ML19326E027
| ML19326E027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1980 |
| From: | TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19326E024 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250438 | |
| Download: ML19326E027 (18) | |
Text
. -
,
()
2.6 Section VI discusses the evaluation of selected mechanical equip-
'
ment, electrical equipment, and instrumentation. All of the equipment listed in Attachment 1 to the Staff's January 30, 1979 letter has been addressed. 2 2.7 Section VII discusses the conclusions drawn from the reevalu-ation.
- 3. Summary 3.1 The results of the reevaluation, which are discussed more fully throughout this report show that, even utilizing an SSE with an acceleration of 0.20g, the systems required to accomplish safe shutdown and continued shutdown heat removal will be able to function as designed. Furthermore, these results are themselves 1
quite conservative, as discussed in the conclusions of Section VII. This demonstrates that the Davis-Besse, Unit 1 design is acceptable in the event of a 0.20g SSE.
,
l l
l
.
I-3 Supplement 2
_ _ .
.kT.250$pe--. .. ..
.
.
VI. EVALUATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, AND INSTRUMENTATION
- 1. Intsoduction 1.1 Various components have been selected for evaluation which are representative of mechanical, elecorical, and control systems components required for safe shutdown and continued heat removal.
The components selected were those listed in Attachment 1 of the NRC Staff guidance transmittal of January 30, 1979. These com- 2 ponents have been evaluated to determine the margins available when subjected to an SSE of 0.20g acceleration.
1 1.2 Table VI-1 lists the ccoponents selected for evaluation and summarizes the pertinent information for auch component. It includes the location of the component, the figure number (figure to be found in Section II) giving the appropriate response spectra for that location, the method of qualification for the component, and the data sheet number where more detailed seismic qualification information is provided. The data sheets are included in this section. They follow the f3rmat of Attachment 2 of the NRC letter. A brief discussion of the qualification of the selected equipment follows.
- 2. Electrical Components (Table VI-1 Items "-17 and 19-20) 2 2.1 All safety related electrical equipment has been qualified either by test or analysis on the basis of the appopriate floor response spectra generated by the 0.15g SSE. Reference to Table VI-1 indicates the method of qualification.
2.2 The revised floor response spectra have been used to determine the margin available for the 0.20g acceleration SSE.
2.3 For the components which were qualified for the 0.15g SSE by testing, the test method was either sine beat or sine dwell, with highly conservative input levels. In some cases, equipment was subjected to as many as 75 sir.e beat tests and to sine dwells as long as 45 seconds.
Based on the high input levels and the conservative nature of sine beat and sine dwell testing at resonance and integer frequencies, it is concluded that the margin for each component is sufficient to qualify it to the revised seismic requirements.
2.3.1 As an example of the above, the 5 KV metal clad switchgear (Item 13 of Table VI-1) is discussed here. In this case, damping was first determined using sine sweep and the relation L=
Where & = damping (percent of critical damping)
Q = amplification VI-1 Supplement 2
,
.
.
Quasi-resonance magnification curves were used to compare floor response spectra curves to maximum equipment buildup at resonance.
The amplification was determined to be 5.5 times the peak value of the sine beat input acceleration. The required test input was de-termined to be 0.219 However, the actual test input excitation was 0.8g, approximately four (4) times the required level.
The revised floor response spectra, based on the 0.20g zero period acceleration (ZPA) SSE using 3 percent damping, normalized to 5 percent damping (consistent with the component damping), indicates a peak floor response at the equipment mounting location of 2.16g in the peak range of 5-7 hertz. The required test input is deter-mined to be 0.39g. Since the actual test input was 0.8 9, the re-quired input for the 0.20g SSE is exceeded by a factor of two (2).
,
2.3.2 The other components which were qualified by sine beat or sine dwell testing were evaluated for margin, and in all cases, there was sufficient margin to qualify the components for the revised (0.20g) SSE requirements.
2.4 Items 15 and 17 of Table VI-1 were qualified by analysis. Their l2 respective data sheets indicate the stresses calculated for the 0.15g SSE on the critical structural elements. The seismic factor (defined in Section IV, Paragraph 1.1) is also calculated for these components.
2.4.1 The seismic factor for the critical structural elements of the unit substation transformers are quite large, indicating a large available stress reserve. Obviously, the transformers would function under the imposition of a 0.20g SSE.
2.4.2 The seismic factor for the critical elements of the battery racks for the 0.15g SSE are not as high, but still provide margin for a higher SSE. To ensure that these critical elements would not be overstressed due to a 0.20g SSE, the stresses and the seismic factor for such an SSE have been calculated and are reported below:
(a) (b) (c) (c) - (b)
Identification Seismic Total Stress (a)
Stress Stress Allowable Unistrut P-1000 (pc. 3) 23643 27592 28800 0.05 Side and End Stringers
- 26064 28800 0.11 (pcs. 12 & 13)
Tubing (pc. 10)
- 22820 28800 0.26 Brace
- 6025 7390 0.23 Angle Iron Frame 14064 22980 28800 0.41 Support (pc. 1)
VI-2 Supplement 2
..
.
- 0.388 Anchor Bolts 27952 38800
- 0.809 Tube Connection to 15918 28800 Bottom Support Channel Connection to
- 18695 22000 0.177 Bottom Support
- assume seismic stress is total stress 2.4.3 In the cases noted above where qualification was demonstrated by analysis, it is concluded that stresses were below the allow-ables for both the 0.15g and 0.20g SSE cases. Therefore, there is sufficient margin to qualify the components for the revised (0.20g) SSE requirements.
- 3. Control Panels and Instruments (Table VI-1 Item 18) 2 3.1 The auxiliary shutdown panel was evaluated as representative of a control panel with instruments required for shutdown. The panel was qualified by analysis, while the instruments were qualified by testing, for the 0.15g SSE. '
3.2 The revised floor response spectra have been used to determine the acceptability of the installation for the 0.20g SSE.
3.3 The data sheet for the panel indicates the stresses calculated on the side of the panel and on the anchor bolts. The seismic factor (defined in Section IV, paragraph 1.1) is also calculated.
To ensure that the panel would withstand the loads due to a 0.20g SSE, the stresses and seismic factors for such an SSE have been calculated and are reported below:
(a) (b) (c) (c) - (b)
Identification Seismic Total Stress (a)
Stress Stress Allowable Panel 780 psi 780 psi 1610 psi 1.1 Anchor Bolts 9 ksi 9 ksi 20 ksi 1.2 The maximum deflection is calculated to be 0.0049 inch. This will not adversely affect functional operability.
The natural frequencies of vibration are greater than 33 Hz for the structural system and various panel sections including the instrument package panels. Dynamic amplification of the flat spectra response of seismic acceleration is found to be a maximum of 0.879 in the structural system in the horizontal direction and 0.47g in the vertical direction.
Use of these amplified dynamic loads as well as static loads with both horizontal and vertical effects show the bending, tensile and shear stresses in the various structural members and connections to be much VI-3 Supplement 2 i
!
.
lower than the maximum allowable stresses. Stresses in the anchor bolts are quite low and load capacity in the welds are quite high.
Displacements in the instrument package panel sections are quite small and will not cause loss of function of the equipment. Loading of the panel plate sections and panel frame has been found to be much less than that required for buckling. The analysis methods used 4
subjected the structural elements to more critical conditions than would be encountered by the structural system in a prototype environ-ment. It is concluded that the panel is structurally adequate to function properly when subjected to loadings associated with a 0.20g SSE.
,
3.4 The seismic test reports for the instruments mounted on the auxiliary shut? n panel have been reviewed. The data sheets summarize the pectinent information. The qualification testing envelops the revised response spectra, ensuring that the in-struments will be operable for the 0.20g SSE.
4.0 Mechanical Components (Table VI-1 Items 1-12 and 21-24)
- 4.1 Mechanical components required to accomplish safe hot shutdown
- after a seismic event and continued shutdown heat removal were originally qualified by analysis on the basis of the appropriate floor response spectra generated by a 0.15g SSE. A review and/or reanalysis has been performed for Items 1-12 and 21-24 to determine the margins available for a 0.20g acceleration SSE. In some cases, l2 the original seismic analysis (0.15g SSE) used acceleration values which envelope the acceleration values generated by a 0.20g SSE floor response spectra. In these cases, a reanalysis was not re-quired. In most cases, however, a new seismic analysis was per-formed on the basis of the appropriate floor response spectra generated by a 0.20g SSE. The mechanical components are listed in Table VI-1, Items 1-12 and Items 21-24.
4.2 A summary of the reanalysis for each of the mechanical components listed in Table VI-1 is described below. Items 21, 22, 23, and 24 were added to the Table by Toledo Edison after a review of the equipment required to accomplish safe hot shutdown after a seis- 1 mic event and continued shutdown heat removal.
4.2.1 Auxiliary Feedwater Pumps The original seismic analysis performed by the pump vendor (Byron Jackson) showed that the equipment is qualified for a 0.15g SSE.
Byron Jackson revised their original seismic analysis to incorpo-rate the required accelerations for a 0.20g SSE. This revised analysis showed the equipment had adequate margins when subjected to a 0.20g SSE. See Data Sheet 1. All stresses and deflections were within the allowable values.
VI-4 Supplement 2
_ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _
.
4.2.2 Component Cooling Water Heat Exchangers The original seismic analysis performed by the vendor (Structhers Wells) showed that the equipment is qualified for the 0.15g SSE.
The vendor performed a new sciismic analysis incorporating the required accelerations for a 0.20g SSE. The new analysis used current state-of-the-art techniques for modeling the heat ex-changer and resulted in the determination of lower natural frequencies. These lower natural frequencies and the current state-of-the-art modeling techniques resulted in the analysis showing insufficient margin for the anchor bolts and the base of the fixed support.
The original analysis was then reviewed using the current ana-lytical techniques. This review indicated that for 0.15g SSE the anchor bolts and base of the fixed support did not meet their original design margin. Therefore, it was decided to modify the saddle supports during the spring 1980 refueling outage to meet their original design margins for a 0.15g SSE. These modifica-tions also provide margin when the heat exchanger is subjected to a 0.20g SSE. It should be emphasized that this modification was made due to a change in analytical methodology and not inadequate margin for a 0.20g SSE. The calculated stress values shown in Data Sheet 2 reflect the modified saddle supports.
4.2.3 Diesel Fuel Oil Day Tanks The vendor (Richmond Engineering Company) revised the original seismic analysis to incorporate the required accelerations for a 1 0.20g SSE. The new analysis showed that the expansion anchors did not have a factor of safety of at least 4.0 in accordance with the bolt manufacturer's recommendation. A review of the as-built anchoring condition for the tank revealed that the anchor bolts did not have a factor of safety of 4.0 for a 0.15g SSE. However, the installed factor of safety was greater than 2.0. Modifications to the tank saddle supports are presently being made during the S] ring 1980 refueling outage so that the installed factor of safety will be greater than 4,0 for a 0.15g SSE. This will also provide adequate margin for a 0.20g SSE. It should be emphasized that these modifications were necessitated
'
by as-built conditions and not an increase in SSE accelerations from 0.15g to 0.20g.
The vendor's new seismic analysis for a 0.20g SSE shows that the circumferential bending stress at the horn of the saddle is greater than the allowable stress.
Based on a review of the conservatisms in the code and the ven-i
'
dors conservative analytical techniques, we believe that there is still sufficient margin in the design against failure.
l l
1 VI-5 Supplement 2 2
.
4.2.4 Service Water Pumps and Motors The original seismic analysis performed by the pump vendor (Goulds Pumps) showed that the equipment is qualified for a 0.15g SSE.
Goulds Pump revised their original seismic analysis to incorpo-rate the required accelerations for a 0.20g SSE. This revised analysis showed the equipment had adequate margins when subjected to a 0.20g SSE. See Data Sheet 4. The original seismic analysis which was done for the motors used seismic accelerations which are higher than the accelerations required by either a 0.15g SSE or a 0.20g SSE. The seismic accelerations used for the motor analysis are shown on Data Sheet 4. All stresses and deflections for the pumps and motors were within the allowable values.
4.2.5 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine The original seismic analysis which was done for the auxiliary feedwater pump turbine used seismic accelerations which are higher than the accelerations required by either a 0.15g SSE of a 0.20g SSE. The seismic accelerations used for the analysis are shown on Data Sheet 5. All stresses and deflections were within the allowable values.
4.2.6 Borated Water Storage Tank The seismic loads for a 0.20g SSE were calculated by Bechtel Power Corporation. These calculations showed that the loads for
'
a 0.20g SSE are lower than the seismic loads used for the o.'igi-nal tank design based on a 0.15g SSE. Stress checks indicate that all stresses calculated for a 0.20g SSE were well below allowable values. Reference Data Sheet 6.
4.2.7 Emergency Diesel and Generator
,
The original seismic analysis performed by the vendor (Bruce GM Diesel, now Power Systems) showed that this equipment is qualified for a 0.15g SSE. The vendor performed a new seismic analysis incorporating the required accelerations for a 0.20g SSE. The new analysis shows that the diesel engine, generator, instrumen-tation and associated equipment have adequate margins when sub-jected to a 0.20g SSE. For the accessory rack, a modification is being made during the current 1980 refueling outage to enhance our degree of confidence in the accessory rack being able to withstand the 0.20g SSE. The modification involves a stiffener 2-brace to raise the natural frequency of t'.e rack. Refer to Data Sheet 7 for additional information on the diesel generator major components.
During the vendor's performance of the new 0.20g seismic analysis, it was discovered that the calculated nozzle load on one of the diesel nozzles exceeded the manufacturer's recommended allowable load. It was determined that this condition also existed for the 0.15g SSE accelerations. Pipe support and expansion joint VI-6 Supplement 2
._ _
.
.
modifications are being made during the current 1980 refueling outage to reduce the nozzle loads to allowable values. It should be emphasized that this modif':ation was necessitated by as-built conditions and not an increase in SSE accelerations from 0.15g to 0.20g.
4.2.8 Emergency Diesel C'coling Water Heat Exchanger 2 The original seismic analysis performed by the equipment vendor (Bruce GM Diesel, now Power Systems) showed that the equipment is qualified for a 0.15g SSE. The vendor performed a new seismic analysis to incorporate the required accelerations for a 0.20g SSE. The new analysis shows the equipment has adequate margins when subjected to a 0.20g SSE. See Data Sheet 8. All stresses and deflections were within the allowable values.
4.2.9 Decay Heat Removal Cooler The original seismic analysis performed by the equipment supplier (Atlas, a supplier to Babcock and Wilcox) showed that the coolers are qualified for a 0.15g SSE. Babcock and Wilcox evaluated the new seismic response curves to determine the applicable loads for a 0.20g SSE. The new loads were considerably less than those used by Atlas in the design of the coolers. Therefore, the coolers have sufficient margin to withstand a 0.20g SSE. Refer 1 to Data Sheet 9.
4.2.10 Decay Heat Removal Pump and Motor I
The original seismic analysis performed by the vendor (B&W) showed that the equipment is qualified for a 0.15g SSE. B&W reevaluated the critical structural components based on the peak accelerations of the applicable 0.20g SSE response spectra, and showed that all stresses for the pump and motor were within allowable values. Refer to Data Sheet 10.
4.2.11 Decay Heat Removal Suction Valves HV-DH11 and HV-DH12 and Motor Operators The original seismic analysis which was done for these valves and motor operators used seismic accelerations which are higher than the accelerations acting on the valves during either a 0.15g SSE or a 0.20g SSE. The accelerations used in the seismic analysis are shown on Data Sheet 11. All stresses were within allowable j values.
4.2.12 Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Steam Inlet Valve MS-106 The original seismic analysis which was done for this valve and motor operator used seismic accelerations which are higher than the accelerations acting on the valve during either a 0.15g SSE or a 02.0g SSE. The accelerations used in the seismic analysis are shown on Data Sheet 12. All stresses were within allowable l values.
VI-7 Supplement 2 l
.. ..
l
.
.
.
4.2.13 Component Cooling Water Pumps and Motors The original seismic analysis performed by the pump vendor (Goulds Pumps) showed that the equipment is qualified for a 0.15g SSE.
The vendor performed a new seismic analysis to incorporate the required accelerations for a 0.20g SSE. The new analysis showed the equipment had adequate margins when subjected to a 0.20g SSE.
See Data Sheet 21. The original seismic analysis which was done for the motors used seismic accelerations which are a higher than the accelerations required by either a 0.15g SSE or a 0.20g SSE.
The seismic accelerations used for the motor analysis are shown on Data Sheet 21. All stresses and deflections for the pumps and motors were within the allowable values.
4.2.14 Component Cooling Water Surge Tank The original seismic analysis performed by the tank vendor (Brown-Minneapolis) showed that the equipment is qualified for a 0.15g 53E. A new seismic analysis was done by Bechtel Power Corpora-tion to incorporate the required accelerations for a 0.20g SSE.
All stresses and deflections for the tank were within the allow-able values. Refer to Data Sheet 22.
4.2.15 Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank The original seismic analysis performed by the tank vendor (Rich-mond Engineering Company) showed that the equipment is qualified for a 0.15g SSE. The vendor reanalyzed the equipment based on the 0.20g SSE response spectra, and the reanalysis showed no 1 appreciable difference (0.26 percent increase) in seismic accelera-tion response of the vessel from that used in the original anal-ysis. Therefore, it is concluded that the vessels have adequate margins to withstand a 0.20g SSE. See Data Sheet 23.
4.2.16 Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tank Transfer Pumps and Motors The original seismic analysis which was done for this equipment used seismic accelerations which are higher than the accelera-tions required by either a 0.15g SSE or a 0.20g SSE. All stresses and deflections were within the allowable values. The analysis used accelerations of 1.2g horizontal and 0.8g vertical, and considered the horizontal and vertical loads to act simulta-neously. The peak acceleration values applicable for these pumps are 0.75g horizontal and 0.72g vertical as shown in Figure II-1 and II-2 (using 3 percent damping per Table II-1). A Data Sheet has not been included for these components because additional data from the equipment supplier is not available.
l
!
VI-8 Supplement 1
-
.
.
.
5.0 Summary 5.1 The components selected and evaluated have been shown to have sufficient margin to perform their function when subjected to an 0.20g SSE. Modifications are being made to four mechanical com-ponents, component cooling water heat exchangers, diesel fuel oil day tanks, emergency diesel generator accessory racks, and emergency diesel generator air exhaust nozzle expansion joints and pipe supports. However, with the exception of the accessory racks, these modifications are not a result of an increase in 1 SSE acceleration from 0.15g to 0.20g, but are the result of 2 reevaluating the 0.15g analysis in light of curcent analytical techniques and as-built field conditions. The modification to the accessnry rack is to ensure a greater factor of safety for a 0.20g SSE. When these modifications are complete these components will have sufficient margin to withstand a 0.20g SSE.
,
l
,
.
VI-9 Supplement 2 ;
.
.- -. -
.
.
.
TABLE VI-1
,
SUMMARY
OF QUALIFICATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS Location Response Spectra Qualification Data Sheet Component Bldg. Area Elevation Figure No. Method No.
- 1. Auxiliary feedwater Aux. 7 567 II-31A, B, C Analysis 1 pump
- 2. Component cooling Aux. 7 585 II-32A, B, C Analysis 2 water heat exchanger
- 3. Diesel fuel oil day Aux. 6 595 II-30A, B, C Analysis 3 tank
- 4. Service water pumps INTS. -
576 II-34A, B, C Analysis 4
- 5. Auxiliary feedwater Aux. 7 567 II-31A, B, C Analysis 5 pump turbine j
- 6. Borated water Outside -
585 II-1, II-2 Analysis 6 storage tank
- 7. Emergency diesel Aux. 6 585 II-27A, B, C Analysis 7 and generator 2
- 8. Emergency diesel Aux. 6 585 II-27A, B, C Analysis 8 cooling water heat exchanger
- 9. Decay heat removal Aux. 7 545 II-1, II-2 Analysis 9 cooler
- 10. Decay heat removal Aux. 7 545 II-1, II-2 Analysis 10
}'g pump and motor
!
"
- 11. Decay heat removal suction valves HV CIS. 9 560 None See Data Sheet Analysis 11
"
DH11 and 12 and motor operators
.
Sheet 1 of 4
.
Data Sheet 7 Qualification Summary of Equipment I. Plant Name: Davis-Besse 1 _ Type:
- 1. Utility: Toledo Edison PWR J
- 2. NSSS: B&W 3. A/E: Bechtel .RWR II. Component Name Emergency Diesel Generator System
- 2. Model Number: Generator Model A20 Quantity: 2
- 3. Vendor: Power Systems (formerly Bruce GM Diesel, Inc.)
- 4. If the compoaeat i' a cabinet or panel, name and model No. of the devices included: NA Diesel Engine with direct-connected
- b. Dimensions 34'l x 6' W x 10' H (Approx. )
Engine-Generator Foundation 100,000 lbs., Engine 45,000 lbs.,
- c. Weight Generator 30,000 lbs., Auxiliary Equipment 17,600 lbs.
- 6. Location: Building Diesel Generator Bldg. (Aux. Bldg. Area 6)
Elevation 585 Feet
- 7. FieldMountingConditions[k] Bolt (No. 16 , Size ik )
(Engine-Generator) [ ] Weld (Length )
[]
-
.
- 8. Natural Frequencies in Each Direction (Side / Side, Front /Back, Vertical):
See Sheet 4 of 4 ALL: F/B: V:
- 9. a. Functional
Description:
Serves as a standby emergency source of AC power, to be used when normal power is not available
- b. Is the equipment required for [ ] Hot Standby [ ] Cold Shutdown
.[MJBoth assuming offs'ite power is not available
- 10. Pertinent Reference Design Specifications: 7749-M-180, 7749-C-41A
. . . , _. ..
- Sheet 2 of 4
.
Data Sheet 7 III. Is Equipment Available for Inspection in the Plant: [M]Yes [ ] No IV. Equipment Qualification Method: Test:
Analysis: kEnaine-aenerator.AccessoryRack,etc.
Jontrols and Combination of Test and Analysis:VInstrumentation Test and/or Analysis by Flight Dynamics, Inc. Report No. A-9-80 (name of Company or Laboratory & Report No.)
'
Power Systems Report No. 6032 V. Vibration Input: Wyle Laboratories Report No. 45193-1
- 1. " Revised" Required Respo,se Spectra (attach the graphs): Figures II-27A.B,C
- 2. Required Acceleration in Each Direction: (basedon0.20g)
See Sheet 4 of 4 S/S = F/B = V=
VI. If Qualification by Test, then Complete: N/A
[ ] random
- 1. [ ] Single Frequency [ ] Multi-Frequency: [ ] sine beat
[]
- 2. [ ] Single Axis [ ] Multi-Axis
- 4. Frequency Range:
[ ] No
- 6. Input g-level Test at S/S = F/B = V=
- 7. Laboratory Mounting:
- 1. [ ] Bolt (No. , Size ) [ ] Weld (Length )[]
- 8. Functional operability verified: [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Applicable
- 9. Test Results including modifications made:
- 10. Other tests performed (such as fragility test, including results):
l
.
. . . .-~.... ..-...--..
.
-
Sheet 3 of 4
.
Data Sheet 7 VII. If Qualification by Analysis or by the Combination of Test and Analysis, then Complete:
- 1. Description of Test including Results: Three relays were sub.iected to a seismic simulation test consisting of biaxial random multifrequency testing in each of two test orientations. The specimens were electrically powered and monitored for electrical function during the test. They demonstrated sufficient integrity to withstand the seismic environment without comoromise nf strneturac nr electrical functions.
- 2. Method of Analysis See Sheet 4 of 4
[ ] Static Analysis [ ] Equivalent Static Analysis
[ ] Dynamic Analysis: [ ] Time-History
[ ] Response Spectrum
- 3. Model Type: [ ] 3D [ ] 2D [ ] 1D See Sheet 4 of 4 [ ] Finite Element [ ] Beam [ ] Closed Form solution
- 4. Ed]ComputerCodes: See Sheet 4 of 4 Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: See Sheet 4 of 4
[ ] Hand Calculations
- 5. Method of Combining Dynamic Responses: [ ] Absolute Sum [ ] SRSS See Sheet 4 of 4 [ ] Other:
(specify)
- 6. Damping: 3% Basis for the damping used: Table 11-1
- 7. Support Considerations in the model: See Sheet 4 of 4
- 8. Critical Structural Elements:
Governing Load (a) (b) (c) or Response Seismic Total Stress (c) - (b)
A. Identification Location Combination Stress Stress Allowable (a)
Accessory Rack on Seismic 18,908 21,009 24,444 0.182 Engine-Generator Base Spectrum psi psi psi
)
l l
Effect Upon Functional B. Max. Deflection Location Operability Diesel Engine Air Exhaust Nozzle No effect, loads are within
! Vendor recommended allowable
!
values
. - _. -
_
_
_ _ _
Sheet 4 of 4
.
.
Data Sheet 7
.
Accessory Control Internal Panels Engine Rack Cubicles and Equipment
.
II.8 Natural Frequencies in each Direction S/S 41.9 Hz 14.68 Hz >33 Hz Not F/B >41.9 Hz >33 Hz Determined V >41.9 Hz >33 Hz V.2 Required Acceleration in Each Direction Used S/S 0.437g Response Spectra 0.437g 5.0g F/B 0.4489 per Figures 0.4489 5.0g V 0.4699 II-27A,B&C 0.4699 5.0g VII.2 Method of Analysis Static Dynamic Test & Analysis Test & Analysis i
VII.3 Model Type Finite Element Finite Element ID 1D VII.4 Computer Codes SAP IV SAP IV Nere None Frequency Range and N/A 5 Modes, 4th N/A N/A No.aof modes considere<i Mode = 34.8 Hz VII.5 Method of Combining N/A SRSS N/A N/A Dynamic Responses VII.7 Support-Considerations Rigid SAPIV Boundary Field-mounted Field-mounted l in the model Elements Full Supports Supports ;
Stiffness at base, rack stiffness at l pipe conn's.
.,
- -
~ ~-
- - _ _
.
.
Sheet 1 of 3 Data Sheet 8 Qualification Summary of Equipment I. PyntName: Davis-Besse 1 Tyge:
- 1. Utility: Toledo Edison PWR J
- 1. Scope: [ ] NSSS [k]B0P
- 2. Model Number: 2208-Type SU-2 Pass Quantity: 2
- 3. Vendor: Power Systems from Thermxchanger, Inc.
- 4. If the component is a cabinet or panel, name and model No. of the devices included: N/A Horizontal, U-Tube, Shell & Tube
- 5. Physical Description a. Appearance Heat Exchanger.
- b. Dimensions 11'-4" Long. 22" OD Shell
- c. Weight 5420 lb. empty. 6820 lb. operating
- 6. Location: Building Diesel Generator Blda. (Aux. Bldg. Area 5)
Elevation 585 Feet
- 7. FieldMountingConditions[k] Bolt (No. 4 , Size 5/8" )
[ ] Weld (Length )
[]
- 8. Natural Frequencies in Each Direction (Side / Side, Front /Back, Vertical):
2.04 Hz, 3.39 Hz, 11.9 Hz, 12.8 Hz, 14.3 Hz, 17.9 Hz AM: F/B: V:
- 9. a. Functional
Description:
Cool the engine jacket water of the Emergency Diesel Generator (See Data Sheet 7) i
- b. Is the equipment required for [ ] Hot Standby [ ] Cold Shutdown
[M]Both assuming offsite power is not available
- 10. Pertinent Reference Design Specifications: 7749-M-180 7749-C-41A
-
.. . , . . . _ .
.
Sheet 2 of 3
.
Data Sheet 8 III. Is Equipment Available for Inspection in the Plant: [%) Yes [ ] No IV. Equipment Qualification Method: Test:
Analysis: M Combination of Test and Analysis:
Test and/or Analysis by URS/ John A Blume & Assoc. Report No. 8039-1 (name of Company or Laboratory & Report No.)
Flight Dynamics, Inc. Report No. A-9-80 V. Vibration Input: Power Systems Report No. 6032
"
- 1. Revised" Required Response Spectra (attach the graphs): Fiaures II-27A.B,C
- 2. Required Acceleration in Each Direction: (based on 0.20g)
S/S = 2.869 F/B = 3.10g V = 2.33g VI. If Qualification by Test, then Complete:- N/A
[ ] random
- 1. [ ] Single Frequency [ ] Multi-Frequency: [ ] sine beat
[]
l
- 2. [ ] Single Axis [ ] Multi-Axis
- 4. Frequency Range: ,
[ ] No
- 6. Input g-level Test at S/S = F/B = V=
- 7. Laboratory Mounting:
- 1. [ ] Bolt (No. , Size ) [ ] Weld (Length )[]
- 8. Functional operability verified: [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Not Applicable
- 9. Test Results including modifications made:
- 10. Other tests performed (such as fragility test, including results):
.
g b em 6 * = --
.
.
.
Sheet 3 of 3 Data Sheet 8 VII. If Qualification by Analysis or by the Combination of Test and Analysis, then Complete:
- 1. Description of Test including Results: N/A
- 2. Method of Analysis
[ ] Static Analysis [h]EquivalentStaticAnalysis
[ ] Dynamic Analysis: [ ] Time-History
[ ] Response Spectrum
- 3. Model Type: [h]3D [ ] 2D [ ] 1D
[ ] Finite Element [ ] Beam [ ] Closed Form solution
- 4. [h]'ComputerCodes:
SAP IV. Weldina Research Council UlERCO) Release 5.0.2 Frequency Range and No. of modes considered: N/A
[h]HandCalculations
- 5. Method of Combining Dynamic Responses: [ ] Absolute Sum [MSRSS
[ ] Other:
.
(specify)
- 6. Damping: 3% Basis for the damping used: Table 11-1
- 7. Support Considerations in the model: Heat exchanger bolted to Diesel-Generator skid
- 8. Critical Structural Elements:
Governing Load (a) (b) (c) or Response Seismic Total Stress (c) - (b)
A. Identification Location Combination Stress Stress Allowable (a)
Bending stress of
- 21.6 23.4
- the tubes ksi ksi
- Not available from the analysis
,
Effect Upon Functional 8 B. Max. Deflection Location Operability 0.50" Tube bundle None. Stresses and forces are
, within allowable values.
-.-