Article 4000 may be used for elastic analysis of linear supports.

2. Guidelines not available. Faulted coridition analysis to be performed with elastic analysis.

3. Loading combinations provided in Table 3.9B-10.

4. Piping supports in systems whose normal function is to prevent or mitigate the consequences of events associated with a plant faulted condition (i.e., containment spray and safety injection systems) are Rev' designed within the limits specified for emergency condition.

. .- =. . _ . . . .

CPSES/FSAR APPENDIX 3B COMPUTER PROGRAMS USED IN THE DYNAMIC AND STATIC. ANALYSIS OF ASME CODE CLASS 2 AND 3 PIPING SYSTEMS INCLUDING SUPPORTS FOR ASME CODE CLASS 1, 2 AND 3 PIPING 4

CPSES/FSAR APPENDIX 3B INTRODUCTION The following computer progra'ms are used for the analysis of ASME Code Class 2 and 3 piping systems, including . supports for ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping:

1. NUPIPE-SW

2. BAP

3. BSPLT

4. STARDYNE

5. PITRUST

6. PILUG

7. PITRIFE

8. STEHAM

9. WATHAM

10. WATSLUG

11. ELB0W

12. PSPECTRA

13. STRUDL-SW

14. STRUDAT AND SANDUL

15. BASEPLATE-II

16. BIP

17. APE

18. CHPLOT

19. RELAP5 For each computer program there is a brief description of the program's theoretical basis, the assumptions, and the references used in the program, the extent of its application, and a summary of manual or comparison qualification.

l l

l '

l 3B - i

CPSES/FSAR APPENDIX 3B Section Ij_tle 3B.1 NUPIPE-SW 3B.2 BAP 38.3 BSPLT 38.4 STARDYNE 3B.5 PITRUST 38.6 PILUG 3B.7 PITRIFE 38.8 STEHAM 38.9 WATHAM 3B.10 WATSLUG 38.11 ELB0W 38.12 PSPECTRA 38.13 STRUDL-SW 38.14 STRUDAT AND SANDUL 3B.15 BASEPLATE-II 3B.16 BIP 3B.17 APE 38.18 CHPLOT 3B.19 RELAPS l

3B - 11

~

CPSES/FSAR APPENDIX 3B LIST OF TABLES-Table No. Title 38.1-1 Comparison of Natural Frequencies for Figure 38.1-1 3B.1-2 Comparison of Internal Member Loads and Nodal Deflections, Combined Results for Modes 1-5 for Figure 38.1-1 38.1-3 Comparison of Natural Frequencies for Figure 3B.1-2 38.1-1 Comparison of Internal Member Loads and Nodal Deflections, Combined Results for Modes 1-5 for Figure 38.1-2 38.1-5 Comparison of Support Loads Between NUPIPE II and NUPIPE-SW for Figure 38.1-3.

3B.1-6 Comparison of Support Loads for Figure 3B.1-4 38.1-7 Comparison of Support Reactions Due.to Thermal Expansion for Figure 38.1-5 3B.1-8 Comparison of Deflections Due to Thermal Expansion for Figure 38.1-5 i

38.1-9 Comparison of Stress Due to Thermal Expansion for Figure 38.1-5 38.1-10 Comparison of Internal _ Forces and Moments Due to Thermal Expansion for Figure 38.1-5 38.3-1 Comparison of BSPLT Computer Program Results With Hand Calculation Results 38.5-1 Comparison of PITRUST With Franklin Institute Program, CYLN0Z, and Hand Calculation 38 - iii

CPSES/fSAR 3B.5-2 Comparison of PITRUST with Reference 2 Results 3B.6-1 Comparison of PILUG Computer Program Output With Hand Calculations -

38.7-1 Comparison of PITRIFE Computer Program Output With STRUDL-II Output 38.7-2 Comparison of PITRIFE Computer Program Output With Hand Calculations 3B.8-1 Nodal Force Comparison 38.9-1 Input Data for WATHAM 38.9-2 Comparison of Nodal Force Calculation at Time = 2.34 Sec 38.10-1 Input Data for WATSLUG 38.10-2 Input Data for WATSLUG 38.11-1 ELB0W Program - ELB0W Properties Used for Verification Problems 38.11-2 ELB0W Program - Case 1 Results 38.11-3 ELBOW Program - Case 2 Results 3B.11-4 ELB0W Program - Case 3 Results 38.13-1 Comparison of Eigenvalues from Theoretial Results, STRUDL Results, and GT-STRUDL Results (Problem No.1) 3B.13-2 Comparison of Eigenvectors from STRUDL and GT-STRUDL (Problem No. 1) 38.13-3 The Member Forces from STRUDL and GT-STRUDL Computer Runs for Different Loading Combinations (Problem No. 2) 3B - iv

CPSES/FSAR 3B.13-4 The Joint Loads (at Supports) from STRUDL.and GT-STRUDL Computer Runs for Different Loading Conditions (Problem No.

2) 3B.13-5 Comparison of Element (Randomly Selected) Stresses (Problem No. 3) 3B.13-6 Comparison of Resultant (Randomly Selected) Joint Displacement Supports (Global) (Problem No. 3) 38.13-7 Comparison of Members (Randomly Selected) Forces and Moments (Problem No. 4) 38.13-8 Comparison of Resultant Joint Loads - Supports (Problem No.

4) (Global) 3B.13-9 Comparison of Eigenvalues, Frequencies, and Periods (Problem No. 5) 38.13-10 Comparison of Eigenvectors for Few Randomly Selected Modes and Joints (Problem No. 5) 3B.13-11 Comparison of Joint Displacements at the Free Joints for Randomly Selected Joints (Global) (Problem No. 5) 38.14-1 Comparison of SANDUL Load Combinations With Hand Computation 3B.14-2 Comparison of Member Forces Between SANDUL and STRUDL-SW 38.14-3 Comparison of Stresses and Weld Size Between SANDUL and Hand Computations 38.17-1 APE Program Verification Problem Comparison of Drilled-In Anchor Loads 3B - v

CPSES/FSAR APPENDIX 38 LIST OF FIGURES Fioure No. Title 38.1-1 Mathematical Model for Response Spectra Seismic Verification 38.1-2 Mathematical Model for Response Spectra Seismic Verification 38.1-3 Mathematical Model for Missing Mass Verification 38.1-4 Mathematical Model for Missing Mass Verification 3B.1-5 Mathematical Model for Thermal Analysis 38.8-1 Sudden Discharge of a Gas From a Pipeline'Through a Nozzle (Case A) 38.8-2 Sudden Discharge of a Gass From a Pipeline Through a Nozzle (Case B) 38.8-3 Comparison of Pressure Response at the Closed End 38.8-4 Comparison of Pressure Response at the Open End 3B.8-5 Comparison of Pressure Responses by STEHAM and Experiment 38.9-1 Hydraulic Network for Verification Problem 3B.9-2 Hydraulic Network for WATHAM Verification 38.9-3 Head-Versus-Time Plot for Junction J 3B.9-4 Head-Versus-Time Plot at Value 3B.10-1 WATSLUG Model of EPRI Sample Problem 3 8 - vi

CPSES/FSAR 3B.10-2 NUPIPE-SW Model of EPRI Sample Problem 3B.10-3 Comparison of Segment 2 Forcing Function l

3B.10-4 Comparison of Segment 3 Forcing Function 1

38.10-5 Comparison of Segment 2 Forcing Reaction 3B.10-6 Comparison of Segment 3 Forcing Reaction 38.12-1 PSPECTRA - Absolute Summation of ARS Curves 3B.12-2 PSPECTRA - Required Response Spectrum Generation

38.13-1 Finite Element Model of the Foundation Mat for a Portion of the Off-Gas Building 38.13-2 Positive Sign Convention for Results of Plate Bending Element l

3B.13-3 Model - Suspended Ceiling 38.14-1 STRUOL Input ASME Anchor E

38 - vii

CPSES/FSAR APPENDIX 3B 38.1 NUPIPE-SW General Descriotion .'

The NUPIPE-SW piping program performs a linear elastic analysis of three dimensional piping systems subjected to thermal, static, and dynamic loads. It utilizes the finite element method of analysis.

NUPIPE-SW handles all loading conditions required for complete nuclear piping analyses. A given piping configuration may be analyzed successively for a number of static and dynamic load conditions in a single computer run. Separate load cases, such as thermal expansion and anchor displacements may be combined to form additional analysis cases. The piping dead load analysis considers both distributed weight properties of the piping and any added concentrated weights.

A lumped mass model of the system is used for all dynamic analysis; both translational and rotational degrees of freedom may be considered. Location of lumped masses and degrees of freedom at each mass point are pre-selected by the analyst. The program automatically computes values of translational lumped masses.

Program input consists basically of program control, piping configuration description, and load specification information. As part of the program input process a " missing mass" corrective feature is utilized in the response spectra analysis. This provides an approximation to the response of modes above the specified cutoff frequency in calculating the support loads. The output for each loading condition analyzed consists of support reactions, internal forces and moments, deflections, rotations, and member stresses.

Output from seismic analysis includes system normal mode information.

Several reports may be generated based on report specification. These reports include pipe stress summaries, pipe support tabulations, and piping isometric plots.

38-1 i

CPSES/FSAR The. NUPIPE-SW program performs analysis in accordance with ASME Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components (Code). Features ensuring code conformance include use of accepted analysis methods, incorporation of specified stress intensification factors, stress indices and flexibility factors, proper combination of moment resultants, and provision to (automatically) generate results of combined loading cases. A program option is available to specify among Class 1 analysis in accordance with NB-3600 of the Code, Analysis per ANSI B31.1.0 power piping code and combined Class 1 and Class 2 analysis per Articles NB-3600 and NC-3600 of the Code.

Procram Verification The NUPIPE-SW program has been verified against the NRC Benchmark problems for response spectrum seismic analysis. The model shown in Figure 38.1-1 is a three dimensional piping system consisting of straight and curved elements starting and terminating at anchors. The seismic analysis used a standard SRSS combination. The second model shown in Figure 38.1-2 is a multi branched piping system which resembles a table. For the seismic analysis a 10 percent grouping method utilizing a standard SRSS combination is selected. The results of comparisons from both programs are presented in Tables 38.1-1 through 38.1-4. The models used are presented in Figures 38.1-1 and 38.1-2.

The NUPIPE-SW missing mass option has been verified against NUPIPE-II.

The mathematical model in Figure 38.1-3 has a total of 87 translational dynamic degrees of freedom. The NUPIPE-SW and NUPIPE-II cutoff mode is mode 19 with a frequency of 44 hertz. The ANCHOR stiffnesses input are the same for the NUPIPE-SW and NUPIPE-II analyses. The results of comparison are in Table 38.1-5 with the model appearing in Figure 3B.1-3.

i 3B-2

- - . _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ . .

CPSES/FSAR The additional model used in the missing mass verification is shown in Figure 38.1-4. It is a free-ended piping system with three equally

~

spaced lumped mass points. The three lumped mass points hava a W

translational dynamic degre6 ef. freedom in the X-direction only. This results in a maximum of three modes being generated. Several computer runs were made using NUPIPE-SW. :The first computer run had the missing mass option with a cutoff mode' set at 2. The second run and I

no missing mass option and a cutoff mode equal to 3. The results of comparison are in Table 3B.1-6.

The NUPIPE-SW program has been verified with ADLPIPE (A.D. Little Corp.) for thermal analysis. The results from both programs are presented in Tables 38.1-7 through 38.1-10. The model used for this comparison is shown in Figure 3B.1-5 with the operating conditions indicated on the figure.

i t

i 38-3 I

i CPSES/FSAR )

3B.2 BAP  :

i l

The Baseplate Analysis Processor (BAP) computer program is a preprocessor /postprocessor that works in conjunction with the program ANSYS. The purpose of BAP 'is to generate the ANSYS input necessary for the static, non-linear analysis of baseplates subjected to out-of-plane loads, to distribute in-plane loads to the anchor bolts assuming an infinitely rigid baseplate, and to post process the ANSYS results

'into a report-style format.

BAP has been documented by benchmarking procedures against the Baseplate Investigation Processor computer code, which is a recognized program in the public domain.

4 4

38-4

CPSES/FSAR 38.3 BSPLT ,

BSPLTw' as developed by SWEC and is a fully document 5d computer program. BSPLT is used for'the qualification of baseplates with four anchor bolts. This program' computes bolt tension, shear, tension-shear interaction factors, and plate-bending stresses for various load conditions based on loads applied at the surface of the plate.

The BSPLT computer program has been verified by a comparison with a hand calculation. The sample problem was a 19-in. by 21-in. four-bolt baseplate with a plate thickness of 1 in, and a bolt size of 1 in.

The results are summarized in Table 3B.3-1. The computer program results are within acceptable limits.

F 38-5

CPSES/FSAR 38.4 STARDYNE l

The STARDYNE Structural Analysis System, written by Mechanics Research, Inc., of Los Angeles,' California, is a fully warranted and documented computer program"available at Control Data Corporation.

The MRI STARDYNE Systerns consists of a series of compatible, digital computer programs designed to analyze linear and non-linear elastic structural methods. The system encompasses the full range of static and dynamic analyses.

The static capability includes the computation of structural deformations and member loads and stresses caused by an arbitrary set of thermal, nodal-applied loads, and prescribed displacements.

Using the normal mode technique, linear dynamic response analyses can be performed for a wide range of loading conditions, including transient, steady-state harmonic, random, and shock spectra excitation types. Dynamic response results can be presented as structural deformations, internal member' loads and stresses, and statistical data.

The non-linear dynamic analysis program is integrated in the rest of the STARDYNE system. The equations of motion for the linear portion of the structural model are generated and modified to account for the 4

non-linear springs. The resulting non-linear equations of motion are directly integrated, using either the Newmark or Wilson implicit integration operators. The user may enter sets of structural loadings, which vary with time, and specify time points at which the-program is to output the structural response.

This computer program is' considered verified by constant use and by the vendor's original documentation and qualification.

38-6

CPSES/FSAR 3B.5 PITRUST PITRUS'T is a program to calculate local stresses in the pipe caused by cylindrical welded attachments 'under external loadings. This program uses .the Bijlaard method to calculate local stresses in the pipe wall caused by cylindrical welced attachments under external loadings, including pressure, dead laad, thermal load, and combinations of maximum dynamic loads.1 PITRUST has been verified by comparing its solution of a test problem to the solution of the same problem by an independently written piping local stress program, CYLN0Z, in the public domain. The CYLN0Z piping local stress program was written by Franklin Institute (Philadephia, PA) and is presently used by engineering companies. The test program is of a 72.375-in. outside diameter by 0.375-in. thick run pipe, reacting under an external loading condition of 1,000 lb. force (normal and shear) and 1,000 in.-lb. bending and torsional moments transmitted by a 16-in, outside diameter nozzle. A comparison of results is tabulated in Table 38.5-1. PITRUST also has been verified by comparing its solution of the test problem to the experimental results.2 A comparison of these results is tabulated in Table 38.5-2.

l

38-7 l

l

CPSES/FSAR

, 38.6 PILUG PILUG 'is a ' program to calculate local stresses in the pipe wall caused by rectangular welded attachmen'ts under external loadings. This program uses the Bijlaard method to calculate local stresses in pipe w wall caused by rectangular welded attachments under external loadings, including pressure, dead load, thermal load, and combinations of maximum dynamic loads.3 PILUG has been verified by comparing its solution of test problem to results obtained by hand calculations using the formulations of Reference 3. A comparison of results is tabulated in Table 38.6-1.

I i

b i

3B-8 l

l

CPSES/FSAR 3B.7 PITRIFE General Descriotion PITRIFE (SWEC 1982) is a compu'ter program for calculating the local discontinuity stresses.in a pipe at the intersection with a circular trunnion due to loads applied to the-trunnion. It is a post-processor program that uses the results of a finite element model of two intersecting cylinders. Based upon the stresses calculated with the

! finite element model, nondimensional stress coefficients are computed for a size-on-size pipe-trunnion configuration for three different

values of average pipe radius to wall thickness (R/t - 5,10, 20).

Additionally, non-dimensional stress coefficients are computed for a

< trunnian radius equal to 0.707 times the pipe radius (0.707 size-on-size) for the three values of R/t. To facilitate the determination of non-dimensional stress coefficients for other values of R/t, a rotated parabola curve that fits the three R/t data points is generated for both the size-on-size and the 0.707 size-on-size data. The PITRIFE program reconstructs these curves and uses them to interpolate and extrapolate for stress coefficients for different values of R/t. The i finite element models are analyzed using the STRUDL-II computer program (ICES) SWEC 1977.

l Proaram Verification The PITRIFE computer program has been verified by demonstrating that the maximum stress intensities as given by PITRIFE equal the values given by the finite element analysis for specific size-on-size and 0.707 size-on-size models. A comparison of these results is tabulated in Table 38.7-1. The program was verified for other ratios of trunnion to pipe radius by demonstrating that the stress coefficients I

and maximum stress intensities derived by hand calculation equal the coefficients used in the program to ca,1culate maximum stress intensity. A comparison of these results is given in Table 38.7-2.

V J

~

38-9 i

, . . _ ~ . , - . _ _ - - . _ _ _ - - _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ - . _ . , - . - _ . - - - - _ . ._.-.. -....-.,.. _ -- ._ _ _ --, ,_ . - _ - -

CPSES/FSAR 38.8 STEHAM~

General Descriotion STEHAM is a computer program which is used to determine the steam hammer transients of piping systems. This program uses the method of characteristics with finite difference approximations both in space and in time 4,5,6 It calculates the one-dimensional transient

' flow responses and the flow-induced forcing functions in a piping system caused by rapid operational changes of piping components, such as the stop valve and the safety relief valve. Flow characteristics .

of piping components are mathematically formulated as boundary conditions in the program. These components include the flow control valve, the stop valve, the safety relief valve, the steam manifold, and the steam reservoir. Frictional effects are taken into consideration.

This program accepts the following as input:

a. The flow network representation of the piping system.

b. The initial flow conditions along the piping system.

c. Time-dependent flow characteristics of piping components.

Output consists of time-histories of flow pressures, flow densities, flow velocities, inertia, and momentum functions.

Proaram Verification STEHAM is verified by comparing its solutions of a test problem (Figures 3B.8-1 and 38.8-2) to the results of the same problem obtained by an independent analytical approach, as well as an experimental measurement, as published in Reference 7 and 8. A comparison of results for time-history, pressure responses is plotted on Figures 38.8-3, 38.8-4, and 38.8-5. The forcing functions developed for nodal points of the piping system calculated from the 2 A-paA also have been checked by hand relation F - (p + pV /g) calculation as tabulated in Table 38.8-1.

38-10

CPSES/FSAR 3B.9 WATHAM Genera'l Descriotion

. WATHAM is a computer program which is used to determine the flow-induced forcing functions acting on piping systems due to water hammer. These forcing functions may then be used as input to a structural dynamic analysis, such as a NUPIPE program run.

WATHAM is applicable to a water hammer problem or, more generally, any unsteady, incompressible fluid flow. These events may be caused by normal or abnormal operational changes of piping components, such as the start up and trip of pumps or the rapid opening and closing of valves.

The analysis is based.upon the method of characteristics with finite-difference approximations, both in time and space for the solution of one-dimensional liquid flows. Influences of piping components, including flow valves, pipe connections, reservoirs, and pumps have been considered in the analysis.

WATHAM input requires the geometry of the piping system, pipe properties, water properties, operational characteristics of pump and valve, flow frictional coefficients, and the initial water flow conditions. The output provides the time-history functions of piezometric heads, velocities, and nodal forces for all nodes and the inertial unbalanced force for each segment. It also gives the maximum value of all the preceding functions and their occurring time in the process of flow-transient.

l l

3B-11 L _. -- . - _

CPSES/FSAR Proaram Verification Figure 3B.9-1 depicts a flow network with nine pipes, its geometrical properties, and steady-stath fiow conditions. The flow transient mode analyzed is the sudden closure of a valve at the down steam end.

Figure 3.9B-2 shows the hydraulic network for WATHAM. Table 38.9-1 illustrates the input data needed for WATHAM run. Figures 38.9-3 and 38.9-4 show a comparison of head-time curves 9,10 with WATHAM.

Table 3B.9-2 presents the comparison of nodal forces between hand calculation and WATHAM computation.

In general, WATHAM results are in agreement with Streeter's results9 The small discrepancy is attributed to the modeling of reservoir boundary condition. In WATHAM, the energy equation between the reservoir ic used, rather than assuming that the head of pipe entrance is the same as that of the reservoir.

38-12 i

CPSES/FSAR 38.10 WATSLUG General Description The purpose of WATSLUG is to determine forcing functions on piping systems during water slug discharge events for subsequent input to piping dynamic analysis.

The analysis is based upon rigid body motion of the generally sub-cooled water slug and ideal gas representations of the steam or air using rigid column theory to facilitate tracking the several water-steam or water-air interfaces. The driving force is the steam pressure between the valve and the slug, less friction and other losses, and back pressure. Density changes due to possible local flashing of the water slug are considered. Having recourse to the control volume theory, the subsequent segment-forced calculation is carried out.

The input consists of complet. piping system geometry, pipe dimensions (Table 38.10-1), valve flow characteristics, valve opening time, detail upstream steam conditions, and initial downstream steam or air conditions (Table 38.10-2), while the output contains forcing functions for each piping segment based upon flow velocities, pressures, and densities during the water slug discharge event.

Forces were written on tape for direct input to NUPIPE-SW.

4 1

3B-13

CPSES/FSAR Proaram Verification The WATSLUG model of the test problem is diagrammed on Figure 38.10-1, whiletheNUPIPE-SWmodelihdiagrammedonFigure38.10-2. WATSLUG is verified by comparing the solution of this test problem to the results for the same problem obtained by an independent analytical approach (RELAP5/ MOD 1), as shown on Figures 38.10-3 and 3B.10-4, and the comparison of predicted-versus-measured support reactions. NUPIPE-SW generated support reactions due to WATSLUG forcing functions were compared with experimental measurements from a test run of this problem, EPRI Test 980 (RELAP/ MOD 1) shown on Figures 38.10-5 and 3B.10-6.

The WATSLUG forcing functions and the resultant NUPIPE-SW support reactions compare favorably with the RELAP/ MOD 1 predicted forcing functions and the EPRI-measured support reactions, respectively.

t l

l 38-14 l

1 CPSES/FSAR 3B.11 ELB0W Genera'l Descriotion ELB0W calculates the circumferential and icngitudinal stresses on the inside and outside surfaces of an elbow subjected to internal pressure, in-plane bending, out-of-plane bending, torsion, and linear temperature gradient through the wall.. Stress indexes and flexibility factors for the elbows are also calculated. Results can be used directly for design and analysis of elbows in accordance with Article NB-3600 of ASME Section III.

The solution method uses Table NB-3685.1-1 relative to internal pressure and Table NB-3685.1-2, with modifications as indicated by Dodge and Moore (1972) relative to moment loadings and flexibility factors.

The complete analysis of Rodabough and George (1957), based on the minimum potential energy method, was written in terms of infinite series. A modified version of the analytical method by Rodabough and George (1957), which considered both in-plane and out-of-plane bending j as well as the influence of internal pressure, was selected by ORNL as the most appropriate basis in determining the stresses and flexibility for elbows. The analysis is a generation of the work done by Von Karman. The modifications to the analysis method of Rodabaugh and George (1957) include a generalization of the " correction for transverse compression" recommended by Gross. The ORNL computer program ORNL-ELB0W was written by Dodge and Moore (1973) to implement this analysis procedure.

The SWEC computer program ELB0W uses the same theoretical considerations to obtain'the flexibility factor and detailed stresses in the elbows. ,

s 3B-15

CPSES/FSAR When this program is used, it is considered to be a detailed analysis.

For elbows free from local discontinuities, ELB0W solutions are the detailed solutions to Equation 10, Table NB-3653, including the consideration of C 1 and C2 ,'but withoutlaa Ta - % Tbl. term. The solutions are also the detailed solutions to Equation 11 iflAT 2 term is negligible.

The program does not take into account the effects of discontinuities on the elbows. The influence length of a concentrated force or moment in a shells structure is about 2.5 7 rt, where r is the radius of curvature of the shell surface; or for a pipe, r is the mean radius and t is the thickness of the-pipe. For the portion of elbow at a distance of 2.5 Ot away from local discontinuities, detailed stresses can be obtained by using this program.

In general, for an elbow welded to tangent pipe of the same thickness, the effects of straight tangent pipe on the elbow can be neglected (Table NB-3683.2). However, if two elbows are welded together or joined by a piece of straight pipe that is less than one pipe diameter in length, some intensification effects may have to be considered.

This program is an efficient and easy-to-use program for determining stresses, stress indexes, and flexibility factors for elbows.

Comparison with experimental results indicates that the results accurately represent the maximum stresses which occur at the center of the bend. Since end effects are not included in the analytical solution on which this program is based, the calculated stresses and flexibility of the elbow may be larger than the actual values.

1 Required input data include elbow dimensions, material properties, applied moments and forces, internal pressure, and linear temperature gradients.

I 38-16

CPSES/FSAR Output includes stress indexes, flexibility factor for the elbow, and circumferential and longitudinal stresses on the inside and outside surfaces at specific locations.

Procram Verification Sample problems were selected for solution by ELB0W, and these results were compared with those obtained from hand calculations. The following cases were selected for purposes of verification:

3 Case 1 - Elbow is subjected to internal pressures. Results are given in Table 3B.11-2.

a Case 2 - Elbow is subjected to a linear temperature gradient through the pipe wall. Results are given in Table 38.11-3.

Case 3 - Elbow is subjected to combined loadings at one end.

Results are given in Table 38.11-4.

Elbow properties used for the analyses are given in Table 38.11-1.

l l

38-17 l

CPSES/FSAR 38.12 PSPECTRA General Descriotion PSPECTRA (ME-164) is a data-generating program written and fully documented by SWEC for in-house use. It is used to combine amplified response spectra of seismic and other dynamic events. The methods of spectrum combination include absolute' summation, square root of the

. sum of the squares (SRSS), and maximum value enveloping. ~ PSPECTRA is also used to generate required response spectra which are in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.122, Revision 1. This involves spreading the peak accelerations and sloping the sides parallel to the original peaks of the input amplified response spectra. The output curves can be generated in terms of accelerations (g's) and either period (sec) or frequency (Hz).

Procram Verification A comparison of a generated response spectrum versus the two input response spectra that were combined by absolute summation is provided on Figure 3B.12-1. Figure 3B.12-2 provides a generated required response spectrum with spread peaks and parallel sloped sides superimposed on the input amplified response spectrum (ARS). The ARS is generated by the time-history method. These figures demonstrate the function and adequacy of the program.

38-18

CPSES/FSAR 3B.13 STRUDL (STRUCTURAL DESIGN LANGUAGE) i General Descriotion The STRUDL computer code used within SWEC was developed from Version 2, Modification 2 (June 1972) of the Integrated Civil Engineering Systems (ICES) STRUDL II program which was design and formulated by the Department of Civil Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. STRUDL II is a recognized program in the public domain.

The software system is IBM-MVS Release 3.8. The hardware configuration is IBM-3033.

The finite element method provides for the solution of a wide range of solid mechanics problems. Its implementation within the context of the STRUDL analysis facilities expands these problems for the treatment of plane stress, plane strain, plate bending, shallow shell, and three-dimensional stress analysis problems.

The three-dimensional finite element capability of STRUDL is used to analyze the drywell at the region of the equipment hatch and personnel door assembly and other regions of interest.

Seismic Category I structures are analyzed for seismic effect using the dynamic analysis capability of STRUDL. The analysis yields frequencies of vibration, mode shapes, displacements, velocities, accelerations, and forces.

t 38-19

CPSES/FSAR ,

4 l

Proaram Verification Comparisons of results for five test problems performed by both STRUDL and GT-STRUDL are provided herein. GT-STRUDL is a recognized program in the public domain, develope'd by the GT-ICES Systems Laboratory, School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. In all cases, there is excellent agreement of results between STRUDL and GT-STRUDL.

4 4

4 4

38-20

CPSES/FSAR COMPARIS0N OF STRUDL VERSUS GT-STRUDL RESULTS i FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS CAPABILITY OF STRUDL  !

Problem No. 1 -

Find the natural frequencies F (I) of vibration for an I-beam with simply supported end, vibrating in the plane of its web.

The pertinent parameters of the beam are as follows:

Length - 30 ft Modulus of Elasticity - 30 x 10 6. psi Moment of Inertia - 3021 in.4 Weight per foot - 100 lb.

Y a

AL JL The theoretical results can be verified from Vibration Problems in Engineering, Fourth Edition, S. Timoshenko, D. W. Young, and W.

Weaver, page 423, Problem 1.

Results: Natural Frequency F(I) where:

I - mode number

- 24.8 (I)2 cycles /sec ,

- 155.82 (I)2 rad /sec 3B-21

CPSES/FSAR The comparison of results (i.e., eigenvalues and eigenvectors) of the theoretical values, STRUDL and GT-STRUDL, is tabulated in Tables 3B.13-1 and 38.13-2. The eigenvalues for STRUDL and GT-STRUDL agree witheachother(Table 38.1,3-1). The eigenvectors for STRUDL AND GT-STRUDL agree with each other (Table 3B.13-2).

e f

l l

3B-22

CPSES/FSAR COMPARIS0N OF STRUDL VERSUS GT-STRUDL RESULTS FOR STATIC ANALYSIS CAPABILITY OF STRUDL Problem No. 2 gms MEtwch 7 METN - -- ---

7 jl O E PtN END Jg utMsEn enopEntiEs eon eX ALL THE MEM0 ens.

8 l As 8.00M i As a .04Ma Ay* .04M 8i 1 m3 .0004SM FIXED MueGED HINGED q C

=

p _,_

e The frame as shown on the sketch is tested for the loads as shown on the sketch. Also, the frame wa's tested for joint displacement of joints A and B in the Y direction and also the joint displacement'of joint A in the X direction. The member forces and the joint forces of I

the STRUDL run agreed with the GT-STRUDL run. The comparison of the results is tabulated in Table 38.13-3 and 3B.13-4.

Loadina Condition 1 Member DE force Y uniform W-0.005 Metn/cm Joint D load force X-0.7 Metn l

Loadina Condition 2 Joint A displaced Y -0.8 cm Joint B displaced Y -0.3 cm l

Loadino Condition 3 g Joint A displaced X -0.2 cm 38-23

CPSES/FSAR s

COMPARISON OF STRUDL VERSUS GT-STRUDL RESULTS FOR FINITE ELEMENT CAPABILITY OF STRUDL Problem No. 3 '

~

A foundation mat was analyzed using the finite element capability of STRUDL for a variety of loading combinations. A comparison check is performed for a loading condition which combines the self weight of the substructure and superstructure, dead load of 2.5 ft of soil above the mat, and east-west tornado loading, by using the finite element capability of GT-STRUDL, a computer program in the public domain. A finite element model is provided in Figure 38.13-1. Sign convention details are provided in Figure 38.13-2. Refer to Table 3B.13-5 and 38.13-6 for comparison between the results obtained from STRUDL and GT-STRUDL.

i r

l l

l i

3B-24 l

CPSES/FSAR COMPARISON OF STRUDL VERSUS GT-STRUDL RESULTS FOR STATIC ANALYSIS CAPABILITY OF STRUDL Problem No. 4 A comparison check is performed for suspended ceiling design using the static analysis capability of STRUDL versus GT-STRUDL. A model is provided in Figure 38.13-3. The loading condition accounts for the dead loads of the ceiling. Refer to Tables 3B.13-7 and 38.13-8 for

. comparison between the results obtained from STRUDL and'GT-STRUDL.

4 I

)

t i

i

. 3B-25 t

J

_y._. -- - _-_ .. _, - ..._,..-,_,.._,-._,,y~,,__.,-,,_.-,__---,m._ _ .

. . . _ - . . , _ . _ _ _ , _ - . - . , , . . . . . , . . . _ - . . , , , ..mmyy,____ ,,.., . _ __,, _ , _,

CPSES/FSAR COMPARIS0N OF STRUDL VERSUS GT-STRUDL RESULTS FOR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS (RESPONSE SPECTRA).

CAPABILITY OF STRUDL Problem No. 5 A comparison check is performed for suspended ceiling design using the dynamic analysis capabi.lity of STRUDL versus.GT-STRUDL. A model is provided in Figure 38.13-3. The loading condition accounts for the dynamic seismic loads resulting from ceiling dead load. Refer to Tables 38.13-9, 38.13-10, AND 38.13-11 for comparison between the results obtained from STRUDL and GT-STRUDL.

l d

l l

i 38-26

r CPSES/FSAR 3B.14 STRUDAT AND SANDUL STRUDAT and SANDUL were developed by SWEC and are fully qualified and documented. The computer progr'ams perform ASME III, Appendix XVII and AISC code checks and~ size fillet welds for pipe support frames and anchors for various loading conditions and combinations.

STRUDAT is a post-processor for STRUDL-SW and translates STRUDL-SW output for applied unit loads into a protected disk' file, subsequently accessed by SANDUL. This access is fully traceable.

SANDUL combines the load components for each applied load into the appropriate. load conditions, then applies the appropriate signs to each applied load for each loading condition. This load condition matrix is multiplied by the unit load member force and unit load reaction matrixes from STRUDAT to generate the computed member forces and reactions. This is based on the principle of superposition.

These member forces are used to calculate the required fillet weld sizes and member stresses. Allowable stresses are also computed for each member. The output provides a ratio of the' member stresses and required weld size for each member and weld, respectively. In addition, a summary of the support reactions is provided in the output.

The STRUDAT and SANDUL computer programs have been verified by comparison with STRUDL-SW and hand computations. These results are presented in Table 3B.14-1 through 38.14-3. The sample model is shown on Figure 38.14-1. This comparison provides results within an acceptable range.

t n

l i

i l

3B-27

CPSES/FSAR 38.15 CDC - BASEPLATE II General Descriotion ,

BASEPLATE II is a combination of a pre and post-processor to the STARDYNE program for the purpose of analyzing flexible baseplates on a geometrically non-linear foundation. The program employs an automatic mesh generation technique with the user in control of mesh size and element configuration.

Input includes plate geometry, nonstandard and standard-(library) attachments, anchor locations, anchor and concrete stiffnesses, material properties, anchor allowables, and up to 50 loading conditions.

Output consists of 3 printer plot of the baseplate showing attachment and anchor locations, phte deformations and principal stresses, anchor bolt tension, and resultant shear load for each anchor, together with calculated tension / shear interaction and factor of safety.

Proaram Verification BASEPLATE II is verified and qualified through Control Data Corporation quality assurance programs, which are periodically

! evaluated by SWEC and which have been found to be satisfactory.

l 3B-28 l

CPSES/FSAR 3B.16 BIP General Description BIP (Baseplate Information Processor) is a set of two programs, BIP1 and BIP2, which are pre and post-processors to ANSYS. These programs reduce the time required for baseplate analysis. Baseplates are analyzed for in-plane and out-of-plane loads that are transferred through the attachments. The baseplate may be treated as infinitely rigid for in-plane loads, resulting in a statically determinate solution for anchor bolt shear loads. Out-of-plane loads are analyzed by ANSYS to account for plate flexibility as well as gaps between the baseplate and concrete and interference fit with anchors.

Input to BIP includes plate and attachment geometry, anchor locations, anchor and concrete stiffness values, anchor and concrete gaps, material properties, anchor allowables with reduction factors, and up to 10 loading conditions.

Output consists of an input echo, a printer plot of the baseplate showing attachment and anchor locations, resultant shear at each anchor together with reduced tension allowables based on tension-shear interaction, plate deformations and stresses, and reactions (including bolt pullout loads).

Proaram Verification The BIP program is a publicly available program and is verified and qualified through Boeing Computer Services Quality Assurance Programs.

These are periodically evaluated by SWEC and have been found to be satisfactory.

3B-29

CPSES/FSAR ,

38.17 APE General Descriotion Computer program APE (Anchor Plate Evaluation) calculates the shear and tension loads for each anchor of a group of drilled-in anchors of a baseplate subjected to in-plane and out-of-plane loads. A reduced tension allowable, based on the calculated shear load and tension-shear interaction, is also calculated.

Program input includes plate and attachment geometry, anchor bolt locations and allowables, and applied loads.

Output consists of anchor bolt pattern center of gravity and polar moment inertia and resultant shear and allowable tension load for each anchor. Load factors for out-of-plane loading, and anchor tension loads, including load factors, for each anchor.

Proaram Verification Verification of the APE program (Version 01, Level 00) was performed by comparing results of APE analyses with similar results obtained from Boeing Computer Services Program BIP (refer to Section 38.16).

Comparison of results from APE (Version 01, Level 00) and Boeing Computer Services Program BIP are shown in Table 38.17-1. APE results are shown to be conservative or comparable with respect to BIP. All results are based on loadings at the critical anchor.

t 38-30

CPSES/FSAR 38.18 CHPLOT CHPLOT is a program which will plot any number of data values (variables) versus time. A)thoughtheplotinputdatafilecanbein

! the form of card data, the more appropriate application of this program is to be used in conjunction with a program that creates a plot data file (on disk or tape) having the format required for input to this program.

Plots are available in two sizes: one with axes of 5 in. (Ordinate) by 8 in. (Absicissa) which fits the standard 8 1/2 in. by 11-in page, and the other is 8 in, by 12 in, for fitting an 11-in. by 15-in. page.

Plots are normally one data value versus time per graph, although up to 14 data values (plots) can be plotted on one graph.

i 1

1 i

s j 3B-31

CPSES/FSAR 38.19 RELAP5 General Description RELAPS is a public-domain computer program which was written by Idaho l National Engineering Laboratory and is available .from several sources i including Control Data Corporation (CDC). The program may be used to

evaluate the behavior of a system subjected to postulated transients

such as loss of coolant from large or small pipe breaks, pump failures, etc., or may be used to evaluate the thermal-hydraulic response of fluid transients in piping systems.

RELAP5 uses a five equation two-phase flow hydrodynamic model consisting of two phase continuity equations , two-phase momentum equations and an overall energy equation augmented by the requirement

[ that one of the phases is assumed saturated. In this model, only two  :

i interphase constitutive relations are required, those for interphase l drag and interphase mass exchange. Models are included for abrupt area changes, choking, mass transfer interphase drag, wall friction

- and branching.

l For hydrodynamics, the spacu approximation uses a staggered mesh where l integral forms of the continuity and energy equations are approximated l over control volumes and line integral forms of the momentum equations are applied from the midpoint of one control volume to the midpoint of l the adjoining control volume . . Hydrodynamic equations are advanced in time using a semi-implicit, linearized method. Head conduction is approximated by finite differences and advanced by the Crank-Nicolson i

scheme. A modified Runge-Kutta technique for stiff equations is used

to solve the reactor kinetics equations. The interaction among hydrodynamics, heat conduction, trips, reactor kinetics and the i control system is explicit.

The program requires numerical input data that completely describe the .

l initial fluid conditions and geometry of the system being analyzed.

The input data include physical characteristics such as fluid volume j geometry and pump characteristics, range of time step size, output 3B-32

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

CPSES/FSAR l variables, output frequency and trips. The piping network is described to RELAP5 as a set of connected control volumes. RELAP5 computes fluid properties within these volumes and in the connecting flow junctions at discrete [ time' points (steps).

In general the program provides, as output, variables necessary to

. describe the transient state of the system being analyzed. These results include, as applicable, time varying pressure, momentum flux and energy states throughout a fluid system containing water, steam, and/or a two-phase mixture.

Proaram Verification RELAPS is a recognized program in the public domain.

l i

i 4

1 38-33

CPSES/FSAR l REFERENCES

1. Local Stress in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells Due to External

~

Loading. Welding Research Council Bulletin, WRC-107,1965. l

2. Corum, J. M. and Greenstreet, W. L., Experimental Elastic Stress Analysis of Cylinder to Cylinder Shell Models and Comparison with Theoretical Predictions. First International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology. (Berlin, Preprints Volume 3, Part G, 1971).

3. Local Stress in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loading. Welding Research Council Bulletin, WRC-107, 1965.

4. Jonsson, V. K., Matthews, L., and Spalding, D. B.; Numerical Solution Procedure for Calculating the Unsteady One-Dimensional l Flow of Compressible Fluid. ASME Paper No. 73-FE-30.

4

5. Luk, C. H., Effects of the Steam Chest on Steam Hammer Analysis for Nuclear' Piping Systems. ASME Paper No. 75-PVP-61.

]. 6. Moody, F. J., Time-Dependent Pipe Forces Caused By Blowdown and Flow Stoppage. ASME. Paper No. 73-FE-23.

I

7. Progelhof, R. C. and Owczarek, J. A., The Rapid Discharge of a Gas from a Cylindrical Vessel Through a Nozzle. AIAA Journal, Volume 1, No. 9, September 1963, pp. 2182 to 2184.

t j 8. Progelhof, R. C. and Owczarek, J. A., The Rapid Discharge of a Gas from a Cylindrical Vessel Through an Orifice. ASME Paper No.

63-WA-10.

38-34

CPSES/FSAR

9. Streeter, V. L. and Wylie, E. G.. Hydraulic Transients, McGraw- .

Hill . Book Company, New York, NY,1967.

10. Fabic, S. Computer [Pr0 gram WHAM for Calculation of Pressure, Velocity, and Force Transients in Liquid Filled Piping Networks.

Report No. 67-49-R, Kaiser Engineers, November 1967.

11. ICES.STRUDL - II Structural Design Language Engineering User's Manual, Volume I Frame Analysis, November 1968, Volume II Addition Design and' Analysis Facilities '(Chapters III and IV),

June 1971. .

12. Zienkiewicz, 0. C. and Cheung, Y. K. The Finite Element Method.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1967.

13. GT-STRUDL - GT-ICES Systems Laboratory, School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

14. RELAPS/ MODI / Code Manual, Volumes I, 2, and 3. . Prepared by Energy Technology Center of Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis, MN, based on NUREG/CR-1826 EGG-2070, 1984.

15. ICES STRUDL - II Structural Design Language Engineering User's Manual, Volume I Frame Analysis, November 1968, Volume II l Addition Design and Analysis Facilities (Chapters III and IV),

June 1971.

16. Zienkiewicz, O. C. and Cheung, Y. K. The Finite Element Method.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY, 1967.

17. GT-STRUDL - GT-ICES Systems Laboratory, School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

f 38-35

CPSES/FSAR

" TABLE 38.1-1 COMPARISON OF NATURAL FREQUENCIES FOR FIGURE 38.1-1 Frequency (Hz)

Mad.R. NUPIPE-31 MRE 1 28.510 28.53 2 55.698 55.77 i 3 81.411 81.50 4 141.618 141.7 5 162.633 162.8 i

t

CPSES/FSAR

,' TABLE 38.1-2 COMPARIS0N OF INTERNAL MEMBER LOADS AND N0DAL DEFLECTIONS COMBINED RESULTS FOR MODES 1 - 5 FOR FIGURE 1.0 Member Forces Moments Deflections Source EDdi B h h h & M h DX DI NUPIPE-SW 1 5. 18. 36. 53. 269. 116. .000 .000 .000 2 5. 18. 36. 53. 106. 39. .002 .000 .005 NRC 1 5. 18. 36, 52. 269. 116. .00000 .00000 .00000 2 5. 18. 36. 52. 105. 39. .00200 .00000 .00480 NUPIPE-SW 3 5. 7. 8. 53. 34. 29. .006 .000 .015 4 6. 7. 8. 12. 69. 24. .007 .001 .017 NRC 3 5. 7. 8. 52. 34. 29. .00580 .00000 .01460 4 6. 7. 8. 12. 69. 24. .00740 .00060 .01740 NUPIPE-SW 4 9. 9. 11. 12. 69. 24. .007 .001 .017 5 12. 4. 11. 35. 45. 22. .008 .002 .014 NRC 4 9. 9. 11. 12. 69. 24. .00740 .00060 .01740 5 12. 4. 11. 35. 45. 22. .00780 .00160 .01420 NUPIPE-SW 7 28. 24. 4. 35. 21. 41. .008 .003 .007 8 25, 27. 4. 35. 18, 73. .006 .002 .002 NRC 7 28. 24. 4. 35. 20. 41. .00780 .00249 .00680 8 25. 27. 4. 35. 18. 73. .00580 .00199 .00168 NUPIPE-SW 8 26. 30. 6. 35. 18, 73. .006 .002 .002 9 24. 31. 6. 9. 45. 115. .002 .001 .000 NRC 8 26, 30. 6. 36, 18. 73. .00580 .00199 .00168 9 24. 31. 6. 9. 45. 115. .00220 .00074 .00000 NUPIPE-SW 10 24. 7. 35, 9. 156. 54. .001 .000 .000 11 24. 7. 35. 9. 207. 65. .000 .000 .000 NRC 10 24. 7. 35. 9. 156. 54. .00062 .00019 .00000 11 24. 7. 35. 9. 206. 65. .00000 .00000 .00000

CPSES/FSAR T BLE 3B.1-3 COMPARISON OF NATURAL FREQUIENCIES FOR FIGURE 3B.1-2 Frequency (Hz)

M9.de EPlEE-1W NBC 1 8.711 8.712 2 8.805 8.806 3 17.507 17.51 4 40.364 40.37 5 41.624 41.63 I

J CPSES/FSAR 1

TABLE 38.1-4 1 COMPARISON OF INTERNAL MEMBER LOADS AND NODAL DEFLECTIONS j COMBINED RESULTS FOR MODES 1 - 5 FOR FIGURE 38.1-2 Member Forces Moments Deflections

{

Source Eo.d1 fx fx . f1 h & k Qg Dy D1 1

NUPIPE-SW 15 767. 109. 108. O. 428. 436.- .000 .000 .000 1 757. 109. 108. O. 23. 20. .230 .001 .225 i NRC 15 766. 109. 108. O. 428. 436. .00000 .00000~ .00000

] 1 766.-109, 108. O. '23. 20. .23000 .00127 .22500 NUPIPE-SW l 766. 78. 77. O. 23, 20. .230 .001 .225

7 766. 78. 77. O. 337. 337. .462 .003 .447 i

i NRC 1 766. 78. 77. O. 23. 20. .23000 .00127 .22500

7 766. 78. 77. O. 337. 337. .46180 .00253 .44620 NUPIPE-SW 7 7. 469. 13. O. 6. 337. .462 .003 .447

6 7. 469. 13. 0 .- 3. O. .462 .001 .447.

1 NRC 7 7. 469. 13. O. 6. 337. .46180 .00253 .44620 6 7. 469. 13. O. 3. O. .46180 .00097 .44620

! NUPIPE-SW 5 19. 297. 13. O. 6. 337. .462 .003 .447 l 14 19. 297. 13. O. 4. 134. .462 .003 .447 NRC 5 19. 297. 13. O. 6. 337. .46180 .00252 .44620 l 14 19. 297. 13. O. 4. 124. .46180 .00332 .44630 1

( NUPIPE-SW 14 7. 297. 1. 'O. 4. 124. .462 .003 .447 i 13 7. 297. 1. O. 4. 124. .462 .003 .447 I

NRC 14 7. 297. 1. 0. 4. 124. .46180 .00332 .44630 1 13 7. 297. 1. O. 4. 124. .46180 .00332 .44630 ,

1 a

i .

.f 1

4 1

1

?

)

-- . - . . . - ~ . . . - _ - , , . - . - - - - . - . . - . _ . - _ - _ _ . - - - _ - - , . _ _ _

, CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.1-5 1

COMPARISON OF SUPPORT LOADS BETWEEN NUPIPE II AND NUPIPE-SW FOR FIGURE 38.1-3 t

b Proaram Egig f1 fl El M M E NUPIPE II 5520 556. 437. 961. 1102. 2202. 530. '

NUPIPE SW 560. 436. 966, 1097. 2189. 533.

, NUPIPE II 158 1361.

NUPIPE SW 1344.

NUPIPE II 159 1380.

J NUPIPE SW 1384.

I NUPIPE II 178 2019. 1060. 966. 7853. 21812. 3588.

NUPIPE SW 2020. 1053. 965. 7838, 21794. 3581.

I

'f i

i 4

i i

CPSES/FSAR

. IABLE38.1-6 COMPARISON OF SUPPORT LOAD FOR FIGURE 38.1-4 M9.da Ninda E1 f1(lb) E(ft-lk)

NUPIPE-SW with 1,2, 5 2072 42114 missing mass PSEUD 0 MODE 2

cutoff mode = 2.0 NUPIPE-SW with 1-3 5 2072 42114 no missing mass SRSS cutoff mode = 3.0 i

i I

1 i

e I

4

< - - - - - -...,,,,----.,..--,--n -- . =,-n. - . . . - --~---w - - , ---,------..-,-------,--v -r-- , - - - - - - - -- ----ww-,e

CPSES/FSAR

['TA'BLE3B.1-7

< COMPARISON OF SUPPORT REACTIONS DUE TO THERMAL EXPANSION FOR FIGUIRE 3B.15 Eqdg Proaram Force (lb) Moments (ft-lb) fl fl El E E E 1 NUPIPE-SW -3275 -2934 -1214 -9307 2858 22302 1 ADLPIPE -3274 -2934 -1214 -9307 2858 22302 11 NUPIPE-3W 3275 2934 1214 15281 -14855 -9415 i 11 ADLPIPE 3274 2934 1214 15281 -14855 -9415

)

I i

4 1

}

l 1

e 4

l

)

4 6

CPSES/FSAR

[ TABLE 38.1-8 COMPARISON OF DEFLECTIONS DUE TO THERMAL EXPANSION FOR FIGURE 38.1 i flg.dg Proaram Deflection (in.)

E E E 2 NUPIPE-SW -0.074 0.135 -0.032 -

2 ADLPIPE -0.074 0.135 -0.032 i

5 NUPIPE-SW -0.132 0.259 -0.093 5 ADLPIPE -0.132 0.259 -0.093 7 NUPIPE-SW 0.014 0.06 -0.157 1 7 ALDPIPE 0.014 . 0.08. -0.157 1

l

\

i i

4, r

+

i i

i 4

i i

i 4

l 1

1 I

i

CPSES/FSAR

,' TABLE 3B.1-9 COMPARIS0N OF STRESS DUE TO THERMAL EXPANSION FOR FIGURE 381.5 Node NUPIPE-SW (psi) .ADLPIPE (psi) 1 6411 6410-2 1158 1158 3 6622 6619 5 6938 6936 7 4908 4906 9 2725 2724 11 6138 6137

CPSES/FSAR

,' TABLE 38.1-10 COMPARIS0N OF INTERNAL FORCES AND M0MENTS DUE TO THERMAL EXPANSION FOR FIGURE 38.1-5 H2de Proaram Force (lk) Moments (ft-lk)

EX fl EI E E E 2 NUPIPE-SW -3275 -2934 -1214 -2024 2858 2655 2 ADLPIPE -3274 -2934 -1214 -2024 2858 2655 5 NUPIPE-SW -3275 -2934 -1214 5258 1340 -13324 5 ADLPIPE -3274 -2934 -1214 5258 1340 -13324 7 NUPIPE-SW -3275 -2934 -1214 5258 -6549 5748

's 7 ALDPIPE -3274 -2934 -1214 5258 -6549 5748 i

4 1

\

4

,1_.,__ __ _ _ _ _ __ _-, ,.

i CPSES/FSAR

,' TABLE 3B.3-1 COMPARISON OF BSPLT COMPUTER PROGRAM RESULTS WITH HAND CALCULATION RESULTS Input Data Loads FX = 4201 lb -

Fy - 3785 lb FZ-0 MX-0 My = 0 MZ - 7857 in.-lb Hand Outout Data Calculation B.Sf_LI Bolt Tension 2188 lb 2175 lb Bolt Shear 946 lb 946 lb Tension-Shear Interaction Factor 0.66 0.65 Plate Bending Stress 8637 psi 8534 psi

l l

CPSES/FSAR

. IABLE 3B.5-1 COMPARIS0N OF PITRUST WITH FRANKLIN INSTITUTE PROGRAM, CYLN0Z, AND HAND CALCULATION Stress (pjj.)

Source of Franklin Institute Output From Hand Stress Corrected Values PITRUST Calculation Circumferential P (normal) 395 399 399.99 P (bending) 1,875 1,833 1,877.3 Mc (normal) 35.85 35.57 36.06 Mc (bending) 364.7 '366.6 354.3 ML (normal) 79.05 79.66 79.54 ML (bending) 90.52 80.57 79.42 Axial P (normal) 813 812 814.8 P (bending) 812.3 827 810.6 Mc (normal) 91.79 105 95.45 Mc (bending) 158.8 160 158.8 M (normal) 37.06 37 37.12 M (bending) 117.9 105 103.85 S ear Stress by MT 6.63 6.63 6.63 Shear Stress by Vc 106.1 106.1 106.1 Shear Stress by VL 106.1 106.1 106.1 1

CPSES/FSAR '

TABLE 38.5-2 COMPARIS0N OF PITRUST WITH REFERENCE 2 RESULTS PITRUST Experimental Location and Cause Results (osil Results (osi)

Element A Longitudinal Moment, ML Circumferential Stress 20,438.9 20,000 Axial Stress 26,292.6 25,000 Element B Longitudinal Moment, MC Circumferential Stress 22,016.2 24,000 Axial Stress 13,105.8 13,000 4

l 1

._Z-__ -_. , _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ - , . _ _ _ _

CPSES/FSAR  !

TAB'LE 38.6-1 Sheet (1 of 2)

COMPARIS0N OF PILUG COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT WITH HAND CALCULATIONS Test Problem: Run Pipe Outside Diameter = 17 in.

Run Pipe Thickness = 0.812 in.

Axial Length of LUG = 12 in.

Width of LUG along Circumference - 3 in.

Loads: P = 3300 lb Vc - 1788 lb VL = 2478 lb

'Mc = 81834 in.-lb ML = 103320 in.-lb MT = 76284 in.-lb Stress in Circumferential Direction (pil)

, Stress frgm

Hand Computer Fiaurel B Calculation Outout Remarks

> 3C 0.5'485 387 330 Membrane' stress-due to P 1C 0.326 2,165 2,160 Bending stress due to P 3A -0.294 671 629 Membrane stress due to Mc 1A 0.388 18,976 19,904 Bending stress due to Mc 3B 0.467 3,014 2,961 Membrane stress due to ML 1B 0.416 6,143 5,969 Bending stress due to ML Stress in Axial Direction (gli) '

4C 0.4447 683 69'O Membrane stress due to P 2C 0.4632 773 792 Bending stress due to P

l CPSES/FSAR

' TABLE 38.6-1

" Sheet (2 of 2)

Stress from Hand Computer

.Fiaurel B Calculation Outout Remarks Stress in Axial Direction fosi) (Cont) 4A 0.294 1,897 1,864 Membrane stress due to Mc 2A 0.550 6,357 5,942' Bending stress due to Mc 4B 0.467 2,365 2,328 Membrane stress due to ML 2B. 0.582 4,989.7 4,842 Bending stress due to ML Shear Stress (osi) 1,304.8 1,304.8 Shear stress due to MT

-366.99 -366.99 Shear stress due to VL 127.15 127.16 Shear stress due to Vc-i Local Stress in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loading.

I welding Research Council Bulletin, WRC-107,1965

CPSES/FSAR

, TABLE 3B.7-1 COMPARIS0N OF P'ITRIFE COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT WITH STUDL-II OUTPUT Test Problem Size-On-Size 0.707 Size-on-Size Average Pipe 3.00 3.00 Radius (in.)

Average Trunnion 3.00 2.12 Radius-(in.)

Pipe Wall 0.30 0.30 Thickness (in.)

Trunnion Wall

~

0.30 0.21 Thickness-(in.)

SIZE-0N-SIZE MAXIMUM STRESS INTENSITY, psi ( a - 300)

Load PITRIFE Outout STRUDL-II Outout FX - 10,000 1b 5,763 5,768 FY - 10,000 lb 7,844 7,846 FZ - 10,000 lb 6,507 6,506 MX ~10,000 in.-lb 1,329 1,329 MY - 10,000 in.-lb 1,688 1,687 MZ = 10,000 in.-lb 4,066 4,068 0.707 SIZE-0N-SIZE MAXIMUM STRESS INTENSITY, psi ( a= 300)

Load PITRIFE Outout STRUDL-II Outout' FX - 10,000 lb 13,471 13,458 FY - 10,000 lb 9,616 9,611 FZ - 10,000 lb 20,105 20,030 MX - 10,000 in.-lb 4,371 4,368 MY - 10,000 in.-lb 2,467 2,467 MZ = 10,000 in.-lb 6,178 '

6,176

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.7-2 COMPARIS0N OF PITRIFE COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT WITH HAND CALCULATIONS Illi Problem Average Pipe Radius - 1.5 in.

Average Trunnion Radius = 1.35 in.

Pipe Wall Thickness - 0.30 in.

Trunnion Wall Thickness - 0.27 in.

LOADS FOR EACH LOAD TYPE COMBINED (DL, OBEI, THER, OCCU, ETC)

FX = FY = FZ = 10,000 lb MX - MY - MZ = 10,000 in.-lb MNS - 200 psi Internal Pressure - 100 psi STRESS C0EFFICIENTS - 0.9 SIZE-0N-SIZE - FX LOADING (oc- 300C)

Coefficient by Coefficient Stress Iygg Hand Calculation From PITRIFE Longitudinal - Inside Fiber -1.2652 -1.2652 Circumferential - Inside Fiber -0.2764 -0.2764 Shear - Inside Fiber 0.2041 0.2041 Longitudinal - Outside Fiber 0.7454 0.7454 Circumferential - Outside Fiber 1.3509 1.3509 Shear - Outside Fiber 0.2041 0.2041 MAXIMUM STRESS INTENSITY - 0.9 SIZE-0N-SIZE (oc- 300C) i Maximum Stress Intensity, asi i Hand Load Condition Calculation PITRIFE l P + DL + MNSI 28,181 28,182 l P + DL + SRSS (0BEI, OCCU) + MNS2 73,220 73,220 P + DL + OBEA + THER + MNS3 88,216 88,216 P + DL + OCCE + MNS4 59,853 59,853 P + DL + SRSS (SSEI, OCCF) + MNS5 73,220 73,220

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.8-1 N0DAL FORCE COMPARIS0N Diameter D - 0.25 ft .

Area A - 1r 02 /4 ,0490874 2 ft._

p-pressure 1b/fg

= density lb/ft l

V - velocity ft/sec l g - gravitational constant 32.2 ft/sec2 pa - ambient pressure (14.7 x 144 lb/ft2) at time t - 0.00650 sec Force Hand Node Pressure Velocity STEHAM Calculation No. (2111) (fE) Densitg)

(lk/ft. (lk) (lb) 1 42.523 0.0 0.23954 186.57 196.67 5 42.785 5.7843 0.24076 198.43 198.53 10 44.231 31.219 0.24647 209.00 209.11 15 47.003 78.172 0.25737 230.62 230.73 20 50.214 129.89 0.26979 257.84 257.97 25 52.095 159.43 0.27697 274.93 275.06 30 52.209 161.97 0.27742 276.09 276.23 35 52.168 162.21 0.27731 275.83 275.97 i

4 l

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.9-1 INPUT DATA FOR WATHAM Total Inside Nodal i

Pipe Length Diameter Friction No. of Span Thickness Velocity Ho. (ft) (11) Factor __ Nodes _ (ft)_ (in.) (fos) 1 2,000 3.0 0.03 7 333.33 0.30824 4.24413 2 3,000 2.5 0.28 9 375 0.44 2.92132 3 2,000 2.0 0.024 6 400 0.50026 4.98473 4 1,800 1.5 0.02 7 300 0.11108 3.59336 5 1,500 1.5 0.022* 5 375 0.264 4.52142 6 1,600 1.5 0.025 6 320 0.13796 2.29183 7 2,200 2.5 0.04 8 314.29 0.21534 '3.65878 8 1,500 2.0 0.03 6 300 0.14811 3.83245 9 2,000 3.0 0.024 7 333.33 0.30824 4.24413 i

j NOTE: The initial heads of all nodes are calculated by using the - .

Darcy-Weisbach equation. .

• Friction factor in Pipe 5, 0.022, differs slightly from that of hand calculation, 0.020.

J n

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.9-2 COMPARIS0N OF N0DAL FORCE CALCULATION AT TI.ME - 2.34 sec Force (kin)

Pipe Node Hand H2 N2 WATHAM Calculation 1 1 276.34 276.48 1 2 300.46 300.62 1 3 317.78 '

317.94 1 4 329.59 329.76 1 5 341.39 341.56 1 6 355.31 355.49 1 7 369.52 369.71 Nodal force calculation is based on the following equation:

F - A (p H + p V 2) 9 where:

F = nodal force, lb p = density, lb/cu ft H - nodal head,2ft g - 32.2 ft/sec V - nodal velocity, fps A = pipe area, sq ft 4

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.10-1 INPUT DATA FOR WATSLUG Cutoff Cutoff Mode Freauency Time itf2 Intearation Time Damoina Ratio 53 433 Hz 0.0009 sec. 0.5 sec 10 percent-Pipe Total Outside Section Lenath (ft) Diameter (in.) Thickness (in.) Weicht (lb/ft) 1 4.73 8.625 0.906 74.71 2 12.31 6.625 0.864 53.16 3 12.43 6.625 0.28 18.97 4 69.0 12.75 0.688 88.60 5 1.1 12.75 1.5 -----

6 1.0 8.625 0.322 28.55 7 0.83 6.625 0.432 28.57 Eh ot - Ecold = Young's Modulus of pipe - 28.3 x 106 psi i

, .- -, . - - - - - _ ~ . - - - - - _ _ , .---..-n-- , ., - - -

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.10-2 INPUT DATA FOR WATSLUG Total 'Inside Friction E121 M2 Lenath (11) Diameter (11) Factor 1 16.125 0.408 0.015 2- 12.563 0.5054 0.015 3 63.562 0.948 0.013 Valve Characteristrics Orifice Opening Discharge Flow Rate Arga r (f12) Ilma (igg) Coefficient (lb_m/

m igg) 0.0253 0.015 0.805 120.83 Uostream Steam Conditions Pressure Rise Pressure (ggia) Temoerature Density lhm/f13 Fala 211/1RG 2690 6790F 8.862 -40.*

(11390F)

Downstream Gli Conditions Pressure (2111) Temoerature Density lhm/113 15 800F (5400R) 0.09975 Waterslug Weight '= 69.8 lb NOTES:

• Pressure is' decreasing after valve opens.

. ~ . . ._ . - - -

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.11-1 ELBOW PROGRAM - ELB0W PROPERTIES USED FOR VERIFICATION PROBLEMS Outside diameter '30.0 in.

f Minimum wall thickness ~0.5239 in.  !

Bend radius 44.214 in.

Pipe radius 14.738 in.

Young's modulus 28.3 x 106 psi Poisson's ratio 0.3 Coefficient of thermal expansion 9.11 x 10-6 in./in. OF E

1 6

I, k

l

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.11-2 ELB0W PROGRAM - CASE 1 RESULTS Internal Pressure Equals 413.58' psi Circumferential Longitudinal Stress Stresses,gs.i_ Stresses, gli Intensities, ni. i Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside ELB0W Program 11,676 11,676 5,714 5,714 12,090 11,676 Hand Calculation

• 11,676 11,676 5,714 5,714 12,090 11,676 Note:

• Hand calculation is based on Article NB 36851 of ASME Section -

III, 1974.

1 i

e

., ,.n . . _ , , . . , . - - - . -

, . , . - _ . - , - - . - - - . . , , .~,

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.11-3 ELB0W PROGRAM - CASE 2 RESULTS Linear Temperature Gradient Thr6 ugh Wall Equals 1000F Circumferential Longitudinal Stress Stresses, psi ' Stresses,gli Intensities,gli Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside ELB0W

' Program 18,415 -18,415 18,415 -18,415 18,415 18,415 Hand Calculation

• 18,415 -18,415 18,415 -18,415 18,415 18,415 NOTE:

• Hand calculation of Timoshenko and Goodier 1970.

I 9

s 6

=

f 9

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.11-4 ELB0W PROGRAM - CASE 3 RESULTS Combined loadings as follows: -

1. Internal pressure equals 413.58 psi

2. Linear temperature gradient equals 1000F

3. Axial force equal to 60,000 lb

4. Torsional moment equal to 3,500,000 in.-lb Circumferential Longitudinal Stress-Stresses,gQ_ Stresses, gli Intensities,p_ti Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside ELB0W Program 30,091 -6,739 24,129 -12,701 32,165 14,362 Hand Calculation

• 30,091 -6,739 24,129 -12,701 32,071 '14,362 f

i r

?

5 t

f i

--.-,e..,

-- e , . , , - ,+, - ,- ,-c - , . - . ,,--.,..,,-n w,-.,y,,,,-.nn-.--.ey - , -. , ,n- , , - ---qm-v_.-,a

'J

. l I CPSES/FSAR I TABLE 3B.13-1 COMPARISON OF EIGENVALUES FROM THEORETICAL-4 RESULTS, STRUDL RESULTS, AND GT-STRUDL RESULTS i (PROBLEM NO. 1)

Theoretical STRUDL GT-STRUDL Results: Results: Results:

"I" Frequency Frequency Frequency

Madt H2 cycles /1gg cycles /1gg cycles /1gg 1 24.8 24.84 24.84 2 99.2 99.33 99.33 3 223.2 223.37 223.38 4 396.8 396.39 396.40 4

4

< NOTE: For comparison purposes, the results of four modes have been tabulated.

t

.i 1 g 4

I

_ . . _ - . . . . . _ . ~ . _ . _ . _ . _ , _ . . - _ , _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ ____ ., .,__ _._.__ ___,._.-... _. ,.,.._,. .__. _.,._ . _ .-

1 CPSES/FSAR a TABLE 38.13-2 (SHEET 1 0F 2) i COMPARIS0N OF EIGENVECTORS FROM STRUDL AND GT-STRUDL (PROBLEM NO. 1) 5 1-Disolacement

Mqdg Joint STRUDL GI-STRUDL

.L 1 1 0.0 0.0 2 0.309 0.309 3 0.588 0.588 4 0.809 0.809 5 0.951 0.951 l 6 1.000 1.000 7 0.951 0.951 8 0.809 0.809 . .

. 9 0.588 0.588 .

10 0.309 0.309-11 0.0 0.0 i 2 '

1 0.000 0.000 2 0.618 0.618

, 3 1.000 1.000 1

4 1.000 1.000 5 0.618 0.618 6 0.000 0.000 7 -0.618 -0.618 4

8 -1.000 -1.000 i 9 -1.000 -1.000

, 10 -0.618 -0.618 11 0.000 0.000

! 3 1 0.0 0.0

- 2 -0.809 -0.809 3 -0.951 -0.951

-0.309 -0.309 4

5 0.588 0.588 4

6 1.000 1.000 7 0.588 0.588 8 -0.309 -0.309 9 -0.951 -0.951 10 -0.809 -0.809

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.13-2 (SHEET 2 0F 2) a COMPARIS0N OF EIGENVECTORS FROM STROOL AND GT-STRUDL i (PROBLEM NO. 1)

X-Displacement Modg Joint STRUCL GT-STRUDL 4 1 0.0 0.0 i 2 1.0 1.0 3 0.618 0.618

4 -0.618 -0.618 5 -1.0 -1.0 6 0.000 0.000 7 -1.0 -1.0 8 0.618 0.618 . .

9 -0.618 -0.618 .

10 -1.0 -1.0 11 0.0 0.0 NOTE: For comparison purposes, the results of four modes have been +

tabulated.

I F

w e-- g y y - e -*yn -

w w w-- e e- , e . -a .,n - .- c- m-

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.13-3 (SHEET 1 of 2)

THE MEMBER FORCES FROM STRUOL AND GT-STRUDL-COMPUTER RUNS FOR DIFFERENT 1.0ADING CONDITIONS (PROBLEM NO. 2)

STRUOL GI-STRUOL Loading Member Condition Joint Axial Shear 1 Hom 1 Axial Shear 1  !!og Z A0 1 A 1652.25 -237.33 -7958.75 1652.25 -237.33 -7958.75

'D -1652.25 237.33 -20071.84 -1652.25 237.33 -20071.86 2 _A -583.75 -675.01 -104030.94 -583.75 -675.01 -104031.4 '.'

D 583.75 675.01 24305.86 583.75 675.01 24305.9 3 ,

A -694.20 1480.59 107811.12 -694.20 1480.59 170811.6 0 694.20 -1480.59 67060.81 694.20 -1480.59 67061.1 DE I D 1780.56 1652.25 20071.84 1780.56 1652.24 20071.8 E -1780.56 1654.68 -20215.77 -1780.56 1654.69 -20215.9 2 D 675.01 -583.75 -24305.86 675.01 -583.75 -24305.9 E -675.01 583.75 -44640.70 -675.01 583.75 -44640.8 3 D -1480.59 -694.20 -67060.81 -1480.59 -694.20 -67061.1 E 1480.59 694.20 -14930.68 1480.59 694.20 -14930.7 l _

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.13-3 (SHEET 2 of 2)

BE 1 B 45.28 171.16 0.00 45.29 111.16 0.00 E -45.28 -171.16 20215.80 -45.29 -171.16 20216.93 2 B 286.70 377.96 -0.01 286.70 377.96 0.00 E -286.70 -377.96 44640.70 -286.70 -377.96 44540.84 s

3 B- 2301.20 126.41 0.00 2301.20 126.-41 0.00 l

E -2301.20 -126.41 -14930.65 -2301.20 -126.41 14930.73 EC 1 E 2276.03 0.0 0.0 2276.04 0,0 0.0 .

l C -??76.03 0.0 0.0 -2276.04- 0.0 0.0 2 E 420.09 0.0 0.0 420.09 0.0 0.0 C -420.09 0.0 0.0 -420.09- 0.0 0,0 i

3 E -2272.64 0.0 0.0 -2272.65 0.0 0.0 C 2272.64 0.0 0.0 2272.65 0.0 0.0 4

l ,

4

- -- -w v - e e i -e 3 e , +.

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.13-4 THE JOINT LOADS (AT SUPPORTS) FROM STRUDL AND GT-STRUOL COMPUTER RUNS FOR DIFFERENT LOADING CONDITIONS (PROBLEM NO. 2)

STRUDL GT-STRUDL Joint loadina X Force 1 Force Z Mom X Force 1 Force Z Mom l A 1 237.33 1652.25 -7958.75 237.33 1652.25 -7958.75 i 2 675.01 -583.75 -104030.94 675.01 -583.75 -104031.48

3 -1480.59 -694.20 107811.12 -1480.59 -694.20 107811.02-B 1 -171.16 45.28 0.00 -171.16 45.29 0.00 4 2 -377.96 286.70 -0.01 -377.96 286.70 0.00 -

3 -126.41 2301.20 0.00 -125.41 2301.20 0.00 ,

j C 1 - -1609.40 1609.40 0.00 -1609.40 1609.40 0.00-4 2 -297.05 297.05 0.00 -297.05 297.05 0.00 i 3 1607.00 -1507.00 0.00 1607.00 -1607.00 0.00 i

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.13-5 (SHEET 1 0F 2)

COMPARIS0N OF ELEMENT (RANDOMLY SELECTED) STRESSES (PROBLEM NO. 3)

Mxx Myy -Mxy Vxx Vyy GT- GT- GT- GT- GT-Element Node STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL 1 1 -12.546 -12.543 -78.334 -78.354 19.545 19.547 13.417 13.412 3.617 3.618 2 -4.098 -4.109 -18.611 -18.642 19.107 19.109 13.417 13.412 -8.769 -8.756 10 -13.852 -13.831 -69.887 -69.860 46.293 46.298 -3.549 -3.538 -8.769 -8.756 9 -8.936 -8.952 -56.769 -56.764 46.730 46.735 -3.549 -3.538 -3.617 3.618 6 6 -2.145 -2.146 -16.671 -16.678 13.396 13.400 -0.595 -0.597 -0.158 -0.158 7 -2.876 -2.879 -19.390 -19.409 10.630 10.635 -0.595 -0.597 0.916 0.924 15 -3.956 -3.940 -11.933 -11.916 9.555 9.558 0.694 0.701 a.916 0.924 14 -6.974 -6.986 -12.939 -12.935 12.320 12.323 0.694 0.701 -0.158 -0.158 10 11 -10.414 -10.417 -4.335 -4.336 65.119 65.122 1.027 1.026 -13.922 -13.924 12 -15.984 -15.983 7.190 7.180 13.283 13.'285 1.027 1.026 -9.953 -9.948 20 -74.387 -74.369 -3.683 -3.672 22.101 22.102 5.789 5.798 -9.953 -9.948 19 ' 99.338

-99.307 -12.307 -12.310 73.937 73.939 5.789 5.798 -13.922 -13.924 16 18 3.765 3.747 26.738 26.721 94.743 94.475 -15.849 -15.844 0.332 0.335 19 -56.181 -56.179 -5.239 -5.250 71.624 71.624 -15.849 -15.844 -9.083 -9.078 i 27 -117.077 -117.062 -7.560 -7.547 49.705 49.704 -27.147 -27.139 -9.083 -9.078 j 26 1.424 1.396 31.393 31.403 72.554 72.555 -27.147 -27.139 0.332 0.335 22 25 -2.301 -2.323 56.058 56.053 74.477 74.481 -3.966 -3.962 -1.428- -1.429 26 0.446 0.451 33.162 33.148 71.634 71.637 -3.966 -3.962 -2.312 -2.305 34 11.675 -11.652 29.188 29.207 49.249 49.251 -5.178 -5.163 -2.312 -2.305 33 -1.561 -1.594 45.381 45.381 52.093 52.094 -5.178 -5.178 -1.428 -1.429 '

45 51 -149.275 -149.281 -2.222 -2.223 29.027 29.028 6.244 6.243 0.660 0.658

52 -113.469 -113.472 -1.815 -1.825 26.628 26.629 6.244 6.243 -1.319 -1.314 60 -124.368 -124.354 -0.097 -0.085 23.243 23.244 3.869 3.877 -1.319 -1.314 59 -144.766 -144.787 -2.139 -2.142 25.642 25.643 3.869 3.877 0.660 0.658

l CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.13-5 (SHEET 2 0F 2) l COMPARIS0N OF ELEMENT (RANDOMLY SELECTED) STRESSES (PROBLEM NO. 3)

Mxx Myy Mxy Vxx Vyy GT- GT- GT- GT- GT-

Element Node HIEMDL- STRUDL STRUDL STRUOL SIRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL 52 59 -144.756 -144.773 -2.047 -2.055 24.031 24.030 3.874 3.879 2.303 2.305 60 -124.346 -124.339 0.0146 0.0123 22.659 22.658 3.874 3.879 -2.621 -2.620 68 -143.165 -143.158 0.591 0~.595 24.111 24.111 -2.034 -2.030 -2.621 -2.620 67 -129.535 -129.548 -1.240 -1.237 25.483 25.482 -2.034 -2.030 2.303 2.305 60 68 -130.197 -130.198 2.811 2.810 22.296 22.298 22.805 22.805 -4.389 -4.388 69 -20.373 -20.368 25.257 25.246 11.012 11.013 22.805 22.805 5.429 5.433 77 -19.106 -19.097 61.775 61.791 .34.229 .34.230 34.586 34.591 5.429 5.433 76 -157.545 -157.547 -0.386 -0.386 45.512 45.512 34.586 34.591 -4.389 -4.388 68 77 -24.513 -24.517 54.034 54.028- 35.968 35.968 14.908 14.911 0.413 0.414 78 11.657 11.666 104.330 104.326 39.457 39.457 14.908 14.911 1.380 1.384 86 21.811 21.826 103.782 103.797 82.856 82.858 16.069 16.074 1.380 1.384 85 ,-24.572 -24.578 56.964 55.973 79.367 79.369 16.069 16.074 0.413 0.414 80 91 -36.410 -36.423 2.194 2.186 30.708 30.708 1.185 1.190 7.587 7.593 92 35.756 -35.747 8.412 8.143 65.545 65.546 1.185 1.190 6.573 6.572 100 -7.093 -7.089 8.341 8.342 69.355 69.356 0.424 0.424 6.573 6.572 99 -4.321 -4.324 3.110 3.110 34.518 34.518 0.424 0.424 7.587 7.593

I CPSES/FSAR i.; TABLE 3B.13-6 .

COMPARIS0N OF RESULTANT (RAND 0MLY SELECTED) JOINT DISP. SUPPORTS l (GLOBAL)

(PROBLEM NO. 3)

Z Displacement X Rotation Y Rotation Joint STRUDL SI-STRUDL STRUDL E-STRUDL STRUDL G_I-STRUDL 1 -0.0447149 -0.0447119- 0.0004818 0.0004817 0.0001927 0.0001925 i 5 -0.0484141 -0.0484130 0.0003599 0.0003598 0.0001907 0.0001908 '

I i l 15 -0.0483233 -0.0483236 0.0003430. 0.0003429 0.0002060 0.0002060

20 -0.0427901 -0.0427890 0.0003791 0.0003790 0.0002582 0.0002580 l 30 -0.0435345 -0.0435547 0.0002832 0.0002832 0.0002928 0.0002920

! 40 -0.0442976 -0.0442990 0.0002317 0.0002317 0.0002164 0.0002163 - -

j 70 -0.0354678 -0.354688 0.0002588 0.0002586 0.0004367 0.0004369 100 -0.0259728 -0.0259738 0.0001780 0.0001779 0.0008314 0.0008313 i .

112 -0.0426962 -0.0426994 0.0001656- 0.0001656 0.0008937 0.0008930 i

4 i

i e i

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.13-7 COMPARISON OF MEM8ERS (RANDOMLY SELECTED) FORCES AND MOMENTS (PROBLEM NO. 4)

Torsional Bending Y Bending Z Member Joint Axial Shear 1 Shear Z Moment Moment Moment GT- GT- GT- GT- GT- GT-STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL- STRUDL STRUDL STRUDL-1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.527 0.527 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.371 -0.371 0.0 0.0 -21.567 -21.568 0.0 0.0 4 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.713 -0.713 0.0 0.0 5.158 5.158- 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.869 0.869 0.0 0.0 32.818 32.818 0.0 0.0 10 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.226 0.226 0.0 0.0 5.627 5.627 0.0 0.0 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.070 -0.070 0.0 0.0 -12.738 -12.738 0.0 0.0 20 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.158 0.158 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.0 ,

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.670 -5.670 0.0 0.0 25 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.117 0.117- 0.0 0.0- 1.818 1.818 0.0 0.0 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.093 -0.093 0.0 0.0 -4.338 -4.338 0.0 0.0 30 36 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.093 -0.093 0.0 0.0 4.338 4.338 0.0 0.0 39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.117 0.117 0.0 0.0 -1.818 -1.818 0.0 0.0 50 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.426 0.426 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 -15.336 -15.336' O.0 0.0 60 47 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.069 -0.069 0.0 0.0 12.621 12.621 0.0 0.0 48 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.225 0.225 0.0 0.0- -5.569 -5.569 0.0 0.0

TABLE 3B.13-8 COMPARISDN OF RESULTANT JOINT LOADS - SUPPORTS (PROBLEM NO. 4)

(GLOBAL)

Joint X Force Y force 1 Force X Mom 1 Mom 1 Bqm STRUOL El-STRUDL STRUOL El-STRy]L STRUOL EI-STRUDL STRUDL SI-STRUOL STRil0L EI-STRUOL STRUDL El-STRUDL-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.953 0.953 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.885 1.885 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.536 1.536 0.0 0.0 0.D 0.0 .0. 0 0.0 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.769 0.769 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.953. 0.953 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 0.0 ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.885 1.885 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 0.0 0.0 0.D 0.0 1.536 1.536 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.769 0.769 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 s

- _w --,

TABLE 38.13-9 COMPARIS0N OF EIGENVALUES, FREQUENCIES, AND PERIODS (PROBEM HO. 5)

Frequency Period Mode Eiaenvalue (Cycles / Time Unit) (Time Unit / Cycle)

STRUDL GT-STRUDL STRUDL GT-STRUDL STRUDL GT-STRUDL 1 1.791123D 03 1.791171D+03 6.735703D 00 6.735791D+00 1.484626D-01 1.4846070-01 2 1.892565D 03 1.892596D+A3 6.923816D 00 E.9238730+00 1.444290D-01 1.4442780-91 3 1.925683D 03 1.925715D+03 6.934134D 00 6.984191D+00 1.4318170-01 1.431505D-01 4 1.9351170 03 1 9381480+03 7.0066450 00 Z.006702D+00 1.4272170-01 1 4272050-01 5 1.947453D 03 1.947485D+03 7.023501D 00 7.023558D+00 1.423791D-01 1.4237800-01 6 1.949031D 03' 1 949063D+03 7.0264030 00 Z.026403D+00 1.423215D-01 1 423203D-01 7 1.9494540 03 1.949486D+03 7.027108D 00 7.027166D+00 1.423060D-01 1.4230490-01 8 1.949909D 03 1.949940D+03 7.027927D 00 7.027984D+00 1.422895D-01 .l.422883D-01 9 2.894955D 03 2.895024D+03 8.5632970 00 8.563400D+00 1.1677750-01 -1.1677600-01 10 2.935117D 03 2.9351880+03 8.6224930 00 8.622597D+00 1.1597570-01 1.159743D-01 11 2.9351170 03 2.9351880+03 8.622493S 00 8.622597D+00 1.1597570-01 1.159743D-01 12 3.566743D 03 395668360+03 9.505086D 00 9.505210D+00 1.052068D-01 1 0520550-01 13 3.9414380 03 3 '41542D+03 9.991886D 00 9.992018D+00 1.000812D-01 1.0007990-01 14 8.7323670 03 A,1]2600D+03 1.487257D 01 1 4872770+00 6.723786D-02 E.723696D-92 15 1.3457670 04 1.345793D+04 1.8463300 01 1.846330D+01 5.416204D-02 5.416151D-02 16 1.3464190 04 1 346445D+04 1.846759D 01 1.8467770+01 5.414892D-02 5.414839D-02 17 1.346597D 04 1.346623D+04 1.846881D 01 1.846899D+01 5.414534D-02 5.414481D-02 18 2.573237D 04 2 573314D+01 2.553054D 01 2 553092D+01 3.9168770-02 3.9168190-92 19 2.6503930 04 2.650463D+04 2.5910470 01 2.591081D+01 3.8594440-02 3.8593930-02 20 2.745771D 04 2 7458540+04 2.6372560 01 2 6372960+01 3.791820D-02 3.791763D-02 21 3.177105D 04 3.177167D+04 2.836847D 01 2.836875D+01 3.5250400-02 3.5250060-02 22 3.248699D 04 3.248762D+04 2.868632D 01 2 868660D+01 3.4859520-02 3.4859480-Q2 23 3.5258450 04 3.E25916D+04 2.988489D 01 2.988520D+01 3.3461720-02 3.3461380-02 24 3.953962D 04 3.9540660+D1 3.1647280 01 2 1647690+01 3.159829D-02 3 159.788D-92 25 5.1708760 04 5.171001D+04 3.6191130 01 3.6191570+01 2.763108D-02 2.763074D-02

26 5.592949D 04 5.5930580+04 3.7639220 01 3.763958D+01 2.6568040-02 2.656778D-02 27 5.5929490 04 5.5930580+04 3.7639220 01 3.763958D+01 2.6568040-02 '2.6567780-02 28 5.9599830 04 '5.960165D+04 3.8854620 01 2 885521D+Q1 2.573697D-02 2.573657D-Q2 29 6.5382550 04 6.538428D+04 4.0695940 01 4.0696480+01 2.4572480-02 2.4572150-02 30 8.206529D 04 8.206758D+04 4.559318D 01 1 559382D+Q1 2.193311D-02 2.1932800-02 l

d CPSES/FSAR

. TABLE 3B.13-10 COMPARIS0N OF'EIGENVECTORS FOR FEW RANDOMLY.

SELECTED MODES AND JOINTS (PROBLEM NO. 5)

Eigenvectors (Global)

X-Disolacement 1-Di sol acement' figdg Joint STRUDL GI-STRUDL STRUDL SI-STRUDL 1 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 b.0 2' O.721 -0.721 0.000 0.000 13 0.721 -0.721 0.000 0.000 23 1.00 -1.00 0.000 0.000 43 0.999 -0.999 0.000 0.000 6 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.000 0.000 -0.0009 -0.0009 13 0.000 0.000 -0.0014 -0.0014 23 0.000 0.000 -0.567 -0.567

, 43 0.000 0.000 .-0.0005 -0.0005 3 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.000 0.000 0.0095 0.0095 13 0.000 0.000 0.0153 0.0153 23 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 43 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.013 i

a Y-displacements are approximately 0.000 for all three modes.

e, , .,- , , ,. --.-.,,-,.-..----,s

e. m-- .,..,mc , - . - , , . - - - - - , , , - - . . . - - - - --,,--6w. - - - - , - . , , , , , , - - - - - ,,.-,,n

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.13-11 COMPARISDN OF JOINT DISPLACEMENTS AT THE FREE JOINTS FOR {'

RANDOMLY SELECTED JOINTS (GLOBAL)

(PROBLEM NO. 5)

Response X Displacement 1 Displacement Z Displacement l Joint Iygg STRUDL El-STRUOL STRUDL El-STRUOL STRUOL GI-STRUDL 7 RMS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00099 0.00099 ABS SUM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00213 0.00212 CMS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00117 0.00116 15 RMS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0105 "- 0.0104 l ABS SUM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0105 0.0104 CSM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0105 0.0104 22 RMS

~

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0424 0.0424 l ABS SUM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0449 0.0449 CSM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0424 0.0424 36 RMS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0287 ~0.0288 ABS SUM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0287 0.02920 CSM 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0287 0.02920 i

RMS - Root Mean Square ABS SUM - Absolute Sum CSM - Closely Spaced Mode

CPSES/FSAR

, TABLE 38.14-1 COMPARISON OF SANDUL LOAD COMBINATIONS WITH HAND COMPUTATION Lqad Condition a l9_ad liand SANDUL FX 1424 1424

-2102 -2102 FY 0 0

-834 -834 FZ 978 978

-652 -652 MX 2758 2758 0 0 MY 3830 3830

-5542 -5542 l

- MZ 216 216

-114 -114 4

r- ,~-- --~-, ~ , - , - ,,,-,.r,.--, ,, .,,-.,,,e, , . . , . , _ , , , , , , .--n,_-.- , . _ , . , , , . , , - . , , - , , ~ . , , - - - n,

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 3B.14-2 COMPARIS0N 0F MEMBER FORCES BETWEEN j SANDUL AND STRUDL-SW .,

Load Condition 3 Loading Combination 49 Member 4, Joint 5 Member Force STRUDL-SW SANDUL Axial (lb) 600 600-Shear Y-direction (1b) 298 298 Shear Z-direction (lb) 535 535

, Torsion (in.-lb) -3707 -3707 Bending about Y axis 5872 5872 (in.-lb)

Bending about Z axis -2025 -2025 (in.-lb) .

4 i

f 4

- - - - . . . . . _ . _ . , , _ - . . , ._r..r-._,.-c,,._. ,, ., ., , . _ . . , . _ , , , _ , . _ , . , . _ _ . .,y.,_, - ._ ,_._, _ + , , , _ _ ., . m..,_,

a CPSES/FSAR

, TABLE 38.14-3 COMPARISON 0F' STRESSES AND WELD SIZE BETWEEN SANDUL AND HAND COMPUTATION Same case as Table 38.14-2 Item Hand SANDUL Axial Stress (psi) 34 34 Normal Stress (psi) 483 483 Allowable Normal Stress (psi) 27,720 27,620 Shear Stress (psi) 147 147 Allowable Shear Stress (psi) 22,260 22,399 d

Fillet Weld Size (in.) 0.013 0.013 I

I i

f

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.17-1 (SHEE. 1 0F 3) l APE PROGRAM VERIFICATION PROBLEM COMPARIS0N OF DRILLED-IN ANCHOR ROAD i

BIP (ST 361) APE (ST 378. VOILOO)

Attachment Anchor . Anchor Anchor Anchor Attachment Location Loading Shear Tension Shear Tension TS 4 x 4 Corner of Surface- Fz = 3,000 lb 0 2,269.36 0 2,296.87 Mounted Plate TS 4 x 4 Corner of Surface- Mx = 12,000 in.-lb 0 1,256.61 0 2,625.00 Mounted Plate

! TS 4 x 4 Corner of' Surface- Mx = 8,000 in.-lb 0 1,204.13 0 3,500.00 Mounted Plate My = 8,000 in.-lb .

L4x4 Corner of Surface- Fz - 3,000 lb 0 2,116.39 0 2,268.52

! Mounted Plate l

L4x4 Corner of Surface- Mx = 12,000 in.-lb 0 1,418.15 0 2,333.33 Mounted Plate L4x4 Corner of Surface- Mx = 8,000 in.-lb 0 1,506.74 0 3,111.11 Mounted Plate My - 8,000.in.-lb TS 4 x 4 Center of Embedded Fz = 20,000 lb 0 12,742.60 0 12,752.10 Plate TS 4 x 4 Center of Embedded Mx = 50,000 in.-lb 0 4,285.70 0 5,934.86 Plate TS 4 x 4 Center of Embedded Mx = 25,000 in.-lb 0 3,756.76 0 5,934.86 Plate My - 25,000 in.-lb l TS 4 x 4 Corner of Embedded Fz = 20,000 lb 0 17,591.00 0 17,607.22 Plate

4 l

CPSES/FSAR

, TABLE 38.17-1 l (SHEET 2 0F 3)

! APE PROGRAM VERIFICATION PROBLEM COMPARISON OF DRILLED-IN ANCHOR ROAD 1

BIP (ST 3611 APE (ST 378. VOILOO)

., Attachment Anchor Anchor Anchor Anchor-

Attachment . Location Loadina Shear Tension Shear Tension l TS 4 x 4 Corner of Embedded Mx = 50,000 lb 0 9,735.84 0 10,937.50 Plate 3

l TS 4 x 4 Corner of Embedded Mx = 25,000 in.-lb 0 5,575.90 0 10,937.50 j Plate My - 25,000 in.-lb l L4x4 Center of Embedded Fz - 20,000 lb 0 14,585.30 'O. 15,940.12

, Plate . .

I .

l L4x4 Center of Embedded Mx = 50,000 in.-lb 0 4,959.99 0 5,934.86'

! Plate i

L4x4 Cent,er of Embedded 'Mx = 25,000 in.-lb 0 4,344.17 0 5,934.86 i Plate My - 25,000 in.-lb

L4x4 Corner of Embedded Fz - 20,000 lb 0 18,596.50 0 22,009.02 Plate l L4x4 Corner of Embedded Mx = 50,000 in.-lb 0 10,559.60 0 10,937.50 Plate j L4x4 Corner of Embedded- Mx = 25,000 in.-lb 0 8,648.15 0 10,937.50

Plate My - 25,000 in.-lb C 4 x 5.4 Corner of Embedded Fx = F . = 2,800 lb - 1,763.35 11,067 1,763.35 32,351.37 1 Plate Fz -.1 970 lb

. Mx = 30,430 in.-lb M = 27,390 in.-lb

=0 i

CPSES/FSAR TABLE 38.17-1  !

(SHEET 3 0F 3)

\

APE PROGRAM VERIFICATION PROBLEM COMPARISON OF DRILLED-IN ANCHOR ROAD BIP (ST 361) APE (ST 378. V0lL00)

Attachment Anchor Anchor Anchor Anchor Attachment Location loadina Shear Tension Shear Tension ,

TS 4 x 4 Along Edge of Fz - 3,000 lb 0 1,237.02 0 1,458.33 Surface-Mounted Plate l TS 4 x 4 Along Edge of Mx = 12,000 in.-lb 0 786.89 0 1,250.00 Surface-Mounted Plate TS 4 x 4 Along Edge of Mx = 8,000 in.-lb 0 856.54 0 1,833.33 ' .'

Surface-Mounted My - 8,000 in.-lb

Ay z

O' 4

3

@ O 7

>8 9

02 10 11 0

, NOTE:

CIRCLED NUMBERS ARE ELEMENT NUMBERS.

i COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 MATHEMATICAL i10 DEL FOR RESPONSE  ;

SPECTRA SEISMIC VERIFICATION FIGURE 38.1-1 Ib

ALY Z x 7

3 7 8 4 6 8 g

Si 14 16 10 11 13 12 17 I II d i4

< >2 t i3 g

Osh S, 16 NOTE:

CIRCLED NUMBERS ARE 17 hsh ELEMENT NUMBERS.

gJh -.

, COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR RESP 0f1SE SPECTRA SEISMIC VERIFICATION FIGURE 3 B.1-2

1 i

l Y

d 157j56 156 _ M6 159 c 59 v w W '

w 601 53 2 1060 5 261 60 161 1154 61 2154 153 53 53 5520 52 62 DATA UL/

NODES 53 6705: Do=18" t = .375" W = 173. LB/FT .

NODES 6705-178: Do = 24" t = .375" W = 280. LB/FT j, 63 CONC.WGTS: NODE 64-471.LB ,,,,

5001 -840.LB 651 65 ;

(5 FT.)

SCALE: l l 67 5001 667 500 6702 5000 6703 6705 6704 6706 ulJ I '

5003 7

N' , 774 3 72 70 u,1)

IM75 3 76 1761 a 3561 ,2761 [761 m3565 w w - w w @

KEY X - ANCHOR COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S. $M - RESTR AINT FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT - SNUBBER f%

UNITS 1 and 2 -

- MASS POINT MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR MISSING MASS VERIFICATION FIGURE 38.1-3

i A>

~X Z

/

@ @ a y KEY h MASS POINT

$ ANCHOR

?

g PIPE PROPERTIES

] O.D. = 10.75 INCHES s f U t = 0.594 INCHES

1. \ W = 95.5 LBS./FT I

COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR MISSING MASS VERIFICATION FIGURE 38.1-4

~

- . . - _ . _ . . _ _ _ . - . . - . - - - ._-____-I-_--_-_--.-. . . - _ - , .

~

l I

5 6 7 Y 4.5' 4.5' Ak g 3 >x z /- 3.5*

10 6.0' 3.5' 11 2

6.0' i

OPERATING CONDITIONS PIPE THlCKNESS PRESSURE TEMPERATURE l

10" 0.593" O PSI 350*F 9

COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR THERMAL AilALYSIS FKiURE 38.1-5

i A, As GAS

/

pi / [ Po

L z CLOSED OPEN END EN D CASE (A) FOR COMPARISON WITH ANALYTICAL RESULTS INITIAL CONDITIONS

p, /p, = 4.72, c o/a, = 0.8 0 DIMENilONS =

A ,/A, = 0.6, L = PlPE LENGTH SPECIFIC HEAT RATIO =

7 = Cp /Cy= 1.4 p = PRESSURE, a = SOUND VELOCITY, A = FLOW AREA COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 SUDDEN DISCHARGE OF A GAS FROM A PIPELINE THROUGH A N0ZZLE (CASEA) ,

FIGURE 38.8-1 .

l

A, A, = 0.2 5 A, l 3 IN P, Ti = 79* F p P = 0.229 p, To = 79'F 5 FT =

CLOSED OPEN END END CASE (B) FOR COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND HAND CALCULATION PRESSURE = po = 14.7 psia, p, = 14.7/0.229 = 64.2 psia a 2 AREA = A = f (0.25)2 = 0.0491 fr , A, = 0.25 A, = 0.0123 ft G AS CONSTANT = R = 53.35 ft - lbg /lb'R TEMPER ATURE = To = 79'F = 539'R, T, = T o

' 3 3 DENSITY = po = Rio = 0.0736 lb/ft i , 'p' == 0.3215 RT, lb/f t i

i COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 SUDDEN DISCHARGE OF A GAS FROM '

l A PIPELINE THROUGH A N0ZZLE

' (CASF R)  ;

FCURE 38.8-2 4 h

7 5.00 h- M 3

\

I g 4.00 -

t i

o z

3.00 -

M 9

v Q 2.00 -

E N a

m N

E 1.00 - --2" 0.00 O.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 TIME (an t/L)

LEGEND (CASE A)

STEHAM

---

ANALYTICAL SOLUTION (REF 4 A5) i COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 i COMPARIS0N OF PRESSURE RESPONSF AT THE CLOSED END FKLRE 38.8-3

_-.___._.._._i-_. ________...._________.._____._._...____1_.______.._.._.___..__.

l l

. 4.00

^

i a N, 3.20 - -

O Z = -- -- --

u m

Z f \

w 1 I

$ 2.40 =  %

4 w

ac 6 3 &

Q 1.60 =

k

's n.

.=_' - m 0.80 t i i e e - 'P '-

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 LEGEND TIME (ajt /L) - - - - - - - -

(CASE A)

COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

STEHAm

--- ANALYTICAL SOLUTION FNAL SAFETY ANALYS S P.EPORT (REF 4 A5)

UNITS 1 and 2 COMPARISON OF PRESSURE RESP 0i4SE AT THE OPEN EfiD rrtu 38.8-4

1.20

n. 1.00 3 ---

k O

z w

S m

0.s0 -

o O

E -

E O.60 -

o E

E

-__ s \

O.40 -

g O.20 O.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 LEG END : TIME (a, t/L) --

(CASE B)

COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

5iEHAM FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

~~~~

ANALYTICAL SOLUTION (REF 4&S)

UNITS 1 and 2 COMPARISON OF FRESSURE RESPO*4SES BY STEHN4 &

EXERIMENT FKLRE 38.8-5

i 626 64*

~.___-

O I

f ,a f,

", e 1,500*- ts" D. f s O O2 o* ,

6 0

• I 99

0 o ,0 0 e a 3.750 ft/sec I

%p O*, %*

s $[E a 8 O

1. O C

e:OJoo,C n e, -

sg o ,o.

o

: r*

@c ~

a.

~-

f..;< . ,g

. ., . a l / . ., e i  :. :

1. / ' i j

2,200'- 30* D , f e O 0 4 l 2pOO*-36*D,f = 0 02 4 O s tF96 cts % Q s 30 cts

• H a = 600 0*

OJs e s 3,140 f t/sec e s 3,3OOff/see t

i COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FNAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT i UNITS 1 and 2 HYDRAULIC NETWORK FOR VERIFICATION PROGRAM FK3URE 38.9-1

.. _ . . . ~

I 2 ,

'e 4 7, $2 i 'M 3@4 5e I

4 5 2 5 <> 2 6 3 j ' 3 i

g,7, 2

G/O'/g" 5

4

' 41I 4 ,

5 3E i5$ II -613 f { p LEGEND

)

l h PIPE NUMBER 1

PIPE JUNCTION

• l COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

f NODE NUMBER FNAL SAFETY ANALYSlS REPORT I

UNITS 1 and 2

HYDRAULIC ilETWORK FOR j WATHAM VERIFICATION 1

FGURE 36.9-2

6 l

i 1200 1000 - I A

I I \

'\

80G -

]

s o

\.3 tA s.I 2 1 M I t f I 'Y 6o0 '

' -- - " \ 8 liv y g'; a . d l#y g l d L g/  % )p,f 8

V t

400 - 6

\./

v l 200 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LEGEND TIME (SECOND$)

-.-.- W ATH AM STRIITER (REF I)

---

WH AM (R EF 2)

COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

I FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT 6 UNITS 1 and 2 HEAD-VERSUS-TIME PLOT FOR JUNCTION J j FIGURE 38.9-3 i j . .

1400 1200 -

h W

M i

i oi tli i

loco f h l d e,f .

l

,1

i ,! 4 I g

lt l \,\ Y 'l o .\

I

$ 600 "

g x

400 -

g i g'

, ,\

i\\. '4'

!! , yj s' 2a -

'e l<'l- g f f f f f  ?

,'e,)f ' .

• f f  ? f f 9 t t t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 TIME (SECOND$)

LEGEND

.~.- W ATH AM STRitifR (RIF 1)

---

WH AM (R EF 2)

COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 HEAD-VERSUS-TIME PLOT AT VALVE FIGURE 38.9-4

, c. ..- - - .- . . . .- . _ .

STEAM La IX1 P, gag 1r 4 WATER

~ LO PRESSURIZER VESSEL T

db

-LF 1r 4

}

[

l _

1 3

l -

DISTANCES FROM PRESSURIZER VESSEL:

Lo a SAFETY / RELIEF VALVE LG : DOWNSTREAM AREA CHANGE LF s PIPE EXIT IXl aTRAILING EDGE OF SLUG I 4---- FORCING FUNCTION DIRECTION, + ,

EPRI TEST 908 SEGMENT NO.

WATSLUG MODEL PIPE NUMBER l

l I- PRESSURIZER TO La 2- La To LG COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

3 - LG TO LF FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l UNITS 1 and 2 WATSLUG MODEL OF EPRI SAMPLE PROBLEM FIGURE 3B.10-1

80 1 5.5 E 105 IIO P.5 75 A

@< > l2O 30 1 25125 LEGEND H 3 WE 28/29 o = HODE '14 UMBER 25 65 k 4 13 0 5

20 13 5 As MA$S POINT SUPPORT 1 34 o _

ji40 js60 h 5 5g 22.7 I  : EPRI TEST SEGMENT NO.

10 /1

< ,45 O i ,55 O = nueirc-Sw uooct Piee Sec7i < no.

O w 5

3, aim 240 0 A 2.5 h a$

16 5 305 33 [

300 6 g WE 30/31 '

e :17 0 leo les 190 195 198 -

230 ' '235 t.875 g 200 210 22 0 225 SUPPORT 2 y 205 215 414' SUPPORT 4 MMW SUPPORT 3 _

WE 34/35 WE WE 32/33 COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT i UNITS 1 and 2 NUPIPE-SW MODEL OF EPRI SMiPLE PROBLEM FIGURE 38.10-2

l I;iljiljlll ,

4-o T

.R O

S.

E E P 2

S.R T S2 N KI Sd E AY n E L t

G 3 P Aa N1 EN SO I

0 1

E AS FT OC B .

HYT NU N 3 . _

CTI _

NE F U N 0F S

AA IG RN E ._

R _

3 MS AI PC U .

G .

_ o Ol MR I

F CA OO N

I CF F

)

C E

2 (S o E M

I T

Il ft I'l

\ll lI II I1IIiI I II ! l 1 \

M '

o.

_ 1

_ i D

lN:

I

-  % o

\

1ii M

/

i S

P i

i.. '

• • EA L

_

• R D -

_ N s - - - 0 E -

o G -

0 o 0 0 0 o E 0 o 0 0 0 o L 0, 0, 0, 0, o, 0 0 0 0 o 5 5 0 5 c 1

- 1

- 2 O $ w o 8 u. ~ N w 5 I l!Ill

II  !

)l ll 4

0 T

R S.

E P.O

.E

- S R 3 I S2 KI S d T

N

- E AY n E LA a M

G

, EN P 4 y N1 SO -

E AS FT I 0 1

m HYT CTI 0C f

f U N 8 3

3 N FEN 0F

' AA U S f

0 IG E R

MS RN AI X J

' OL PC K F

CA MR OO N

I CF F

r I

~~

,/

/ )

/ C

/ E

\

' I 2. (S 0 E M

I T

s I)

,g' I

i I Ii!i s1gI III 1 iII iIII3I II\

I 1[)

\

1

-- I 0

i

,- o o

- u G /

U s L p S a i

T A t t

Wa D -

N

- - - - 0 E -

0 G -

0 0 0 0 0 0 o E 0 0 0 0 0 0 o L 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, c, 0 0 0 8

0 0 2

o 8 3 3 1 1 - 7_

$ ao$w * $w2oN l Illli1\ 11 1, I

l 150,000 i

EPRI PEAK 80,000 -

A lA e O

^

'- ' > ^' ^

e 1

2 1

$ l b -80,000 - l e lI F II e '

2 l ll

c. I' 5 -160,000 -

\

g l b

2 Lu 2

, O m

-240,000 -

EPRI PEAK

-320,000 -

400,0c0 ' '

g{, g,, g,3 n4 l TIME (SEC)

LEGEND COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

N U PIP E- SW FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT

~ ~ ~~ E PRI TEST RESULTS UNITS 1 and 2 COMPARISON OF SEGNENT 2 SUPPORT REACTION  ;

FIGURE 38.10-5

c 80,000 7 40,000 -

f f E l 2 I!+I P o l \ l\

G 1 I \

a c _. A t '! i nA n -

a ~s , ,

i

l qvv

$ 1 I ti 1 o 1 i l

& 1 t/ y \

11 m - 40,000 - i J g i g

2 \

w \,'

Lu to

-80000 -

l ,

01 0.2 03 0.4 TIME (SEC)

I LEGEND NUPIPE SW

---

EPRI TEST RESULTS COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT l

UNITS 1 and 2 l COMPARIS0N OF SEGMENT 3 l SUPPORT REACTION l

FGURE 38.10-6

5.60 -

D AMPING V ALUE = 0.005 OBE 4.80 -

4.00 -

23.20 9

[ . ABSOLUTE CURVES 1 AND SUMM 2 ATION OF -

E'

{2.40 y CURVEI 1.60 - CURVE 2 j

N 0.80 - /

0.00 l

0 3 jo 3 10 10 10 2 FREQUENCY Hz i

COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

j FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT i

UNITS 1 and 2 PSPECTRA-ABSOLUTE SUMMATION OF ARS CURVES FIGJRE 38.12-1

,r. - _, _ - - - , . --

1.40 DAMPlNG VALUE = 0.005 SSE 1.20 -

INPUT AMPLIFIED RESPONSE SPECTRUM

[" 'g --- OUTPUT REQUIRED RESPONSE SPECTRUM 1.00 - I g I 1

! \

0.30 I t

_. I 1 x I b

" I V- n

$ 0.60 _lI V-- 7 4 \

,\ , -g 0.40 -

h I

\~~~

0.20 [

r 0.00 O.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.30 0.90 1.00 PERIOD SEC l

l COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 PSPECTRA-REQUIRED RESPONSE SPECTRUM GENERATION FIGURE 38.12-2

, 33.76' ,

13.0*

8 20.76' ,

@ @L ..@.l@ ' .f.e, ] ,@

's .

@ ..$. ..@. l.,@ ..@ @ .. ..

'a.

O l@ @ @

i u e

@J

@ [@~

i e 3 @ @ @

i ..@ .@ ..@ ., ..

. . a~

e .. .. ,,!@i.@ ,,@ ..@ ..

g ,

.,{@!!

li l@..

d l

k

@ ,@11

,.@ ,,@ ,.@li i a~

@  :@h.@

1, 11

.. .. .. 3. ,, n 10 - JOINTS 'N Oio_ueusens ,,

@ @ l@ll I, ,.@

i @ @ @

,. .. ,, ,, n ,.

~

@ @ l@;I

@[-@]% ,

g L

_g___g _g_.g g___g

~

'j , , , i . . . . .

Y

., _l l _

l l _!

4.38' 9.38 14 38 19 34 24.38 29.38 3376 z x COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 0F THE FOUNDATION MAT FOR A PORTION OF THE OFF-GAS RllTInTNR FIGURE 3B.13-1

l I

d i MYX d i bGY MYY ::

l l

VYY@

l o Mxx d i Vxx Vxx

== O O MxY = =MxY

< r i P Mxx

XP VYY @

r MYY i r D

I' MYX NOTES:

Mxx, MYY, MxY, THE MOMENT RESULTANTS.ARE OUTPUT AT THE AVAILABLE LOCATIONS ON THE ELEMENTS.

Vxx.VYY ARE ALSO OUTPUT FOR THE TRANSVERSE SHEAR RESULTANTS

= POSITIVE DIRECTION COMING OUT OF PAPER POSITIVE DIRECTION GOING INTO THE PAPER i xP YP - PLANER COORDINATE SYSTEM Xc,Yo - GLOBAL COORDINATE SYSTEM XP IS PARALLEL TO XG YP IS PARALLEL TO Yo l

COMANCHE PEAK S.E.S.

l FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT i UNITS 1 and 2 POSITIVE SIGN CONVENTION FOR RESULTS OF PLATE BENDING ELEMENT FIGURE 38.13-2

T8 @ n O TT.

O a e

e i3 e i. e i.q,) n ene ss e u s.).,

O a 6 3

& 33 & 43

, O ir G

e 4 h 24 @ 44 O a O jg5 h 14 @ if h20(2) 25 h33@ 3s @ 39 (it as jA# ky 0 0 @

s e n @ 4 O O S 1

& 21 Q 41 O 6 8 8

@ 2s @ 48 O @ O t 6. gisei.e n e2,9:49ne..e*,

i

&# ' (y Y -

e o ep 10

@ 30 h so [

x s e

i s e e'

" 3' X ROT 0.0 Y Y ROT 0.0 f Z ROT 0.0 9 it

& s4 @ st j x 7 - JOINTS 2 6 '-0

h- MEMBERS _

@~ HANGERS A - SUPPORTS COMANCHE PE AK- S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 MODEL - SUSPENDED CEILING FIGURE 38.13-3

10.5" 37.5" f , _ _ _

4 '

' IN 6s !' -

35s N f,

@ '2;

\

=

ed SEE WELD DETAll ir 7s a

g Y h

ZC

=

d I h

>3 y k

m 6 e n a 2 If V ei V I I1

a ci 37 h

( >8 h

NOTES: X< + h2

1. MEMBERS 1 & 6-6" SCH 160 PIPE y

2. MEMBERS 2 & 3-8" SCH 160 PIPE

3. MEMBERS 4 & 5-TS 10" X 10" X 1/2" 4 10"

4. MEMBER 7 IS A FICTITIOUS MEMBER FROM THE CENTERLINE WELD AT JOINT Ss TO THE OUTER SURFACE OF THE SUPPORTED PIPE

5. LEGEND:

2 INDICATES JOINT

@ INDICATES MEMBER s INDICATES STRUCTURAL ATTACHMENT POINT COMANCHE PE AK S.E.S.

FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT UNITS 1 and 2 STRUDL INPUT ASME ANCHOR FIGURE 38.14-1

. -