ML20071C382
| ML20071C382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1983 |
| From: | BECHTEL GROUP, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071C378 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303020014 | |
| Download: ML20071C382 (327) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- . .. . .. . .. . _ .- . 'O PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT - SUPPLEMENT i , FOR E.I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-321 MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM i i-O , i l PREPARED
, FOR l GEORGIA POWER COMPANY ! SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC.
,l 1 i i, i BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 1 4 REVISION 0 FEBRUARY 1983 ! 8303020014 830228
, PDR ADOCK 05000321 p PDR
PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT - SUPPLEMENT FOR E. I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS Remove and insert the PUAR,pages, tables, and figures listed below. Dashes (---) in the Remove column-indicate that no action is required. REMOVE INSERT Pages i/ii through xxiv Pages 1/ii through xxviii , Page 2.4-1/ Table 2.4.1-1 Page 2.4-1/ Table 2.4.1-1 Figure 2.4.1-5 Page 2.4-2/ Table 2.4.2-1 Page 2.4-2/ Table 2.4.2-1 Table 2.4.2-2 Figure 2.4.2-6 s Page 2.5-1 Page 2.5-1/2.5-2, Table 2.5.1-1, Figures 2 5.1-1 through 2.5.1-10, Page 2.5 e/ Table 2.5.2-1, Table 2.5.2-2, Figures 2.5.2-1 through 2.5.2-13 Pages 6.1-8/6.1-9, 6.1-10/ Table Pages 6.1-8/6.1-9, 6.1-10/ Table 6.1.3-1, Table 6.1.3-2/Page 6.1.2-1, Figures 6.1.2-1 and 6.2-1, Pages 6.2-2/6.2-3 through 6.1.2-2, Page 6.1-11/6.1-12, 6.2-12/ Table 6.2.1-1, Tables Tables 6.1.3-1/6.1.3-2, Pages 6.2.1-2 through.6.2.1-6 6.2-1/6.2-2 through 6.2-11/6.2-12, Tables 6.2.1-1 through 6.2.1-6 Pages 6.4-1/6.4-2, 6.4-3/ Table Pages 6.4-1/6.4-2, 6.4-3/ Table 6.4.1-1, Tables 6.4.1-2 through 6.4.1-1, Tables 6.4.1-2 through 6.4.1-7 6. 4.1-7 Pages 6.4-8/6.4-9, 6.4-10/6.5-1 Pages 6.4-8/6.4-9 through 6.4-12/ 6.4-13, Tables 6.4.3-1 through 6.4.3-30, Figures 6.4.3-1 through 6.4.3-11, Pages 6.4-14/ 6.4-15 and 6.4-16/6.5-1 There are three pages in Appendix C. Please remove the last two pages from the book and insert the revised pages.
~) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xv LIST OF ACRONYMS xxviii'
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-1 1.1 Description of the Hatch Unit 1 Containment System 1.1-1 1.2 Review of Phenomena 1.2-1
.1.2.1 Design Basis Accident 1.2-2
, 1.2.2 Intermediate Break Accident 1.2-5 i 1.2.3 Small Break Accident 1.2-6 1.2.4 Safety / Relief Valve Actuation 1.2-7
- 1. 3 Short-Term Program Summary 1.3-1 1.4 Long-Term Program Description 1.4-1
- 1. 5 Plant Unique Analysis Report - Objective 1.5-1 l 1.6 References 1.6-1 2.0 COMPONENT DESCRIPTION 2.1-1 1
- 2.1 Suppression Chamber 2.1-1
- 2.1.1 Original Configuration 2.1-1 i 2.1.2 Structural Modifications 2.1-2
?. 2 Vent System 2.2-1.
! 2.2.1 Original Configuration 2.2-1 i l 2.2.2 Structural Modifications 2.2-2 , 2.3 Internal Structures 2.3-1 l 2.3.1 Original Configuration 2.3-1 2.3.2 Structural Modifications 2.3-3 2.4 S/RV Piping and Supports 2.4-1 2.4.1 Original Configuration 2.4-1 2.4.2 Structural Modifications 2.4-2 O i
~
~ - - - --r a- s
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 2.5 Torus-Attached Piping and Supports 2.5-1 2.5.1 Original Configuration 2.5-1 2.5.2 Structural Modifications 2.5-3 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1-1 3.1 Design Specifications 3.1-1 3.1.1 Original Design Specification 3.1-1 3.1.2 Specifications for Modifications 3.1-2 3.2 Structural Acceptance Criteria 3.2-1 3.2.1 Classification of Structural Components 3.2-3 3.2.2 Loadings 3.2-7 3.2.3 Design and Service Limits 3.2-9 3.2.4 Component-Loadings-Service Limit Assignments 3.2-11 3.2.5 ASME Code Criteria 3.2-13 3.3 References 3.3-1 4.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 4.1-1 4.1 Loads 4.1-1 4.1.1 Original Design Specification Loads 4.1-1 4.1.2 Containment System Temperature and Pressure Response to LOCA 4.1-3 4.1.2.1 Design Basis Accident 4.1-3 4.1.2.2 Intermediate Break Accident 4.1-3 4.1.2.3 Small Break Accident 4.1-4 4.1.3 Vent System Thrust Loads Due to LOCA 4.1-5 4.1.3.1 Analytical Procedure 4.1-6 4.1.3.2 Assumptions 4.1-8 4.1.3.3 Analysis Results 4.1-8 4.1.3.4 Application 4.3-9 4.1.4 Pool Swell Loads 4.1-10 4.1.4.1 Torus Net Vertical Load Histories 4.1-10 4,1.4.2 Torus Shell Pressure Histories 4.1-11 4.1.4.3 Vent System Impact and Drag 4.1-13 4.1.4.4 Impact and Drag on Other Structures Above the Pool 4.1-16 4.1.4.5 Froth Impingement Loads 4.1-20 4.1.4.6 Pool Fallback Loads 4.1-22 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) D (D Py 4.1.4.7 LOCA Jet Load 4.1-23 4.1.4.8 LOCA Bubble-Induced Drag Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1-25 4.1. 4. 9 Vent Header Deflector Loads 4.1-26 4.1.5 Condensation Oscillation Loads 4.1-28 4.1.5.1 Torus Shell Loads 4.1-28 4.1.5.2 Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1-29 4.1.5.3 Downcomer Dynamic Load 4.1-30 4.1.5.4 Vent System Loads 4.1-33' 4.1.6 Chugging Loads 4.1-35 4.1.6.1 Torus Shell Loads 4.1-35 4.1.6.2 Loads on Submerged Structures Due to Main Vent Chugging 4.1-37 4.1.6.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers 4.1-37 4.1.6.4 Vent System Loads 4.1-40 4.1.7 S/RV Discharge Loads 4.1-42
'r Sg -4.1.7.1 S/RV Logic Fixes / Actuation Cases 4.1-42
( ,j 4.1.7.2 S/RVDL Clearing Transient Loads 4.1-48 4.1.7.3 Torus Shell Pressure 4.1-49 4.1.7.4 S/RVDL Reflood Transient 4.1-51 4.1.7.5 T-Quencher Water Jet Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1-51 4.1.7.6 T-Quencher Bubble-Induced Drag Loads _on Submerged Structures 4.1-54 4.1.7.7 Thrust Loads on T-Quencher Arms 4.1-55 4.1.7.8 Maximuni S/RVDL and Discharge Device Pipe Wall Temperature 4.1-55 t 4.1.8 Fatigue Cycles 4.1-56 4.2 Load Combinations 4.2-1 4.2.1 Design Basis Accident 4.2-2 4.2.2 Intermediate /Small Break Accident 4.2-3 1 4.2.3 Normal Operating Conditions 4.2-4 4.3 References 4.3-1 5.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 5.1-1 5.1 NASTRAN Computer Program 5.1-1 5.2 ANSYS Computer Program 5.2-1 [- s _\ 5.3 SUPERPIPE Computer Program 5.3-1
' \-- 5.4 FORTRAN Computer Programs 5.4-1
'- iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 5.5 General Electric Computer Programs 5.5-1 5.6 References 5.6-1 6.0 DESIGN STRESS ANALYSIS 6.1-1 6.1 Suppression Chamber 6.1-1 6.1.1 Suppression Chamber Shell, Ring Girder, 6.1-1 and Supports 6.1.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.1-1 6.1.1. 2 Design Loads and !_oad Combinations 6.1-2 6.1.1.3 Design Allowables 6.1-3 6.1.1.4 Method of Analysis 6.1-4 6.1.1.5 Analysis Results 6.1-6 6.1.1.6 Summary of Results 6.1-7 6.1.2 Suppression Chamber Piping Penetrations 6.1-8 6.1.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.1-8 6.1.2.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.1-8 6.1.2.3 Design Allowables 6.1-9 6.1.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.1-9 6.1.2.5 Analysis Results 6.1-9 6.1. 2. 6 Summary of Results 6.1-10 6.1. 3 Fatigue Evaluation 6.1-11 6.1.3.1 Critical Locations 6.1-11 6.1.3.2 Equivalent Maximum Stress Cycles 6.1-11 6.1.3.3 Summary of Results 6.1-12 6.2 Vent System 6.2-1 6.2.1 Vent Header Assembly 6.2-2 6.2.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-2 6.2.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.2-3 6.2.1.3 Design Allowables 6.2-3 6.2.1.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-3 6.2.1.5 Analysis Results 6.2-11 6.2.1.6 Summary of Results 6.2-12 6.2.2 Vent System Supports 6.2-13 6.2.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-13 6.2.2.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.2-13 6.2.2.3 Design Allowables 6.2-13 6.2.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-13 iv
l i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) l Q V l l Pam 6.2.2.5 Analysis Results 6.2-15 6.2.2.6 Summary of Results 6.2-15 6.2.3 Downcomer Ties 6.2-16 6.2.3.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-16 6.2.3.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.2-16 6.2.3.3 Design A110wables 6.2-16 6.2.3.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-16 6.2.3.5 Analysis Results 6.2-17 6.2.3.6 Summary of Results 6.2-17 6.2.4 Vent System Penetrations 6.2-18 6.2.4.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-18 6.2.4.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.2-18 6.2.4.3 Design A110wables 6.2-18 3 6.2.4.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-18 6.2.4.5 Analysis Results 6.2-19 6.2.4.6 Summary of Results 6.2-19 6.2.5 Vent Line Bellows 6.2-20 O 6.2.5.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-20 C/' 6.2-20 6.2.5.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations Design Allowables 6.2-20 ~ 6.2.5.3 6.2.5.4 Method of Analysis 6.2 6.2.5.5 Analysis Results 6.2-21 6.2.5.6 Summary of Results 6.2-21 6.2.6 Vent Header Deflector 6.2-22 6.2.6.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-22 6.2.6.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.2 6.2.6.3 Design Allowables 6.2-22 6.2.6.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-23 6.2.6.5 Analysis Results 6.2-23 6.2.6.6 Summary of Results 6.2-23 6.2.7 Fatigue Evaluation. 6.2-24 6.2.7.1 Evaluation Procedure 6.2-24 6.2.7.2 Loadings Considered 6.2-24 6.2.7.3 Critical Locations 6.2-25 6.2.7.4 Determination of Stress Range 6.2-25 6.2.7.5 Equivalent Maximum Stress Cycles 6.2-25 6.2.7.6 Stress Concentration Factors 6.2-26 6.2.7.7 Fatigue Evaluation 6.2-26 6.2.7.8 llecults and Conclusions 6.2-27 y v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.3 Internal Structures 6.3-1 6.3.1 Catwalk 6.3-1 6.3.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.3-1 6.3.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.3-1 6.3.1.3 Design Allowables 6.3-5 6.3.1.4 Method of Analysis 6.3-6 6.3.1.5 Analysis Results 6.3-7 6.3.1.6 Summary of Results 6.3-7 6.3.2 Monorail 6.3-8 6.3.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.3-8 6.3.2.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.3-8 6.3.2.3 Design Allowables 6.3-8 6.3.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.3-8 6.3.2.5 Analysis Results 6.3-9 6.3.2.6 Summary of Results 6.3-9 6.3.3 Conduit 6.3-10 6.3.3.1 Analytical Model Description 6.3-10 6.3.3.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations , 6.3-10 6.3.3.3 Design Allowables 6.3-10 6.3.3.4 Method of Analysis 6.3-10 6.3.3.5 Analysis Results 6.3-11 6.3.3.6 Summary of Results 6.3-11 6.4 Piping Systems and Supports 6.4-1 6.4.1 S/RV Piping and Supports 6.4-1 6.4.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.4-1 6.4.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.4-1 6.4.1.3 Design Allowables 6.4-2 C . 4.1. 4 Method of Analysis 6.4-2 6.4.1.5 Analysis Results 6.4-3 6.4.1.6 Summary of Results 6.4-3 6.4.2 T-Quenchers and Supports 6.4-4 6.4.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.4-4 6.4.2.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.4-5 6.4.2.3 Design Allowables 6.4-5 6.4.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.4-6 6.4.2.5 Analysis Results 6.4-7 6.4.2.6 Summary of Results 6.4-7 vi
+
, TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
't ' Page 6.4.3 Torus-Attached Piping and' Supports 6.4-8
~
6.4.3.1 Analytical Model. Description '.4-8 6 6.4.3.2 Design Loads and' Load Combinationt 6.4-9 6.4.3.3 Design Allowables 6.4-9 6.4.3.4 Method of Analysis 6.4-9 6.4.3.5 Analysis Results 6.4-12 6.4.3.6 Summary'of Results 6.4-12
-6.4.4 Valve and Pump Operability and Functionality 6.4-14 6.4.4.1 Analytical Model Description 6.4-14 6.4.4.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.4-14 6.4.=4.3 Design Allowables .6.4-15 , . 6.4.4.41 Method of Analysis 6.4-15 i 6.4.4.5 Summary of Results 6.4 s 6.5 References 6.5-1 7.0 SUPPRESSION P0OL TEMPERATURE EVALUATION 7.1-1 J
.. 7.1 Introduction 7.1-1 7.2 Transient Events Evaluated 7.2-1 7.3 .Model Description 7.3-1 7.4 Analysis Results and Conclusions 7.4-1
- 7. 5 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring 7.5-1 i '7.6 References 7.6-1 8.0 SOURCES OF CONSERVATISM 8.1-1 8.1 Structural Analysis Techniques 8.1-1 i.
- 8.1.1 Fluid-Structure Interaction 8.1-1 i lB.1. 2 Modeling 8.1-3 8.1.3 Buckling 8.1-4 8.2 Load Definition 8.2-1 l
l 8.2.1 S/RV Loads 8.2-1
- 8.2.2 CH/C0 Loads .
8.2-2 i- 8.2.3 Pool Swell Loads 8.2-3 8.2.4 Earthquake Loads 8.2-4 i ! 8.3 Load Combinations 8.3-1 8.4 References 8.4-1 1 l 9.0
SUMMARY
9.1- 1
\ 9.1 Stress Results 9.1-1
[/
\-- 9.2 Conclusions 9.2-1 -
l (' vii L
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIX A Short-Term Program Summary APPENDIX B Hatch 1 PULD [GE NED0-24569 (Rev. 2)] APPENDIX C Long-Term Program Modification Summary O l O l l viii l
q LIST OF TABLES Title 2.4.1-1 Original Configuration - Hatch Unit 2 MSRV Discharge Line Data Sheet 2.4.2-1 Structural Modifications - Hatch Unit 2 MSRV Discharge Line Data Sheet 2.4.2-2 Structural Modifications - S/RV Pipe Supports Inside the Drywell 2.5.1-1 External Piping Attached to Torus to be Evaluated 2.5.2-1 Torus-Attached Piping and Branch Lines Modifications 2.5.2-2 Structural Modifications - Summary of Pipe Support Modifications for Torus-Attached (External) Piping 3.2.2-1 Lead Combinations 3.2.4-1 Class MC Components and Internal Structures 3.2.4-2 Class 2 and 3 Piping Systems
~ O( ) 4.0-1 Loading Acronyms 4.1.5-1 Condensation Oscillation Onset and Duration (Turbine Driven FW Pumps) 4.1.5-2 Condensation Oscillation Baseline Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes
, on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 4.1.5-3 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies fcr Condensation Oscillation Source Function 4.1.6-1 Chugging Onset and Durations (Turbine Driven FW Pumps) 4.1.6-2 Post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 4.1.6-3 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for Pre-Chugging Source Function 4.1.6-4 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for Post-Chugging Source Function 4.1.6-5 Vent System Load Amplitudes and Frequencies for Chugging O ix
r ' LIM 0F TABLES (Continued) Title O 4.1.7-1 S/RV Load Case / Initial Conditions 4.1.7-2 Original Assumptions - S/RV Multiple Valve and Subsequent Valve Actuation Cases 4.1.7-3 Proposed Low-Low Set Safety / Relief Valve System for Hatch Unit 1 4.1.7-4 Results of Load Case C3.1 Analysis for Hatch Unit 1 4.1.7-5 S/RV Multiple Valve and Subsequent Valve Actuation Cases - Assumptions Considering Low-Low Set Safety / Relief Valve System 4.1.7-6 S/RVDL Geometric Parameters - Hatch Unit 1 4.1.7-7 Examples of the Determination of the Number of S/RV Lines Included 4.1.8-1 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions Prior to LOCA Event 4.1.8-2 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions - DBA Event 4.1.8-3 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions - IBA Event 4.1.8-4 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions - SBA Event 5.4-1 FORTRAN Programs Used in Hatch Unit 1 Evaluation 6.1.1-1 Suppression Chamber Shell Design Allowables (KSI) 6.1.1-2 Suppression Chamber Ring G rder and Supports Design Allowables (KSI) 6.1.1-3 Suppression Chamber Supports Design Allowables (K5I) 6.1.1- 4 Suppression Chamber Ring Girder and Circumferential Shell Stiffeners - Summary of Analysis Results 6.1.1-5 Suppression Chamber Saddle and Support Columns - Summary of Analysis Results 6.1.1-6 Suppression Chamber Rock Bolts - Summary of Analysis Results 6.1.1-7 Summary of Weld Stresses 6.1.2-1 Suppression Chamber Piping Penetrations - Summary of Analysis Results O X
p LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Title 6.1. 3-1 : Fatigue Load Combinations With a DBA Event 6.1.3-2 Fatigue Load Combinations With an SBA Event 6.2.1-1 Vent Header Assembly Structural Loading 6.2.1-2 Vent Header Assembly Design Allowables 6.2.1-3 Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Header /Downcomer Intersection 6.2.1-4 Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Header / Miter Region 6.2.1-5 Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Header / Vent Line Intersection 6.2.1-6 Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Line/Drywell Intersection 6.2.2-1 Vent System Supports Design Allowables 6.2.2-2 Vent System Supports Analysis Results 6.2.3-1 Downcomer Ties Design Allowables i
- 6.2.3-2 Downcomer Ties with Plate Connections - Analysis Results 6.2.3-3 Downcomer Ties with Clamp Connections - Analysis Results 6.2.4-1 Vent System Penetrations Design Allowables 6.2.4-2 Vent System Penetration Analysis Results - S/RV Line/ Vent Pipe Penetration l 6.2.4-3 Vent System Penetration Analysis Results - Vacuum Breaker /
l Vent Header Penetration 6.2.5-1 Analysis Results - Vent Line Bellows - Maximum Differential Displacements 6.2.5-2 Analysis Results - Vent Line Bellows - Maximum Displacement for the Governing LOCA Events 6.2.6-1 Vent Header Deflector - Analysis Results 6.2.7-1 Fatigue Evaluations - Analysis Results 6.3.1-1 Catwalk - Analysis Results xi
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Title O 6.3.1-2 Catwalk - Analysis Results 1 6.3.1-3 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.1-4 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.1-5 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.1-6 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.1-7 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.2-1 Monorail - Analysis Results 6.3.3-1 Conduit - Analysis Results 6.4.1-1 S/RVDL Design Water Column 6.4.1-2 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line E Inside Drywell 6.4.1-3 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line E Inside Torus 6.4.1-4 Sunnary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line G Inside Drywell 6.4.1-5 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line G Inside. Torus
- 6. 4.1- 6 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) -
S/RV Discharge Line L Inside Drywell 6.4.1-7 Summary of 5/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV ischarge Line L Inside Torus 6.4.2-1 Nomenclature for T-Quencher and Supports Load Combinations 6.4.2-2 Load Combinations - T-Quencher and Supports 6.4.2-3 Service Level Limits of T-Quencher and Supports 6.4.2-4 Summary of Stress Evaluation - Unit 1, Line G 6.4.2-5 Summary of Stress Evaluation - Unit 1, Line E O xii
, -~s LIST OF TABLES (Continued) ( ) v Title 6.4.2-6 Summary of Bolted Connection Evaluation - Unit 1, Line G 6.4.2-7 Summary of Bolted Connection Evaluation - Unit 1, Line E 6.4.2-8 Summary of Welded Connection Evaluation - Unit 1, Line G 6.4.2-9 Summary of Welded Connection Evaluation - Unit 1, Line E 6.4.3-1 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-203 6.4.3-2 Summary of Torus-Attacned Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-204A, C 6.4.3-3 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pioe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-204B, D 6.4.3-4 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-205 6.4.3-5 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - /} %) Torus Penetration No. X-206A 6.4.3-6 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-206B 6.4.3-7 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-206C 6.4.3-8 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-206D 6.4.3-9 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-207 6.4.3-10 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-208A 6.4.3-11 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-208B 1 6.4.3-12 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-210A, 211A 6.4.3-13 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-210B, 211B /N v
]
xiii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Title 6.4.3-14 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-212 6.4.3-15 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-213 6.4.3-16 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-214 6.4.3-17 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-215 6.4.3-18 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-217 6.4.3-19 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-218A 6.A.3-20 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Ptnetration No. X-220 6.4.3-21 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - , Torus Penetration No. X-221A 6.4.3-22 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-221C 6.4.3-23 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximu i Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-223A 6.4.3-24 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-2238 6.4.3-25 Analysis Results - HPCI X-214 Return Line Restraint 6.4.3-26 Analysis Results - HPCI X-214 Return Line Restraint 6.4.3-27 Analysis Results - HPCI X-214 Return Line Restraint 6.4.3-28 Analysis Results - RHR X-210A and B Return Line Restraint 6.4.3-29 Analysis Results - RHR X-210A and B Return Line Restraint 6.4.3-30 Analysis Results - RHR X-210A and B Return Line Restraint 7.4-1 Result Summary of Hatch Unit 1 Pool Temperature Responses O xiv l
I l LIST OF FIGURES Os - Title 1.1-1 Hatch Unit 1 Containment Vessel and Foundation 1.1-2 Typical Composite Section Through Suppression Chamber 1.1-3 Typical Hatch Unit 1 S/RV Discharge Line Configuration 1.1-4 Discharge Devices Employed in Hatch Unit 1 2.1.1-1 Original Configuration - Plan View of Torus - 2.1.1-2 Original Configuration - Torus Suppnrt i 2.1.2-1 Structural Modifications - Torus Saddle Support - x 2.1.2-2 Structural Modifications - Torus Mid-Bay Column Supports 2.1.2-3 Structural Modifications - Cone Plates and Ring Girder / Lip Plate Stiffening 2.1.2-4 Structural Modifications - Torus Shell Bay Without Earthquake Tie f V) 2.1.2-5 Structural Modifications - Torus Shell Bay With Earthq$ake Tie 2.2.1-1 Vent System Prior to Modifications. , 2.2.1-2 Original Configuration - Partial Plan of Vent System 2.2.1-3 Original Configuration - Vent Header-Vent Line Section 2.2.1-4 Original Configuration - Dovincomer Intersection and Ties 2.2.1-5 Original Configuration - Vent Header Supports 2.2.1-6 Original Configuration - Vent Header Intersection with Vacuum Breakers > 2.2.1-7 Original Configuration - S/RV Line Penetration. 2.2.2-1 Structural Modifications - Vent Header Deflector Addition 2.2.2-2 Structural Modifications - Downcomer-Vent Header Intersection 1 I 2.2.2-3 Structural Modifications - Downcomer Ties 2.2.2-4 Structural Modifications - Vent Header Intersection with Vacuum 3 Breaker '
~
2.2.2-5 Structural Modifications - 5/RV Line Penetration (Sheets 1 and 2) xv
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 2.2.2-6 Structural Modifications - Vent Header Support Columns 2.2.2-7 Structural Modifications - Drain Line Cap at Vent Header 2.3.1-1 Original Configuration - Interior Catwalk 2.3.1-2 Original Configuration - Torus Monorail 2.3.1-3 Original Configuration - Conduit Arrangement Inside the Torus 2.3.2-1 Structural Modifications - Infimior Catwalk 2.3.2-2 Structural Modifications - Torus Monorail 2.4.1-1 Original Configuration - S/RV Discharge Locations Inside Torus , 2.4.1-2 Orig hal Configuration - S/RVDL and Ramshead Arrangement Inside Torus 2.4.1-3 Original Configuration - Ramshead Tee Support 2.4.1-4 Original Configuration - Typical S/RVDL Arrangement Inside Drywell 2.4.1-5 Original Configuration - Typical S/RV Pipe Support Inside the Drywell 2.4.2-1 Structural Modificatior.s - S/RVDL and T-Quencher Arrangement Inside Torus 2.4.2-2 Structural Modifications - T-Quencher Detail 2.4.2-3 Structural Modifications - T-Quencher Support System (Sheet 1 of 3) 2.4.2-4 Structural Modifications - T-Quencher Support System (Sheet 2 of 3) 2.4.2-5 Structural Modifications - T-Quencher Support System (Sheet 3 of 3) 2.4.2-6 Structural Modifications - Typical S/RV Pipe Support Modifica-tion Inside the Drywell 2.5.1-1 Original Configuration - Torus-Attached Piping Penetration Locations O xvi
, LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
\
(G Title 2.5.1-2 Original Configuration - Instrument Air for Vacuum Relief Valves Inside Torus X-223A (Typical, Six Lines) 2.5.1-3 Original Configuration - Internal Piping, X-210A and X-210B 2.5.1-4 Original Configuration - Spray Header and Supports Inside the Torus 2.5.1-5 Original Configuration - Typical ECCS Nozzle and Strainer Inside the Torus 2.5.1-6 Original Configuration - Typical Penetration Nozzle at Inside Top of Torus 2.5.1-7 Original Configuration - 1/2-Inch Instrument Air for Vacuum Relief Valves X-223A (Typical, Six Lines) 2.5.1-8 Original Configuration - Piping to Penetration X-214 2.5.1-9 Original Configuration - Typical Piping Support Configuration - ' Outside Torus m J 2.5.1-10 Original Configuration - Typical Piping Support Configuration Outside Torus 2.5.2-1 Structural Modifications - Piping Arrangement Inside Torus - RHR Test-Line Elbow 2.5.2-2 Structural Modifications - Instrument Air for Vacuum Relief Valves Inside Torus X-223A (Typical, Six Lines) 2.5.2-3 Structural Mod.*' cations - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus 2.5.2-4 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus 2.5.2-5 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus 2.5.2-6 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus 2.5.2-7 Structural Modifications - Spray Header Supports Inside the Torus 2.5.2-8 Structur::1 Modifications - Vacuum Breaker Drain Line Bracing Inside the Torus xvii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 2.5.2-9 Rerouted 1/2-Inch Instrument Air for Vacuum Relief Valves X-223A (Typical, Six Lines) 2.5.2-10 Structural Modifications - Large Bore Piping Arrangement Outside the Torus - X-214 2.5.2-11 Structural Modifications - Piping Support Outside Torus 2.5.2-12 Structural Modifications - Piping Support Outside Torus 2.5.2-13 Structural Modifications - Torus-Attached Piping - Torus Shell Nozzle Reinforcing 4.1.1-1 Original Design Specification Loads - Normal Loads (N) 4.1.1-2 Original Design Specification Loads - Earthquake Loads (E) 4.1.3-1 Application of Thrust Force on Main Vent 4.1.3-2 Application of Vent Header Forces 4.1.3-3 Application of Downcomer Forces 4.1.4-1 Pool Swell Loads - Event Sequence 4.1.4-2 Vent System Coordinates 4.1.4-3 Application of Impact / Drag Pressure Transient to Downcomer 4.1.4-4 Downcomer Impact and Draq Pressure Transient 4.1.4-5 Vent Header Local Impact Pressure Transient 4.1.4-6 Schematic Diagram Illustrating the Methodology for Main Vent Impact and Drag 4.1.4-7 Typical Pool Surface Velocity Longitudinal Distribution 4.1.4-8 Typical Pool Surface Displacement Longitudinal Distribution 4.1.4-9 Pulse Shape for Water Impact on Cylindrical Targets 1 4.1.4-10 Pulse Shape for Water Impact on Flat Targets 4.1.4-11 Definition of Froth Impingement - Region I 4.1.4-12 Definition of Froth Impingement - Region II xviii
p ' LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 4.1.4-13 Froth Loading History - Region I 4.1,4-14 Froth Loading History - Region 11 4.1.4-15 Froth Impingement Region II - Possible Directions of Load Application 4.1.4-16 Possible Directions of Froth Fallback Load Application 4.1.4-17 Possible Directions of Fallback load Application ! 4.1.4-18 Sample fallback Load 4.1.4-19 Hatch 1 Test 5 - Drywell Pressure - Zero AP 4.1.4-20 Downcomer Water Slug Ejection Data - Zero AP 4.1.4-21 Sample Force Time History of LOCA Bubble-Induced Drag Loads 4.1.5-1 Condensation Oscillation Loads - Event Sequence N 4.1.5-2 Condensation Oscillation Baseline Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 4.1.5-3 Mark I Condensation Oscillation - Torus Vertical Cross Sectional Distribution for Pressure Oscillation Amplitude 4.1.5-4 Mark I Condensation Oscillation - Multiplication Factor Versus Pool-to-Vent Area Ratio for Plant Unique Load Determination 4.1.5-5 Sample Force Time History of Condensation Oscillation Drag Load 4.1.5-6 Downcomer Dynamic Load 4.1.5-7 Downcomer Pair Internal Pressure Loz. ding for DBA C0 4.1.5-8 Downcomer Pair Differential Pressure Loading for DBA C0 4.1.5-9 Downcomer C0 Dynamic Load Applica:. ion 4.1.5-10 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loading for IBA C0 4.1.6-1 Chugging Loads - Event Sequence 4.1.6-2 A Typical Chug Average Pressure Trace on the Torus Shell O xix
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 4.1.6-3 Mark I Chugging - Torus Asymmetric Circumferential Distribution for Pressure Amplitude 4.1.6-4 Mark I Chugging - Torus Vertical Cross Sectional Distribution for Pressure Amplitude 4.1.6-5 Post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 4.1.6-6 Sample Force Time History of Chugging Drag Load 4.1.6-7 Sectors Used to Define Directions of Lateral Loads on Downcomer's End 4.1.6-8 Notation Used for Transforming RSEL Reversals Into Stress Reversals at a Fatigue Evaluation - Location A 4.1.6-9 Distribution of Chugging RSEL Reversals for a Typical Sector 4.1.6-10 Probability of Exceeding a Given Force per Downcomer for Different Numbers of Downcomers 4.1.6-11 Chugging Wave Form for Gross Vent System Pressure Oscillation Load 4.1.7-1 T-Quencher Load Definition Scheme 4.1.7-2 S/RV Discharge Loads - Event Sequence 4.1.7-3 Hatch Unit 1 System Response for Limiting Event with Four-Valve Low-Low Set 4.1.7-4 Hatch Unit 1 System Response for Limiting Event with Single Failure (Only Two Low-Low Set Valves Operable) 4.1.7-5 Sample Prediction of S/RVDL Internal Pressure Transient 4.1.7-6 Sample Prediction of T-Quencher Internal Pressure Transient 4.1.7-7 Sample Prediction of Thrust Loading on an S/RV Pipe Segment Initially Filled with Gas 4.1.7-8 Sample Prediction of Thrust on S/RV Pipe Run Between the Discharge Device and the First Upstream F.lbow (Pipe Run Initially Filled with Water) 4.1.7-9 Sense of Thrust Loading O XX l
J-- _ a a _ _ . LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) O Title , 4.1.7-10 Sample Prediction of Mass Flow Rate of Water Exiting T-Quencher 4.1.7-11 Sample Prediction of Water Mass Acceleration 4.1.7-12 Sample Prediction of Torus Shell Pressure Loading Transient 4.1.7-13 Sample Prediction of Torus Shell Longitudinal Pressure Distribution 4.1.7-14 Sample Prediction of Torus Shell Radial Pressure Distribution at Section A-A in Figure 4.1.7-13 4.1.7-15 Sample Prediction of S/RVDL Reflood Transient 4.1.7-16 Outline of Procedures Used to Obtain the T-Quencher Water Jet Induced Drag Loads on Submerged 3tructures . 4.1.7-17 Sample Force Time History of T-Quencher Water Jet Induced Drag Loads 4.1.7-18 Location of T-Quenchers and Structures 4.1.7-19 Air Clearing Loads on Quencher Arms and S/RV Lines 4.1.7-20 Outline of Procedures Used to Obtain the T-Quencher S/RV Bubble-Induced Drag Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1.7-21 Sample Force Time History of T-Quencher Bubble-Induced Drag l Loads 4.1.7-22 Thrust Loads on Arm End Caps 4.1.7-23 Generalized Shape of Thrust Loading Transient and Application , Point with Time l 4.1.7-24 Example of Predicted S/RVDL and Discharge Device Temperature Distribution 4.2.1-1 Load Combinations - Design Basis Accident (DBA) 4.2.2-1 Load Combinations - Intermediate Break Accident (IBA) 4.2.2-2 Load Combinations - Small Break Accident (SBA) 4.2.3-1 Load Combinations - Normal Operating Conditions b v i xxi l
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 6.1.1-1 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Suppression Chamber Shell, Ring Girder, and Supports 6.1.1-2 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Torus Shell Top Hemisphere Plan View 6.1.1-3 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Torus Shell Bottom Hemisphere Plan View 6.1.1-4 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model-- Elevation View of the Saddle, Ring Girder, and Lip Plate Bar Elements 6.1.1-5 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Elevation View of the Saddle, Ring Girder, and Lip Plate 6.1.1-6 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Elevation View of Mid-Bay Columns and Shell 6.1.1-7 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Vent Pipe Stub and Torus Section 6.1.1-8 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Torus Shell in the Areas of the Vent Pipe 6.1.1-9 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Second Shell Section with Typical Ring of Fluid Elements 6.1.1-10 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Elevation View of a Typical Ring of Fluid Elements 6.1.1-11 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Complete 221-Degree 5 Torus Model with Typical Ring of Fluid Elements 6.1.1-12 Suppression Chamber - Seismic Analytical Model 6.1.1-13 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Reselts--NOC Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-14 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--NOC Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane l 6.1.1-15 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--NOC Load l Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-16 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--NOC Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending O xxii
, -s LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
L.) Title 5 6.1.1-17 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-18 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-19 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-20 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending . 6.1.1-21 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-22 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-23 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending (]
\_ /
6.1.1-24 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-25 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-26 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-27 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-28 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-29 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-30 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-31 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-32 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load r'~Si Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending e Y xxiii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 6.1.2-1 Suppression Chamber Penetrations - Analytical Mode 4 sic 11 -Degree Torus Shell Model 6.1.2-2 Suppression Chamber Penetrations - Analytic -Typical Penetration Finite Element Model 6.2.1-1 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model- .e Finite Element Model 6.2.1-2 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Modei ,om Half of Vent Header Non-Vent Bay 6.2.1-3 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Bottom Half of Vent Header Vent Bay 6.2.1-4 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Downcomers, Vent Header, and Intersection 6.2.1-5 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Vent Header and Miter Ring
- 6. 2.1- 6 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Vent Header / Vent Pipe Intersection 6.2.1-7 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Vent Pipe and Drywell Intersection 6.2.2-1 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Vent Header Miter Ring and Support Columns 6.2.2-2 Vent System Supports - Computer Model for Submerged Hydrodynamic Loads 6.2.3-1 Downcomer Tie - Analytical Model 6.2.3-2 Downcomer Ties - Computer Model for Submerged Hydrodynamic Leads 6.2.4-1 Vent System Penetration - Analytical Model--S/RV Line/ Vent Pipe Intersection 6.2.4-2 Vent System Penetration - Analytical Model--Vacuum Breaker Penetration 6.2.6-1 Vent Header Deflector - Analytical Model 6.2.6-2 Vent Header Deflector - Reaction Surinury xxiv
1 LIST OF FIGURES.(Continued) Title 6.3.1-1 Torus Interior Catwalk - Analytical Model 6.3.1-2 Vents and S/RVDLs Considered in Catwalk Platform Analysis , 6.3.1-3 Catwalk Platform - Reaction Summary et Inside Column Base - Ring Girder Location at Node 29 6.3.1-4 Catwalk Platform - Reaction Summary at Outside Column Base - Ring Girder Location at Node 32 6.3.1-5 Catwalk Platform - Reaction Summary at Platform Ring Girder Location at Node 9 f 6.3.2-1 Torus Monorail - Analytical Model 6.3.2-2 Angle of Maximum Froth Velocity 6.3.2-3 Monorail - Reaction Summary at Torus Shell Weld Pad 6.3.2-4 Monorail - Reaction Summary at Ring Girder i 6.3.3-1 Conduit - Analytical Model 6.3.3-2 Conduit Support - Reaction Summary at Catwalk Platform Location 6.4.1-1 Analytical Model - S/RVDL E (Sheets 1 and 2)
- 6. 4.1-2 Finite Element Model - Support Frame for S/RVDL K 6.4.1-3 Reflood Transient - S/RVDLs A, C, G, and H 6.4.2-1 T-Quencher and Supports - Line G Analytical Model 6.4.2-2 T-Quencher and Supports - Line E Analytical Model 6.4.2-3 T-Quencher and Supports - Analytical Model -- T-Quencher -
Ramshead Area 6.4.3-1 Analytical Model - Torus-Attached Piping X-214 6.4.3-2 Analytical Model for Small Bore Piping with Expansion Loop ! 6.4.3-3 HPCI X-214 Restraint - Analytical Model 6.4.3-4 Vents and S/RVDLs Considered in HPCI X-214 Restraint Analysis lO XXV
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) O Title 6.4.3-5 HPCI X-214 Restraint - Reaction Summary at Restraint to Ring Girder, Connection 6.4.3-6 RHR X-210A and B Restraint - Analytical Model
- 6. 4. 3- 7 Vents and S/RVDLs Considered in RHR X-210B Restraint Analysis 6.4.3-8 RHR X-210 Restraint - Reaction Summary at Restraint to Ring Girder Connection 6.4.3-9 RHR X-210 Restraint - Reaction Summary at Pipe Brace to Ring Girder Connection 6.4.3-10 X , Y , and Z-Acceleration Time History for Penetration No. X-214 - S/RV Case A2.2 (Sheets 1, 2, and 3) 6.4.3-11 Response Spectrum - Penetration No. X-214 X , Y , and Z-Direction - S/RV Case A2.2 (Sheets 1, 2, and 3) 7.3-1 Coupled Reactor and Suppression Pool Model 7.3-2 Plan View of Hatch Unit 1 Suppression Pool with T-Quenchers and RHR Discharge Locations Used in the Local Pool Temperature Model 7.4-1 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 1A --
SORV at Power-Loss of One RHR Loop 7.4-2 Local Pool Tempe.ature Response - Case 1A -- SORV at Power-Loss of One RHR Loop 7.4-3 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case IB -- 50RV at Power and Spurious Isolation 7.4-4 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case IB -- SORV at Power and Spurious Isolation 7.4-5 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 2A -- Rapid Depressurization from Isolation-Loss of One RHR Loop 7.4-6 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 2A -- Rapid Depressuriza-tion from Isolation-Loss of One RHR Loop 7.4-7 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 2B -- SORV During Isolated Hot Shutdown 7.4-8 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 2B -- SORV During Isolated Hot Shutdown xxvi
i LIST OF. FIGURES (Continued) Title 7.4-9 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 2C -- Normal Reactor Depressurization from Isolation 7.4-10 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 2C -- Normal Reactor Depressurization from Isolation 7.4-11 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 3A -- SBA with Manual Depressurization, Accident Mode, and Failure of One RHR Loop 7.4-12 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 3A -- SBA with Manual ! Depressurization, Accident Mode, and Failure of One RHR Loop 7.4-13 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 3B -- SBA-Failure of Shutdown Cooling Mode 7.4-14 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 3B -- SBA-Failure of , Shutdown Cooling Mode i 7.5-1 Suppression Pool Temperature Sensor Locations O i O , xxvii L
4 LIST OF ACRONYMS U ABSS absolute scmmation metnod ADS automatic depressurization system ATWS anticipated transient without scram BWR boiling water reactor CH chugging C0 cundensation oscillation DBA design basis accident ., DLF dynamic load factor ECCS emergency core cooling system FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI- fluid-structure-interaction FSTF Full-Scale Test Facility GE General Electric HPCI high pressure coolant injection 2 IBA intermediate break accident
- LDR Load Definition Report LOCA loss-of-coolant accident LOOSP loss of offsite power LPCI low pressure coolant injection
. LTP Long-Term Program MSIV main steam-line isolation valve MSRV main steam relief valve NOC- normal operating conditions g-~x NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission' (,,) NSSS nuclear steam supply system operating basis earthquake OBE PUA plant unique analysis PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definition Report QSTF quarter-scale test facility RCIC reactor core isolation cooling J RHRS residual heat removal system RPV reactor pressure vessel j RSEL resultant static equivalent loads SBA smal.1 break accident SER Safety Evaluation Report SIF stress intensification factor 50RV stuck open relief valve square root of the sum of the squares
~
SRSS S/RV safety / relief valve S/RVDL safety / relief valve discharge line SSE safe shutdown earthquake , STP Short-Term Program i O xxviii
2.4 S/RV PIPING AND SUPPORTS 2.4.1 Original Configuration
'The main steam relief valve (MSRV) discharge lines are 10-inch diameter lines that relieve the overpressure in the RPV. Each line begins at the MSRV, extends down through the drywell and vent pipe, penetrates the vent pipe above the torus pool surface, and discharges through a ramshead supported at the ring girder above the bottom of the torus. The S/RV discharge. locations inside the torus are shown in Figure 2.4.1-1. The S/RVDL and ramshead arrangement inside the torus, and the ramshead tee support, are shown in. Figures 2.4.1-2 and 2.4.1-3, respectively. There are 11 S/RVDLs inside the torus. Eight of the 11 lines are similar in configuration; one line, (L) is shorter, and the remaining two lines (E , and K) are longer. In general, the S/RVDLs inside the torus are supported at two places: at the vent line penetration and at the ring girder. In addition to t*1ese two locations, all the lines, except line L, have one or more inter nediate supports. The location and configuration of the intermediate supports are shown in Figure 2.1.1-2 Inside the drywell, S/RVDL configurations vary to a minor degree. A typical MSW location and S/RVDL arrangement inside the drywell are shown in Figure 2.4.1-4. The S/RVDL is supported at various locations inside the drywell by standard component supports attached to strsctural steel or reinforced concrete. A typical S/RVDL pipe support inside the drywell is shown in' Figure 2.4.1-5. In addition to supports, each S/RVDL has a p vacuum breaker, located inside the drywell, which limits reflood height (j following an S/RV actuation. The original number and size of the valve for each S/RVDL are presented in Table 2.4.1-1.
( I
\
2.4-1
TABLE 2.4.1-1 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION HATCH UNIT 1 MSRV DISCHARGE LINE DATA SHEET MSRV VACUUM BREAKER VALVE MSRV VALVE SET POINT DISCHARGE Size VALVE SUFFIX Type PRESSURE (psig) LINE NO. Type (inches) Quantity B21-F013A Target Rock 1080 A Lonergan 2 1 821-F013B Target Rock 1100 B Lonergan 2 1 821-F013C Target Rock 1100 C Lonergan 2 1 B21-F013D Target Rock 1090 D Lonergan 2 1 821-F013E Target Rock 1080 E Lonergan 2 1 B21-F013F Target Rock 1090 F Lonergan 2 1 821-F013G Target Rock 1080 G Lonergan 2 1 B21-F013H Target Rock 1090 H Lonergan 2 1 B21-F013J Target Rock 1100 J Lonergan 2 1 B21-F013K Target Rock 1090 K Lonergan 2 1 B21-F013L Target Rock 1180 L Lonergan 2 1 O O O
d EXIST.24WF X 100 EL .127 '-9 - _ _ _ _ . ... l l l n , _ _7 l l 1 I
' TS 6X6X l
l l
, l l l l i ,
nN o d'$
- 1. ,gy e
SNUBBER "e
?
'f 10*O PIPE CLAhF o { . l a EL.118'-10f- 5 Q____ )E 10"O PIPE ELEVATION FIG U R E 2.4.1-5 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL S/RV PIPE SUPPORT INSIDE THE DRYWELL O
2.4.2 Structural Modifications p b In order to reduce the hydrodynamic loads associated with discharge due to an S/RV actuation, T quencher devices were installed in place of the ramshead tees. The S/RVDL and T quencher arrangement inside the torus are shown in Figure 2.4.2-1, and the T quencher detail is shown in Figure 2.4.2-2. In order to provide support for the T quencher arms and additional stiffness for the ring girder, a T quencher support system was designed and installed. The T quencher support system consists of pipe beams that span between ring girders in each torus bay. Attached to the pipe beams are cross beam and pipe stanchion assemblies upon which the T quencher arms sit. Gusset plates were added to the ring girder at the pipe beam seat locations and the T quencher support location. The T quencher support system modification is shown in Figures 2.4.2-3, 2.4.2-4, and 2.4.2-5. All the intermediate support structures, as well as the S/RVDLs, will be subjected to hydrodynamic loads associated with LOCA and S/RV blowdown events. The hydrodynamic loads applied to the supports (e.g., drag loads) result in reaction loads on the piping and those portions of the suppression chamber where the supports are attached. For this reason, the relatively short lines (all the S/RVDLs except lines E and K) were analyzed without intermediate supports (see subsection 6.4.1) and were found to be acceptable. Therefore, structural modifications to the S/RV lines inside the torus included removal of intermediate supports on 8 of the 11 lines. The vertical and lateral restraints on the long lines were (3 ! retained and are shown in Figure 2.4.2-1. i Vacuum breaker modifications were also made to the S/RVDLs to further ensure the limitation of reflood height following S/RV actuation. The modified number and size of the valves for each S/RV line are presented in Table 2.4.2-1. In addition to the vacuum breaker modifications, an S/RV logic change was implemented to mitigate several S/RV actuation events (see subsection 4.1.7.1). Modifications were also made to the S/RVDL pipe supports inside the drywell. Table 2.4.2-2 summarizes the modifications / additions made to the supports, and Figure 2.4.2-6 shows a typical modified support configuration. The evaluation,of the S/RV piping and supports in the modified configura- , tion inside both the torus and the drywell is presented in subsection l 6.4.1. The evaluation of the added T quenchers and T quencher support system is presented in subsection 6.4.2. ! (3 lQ/ I 2.4-2
TABLE 2.4.2-1 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS HATCH UNIT 1 MSRV DISCHARGE LINE DATA SHEET VACUUN BREAKER VALVE MSRV VALVE SET POINT DISCHARGE Size VALVE SUFFIX PRESSURE (psig) LINE NO. fype (inches) Quantity 821-F013A* 1080 A GPE Controls 10 2 B21-F013B 1100 8 GPE Controls 10 1 B21-F013C* 1080 C GPE Controls 10 2 B21-F013D 1090 D GPE Controls 10 1 B21-F013E 1100 E GPE Controls 10 1 B21-F013F 1090 F GPE Controls 10 1 B21-F013G* 1080 G GPE Controls 10 2 B21-F013H* 1080 H GPE Controls 10 2 B21-F013J 1100 J GPE Controls 10 1 821-F013K 1090 K GPE Controls 10 1 821-F013L 1090 L GPE Controls 10 1
- Low-low set valve with two vacuum relief valves a~long the discharge line.
O O O
_ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _. ___.._...___.___.._._m_. _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ i^ i i 4 . l 1 i 1 , d TABLE 2.4.2-2. ! STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS [ ' S/RV PIPE SUPPORTS INSIDE:THE DRYWELL. , i, - : i a b
' Total Number of Number of Existing i l . Number of New S/RVDL- Existing Supports Supports Added Supports Modified l i.
A -6 0 5 4 , i : B -6 0 5- ! I t l C 6 2 5
; D 8 1 6
! 'E 5 1 4 i 4 F 8 2 6 4 G '6 2 4' i t j H 3 0 2 : j J 4 0 3_ i K. 8 1 0 'f i ! L .8 0- 2 i-L e L l- ' 5 i t t i i ( l t 4 4 s y P f i
- - t 1
l- !
d EXIST.24WF X 100 EL .1 2 7 '-9 ' _ _ , q. _ _ _ . l l l g q. _ . . , l ! e i TS 6X6X l l l i i l l lit %"X 8 "X8 -
, I i ! /
I M . 3' a g;4i e nk N SNUBBER S'
. I
/
v H/ -10" O PIPE CLAMP
~
o ( 7 a EL.118'-10%- Q___" ) *10 0 PIPE ELEVATION NOTE: REMOVED EXIST. SNUBBER 8 PIPE CLAMP. INSTALLE0 NEW ITEMS AS SHOWN. l l
- INDICATES NEW ITEM.
I FIG U R E 2.4.2-6 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS TYPICAL S/RV PIPE SUPPORT MODIFICATION INSIDE THE DRYWELL
1 l l
- 2. 5 TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPORTS '
2.5.1 Original Configuration Various piping systems, ranging in diameter from 1/2 inch to 24 inches, penetrate the' torus. Emergency core cooling and other essential services ; are performed by these systems, which are classified as follows: 1 RCIC pump suction RHR pump suction Vacuum relief from building and purge inlet HPCI pump suction CS suction RHR and test lines Suppression spray RCIC turbine exhaust steam HPCI turbine exhaust steam Torus drainage and purification Vent purge outlet HPCI turbine vacuum breaker line RCIC turbine vacuum breaker line The remaining piping systems attached to the torus are not required to maintain core cooling following a LOCA, and consist of instrumentation piping and small bore piping. pi All of the torus-attached piping systems are listed in Table 2.5.1-1 and t are conservatively considered to be essential for this analysis. The torus-attached piping penetration locations are shown in Figure 2.5.1-1. Piping inside the torus includes the instrumentation lines, the return lines, and the spray header. The instrumentation lines are nominal 1/2-inch diameter lines that penetrate the torus and are routed to each of 12 wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breakers. These lines allow for remote testing of the vacuum breakers. The instrumentation line arrangement inside the torus is shown in Figure 2.5.1-2. The return lines range in size from 2 to 24 inches. All of them discharge at various levels into the pool. They are supported at the torus penetrations and just below the pool surface by two-way restraints. Figure 2.5.1-3 shows the RHR test line (X-21'0) arrangement .inside the torus. The spray header is a 4-inch diameter header with spray nozzles, mounted at the top of the torus. The primary functions of the header system are to condense steam, which could bypass the suppression pool, and to cool the torus atmosphere. Figure 2.5.1-4 shows the spray header and support configura-tion inside the torus. In addition to the piping systems mentioned above, there are also ECCS suction nozzles and venting nozzles located inside the torus. Typically, the ECCS suction nozzles are pipe nozzles with attached strainers projec-ting into the torus for the supply of water from the suppression pcal to the ECCS piping system. The strainers are attached to the tip of the
/ ,\
suction nozzles to prevent intake of particles into the ECCS larger 2.5-1
than the minimum allowable size. These nozzles and strainers are sub-jected to submerged drag forces during LOCA and S/RV discharge events. A typical nozzle and strainer arrangement is presented in Figure 2.5.1-5. Typically, venting nozzles are 6- to 12-inch long nozzles located at the top of the torus for venting purposes. These nozzles are subject to froth loads during the DBA transient. A representative vent nozzle is shown in Figure 2.5.1-6. Outside the torus, the piping configuration and routing vary widely for the different size lines. For purposes of evaluation, the lines were analyzed from the point of attachment to the torus shell to the first anchor point. In addition to the piping, the other components evaluated include piping supports, pumps, and valves. Figure 2.5.1-7 shows a representative small bore piping arrangement outside the torus, while F gure 2.5.1-8 shows a typical large bore piping arrangement outside the torus. Figures 2.5.1-9 and 2.5.1-10 show typical piping support configurations located outside the torus. O O 2.5-2
__ . . __ _ _ _ _ . . _ - . - = _ _ _ _ . _ - - . _ ____ _ .
-I L
4 TABLE 2.5.1-1 EXTERNAL PIPING ATTACHED TO TORUS TO BE EVALUATED , Penetration Line Size No. (Nominal - Inches)- Description X-203 '6 RCIC pump suction X-204A,B'C,D
, 24 RHR pump suction-X-205 20 Vacuum relief from building and purge inlet-X-206A,B,C,0 1 Liquid level indicator X-207 16 ' HPCI pump suction I
1 X-208A,8 16 CS suction i X-210A,B 16 RHR and test lines X-211A,B 6~ Suppression spray
- - X-212 8 RCIC turbine exhaust steam X-213' 2 RCIC turbine drain X-214 24 HPCI turbine exhaust steam l X-215 2 HPCI turbine' drain i
- i. X-217_ 1 02. analyses instrument lines X-218A 8 Torus drainage and puri-
! fication- , X-220 20 Vent purge outlet X-221A 2 HPCI turbine vacuum breaker line X-221C 1 RCIC turbine vacuum breaker l line t X-223A,B h Instrument air for vacuum
- relief valves ,
l O
- ..,,--,,-.-..-,----+,-.,,,.,n--.,n,.,.,,- ....,,...,.,-,,--,.,-n,,,n.,, . - -- -,.-, _ .,n,...-w,,,,,, --n- ,. -,v ,.,--,.,,----r-.e-,,,,.r-,-w
l 4 ' . u 9 ' O 0 Jf O I. r 209A M
# ,,0 Y. g' 3' \ , ,
g of o, % \ d ' X213 X203 X217/ x2238 s x202 13g,eAf , e - ..
.s . \ / /. .
w ><// N H X201 A X220
, X218 '
X200A ,,- X223A 1S 3 . . - X201 G , X2018 X2,008 2 < 2 *39 , /
$ 1A u
4 b#X22
*O w
;, Q ,,
270 __g[ 4, , _ A L1 ' . SEE _[X221B o DET.' o 3 X214 (~, #
' 6
\ X201 F X201 C -
X2188
' 11 *
, 7 >
0 gt 5' pX208A ' to ' O T o X201D
}, f-Y .01 E '
X204A
,f , X2048
^
/
\.:\
X2040'
/
#- X204C , 21 3'
S o
'e. .)b
.X %
\
I'
-X209Ci c3. ,0, 157 30' 4 7\\
h 9' o. 3 ~ ~ T Y P' ' g i 180 i PLAN VIEW i i l'v t t
X216:t X210B X209B 6D
%kD X210A rX206C N fg
'X206B X20GD-% . /' '
X222Ag], _'q 270 - 90 , m , , bX206B X207 bb 7 N 1 lo " i h "_ 9 k( $ h k ""
- \ X21S 211 A X21
@ SUPPRESSION ~ DETAIL Mi q3 o So'
!= @ SUPPRESSION CHAMBER CHAMBER W
^
O 8 *-6
- a -
W X222A 8 8 6 *-0
- _
_ ARC =9'-1Mr [X205.X217 8 ARC =6'-2 rvjX220 _ 5 *-6
- ARC 5'-7Ts* [ 211 A 8 B h XN 2 8 2 3 ARC =5'-4 IAr ^5 '-2h*=
X210A & BN 4 -3 *
,yg 4 \ ARC =4 *-37s *
! ARC =8'-6 W._ 8 *-0
- 3 '-0
- ARC =3 '-0 Mr [
90 N ARC =1*I11Ev ,1 '-11 %* X216A-D w 488 1 l SEE E,T . / 21A.B 8 C ( g .43 [
' ~
N % I l - o yo X201 A-H 3- 0 ,
@88 HORZ.d0F X215 SUPP.CHALBER
.,5 X2068 8 0 (EL.91 '-3-1
- 0) o Iso' 223A,,.;2gA;p, SECTION VIEW x ALL PEN.ARE ROTATED INTO SECT.
(ALL ARC DIMS.ARE ON OUTS.SHELL E) _g..g 3 g._ X207 BC A '~ X203 X218A 8 BN ggg a *- ol' ggc*S..s ' a
. 2'Is' VERT.4OF SUPP.CHALBER FIGURE 2.5.1-1 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING PENETRATION LOCATIONS ,
1 I Y h a et
/ Nx
.+ #.
'W
- g\+
. d-y 'o +
'% + ?.
g$\ / O + l ~&s j / i' O Y i' 4% \i
)s , e / v
+
,4 g .
oV i a, x.2m s l FIG U R E 2.5.1-2 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION l lNSTRUMENT AIR FOR VACUUM RELIEF VALVES INSIDE TORUS X 223A (TYPICAL, SIX LINES) O
O " N
- e. . -,
_. i i - , - i
- ___ l
. i i i i i i i hj '
!- H ! l 2' *
- t;a;v i
-e -
l'o* i y l i
- 4) .?,,, g._ : A ld
, l l , gilM
- 8 L X-210A X 2106r ",, -
g ,c ,' - - g
*" '- i i ,-
i._ -a DOWNC0iERS D04NC0iERS PLAN BAY 5 PLAN BAY 13 0 s
-,i TORUS 140RIZONTAL N ,
,A EL.103'-4%* g x .
y c g R_.P.V. T m -
+
e'4C SEE DETAIL
- A*
DETAIL ~ A~ SECTION A-A FIGU R E 2.5.1-3 ORIGINALCONFIGURATION INTERNAL PIPING, X 210A AND X-210B . O
/
2 l O ( 0 j , ,g. ____ _---__7 ~ J ,
*' \ l %,
l %,
,s' \
\ Q l l
~
,#' \ s I ,.
g \ I y
/ s 1 f p %
,' \ ,A~- -
- , ,, /
i ,' \' f'\ ' / ' I i, g '
< \ l s
\
- t. _ _ _ _ _ _ l f j % ,
N\ -
%, p
/ '
's
/ % \
j /
>- l
%g N
I / / l % i , ,
\ N , ., -
j !. l
/
s Y/ h<,%. . x
\
/
\
, /
l I 'o \
\
- f. ' e i
"<g \
,/ , .
) _' l -4 />,,. yc } Of ' I # 3 s -* -- 1 270 l u = r .--- l . . . .
.I l
A
' - 1 o 1 l
} li !A d--' i
' l l k [ ( X21\A l, ~ .
l ' ,9 . SS.4 l j**- - s~ . . \ gx2,,,
\ /
<< s
/
l \ ' j \ /
\ /
i g
\ /
1 g A A }
\
\
/
i /
/ 's %
s . g # % / % l
\ % / '
j /
\ %
{ \ p % / e' 1
\ p % .' s
\ # / %, ,# g g % #
y' / % - s I j s
\N / 'y___ _. - _ y - ,
s / I 1 g
' I \
i
\
y ~ l , \ ,
$' I i
% f s
% ; . I 1 , y
' - - N
/
i I'i %
\ y 4.SCH.40 ' i \ /
/
y ,x
/ f SPRAY ,.lE,ADER I
.., , .m . \
1 ,#
- s %, i f* }
- _./ %,
~~ %, l I \
\ '
a'
- I . \
,, . % a - - - - - 4. . . _ _ s , #
180 G- /-
~
r, P ,' PLAN VIEW
.?
1 t r . A' s { -' a
u f I EL.114 '-0%* , w -,~)\1 s, .. E"s $CH.40 P!PC _ 5 *-6
- _
'h 2
/ , ,
# g y ,. i s f I O s '@,% ;- ,'
~
\
s , N g
>s
/
)
s ,4 s /%
,z EL.103'-6 /4" TORUS 3
/ 7 T- %\ y ,
,/ \ / f g \ t
/ \ / \
/ \
\
h' iy i
/ \
y4 , i
\ , ,
g i i g i I I I
\ L_J L_J
\
\
\
_-t~' ') SECTION O V _ rz l l O p 90 l,
% Z A W
V "' "j" r _ _ y.
/
,i -
1 I INS. SHELL SUPPORT GI m f i
,i a y ~
l s, s , N -
/ "
I WT
's? u O <
4WJAve l /
- /
SECTION M (TYP. e 16 PLACES) l FIG U R E 2.5.1-4 i ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION SPRAY HEADER AND SUPPORTS n INSIDE THE TORUS
O
+
STRAINER ASSEWLY TYP.ELEV. VIEW 0F STRAINER ASS'Y. !NSIDE TORUS STD. WALL STRAIGHT TEE
. TRMR MGE O. _
.. .__I al " r- PARALLEL TO e vv / LONGITUDINAL AXIS E ac '
f SECTION M s t W SECTION M W FIG U RE 2.5.1-5 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION O TYPICAL ECCS NOZZLE AND STRAf NER INSIDE THE TORUS
TO VERT.0FdTORUS _ O TORUS SHELL
& PIPE I
o G_ _
.b E O h C. O.
's N
INSERT R. f 9
- x m
N0ZZLE - ~ O V ,, ,, _C O_
'O . D'.
TYP. PENETRATION DETAIL PEN.NO.* DIMENSIONS A B C E F G H X -205 1 '-2 2W- S Ms
- 20" 0 20%" 34 1%" 17 X -220 1'-22W- S hs " 20" 0 20%" 34 - 1%- 17 -
X -221 C 71W- 6%~ 8%" 0 8%~ 24" .50- 7.625-
- THIS LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL PENETRATION N0ZZLES AT INSIDE TOP OF TORUS FIG U R E 2.5.1-6 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL PENETRATION NOZZLE ATINSIDETOP OFTORUS
O
~ s torus PENETRATION 223A 7 - 3 o' g ,
,g '
/ / i h,
*&* i ,
I i ' O k l 6j p) (R
+ }) / ,
O /
\
co b. ik >>
@\'s o
4%Y vi,
,a
,v
..Ny FIG U RE 2.1,.1 7 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION O, %-INCH INSTRUMENT AIR FOR VACUUM RELIEF VALVES X-223A (TYPICAL, SIX LINES)
i ( .
.i c , g"\
p-, Y JL , o' C
*<o N
A c
,s =..
N pM 'e. \
'y
+ *1 ,. V
'N
# Se
's. p
., s/ o- p <
.s
% s
%$yx'::: ~ 4~ '
8 _ 1e. ,
\, Q ..
2, ED O s (
/
e 1 sf 2 -I of 2 -s y,- 12- 9%- 7 -4 s/ -
..rJ ,
l '- - - - --- == == p t c-N/ -- $ - sY . Q UPTUR g q, DISKS o+ k* " L.g g\ / ,*
*o.
#8o eo , 0' o, N "Or ,
[ V 4"# %t N N / - q ~e. +o. s/ e. 4oo ng Q
'&- +<o
** , ,& E
. ,ca ' ~'s . .
sS ,.g " ~ o, 4 5 . 5 T N 0g gN &( \ ,
,4 \T w "
do g iL
)
k5 4.n- I 4 J[
.E4 g0 s
,) ~
F1GU RE 2.5.1-8 , ; ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION PIPING TO PENETRATION X-214 "
\s' . 1" 10"
- 1-
^ "
/- Q "
TYP)
\N ~ . a ,
> . ro ;
'~} f :n .
n 8 o s, i I o I
- o iE n ;; _ ;
n, SECTION-AA L _6__6_ SECTION-BB j ,_7 - 3 XV21EX3 "L G. l p %" CONC. y,'.y%e-
+
WEDGE B ANCHOR ::
- YA AU
>- +
/
,- L3X3X%
s 6" O PIPE e 1 1 *-0"XV2'IE.X 2'-3V2"LG j .
>- +
>- +
B ELEVATION VIEW L4x4X% l .
.. .,%e
&?N-FIGURE 2.5.1-9 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION b TYPICAL PIPING SUPPORT CONFIGUR ATION OUTSIDE TORUS t
O 3 ' EXISTING E "X10*X10"LG. V'f! yF
!?.0. -f..---.
H ' ! I
<' B.O.S.EL.
' 126*-3"
~ ~
W6X15. 5
~ FACE OF PHILLIPS REDHEAD 'RSSA WEB CONC.WEOGE ANCHOR jiL[
l 3-2'-T j.
= n NJ 6" O PIPE CL AMP 7s EL .122 '-11 r
)E 6 "HBB ELEVATION VIEW FIGU RE 2.5.1 10 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL PIPING SUPPORT CONFIGURATION OUTSIDE TORUS
2.5.2 Structural Modifications t
\v Piping modifications made inside the torus included the installation of elbows on the RHR test lines (see Figure 2.5.2-1) and rerouting of the instruaentation liaes to the wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breakers (see Figure 2.5.2-2).
In order to ensure the structural integrity of the return lines inside the torus during S/RV and LOCA discharge events, restraint additions and modifications were made. The restraint additions / modifications are summarized in Figures 2.5.2-3 through 2.5.2-6. In addition to the modifications made to the return line support system, modifications were also made inside the torus to the spray header supports (see Figure 2.5.2-7)'and the vacuum breaker drain line supports (see Figure 2.5.2-8). Outside the torus, modifications were made to most small bore piping (2-inch diameter and less) to reduce the effects of torus shell motion on the piping and isolation valves. The change consisted of rerouting the piping between the shell penetration and the isolation valve and adding pipe supports where necessary. Figure 2.5.2-9 shows a typical _ arrange-ment outside the torus, and Table 2.5.2-1 lists the piping associated with this modification. For the larger lines outside the torus, piping supports were added or modified in order to reduce piping stresses and valve accelerations due to torus shell motion. Figure 2.5.2-10 shows a representative large bore piping arrangement modification in which piping supports were added at s"'/ several locations. Representative piping support modifications are shown in Figures 2.5.2-11 and 2.5.2-12. The piping support modifications are , summarized in Table 2.5.2-2. Several of the suppression chamber piping penetration nozzles were modified in order to accommodate larger reaction loads. The piping penetration areas modified were X-214 and X-220. Figure 2.5.2-13 shows a typical reinforced nozz?e area modification. I l l O 2.5-3
TABLE 2.5.2-1 TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING AND BRANCH LINES MODIFICATIONS Penetration Line Size Piping No. (Nominal - Inches) Material Modification Torus-Attached Piping X-260A 1 SA-312 TP304 One expansion loop X-206B 1 SA-312 TP304 One expansion loop X-206C 1 SA-312 TP304 One expansion loop X-206D 1 SA-312 h>304 One expansion loop X-215 2 SA-106 Gr. B One expansion loop X-217 1 SA-312 TP304 One expansion loop X-221A 2 SA-106 Gr. B Two expansion loops X-221C 1 SA-10S Gr. B Two expansion loops X-223A (Outside) SA-312 TP304 One expansion loop X-223A (Inside) 1 SA-312 TP304 Reroute X-223B (Outside) SA-312 TP304 One expansion loop i X-223B (Inside) 1 SA-312 TP304 Reroute Branch Lines X-205* 2 SA-106 Gr. B One expansion loop X-210A* 1 SA-106 Gr. B One expansion loop X-210B* 3/4 SA-106 Gr. B One expansion loop 1 SA-106 Gr. B One expansion loop 4 SA-333 Gr. 1 Reroute X-220* 2 SA-106 Gr. B Two expansion loops l
- Penetration number of piping system to which branch line connects.
. - _ . . . - . . - .~ . . - ... .- . . .. -.. - . . . _ . - . _ . .
I 1 1 TAB'LE 2.5.2-2
- STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS ~ i i
SUMMARY
OF PIPE SUPPORT MODIFICATIONS FOR ! 1 TORUS-ATTACHED (EXTERNAL) PIPING !. i
- . Number'of Supports. .
j' Line- New Modified * [ X-203 4 4 -r )- X-204A,C: 6 21
-X-2048,0 :6 11
! X-205 2- 8
.t i
l X-206A,B 5 0 ! ! X-206C,0 7 0 ! i ! X-207 1 7 X-208A 0 7- l X-2088 -2 6 X-210A,B), 15 45 l X-211A ,B h X-212 1 8 f. X-214 1 2 X-215 1- 0
- l. X-217 .2 0 X-218 2 4 i
l X-220 0 3 i- X-221A 8 0 4 X-221C 1 -2 X 223A 12 0 X-223B 12 0 e I l l
- Deletion of. pipe supports not included. !
i. i 1 t 4 i 4
O O O I EXISTING EXISTING i e
,"- 00WNCONERS DOWNCOMERS ~
I i i l
,,*%,,', c i
l
~
' # @ N l 6 :
90* r , _ l 1 ** / ( s b ! 270* h l
\# # (MIN.) l [AT I I
II : ' i II A ": - 8
,, l CLEARANCE RE00. I i l V 8 l8
, , . ,_ l
"' S * ( MI N. l' ' l l" -
CLEARANCE REQO. 35..- : i u ,~~ai PLAN BAY 5 PLAN BAY 1'3
- 4. 3 i i TORUSHORIZ.@ C: ^ h[bTIG p} g i Ib
- -( EXISTING
," , PIPE lgl $
s i i-7 12 xt s. R.P.V. l l m 1 ' ATORUS
-(
SCH.40 - --- s REDUCER - EE *
, DETAIL
- p, -C -
16*-90* SCH.40 ELBOW b[ DETAIL M FiGu RE 2.s.2-1 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS PIPING ARRANGEMENTINSIDETORUS SECTION M
~
RHR TEST-L!NE ELBOW
Yg
/ Nx o
- gb #
6
\
- N e.
\
N h4+ + \f - m
'y'3r m az i /
m.s. es + O s-zS
\<
4A '/ V sei hhg We4 AD ED A A WALK COLUW45 *eg*
+
g L 68 m, X-223A FIG U R E 2.5.2-2 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS INSTRUMENT AIR FOR VACUUM RELIEF VALVES INSIDE TORUS j X-223A (TYPICAL, SIX LINES)
O
+ *]fs O
o" b s .= 0* x-ar o, 270* RHR TEST S A l e *ST 90 JL-2]Li_FPCI O 180* i LOCATION OF PENETRATIONS \ FOR RETURN LINES FIG U R E 2.5.2-3 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS O
m (- ,m 0 4 -
=
TORUS ELEV. 103 *-6%" N f 12T PIPE EXIST!hG RING -
's GIRDER
.......... ........................sss -+--
sx' ss s , , p
~ 7 M 's, 's 12% WH 120 PIPE :
p ,'
's .re t a '\ s e f
- E ST!FF RS
's' #
/
.s ST SCH 120 /
^ ',' PIPE BRACE *s
/
= O,
, y
,/
- n .__ .
- i i .* ,
AZ 90* FOR X-2108 / ci == E: p ,
,j' ,
_.f
} ,a Y INSIDE TORUS l
[ SHELL l p r d EXISTING 16T P!PE
' 4-D A 3 BUILT-UP PIPE CLA W ASSEWLY ys -
, si i SECTION A-A
, s e,
,!h ,
,' t's STUDS 1
- t STIFF NERS M ,'
m
,',' BUILT-UP PIPE CLAW ASSE WLY O
.- O F. n'
-? '
R Bj_
/~
/ s s -9%- To tr0RuS !-Q : -
jy !l
! 4ll i
-1} ' l , i s j
4i -15 t'YP) / 6 *-OK* g g ( F EX STrNG ' O h 16T PIPE D PLAN VIEW NEW RESTRAINTS X-ztOB-AS Snown SECTION B-B X-210A AND X-212 SIMILAR FIGU R2 2.5.2-4 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS I i RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS I )-
V d f d j! tutsTtseo elet t
- t STIFFEHER$
Abh-- rmq __ l l da
;c r~s % l l . , ,
y (n____ . ,
; -. , ,s .r . .
b 1* t STIFFENERS l l
=+mvr l rna=.
/b l l -,,,. m w
l ' l n
- = r,a=, l l . m N~i "'
{_ki !,! ifd$ $ i!
~
. !. @! llMBA' f,.
I ( ' re . ein 2o . SCH.100 elet mef t.M mei l l w l l l l .i .._____________ ::::::::.:22 N l l
-so enn t #
q '
+
_ .' s l [ - Y ------------- j Eustiw ri. . noEn _____ __
;_3 nm_11ts - musunalar_ werim m x-at a w FIGU RE 2.5.2-5 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS
O O O 2* s P!PC g i 1 - .? ? . th: i/h th P - 7, met.t 03 _ _ _ W; sy y r-.--,J ' I i i BUILT-UP PIPE CLAW ASSEWLY PIPE CLAW tas i RFeffnN M o 7 W 5 7 e A e N
%* s HVY HET BOLT (TYP)
/
/ /
/ /
/ ,/ %
/ / %
e , , % ',
/ / % %
s% / f' \ % %
% /,
/ / /
2 ,
/
' 3
'% N
$ /
/ % % \
l' l' \ '%
/ / % %
/ / % %
,e ,' 2* e SCH.80 PIPE (TYP) N N
/ / % %
/ / % %
/ / % %
f % EXISTING , CATWALK m
) / \
9'-9
- TO $AY e AZ 315' _ _
ELMLYlEBg RESTRAIHL FIG U RE 2.5.2-6 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS
O RING GIRDER (EXISTING)
=======-2 :2 = . : = = r : :.:r
== = q = = =,.==.i.,.==
. = = = = ,
11 ll
%"X1 *IP. HANGER ll ll (EXISTING) jj l ll h 11 ll IA'T /
?
- il.
il M_I
~
!! !! % N3/
ll ll % V3N O . O ll iv l; ip u o ! h NEW %1P. SPRAY HEADER 4' O SCH. 40 PIPE 10 (EXISTING)
= =
SECTION e SPRAY HEADER SUPPORT (TYP. AT EACH RING GIRDER LOCATION) FIG U R E 2.5.2-7 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS SPRAY HEADER SUPPORTS INSIDE THE TORUS O
; O O O
(( BAY [4 3 "*3 ~*Ne*3 xK-4 S '-4 - " (STAINLESS) 11 c }_ 8 . p . _ . ._ . 82
._._.._. .q n 1 e SCH. k- N h" t YP.
_ h b _s i - . - l EXIST VACUUM BR L...___,.. ,____ ._EAKER _ _ . _JLINE ORAINS
- g. s U-BOLT
,2t&_
PLAN VIEW (TYPICAL FOR BAYS WITH AZIMUTHS SECTION M 67*30*.112*30*.157*30*. - 202*30*.247 30*.292*30*)
= 1*-9%* "
, , 3 *-6%
- _
EXIST. (! BEAM XIST.(IBEAM C i3 BEAM (W8) X T. DRAIN 1
- e SCH. Il DRAIN i
G\ 80 PIPE \ / L o
' f] '*
ll EXIST. BEAM (W8)
\
\
f EXIST. BEAM (W8) i l s i I f
~ ' U jj
" 43 x3 x% , i jij / N.-i e SCH.
\ , , 80 PIPE (TYP) l l i e
- n l l
[j " SECTION M w SECTION M FIGU R E 2.5.2-8 D STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS VACUUM BREAKER DRAIN LINE BRACING INSIDE THE TORUS vs
O O O TORUS PENETRATION
,+ 223A s - / 8 r
GiPiB-w
'l Sl'i 0 g , f cfg 1 1
, [8
( P, l/ i
,# 6
, ,7 ' h, s.,
e t e e .
.c 9 1
- p d
1[ n
,,, e qgqw l
5 R GDRE 2.5.2-9 REROUTED %-lNCH INSTRUMENT AIR FOR VACUUM RELIEFVALVES X-223A (TYPICAL, SIX LINES) i
( <* i d' p , .. Y JL , o'
~
On
*<n N
!N
+.
x, Y m\ s/ o- # s I k *
\ 20
+< ,
?Ni7 ,
x 2.,1 ,.
\
Q 2, EO O Y
)
i _ - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - -
r 1 [ j- 0 ;2 *-13/a* 12- 9V47*-4/ 15
,,g s4 '
c' EE I
\
I il 18 D .# s se RUPTURE DISKS # h = o+
- 4 P,
o *e L._ & o, *co +o, u, L' l l / .5' r+ ~0' e oV c 'e. J N [
's. *o, \ s
'q, +<o < <
- s! A4 d6y
' i n T N
, '-- ho T
.:'g4 4 qE Q
e- ~> Ri sS Q w y 4 a N k 4 , Jo
. 4'e x \N
~
S 's' 4
*+d
%, 4 1
7 h 4,4 y
) E%di
/'
7
'N 9
I h{ oV' ,, 30 c5 P FIGURE 2.5.2-10 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS ' LARGE BORE PIPING ARRANGEMENT OUTSIDE THE TORUS - X-214 [
/~'
(e). .
$ 1V2" _ _ 10- _
~ ~
d2* 7ygs / v i, I
. n o --
=o-1 .
s ri, " 5 '~1 F % n S ir I I
. a ,
v 0 k r c SECTION-AA N
- =
6 -
==---e 6 -
SECTION-BB 1'-7* _ 3 "Xh1P.,X3 "L G. O V 1" CONC. WEDGE M'tja,.+%-
+
B ANCHOR =>
- AU UA
>- - /
L3X3X% 7 a6"O PIPE 13"X%12.X
- j 2 '-41G .
>- +
- B ELEVATION VIEW L4X4X%
y.'&
- INDICATES MODIFIED ITEM N
FIGUR E 2.5.2-11 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS PIPING SUPPORT OUTSIDE TORUS ! J l l
._. . - _ _ - . .~ - .
O 3 * = EXISTING R t Vid.Yj F ,. "X10"X10tG. __f____. H '
.l 1 1 I
i ; B.O.S.EL. T,, l 126'-3* 9.4, ____1___. W6X15. 5
+--- F ACE OF %"PHILLIPS REDHEAD
- WEB CONC. HEDGE ANCHOR JE[3-RSSA P-P =2'-5%. I 3 l 8 3-6 0 3 BOLT PIPE CLAMP *
( 7s EL .122 '-1 1 Q__ { )E 6 "HBB L'_. ELEVATION VIEW
- INDICATES MODIFIED ITEM 1
1 FIG U RE 2.5.2-12 l STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS PIPING SUPPORT OUTSIDE TORUS O
4 O m _ PIPING PENETRATION NOZZLE = (EXISTING)
,s'-
/
/
%* GUSSET PLATE (TYP. ) f j f (EXISTING)
I
%* RING ST!FFENER PLATE -[
/
=
O SECTION VIEW i TORUS SHELL NOZZLE AND INSERT PLATE l l l FIGURE 2.5.2-13 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING - TORUS SHELL NOZZLE REINFORCING lO
6.1. 2 Suppression Chamber Piping Penetrations
/'_ T \_,/ 6.1.2.1 Analytical Model Description A NASTRAN finite. element analysis of reaction loads at piping penetrations was performed using an 11\ degree model of the torus. The basic model, shown in Figure 6.1.2-1, was developed for this purpose. Membrane-bending plate elements were used to represent the torus shell and ring girder ,
web. -Bar elements were employed to model the circumferential stiffeners and ring girder flange (not shown for clarity). Conservatively, symmetric boundary conditions were imposed at the miter joint and at midbay, thus producing the effect of additional loads on adjacent areas when the 11h degree section is loaded. Points of intersection between the shell and the saddle were fully restrained to account for the saddle. Modeling of piping, insert plates, and the torus shell near the penetration was performed with the aid of a FORTRAN program. Figure 6.1.2-2 shows a sample model generated by this program. Since the example penetration is located at midbay, where symmetric boundary conditions exist, only one-half of the penetration area was generated. Plate elements are used to model the pipe, torus shell, and insert plate. At the intersection,_ however, solid elements were employed to obtain accurate results due to the abrupt transition. The complete penetration model is formed by removing appropriate elements from Figure 6.1.2-1 (shaded) and replacing them with the model of 7g Figure 6.1.2-2. Some elements in Figure 6.1.2-2 were input by hand to .( ,) connect the two models. 6.1. 2. 2 Design Loads and Load Combinations Piping reaction loads were determined for the various operating and accident conditions which follow. v
- a. SRV Actuation o A1.1 o A3.1 o C3.1 o A1.2 o A2.2 o C3.2
- b. Condensation Oscillation
- c. Chugging
- d. Pool Swell (a) i 6.1-8
- e. OBE
- f. DBE
- g. Therinal
- h. Gravity These loads were used to determine the applicable local stresses to be used in the load combinations given in subsection 6.1.1.2.
6.1. 2. 3 Design Allowables The allowable stresses that were used are those listed in subsection 6.1.1.3. The designation of stress category was prescribed by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, NE 3217 and 3227.5. 6.1.2.4 Method of Analysis The procedures outlined in subsection 6.1.2.1 were used to generate NASTRAN models for piping penetration analysis. In general, the pipe was modeled to a distance of 3x (diameter of pipe) from the torus surface. Insert plates, where present, were included in the model. Peak dynamic reactions, obtained from the piping analysis, were applied statically to the model; stresses in the nozzle, torus shell, and stiffeners, local to the penetration, were recovered. Stress intensities determined from the nozzle analysis were added directly O to those determined for all other non piping loadings in a particular load combination (see subsection 6.1.1.2). Where insert plates were provided at the penetration location, the stresses and intensities due to non piping loads were modified by (tSH/tPL) to account for the increased plate thickness. where: t = thickness of torus shell in previous model SH t = thickness of insert plate PL This was conservative since the bending stresses could have been factored by (tSH^PL)
- 6.1.2.5 Analysis Results Analysis results for the torus-attached piping penetrations are sum-marized and shown in Table 6.1.2-1. Torus-attached piping penetrations are divided into four groups consisting of small and large diameter penetrations for each of the upper and lower hemispheres of the torus.
Results for the governing service level B load combination are presented in terms of the maximum actual stress compared with the allowable stress. O 6.1-9
_. . _ . . _. . r .. .._- . _. H t 1 t
- In order to reduce the stress levels to acceptable margins, strucfural modifications were required for two penetrations, X-214 and X-220. The ,
j modifications consist of the addition of gusset plates and a ring stiffener ( to the nozzle / torus shell, as snown in Figure 2.5.2-13. b 6.1.2.6 Summary of Results ., Table 6.1.2-1 provides a comparison of the actual s ress to the allowable ! stress for the governing service level. As demonstrated, the calculated > / stresses exceed the Code allowable in some instances. In all cases the , '6 calculated stresses were less than 110 percento'fcthe allowable. Because !/ of the limited extent and magnitude of the overstress, the conservatisms ' {' cited in Section 8.0 provide sufficient justification for. accepting t'ie / reported stresses.
' /
i
! *b .
, .,,v
, d' '
i ; , . ,r ' t
;^ ,, l 4
/ '
- t. i, , ?
, (
i j' i / , i i [p "
< v
;< , 5 ,
. .f J'/
!~
, . t " (j,. -
- < - 9 t j<
l b' h f ' t
/p -
1 !
/.
1 r ., 1 , i >/ t
, , l-l* s -
e .,. 4 . O f 1 j , U / , , t _ ,j r
,/' 6.1-10 t e
3 v
/
/._ .__ ._
TABLE 6.1.2-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PIPING PENETRATIONS
SUMMARY
OF ANALYSIS RESULTS Nominal Diameter Stress Calculated /.llowable Penetration Location (inches) M Stress (KSI) Strees (KSI) Ratio X-212 Top of 8 Membrane + 30.8 34.95 0.88 Shell Bending X-205 Top of 20 Membrane + 35.2 34.95 1.01 Shell Bending X-203 Bottom 6 Membrane + 21.4 34.95 0.61 of Shell Bending X-204D Bottom 2, Membrane + 38.5 34.95 1.10 of Shell Bending 9 O O
r
N MODEL AREA REPLACED BY PENETRATION MODEL xx N N (SEE FIGURE 6 t?-2) N N N N lg.,' -
X\ j l N Ng N N ptNG GtROER 5 N N
\ 1 N N ll l N
0 N t TOROS SHER
/
N i l l l l ()' FIG U R E 6.1.2-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER FENETRATIONS - ANALYTICAL MODEL B ASIC 11-1/4-DEGREE TORUS SHELL MODEL i e
TORUS- ATTACHED P!f1NG O s
\\
SOLID ELEMENTS REPRESENT TRANSITION AREA
/
/
f
/
/ \
/ / ./
TORUS SHELL ELEMENTS
# GENERATED BY HAND (4 TOTAll FIG U R E 6.1.2-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS - ANALYTICAL MODEL TYPICAL PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
6.1. 3 Fatigue Evaluation t 4 V 6.1.3.1 Critical Locations Areas of the suppression chamber system with both high stress levels and structural discontinuities were evaluated for fatigue. The specific locations examined included the following:
- a. Ring girder web to shell intersection
- b. Saddle to shell intersection
- c. Column web to shell intersection
- d. Column flange to shell intersection
- e. Shell thickness transitions
- f. Nozzle reinforcement-to-nozzle intersection
- g. Nozzle reinforcement to shell transition.
6.1.3.2 Equivalent Maximum Stress Cycles The application of loading transients to the suppression chamber produces irregular response histories. It was necessary to convert these complex
,m response transients to an equivalent number of maximum stress cycles.
(d'
) For the seismic load, 10 equivalent maximum stress cycles per earthouake were used, as specified in Appendix N of the ASME Code. For time-dependent transients, such as the S/RV loads, the following formula was used to approximate the number of equivalent stress cycles:
A I o.' N= i=1 (max where: N = number of equivalent maximum stress cycles g = maximum stress range a; = actual stress range at the ith range n = number of stress ranges. This equation was used at each critical location for each load case. Condensation oscillation and post-chugging loads are frequency-dependent transients. The response transients due to these loads were converted to the time domain using the Fast Fourier Transform method and then analyzed as indicated previously. To account for the local structural disconti-(V) nuities at the evaluated locations, theoretical stress concentration factors were applied to the calculated stresses. 6.1-11 x .
The fatigue design evaluation included 40 years of nlant operation followed by one LOCA event (either a DBA, IBA, or $8A event). The number < of S/RV actuations and other load occurrences assumed for the evaluation was surnmarized in subsection 4.1.8. The fatigue design basis used in the suppression chamber evaluation, which includes a DBA and an SBA event, is summarized in Tables 6.1.3-1 and 6.1.3-2, respectively. The cumulative usage factor was determined by calculating the usage for each load combination and summing up over all combinations. 6.1.3.3 Summary of Results The fatigue analysis of the suppression chamber was performed in accordance with the ASME Code, Section NE-3221.5. Fatigue usage factors were calcu-lated as described in subsection 6.1.3.2 at the critical torus shell locations listed in subsection 6.1.3.1. The maximum cumulative usage factor calculated was 0.68 for the SBA event at the ring girder web-to-shell intersection and the saddle-to-shell intersection. O O 6.1-?2
TABLE 6.1.3-1 FATIGUE LOAD COMBINATIONS WITH A DBA EVENT Number of Equivalent Cycles at Load Combinations Maximum Stress TA+PA + EQ(SSE) + SRV(A1.3) + CO 1 EQ(SSE) + SRV(A1.3) + C0 4 EQ(SSE) + C0 5 C0 13 to 81* CH(PRE + POST) 24 to 86* NOC SRV(C3.1) + EQ(OBE) 50 NOC SRV(A1.1) 210 to 350* NOC SRV(A3.1) 198 to 330* NOC SRV(C3.1) 478 to 742* m N
*Each location will have a unique number of equivalent cycles at maximum stress, depending on the response time history at the location of interest.
(O
TABLE 6.1.3-2 FATIGUE LOAD COMBINATIONS WITH AN SBA EVENT Number of Equivalent Cycles at Load Combinations Maximum Stress SRV(A3.2) 3 to 5* SRV(C3.2) 21 to 35* 1 TA+PA + EQ(SSE) + SRV(C3.2) + CH(PRE + POST) EQ(SSE) + SRV(C3.2) + CH(PRE + POST) 9 SRV(C3.2) + CH(PRE + POST) 18 to 30* SRV(A2.2) + CH(PRE + POST) 4 to 5* CH(PRE + POST) 697 to 2523* NOC SRV(C3.1) + EQ(0BE) 50 NOC SRV(A1.1) 210 to 350* NOC SRV(A3.1) 198 to 330* NOC SRV(C3.1) 478 to 742*
*Each location will have a unique number of equivalent cycles at maximum stress, depending on the response time history at the location of interest.
1 O l l
6.2 VENT SYSTEM This section. describes the design stress analysis of the vent system. This analysis is based on the modified configuration of the vent system shown in Figures 2.2.2-1 through 2.2.2-5. The loads discussed in Sec-tion 4.0 of this report were applied to the vent system for determining the local and gross system effects. Loadings that must be considered in the evaluation of the vent system include deadweight, seismic, thermal, drag, and LOCA-related effects. The LOCA hydrodynamic phenomena result in a number of loadings'on the vent system. The most significant of these are pool swell impact, which would occur early in'a DBA, CO, which occurs after pool swell for a DBA or in5tially for an IBA, and CH 1ateral loads, which would occur later in a DBA or during an SBA' or IBA. The nature of the applied loads was considered in developing the. vent system analytical models. The components of the vent system analyzed in this section include: o Vent Header Assembly - includes the vent header, vent pipe, vent header miter, downcomers, vent header / vent pipe intersection, downcomer/ vent header intersection, and vent pipe /drywell inter-section o Vent System Supports o Downcomer Ties O Q o Vent Systen. Penetrations - includes the S/RV and vacuum breaker penetrations o Vent Lire Bellows o Vent Header Deflector The respective detailed analyses are presented in the following subsec-tions. O 6.2-1
r 6.2.1 Vent Header Assembly This subsection covers the stress analysis of the vent header assembly. Included in the assembly are the vent header, vent header miter, vent pipe, vent header / vent pipe intersection, downcomers, downcomer ties, vacuum breaker supports, S/RV line/ vent pipe stiffening, and the vent pipe /drywell intersection. 6.2.1.1 Analytical Model Description The finite element model of the vent header assembly used in the analysis of the vent system is shown in Figure 6.2.1-1. This model 's composed of a 22 -degree segment of the vent header assembly and consists of one-half the non-vent bay with one pair of full downcomers and one pair of split downcomers, and one-half the vent bay with one pair of full c%wncomers, the vent header / vent pipe intersection, and a 180-degree cross section of the vent pipe and drywell intersection. The vent header support columns and downcomer ties are included in the model, although they are analyzed in another section. This model is composed of approximately 2859 elements and 2547 nodes. Sixteen sections of this segment make up the complete vent header assembly. The vent header, downcomers, downcomer/ vent header stiffeners, vent pipe, miter ring, vent header / vent pipe stiffening ring, S/RV line/ vent pipe stiffening rings and plates, and the drywell were modeled using quadri-lateral thin shell elements. Triangular thin shell elements were used for transition elements around discontinuities and for changes in mesh size. Areas that are anticipated to hav? higher stresses were modeled with more detail. At the intersections and stiffened regions, elements small enough in size to capture local and secondary stresses were used (approximately 4 by 4 inches and smaller or 7 -degree segments). The full downcomer pair and intersection in the non vent bay were modeled with greater detail than the other downcomers. This pair was used to capture the local and secondary stresses at the downcomer/ vent header intersection. Bar or beam elements were used to model the downcomer reinforcing rings, vacuum breaker pedestal, and bellows connection ring. Rod or truss elements were used to model the downcomer ties and vent header support columns. (More detailed beam element models of the downcomer ties and support columns were used to investigate the local effects on these components.) Spring elements were used at the bellows connection ring to account for the flexibility of the bellows. The drywell portion of the vent pipe /drywell intersection is modeled at a sufficient distance from the penetration for the local effects to have died out. Boundaries on planes of symmetry were restrained to displace only on those planes, i.e., the component of translation normal to the plane and the components of rotation in the plane are prevented. For the assym-metric case, boundaries on planes of symmetry were constrained to prevent translations in the plane of symmetry and the rotation normal to the plane. O 6.2-2
The model was used for evaluating effects on the complete vent system for dynamic and static loads as well as for performing frequency analyses to (~)N (, determine eigenvalue and eigenvector solutions. More detailed plots of specific areas of interest in the analyses are shown in Figures 6.2.1-2 through 6.2.1-7. l 6.2.1.2 ,0esign Loads and Load Combinations The loads considered in the design of the vent system are covered in Section 4.0 of this report. The load combinations considered and the vent system components to which they were applied are shown in Table 6.2.1-1. There are three types of LOCA events (DBA, IBA, and SBA), with different load sequences for each. A loading combination versus time chart for each of these events is shown in Figures 4.2.1-1, 4.2.2-1, 4.2.2-2, and 4.2.3-1. A breakdown of the applied loads for the normal and LOCA events is shown in Table 3.2.2-1. There were many different possible loading methods or contributions for some of the combinations shown. This is discussed further in subsection 6.2.1.4. i 6.2.1.3 Design Allowables The design allowables for the vent system are from the ASME Code, Sub-section NE, 1977 Edition through the Summer 1979 Addenda, and the struc-tural acceptance criteria (Reference 6-2). The ASME Code design service levels for the load combinations are given in Table 3.2.4-1, and the design stress allowables are given in Table 6.2.1-2. 6.2.1.4 Method of Analysis This subsection describes the methods employed in analyting the vent header assembly. The analytical methods were developed based on the evaluation requirements described in the preceding subsection. The basic procedure used in evaluating the vent header system was a finite element model that captured the local as well as gross vent, system response. The computer program used in performing the analysis was MSC/NASTRAN. The NASTRAN elements used to make up the finite element model were the membrane-bending elements QUAD 4 (for the base element) and TRIA3 (for the , transition elements). These elements used a modified isoparametric theory that takes into account the transverse shear energy to map a flat l plate onto a curved surface. This feature considerably improves the convergence. The ROD and BAR elements were used to model the linear l support members and stiffeners. l l The material properties used in the analysis of the system were: Young's Modulus 27,900,000 psi i Poisson's Ratio 0.3 l Shear Modulus 10,800,000 psi Mass Density 0.283 lbm/in3 All static analyses were made using NASTRAN Solution 24 procedures (the
~
l disp 1acement method). The finite element model contained about 14,840 l (O) static degrees of freedom. The local element stiffnesses of all the 6.2-3 l
elaments not constrained were combined into the total structural stiff-ness matrix. A description of the static analyses follows. o Deadweight - 1.0g uniform gravity load applied in the vertical direction in accordance with subsection 4.1.1. o Thermal - SBA, IBA, DBA, and design thermal expansion loads were applied in accordance with subsection 4.1.2. o Pressure - Unit pressure loads were applied and scaled for the appropriate pressures specified in subsection 4.1.2. Some pressure stress calculations were performed by hand for hoop stress determination. o S/RV - Unit loads were applied to the S/RV/ vent pipe penetration points. From these, the equivalent springs for the vent systems were calculated and used S performing the S/RV analysis (see subsection 6.4.1). Static, dynamic time history, and frequency dependent loads were applied to the S/RVDL analysis. Once the S/RVDL/ vent pipe reaction loads were obtained, these loads were applied to the vent system to take into account the reaction Icads on the vent system. A DLF was applied to the reactions of the Synamic and frequency dependent loads to account for the amplifying effects of the S/RV lines on the vent pipe. This DLF was based on theoretical analysis for each particular load. o Seismic - In accordance with subsection 4.1.1, 0.5g and 1.0g uniform gravitational loads were applied to the vent system in the vertical, north-south, and east-west directions to account for the OBE and SSE earthquakes, respectively. o Pool Swell Loads on Downcomers - An 8 psi pressure load with a DLF of 2 was applied to the bottom 60-degree section of the angled portion af th9 downcomer. This load was to account for the pool swell impat. load on the downcomers as specified in subsection 4.1.4.3. o CO Loads on Vent Header and Main Vent Pipe - The IBA and DBA C0 loads specified in subsection 4.1.5.4 for the vent header and main vent pipe are for determining hoop stresses. Frequency response analyses of these loads justified analysis by hand using the 2.5 psig pressure load and a DLF of 1. o CH Loads on Downcomers - The CH lateral loads on the downcomers are analyzed statically as specified in subsection 4.1.6.3. The normal modes analyses were made using the NASTRAN Solution 3 proce-dure with the modified givens method for extracting frequency. The mass and stiffness matrices were calculated at every node and were condensed to the dynamic degrees of freedom using the generalized dynamic reduction technique. Several frequency analyses were made to establish the number of degrees of freedom that c!ere required to accurately represent the vent system. The structure did not respond above 75 Hz; therefore, accuracy in the model was conservatively held to 150 Hz. Hydrodynamic mass on the 6.2-4
m submerged portion of the downcomers and supports affected the frequency of the vent system, depending on the type of load. A description of the normal modes analyses follows. o Dry Structure - For dynamic loads such as pool swell, the fluid does not act on the structure. Therefore, no hydrodynamic mass was included. There were 89 eigenvectors below 150 Hz, and 147 generalized coordinates were required to represent the struc-tures. o Wetted Structures - For C0 dynamic loads, the fluid acts on the outside of the downcomers. Thus, a hydrodynamic mass equal to the displaced volume of the submerged portion of the downcomers was included. There were 116 eigenvectors below 150 Hz, and 189 generalized coordinates were required. This analysis was performed with and without downcomer ties. o Flooded Structures - For chugging dynamic loads, the fluid acts on the inside of the downcomers as well as the outside. Thus, a hydrodynamic mass equal to twice the displaced volume of the downcomers was included. There were 139 eigenvectors below 150 Hz, and 224 generalized coordinates were required. This analysis was performed with and without downcomer ties. The modal frequency response analyses were made using the NASTRAN Solu-tion 30 procedure, which utilizes the eigenvectors calculated in the /] normal modes analysis (Solution 3) and calculates the response of the ( ,/ structure for each frequency of interest in the computer analysis. This is accomplished by superimposing the responses for each of the modes calculated in the normal modes analysis due to the loading frequency being investigated. A description of the modal frequency response analyses follows. o C0 Loads - The vent system C0 loads were made utilizing the wetted structure normal modes analysis. The model was loaded by applying the loads specified in subsection 4.1.5.3 to the downcomers. The analyses were made for the IBA and DBA condi-tion with 2 percent critical damping, as specified in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61. o Unit Pressure Loads - NASTRAN computer analyses were mcJe by applying unit internal pressure loads to the downcomers via PLOAD2. These unit pressure loads were developed into a fre-quency response dynamic load (RLOA01) by correlating the unit pressure loads (PLOA02) with the frequency versus pressure loads that were applied (TABLED 1). The frequency responsc was of the form: P(f) = A[C(f)] where: P(f) = the pressure as a function of frequency 6.2-5 i I i
A = the static load set and/or DAREA card C(f) = the function varying with frequency. The analyses were made at the first three predominant structural frequencies of the system (FREQ). o Differential Pressure Loads - The differential pressure loads were applied to the downcomers for the loading cases shown in Figure 4.1.5-6. Internal pressure loads on all downcomers were simultaneously applied to the differential pressure loads for all cases. Two worst-case combinations were identified (Cases D and E of Figure 4.1.5-9), and all event combinations were made with each load case. These analyses were made for both IBA and DBA LOCA events. The modal transient analyses were made using the NASTRAN Solution 31 procedure. This procedure utilizes the eigenvectors calculated in the normal modes analysis (Solution 3) and calculates the total response of the structure by superimposing the responses corresponding to these individual modes. The analysis was performed using step-by-step integra-tion. The time steps used varied, depending on the duration of the load impulse, and the time ste s were set small enough to ensure that several points of integration occurred in the regions of maximum response. These time steps ranged from a fraction of a millisecond to a couple of milli-seconds and are noted for each individual load. Two percent critical damping was used for all modal transient analysis. A description of the modal transient analyses follows. o Vent System Thrust Loads - The vent system thrust loads defined in subsection 4.1.3 are resultant time history force loads caused by the rapid pressurization and fluid momentum changes of the vent system. Since these loads are actually produced by pressure, the computer analysis was made by applying a portion of a unit force (f ) jto several nodes at each of the areas to be loaded and in the direction specified in Figure H1 4.2-1 of the Hatch 1 PULD (i.e., if five nodes were used to distribute the load, each node might receive 0.2 f j). The dry structure normal modes analysis was utilized in performing the analysis. The applied force loads (FORCE 1) were then developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD1) by correlating each of the forces representing a portion of the total force with the time history force (TABLED 1) for the full load that was to be applied at that location. The transient response was of the form: F(t) = Af(t) O 6.2-6
I where: F(t) = the force as a function of time f = the function with varying time (t) A = a static load set and/or DAREA card. All vent system thrust loads were then combined through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). The loads were applied until the vent system response stabilized and started decaying. Time steps of 5 milliseconds were used for the time of maximum load and response. o Pool Swell Impact / Drag Pressure Transients - The vent system pool swell loads on the vent header and main vent pipe were made utilizing the dry structure normal modes analysis. The time history pressure loads developed in subsection 4.1.4.3 were applied to the NASTRAN computer model by first applying unit pressure loads to the portion of the vent header and main vent that was impacted (PLDAD2). These unit pressure loads were then developed into_a transient response dynamic load (lLOAD1) by correlating the unit pressure loads (PLOAD2) with the time history pressure loads that were applied (TABLED 1). The tran-sient response was of the form: N [d where: P(t) = AF(t) P(t) = the pressure as a function of time A = the static load set and/or DAREA card . F = the ft. iction with varying time (t). Individual time history pressure loads were developed for every element by determining the projected centroid of each element. The pressure amplitudes and impact times were then adjusted by the methods given in subsection 4.1.4.3 for the coordinates of the element centroid. These individual element time history pressures were then combined for a complete load definition on the vent header through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). Two percent critical damping was applied to the structure. Time steps of 1/2 millisecond were used for all' time steps where maximum loading and response occurred, and the analysis was continued until all responses decayed out. o CH Loads - The vent system CH loads are time history pressure loads. There are three different CH loads identified in sub-section 4.1.6.4. These are gross vent system pressure oscillation, O acoustic vent system pressure oscillation, and acoustic downcomer Q pressure oscillation loads. The structural response of the 6.2-7
latter load case is such that a static load analysis can be performed. A' discussion of the gross acoustic pressure oscil-lation loads follows. Gross Vent System Pressure Oscillation Loads - The flooded downcomer normal modes analysis was used for calculating the response due to the gross vent system pressure oscillation loads. The NASTRAN computer model was loaded by applying unit pressure loadt to the main vents, vent header, and downcomers (PLOAD2). These unit pressure loads were developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD1) by cor-relating the unit pressure loads (PLOAD2) with a unit amplitude time history pressure load (TABLE 01). The tran-sient response was of the form: P(t) = AF(t 1) where: P(t) = the pressure as a function of time T = the time delay (set equal to zero) F = the function with varying time (t) A = a static load set and/or DAREA card. Therefore, P(t) = AF(t) The loads were applied through four complete cycles to ensure that the worst-case response was developed, and 40 time steps were evaluated in each cycle to ensure adequate response.The unit time history loads were then ratioed to the appropriate magnitude for each element of the model through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). l Two percent critical damping was applied to the structure. Acoustic Vent System Pressure Oscillation Loads - The flooded downcomer normal modes analysis was used for calcu-lating the response due to the acoustic vent system pressure oscillation loads. The NASTRAN computer model was loaded by applying unit pressure loads to main vents, vent header, and downcomers (PLOAD2). The unit pressure loads were developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD2). This response was of the form: I{0}, I < 0 or t > T2 - T1 B {AI e cos(2nFt + P)}, 0 $ t 5 T2 - T1 O 6.2-8
where: I. = t ~,1 - T (t is time delay) t = t'me from 0. By setting B, C, P, and I to zero, we reduce the solution to: P(t) = A cos(2nFt) where: A = the static load card set and/or DAREA set F = the frequency in cycles. PRESSURE (PSG) J L
-1
/ TIME (SEC) m 3/4T m , 4T m T, T2 WHERE T IS THE PEROD l By starting the time at 3/4 of a ;eriod (T), a sine wave load was created where the load magnitude was zero for all time less than T1 and greater than T2. The load was applied through four complete cycles to ensure that the worst-case l response was developed. The frequency of loading was varied l to determine the worst-case response within the frequency I
band specified in Table 4.1.6-5. This worst-case response was used in the stress evaluations. The unit loads were i then ratioed to the appropriate amplitude specified in Table 4.1.6-5 fo; each compo'nent of the model through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). Two percent critical damping was applied to the structure. l Acoustic Downcomer Pressure Oscillation Loads - The circum-ferential structural response of the downcomers was obtained by applying the pressure to the downcomer statically, using l [j] ( a hand solution for the hoop stress only. 6.2-9
o Submerged Structure Loads - The vent system downcomers and downcomer ties are subjected to the submerged structure loads specified in subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.7. The loads were developed as time history nodal force loads for applying to the downcomers and downcomer ties. These analyses were made by utilizing the wetted structure normal modes analysis. The time history forces were applied to the NASTRAN computer model by first applying unit forces (FORCE 1) to node points on the down-comers and downcomer ties. These unit forces were developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD1) by correlating the unit forces (FORCE 1) with the time history force loads that were applied (TABLED 1). The transient response was of the form: F(t) = Af(t) where: F(t) = the force as a function of time A = the static load set and/or DAREA card f = the function varying with time (t). Different time history forces were developed based on the different locations of the submerged structure targets. The complete submerged structure loading was then developed by combining all load components with a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). The LOCA and T quencher bubble sub-merged structure loads were applied and evaluated at the same time increments in which these loads were developed. The resultant reactions were also obtained at these same time
.ncrements.
The direct transient analyses were made using the NASTRAN Solution 27 procedure. This procedure performs a step-by-step integration technique on all nodes and degrees of freedom used to represent the model. The time steps varied depending on the duration of the load impulse. Time steps were chosen to ensure that several points of integration occur in the regions of maximum response. The time steps for each load case were noted in their respective sections. The critical damping used for all analyses was per NUREG 1.61 and as specified by the Structural Acceptance Criteria. o Vent Header Column / Torus Support Reaction Loads - The' displace-ment time histories of the torus at the vent header column / torus support point were obtained from the torus analysis for S/RV and prechug loadings. These displacement time histories were then applied to the base of the vent header support column in the vent header system model for determining the effects of these loads on the vent system. The displacement time histories for each component af displacement were represented on different TABLED 1 files and correlated to each displacement component through the DAREA card. All components of displacement for both 6.2-10
p the inside and outside columns were combined for a complete load g definition through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). The prechug time histories were defined and the analyses made for a duration of 0.5 second at 2-millisecond time increments, and the S/RV time histories were defined and analyzed for a duration of I second at 2-millisecond ' increments. 6.2.1.5 Analysis Results For the static and dynamic analyses, the NASTRAN computer output was.in the form of element hoop, longitudinal, and shear stresses. This infor-mation was obtained and filed for all elements. The output stresses were postprocessed to calculate the stress intensities. For multiple event load combinations, the postprocessor combined absolutely the element hoop, longitudinal, and shear stresses for all load cases considered and then calculated the stress intensities from the summed element hoop, i longitudinal, and shear stresses. A special purpose FORTRAN program was used to calculate the ASME Code membrane and membrane plus bending or the local and local plus bending stress intensities for all elements. The followi.sg formulae were used for the calculation of the principal stresses: oi = b(ox + oy ) + A(ox - o y)2 + 1 y2 a2 = h(O x + "y) ~ ("x ' "y) +I xy 03 = negliglible where: o = n rmal stress in x direction x o = normal stress in y di ection y I = shear stress in x y plane or , o2 Da = principal stresses. The principal stresses thus calculated were used to compute the stress intensities as follows: 5 1 ,2 = U2 -02 S2 .3 = 02 -03 S3 .1 =ca -01 The maximum stress intensity used for code stress evaluation was the absolute maximum of S i ,2 S 2 .3, and S 3 ,1
-Q The combined stress results from the postprocessor analyses for the ;Q governing load cases for major areas of the vent header assembly are shown on Tables 6.2.1-3 through 6.2.1-6.
6.2-11
6.2.1.6 Summary of Results The vent header assembly has been analyzed and designed for the required loading conditions and meets the structural acceptance criteria. Tables 6.2.1-3 through 6.2.1-6 provide a comparison of the actual stress with their allowables. All components of the vent system are within the allowable value. O O 6.2-12
O O O 4 TABLE 6.2.1-1 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY STRUCTURAL LOADING i 1 LOADS STRUCTURES Normal Operations Main Vents Vent Header Downcomers S/RV Piping 4.1.2 Containment pressure and temperature X X X X 4.1.3 Vent system thrust loads X X X 4.1.4 Pool swell
, 4.1.4.1 Torus net vertical loads 4.1.4.2 Torus shell pressure histories 4.1.4.3 Vent system impact and drag X X X
! 4 1.4.4 Impact and drag on other structures X X , 4.1.4.5 .roth impingement X X 4.1.4.6 Pool fallback X , 4.1.4.7 LOCA jet X 4.1.4.8 LOCA bubble drag X i 4.1.5 Condensation oscillation 4.1.5.1 Torus shell loads 4.1.5.2 Load on submerged structures X 4.1.5.3 Downcomer dynamic loads X X 4.1.5.4 Vent system loads X X 4.1.6 Chugging 4.1.6.2 Torus shell loads 4.1.6.2 Loads on submerged structures X 4.1.6.3 Lateral loads on downcomers X X 4.1.6.4 Vent system loads X X 4.1.7 S/RV discharge 4.1.7.2 Discharge line clearing X 4.1.7.3 Torus shell pressures 4.1.7.4 S/RVDL reflood transient X 4.1.7.5 Jet loads on submerged structures X X 4.1.7.6 Air bubble drag X X 4.1.7.7 Thrust loads on T quencher arms X , 4.1.7.8 S/RVDL environment temperature X I
+
. TABLE 6.2.1-2 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY DESIGN ALLOWABLES STRUCTURAL COMPONENT DESIGN STRESS ALLOWABLES (KSI)
Level A/ Level B Level C Stress Stress P, P m +P,P,PL+Pb b P L+Pb+Q P, P, + Pb , PL , PL+Pb Internal and external vent pipe, 19.3 28.95 57.9 38.0 @ 100 F 57.0 @ 100 F drywell (at vent), vent header, 34.6 @ 200 F 51.9 @ 200 F vent header / vent pipe intersection, 33.7 @ 300 F 50.55 @ 300 F downcomers, and all attachment welds 32.6 @ 400 F 48.9 @ 400 F Vent header penetrations (i.e., downcomer intersection, etc.) 19.3 37.635 57.9 38.0 0 100 F 57.0 @ 100 F 34.6 @ 200 F 51.9 @ 200 F 33.7 @ 300 F 50.55 @ 300 F 32.6 @ 400 F 48.9 @ 400 F (Material: SA-516, Grade 70) l l l O O O
O O O 4 TABLE 6.2.1-3 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS VENT' HEADER /DOWNCOMER INTERSECTION (Units = KSI) STRESS CLASSIFICATION m P, + Pb P L PL+Pb Pg + Pb*'O LEVEL A/B Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable !
~
NOC Load Combination. N + E(0) + SRV y,3 7.7/19.3 8.1/28.95 14.3/28.95 17.4/28.95 25.7/57.9. N + E(0) + SRV 2,M 9.7/19.3 10.3/28.95 16.7/28.95 19.7/28.95 29.1/57.9 SBA/IBA-Load Combination , N + E(0) + PCH + SRVADS 16.3/19.3 18.8/37.64 21.6/37.64 28.4/37.64 41.1/57.9 N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M 17.8/19.3 19.6/37.64 23.2/37.64 32.7/37.64- 45.7/57.9 STRESS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL C DBA' Load Combination N + E(S) + PC0 + SRV1S */38.0 **/57.0 15.2/57.0 22.0/57.0 N/A N + E(S) + Ppg + SRV73 */38.0 **/57.0 22.3/57.0 32.4/57.0 N/A
*The PL stresses meet P,allowables;-therefore, additional analysis is not required.
**The PL+Pb stresses meet P +P b allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
l
TABLE 6.2.1-4 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS VENT llEADER/ MITER REGION STRESS CLASSIFICATION P, P, + Pb P L PL+Pb PL+Pb+0 LEVEL A/B Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable NOC Load Combination.. N + E(0) + SRV 1,5 */19.3 **/28.95 10.0/28.95 11.3/28.95 17.0/57.9 N + E(0) + SRV 2,M */19.3 **/28.95 17.2/28.95 17.8/28.95 26.7/57.9 SBA/IBA Load Combination N + E(0) + PCH + SRVADS */19.3 **/28.95 22.6/28.95 23.7/28.95 35.6/57.9 N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M 19.3 **/28.95 18.1/28.95 20.1/28.95 30.2/57.9 STRESS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL C DBA Load Combination _ N + E(S) + PC0 + SRV1,3 */38.0 **/57.0 17.5/57.0 18.2/57.0 N/A N + E(S) + Pp3 + SRV1,5 */38.0 **/57.0 23.1/57.0 24.8/57.0 N/A
*The PL stresses meet P, allowables;.therefore, additional analysis is not required. **The PL+Pb stresses meet P,+ Pb allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
O O O
O O O i TABLE 6.2.1-5 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS VENT HEADER / VENT LINE INTERSECTION STRESS CLASSIFICATION P, P, + Pb P L Pg+Pb PL+Pb+0 LEVEL A/B Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable 1 NOC Lord Combination j N + E(0) + SRV 73 */19.3 **/28.95 10.8/28.95 12.4/28.95 18.6/57.9 N + E(0) + SRV 2,M */19.3 **/28.95 18.6/28.95 20.2/28.95 30.3/57.9 i SBA/IBA Load Combination N + E(0) + PCH + SRVADS 16.4/19.3 **/28.95 21.1/28.95 28.3/28.95 42.5/57.9 N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M 15.7/19.3 **/28.95 22.7/28.95 27.2/28.95 40.8/57.9 STRESS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL C DBA Load Combination N + E(S) + PC0 + SRV7,3 */38.0 W 57.0 21.3/57.0 24.6/57.0 N/A N + E(S) + Pp3 + SRV1,3 */38.0 **/57.0 18.1/57.0 19.4/57.0 N/A
*The PL stresses meet P,allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
**The PL+Pb stresses meet P,+ Pb allowables; therefore, additional arialysis is not required.
TABLE 6.2.1-6 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS VENT LINE/DRYWELL INTEP.SECTION STRESS CLASSIFICATION P, P, + Pb P L PL+Pb PL+Pb + Oi LEVEL A/B Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable NOC Load Combination N + E(0) + SRV 13 */19.3 **/28.95 2.0/28.95 2.7/28.95 4.1/57.9 N + E(0) + SRV 2,M */19.3 **/28.95 5.3/28.95 7.1/28.95 10.7/57.9 SBA/IBA Load Combination N + E(0) + PCH + SRVADS */19.3 **/28.95 4.6/28.95 6.1/28.95 9.2/57.9 N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M */19.3 **/28.95 5.5/28.95 7.3/28.95 11.0/57.9 STRESS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL C DBA Load Combination N + E(S) + PC0 + SRV1,3 */38.0 **/57.0 10.3/57.0 16.7/57.0 N/A N + E(S) + Pp3 + SRV1,3 */38.0 **/57.0 4.0/57.0 5.1/57.0 N/A
*The P stresses meet P,allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
**The PL+Pb stresses meet P m +P b a'.lowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
tThe PL+Pb + Q + F actual stresses are less than PL+Pb + Q allowables. O O O
(^T 6.4 PIPING SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS L) 6.4.1 S/RV Piping and S'upports 6.4.1.1 Analytical Model Description The S/RV discharge lines'were analyzed using the SUPERPIPE and ANSYS structural analysis programs and the finite element technique. Each pipe segment was modeled using flexural beam elements. Flexibility and stress intensification factors recommended in the ASME Code were applied to stresses at elbows, branch connections, and discontinuity locations such as welds and reducers. , A sample analytical model is shown in Figure 6.4.1-1. A typical model begins at, and includes a portion of, the main steam line. It extends through the drywell and ends at the T quencher assembly inside the torus. Data points were placed at both ends of each elbow, at each pipe support location, and at points of analytical and/or physical importance. The vacuum breaker valve was incorporated as an additional lump weight to the line. The stiffnesses of the supporting vent pipe and the T quencher support were evaluated and considered in the model. The model was then analyzed for the load cases described in the following subsection. As described in subsection 2.4.2, of a total of 11 S/RVDLs only the two long lines, E and K, have intermediate supports inside the torus. The g typical support framing configuration, which provides vertical and I lateral support to the pipe, is shown in Figure 2.4.2-1. The support (O frame was analyzed by the finite element method using the STRUDL computer program. Due to the similarity of all the support configurations, only a worst case was chosen for analysis. The analytical model is shown in Figure 6.4.1-2. Each beam segment was modeled as a three-dimensional flexural beam element. The entire frame is supported by the ring girder
,at four locations, and complete fixity was assumed at these four nodes.
The model was then analyzed fo* the load cases described in the following subsection. ' All 11 S/RVDLs have intermediate supports inside the drywell. A typical drywell support configuration was shown in Figure 2.4.1-5. These support configurations were also modeled as three-dimensional flexural beam elements using either the STRUDL computer program or hand calculations. The support models were then analyzed for the reaction loads resulting from the load cases described in the following subsection. 6.4.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations Design loads consist of two categories: (1) original design specifica-tion loads, and (2) LTP-related loads. The original design specification loads include:
- a. Weight load, which accounts for pipe and insulation, plus buoyancy inside the torus.
('] O 6.4-1
- b. T erma load which includes thermal modes during normal opera-
- c. Seismic load, which accounts for inertia and enchor movetent effe ts during OBE and SSE.
- d. S/RV blowdown load, which is redefined and described in the LDR as one of the LTP loads.
The LTP-related loads include:
- a. Hydrodynamic loads associated with LOCA, which include: pool swell load, C0 load, CH load, and torus pool drag load resulting from S/RV blowdown.
- b. Torus pool drag load resulting from S/RV blowdown during plant normal operation.
The S/RVDLs were analyzed for the load combinations described in Sec-tion 4.2 of this rsoort. 6.4.1.3 Design Allowables The S/RV discharge lines are classified as essential piping systems, and the level B service limit is assigned to the system. Limiting stress requirements are in accordance with Section NC-3650 and Table I.70 of the ASME Code. For load combinations associated with LOCA and earthquake, the 1.2 S h limit in Equation 9, NC-3552.2 of the ASME Code, is increased to 1.8 Sh or 2.4 S h, depending upon the load cases considered. {
;9 As defined by the PUAAG, the S/RVOL support systems are Class 3 component supports covered by subsection NF of the ASME code. The allowable -
~
stresses which vary with service level are defined in Appendix XVII of the ASME Code. The service levels used were per Table 3.2.4-1. All vacuum relief valves inside the drywell are designed for a minimum of 40 years' service life during normal operation and are designed to operate satisfactorily during accident and post-accident conditions that , . , may be encountered during the design life of the equipment. j , 6.4.1.4 Method of Analys'is For the original design specification loads, the S/RVDLs were analyzed using the original design criteria found in the FSAR. For the LTP-related loads, they were analyzed by the finite element method using SUPERPIPE and ANSYS programs. Except for the CO and CH loads, the modal , , time history technique was employed for the analysis associated with LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads and the S/RV blowdown load. The gener-ation of the input force time histories is described in Section 4.1. 6.4-2 ,
/
7 , _ .- -
, FI' ,
I
; f 1 Q .t - 0, /, i
, fig '/,. '
i <i. Prior to performing a complete dynamic analysis for a given S/RVDL, studies sere trade to determisse the dynamic characteristics of the piping
/~'
(%)' system and-the' input forcing function.g fhe values of 50 Hz and 0.002 second were t'1e adopted as the modpFchtoff frequency and the numerical integration tirr step, ::espectively. *These values were considered adequate iid prJviding an accurate dynamic solution.
^
For C0 and CH loads, which are applied to the submerged portion of the S/RV discharge lines and are defined in-frequency content format com-prised of 50 frequency-amplitude pairs, the ANSYS program was used for evaluatins piping response to each individual steady-state forcing functi,on triput. ' The absolute sum method 'w3s then used to obtain the total response tg the combined 50, loaning' functions. Damping values usM were 1 percent for the'>NOC and 2 percent for the LOCA condition. All the responses to the CO an<j CH hydrodynamic loads were incrdased 10 percent tojaccount for the f,luid-structure-interaction (FSI) effect.' ' >
, , - /.
6.4.1.5,. Analysis Results p c The refloc'd ar. jsis results for _ the four low-low set S/RVDLs A, C, G, and H (see subsection 4.1.7.1) are shown in Figure 6.4.1-3. These four lines may experience subsequent actuations during normal operating conditions or during an IBA/SBA event. In order to limit reflood height ~
,\m during subsequent actuations, 10 ^ inch vacuum breakers have been added to
'j e these lines to replace the existing 2-inch vacuum breaker. The design vh 1
water leg analysis results for each S/RV discharge line are presented in Table 6.4.1-1. - e . f ThepipestresssummariesforJ(PrgIverningloadcombinationsaresum-marized in Tables 6.4.1-2 thro \gh!6.4.1-7. .
~ i 't 6.4.1.6 Sumnary of Results ,
The analysis results show that the governing load combination for the ' S/RVDLs is the IBA/SBA condition, in which drag _ loads from CH and S/RV blowdown are acting simultaneously >on the submerged portion of the lines. Inside the drywell, modifications to the exi, ting supports and addi$ional supports were required in order to maintain the structural integrity of the S/fiVDL piping systems. A summary of the modifications / additions was presented in Table 2.4.2-2. ',' , i i ! As shown in Tables 6.4.1-2 through 6.4.1-7, all S/RVDL pipe stresses
" s I
under all load combinations are within the allowable. / I p L) 6.4-3
l 9 TABLE 6.4.1-1 S/ RVDL DESIGN WATER COLUMN DESIGN WATER COLUMN' LINE NO. NOC"
^
DB3 IBA/SBAt A 16.0 16.0 4.5 tt B 20.0 20.0 5.0 No subsequent actuation C 16.0 16.0 4.5 tt D 20.0 20.0 5.0 No subsequent actuation E 13.0 13.0 3.0 No subsequent actuation F 20.0 20.0 5.0 No subsequent actuation G 16.0 16.0 4.5 tt H 16.0 16.0 4.5 tt J 20.0 20.0 5.0 No subsequent actuation K 11.0 11.0 3.0 No subsequent actuation L 10.9 10.9 5.5 No subsequent actuation
' Water column measured from top of ramshead. " Normal operating water level.
tWater level at bottom of downcomer. f tLow-low-set line. Subsequent ar.tuation may occur during NOC (37 seconds minimum)and lBA/SBA (36 seconds minimum). O
O O O TABLE 6.4.1-2
SUMMARY
OF S/RV DISCHARGE LINE MAXIMUM PIPING STRESSES (KSI) S/RV DISCHARGE LINE E INSIDE DRYWELL SRV SRV+EQ SBA+SRV SBA+SRV+EQ OBA+SRV+EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA+SRV+EQ
- COMBINATION NUMBESP 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
$m PRESSURE (Pol (PA) 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 CC i
y EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 5.50 NA 5.50 5.50
.y 6.30 6.30 7.50
% SRV"(SRVCT) 7.50 7.50
~E E TOTAL 10.76 16.26 9.56 15.06 16.26
.ct . . _ _
ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.M THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 2.25 jy SAM 0.48 TOTAL 2.73 vs ALLOWABLEt SA = 22.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2 4-2.
" SRV loads considered are the thrust loads (SRVCT) associated with first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
I t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-36Ei0.
TABLE 6.4.1-3
SUMMARY
OF S/RV DISCHARGE LINE MAXIMUM PIPING STRESSES (KSI) S/RV DISCHARGE LINE E INSIDE TORUS
'~
SRV SRV+EQ SBA + SRV SBA+SRV+EQ DBA+SRV+EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA+SRV IBA+SRV+EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 PRESSURE (Po). (PAI 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 us y EARTHQU AKE (E(SI) NA 1.69 NA 1.69 1.69 5
y SRV" (SRVCT). (SRVB D) 8.57 8.57 9.80 9.80 8.57 y 4 POOL SWELL (Posi t NA NA 13.050 CONDENSATION
- o NA NA NA 1.01 O OSCILLATION ICOBD) NA
" 2.10 CriUGGING ICHBDi 10.80 12.49 12.03 13.72 25.54 TOTAL ALLOWABLEtt 1.8Sh = 33.80 1.8Sh = 33.80 2.4Sh = 45.10 2.4S 1.2Sh = 22.60 h ((s.10 THERMALITO ) (TA) 21.66 5
SAM 0.10
$y z
TOTAL 21.76 h5
<a ALLOWABLEtt SA = 28.20
- Combination number per Table J.2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are the thrust loads (SRVCT) and bubble drag loads (SRVBD) associated with first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
t Poolswellloads(Ppol include impact and drag (PSIDI + LOCA jet (PSLJ) or LOCA bubble drag IPSBOI. tt Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC 3650. I The highest DB A load is used in the load combination. O 9 O
F O O TABLE 6.4.1-4
SUMMARY
OF S/RV DISCH ARGE LINE MAXIMUM PIPING STRESSES (KSl) S/RV DISCHARGE LINE G INSIDE DRYWELL SRV SRV+EQ SBA+SRV SBA+6RV+EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA+SRV IBA+SRV+EQ
^+ +
COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WElGHTID) 2.28 2.28 2.22 2.28 2.28 E PRESSU RE (Po). (PA) 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97 E
$ EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 8.55 NA 8.56 8.55 iE 4 SRV" (SRVCT) 7.66 7.66 3.59 3.59 7.66 E
E TOTAL 12.91 21.46 8.84 17.39 21.46 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.M 2.4Sh = M.M 2.4Sh = 36.M THERMAL (TO ),(TAl 4.45 j{ SAM 2.61 55 7.06 Sm TOTAL m ALLOWABLEt SA = 22.50 t
- Combination number por Table 3.2.4 2.
" SRV loads considered are the thrust loads (SRVCT) associated with first and subsequent actuations, wNchever is greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3650.
TAB LE 6.t .1-5 SUMM ARY OF S/RV DISCHARGE LINE MAXIMUM PIPING STRESSES (KSI) S/RV DISCHARGE LINE G INSIDETORUS SRV SRV+EQ SBA+SRV SBA+SRV+EO DBA+SRV+EQ EVENT COMBIN ATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA+SRV+EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIG HT (D) 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 1.99 1.99 h PRESSURE (Pol,(PA I 1.99 1.99 1.99 W
rn EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA 0.30 NA 0.30 0.30 cc 4 SRV" (S RVCT), iS RVB D) 12.11 12.11 6.94 6.94 12.11 5 [ POOL SWELt.(P ,)t NA NA 3.40 4 CONDENSATIO o NA NA NA NA 2.15 o OSCILL ATION (COBD) 3.605 CHUGGING (CHBD) . TOTAL ALLOWABLEtt 1.2Sh = 22.60 1.8Sh = 33.80 1.8Sh = 33.80 2.4Sh = 46.10 2.4Sh = 46.10 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 9.86
$2 o* SAM 0.20 g _ . . .
[ TOTAL 10.86 ALLOWABLEtt SA = 28.20
- Combination number per Table 3 2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are the thrust loads (SRVCT) and bubble drag loads (SRVBD) associated with first and subsequent actuations.
whichever is greatest. t Poot swellloads (P ,linclude p impact and drag (PSID) + t OCA jet (PSLJ) or LOCA bubble drag (PSBD). tt Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Cod Section NC-3650. I The highest DB A load is used in the load combination. O O O
f~ 0 d d U TAB LE 6.4.1-6
SUMMARY
OF S/RV DISCHARGE LINE MAXIMUM PIPING STRESSES (KSI) S/RV DISCHARGE LINE L INSIDE DRYWELL SRV SRV+EQ SBA+SRV SBA+SRV+EQ ^*
- EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC)- IBA+SRV IBA+SRV+EQ 3 11 15 25,27 COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61.
WEIGHT (D) . 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.97
$ PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 2.97 E 4.08 NA 4.08 NA 4.08
, $ EARTHQUAKE (ElSI) a 12.80 10.31 10.31 12.80
< SRV" (SRVCT) 12.80 =-
32 iE 20.46 13.89 17.97 20.46
- o. TOTAL 16.38 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.SSh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.M 2.4Sh = 36.M THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 6.03 j$ SAM 0.61 ze TOTAL 6.64 l h5 us ALLOWABLEt SA = 22.50
(
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads considered are the thrust loads (SRVCT) associated with first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-36Eio.
TABLE 6.4.1-7
SUMMARY
OF S/RV DISCHARGE LINE MAXIMUM PIPING STRESSES (KSI) S/RV DISCHARGE LINE L INSIDETORUS SRV SRV+EQ SBA+SRV SBA+SRV+EQ ^+ + EVENT COM BIN ATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA+SRV IBA+SRV+EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHTID) 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 ._
PRESSURE (Pol,(PA l 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA NA 5.36 5.36 h 5.36 SRV'* (SRVCT), (SRVB D) 5.09 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.09 CC POOL SWELL (P h 4 CONDENSATIObsit NA NA 3.966
;;: y OSCILLATION (COBD) NA NA NA NA 2.00
- a. a CHUGGING (CH BD) 2.66 9.36 14.72 8.75 14.11 18.68 TOTAL ALL OWABLEtt 1.2Sh = 22.60 1.8Sh = 33.80 1.8Sh = 33.80 2.4Sh = 45.10 2.4Sh = 45.10 THERMAL (Tol,ITA) 6.08
$g Om SAM 0.10 ze 8G TOTAL 6.13 3
ALLOWABl.Ett SA = 28.20
/
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads considered are the thrust loads (SRVCT) and bubble drag loads (SRVBD) associated with first and subsequent actuatinns.
whichever is greatest, t Poolswellloads(Pps! include impact and drag (PSIDI + LOCA jet (PSLJ) or LOCA bubble drag (PSSD). tt Apowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Cede. Section NC-3650. 3 The highest DBA load is used in the load combination. l 1 l l , 9 O O
( ) 6.4.3 ' Torus-Attached Piping and Supports v 6.4.3.1 Analytical Model Description All torus-attached piping systems have been analyzed by the finite element technique, using the SUPERPIPE computer program, for responses to torus shell excitation due to tne pool hydrodynamic loads. The analytical model adopted was a system decoupled from the torus. Each model represented the piping and supports from tae torus attachment point to the first rigid anchor or to.the point where effects of torus motion have been demonstrated to be insignificant. If a piping system extended into the torus, then the torus-internal portion was also analyzed. A Lranch pipe with a section modulus less than 10 percent that of the run pipe was considered as having an insignificant effect on the run pipe response, and was therefore not included. However, a separate analysis was performed on branch lines using the run pipe response at t!.a attach-ment point as input. Figure 6.4.3-1 shows a sample model. Data points were placed at both ends of each elbow, at pipe support locations, branch line attachment points, and at points of analytical and/or physical importance. The rotational stiffness of the shell at each penetration was evaluated and considered in the analysis. High values of torsional and translational stiffness were used, for the reasons explained in subsection 6.4.3.4. Valve assemblies were modeled as stick models with concentrated masses lumped at the actuator and at the center of gravity A of the valve body. Member stiffness was established so that the resulting dynamic characteristic of the stick model would be the same as that of () the actual valve assembly. A modification requirement was the rerouting of small bore piping lines listed in Table 2.5.2-1. Figure 6.4.3-2 shows the typical analytical model for these lines. All the torus-attached piping systems have intermediate supports located outside the torus. Typical piping support configurations outside the torus were shown in Figures 2.5.1-9 and 2.5.1-10. Inside the torus, .. restraints were added to the return lines (see Figures 2.5.2-3 through 2.5.2-6). Supports both outside and inside the torus were modeled as three-dimensional flexural beam elements using either the STRUDL and ANSYS computer programs or hand calculations. The analytical models used in evaluating return line restraints X-214 and X-210 inside the torus are shown in Figures 6.4.3-3 and 6.4.3-6, respectively. With the analytical modeIs estabIished ior be h the piping and supports, the torus-attached piping systems were anal,/ zed for the load cases described in the following subsection. D (V 6.4-8
6.4.3.2 Design Loads and Load Ct;mbinations Design loads consist of two categories: (1) original design specification loads, and (2) LTP-related loads. The original design specification O loads include: .
- a. Weight load, which accounts for pipe and insulation plus weight of fluid in pipe,
- b. Thermal load, which includes thermal modes during normal operation and LOCA.
- c. Seismic load, which accounts for inertia and anchor movement effects during OBE as well as during SSE.
The LTP-related loads include:
- a. Hydrodynamic loads associated with LOCA, which include: pool swell load, C0 load, CH load, and S/RV blowdown loads.
- b. Hydrodynamic load resulting from S/RV blowdown force during plant normal operation.
The piping response was evaluated for the combined loads described in Section 4.2 of this report. The vent locations and S/RVDLs considered in evaluating return line restraints X-214 and X-210 inside the torus for submerged loads are shown in Figures 6.4.3-4 and 6.4.3-7, respectively. 6.4.3.3 Design Allowables All torus-attached piping is conservatively classified as essential, and the level B service limit is assigned to each system. Limiting stress l requirements are in accordance with Section NC-3650 and Table I.70 of the , ! ASME Code. For load combinations associated with LOCA and earthquake, the 1.2 S limit in Equation 9, NC-3652.2, is increased to 1.8 S r 2.4 h h S.,, depending upon load cases considered. As defined by the PUAAG, torus-attached piping supports are Class 2 or 3 component supports covered by subsection NF of the ASME Code. The l allowable stresses which vary with service level are defined in Appen-dix XVII of the ASME Code. The service levels used were per Table 3.2.4-1. 6.4.3.4 Method of Analysis The torus-attached piping systems have been analyzed for the original design specification loads with a methodology consistent with that stipulated in the FSAR. However, analysis for the piping systems was updated to account for 79-14 concerns. 6.4-9
i 4 h^ i Dynamic analyses, using the decoupled modal, evaluated piping response-to torus motion due to the LOCA-related hyorodynamic load and the MSRV-l' blowdown. load. Dynamic input in this case was the torus shell motion at the attachment point. Except for 'the C0 and CH : loads, the motion was the acceleration tim'e history resulting from the uncoupled torus.shell-analysis. The modal time history _ technique was used for the analysis. The input motion amplification' characteristic was first analyzed by j performing a response spe'ctrum analysis. The_ values of 100 Hz and 0.002
.second were then adopted'as the piping cutoff frequency and the numerical 3
integration time. step, respectively. These values are considered to-provide acceptable accuracy in calculating the dynamic solution. I It has been recognized that a fully coupled torus-piping dynamic analysis is not practical. Instead, the-uncoupled analysis is the preferable approach. It'has also been recognized that a piping analysis using an i uncoupled-torus response as input would yield conservative' results because the stiffness and the mass of the pipt g system, which may be important in suppressing torus response, are not considered. The degree
~
j of conservatism in the uncoupled analysis, therefore, depends primarily upon the stiffness and mass relationships between the torus and the ! piping. For small bore piping the torus is relatively: stiff, and no significant coupling effect is to be expected.
~
j In this case, coupled and i uncoupled analyses would yield similar results, and a complete fixity.can i be reasonably assumed at the penetration point in a piping model. l However, for large. bore piping, the coupling effect may be significant, and the inclusion of the actual torus stiffness, which is soft in some directional components, may_become important in correcting an overcon-servative uncoupled response.
- A study was undertaken investigating the effect of torus stiffness on uncoupled piping response. A coupled torus piping finite element model, including several representative piping systems ranging from 6 to 24 inches, was developed. . Analyses were then performed for the pool swell' and the S/RV loads. The results were to be used as the basis for compari-son with the. uncoupled analyses for the same. load cases. To perform the uncoupled analyses, the stiffness.was evaluated and the uncoupled shell response was obtained at each penetration point. Piping analyses were
~
then carried out for the following three cases:
- a. Input three translation plus three rotation time-histories with complete fixity at the penetration point. In this case,- no interaction would occur. The resulting piping motion at the a
-penetration point is the input uncoupled shell motion.
- b. Input three translation time-histories with springs simulating torus translational and rotational stiffnesses at the penetration point. The final piping motion at the penetration point is the algebraic sum of the original input motion ~and the resulting
~
spring motion.
'N . r 6.4-10
- c. Input three translation time-histories with complete translational fixity and with springs simulating torus rotational stiffness at the penetration point. The final piping motion at the penetration point is the original input motion in translation and the resulting spring motion in rotation.
Piping response in terms of pipe stress, displacement, and valve load at selected points was summarized and compared with those obtained from the coupled model. All three cases resulted in varying degrees of conservatism. The third case was identified as having the most reasonable degree of conservatism, and was, therefore, adopted as the approach for all the torus-attached piping system analyses. For the C0 and CH loads, shell motion was expressed in a frequency . response format containing a range of frequencies from 1 to 50 Hz. Piping response was evaluated for each frequency by response spectrum technique. The total response was then obtained by the absolute sum-mition method. Branch lines with a section modulus greater than 10 percent of the run pipe were included as an integral part of the main piping model. Smaller branch lines (i.e., those with a section modulus less than 10 percent of the run pipe) were considered to have negligible effect on the response of the main pipe. A total of 79 branch lines were excluded from the main piping analysis models and were subsequently considered using separate evaluations, as described below. The branches were initially screened and grouped into two major categories: (1) 40 branches were simple unsupported cantilever type vent and drain lines, and (2) the remaining 39 branches were supported. The unsupported cantilever type brances were subjected only to inertial loading caused by the accelerations of the main pipe at the branch connection point. In addition, self-weight, valve weight, internal pressure, and stress intensification at the branch connection point were considered. An equivalent static calculation was used, incorporating the dynamic load factor to evaluate the stresses in these branches (including the branch connection). The second major group of branch lines (i.e., the supported lines) was evaluated for thermal expansion effects as well as for dynamic effects. A thermal analysis was first performed by modeling an anchor at the branch connection point, applying thermal movement from the main pipe, ad considering the branch line to be operating at the design temperature. If the piping system met the allowaole thermal stresses, then a dynamic analysis was performed. When the supported branch line was connected to the run pipe within 5 feet of the torus penetration, the branch line was subjected to a time history loading. Otherwise for the dynamic analysis, a sinusoidal forcing frequency for the main pipe at the branch connection point was calculated. The forcing frequency corresponded to the maximum acceleration and displacement in each of three directions. The natural frequencies of the branch line were calculated up to 1.5 times the O 6.4-11
forcing frequency but not less than 33 hertz. TIa dynamic load factor i (~'g (DLF) corresponding to each of the natural frequencies was calculated as () follows: 2 (g\2 ( 0T 2 h -h DLF = where: 0 = forcing frequency of the main pipe w = natural frequency of the branch line
= percent of critical damping as mentioned previously The points on the response spectra were calculated for each frequency and each of the three coordinate directions by multiplying the acceleration of the forcing function by the corresponding DLF.
The resulting response spectra were then applied to the branch line, and the support loads and the pipe stresses were evaluated. If either the dynamic stress or the thermal stresses exceeded the allowable, the branch line was rr.odified by either changing the supports or rerouting the line itself. Fifty-nine percent of the lines required support modification. Ten percent of the lines required minor rerouting. Damping values used were: o Small-diameter piping systems, diameter 1 percent NOC equal to or less than 12 inches: 2 percent LOCA o Large-diameter piping systems, pipe 2 percent NOC s/ diameter greater than 12 inches: 3 percent LOCA 6.4.3.5 Analysis Results Sample input acceleration time histories and the corresponding response spectrum curves are shown in Figures 6.4.3-10 and 6.4.3-11. Pipe stress summaries for each line are presented in Tables 6.4.3-1 through 6.4.3-24. The analysis results for the two worst-case return line restraints inside the torus are shown in Tables 6.4.3-25 through 6.4.3-30. 6.4.3.6 Summary of Results The analysis results showed that, in general, the governing load combi-nations are those including the S/RV load during the IBA/SBA. They resulted in pipe overstress and/or equipment overload in several large bore systems and most of the small bore lines. The extent of modifi-cation is described in subsection 2.5.2. The overloaded large bore lines required varying degrees of modification, including support rearrangement and addition of snubbers. The overloaded small bore lines were rerouted to reduce stresses near the torus. (O (.-) 6.4-12
Reaction loads on the ring girder due to applied loads on the HPCI X-214 restraint and the RHR X-210 restraint are summarized in Figure 6.4.3-5 and Figures 6.4.3-8 and 6.4.3-9, respectively. These reaction loads were used in the evaluation of the suppression chamber shell, ring girder, and supports (see subsection 6.1.1). 0 9 9 l O 6.4-13
t _ O O TABLE 6.4.3-1 x
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) ? TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-203 { SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WElGHT (D) 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
{ , ' NA 0.39 0.39 SA
$ EARTHQU AKE (E(SI) NA 0.39 E
5.04 5.04 1.25
- $ SRV" (SRVTP), (SRVTJ) 2.23 2.23 POOL SWELL (PSTP),(PSLJi NA NA 2.29 ti
' E $ CONDENSATION N A. NA NA NA NG E OSCILLATION (COBD),(COTP) 3 0.22 0.22 0.22 CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 3.64 4.04 6.88 7.08 5.35 i
- ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 16.44 1.8Sh = 24.86 1.8Sh = 24.86 2.4Sh = 32.88 2.4Sh = 32.88 I
WEIGHT (D) 0.25 l en g PRESSURE (Pol, (PA) 0.44 , O m { , ze j j# THERMAL ITo). (TA I 9 44 j mm ISE 44 l 3o SAM 3.91 I m n.$ 8 a TOTAL 14.05 i l ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 34.25 i
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
"SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever le greatest.
I i Alloweble por Table 3.2.4 2 and ASME Code, Section NC.3050. I t tThe highest DBA load le used in the load combination. 1
TABLE 6.4.3-2
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-204A.C EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 208 PRESSURE (Po),IPA) 3.52 3.52 3.52 3.52 3.52
$ EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 0.73 NA 0.73 0.73 e
$ SRV" (SRVTP) 8.53 8.53 11.59 11.59 5.15
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 4.66$
g $ CONDENSATION NA NA NG E O OSCILLATION (COTP) CHUGGING (CHTP) NA NA 1.52 1.52 1.52 TOTAL 13.49 14.22 18.08 18.80 15.50 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 16.44 1.8Sh = 24.66 1.8Sh = 24.66 2.4Sh = 32.88 2.4Sh = 32.88 us THERMAL (T ), O (T A) 9.96 20B o$E Z >- 4( 3 EE SAM 5.28 44 gg E TOTALit 20.21 0O U g ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 34.25
- Combination numoor per Table 3.2.4 2.
"SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
i Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC.3elio. f f Pressure and weight stresses Iractuded. iThe highest DBA load is used in the load combination. 9 O O
O O O TABLE 6.4.3-3
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-2048,D EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA* SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SHV + EQ
^^
(NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15, 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.82 PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 3.52 3.52 3.52 3.52 3.52
$ EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) NA 0.68 NA 0.68 0.68 208 E
$ SRV"(SRVTP) 4.87 4.87 7.04 7.04 4.69
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 2.736 g $ CONDENSATION NA NA m o NG
' OSCILLATION (COTP)
CHUGGING (CHTP) NA NA , 0.66 0.66 0.66 TOTAL 10.01 10.69 12.84 13.52 13.20 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.44 1.8Sh = 24.66 1.8Sh = 24.66 2.4Sh = 32.88 2.4Sh = 32.88 1 us oe y THERMAL (TO ), (TA) 10.04 Z ((>- SAM 6.57 20 8 i2 - gg TOTALit 21.75 E8 ALLOWABLE + g SA+Sh = 34.25
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads can:Herod are first and subsequent actuations, whichsver is greatest.
i Allowable perTat,le 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-3050. t f Pressure ed weig.2t stresses included. GThe highest DBA load is used in the load combination.
TABLE 6.4.3-4
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-205 SRV SRV + EQ I SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + E3 ^^ DBA + SRV + EQ POINT EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) 3 11 15 25,27 COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 WEIGHT (D) 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PRESSURE (Po). (PA)
NA 0.81 NA 0.81 0.81 g EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) E 3.25 150 y SRV"(SRVTP) 3.25 3.25 5.71 5.71 E POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 1.65 f t h 8 CONDL'dSATION NA NA NA NA NG iii O OSCILLATION (COTP) A CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.81 0.81 0.81 TOTAL 4.55 5.35 7.81 8.62 7.00 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.44 1.8Sh = 24.66 1.8Sh = 24.66 2. 4Sh = 32.88 2.4Sh = 32.88 WEIGHT (D) 2.38 4 0.74 h PRESSURE (Po). (PA ) EE 4* 24.87 40 THERMAL (TO ), (T ) A 3 mm 44 SAM 1.80 2g Eo O TOTAL 29.79 m ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 31.75
- Combination number per Taue 3.2.42.
**SRV loada considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever la Greatest.
t Anowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and A3ME Code, Section NC-3060. t tThe highest DBA load la used in the load combination. G G e
O O > 4 TABLE 6.4.3-5 i
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) . i TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-206A SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER' 1 3 11 15 25,27 i WEICHT (D) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 7 i EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) NA 2.36 NA 2.36 2.36 ' s y SRV" (SRVTP)- 0.67 0.67 1.22 1.22 0.51 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 0.929 l
- g $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA NG e o OSCILLATION (COTP)
" CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.00 0.09 0.09 TOTAL 1.23 3.59 1.96 4.22 4.34 i
ALLOWABLE + 1.2Sg = 21.22 1.8Sh = 31.82 1.8Sh = 31.82 2.4Sh = 42.43 2.4Sh = 42.43 en 1
$ THERMAL (T O),(T A) 10.99 0m Ze j
j [am'83 SAM 3.25 4 44 gg TOTALit 14.79
)
sLoo w ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 44.20 en
' Combination number per Toble 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever is greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3550. t t Pressure end weight stresses included. iThe highest DBA load is used in the load combination. 4
TABLE 6.4.3-6
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-206B EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WElGHT (D) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
$ EARTHQU AKE (E(SH NA 0.08 NA 0.08 0.08 2068 e
$ SRV" (SRVTP) 16.20 16.20 25.65 25.65 16.20 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 11.10 ti
@ j CONDENSATION
= o OSCILLATION ICOTP) NA NA NG CHUGGING (CHTP) NA NA 2.24 2.24 2.24 TOTAL 16.93 17.01 28.61 28.69 28.11 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 21.22 1.8Sh = 31.82 1.8Sh = 31.82 2.4Sh = 42.43 2.4Sh = 42.43 W EIGHT (D) 0.20 us PRESSURE (Po), (PA) 0.23 o$
z=r THERMAL (T O),IT A) (( mm 31.02 3B 44 gg SAM 4.38 E S O o g TOTAL 35.84 ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 44.20
*Combinetton number per Table 3.2.42.
**SRV foads considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever is greatest.
tAllowable per Table 3.2.42 and ASME Code, Section NC-3elio. t tThe highest DBA load is used in the load combination. O O O -
! [h '
C\
\
w \J TABLE 6.4.3-7
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) - TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-206C SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ
^
EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 g WEIGHT (D) 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08
) PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 0.23 0.23 ,0.23 0.23 0.23 8A NA 0.21 NA 0.21 0.21
$ EARTHQU AKE (F(S))
E -
$ SR V (SRVTP) 0.45 0.46 2.97 2.97 0.51 NA NA 0.921 t
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) g 8 CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA NG E O OSCILLATION ICOTP)
' " 0.09 CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.09 0.09 TOTAL 0.76 0.96 3.37 3.58 1.88 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 21.22 1.8Sh = 31.82 1.8Sh = 31.82 2.4Sh = 42.43 2.4Sb = 42.43 WEIGHT (D) 0.24 tn PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.23 206C 0m zs 4* THERMAL (T O),(T A) 10.87 3
EE
<4 Eo SAM 2.82 E!
O TOTAL 13.96 m ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 44.20
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever is greatest.
i Alloweble per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC 3050. t iThe highest DBA load is used in the load combinetion.
TABLE 6.4.3-8
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSil . TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-206D EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ
^^
(NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 PRESSURE (Pol. (PA) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 206D m
m EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) NA 0.08 NA 0.08 0.0R OE z-4" SRV" (SRVTP) 14.00 14.00 27.57 27.57 14.00 a: cc 44 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 11.1'I t t
$ CONDE%ATION NA NA NA NA Nf3
- c. O o OSCILLATION ICOTP) g CHUGGING (CHTP) 2.06 2.05 2.05 TOTAL 14.73 14.81 30.35 30.43 25.91 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 71.22 1.8Sh = 31.82 1.8Sh = 31.82 2.4Sh = 42.43 2.4Sh = 42.43 WEIGHT (D) 0.20 m PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 0.23 3B THERMAL (Tol,(TA) 31.02 s SAM
< 4.38 E
E TOTAL 35.84
- ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 44.20
- Combination rumber per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever le greatest.
i Allowable per Table 3.23 2 and ASME Code. Section NC-38Eio. t i The highest DB A load is used in the load combination. O O O
O O O TABLE 6.4.3-9
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXlMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-207 4 EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT
- COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 i
WEIGHT (D) 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 4 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 f.37 g EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 2.21 NA 2.21 2.21 tiG E
$ SRV** (SRVTP) 8.50 8.50 5.36 5.36 5.33
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 4.47tt E $ CONDENSATION NA NA NG e o OSCILLATION ICOTP)
' NA NA 0.86 0.86 0.86 CHUGGING (CHTP)
TOTAL 9.36 11.57 6.87 9.07 12.87 l -- ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh=3# f WElGHT (D) 0.16 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA l 0.37 O h E Z >- THERMAL (T O),(T A) 8.57 106E [W EE
. <4 3o SAM 1.30 1
m$ 0 TOTAL 10.40 m ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 34.25
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV leeds considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.42 and ASM C Code. Section NC-3050. t iThe highest D8 A losd is used in the load combination.
TABLE 6.4.3-10
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PlPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-208A SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION DBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ 3 11 15 25,27 COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 WElGHT (D) 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 360 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 1.33 EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA 6.94 NA 6.94 6.94 e
2.34 9.45 9.45 1.45
$ S RV'* (SRVTP) 2.34 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 2.67 tt g 6 CONDENSATION NA NA NG cc O OSCILLATION (COTP)
' NA NA 0.63 0.63 0.63 CHUGGING (CHTP)
TOTAL 4.44 11.38 12.18 19.12 13.16 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 WElGHT (D) 1.75 us PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 1.33 o$ z= [y mm [ THERMAL (TO ), (T ) A 13.53 385 44 gO SAM 3.t' EEO O g TOTAL 19.79 ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 37.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
iAllowable per Table 3.2.42 and ASME Code. Section NC-3050. tithe highest D BA load is used in the load combination.
# 9 e
i f /"S i
\ U TABLE 6.4.3-11
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-208B ! EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ TA l (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SR\ IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER' 1 3 11 15 25,27 1 WEIGHT (D) 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 468 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 , J.33
$ EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA 6.50 NA 6.50 6.80 l E i $ SRV" (SRVTP) 2.01 2.01 8.86 8.86 2.01
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 0.99tt 2 o CONDENSATION o OSClLLATION ICOTP) NA NA NG l [
CHUGGING (CHTP) NA NA 0.43 0.43 0.43 j- TOTAL 4.06 10.56 11.34 17.85 11.56 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.M WElGHT (D) 1.63 m ,
# PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 1.33 808 i o=
2 [9 me
" THERMAL (TO ). (TA) 13.30 44 1
3o SAM 3.30 E5 1 0 m TOTAL 19.58 ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 37.50
)
- Combination number per Toble 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loade conaldered are first and subsequent actuatione whichever is greateet.
i ANoweble per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3WO. t tThe highe6 t DB A toed is used in the load combination. i
TABLE 6.4.3-12
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-210A,211A SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ ^^ DBA + SRV + EQ POINT EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25.27 WEIGHT (D) 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 PRESSURE (Pol, (PA) 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 550 m EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 0.17 NA 0.17 0.17 e
SRV" (SRVTP) 7.59 7.59 7.35 7.35 3.41 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 6.60f t g 6 CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA NG e o OSCILLATION (COTP)
' CHUGGING ICHTP) 0.53 0.53 0.53 TOTAL 11.86 12.03 12.18 12.33 14.46 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 16.44 1.8Sh = 24.66 1.8Sh = 24.66 2.4Sh = 32.88 2.4Sh = 32.88 WElGHT (D) 2.64 m
m PR2SSURE (Pol,(PA) 4.27 430R Q m z 4 "p 20.48 3 THERMAL (Tol. (TA) mm 44 gg SAM - Eo O TOTAL 27.39 i ( ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 37.50
' Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever is greatest.
i Alloweble per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC.35EiO. f f The highest D BA load la used in the load combination.
- O O
- -% ~
/
TABLE 6.4.3-13
~
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PlPE STRESSES hSI) - TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-2108,211B SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV +%EQ POINT 1 COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 i
WEIGHT (D) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 m EARTHOU AKE (E(S)) NA 1.11 N 1.11 1.11 121 m SRV"(SRVTP) 8.13 3.13 10.75 10.75 3.66
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 6.75 f t 4 CONOENSATION lE NG NA NA NA NA iE o OSCILLATION (COTP)
' CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.50 0.59 0.58 TOTAL 12.16 13.27 15.38 16.48 _ 15.56 ,
ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 16544 1.8Sh = 24.66 1.8Sh = 24.66 2.4Sh=WW 2.4Sh = 32.88 WplGHT (D) 0.28 - e " PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 5.07 2668 0 m$ 2 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 29.43
- f*H mm 1
gg SAM - E L Oo su TOTAL ,.
- 34.78 m
I ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 37.50 g
'Combinetton number per Table 3.2.4-2.
"SRV loeds considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
t Allowable per Toble 3.2.4-2 end ASME Code. Section NC-3050. t tThe highest DBA i sad le used in the load combination. -
~
' + .
> ~
h '
- em; s
W g
l TABLE 6.4.3-14
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-212 SRV SRV + EQ SBA FSRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ
^^
EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOC) 3 11 15 25,27 COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 WEIGHT (J) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 PRESSURE (Po),(PA l 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 0.74 NA 0.74 0.74 m 10A
$ 7.96 7.w6 2.67 g SRV" (SRVTP), (SRVB D) 1.13 1.13 m
y POOL SWELL IPSTPL (PSBD) NA NA 7.58 it 4 h CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA NG h O OSCILLATION (CO80). (COTPi g CHUGGING (CH8D). (CHTPI I 1.39 1.39 1.39 E TOTAL 2.08 2.82 10 30 11.04 11.94 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.44 1.RSh = 24.66 1.8Sh = 24.66 2.4Sh = 32.88 2.4Sh = 32.88 WElGHT (D) 0.59 m PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 1.00 o$ Z >e - THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 6.02 20 [" m a: 44 3O SAM 7.18 25
- a. ow TOTAL 14.79 m
ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 34.25
- Coo instion number per Toble 3.2.4 2.
**SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever le grestett.
tAllowable per Toble 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC.%80. f fThe highest D BA load le used in the load combination. s.
~ _ .
Y m * .s
.(
2
- n .
A' 'N s g +
' i
'~ '
- TABLE 6.4.3-16 l
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-213 SRV SRV + EQ l SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINAT'9N (NOC) INOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 T '
WElGHT (D) m 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.5 1A PRESNbE (Po$g4 1 , ,0.55 4 EART@UAKE (E(S)), NA 0.38 NA 0.38 0.2 m ' SRV" (SRVTP), (SRVBD) 0.53 0.53 1.18 - 1.18 0.53 3 - t E POOL SWELL (PSTP)(PSFI)
- NA
- NA 's '21.78it j h 8 CONDENSATION NA NA NG l E O OSClLLATION (COBD)
- a. -
Negligible sNegligible Negligible al CHUGGING (CHBD) s TOTAL 1.25 1.64 ,. ., JW' 2.29 23.42 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.0C Wh (J7.00 1.8Sh = 27.M 2.4Sh = 36.M 2.4Sh = 36.00 a , "WElGHT (D) 0.06 m ; 7 i, s g PRESSURE (Pol,(PA l 0.55 < 1M o __ Z >g-THERMAL (T O),(T A) 11.61 [* EE 44 2o SAM 2.97 E8 i d TOTAL 15.20 i ALLOWABLE t [ ' SAhSh = 37.50
- Combination number per Te -
**SRV toads considered are first and su'e sequent actuations, whichever le greeteet. g iAllowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC.30E0. 13 f f The highest DBA loed is used in the load combinetton. g A 1: .
\ Ny '. ,
QN s , 1 K 1
\ '
TABLE 6.4.3-16
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PlPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-214 EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA IBA + SRV DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER' 1 3 11 15 25,27 RUPTURE DISC NA NA 4.02 4.02 4.02 WEIGHT (D) 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 PRESSURE (P O ), (P ) A 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 85 h EARTHQU AKE (E(Sil NA 1.44 NA 1.44 1_44 5 SRV" (S RVTP), (S RVBD) 1.67 1.67 17.64 17.64 3.39 g POOL SWELL (PSTP) PSWL NA NA 4.53 tt E $ CONDENSATION o NA NA NA NA NG a OSCILLATION (COTP) CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.66 0.66 0.66 TOTAL 4.52 5.96 25.17 26.62 16.24 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 WEIGHT (D) 0.08
$ PRESSURE (Po (LA) S 2.00 70E OE k$ THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 16.12 as -
h$ SAM 1.31 gg _
'8vs TOTAL 19.50 l ALLOWABLCt SA+Sh = 37.50
- Combination number per Toble 3.2.4-2.
"SftV loads considered are first and subsequent actuanone, whichever is greatest.
t Alloweble per Table 3.2.4-2 end ASME code. Section NC.30Ei0. f f The highest D BA load is used in the load combination.
~
9 O 9
O% O b P TABLE 8.4.3-17
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-215 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION DBA + SRV + EQ (NOCl (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25.27 WElGHT (D) 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1A
, EARTHQUAKE (E(Sil NA 5.93 NA 5.93 5.93 lE
- SRV"(SRVTP),(SRVBD) 9.47 9.47 17.72 17.72 10.20 g _ _ . _
4 POOL SWELL (PSTP). (PSSD). (PSID) NA NA 5.9it CONDENSATION g O OSClLLATION (COTP) CHUGGING (CHTP NA NA 3.00 3.00 3.N TOTAL 22.24 18.13 24.02 29.95 25.42 ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.M 1.SSh = 27,# 2.4Sh = 38.00 2.4Sh = 38.00 WElGHT (D) 2.52 m
$ PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.2 Z"
"f 3
THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 12.54 m i 55 gg SAM -
=O y TOTAL 15.57 ALLOWABLE t SA+Sh = 37.2
*C _ number per Totde 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loede considered are first and subsequent actuatione, whichever le greeteet.
t Allowotne per Table 3 2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC40BO. t tThe highest DBA Iced is used in the load combination l l , _ _____ _ ___
TABLE 6.4.3-18
SUMMARY
OF TORtiS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-217 EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1 29 PRESSURE (Pol, (PA) 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 25 g EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 4.50 NA 4.50 4.50 e
$ SRV"(SRVTP) 1.76 1.76 7.14 7.14 1.76 K POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 1.755 h 8 CONDENSATION NA NA NG E! O OSCILLATION (COTP)
"- CHUGGING (CHTP) NA NA 0.21 0.21 0.21 TOTAL 3.26 7.76 8.84 13.34 9.51 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 cn o
y THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 8.14 25 E Z f[6- SAM 1.78 KE 44 gg E TOTALit 11.42 G. oO . g ALLOWABLE t SA+Sh = 37.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads cor sidered are first and out sequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-30Ei0. t i Pressure and weight stresses included. IThe highest D BA load is used in the load combination, l l 1 S 9 -- - -- -- - 9 -
p~ x TABLE 6.4.3-19
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PEDETRATION NO. X-218A SRV 5RV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOCl 3 11 15 25,27 COMBINATION NUMBER' 1 WEIGHT (D) 0.87 0 87 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 PRESSUREIPo),(PA) 1.07 NA 15.30 NA 15.30 15.30 10 g EARTHQUAKE (f(SI) 8.61 y SRV"(SRVTP) 8.61 8.61 13.10 13.10
> NA E POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA 3.046 h 6 CONDENSATION NA NA NG iE O OSCILLATION (COTP)
A NA NA 0.97 0.97 0.97 CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 10.55 19.49tt 16.01 31.31 28.09 i ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 16.44 1.8Sh
- 24 88 18Sh = 24.05 2.4Sh = 32.88 2.4Sh = 32.M WEIGHT (D) 0.82 us 25 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.05 0 $
zm [r 52 [ THERMAL (Tol,(TA) 0.28 SAM 14.34
]g E8 TOTAL 16.08 g
ALLOWABLE t SA+Sh = 34.25 -
'Combinetton number per Table 3142.
**SRV loads considered are first end subsequent actuoh. whichever le greatest.
t ANoweble per Toble 3.2.42 and ASME Code, Section NC.350. it Total = Weight + Pressure + SRSSl(EO(S) + SRV)L IThe highest DBA load le used in the leed combination.
TABLE 6.4.3-20
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-220 EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25.27 WElGHT (D) 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 PRESSURE (Pol. (PA) 0.74 S.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 60B g EARTHQUAKE (EIS#l NA 14.28 NA 14.28 14 28 E
$ SRV** (SRVTP) 2.66 2.66 2.16 2.16 0.25 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 0.Sitt
$ CONDENSATION E o NA NA NA NA NG E o OSCILLATION ICOTP)
' CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.47 0.47 0 47 TOTAL 4.57 18.85 4.S3 18.82 17.35 ALLOWABLE i 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 WEIGHT (D) 1.01 us y PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.74 E5 4[
3 sc w THERMAL (TO ). (TA) 16.02 67 44 Eo SAM 0.14 E$ . TOTAL 17.91 ALLOWABLE i SA+Sh = 37.00
' Combination nurriber per Table 3.2.4-2. **SRV k. ads cono dered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
8 t Anowable pr Toble 3.2.4 2 and ASME Code. Section NC.3050. f f The higtest D8 A bad is used in the load combination. O O O
C O O TABLE 6.4.3-21
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-221A SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV i DATA EVENT COMBINATION + EQ + SAM (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25.27 WEIGHT (D) 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.41 0.41 0.41 , 0.41 0.41 MB i
I EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA 0.N NA 0.N 0.06 E SAM NA NA NA 20.92 20.92
- G g SRV** (SRVTP) 1.67 1.67 5.75 5.M 1.67
. E POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 3.076
- f $ CONDENSATION g i O OSCILLATION ICOTP)
CHUGGING (CHTP) NA NA 0.20 0.20 0.20 l TOTAL 2.15 2.80 6.43 28 00 28.50 ALLOWABLE i 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 35.00 2.4Sh = 38.00 to g THERMAL (TO ). (TA) 19.14 008 og Z >- [ '8 SAM (included in combinations 15 and 25. 27 totals) kk 5
- gg TOTALit 19.82 Eo i O ALLOWABLE t SA+Sh = 37.M
, so I
' Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loede considered are first and subseq sent actuatione, whichever le greatest.
t Allowable par Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC.3EBO. i t Pressure and weight stresses included. j IThe highest DSA load is used in the Boed combinetton.
4 TABLE 6.4.3-22
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-221C SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION DBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WElGHT (D) 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.13 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
$ EARTHQUAKE (EIS)) NA 3.97 NA 3.97 3.97 100A a
$ SRV** (SRVTP) 4.62 4.62 12.08 12.08 4.62
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 3.000 g $ CONDENSATION NA NA NG O OSCILLATION (COTP)
[ NA NA 0.52 0.52 0.52 CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 6.13 10.10 14.11 18.08 13.10 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sn = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 en THERMAL (TO ), (TA) 19.05 100A o$ Z-E 4[I 3 EE SAM 9.56 44 gg TOTALit 30.12 E8 ALLOWABLEt g SA+Sh = 37.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads consid* red are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
i Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-30F0. ti Pressure and weight stresses included. GThe highest DB A load is used in the load combination. O O O
T 3
)
TABLE 6.4.3 23
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSil TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-223A SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DATA EVENT COMBINATION DBA + SRV + EQ POINT (NOC) (NOCl IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ COrABINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25.27 WElGHT (0J 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 PREESURE (Pol, (PA) OA1 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 m EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA 0.17 NA 0.17 0.17 30
$ (inside)
SRV" (SRVTP). (SRVTJ) 6.11 6.11 15.46 15.46 5.12 h E POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 5.00 f t 3 $ CONDENSATION NA NA NG E o OSCILLATION (COTP) L CHUGGING (CHTP) NA NA 0.04 0.84 0.84 TOTAL 6.73 6.90 16.92 17.00 11.00 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sg = 22.56 1.8Sh
- M 84 18Sh = M.84 2.4Sh = 46.12 2.4Sh = 46.12 WElGHT (D) 0.06 m
PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 0.56
@$ g .__,
THERMAL (TO ). (TA) 11.24 80 f* mg (outside) 44 Ig SAM 8.01 EO Eo 20.46 g TOTAL ALLOWABLE t SA+Sh = 37.2 _
'Cornbination nu%ber per 7able 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loeds considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
i Allowable per Table 3.2.42 and ASME Code. Section NC.30EO. ti The highaea DBA load is used in the load combir.ation. l l l l
TABLE 6.4.3-24
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES tXSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-223B EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SR'/ & EQ ^^ (NOC) (NOC) fBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ POINT COMBINATION AUMBER* 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 m EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 0.17 NA 0.17 0.17 30
$ (inside) h SRV" (SRVTP), (SRVTJ) 6.11 6.11 15.45 15.45 5.12
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 5.69 tt g 8 CONDENSATION NA NA NG cc 0 OSCILLATION (COTP)
- NA NA 0.84 CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.84 0.84 TOTAL 6.73 6.90 16.92 17.09 11.60 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 22.56 1.8Sh = 33.84 1.8Sh = 33 84 2.4Sh = 45.12 2.4Sh = 46.12 WEIGHT (D) 0.56 m
PRESSURE (Pol, (PA) 0.62 o$g Z >- (( THERMAL (TO ). (TA) 5.19 5 mm (outside) gg E SAM 4.79
'Ou g TOTAL 11.15 ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 37.50
*Combinetion number per Table 3.2.4-2.
**SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuotions, whichever la greetest.
f ANowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-10li0. f f The highect DBA loed le used in the loed combinetion. 9 O O
i l l O O O i I l l TABLE 6.4.3-25 ANALYSIS RESULTS HPCI X-214 RETURN LINE RESTRAINT NOC LOAD COMBINATION: D + R o+ SRVBD ( L I NE 'C *A1.1 ) + SRVBD ( L I NE E 'A1.1 ) LOADING SRVBD SRVBD SERVICE D R LINE C(A1.1) LINE E(A1.1) TOTAL LEVEL A - COMPONENT (KSI) (KS$) IESII IKSII (KSI) ALLOW. ( KSI ) CANTILEVER
.6 .9 1.3 .2 3.0 21. 6( F b)
(6*X BOX l SECTION) RESTRAINT
.3 .9 2.1 1.1 4.4 21.1 ( F b) th0Mg ) PIPE) i l
s i
TABLE 6.4.3-26 ANALYSIS RESULTS HPCI X-214 RETURN LINE RESTRAINT SBA/IBA+SRV+EO LOAD COMBINATION: D +R o+RA+ E( 0 ) +SRVBD ( L INE'C'A1. 2 ) + MAX ( COBD /CHBD ) LOADING SRVBD MAX SERVICE D R R E(0) LINE CfA1.2) ( CO /CH ) TOTAL LEVEL B (KSI) ALLOW.(KSI) (KSI) (KSI) COMPONENT (KSI) (KS$) (KS$) (KSI) CANTILEVER
^ .6 .9 .7 '2.8 2.1 8.3 15.4 21. 6( F b)
(6'X 1 BOX SECTION) , RESTRAINT 8 M 15.8 ( 0 c .3 .9 .8 2.9 3.5 7.4 21.1 ( F b) PIPE) 4 O O O
O O O I i TABLE 6.4.3-27 ANALYSIS RESULTS HPCI X-214 RETURN LINE RESTRAINT
- OBA+SRV+EO LOAD COWINATION
- D+R o+R +E( 4 S ) +SRVBD (LINE'C'A1.1 )+ MAX ( PSBD /PSLJ ) +PSID 5
i LOADING SRVBD (PyBD/ SERVICE D Ro Ra E(S) ( LINE 'C'A1.1 ) PSLJ) PSID TOTAL LEVEL C COWONENT (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) ALLOW. ( KSI ) (KSI) (KSI) CANTILEVER
^
(6-X 1 BOX .6 .9 .7 3.9 1.3 6.8 6.5 20.T 28. 8( F b) J SECTION) i RESTRAINT ] g 6g .3 .9 .8 4.1 2.1. 4.2 4.5 16.9 28.1 ( F b) PIPE) i 1
TABLE 6.4.3-28 ANALYSIS RESULTS RHR X-210A AND B RETURN LINE RESTRAINT NOC LOAD COMBINATION: D+Ro+SRVBD i ,u t LINEC( A1.1 )+LINE E( A1.111 LOADING SRVBD SRVBD SERVICE LINE C( A1.1 ) LINE E( A1.1 ) LEVEL A COMPONENT (K I) (K$) (KSI) (KSI) f ALLOW.(KSI) RESTRAINT (12" CH.
.3 .3 2.9 .3 3.8 21.1 ( F b) 120 PIPE)
CANTILEVER
^ .1 .8 3.8 .3 5.0 21.1 ( F b)
(12" CH. 120 PIPE) BR CES (8'O SCH. .3 .0 1.0 .4 1.7 21.1 ( F b) 120 PIPE) 9 O O
O O O l TABLE 6.4.3-29 i ANALYSIS RESULTS , RHR X-210A AND B RETURN LINE RESTRAINT i SBA/IBA+SRV+E0 LOAD COWINATION: D+Ro+RA +CHBD+SRVBD t .s ILINE C(A1.2)1+E(0) LOADING SRVBDi,s SERVICE D Ro CHBD LINE C(A1.2) E(0) TOTAL LEVEL B RA j COMPONENT (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) ALLOW.(KSI)
- RESTRAINT l (12" CH.
.3 .3 1.3 12.3 4.3 .6 19.1 21.1 120 PIPE)
CANTILEVER (12'O CH. .1 .8 3.0 5.9 5.7 1.5 17.0 21.1 120 PIPE) BRACES (8"O SCH. .3 .0 .1 7.3 1.4 .4 9.5 21.1 ! 120 PIPE)
TAB LE 6.4.3-30 ANALYSIS RESULTS RHR X-210A AND B RETURN LINE RESTRAINT DBA+SRV+E0 LOAD COMBINATION: D+Ro +R4+CHBD+SRVBD 1.siLINE C( A1.111+E( S ) LOADING SRVBD t .s SERVICE D CHBD LINE C(A1.1) E(S) TOTAL Ro RA (g }) W* KSI) COMPONENT (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) AL RESTRAINT
^ .3 .3 0.2 12.3 2.9 .8 16.8 28.1 (12- CH.
l 120 PIPE) CANTILEVER
^ .1 .8 .4 5.9 3.8 2.2 13.2 28.1 (12' CH.
120 PIPE) BRACES (8 0 SCH. .3 .0 .1 7.3 1.0 .6 9.3 28.1 120 PIPE) I O O O
[ t c*
~'
%- , ii ,
p 603, r l*
---. s 7
)
'o I
'b V &X Q-lO. O
+eg C
& li
- A
'~~-. sy x t,,, e.
'#* / *
+, O ,
(4\ ir O ,* s o,
'#o, ,
b yr
.s s x+,~ .
s - ah 4 20 e c-t (g)($) 11, # 'o xe >,e e ,. x .,. o O +#, O
& N -
(.
r i I k ?
' ,s i s; 2 -t o 2 -i %_
iz 9%: 1-4%-
+. hr e-s g4
# 0
, d '* I N*
+
e, o
$s$ "O #
.+
l.I t 4'
\ N h' ~~~ #*' i r , *~
$,, 'Nt
'e.
*o. , g's y
,s *f C 9 4 -
x
*<< 4A l 4A '
s8 1
% 1I
( 30 g J i FIG U R E 6.4.3-1 ANALYTICAL MODEL TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING X-214 :
O O O edi'm 1
~
4+s/ \ t
# I
& 1 L +>
e . 6 g
* , ,/ g 4 A c
* 4
# r[
# 8 .
's ,
,,$,s o*
flGURE 6.4.3.g ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR SMALL BORE PIPING WITH EXFANSION LOOP l
- O O O o- 20 e SCN.1oo ,,
'1 N 2, 2s 2T rs 25 24 23 12 21 2o 1
I ~ \ " ( l 8 8 i t l l 1 l . e DETAIL /TN l l
' ?
l 1 - (./ -l *
' so- l l 2To- l LRESTRAINT
- 1 % ! !
l l l l l I l l 1 l l l l l' l l . RR No otRoER : 2' ' 2' : g,o. ,',22 $. RING BAR ELEENTS KEY PLAN SECTION M N D HPCI X254 RESTRAINT 244 PIPE , a RING GIRoER FINITE ELE ENT N0 DEL T, 17 TOP VIEW 7 ll._____ 1 W
244 HPCI PIPE , ,13 Il TORUS SHELL r244 PIM
" ! [ $ P!PE RESTRAINT
. ,g . 1L ll EL . t oS *-2
- 2!go TORUS WATER LEVEL s
BAR ELEENT 1.95s*
' ,i i ,,, ,,
ii e-ll ;s
! 5 SECTION M
/ Td:
W d 3 HPCI X214 RESTRAINT DETAIL O1 FIGURE S.4.3-3 2 FINITE ELEENT N D PLAN VIEW HPCI X214 RESTRAINT
- HPQ LN EMME - MRWN NE t
O O O 0*
- h
! DEF 10N VENTS OR SRVOLS CONSIDERED NPCI x 214 RESTRAINT s , , ,
iRPV 2 SRV90 3,; SRVOLt* 90 SRVOLt* ows t* V V SRV80,,, ,3,y SRv0Lt* and t' SRV802 .M C3.1 SRVB0g ,$ , SRVOLt* SRVB0 SRVOLt*
- 9 ,,
h SRv80,,y SRv0Lt* i 00WNC0tER VENT x 2*S C3.2 (TYP.t / P580 ALL VENTS PSLJ VE:4TS @8 @ C080 ALL VENTS - AVE. SOURCE STRENGTH E COBO VENT @ - W X. SOURCE STRENGTH Coe0 vtNT @ - m x. source STRENcTH YENTS @8 @ IN PHASE g $ CNB0 CNan vtNTS @ a @ OUT PNASE O G PARTIAL PLAN VIEW - TORUS INTERIOR FIGUM 6.4.34 VENTS AND S/RVDLs CONSIDERED IN HPCI X-214 RESTRAINT ANALYSIS
O I l
,l g 8UILT-UP SECTION OF RESTRAINT l
i 4,Y
; , s /,
e i i 2 le' _ d eej s l
. :i ! 8 EXISTING RING GIRDER FLANGE COORDINATE
- - i;
'i '/
SYSTEM , ! ELEVATION VIEW RESTRAINT TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION (@ NODE 18) EVENT COldt! NATION (K$PS1 (K$PS1 (K$PS1 (IN- IPS1 (IN- IPS1 NOC 19.0 3.1 20.8 25.3 56.1 5BA/IBA + SRV + EQ 118.6 6.6 168.6 44.7 99.4 DBA + SRV + EQ 110.8 48.5 137.9 459.0 791.6 (@ NODE 30) . EVENT cot 4!! NATION (K$PS1 (K$PS1 (K$PS1 (IN- IPS1 (IN-IIPS1 NOC 16.0 2.5 53.6 24.1 46.2 i, SBA/IBA + SRV + EQ 61.1 5.3 i . /.3 42.6 81.6 DBA + SRV + EQ 45.5 47.0 136.5 456.7 7883 FIGURE 6.4.3-5 HPCI X-214 RESTRAINT- REACTION
SUMMARY
AT RESTRAINTTO RING GIRDER CONNECTION O
O O O cS 22 RING cIROER o ttoRus
~ ' DETAIL A i w @
270* 3 [12* e sen.120 g : A2 90* [v! >- g
]
16 4 RHR P!PE 4 re e 12 4 ,2.. . ..,20 feo. ' RING CIROER KEY PLAN PLAN VIEW RHR X210A & 8 ItESTRAINT FINITE ELEE NT adODEL RING CIROER I ' @ L i k
~
0 _* -- 165 FIPE l ~ TORUS SHELL [ O E. i 8 i in;nalm!: i{
/-' ""5 5""' \s / \ # I g
*
- s, g ggEL.103*-6V.* TORUS WATER LEVEL
- ----,; w. s* **
man!NT e n.fot -TM-
,EL.10f 'f f h*
164 RHR PtPE
!ilj e) RING CIROER e7 .4 l1 SECTION m SECTION m b lf a SECTION e DETAIL m / FIGURE S.4.3-6 w w
PLA VIEW RHR X210A e 3 RESTRAINT RHR X-210A AND B RESTRAINT - ANALYTICAL MODE 8
O O O o-RHR x 2108 RESTRAINT
\ '
c oErI^EiON VENTS OR SRVoLS CONstoERED l k SR
- t.s At.: 5"* * *
! 7 "" A. v m v i 5"
- 2.s es.i savso,,, ,3,,
sR a c-sRvott w c-seveo,,, c3,, sR a t w c-
+ -$' T sR m ,,3 ,,,, sR a c-MP, '
sa m .. A2.2 same-i sRvoo,,, ,3,, sRvot o-
'@ sRvoor .s es.2 5"* *
- 00WNC0eER VENT Ps8o ALL VENTS ALL YENTS - AVE. SOURCE STRENCTH VENT @ - Max. SOURCE STRENGTH C 80 vtNT @ - uax. source sTRENcTu VENTS @%@ IN PHASE N VENTS @ a @ OUT PHASE D
0 PARTIAL PLAN VIEW - TORUS INTERIOR FIGU RE 6.4.3-7 VENTS AND SIRVDLs CONSIDERED IN RHR X 210B RESTRAINT ANALYGIS
.sog p p P .- -- ---- ---------- ,fgjj NOCE @ OR h-Y ELEVATION VIEW X - X-210A8B RESTRAINT COORDINATE SYSTEM O @ NODE 17 FX FY FZ MX MY MZ EVENT COMBINATION (KIPS) (KIPS) (KlPS) (IN - KlPS) (IN - KlPS) (IN KIPS)
NOC 3.7 3.8 7.5 50.5 0 138.8 SBAllBA + SRV + E (Q) 28.8 7.1 35.7 371.4 0 511.1 DBA + SRV + E (Q) 28.3 5.95 29.5 345.8 0 425.0 1 O NODE 12 EVENT COMBINATION (IN K:PS) (IN KlPS) (IN . KlPS) (KIPS) (KIPS) (CPS) l NOC 8.1 5.8 9.4 185.5 0 93.8 SBAllBA + SRV + E(Q) 34.4 10.5 33.7 480.4 0 477.0 DBA + SRV + E(Pt 33.5 7.9 31.5 388.7 0 407.4 FIGURE 6 4.3-8 RHR X-210 RESTRAINT - REACTION
SUMMARY
AT RESTRAINTTO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
. . . rf". 9 Os . .v. a. L
\
N00E @OR h a y ELEVATION VIEW i r X-210A8B RESTRAINT 000RDINATE SYSTEM
@ NODE 22 kj EVENT COMBINATION FX FY FZ MX MY MZ (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIPS) (IN . KIPS) (IN . KIPS) (IN . KIPS)
NOC 5.5 12.9 B.7 0 0 0 SBA/IBA + SRV + E(Q) 27.8 87.7 46.3 0 0 0 DBA + SRV + E(S) 25.2 82.6 41.8 0 0 0
@ NODE 27 EVENT COMBINATION FX W FZ MX MY MZ I (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIPS) (IN . KIPS) (IN . KIPS) (IN . KIPS)
NOC 6.7 16.2 10.2 0 0 0 SDAllBA + SRV + E(Q) 24.9 67.7 46.8 0 0 0 DBA + SRV + EIS) 22.5 61.8 42.1 0 0 0 FIG U R E 6.4.3-9 RHR X.210 RESTRAINT - REACTION
SUMMARY
AT PIPE BRACE TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
i
,,3 t \
V 4!
- 8. 0.2 0.6 0.s 0.0 3.y0 h' u I
l.5 .5 I
- l i., ; i.e t
i 3
... 1 :. . ,
! ) , q t f I '
l-v [ c-i nuf
, yvy
[ ii , 2 0 (oJ B ll 6 1 4 l 1 t i 4 I 1
-l.e S.D l I l 3 ., /
l \
-.. o.: a.6,,,, ,,,,,
o.s o.O S v'd
* ;3 i
AGU RE 6.4.3-10
' f s,
l X-ACCELI r' ATIO:s TIME HISTORY FOR PENETRATIOlJ NO. X-214 S/RV CASE A2.2(SHEET 1 OF3) i ps l l
(\ (_)
,,,.. ..g,g.
1 I
'5 i 2.s 1
1 f 1 a f 3 a i t f i p i l, - bi l ..
'I I 1 l\ '\l .
l J N ] *
]l [
0 ) ] j
)i O 1 i
i ( s)
- x. { g i
-o. s ,,, !
1 I l l l
a- oa e..,,,, ,,,,,
o.. ... i..tB' FIGU RE 6.4.3-10 Y-ACCELERATION TIME HISTORY FOR PENETRATION NO. X-214 ' S/RV CASE A2.2(SHEET 2 OF3) i n v
s./
.EI,..
.. . p E3
- 0. . .0 l 1
- 0. t .t f I
{ e.: l % h I \ !\ . I, ' r
) t njv l -c.2 t J) J e
c.2 (l @ i j 1 L o.. -
-o.t
/ 1 I
.... a..
' . ..a ...,,,, ,,,,, ... o.. i.oi!
FIG U RE 6.4.3-10 Z-ACCELERATION TIME HISTORY FOR PENETRATION NO. X-214 S/RV CASE A2.2(SHEET 3 OF 3) [v
r% 5,_) t r .O 2 3 s t s t el 2 a s 7 s t +2 2 3 t me 1 2.0 2.0 4 A l.5 .5 1
)
l l j - y 1.0 .0 f p G ,\ l O., :.. j f ( ~
~# .
IE *O 2 3 $ 7 S E *3 g g 5 7 S E *2 a s s 7 asil FIGU RE 6.4.3-11 RESPONSE SPECTRUM-PENETRATION NO. X-214 X-DIRECTION S/RV CASE A2.2(SHEET 1 OF3) O V
h
; /
Li It se 2 3 5 7 ef st 2 3 5 7 B E *2 2 3 5 7 a t *3 f% f% 1.0 ;.0 0.0 0. 8 m l ...
/
I T
/ \ R l
0.4 - - - - :.5 s t
%s f a
D.2 .--
,1 :. 2
< / .
3 2 5 7 BEM 11 *C 2 3 5 7 SE*l 4 5 7 S E *2 3 i l l FIGU RE 6.4.3-11 l RESPONSE SPECTRUM-l PENETRATION NO. X-214 Y-DIRECTION S/RV CASE A2.2(SHEET 2 OF3)
<m v
/' 3 k l
% j' s f.e 2 3 . 1 . t +s 2 3 . ? s f .2 2 3 s 7 ar 0.0 0.0 m
! ..e
=..
i f f I
, ... =..
n! N O.2 0.2 i, . . .
,'... > > . , .h
,3,,, a, ,,,, . , .
FIGU RE 6.4.3-11 RESPONSE SPECTRUM-PENETRATION NO. X-214 Z-DIRECTION S/RV CASE A2.2(SHEET 3 OF3) ( (
\%
- N 6.4.4 . Valve and Pump Operability and Functionality 1
In accordance with Reference 6-2, operability is defined as the ability-of an active component to p'erform mechanical motion. The term " active component" applies to a valve or pump in an essential piping system that is required to perform such motion while accomplishing a system safety. function. Functionality is defined as the ability of the piping system to pass rated flow. Rules for application of operability and function-ality requirements follow. o Valves Active components are considered operable and functional if a) level A or B service limits are met unless the original component design criteria establish more conservative limits, and b) structural integrity of the entire assembly is established by considering appropriate material allowable limits. If the original component design criteria do establish more conservative limits, conformance with these more conservative limits shall be demonstrated even if level A and B service
~ ~~ ' ~
limits are met'. If level A and B service limits are not satisfied, and therefore either level C or D service limits are satisfied, then demon-stration of operability is required. O C/ o Pumps Pumps are considered operable and functional when the piping load on the pump nozzle does not exceed the nozzle design allowable load. 6.4.4.1' Analytical Model Description The valves and pumps on the torus-attached piping were modeled as an integral part of various piping systems. The methnd of modeling valve assemblies'is described in subsection 6.4.3.1. For pumps, the connec-tions between the piping and the pump nozzle are modeled as anchors capable of resisting axial and shear forces as well as torsional and bending moments. 6.4.4.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations J Valve assemblies and pumps are directly exposed to and evaluated for LTP and non-LTP related loads as applied to the respective piping systems. The design loads and load combinations applicable to tnese piping systems are shown in subsection 6.4.3.2 and Section 4.2, respectively. For valves (in addition to the above design loads), the actuator thrust and
-service pressure are considered for evaluation by the valve manufacturer.
/% k 6.4-14
6.4.4.3 Design Allowables Valve assemblies and pumps as related to the torus-attached piping are classified as Class 2 components. These components were originally procured to meet the requirements of subsection NC-3000 of the ASME Code. For valves, the acceleration levels specified in the project specifica-tions are considered as allowables for qualification. For pumps, where design allowables per the manufacturer's drawings are exceeded, allow-ables given in the FSAR are considered applicable. 6.4.4.4 Method of Analysis The valve accelerations and loads on the pumps for the torus-attached piping systems were determined by the analysis methods shown in subsec-tion 6.4.3.4. The criteria for valve evaluation are summarized below. o The LTP accelerations were combined with the seismic accelera-tions by the absolute summation method. The two highest combined acceleration components are compared with the manu-facturer's qualified acceleration levels for valve assemblies in accordance with project specifications. If the qualified acceleration levels are not exceeded, the valve assemblies are considered acceptable. If the qualified acceleration levels are exceeded, the SRSS of the two highest combined acceleration components is compared with the SRSS of the qualified acceler-ation levels to ensure that the qualified acceleration levels are not exceeded. o The accelerations are recalculated based on the SRSS method of combining the LOCA-related acceleration components. If the SRSS combination of the two highest components of the recalculated accelerations does not exceed the SRSS of the qualified levels by more than 25 percent, the valve assembly is considered acceptable. The scarces of conservatism cited in Section 8.0 provide sufficient justification for accepting these results. o If the above criteria cannot be satisfied, the vendor is requested to requalify for higher accelerations. The criteria for evaluating pumps are summarized below. o Determine piping loads at pump nozzles. o Ensure that piping loads on the nozzle are below the manufacturer's/ FSAR allowables. o If loads exceed the allowables, recalculate the loads by combinir.g the dynamic load components using the SRSS method (instead of the absolute summation method), and then compare them with the allowables. If the recalculated loads still exceed the allowables, the increase.d loads are referred to the pump manufacturer for resolution. O 6.4-15
[ 6.4.4.5 Summary of Results The' valves and pumps evaluated in the torus-attached piping analyses are Wnose up to the first rigid anchor or up to the point where the effect of torus motion has been considered insignificant. The piping systems considered for analyses are listed in Table 2.5.1-1. o Valves Out of a total of 49 valve assemblies considered in the analyses, 39 have been evaluated for operability and functionality, and were found to be acceptable based on criteria cited in subsec-tion 6.4.4.4. The remaining 10 valves are currently under evaluation. , o Pumps Ten pumps have been evaluated for operability and functionality, and were found to be acceptable based on criteria cited in subsection 6.4.4.4. O O 6.4-16
T
6.5 REFERENCES
6-1 G. Everstine, " Coupled Vibrations of a Structure in a Compressible Fluid." 6-2 " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide," General Electric Company, Report No. NE00-24583-1, October 1979. 6-3 F. A. Leckie and R. K. Penny, "(1) A Critical Study of the Solutions for Asymmetric Bendirig of Spherical Shells, (2) Solutions for the Stresses in Nozzles in Pressure Vessels, (3) Stress Concentration Factors for the Stresses at Nozzle Intersections in Pressure Vessels," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 90 (September 1963). 6-4 K. R. Wichman, A. G. Hopper, and J. L. Mershon, " Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loadings," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 107 (August 1965, revised March 1979). 6-5 " Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association, Inc.," Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association, Inc., Fifth Edition, 1980. 6-6 S. S. Manson, " Thermal Stress and Low Cycle Fatigue," McGraw-Hill, 1966. O O 6.5-1
O O O i
. APPENDIX C (Continued)
COMPONENT CATEGORY MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION . DESIGN DRAWING /AE FABRICATION / ERECTION DRAWING - CB&I Vent System 7. Addition of high-- B-11022/SCS Drawing'29 (Contract No. 04391) (Continued) strength pins at the ends of the vent header support columns
- 8. Cutting and capping NA/Bechtel Drawing 122 (Contract No. 04391) the vent header drain lines Internal Structures 1. Modification of H-40004/SCS Drawing 70 (Contract No. 04391) catwalk inside the H-40005/SCS Drawing 71 torus Drawing 72
- 2. Modification'of H-40042/SCS Drawing 87 (Contract No. 04391) monorail inside the Drawing 88 torus S/RV Piping 1. Addition of 112D2809/GE Drawing 68 (Contract No. 04391)
T quencher discharge Dra' sing 69 devices inside the Drawing 123 torus
- 2. Addition'of vacuum N/A N/A breakers to safety /
relief valve discharge lines
APPENDIX C (Continued) COMPONENT CATEGORY MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION DESIGN DRAWING /AE FABRICATION / ERECTION DRAWING - CB&I S/RV Piping Supports 1. Addition of T quencher H-12536/SCS Drawings 30 (Contract No. 04391) supports H-12537/SCS to 61
- a. Support beams H-12538/SCS
- b. Beam supports H-12539/SCS
- c. Gusset plate H-12540/SCS reinforcing H-40009/SCS H-40027/SCS ,
- 2. Addition / modification DCR 82-75/Bechtel N/A of S/RVDL supports inside the drywell Torus-Attached 1. Addition of elbows S-2-22-79/SCS Drawing 2 (Contract No. 04391)
Piping and Supports to the RHR test lines Inside the Torus
- 2. Modifications to H-12541 Drawings 3 (Contract No. 04391) return line restraints H-40008 to 9
- 3. Modifications to H-15032/Bechtel Drawing 86 (Contract No. 04391) spray header supports
- 4. Reroute instrument DCR 82-75/Bechtel N/A air lines; addition /
modification of supports Torus-Attacned 1. Reroute small bore DCR 82-75/SCS N/A Piping and Supports piping Outside the Torus
- 2. Addition / modification DCR 82-75/SCS- N/A of piping supports Bechtel O O O
j, . l
. O O i
l-1 l APPENDIX C (Continued) l COMPONENT CATEGORY MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION DESIGN DRAWING /AE FABRICATION / ERECTION DRAWING - CB&I
- Torus-Attached 3. Modification of TAP
- N/A
, Piping and Supports valve components Outside the Torus ' (Continued) Suppression Pool 1. Addition of thermowells H-40028/SCS Drawing 77 .(Contract No. 04391) Temperature and half-couplings Monitoring i S/RV Logic Change 1. MSIV isolation level GE N/A j logic change
- 2. S/RV low-low set logic GE N/A i
i i i
*If required. Thirty-nine valve assemblies have been evaluated and were found to be acceptable. The remaining 10 valves are currently under evaluation.
i i l l. 4
- ~ .
1 i. p -
, t PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT - SUPPLEMENT 1
- FOR i i E.I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2.
i DOCKET NO. 50-366 MARK I CONTAINMENT LONG-TERM PROGRAM f i j l- : i ,
- -1 e
i-I 4 ! (_ . PREPARED I FOR i-GEORGIA POWER COMPANY , SOUTHERN COMPANY SERVICES, INC. !
! i I i i
4 i l, BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAMC i 2. l l ? j REVISION 0 l l FEBQUARY 1983 ) t. 1 i r s i ? f ! i i ! ! I ! I t i i i i : b
PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT - SUPPLEMENT h FOR E. I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT-2 INSERTION INSTRUCTIONS Remove and insert the PUAR pages, tables, and figures listed below. Dashes (---) in.the Remove column indicate that no action is required. REMOVE INSERT Pages i/ii through xxiv Pages i/ii through xxviii Page 2.4-1/ Table 2.4.1-1 Page 2.4-1/ Table 2.4.1-1 Figure 2.4.1-7 Page 2.4-2/ Table 2.4.2-1 Page 2.4-2/ Table 2.4.2-1 Table 2.4.2-2 Figure 2.4.2-7 OV Page 2.5-1 Page 2.5-1/2.5-2, Table 2.5.1-1, Figures 2.5.1-1 through 2.5.1-14, Page 2.5-3/ Table 2.5.2-1, Tables 2.5.2-2/2.5.2-3, Figures 2.5.2-1 through-2.5.2-13 Pages 6.1-9/6.1-10, 6.1-11/ Table Pages 6.1-9/6.1-10, 6.1-11/ 6.1.3-1, Table 6.1.3-2/Page Table 6.1.2-1, Figures 6.1.2-1 6.2-1, Pages 6.2-2/6.2-3 through and 6.1.2-2, Page 6.1-12/ 6.2-10/6.2-11, Tables 6.2.1-1 6.1-13, Tables 6.1.3-1/6.1.3-2, through 6.2.1-6 Pages 6.2-1/6.2-2 through 6.2-11/ Table 6.2.1-1, Tables 6.2.1-2 through 6.2.1-6 Pages 6.4-1/6.4-2, 6.4-3/ Table Pages 6.4-1/6.4-2, 6.4-3/ 6.4.1-1 Table 6.4.1-1 Pages 6.4-8/6.4-9, 6.4-10/6.5-1 Pages 6.4-8/6.4-9 through 6.4-12/ Table 6.4.3-1, Tables 6.4.3-2 through 6.4.3-29, Figures 6.4.3-1 through 6.4.3-14, Pages 6.~4-13/6.4-14, 6.4-15/6.5-1 There are three pages in Appendix C. Please remove the last two pages from the book and insert the revised pages. (D/. .. \ >
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ~ > Page, i LIST OF TABLES ix 4 - LIST OF FIGURES -xv . LIST OF ACRONYMS xxviii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0-2 1.1 Description of the Hatch Unit-2 Containment System 1.1-1
- 1. 2 Review of Phenomena 1.2-1~
1.2.1 Design Basis Accident- 1.2-2 1.2.2 Intermediate Break Accident- 1.2-5
- 1.2.3 Small Break Accident 1.2-6 1.2.4 Safety / Relief Valve Actuation
~
1.2-7 i
- 1. 3 Short-Term Program Summary 1.3-1 1.4 Long-Term Program Description 1.4-1 i- 1. 5 Plant Unique Analysis Report - Objective 1 5-1 l 1.6 References 1.6-1
( 12 . 0 COMPONENT DESCRIPTION R.1-1 2.1 Suppression Cnamber 2.1-1 2.1.1 Original Configuration 2.1-1 2.1.2 Structural Modifications 2.1-2 2.2 Vent System 2.2-1 ! 2.2.1 Original Configuration 2.2-1 , 2.2.2 Structural Modifications 2.2-2 2.3 Internal Structures 2.3-1 i j 2.3.1 Original Configuration 2.3-1 2.3.2 Structural Modifications 2.3-3 , 2.4 S/RV Piping and Supports 2.4-1 2.4.1 Original Configuration 2.4-1 2' 2.4.2 Structural Modifications 2.4-2 I. O - l l . 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 2.5 Torus-Attached Piping and Supports 2.5-1 2.5.1 Original Configuration 2.5-1 2.5.2 Structural Modifications 2.5-3 3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1-1 3.1 Design Specifications 3.1-1 3.1.1 Original Design Specification 3.1-1 3.1.2 Specifications for Modifications 3.1-2 3.2 Structural Acceptance Criteria 3.2-1 3.2.1 Classification of Structural Components 3.2-3 3.2.2 Loadings 3.2-7 3.2.3 Design and Service Limits 3.2-9 3.2.4 Component-Loadings-Service Limit Assignments 3.2-11 3.2.5 ASME Code Criteria 3.2-13 3.3 References 3.3-1 4.0 LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS 4.1-1 4.1 Loads 4.1-1 4.1.1 Original Design Specification Loads 4.1-1 4.1.2 Containment System Temperature and Pressure Response to LOCA 4.1-3 4.1.2.1 Design Basis Accident 4.1-3 4.1.2.2 Intermediate Break Accident 4.1-3 4.1.2.3 Small Break Accident 4.1-4 4.1.3 Vent System Thrust Loads Due to LOCA 4.1-5 4.1.3.1 Analytical Procedure 4.1-5 4.1.3.2 Assumptions 4.1-7 4.1.3.3 Analysis Results 4.1-8 4.1.3.4 Application 4.1-8 4.1. 4 Pool Swell Loads 4.1-10 4.1. 4.1 Torus Net Vertical Load Histories 4.1-10 4.1.4.2 Torus Shell Pressure Histories 4.1-11 4.1.4.3 Vent System Impact and Drag 4.1-13 4.1.4.4 Impact and Drag on Other Structures Above the Pool 4.1-16 4.1.4.5 Froth Impingement Loads 4.1-20 4.1.4.6 Pool Fallback Loads 4.1-22 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS-(Continued) q U py 4.1.4.7 LOCA Jet Load 4.1-23. 4.1.4.8 LOCA Bubble-Induced Drag Loads on' Submerged Structures 4.1-25 4.1.4.9 Vent Header Deflector Loads- 4.1-26 4.1.5 Condensation'0scillation Loads' 4.1-28 I 4.1.5.1 Torus Shell Loads 4.1-28 4.1.5.2 Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1-29 4.1.5.3 Downcomer Dynamic Load 4.1-30 4.1.5.4 Vent System Loads 4.1-33
'4.1.6 Chugging Loads 4.1-35 4.1.6.1 ' Torus Shell Loads 4.1-35
, 4.1. 6. 2 Loads on Submerged Structures Due to Main Vent Chugging 4.1-37 4.1.6.3 Lateral Loads on Downcomers 4.1-37 4.1.6.4 Vent System Loads 4.1-40 4.1.7 S/RV Discharge Loads 4.1-42
-(p) 4.1.7.1 S/RV Logic Fixes / Actuation Cases 4.1 4.1.7.2 S/RVDL Clearing Transient Loads 4.1-48 4.1.7.3 Torus Shell Pressure 4.1-49 4.1.7.4 S/RVDL Reflood Transient- 4.1-50 4.1.7.5 T-Quencher Water det Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1-51 4.1.7.6 T-Quencher Bubble-Induced Drag Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1-53 4.1.7.7 Thrust Loads on T-Quencher Arms 4.1-54 4.1.7.8 Maximum S/RVDL and Discharge Device Pipe Wall Terperature 4.1-55 4.1.8 Fatigue Cycles 4.1-56 4.2 Load Combinations 4.2-1 4.2.1 Design Basis Accident 4.2-2 4.2.2 Intermediate /Small Break Accident 4.2-3 4.2.3 Normal Operating Conditions 4.2-4 4.3 References 4.3-1 5.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 5.1-1 5.1 NASTRAN Computer Program 5.1-1 5.2 ANSYS Computer Program 5.2-1 (q#'l 5.3 SUPERPIPE Computer Program 5.4 FORTRAN Computer Programs 5.3-1 5.4-1 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 5.5 General Electric Computer Programs 5.5-1 5.6 References 5.6-1 6.0 DESIGN STRESS ANALYSIS 6.1-1 6.1 Suppression Chamber 6.1-1 6.1.1 Suppression Chamber Shell, Ring Girder, 6.1-1 and Supports 6.1.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.1-1 6.1.1.2 Design loads and Load Combinations 6.1-2 6.1.1. 3 Design Allowables 6.1-3 6.1.1. 4 Method of Analysis 6.1-4 6.1.1. 5 Analysis Results 6.1-6 6.1.1. 6 Summary of Results 6.1-7 6.1.2 Suppression Chamber Piping Penetrations 6.1-9 6.1.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.1-9 6.1.2.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.1-9 6.1. 2. 3 Design Allowables 6.1-10 6.1.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.1-10 6.1.2.5 Analysis Results 6.]-10 6.1.2.6 Summary of Results 6.1-11 6.1.3 Fatigue Evaluation 6.1-12 6.1. 3.1 Critical Locations 6.1-12 6.1.3.2 Equivalent Maximum Stress Cycles 6.1-12 6.1.3.3 Summary of Results 6.1-13 6.2 Vent System 6.2-3 6.2.1 Vent Header Assembly 6.2-2 6.2.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-2 6.2.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.2-3 6.2.1.3 Design Allowables 6.2-3 6.2.1.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-3 6.2.1.5 Analysis Results 6.2-10 6.2.1.6 Summary of Results 6.2-11 6.2.2 Vent System Supports 6.2-12 6.2.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-12 6.2.2.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.2-12 6.2.2.3 Design Allowables 6.2-12 6.2.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-12 iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued); , ~ , D, AJ PAge
;6.2.2.5 ' Analysis Results. 6.2-14 6.2.2.6 . Summary of Results- 6.2-14 16.2.3 Downcomer Ties 6.2-15 6.2.3.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-15
.6.2.3.2 Design. Loads and Load Combinations 6.2-15; 6.2.3.3 Design A110wables 6.2-15 6.2.3.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-15 6.2.3.5 Analysis Results- '6.2-16 g 6.2.3.6 Summary of Results 6.2-16 6.2.4 Vent System Penetrations 6.2-17 6.2.4.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2 17 6.2.4.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations- 6.2-17 6.2.4.3
~~
Design Allowablds 6.2-17 6.2.4.4 Method of Analysis- 6.2-17 6.2.4.5 Analysis Results~ 6.2-18 6.2.4.6 Summary of Results 6.2 6.2.5 Vent Line Bellows 6.2-19 p) t 6.2.5.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-19
\d 6.2.5.2 Design loads and Load Combinations 6.2-19
~ 6.2.5.3 Design Allowables; 6.2-19 6.2.5.4 Method of Analysis 6.~2-19 i 6.2.5.5 - Analysis Results 6.2-20 6.2.5.6 Summary of Results 6.2-20 6.2.6 Vent Header Deflector 6.2-21 6.2.6.1 Analytical Model Description 6.2-21 6.2.6.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations- 6.2-21 6.2.6.3 Design Allowables 6.2-21 6.2.6.4 Method of Analysis 6.2-22 6.2.6.5 Analysis Results 6.'2-22 6.2.6.6 Summary of Results 6.2-22 6.2.7 Fatigue Evaluation 6.2-23 7 6.2.7.1 Evaluation Procedure 6.2-23
- 6.2.7.2 Loadings Considered 6.2-23 6.2.7.3 Critical Locations 6.2-24 -
6.2.7.4 Determination of Stress Range 6.2-24 6.2.7.5 Equivalent Maximum Stress Cycles 6.2-24 6.2.7 6 Stress Concentration Factors 6.2-25 i 6.2.7.7 Fatigue Evaluation 6.2-25 6.2.7.8 Results and Conclusions 6.2-26 v
i~ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 9 6.3 Internal Structures 6.3-1 6.3.1 Catwalk 6.3-1 6.3.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.3-1 6.3.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.3-1 6.3.1.3 Design Allowables 6.3-9 6.3.1.4 Method of Analysis 6.3-9
- 6. 3.1. 5 Analysis Results 6.3-10 6.3.1.6 Summary of Risults 6.3-10 6.3.2 Honorail 6.3-12 6.3.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.3-12 6.3.2.2 Design Loads and load Combinations 6.3-12 6;3:2,3 Design Allowables 6.3-12 6.3.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.3-12 6.3.2.5 Analysis Results 6.3-13 6.3.2.6 Summary of Results 6.3-13 6.3.3 Conduit 6.3-14 6.3.3.1 Analytical Model Description 6.3-14 6.3.3.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.3-14 6.3.3.3 Design Allowables 6.3-14 6.3.3.4 Method of Analysis 6.3-14 6.3.3.5 Analysis Results 6.3-15 6.3.3.6 Summary of Results 6.3-15 6.4 Piping Systems and Supports 6.4-1 6.4.1 S/RV Piping and Supports 6.4-1 l
6.4.1.1 Analytical Model Description 6.4-1 6.4.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.4-1 6.4.1.3 Design Allowables 6.4-2 6.4.1.4 Method of Analysis 6.4-2 6.4.1.5 Analysis Results 6.4-3 6.4.1.6 Summary of Results 6.4-3 6.4.2 T-Qutachers and Supports 6.4-4 6.4.2.1 Analytical Model Description 6.4-4
- 6. 4. 9. 2 Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.4-5 6.4.2.3 Design Allowables 6.4-5 6.4.2.4 Method of Analysis 6.4-6 6.4.2.5 Analysis Results 6.4-7 6.4.2.6 Summary of Results 6.4-7 0
vi
T,'.SLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6.4.3 Torus- ttached Piping and Supports -6.4-8 6.4.3.1. Analytical Model Description 6.4-8 6.4.3.2. Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.4-9 6.4.3.3 Design Allowables 6.4-9 6.4.3.4 Method of. Analysis. 6.4-10 6.4.3.5 Analysis Results- 6.4-12 6.4.3.6 Summary of Results 6.4-12 6.4.4 Valve and Pump Operability and Functionality. 6.4-13 6.4.4.1 ~ Analytical Model Description 6.4-13 6.4.4.2. Design Loads and Load Combinations 6.4-13 6.4.4.3 Design Allowables 6.4-14 6.4.4.4 Method of Analysis 6.4-14 6.4.4.5 Summary of Results 6.4-15 6.5 References 6.5-1
- 7. 0 SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE EVALUhTION 7.1-1 7.1 Introduction 7.1-1 pg 7.2 Transient. Events Evaluated 7.2-1
( ,/ 7.3 Model Description 7.3-1 7.4 Analysis Results and Conclusions 7.4-1 7.5 Suppression Pool Temperature Monitoring 7.5-1 7.6 References 7.6-1
- 8. 0 SOURCES OF CONSERVATISM 8.1-1 8.1 Structural Analysis lechniques 8.1-1 8.1.1 Fluid-Structure Interaction 8.1-1 8.1.2 Modeling 8.1-3 8.1. 3 Buckling 8.1-4 8.2 Load Definition 8.2-1 8.2.1 S/RV Loads 8.2-1 8.2.2 CH/C0 Loads 8.2-2 8.2.3 Pool Swell Loads 8.2-3 8.2.4 Earthquake Loads 8.2-4 8.3 Load Combinations 8.3-1 9.0
SUMMARY
9.1-1
,n 9.1 Stress Results 9.1-1 ' 9.2 Conclusions 9.2-1 vii
i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) O i APPENDIX A Short-Term Program-Summary ! 1 APPENDIX B Hatch 2 PULD [GE NED0-24569 (Rev. 2)] APPENDIX C Long-Term Program Modification Summary O O Viii
('- LIST OF TABLES Title 2.4.1-1 Original Configuration - Hatch Unit 2 MSRV Discharge Line Data. Sheet 2.4.2-l' Structural Modifications - Hatch Unit'2 MSRV Discharge Line Data Sheet 2.4.'2-2 Structural Modifications - S/RV Pipe Supports Inside the Drywell 2.5.1-1 External Piping Attached to Torus to be-Evaluated 2.5.2-1 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus - Summary of Modifications 2.5.2-2 Flexible Metal Hose Assemblies List 2.5.2 Structural Modifications - Summary of Pipe Support Modifications for Torus-Attached (External) Piping 3.2.2-1 Load Combinations Qk/ 3.2.4-1 Class MC Components and Internal Structures 3.2.4-2 Class 2 and 3 Piping Systems 4.0-1 Loading Acronyms 4.1.5-1 Condensation Oscillation Onset and Duration (Turbine Driven FW-Pumps) 4.1.5-2 Condensation Oscillation Baseline Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 4.1.5-3 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for Condensation Oscillation Source Function 4.1.6-1 Chugging Onset and Durations (Turbine Driven FW. Pumps) 4.1.6-2 Post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 4.1.6-3 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for Pre-Chugging Source Function 4.1.6-4 Amplitudes at Various Frequencies for Post-Chugging Source l Function 4.1.6-5 Vent System Load Amplitudes and Frequencies for Chugging IX
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Title 4.1.7-1 S/RV Load Case / Initial Conditions 4.1.7-2 Original Assumptions - S/RV Multiple Valve and Subsequent Valve Actuation Cases 4.1.7-3 Proposed Low-Low Set Safety / Relief Valve System for Hatch Unit 2 4.1.7-4 Results of Load Case C3.1 Analysis for Hatch Unit 2 4.1.7-5 S/RV Multiple Valve and Subsequent Valve Actuation Cases - Assumptions Considering Low-Low Set Safety / Relief Valve System 4.1.7-6 S/RVDL Geometric Parameters - Hatch Unit 2 4.1.7-7 Examples of the Determination of the Number of S/RV Lines Included 4.1.8-1 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions Prior to LOCA Event 4.1.8-2 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions - DBA Event 4.1.8-3 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions - IBA Event 4.1.8-4 Fatigue Cycle Assumptions - SBA Event 5.4-1 FORTRAN Programs Used in Hatch Unit 2 Evaluation 6.1.1-1 Suppression Chamber Shell Design Allowables (KSI) 6.1.1-2 Suppression Chamber Ring Girder and Supports Design Allowables (KSI) 6.1.1-3 Suppression Chamber Supports Design Allowables (KSI) 6.1.1-4 Suppression Chamber Ring Girder and Circumferential Shell Stiffeners - Summary of Analysis Results 6.1.1-5 Suppression Chamber Saddle and Support Columns - Summary of Analysis Results 6.1.1- 6 Suppression Chamber Rock Bolts - Summary of Analysis Results 6.1.1-7 Summary of Weld Stresses 6.1.2-1 Suppression Chamber Piping Penetrations - Summary of Anal sis Results O X
e
- . LIST OF TABLES (Continued).
v Title 6.1.3-1. ' Fatigue Load Combinations With a DBA Event 6.1.3-2 Fatigue Load Combinations With an SBA Event' 6.2.1-1 Vent Header Assembly Structural Loading 6.2.1-2 Vent Header Assembly Design Allowables: 6.2.1-3 Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Header /Downcomer Intersection 6.' 2.1-4 ' Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Header / Miter Region 6.2.1-5 Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Header / Vent Line Intersection , 6.2.1-6 Vent Header Assembly Analysis Results - Vent Line/Drywell Intersection-6.2.2-1 Vent System Supports Design Allowables 6.2.2-2 Vent System Supports Analysis Results 6.2.3-1 Dowi. comer Ties Design Allowables 6.2.3-2 Downcomer Ties Analysis Results I 6.2.4-1 Vent System Penetrations Design- Allowables a 6.2.4-2 Vent System Penetration Analysis Results - 5/RV Line/ Vent Pipe ( Penetration 6.2.4-3 Vent System Penetration Analysis Results - Vacuum Breaker / Vent Header Penetration 6.2.5-1 Analysis Results - Vent Line Bellows - Maximum Differential Displacements . 6.2.5-2 Analysis Results - Vent Line Bellows - Maximum Displacement for the Governing LOCA Events i 6.2.6-1 Vent Header Deflector - Analysis Results 6.2.7-1 -Fatigue Evaluations - Analysis Results 6.3.1-1 Catwalk - Analysis Results s._/ xi
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Title 6.3.1-2 Catwalk - Analysis Rasults 6.3.1-3 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.1-4 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.1-5 Catwalk - Analysis Results E.3.1-6 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.1-7 Catwalk - Analysis Results 6.3.2-1 Monorail - Analysis Results 6.3.3-1 Conduit - Asialysis Results 6.4.1-1 S/RVDL Design Water Column 6.4.1-2 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - 5/RV Discharge Line M Inside Drywell 6.4.1-3 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line M Inside Torus 6.4.1-4 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line A Inside Drywell
- 6. 4.1- 5 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) -
S/RV Discharge Line A Inside Torus 6.4.1-6 Summarv of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line E Inside Drywell 6.4.1-7 Summary of S/RV Discharge Line Maximum Piping Stresses (KSI) - S/RV Discharge Line E Inside Torus 6.4.2-1 Nomenclature for T-Quencher and Supports Load Combinations 6.4.2-2 Load Combinations - T-Quencher and Supports 6.4.2-3 Service Level Limits of T-Quencher and Supports 6.4.2-4 Summary of Stress Evaluation - Unit 2, Lines E and M 6.4.2-5 Summary of Bolted Connection Evaluation - Unit 2, Lines E and M O xii [ _ _ _
S LIST OF TABLES (Continued) (v l Title 6.4.2-6 Summary of Welded Connection Evaluation - Units 2, Lines E and M 6.4.3-1 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-203 6.4.3-2 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-204A/8 6.4.3-3 ' Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-204C/D 6.4.3-4 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-205 6.4.3-5 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-206F 6.4.3-6 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-206H 6.4.3-7 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - ( Turus Penetration No. X-207 6.4.3-8 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - larus Penetration No. X-208A/B 6.4.3-9 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-210A/8 6.4.3-10 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-211A/B 6.4.3-11 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-212 6.4.3-12 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-213 . 6.4.3-13 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-214 6.4.3-14 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-218A 6.4.3-15 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-220 V .- xiii l
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Title 6.4.3-16 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-221A 6.4.3-17 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-2228 6.4.3-18 Sumuary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-224A/B 6.4.3-19 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-226A/B 6.4.3-20 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-230 6.4.3-21 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-231 6.4.3-22 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Peretration No. X-233 6.4.3-23 Summary of Torus-Attached Piping Maximum Pipe Stresses (KSI) - Torus Penetration No. X-234A 6.4.3-24 Analysis Results - HPCI X-214 Return Line Restraints 6.4.3-25 Analysis Results - HPCI X-214 Return Line Restraints 6.4.3-26 Analysis Results - HPCI X-214 Return Line Restraints 6.4.3-27 Analysis Results - RHR X-210A and B Return Line Restraints 6.4.3-28 Analysis Results - RHR X-210A and B Return Line Restraints 6.4.3-29 Analysis Results - RHR X-210A and B Return Line Restraints 7.4-1 Result Summary of Hatch Unit 2 Pool Temperature Responses O xiv
LIST OF FIGURES' Title 1.= 1- 1 Hatch Unit 2 Containment Vessel and-Foundation 1.1-2 Typical Composite Section Through Suppression Chamber 1.1-3 Typical Hatch Unit 2 S/RV Discharge Line Configuration 1.1-4 -Discharge Devices Employed in Hatch Unit 2 2.1.'l- 1 Original Configuration - Plan View of Torus 2.1.1-2 Original Configuration - Torus Saddle Support 2.1.2-1 Structural Modifications - Torus Saddle Support (Sheet 1 of-2) 2.1.2-2 Structural Modifications - Torus Saddle Support (Sheet 2 of 2) 2.1.2-3 Structural Modifications - Torus Shell Bay Without Earthquake Tie 2.1.2-4 Structural Modifications - Torus Shell Bay With Earthquake Tie O %f 2.2.1-1 Original Configuration - Vent System Plan View 2.2.1-2 Original Configuration - Partial Plan of Vent System 2.2.1-3 Original Configuration - Vent Header-Vent Line Section 2.2.1-4 Original Configuration - Downcomer Intersection and Ties 2.2.1-5 Original Configuration - Vent Header Supports 2.2.1-6 Original. Configuration - Vent Header Intersection with Vacuum Breakers
.2.2.1-7 Original Configuration - S/RV Line Penetration 2.2.2-1 Structural Modifications - Vent Header Deflector Addition 2.2.2-2 Structural Modifications - Downcomer-Vent Header Intersection 2.2.2-3 Structural Modifications - Downcomer Ties 2.2.2-4 Structural Modifications - Vent Header Intersection with Vacuurn Breaker 2.2.2-5 Structural Modifications - S/RV Line Penetration 2.3.1-1 Original Configuration - Interior Catwalk XV
_ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ . _ _ , _ , - ._..,1 _ . ._ .
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 2.3.1-2 Original Configuration - Torus Monorail 2.3.1-3 Original Configuration - Conduit Arrangement Inside the Torus 2.3.2-1 Structural Modifications - Interior Catwalk 2.3.2-2 Structural Modifications - Torus Monorail 2.4.1-1 Original Configuration - S/RV Discharge Locations Inside Torus 2.4.1-2 Original Configuration - S/RVDL and Ramshead Arrangement Inside Torus 2.4.1-3 Original Configuration - Ramshead Tee Support 2.4.1-4 Original Configuration - S/RVDL Line M Orientation 2.4.1-5 Original Configuration - S/RVDL Line M Intermediate Support 2.4.1-6 Original Configuration - Typical S/RVDL Arrangement Inside Drywell 2.4.1-7 Original Configuration - Typical S/RV Pipe Support Inside the Drywell 2.4.2-1 Structural Modifications - S/RVDL and T-Quencher Arrangement Inside Torus 2.4.2-2 Structural Modifications - T-Quencher Detail 2.4.2-3 Structural Modifications - T-Quencher Support System (Sheet 1 of 2) 2.4.2-4 Structural Modifications - T-Quencher Support System (Sheet 2 of 2) 2.4.2-5 Structural Modifications - S/RVDL Line M Intermediate Support (Sheet 1 of 2) 2.4.2-6 Structural Modifications - S/RVDL Line M Intermediate Support (Sheet 2 of 2) 2.4.2-7 Structural Modifications - Typical S/RV Pipe Support Modification Inside the Drywell 2.5.1-1 Original Configuration - Torus-Attached Piping Penetration Locations O xvi
-- ~ LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) v) Title 2.5.1-2 Original Configuration - Piping Arrangement Inside Torus - X-225L 2.5.1-3 Original Configuration - Piping Arrangement Inside Torus - Return Line X-214 2.5.1-4 Original Configuration - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 1 of 4) 2.5.1-5 Original Configuration - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 2 of 4)
-2.5.1-6 Original Configuration - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 3 of 4) 2.5.1-7 Original Configuration - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 4 of 4) 2.5.1-8 Original Configuration - Spray Header and Supports Inside the Torus 2.5.1-9 Original Configuration - Typical ECCS Nozzle and Strainer Inside the Torus 2.5.1-10 Original Configuration - Typical Penetration Nozzle at Inside Top of Torus 2.5.1-11 Original Configuration - Typical Small Bore Piping Arrangement Outside Torus - X-225L 2.5.1-12 Original Configuration - Typical Large Bore Piping Arrangement Outside Torus - X-226B 2.5.1-13 Original Configuration - Typical Piping Support Configuration Gutside Torus 2T49-RS-HR7 2.5.1-14 Original Configuration - Typical Piping Support Configuration Outside Torus 2T49-RS-H9 2.5.2-1 Structural Modifications - Piping Arrangement Inside Torus - X-227A 2.5.2-2 Structural Modifications - Piping Arrangement Inside Torus - RHR Test-Line Elbow 2.5.2-3 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 1 of 6) 2.5.2-4 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the
[d Torus (Sheet 2 of 6) xvii
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) gg Title 2.5.2-5 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 3 of 6) 2.5.2-6 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 4 of 6) 2.5.2-7 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 5 of 6) 2.5.2-8 Structural Modifications - Return Line Restraints Inside the Torus (Sheet 6 of 6) 2.5.2-9 Structural Modifications - Vacuum Breaker Drain Line Bracing Inside the Torus 2.5.2-10 Structural Modifications - Small Bore Piping Flexible Hose Arrangement - X-225L 2.5.2-11 Structural Modifications - Large Bore Piping Arrangement Outside the Torus - X-207 2.5.2-12 Structural Modifications - Typical Piping Support Configuration Outside Torus 2T49-RS-HR7 2.5.2-13 Structural Modifications - Piping Support Outside Torus 2T49-RS-H9 4.1.1- 1 Original Design Specification Loads - Normal Loads (N) 4.1.1-2 Original Design Specification Loads - Earthquake Loads (E) 4.1.3-1 Application of Thrust Force on Main Vent 4.1.3-2 Application of Vent Header Forces 4.1.3-3 Application of Downcomer Forces 4.1.4-1 Pool Swell Loads - Event Sequence 4.1.4-2 Vent system Coordinates 4.1.4-3 Application of Impact / Drag Pressure Transient to Downcomer 4.1.4-4 Downcomer Impact and Drag Pressure Transient 4.1.4-5 Vent Header Local Impact Pressure Transient 4.1.4-6 Schematic Diagram Illustrating the Methodology for Main Vent Impact and Drag xviii
f LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) < Title-4.1.4-7_ ' Typical Pool Surface Velocity. Longitudinal-Distribution.
=4.1.4-8 Typical Pool Surface Displacement Longitudinal Distribution-4.1'.4-9 Pulse-Shape for Water. Impact on Cylindric'al Targets 4.1.'4-10 Pulse Shape for Water Impact on Flat Targets
- 4.1.4-11 Definition of Froth Impingement - Region I 4.1.4-12 Definition of Froth Impingement - Region.II 4.1.4-13 : Froth Loading History
- Region I 4.1.4 Froth Loading History - Region II 4.1.4-15 Froth Impingement Region IIJ- Possible Directions of Load Application 4.1.4-16 Possible Directions of Froth Fallback Load Application -
4.1.4-17 Possible Directions of Fallback Load Application 4.1.4-18. Sample Fallback Load
-4.1.4-19 Hatch 2 Test 2 - Drywell Pressure 4.1.4-20 Downcomer Water Slug Ejection Data-4.1.4-21 Sample Force Time History of LOCA Bubble-Induced Drag Loads 4.1.5-1 Condensation Oscillation Loads - Event Sequence 4.1.5-2. Condensation Oscil_lation Baseline _ Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center I 4.1.5-3 Mark I Condensation Oscillation - Torus Vertical Cross' Sectional Distribution for Pressure Oscillation Amplitude 4.l.5-4 Mark I Condensation Oscillation - Multiplication. Factor Versus Pool-to-Vent Area Ratio for Plant Unique Load Determination 4.1.5-5 Sample Force Time History of Condensation Oscillation Drag. Load 4.1.5-6 Downcomer Dynamic Load 4;1.5 .Downcomer Pair Internal Pressure Loading for DBA C0 xix
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 4.1.5-8 Downcomer Pair Differential Pressure Loading for DBA C0 4.1.5-9 Downcomer C0 Dynamic Load Application 4.1.5-10 Downcomer Internal Pressure Loading for IBA C0 4.1.6-1 Chugging Loads - Event Sequence 4.1.6-2 A Typical Chug Average Pressure Trace on the Torus Shell 4.1.6-3 Mark I Chugging - Torus Asymmetric Circumferential Distribution for Pressure Amplitude 4.1.6-4 Mark I Chugging - Torus Vertical Cross Sectional Distribution for Pressure Amplitude 4.1.6-5 Post-Chug Rigid Wall Pressure Amplitudes on Torus Shell Bottom Dead Center 4.1.6-6 Sample Force Time History of Chugging Drag Load 4.1.6-7 Sectors Used to Define Directions of Lateral Loads on Downcomer's End 4.1.6-8 Notation Used for Transforming RSEL Reversals Into Stress Reversals at a Fatigue Evaluation - Location A 4.1.6-9 Distribution of Chugging RSEL Reversals for a Typical Sector 4.1.6-10 Probability of Exceeding a Given Force per Downcomer for l Different Numbers of Downcomers 4.1.6-11 Chugging Wave Form for Gross Vent System Pressure Oscillation Load 4.1.7-1 T-Quencher Load Definition Scheme 4.1.7-2 S/RV Discharge Loads - Event Sequence 4.1.7-3 Hatch Unit 2 System Response for Limiting Event with Four-Valve Low-Low Set 4.1.7-4 Hatch Unit 2 System Response for Limiting Event with Single Failure (Only Two Low-Low Set Valves Operable) 4.1.7-5 Sample Prediction of S/RVOL Internal Pressure Transient 4.1.7-6 Sample Prediction of T-Quencher Internal Pressure Transient XX
a
~
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) O Title 4.1.7-7 Sample P'rediction of Thrust Loading on an S/RV Pipe Segment Initially Filled with Gas 4.1.7-8 Sample Prediction of Thrust on S/RV Pipe Run Between the Discharge Device and the First Upstream Elbow (Pipe Run Initially
. Filled with Water) 4.1.7-9 Sense of Thrust Loading-
~
4.1.7-10 Sample Prediction of Mass Flow Rate of Water Exiting T-Quencher 4.1.7-11 Sample Prediction of Water Mass Acceleration
'4.1.7-12 Sample Prediction of Torus Shell Pressure Loading Transient
~
4.'1.7-13 Sample Prediction of Torus Shell Longitudinal. Pressure Distribution Sample Prediction of Torus Shell Radial Pressure Distribution
~
4.1.7-14 at Section A-A in Figure 4.1.7-13 4.1.7-15 ~ Sample Prediction of S/RVDL Reflood Transient 4.1.7-16 Outline of Procedures Used to Obtain the T-Quencher Water Jet N' - Induced Drag Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1.7-17 Sample Force Time History of- T-Quencher Water Jet Induced Drag Loads 4.1.7-18 Location of T-Quenchers and Structures 4.1.7-19 Air Clearing Loads on Quencher Arms and S/RV Lines 4.1.7-20 Outline of Procedures Used to Obtain the T-Quencher S/RV Bubble-Induced Drag Loads on Submerged Structures 4.1.7-21 Sample Force Time History of T-Quencher Bobble-Induced Drag Loads 4.1.7-22 Thrust Loads on Arm End Caps 4.1.7-23 Generalized Shape of Thrust Loading Transient and Application Point with Time 4.1.7-24 Example of Predicted S/RVDL and Discharge Device Temperature Distribution 4.2.1-1 Load Combinations - Design Basis Accident (DBA) XXi
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 4.2.2-1 Load Combinations - Intermediate Break Accident (IBA) 4.2.2-2 Load Combinations - Small Break Accident (SBA) 4.2.3-1 Load Combinations - Normal Operating Conditions 6.1.1-1 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Suppression Chamber Shell, Ring Girder, and Supports 6.1.1-2 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Torus Shell Top Hemisphere Plan View 6.1.1-3 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Torus Shell Bottom Hemisphere Plan View 6.1.1-4 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model-- Elevation View of the Saddle, Ring Girder, and Lip Plate Bar Elements 6.1.1- 5 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Elevation View of the Saddle, Ring Girder, and Lip Plate 6.1.1-6 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Vent Pipe Stub and Torus Section 6.1.1-7 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Torus Shell in the Area of the Vent Pipe 6.1.1-8 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Second Shell Section with Typical Ring of Fluid Elements 6.1.1-9 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Elevation View of a Typical Ring of Fluid Elements
- 6. 1.1-10 Suppression Chamber - Analytical Model--Complete 22 -Degree Torus Model with Typical Ring of Fluid Elements 6.1.1-11 Suppression Chamber - Seismic Analytical Model 6.1. 1-12 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--NOC Load Combination -Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-13 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--NOC Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-14 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--NOC Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending O
nii
-.. _.- .~ .. . . - - . .- . - . . - . - --
1 LIST.0F FIGURES (Continued).
.p-d:-
Title-6.1.1-15 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--NOC Load. Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending i 6.1.1-16 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell.- Membrane
- 6.1.1-17 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane i 6.1.1-18 . Suppression Chamber-Shell.- Analysis Results--DBA Load f
Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-19 Suppression Chamber.Shell - Analysis Res'ults--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-20 Suppression Chamber Shell'- Analysis Results--DBA Load
~
Combination - Top Shell - Membrane ;
-6.1.1-21 Suppression Chamber Shell -' Analysis Results--DBA Load i: Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-22 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-23 4
Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load j- Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus-Bendin'g
- 6.'1.1-24 . Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load
! Combination - Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-25 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane
'6.1.1-26 Suppression Chamber Shell.- Analysis Results--DBA Load i L Combination - Top Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-27 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending t
6.1.1-28 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--DBA Load I Combination - Top Shell - Buckling L e 6.1.1-29 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load }~ Combination - Top Shell - Membrane i 6.1.1-30 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load ; 1 Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane O , xxiii ,
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 6.1.1-31 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Membrane 6.1.1-32 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load Combination - Bottom Shell - Membrane Plus Bending 6.1.1-33 Suppression Chamber Shell - Analysis Results--SBA/IBA Load Combination - Top Shell - Buckling 6.1.2-1 Suppression Chamber Penetrations - Analytical Model--Basic 11-1/4-Degree Torus Shell Model 6.1.2-2 Suppression Chamber Penetrations - Analytical Model--Typical Penetration Finite Element Model 6.2.1-1 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--224-Degree Finite Element Model 6.2.1-2 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Botton Half of Vent Header Non-Vent Bay 6.2.1-3 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Bottom Half of Vent Header Vent Bay 6.2.1-4 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Downcomers, Vent Header, and Intersection 6.2.1-5 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Vent Header and Miter Ring 6.2.1-6 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Vent Header / Vent Pipe Intersection 6.2.1-7 Vent Header Assembly - Analytical Model--Vent Pipe and Drywell Intersection 6.2.2-1 Vent System Supports - Analytical Model--Vent Header Miter Ring and Support Columns 6.2.2-2 Vent System Supports - Computer Model for Submerged Hydrodynamic Loads 6.2.3-1 Downcomer Tie - Analytical Model 6.2.3-2 Downcomer Ties - Computer Model for Submerged Hydrodynamic Loads O xxiv
. _ _ ,. _ .__ _ . _ _ - _ _ ._ _ . - . . _ . . ._ _, . _.~._ _.- _.
k . 1 4.-
-LIST OF FIGURES'(Continued) 10
[~
' Title
- 6.2.4-1 Vent System ~ Penetration - Analytical Model--S/RV 'Line/ Vent Pipe;.
Intersection C ~6:2.4-2 Vent System ' Penetration - AnalyticalfModel--Vacuum Breaker Penetration l
'6.2.6 21 Vent Headerj Deflector Analytica1LModel y 16.2.6-2 Vent Header: Deflector - Reaction Summary 6.3.'l-1 Torus Interior Catwaik - Analytical Model
+
- 6. 3.1-2 Vents and'SRVDLs Considered'in Catwalk Platform Analysis
- j. 6.3.1-3 Catwalk Platform - Reaction Summary at Upper Brace Ring' Girder 7
F- Location i 6.3.1-4 Catwalk Platform - Reaction Summary'at Platform Ring Girder.
- Location-i 6.3.1-5 Catwalk Platform'- Reaction Summary at Column' Base Ring Girder Location
., (s .
- , \- 6.3.2-1 Torus.
- Monorail - Analytical Model f 6.3.2-2 Angle of Maximum Froth Velocity l
- 6.3.2-3 Monorail'- Reaction Summary--at Torus Shell Weld Pad i
~6.3.2-4 Monorail - Reaction Summary at Ring Girder .
f 6.3.3-1 Conduit Analytical Model . 6.3.3-2 Conduit Support - Reaction Summary at Catwalk Platform Location . t 1 6.4.1-1 Analytical Model - S/RVDL M (Sheets 1 and 2) l I L 6.4.1-2 Reflood Transient - S/RVDLs B, D, F, & G _l i . j 6.4.2-1 T-Quencher and Supports - Line E Analytical Model [ .6.4.2-2 T-Quencher and Supports - Line M Analytical Model . , 6.4.2-3 T-Quencher and Supports - Line M Analytical Model ; l- t [ 6.4.2-4 T-Quencher and Supports - Analytical Model -- T-Quencher- f Ramshead Area i 1 > l -- XXV f t' '
...-,.-,,.-_-.--,__.-,_._.._,..-...,...._._.-..~..__-..,...-__..-,...,-,..m._._,
, _ , . . - - . , . . _ . . . _ _ _ . , , . ~ .
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) Title 6.4.3-1 Analytical Model - Torus-Attached Piping X-226B 6.4.3-2 Coupled Torus-Piping Analytical Model - Penetration X-205 6.4.3-3 Analytical Model for Small Bore Piping With Flexible Metal Hose 6.4.3-4 HPCI X-214 Restraint - Analytical Model 6.4.3-5 Vents and S/RVOLs Considered in HPCI X-214 Restraint Analysis 6 4.3-6 HPCI X-214 Restraint - Reaction Summary at Pipe Brace to Ring Girder Connection 6.4.3-7 HPCI X-214 Restraint - Reaction Summary at Restraint to Ring Girder Connection 6.4.3-8 RHR X-210A and B Restraint - Analytical Model 6.4.3-9 Vents and S/RVDLs Considered in RHR X-210B Restraint Analysis 6.4.3-10 RHR X-210A and B Restraint - Reaction Summary at Pipe Brace to Ring Girder Connection 6.4.3-11 RHR X-210A and B Restraint - Reaction Summary at Angle Brace to Ring Girder Connection 6.4.3-12 RHR X-210A and B Restraint - Reaction Summary at Restraint to Ring Girder Connection 6.4.3-13 X , Y , and Z-Acceleration Time History for Penetration No. X-226B - S/RV Case A2.2 (Sheets 1, 2, and 3) 6.4.3-14 Response Spectrum - Penetration No. X-226B X , Y , and Z-Direction - S/RV Case A2.2 (Sheets 1, 2, and 3) 7.3-1 Coupled Reactor and Suppression Pool Model 7.3-2 Plan View of Hatch Unit 2 Suppression Pool with T-Quenchers and RHR Discharge Locations Used in the Local Pool Temperature Model 7.4-1 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 1A -- SORV at Power-Loss of One RHR Loop 7.4-2 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 1A -- SORV at Power-Loss of One RHR Loop O xxvi
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
~("'
V' Title 7.4-3 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 1B -- SORV at Power and Spurious Isolation 7.4-4 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case IB -- SORV at Power and Spurious Isolation 7.4-5 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 2A -- Rapid Depressurization from Isolation-Loss of One RHR Loop 7.4-6 Local 'ool P Temperature Response:- Case 2A -- Rapid Depressuriza-tion from Isolation-Loss of One RHR Loop 7.4-7 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 28 -- 50RV During Isolated Hot Shutdown 7.4-8 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 28 -- SORV During Isolated Hot Shutdown 7.4-9 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 2C -- i Normal Reactor Depressurization from Isolation (h 7.4-10 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 2C -- Normal Reactor Depressurization from Isolation
\_ /
7.4-11 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 3A -- SBA with Manual Depressurization, Accident Mode, and Failure of One RHR Loop 7.4-12 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 3A -- SBA with Manual Depressurization, Accident Mode, and Failure of One RHR Loop 7.4-13 Bulk Pool Temperature and Vessel Pressure Response - Case 3B -- . SBA-Failure of Shutdown Cooling Mode 7.4-14 Local Pool Temperature Response - Case 3B -- SBA-Failure of Shutdown Cooling Mode 7.5-1 Suppression Pool Temperature Sensor Locations Do J xxvii
._ ~ _ _ - . _ . _ . , - .._ ____ _ _ ___ _ _. , _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . ._ __. _ _ _ , _ . _
LIST OF ACRONYMS ABSS -absolute summation method ADS automatic depressurization system ATWS anticipated _ transient without scram BWR boiling water reactor CH chugging C0 condensation oscillation DBA design basis accident DLF dynamic load factor ECCS emergency core cooling system FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report FSI fluid-structure-interaction FSTF Full-Scale Test Facility GE General Electric HPCI high pressure coolant injection IBA intermediate break accident LDR Load Definition Report LOCA- loss-of-coolant accident LOOSP loss of offsite power LPCI low pressure coolant injection LTP Long-Term Program MSIV main steam line isolation valve c MSRV- main steam relief valve
- NOC normal operating conditions NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
./ NSSS nuclear steam supply system OBE operating basis earthquake PUA plant unique analysis PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report PULD Plant Unique Load Definition Report QSTF quarter-scale test facility.
RCIC reactor core isolation cooling RHRS residual heat removal system RPV reactor pressure vessel RSEL resultant static equivalent loads SBA small break accident SER Safety Evaluation Report SIF stress intensification factor SORV stuck open relief valve . SRSS square root of the sum of the squares S/RV safety / relief valve S/RVDL safety / relief valve discharge line SSE safe shutdown earthquake STP Short-Term Program
\s) xxviii
2.4 S/RV PIPING AND SUPPORTS b 2.4.1 Original Configuration The main steam relief valve (MSRV) discharge lines are 10-inch diameter lines that relieve the overpressure in the RPV. Each line begins at the MSRV, extends down through the drywell and vent pipe, penetrates the vent pipe above.the torus pool surface, and discharges through a ramshead supported at the ring girder above the bottom of the torus. The S/RV discharge locations inside the torus are shown in ' Figure 2.4.1-1. The S/RVDL and ramshead arrangement inside the torus, and the ramshead tee support, are shown in Figures 2.4.1-2 and 2.4.1-3, respectively. There are 11 S/RVDLs: 2 in each of the 3 vents and 1 in each of the other 5 vents. Inside the torus, 10 of the 11 lines are similar in configura-tion; the eleventh line, line M, is longer. The line M orientation with respect to the other S/RVDLs is shown in Figure 2.4.1-4. In general, the S/RVDLs inside the torus are supported at two places: at the vent line penetration and at the ring girder. In addition to these two locations, line M has an intermediate axial and lateral restraint shown in Figure 2.4.1-5. Inside the drywell, S/RVDL configurations vary to a minor degree. A typical MSRV location and S/RVDL arrangement inside the drywell are shown in Figure 2.4.1-6. The S/RVDL'is supported at various locations inside the drywell by standard component supports attached to structural steel or reinforced concrete. A typical S/RVDL pipe support inside the drywell p is shown in Figure 2.4.1-7. In addition to supports, each S/RVDL has a vacuum breaker, located inside the drywell, which limits reflood height (>) following an S/RV actuation. The original number and size of the valves for each S/RVDL are presented in Table 2.4.1-1. U 2.4-1
TABLE 2.4.1-1 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION HATCH UNIT 2 MSRV DISCHARGE LINE DATA SHEET VACUUM BREAKER VALVE MSRV VALVE SET POINT DISCHARGE Size VALVE SUFFIX PRESSURE (psig) LINE NO. Type (inches) Quantity 2B21-F013A 1100 A GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013B 1090 B GPE Controls 6 1 2821-F013C 1090 C GPE Controls 6 1 2821-F013D 1100 D GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013E 1110 E GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013F 1090 F GPE Controls 6 1 2821-F013G 1090 G GPE Controls 6 1 2821-F013H 1110 H GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013K 1100 K GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013L 1110 L GPE Controls 6 1 2821-F013M 1100 M GPE Controls 6 1 O O O
O Q10" O PIPE
~
9' - ' TS 6X6X% EXIST. PAD C A 6 0 SCH.80 PIPE Pi ll l , a . . !
.-_-- q,
------hl
~
E L .135 ' ---- a
. - _ . .--. ',l I
l ][ : 6's PIPE CLAW 3 - SECTION A-A 4 m [\ G
$n e ;
m
@\ ' SNUBBER TS 4X4X%( TYP.U.N. O. )
1"P% u
$M ...------ . ----------------------------
n .-. i i e i I l 8 e 1 3 i i e i I g
, (.1. -L4. .
8 I e i A
.;- __, EXISTING l l BEAM SEAT
.i -+ ,
e 2 : 4'-2' A ELEVATION FIGU RE 2.4.17 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION l TYPICAL S/RV PIPE SUPPORT INSIDE THE DRYWELL
S 2.4.2 Structural Modifications
) In order to reduce.the hydrodynamic loads associated with discharge due to an S/RV actuation, T quencher devices were installed in place of the ramshead tees. The S/RVDL and T quencher arrangement inside the torus are shown in Figure ~2.4.2-1, and the T quencher detail is shown in Figure 2.4.2-2. In order to provide support for the T quencher arms and addi-tional stiffness for the ring girder, a T quencher support system was designed and installed. The T quencher support system consists of pipe beams that span between ring girders in each torus bay. Attached to the pipe beams are cross beam and pipe stanchion assemblies upon which the T quencher arms sit. Gusset plates were added to the ring girder at the pipe beam seat locations and the T quencher support location. The T quencher support system modification is shown in Figures 2.4.2-3 and 2.4.2-4.
In order to maintain the function of the intermediate supports of S/RV line M inside the torus and to reduce S/RVDL stresses during hydrodynamic load events, the supports were replaced. The new intermediate support system is shown in Figures 2.4.2-5 and 2.4.2-6. The new support consists of two axial restraint assemblies attached to a steel frame made of pipe sections attached to the T quencher support structure in that bay.
. Vacuum breaker modifications were also made to the S/RVOLs to further ensure the limitation of reflood height following S/RV actuation. The modified number and size of the valves for eaci. S/RV line are presented f'N in Table 2.4.2-1. In addition to the vacuum breaker modifications, an
(,',) S/RV logic change was implemented to mitigate several S/RV actuation events (see subsection 4.1.7.1). Modifications were also made to the S/RVDL pipe supports inside the drywell. Table 2.4.2-2 summarizes the mcdifications/ additions made to the supports, and Figure 2.4.2-7 shows a typical modified support configuration. The evaluation of the S/RV piping and supports in the modified configura-tion inside both the torus and the drywell is presented in subsection 6.4.1. The evaluation of the added T quenchers and T quencher support system is presented in subsection 6.4.2. n v 2.4-2 ,
TABLE 2.4.2-1
. STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS HATCH UNIT 2 MSRV DISCHARGE LINE DATA SHEET VACUUM BREAKER VALVE MSRV VALVE SET POINT DISCHARGE Size VALVE SUFFIX PRESSURE (psig) LINE N0. Type (inches) Quantity 2821-F013A 1100 A GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013B* 1090 B GPE Controls 6 1 B GPE Controls 10 1 2B21-F013C 1100 C GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F0130* 1090 0 GPE Controls 6 1 D GPE Controls 10 1 2B21-F013E 1110 E GPE Controls 6 1 2821-F013F* 1090 F GPE Controls 6 1 F GPE Controls 10 1 2B21-F013G* 1090 G GPE Controls 6 1 G GPE Controls 10 1 2B21-F013H 1110 H GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013K 1100 K GPE Controls 6 1 2821-F013L 1110 L GPE Controls 6 1 2B21-F013M 1100 M GPE Controls 6 1
- Low-low set valve with two vacuum relief valves along the discharge line.
O O O
i
) TABLE 2.4.2-2 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS- ,
S/RV PIPE SUPPORTS INSIDE.THE DRYWELL' Total Number of Existing Number of New Number of Existing i SRVDL- Supports Supports Added Supports Modified 4 A 14 0 3 i B 9 0 5 C 12 0 3 I 0 5 D 13 E 12 0 3 7 F 11 0 3 4 G 12 0 5 t H 11 0 5 i 4 K 12 0 1 L 15 0 3 i M 13 0 2 i I l O l i 1
- - , , - . - , , - , , . . - , , . - - , - , . - _ , _ _ _ , _ - , . . , . _ . , , . . . . . . , . , , , , . , _ _ ..e-w-,._,--
_n.~ 7.,,. , , ,,,,, , . , . , -
v {[10"OPIPE
~
9" _ ' TS 6X6X% EXIST. PAD C ^ 6" O SCH.80 PIPE M lul I
-- . _ - - - 3. ,
~
EL .135 '-O" ---- ------ll . a 'llJ c 6" s PIPE CLAW l
\ __
=
3g. SECTION A-A 4 m IN u _,.- 3n e m i N
@N \
SNUBBER O n u 1S 4x4xx<Tve o." o >
$X o .-
i ; i i i 3 3 8 I I I
, ,I i i l
l i l I e.t- '.l
' s A
.i_ __, EXISTING l
, -+ l BEAM SEAT i i 2'-9*
4'-2' _ A
- INDICATES NEW ITEM ELEVATION FIG U RE 2.4.2-7
[] () STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS TYPICAL S/RV PIPE SUPPORT MODIFICATION INSIDE THE DRYWELL
m 4 ?
- '2.5 -TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPORTS L 2.~ 5.1 Original Configuration '
) Various piping systems, ranging in diameter from 1/2 inch to 24 inches, penetrate the torus'from the outside. Emergency core cooling and other essential services are performed by these systems, which are classified as followsi
'a. 'ECCS piping systems 1
4 RHR pump' suction piping
~1. >
- 2. Core spray pump suction' piping i .3. HPCI pump suction piping
- 4. HPCI turbine exhaust piping. -
- 5. HPCI turbine' vacuum pump discharge,
. 6. .HPCI turbine drain piping. t i b. Other piping. systems required to maintain core cooling-or to maintain torus integrity following a LOCA ~
- 1. RHR test line bypass
- 2. RHR heat exchanger relief valve piping
- 3. RHR test line to torus
- 4. Torus and drywell-purge piping
[ 5. Containment atmosphere dilution piping
- i. 6. RCIC pump suction piping q 7. RCIC. turbine' exhaust piping
, 8. Core spray test lines i 9. H2 recombiner piping i 10. Torus drain and purification piping systems.
- c. The remaining piping systems attached to the torus but not
- required to maintain core cooling following a LOCA, and con-l' sisting of' instrumentation piping and small diameter piping.
f All of the torus-attached piping systems are conservatively considered 1- essential for purposes of this evaluation and are listed in Table 2.5.1-1. l The torus-attached piping penetration locations are shown in Figure 2.5.1-1. Piping inside the torus includes instrumentation. lines, the return lines, , and the spray header. The instrumentation lines are nominal 1/2-inch , diameter lines that penetrate the top of the torus and are routed to each , of 12 wetwell-to-drywell vacuum breakers. These lines allow for remote testing of the vacuum breakers. The instrumentation line arrangement inside the torus is shown in Figure 2.5.1-2. The return lines range in size from 2 to 24 inches. All of them penetrate'the torus above the pool level and discharge at various levels into the pool. They are supported 4 at the torus penetrations and just below the pool surface by two-way restraints. Figure 2.5.1-3 shows the HPCI turbine exhaust (X-214) return line arrangement inside the torus. The original configuration of the i return ~line restraints is shown in Figures 2.5.1-4 through 2.5.1-7. The spray header is a 4-inch diameter header with spray nozzles, mounted at i 2.5-1 I
.--,-..,._..2. _ , , - , _ . , - . , . . , . _ . - _ . . _ _ . _ _ - - _ . - - _ _ _ , _ , - - . . - . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . . , - _ _ _ .. -.._. __.. _ .,
the top of the torus. The primary functions of the header system are to condense steam, which could bypass the suppression pool, and to cool the torus atmosphere. Figure 2.5.1-8 shows the spray header and support configuration inside the torus. In addition to the piping systems mentioned above, there are also ECCS suction nozzles and venting nozzles located inside the torus. Typically, the ECCS suction nozzles are pipe nozzles with attached strainers pro-jecting into the torus'for the supply of water from the suppression pool to the ECCS piping system. The strainers are attached to the tip of the suction nozzles to prevent intake of particles into the ECCS larger than the minimum allowable size. These nozzles and strainers are subjected to submerged drag forces during LOCA and S/RV discharge events. A typical nozzle and strainer arrangement is presented in Figure 2.5.1-9. Typically, venting nozzles are 6- to 12-inch long nozzles located at the top of the torus for venting purposes. These nozzles are subject to froth-loads during the DBA transient. A representative vent nozzle is shown in Figure 2.5.1-10. Outside the torus, the piping configuration and routing varies widely for the different size lines. For purposes of evaluation, the lines were analyzed from the point of attachment to the torus shell to the first anchor point. In addition to the piping, the other components evaluated included piping supports, pumps, and valves. Figure 2.5.1-11 shows a representative small bore piping arrangement outside the torus, while Figure 2.5.1-12 shows a typical large bore piping arrangement outside the torus. Figures 2.5.1-13 and 2.5.1-14 show typical piping support configurations located outside the torus. O 2.5-2 l
TABLE 2.5.1-1 EXTERNAL PIPING ATTACHED TO TORUS TO BE EVALUATED Line Penetration Size No. Inches System Identification X-203 6 RCIC Pump Suction X-204 A, B, C, D 24 RHR Pump Suction Piping
- - X-205 20 Torus Purge Piping Supply X-206 A, C, F, H 1 -Torus Water Level.
X-207 16 HPCI Pump Suction X-208 A, B 20 Core Spray Pump Suction X-210 A, B 16 RHR Test Line X-211 A, B 6 Torus Spray X-212 10 RCIC Turbine Exhaust - X-213 2 RCIC Turbine Vacuum Pump Discharge X-214 20 HPCI Turbine Exhaust X-215 2 HPCI Turbine Drain X-217 A, B, C 1 Torus H2 , 02 Sample Line X-218 A 8 Torus Cleanup and Purification X-220 18 Torus Purge Piping Outlet X-221 A 6 H2 Recombiner Outlet Piping X-221 B 2 HPCI Turbine Exhaust Vacuum Breaker X-221 C 1 RCIC Turbine Exhaust Vacuum Breaker i X-222 8 6 H2 Recombiner Outlet Piping X-224 A, B 6 RHR Heat Exchanger Steam Relief X-225 A-M Control Air to Vacuum Breaker Valves (I not used) X-226 A, B 10 Core Spray Pump Discharge Pipe X-230 2 Nitrogen Inerting System X-231 2 CAD Vent X-233 4 Drywell to Torus Differential Pressure System X-234 A 3 Torus Cleanup and Purification X-235 A 2 CAD Vent X-235 8 2 N2 CAD Supply
.r- -- . , . , - - - - , , , , . , . . , .,-_._..-..-.-,n. - , , . . . , , , , ,- . - . . . -. .n, ,.
6 4 O l 4 4
}
er hs.
- k. zo..
/..
. s
.. w.
i 4 7.. ,,. a- 215 J 77 ". A E- 2OlF A -22$t R
\ -
j arue t 3, ... g. .. . .->,, 3 V _\ $ -a 232 8 2D
- l- .. ,,,M j 'b, ,, *-
a r;- . n. _, m it
..,,,f,,,)
O !! i
..... N.
=-2..
.- o
's' *a*o*
's a-azs s
; .w .s mac 8'<.73[ s Zie a 22.aEs ( _
anc c z9s/ s asa ass y i '1*- M
.at 4-t h' . .so. s a si .& s i j adC $' l'N A 129 N,
. ,a . ,su.34c :x , ' " * ~J
-- x- a m h\ v X 20t A Tes N' (, ,<
/- ,
.ss-su o-,. .Rgr,aM FO4 (OLAT@e Moshl. ( SC. _ ,
n.iosW FIGURE 2.5.1-1 2-2C(, SD8 Em6Et ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TORUS ATTACHED PIPING
,,..,, PENETRATION LOCATIONS
_ - _ _ _ _ _ . . - . , _ _ _ . _ _ . ~ . _ - _ . . ~ . . . . . _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . - _ _ _ . _ . _
r8 -,* A f G A ygj!#s*/) " e /
-'4 /e L
c9'o- 8 g F 0g W C o 9
%* ,,s
# # EL.111 -9%*
g- l T1 c "
,% e o f f,
y,',",,,,1N g ,S - 3-
^ ;
2% 'g
'N SECTION M 90 0% C 8
_L J m 4A W . of,,,1 _- 7-
~ '
\-)
g e VACUUM BREAKER l (TYP.FOR BOTH X225A 8 B) FIGU RE 2.5.1-2 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION PIPING ARRANGEMENTINSIDE TORUS-X 225L
O . s '-0
- 1IHPCIX-214
-o
/
TORUS SHELL (ITORUS I 244 P!PE 2 TORUS EL.103'-6%* x O N 2 2 RESTRAINT EL .100'-0%
- E
, 30*EL80W
, SPARGER
' s'G ,
'. 'S ,
g'$ 1 1 l l l l FIGURE 2.5.13 1 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION PIPING ARRANGEMENTINSIDETORUS O RETURN LINE X 214 l 1
~ - - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ . . _ _ _ _ _______.___, _____ _.,__ _ __ _
Yhj 5 1 214 HPCL 6 TEST N 4
$ e k h 4
l LOCATION OF PENETRATIONS FOR RETURN LINES FIGURE 2.5.1-4 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION RETURN 1.INE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 1 OF 4)
O O O TORUS TSID'E 4/gg ql yt g ilPIPE W1TER JOINT .es. i W.P.
*# 9 TORUS SHELL W.P. INSIDE
.s m y,s - _
" ~
DET11t_ PIPE _Z - . I PIPE
/ l
+ W10 x 89 '
/ -
PIPE CLAnP LC *x 6* x 7.* . ,,, e ? o I j -
? wio E
i / 5 l
~
$ y,, _
s-. i E 8" / , =w S S' N w.P. p 5 m DETAIL M MITER JOINT 49 TO(ORYWEL( PLAN OF RETURN LINE SUPPORT (TYP. EXCEPT X213 ) i FIGURE 2.5.1-5 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 2 OF 4)
TYPICAL RETURN Im QW10 LINE FLANGE OF RING GIRDER
- \ TYP - \
f is / N TYP ' Ms/3 g W10g (v g, p,pg
~ ~' ' '
l* SUPPORT { }/ 1.- (_ -
- . . -, o * -
e u. \ /
.+
4 ' x v
+ 2-h
- STIFF E.
,@' (dA. SIDE) 4 0 4 6
%* GUSSET 2.
5 Ms / i TYP.) M6 4 WEB 0F RING GIRDER SHELL ELEVATION OF RETURN LINE SUPPORT (TYP. EXCEPT X213) FIGURE 2.5.1-6 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION O RETURN LINE RESTRA'NTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 3 OF 4)
1*E8 2*S RCIC LINE (PENETRATION 8N213) 3 .o , O 3f ta g '13, 0
% It s on
,4 "*
'4 *e h0L jN h
/ als
*Me
\ ti"
/ ti- EPp
>3N h* /' , ,
2-L 4 *xA
- 2 n PLATFORM SUPPORT g y n m \
h* /~
--- 2- A 2
PLAN D RCIC VACUUM PU W DISCH. LINE REST. ( X-213 ) i O R. 3 x 1 - mq
- fl W l I I I
I I l J y l 4e 1 , hf I I r- ij' g- y t I . L- qL- y R. 6 X 1 - I l EL .107. *-6 * ! t i :rae-t j i t):1 -:e ii l 11) 1 -PIPE CL AMP
!l l g g
l (TYP.3 PLACES) l e 6*s PIPE l 1.*--- l l L 4 x 4 --.- 2 's P I PE l I I l UvA l I l [al~ SECTION/ A \ t/
- FIGURE 2.5.17 ORIGIN AL CONFIGURATION RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 4 OF 4)
O O O 1 1 0 55 ** f asist
-=
* '* 8 "" r'i - . -
=
l war. g van.
..-.______ . ~.
c . .. , ;,
*M
< l ',w , b %
j
' ' ~
- . ,... f
/ % x3/m'$'/ h' ' -{z.5
~
; ,-,' 92' ,.
', l l , { \
,. , x - . _,- - - a .- ,
~i 8'~ S
,/' , ,
- 7) y 7 , ,/ . ,
'. ,- \,
/
' /. ~ ~ - ,-
~ .-
\. SECTION M
' - + n.in v,. . u. , m us
,/ ./ r
- x \. - -
i Ky, '
's
/ /. / '-
g gva= ,
's
'=N \
- SECTION A W
/ , ,__.-4
[lm_.. / ' "-/ ? 's h . 'v
~ m i n i
no f ! 4 Q ! j o A M> t
'o
) jf ' l !" \-f 1 , l (f - i U lC[' y
~
- 4, U i
f . .
,1~ l = =c "* " 8 "" =
f
, V.,
x 4
/
/
/ c ='m\%v<~.
s i j
, , ,- +
c , 7 ,- ' \, ,
,',' ',/
- / -r l = h=4 t- -. 4_
, , , 4 ._L '
l
'\' l ' '~ ..___. ,'l
'N N. '
I p<' , SECTION[I)D DETAIL M
'v,'j"t b
i h, y' (-) .: M W
.'.~~..a 8 PLAN VIEW ~<-..4..._...- 380 o
FIGURE 2.5.18 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION SPRAY HEADER AND SUPPORTS INSIDETHETORUS
1 I O
+
STRAINER A550 SLY TYP.ELEV. VIEW 0F STRAINER ASST.INSIDE TORUS STD. WALL STRA10HT TEE T .. STRAINER FLANGE
./
N ....
~
s [ C -t , [odNuOkkA XI$ h
~
m/O
- SECTION M '
SECTION M W v 4 FIGURE 2.5.19 r i ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL ECCS NOZZLE AND STRAINER INSIDE THE TORUS , i
- - - - --.-,,,r-, , - ,m- - , ,- - - - - - , - , - - - - , -----,r
O 6'-0* TO VERT. ( CF TORUS TORUS SHELL (I 8T PIPE i o , i , I n INSERT PLATE , , n
's J, s .,
. s g -,
e h vi O " i M l PENETRATION NOZZLE FIGURE 2.5.110 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL PENETRATION NOZZLE AT O INSIDE TOP OF TORUS
O O O
*IQ, d.
N
'fI A % i I
Neq0 9 SO (Ay E x0 9
- s l," N ( v e I
) ._ ,,
,' S y I
/
/ j PROPOSED ZONE AND ANCHOR LOCATION
/ f FOR FLEX 1BLE HOSE
/
4 M AT'L SA-312 OR SA-376 Gr. TP304 I
/ g g NPS = %"
6
', I 9 60 gd 7, ,6' i / gg L
,3 1 \ 50 8
[p1,//I
. .. , >n y e
FIGURE 2.5.1-11 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL SMALL BORE PIPING ARRANGEMENT OUTSIDE TORUS - X225L
O O O
'Q- m.
. n a s y,. -
m= s,'
- ,7 , /
{
,o Pd 'ph' , 10*g[8 .
q ,o. #
, e.
s
.sv..
#*#'f N*
[ +o#I
?
.h. s
..M ,+
8
.+
n
/
<<. ,, -s
,. e
.s.
/'o's F"
<f K N DIRECTION OF DIRECTIONO\F RESTRAINT EXPANSION SEEN O-SPRING HANGER RIGID MANGER g ANCHOR FIGURE 2.5.1-12 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL LARGE BORE PIPING ARRANGEMENT OUTSIDE TORUS - X2268
O "C (N :. u 9='~=F
-~
o
\ '1 T' R, G,o
, o
$" i
- o .
fo -- ~ SECTION-AA ,o
s*
= = ;
SECTION-BB / l l l 1*-7*
/2M31G.
TONC * - DGE ANCHOR- et- e { ]
>- - /
g L3X3X%
. 6* s PIPE
$2S$('o?>
n - n > l L4X4X% vid - { ELEVATION VIEW W FIG U R E 2.5.1-13 ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION ~ TYPICAL PIPING SUPPORT CONFIGURATION OUTSIDETORUS 2T49-RS HR7 0
3 ' = = EXISTING G-19 r P R%"X10-X10tG. I
< v.?; - P- ---.
Jl l il il B.O.S.EL. p_ ,. 126* o l
,,g P l' W6X15.5
~ FACE OF
?HILLIPS RE0 HEAD *RSSA WEB VgONC.WEOGE ANCHOR Jii[ 3-2 *-7 ,
= _
6" O PIPE CLAMP g () s EL.122'-11
)E 678B
_T i ELEVATION VIEW FIGURE 2.5.1-14 f ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION TYPICAL PIPING SUPPORT CONFIGURATION OUTSIDE TORUS 2T49-RS-H9 l LO l
2.5.2 Structural Modifications O Piping modifications made inside the torus included the removal of the spare piping associated with penetration X-227A (see Figure 2.5.2-1) and the addition of reducer-elbows to the RHR return lines (see Figure 2.5.2-2). In order to ensure the structural integrity of the return line restraints inside the torus during S/RV and LOCA discharge events, structural modifications were made. The structural modifications included adding pipe bracts, strengthening connections to the ring girder, and strengthen-ing connections to the piping. The structural modifications made to the return line restraints are shown in Figures 2.5.2-3 through 2.5.2-8 and are summarized in Table 2.5.2-1. In addition to the modifications made to the return line restraints, modifications were also made to the vacuum breaker drain line supports (see Figure 2.5.2-9). Outside the torus, modifications were made to some small-bore piping (2-inch diameter and less) to eliminate the effects of torus shell motion on the piping and isolation valves. The change consisted of installing a nuclear-flexible metal hose between the shell penetration and the iso-lation valve and adding a new pipe support anchor at the end of the flexible hose. Figure 2.5.2-10 shows a typical flexible metal hose arrangement outside the' torus, and Table 2.5.2-2 lists the piping asso-ciated with this modification. For the larger lines cutside the torus, piping supports were added or p modified in order to reduce piping stresses and valve accelerations due Q to torus shell motion. Figure 2.5.2-11 shows a representative large-bore piping arrangement modification in which piping supports were added at several locations. Representative piping support modifications are shown in Figures 2.5.2-12 and 2.5.2-13. The piping support modifications are summarized in Table 2.5.2-3. i 2.5-3 _,,_l
O 2 O C
- n Z
C 5 M z= 2 "13 in ggnnnn a 5005 gz d g a p
>> > 0 C 0 E ee e 2 zm EM H ma en 2 2! o ya m O om d
>o 2 3 d5 52 $
0 0y z mC Hm 2> $ g m r- r Os xxx xx ADDITION OF gg m PIPE BRACES :n m C- @ y , m3 L IO STRENGTHENING OF mk I xx x CONNECTIONS TO THE h PIPING gm 2 STRENGTHENING OF X XX X X CONNECTIONS TO THE E RING GIRDER o U m o d o Z V) i
TABLE 2.5.2-2 b
\
FLEXIBLE METAL HOSE ASSEMBLIES LIST Nominal Penetration Pipe Size Pipe End Type of Metal No. (inches) Material Connection Hose X-225A - SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-2258 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-225C h SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-225D SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-2252 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-225F SA-312 socket metal bellows ' Gr TP304 weld X-225G SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-225H SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-225J SA-312 socket metal bellows l Gr TP304 weld X-225 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-225L SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-225M SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-206A 1 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-206C 1 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld O
TABLE 2.5.2-2 (Continued) Nominal Penetration Pipe Size Pipe End Type of Metal No. (inches) Material Connection Hose X-206H 1 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-217A 1 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-2178 1 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-217C 1 SA-312 socket metal bellows Gr TP304 weld X-215 2 SA-106 socket metal bellows Gr B weld X-235A 2 SA-106 socket metal bellows Gr B weld X-235B 2 SA-106 socket metal bellows Gr 8 weld X-221B 2 SA-106 socket metal bellows Gr B weld X-221C 115 SA-106 socket metal bellows Gr B weld O l l I
. . _ , . . - . - - . . - _ . -. - . . . - - .. ~ -. . . - . _ . . . -
t TABLE 2.5.2-3 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS SUMMhRY OF PIPE SUPPORT MODIFICATIONS FOR ~ TORUS-ATTACHED (EXTERNAL) PIPING j' Number of Supports
- Line New Modified
. X-207 4 2 X-214 0 5- {
!- X-208A 4 2 X-2088 4 2 X-226A 1 3 X-226B 0 '3 1
X-203 1 2 - X-212 0 1 X-204A to D 2 26 X-224A 0 4 X-224B 0 2 X-210A, 211A 7 9 X-210B, 211B 6 9
- X-233 2 1 X-218A 0 0
! X-234A 1 2 I i X-205 4 5 X-220 1 2 X-221A 0 4 l X-222B 3 6 X-206F 0 13 X-206H 1 3 X-230 0 4 X-231 0 2 X-213 0 1
- X-206A 1 0 X-206C 1 0 X-215 1 0 O .
I
- . . , , ,.,-,--..,n. . n ,,-,-.---,.--,_,,,.~,.,..n--_.,,,_,,,_.,,.,_,_,,,.,,, n., , , - , _ .-,, . , , .., , , , ,
TABLE 2.5.2-3 (Continued) Humber of Supports Line New Modified X-217A 1 0 X-217B 1 0 X-217C 1 0 X-221B 1 0 X-221C 1 0 X-225A 1 0 X-225B 1 0 X-225C 1 0 X-225D 1 0 X-225E 1 0 X-225F 1 0 X-225G 1 0 X-225H 1 0 l X-225J l 0 X-225K 1 0 l X-225L 1 0 X-225M 1 0 X-235A 1 0 X-235B 1 0 l l l l O l
O _ 2 '-O stAn* _ 9' HORIZONTAL ( _ INS.TORU,5 SHELL _, _[ f M _ EL.103'-10' n
* (1 1 o e AZ.225' n
j It
\ TORUS EQUAToit/
\
4* TORUS PENET.X22TA
; 2,
. $. CUT EXISTING PIPE 4* l b FROM INSIDE OF TORUS SHELL & CAP PIPE SEE DETAIL *A* [ ELEVATION O - t- 1 7 'SCH.160 C 1 Sbf$ E web x 0 12 *-0
- TOVERTICAL( /
OF TORUS ~ l
%" V N DETAIL M I W FIGU RE 2.5.2-1 i
l STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS i PIPING ARRANGEMENTINSIDETORUS-X 227A l i
O O O EX EXISTING 'l , [',,..,
. ooISTING NCowRs oo NCowRS , . .
i
, ., y.- ,
l l h } 7 l'i so _. l a 270 i (#
"b f .<.
v
-s- cuiN. )
i i i a-y
^
q l CLEARANCE REQo. i i A 8 i I - ' l:
- ~'.. > w <
5* (MIN.I' ,' s' ! e l ',,,~~' CLEARANCE 35 _ e
,: REQ 9. ,,j PLAN L%*
Y,C,
- e i I
$ 8 C: TORUSHORIZ.( y l l
8[ EXISTING 16* PIPE EX NG 3 --- Ij h _jj l l i 12 *x16
- 7 _zTORUS E
SCH.40 } REDUCER , m SEE DE A,IL , 16*-90* SCH.40 ELBOW DETAIL M SECTION M FIGU RE 2.5.2 2 W STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS PIPING ARRANGEMENTINSIDETORUS RHR TEST LINE ELBOW n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ll f 0AuS 1 V
\ T 3 ,L
- : M. : E.:
!ii s i ! rn 0 E E E 0 E E 5: 5 s EEEEh EH h. 553 sista 77777 Y
t t ii t I it t iU lis:. 777 i i
- k '
k
- b' e o $ k o k 4 L L k
i L L L tw a sw r7 F7
' r /,',",DE ' ..
,- / #
j ','- l l l
\
PLAN VIEW LOCATION OF NEW PIPE BRACE ASSEMBLIES I l TORUS
; YORUS EL.103'-5%"
! (' . f "'a ' u,o . . s124A 8 9 _f.f f1 a, tL .101 *-7 ).* 1.1 a, EL.101 S?Va* t
/
CI21 2 9 tt . i oo -o%* h E214 i ,fi
/
i r D' i gi ,,,et.se-?).- o
- t, a I as
'l
\ /
9'
'x '
N g minc staotn uts" . , \ [j g n!NG CIRDER REO f j DETAll M / BRACE A55LET g '0" 9 -10* l SECTION VIEW LOCATION OF NEW PIPE BRACE ASSEMBLIES i FIGURE 2.5.2 3 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS s (SHEET 10F 6) i l i
i
'\
( O _ f _s- s_
= "- W10 l W10 TYP.) , ,
/ L6 x4- W1LV r 2CCCr X ._ ST!rr ts% tTYP.i .
44 :T{6 -
* ,(t%- T-HOLE' " FOR gg . ..
1* E1 ,' t v BOLT ey,- ,J *, { ! s i , g - 54 PIPE SCH. 120 N - '$ SECTION M
\)NI's;M< W
.'ess 4 g
+,
D 4 4T PIPE xxS 1 g
# 4 I 4, s s
~
(t %,v HOLE FOR 1 T BOLT x N 9 - CRING GIROER v i g; ; et - x_ - ST ir r . ti - KM ,
- h tw- ,
2V.- 1 g\g
- Ijj g, tw_/ . DE T A I L Q p p
'il l\"
74- 12 BOLTS.F IELD ORILL
, 5 STIFF tW1.M RING GIROER gy, - " h
- g. LASS MC WELD TYP.16 PLACES
]
<rl I TYP. y g
Ai M t, - w __ _,i g
; t vP.? y , .
l y /g.W-- 93 _ 9 1 STIFF.E 3%
- _
1%7YP. SECTION M 'O' D _ FIGURE 2.5.2-4 STRUCTORAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 2 OF 6)
ADD 1 - f.
/O FIELD CUT Q) .ar--
o l -._ (IPIPE I E I w10 Y f. 8 "X1 %"X810. Q l --- J n
.r y_
s- l1 y 4 0 m
> c --
s 7 E 9"X1 *X12 tG.
!.
- PIPE (16's RHR)
I WQ h.: II lI ' l q$2's PIN CONNECTION DETAIL X-210A 8 B w (NEW) h16 s RHR X1 '-41G . E. (2 PLAC 8 "X%"ES ) r-)-r'S s ._ ,
- f. 8'/2*X1 "X12 tG. - s e
%V i X81G. l l l E W/ 8"X1 SLOT 2 %"3/s*X41G. L \
m il
, c.
l
-~3 ,
W10 @ f $ - 7 4 RESTRAINT e ,J_j*J... p .. o u EL.101 '-7 % " 2' PIN 3~ ' I l I g 'i W10 VC 1 '-11 % " _ - SECTION M W O STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS l RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS ($HEET 3 OF 6)
- 3
- O -
r~- > o .-- _ . _ 777 (E308 (TYP) lE lI IS
~
F. 8"X8"X1 %"(TYP ) m i p 1 1 (TYP) m
\ g/ 2 h 11
. l "g
MA % y j HI i i A (
.er- 7 q) EXIST. 24's HPCI CONNECTION DETAIL X -214 O (NEW)
() 2's PIN d EXIST. 24's HPCI
,/ A/)
\
I
- l
( $
$5 nn a }
s f-
;j l
'g [_,n; g
(RESTRAINJ" EL.100'-0/4
"' l o g( jd ELBOW WELD
= 2 '-5 " =
SECTION M l W lO """""' STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 4 OF 6)
1 0 ! Il {EXISTRINGGIRDERFLANGE
. \1 1
~.
7 , I l l ADD ADDITIONAL WELD AS SHOWN (TYP 16 PLACES)
. !j ik I
uT LV 11 g)("IST W10X89 WITH 111 7s COVER E.'S 11 11 I I SECTION @ m W a e--W10 ~ W10
~
_ li I((6PIPESUPP _ _ _ _ =========
~
_.. JI l e.A j/ 2 / /l// D ' jj// 2-L4X4 RESTRAINT ELEVATI N (TYP EXCEPT X-213 ) FIGURE 2.5.2 7 O'- STRUC1 URAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 5 OF 6)
O O O fye*x 7%"U q N tc+$L+, (/-EXIST.%V_ Mt 4 EL. 103%7* de, ,,,. /2D RCIC LINE k* s')( a i l
._ '_ v.T
,FOR wous %* BOLTS t I bCONN.1 %* $8EHINO3 g g e
.6 g.
t1*x G*4 ~ tt *u G *x 4 '-0
- L C. L s s E.1 *x 3 *x 3 '-0
- LC.
i
!' SECTION M
{ \
\
- g. '\
%, y y %*
i f
*w' N
y NEW ST CATtALK COLLW I , fg ( FIELD DRILLED HOLES
'O. ,
*g q . l, [.-*
,4 s' )i
- i. _
N % I g EL . 103'-G
- N % ' - 7 r --
_________q [pg: t ,.x G. gl__ EXICT ut 4 BEAM (CATWALK) CL . 102 *-1 t *
'N \
o i (
+ car.AtK k l t i .x 3 PLAN VIEW l , ll"
- l X213 RESTRAINT MODIFICATION
( 2T P!PE SECTION M W FIGURE 2.5.2-8 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS INSIDE THE TORUS (SHEET 6 OF 6)
O O O d PLATFORM S BAY A ALK l E. 3 t
+ .
(STAI ESS) l i I L._.p.____._._ .q. _. J
- g_
~
* .o qn n n
o fQ_ f NEW pCg80 1
- e}*
l g,jj
" N ,, I I n1 ( EXIST VACUUM n
BREAKER LINE DRAINS
'._._______y...
L .a __ . _ si u__..___.._._J g. e U-BOLT i l b~ J 2 2*z i PLAN VIEW (TYPICAL FOR BAYS WITH AZI;AITHS SECTION 67*30*.112*30*.337*30*. 22*30*.24'*30*.292*30*) M 3 *-3
- _
EXIST. ~ APPROX. ~ EXIST. g.y BEAM (W8 EW 1
- e AM ( 81 XIST.
ii3 SCH.80 EXIST. DRAIN
' s PIPE g [ BRACE "
n- s []/l l EXIST. b \\ f / EXIST. BEAM (W8) f%h s e i u. jj DRAIN $[
'g'g l l jj
/
,. . SCR.
I, U" 30 PIPE (TYP)
/[_ _ _a[,}_,__,
s
</ i j' e.3wx% _>
7
- g. y ' [j SECTION M W
SECTION M W FIGU RE 2.5.2-9 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS VACUUM BREAKER DRAIN LINE BRACING INSIDETHETORUS
x 3
/,m
. ~h}' a. s . 'S= 0 0( et x 3 %v V
* * ' aN, -j a.
' e 4 .
T N \ 3.. l SEE DET. "A" = 0 2
< FOR END CONNECTION
%" PIPE I
, am//h b
a;ge f I i b* , 1 e/
,,;c 8
gh FIELD WELD AROUND
,-w END OF FLEXIBLE HOSE ASSEMBLY 6U $
' DET. "A"
} /
11 ;6, ' PENT.X-225L gu- < FIGURE 2.5.210 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS SM ALL BORE PIPING FLEXIBLE HOSE ARR ANGEMENT - X-225L
+ - - . . , _ _ . ,
O O O
'%~%y^.
^$
+ I ++'
, +%o.,+e,k, . y + * ,<
+ . .
N
,8 '
\ .3'N s- .
<n' '~ s s' +*~
s,c" . v 's ' e .
#- . . q$1* "
pN -
..$ RW Ro ,I s*
W,
.o,
'o- Y
+
/RS4,. /s.- wc w.r -
v 4 r,pv
--- .t - - s-
#' o.
' V ,s*] @*
4 $y (* O
,.. ,,s **?$f
- n. ry /
+<,,
^e+ " s'
-/ ,
If
+,*o.> /gp A. '
FIGU RE 2.5.211 i STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS ! LAR3E BORE PIPING ARRANGEMENT ! OUTSiDETHETORUS-X 207 l
/
ft"
= =
- j p e
y_ =
* ' .o
$r- u
')
(* 5 h " n [h g l l
. n
- it _. ,!
JECTION-AA E =8 4' = =5%"; SECTION-80 i t.7
+
Y8D310*
.' 1' CONC
- WEDGE 7 8 ANCHOR--et- .
{ ] t I g L3X3X% s 6
\d 4 's P!PE 13 *X%tX ' j x 2-41o. ,
L4X4X%
. imiems morrito inu M4
& t:..LEVATION VIEW l
l FIGURE 2.5.2-12 ! STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS TYPICAL PIPING SUPPORT' CONFIGURATION OUTSIDE TORUS 2T49-RS-HR7 i )
"' \ ,
s . t ..
- w. y pw- ,.,,n., w, ,,_- , . . , - , ,
O 3'-7" EXISTING G-19q p r.%"X10 *X10 tG. t
+ *. 6 j , _.I' 7....
.e I
Y i ' B.0,5.EL. 126'-3' ( W6X15.5 o * - FACE OF g__ %"PHP,. LIPS RE0HE AD - WEB CONC. WEDGE ANCHOR hit [3-RSSA P-P=2'-5 g.
= ---
3-6* O 3 BOLT PIPE CLAMP 7a EL .122 '-11 %~
)E 6 "HBB
_T ELEVATION VIEW j
- INDICATES MODIFIED ITEM I FIGU RE 2.5.2-13 STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS PIPING SUPPORT OUTSIDE TORUS 2T49-RS-H9
n 6.1. 2 Suppression Chamber Piping Penetrations IV) 6.1.2.1 Analytical Model Description A NASTRAN finite element analysis of reaction loads at piping penetrations was performed using an 11h degree model of the torus. The basic madel, shown in Figure 6.1.2-1, was developed for this purpose. Membrane-bending plate elements were used to represent the torus shell and ring girder web. Bar elements were employed to model the circumferential stiffeners and ring girder flange (not shown for clarity). Conservatively, symmetric boundary conditions were imposed at the miter joint and at midbay, thus producing the effect of additional loads on adjacent areas when the 11% degree section is loaded. Points of intersection between the shell and the saddle were fully restrained to account for the saddle. Modeling of piping, insert plates, and the torus shell near the penetration was performed with the aid of a FORTRAN program. Figure 6.1.2-2 shows a sample model generated by this program. Since the example penetr& tion is located at midbay, where symmetric boundary conditions exist, only one-half of the peretration area was generated. Plate elements are used to model the pipe, torus shell, and insert plate. At the intersection, however, solid elements wera ernployed to obtain accurate results due to the abrupt transition. Tne corr.plete penetration model is forned by removing appropriate elements f rorn Figure 6.1.2-1 (shaded) and replacing them with the model of c3 Figure 6.1.2-2. Some elements in Figure 6.1.2-2 were input by hand to
! j conr ect the two models.
6.1.2.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations Piping reaction loads were determined for the various operating and accident conditions which follow.
- a. SRV Actuation o A1.1 o A3.1 o C3.1 o A1.2 o A2.2
-o C3.2
- b. Condensation Oscillation
- c. Chugging
- d. Pool Swell m
6.1-9
6.1.2.6 Summary of Results Table 6.1.2-1 provides a comparison of the actual stress to the allowable stress for the governing service level. As demonstrated, the calculated stresses exceed the Code allowable in some instances. In all cases the calculated stresses were less than 125 percent of the allowable. Because of the limited extent and magnitude of the overstress, the conservatisms cited in Section 8.0 provide sufficient justification for accepting the reported stresses. i p !o 4 I l l s I 6.1-11 l_,,..-r,-, ,- , , , - . . . , - . - - . - -.,...,_,,.-.m._,--m---.----.,..._-----..----------.---------------
O MODEL AREA REPLACED BY PENETr4ATION MODEL x (SEE FIGURE 6.1.2-2) x , N A \ kI e _ I/
/
/ s s
Ny N i N y f
/ RING GIRDER
}N \
\ / /
N IT N N, u N
\ - T uS gtt t
V VN l l I FIGURE 6.1.2-1 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS - ANALYTICAL MODEL B ASIC 11-1/4-DEGREE TORUS SHELL MODEL i I
4 O TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING
\
\\ >
\\
\\
SOUD ELEMENTS REPRESENT TRANSmON AREA
\ /=
/ ,
O /
/
/
/
/ 10euSSe m me e~1S GENERATED BY HAND (4 TOTAL)
I O FIG U R E 6.1.2-2 SUPPRESSION CHAMBER PENETRATIONS - ANALYTICAL MODEL TYPICAL PENETRATION FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
6.1.3 Fatigue Evaluation 6.1. 3.1 Critical Locations Areas of the suppression chamber system with both high stress levels and structural discontinuities were evaluated for_ fatigue. The specific locations examined included the following:
- a. Ring girder web to shell intersection
- b. Saddle to shell intersection
- c. Column web to shell intersection
- d. Column flange to shell intersection
- e. Shell thickness transitions
- f. Nozzle reinforcement-to-nozzle intersection
- g. Nozzle reinforcement to shell transition.
6.1.3.2 Equivalent Maximum Stress Cycles The application of loading transients to the suppression chsder produces irregular response histories. It was necessary to convert these complex O response transients to an equivalent number of maximum stress cycles. ~ V For the seismic load, 10 equivalent maximum stress cycles per earthquake were used, as specified in Appendix N of the ASME Code. For time-dependent transients, such as the S/RV loads, the following formula was used to approximate the number of equivalent stress cycles: n f ) , N= b "o. I l i=1 (max) where: N = number of equivalent maximum stress cycles a = maximum stress range og = actual stress range at the ith range n = number of stress ranges. This equation was used at each critical location for each load case. Condensation oscillation and post-chugging loads are frequency-dependent transients. The response transients due to these loads were converted to the time domain using the Fast Fourier Transform method and then analyzed as indicated previously. To account for the local structural disconti-
-("p)' nuities at the evaluated locations, theoretical stress concentration I factors were applied to the calculated stresses.
6.1-12 l l
' " " ' " ' ' s--9 e w w - - _ -p . - - .
The fatigue design evaluation included 40 years of plant operation followed by one LOCA event (either a DBA, IBA, or SBA event). The number of S/RV actuations and other load occurrences assumed for the evaluation was summarized in subsection 4.1.8. The fatigue design basis used in the suppression chamber evaluation, which includes a DBA and an SBA event, is summarized in Tables 6.1.3-1 and 6.1.3-2, respectively. The cumulative usage factor was determined by calculating the usage for each load combination and summing up over all combinations. 6.1.3.3 Summary of Results The fatigue analysis of the suppression chamber was performed in accordance with the ASME Code, Section NE-3221.5. Fatigue usage factors were calcu-lated as described in subsection 6.1.3.2 at the critical torus shell locations listed in subsection 6.1.3.1. The maximum cumulative usage factor calculated was 0.68 for the SBA event at the ring girder web-to-shell intersection and the saddle to-shell intersection. O l i i O 6.1-13
T TABLE 6.1.3-1 FATIGUE LOAD COMBINATIONS WITH A DBA EVENT 4-Number of Equivalent Cycles at
- . Load Combinations Maximum Stress 1 ;
TA+PA + EQ(SSE) + SRV(A1.3) + CO j' EQ(SSE) + SRV(A1.3) + CO 4 EQ(SSE) + CO 5 C0 13 to 81* , CH(PRE + POST) 24 to 86* ! i ! NOC SRV(C3.1) + EQ(0BE) 50
- NOC SRV(A1.1) 210 to 350*
N0C SRV(A3.1) 198 to 330* , NOC SRV(C3.1) 478 to 742* O , ) *Each location will have a unique number of equivalent cycles at' maximum stress, depending on the response time history at the location of interest. 1 r, O 4 4
t TABLE 6.1.3-2 FATIGUE LOAD COMBINATIONS WITH AN SBA EVENT l i Number of Equivalent Cycles at I Load Combinations Maximum Stress SRV(A3.2) 3 to 5* l SRV(C3.2) 21 to 35* l 1 TA+PA + EQ(SSE) + SRV(C3.2) + l CH(PRE + POST) 1 i EQ(SSE) + SRV(C3.2) + CH(PRE + POST) 9 l SRV(C3.2) + CH(PRE + POST) 18 to 30* l l SRV(A2.2) + CH(PRE + POST) 4 to 5* CH(PRE + POST) 697 to 2523* NOC SRV(C3.1) + EQ(0BE) 50 l l NOC SRV(A1.1) 210 to 350* 1 NOC SRV(A3.1) 198 to 330* NOC SRV(C3.1) 478 to 742* 1
*Each location will have a unique number of equivalent cycles at maximum j stress, depending on the response time history at the location of interest.
l l O l
6.2 VENT SYSTEM (,,j This'section describes the design stress analysis of the vent system. This analysis is based on the modified configuration of the vent system shown in Figures 2.2.2-1 through 2.2.2-5. The loads discussed in Sec-tion 4.0 of this report were applied to the vent system for determining the local.and gross system effects. Loadings that must be considered in the evaluation of the vent system include deadweight, seismic, thermal,- drag, and LOCA-related effects. The LOCA hydrodynamic phenomena result in a number of loadings on the vent system. The most significant of these are pool swell impact, which would occur early in a DBA, CO, which occurs after pool swell for a DBA or initially for an IBA, and CH lateral loads, which would occur later in a DBA or during an SBA or IBA. The nature of the applied loads was considered in developing the vent system analytical models. The components of the vent s/ stem analyzed in this section include: o Vent Header Assembly - includes the vent header, vent pipe, vent f.eader miter, downcemers, vent headar/ vent pipe intersection, dtwncomer/ vent header intersection, and vent pipe /drywell inte-- cect.iori o Vent System Supports o Ocwncomer Ties
/~'h o Vent System Penetrations - includes the S/RV and vacuum breaker k_sl penetrations o Vent Line Bellows Vent Header Deflector o
The respective detailed analyses are presented in the following subsec-tions. N-6.2-1 1
6.2.1 Vent Header Assembly This subsection covers the stress analysis of the vent header assembly. Included in the assembly are the vent header, vent header miter, vent pipe, vent header / vent pipe intersection, downcomers, downcomer ties, vacuum breaker supports, S/RV line/ vent pipe stiffening, and the vent pipe /drywell intersection. 6.2.1.1 Analytical Model Description The finite element model of the vent header assembly used in the analysis of the vent system is shown in Figure 6.2.1-1. This model is composed of a 22 -degree segment of the vent header assembly and consists of one-half the non-vent bay with one pair of fuli downcomers and one pair of split downcomers, and one-half the vent bay with one pair of full downcomers, the vent header / vent pipe intersectior,, and a 180-degree cross-section of tne verit pipe and drywell intersection. Tne vent header support columns and downcomer ties are included in the snodel, althcugh they are analyzed in another section. This model is com.acsed of approy.imately 2844 elements and 2586 nodes. Sixteen sections of t.his segment make up the complete verit header assembly. Tne vent headar, dow,coners, downcomer/ vent header stiffeners, vent pipe, niter ring, vant header / vent pipe stiffening ring, 5/RV line/ vent pipe stifferir.g rings and plates, and the drywell were modeled using quadri-laterai thin shell elenents. Triangular thin shell elements were used for transition elements around discontinuities and for changes in mesh size. Areas that are anticipated to have higher stresses were modeled with more detail. At the interactions and stif fened regions, elements small enough in size to capture local and secondary stresses were used (approximately 4 by 4 inches and smaller or 7 -degree segments). The full downcomer pair and intersection in the non-vent bay were modeled with greater detail than the other downcomers. This pair was used to capture the local and secondary stresses at the downcomer/ vent header intersection. Bar or beam elements were used to model the downcomer reinforcing rings, vacuum breaker pedestal, and bellows connection ring. Rod or truss elements were used to model the downcomer ties and vent header support columns. (More detailed beam-element models of the downcomer ties and support columns were used to investigate the local effects on these components.) Spring elements were used at the bellows connection ring to account for the flexibility of the bellows. The drywell portion of the vent pipe /drywell intersection is modeled at a sufficient distance from the penetration for the local effects to have died out. Boundaries on planes of symmetry were restrained to displace only on those planes, i.e., the component of translation normal to the plane and the components of rotation in the plane are prevented. For the assym-metric case, boundaries on planes of symmetry were constrained to prevent translations in the plane of symmetry and the rotation normal to the plane. O 6.2-2
The model was used for evaluating effects on the complete vent system for (O dynamic and static loads as well as for performing frequency analyses to x determine eigenvalue and eigenvector solutions. More detailed plots of specific areas of interest in the analyses are shown in Figures 6.2.1-2 through 6.2.1-7. 6.2.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations The loads considered in the design of the vent system are covered in Section 4.0 of this report. The load combinations considered and the vent system components to which they were applied are shown in Table 6.2.1-1. There are three types of LOCA events (DBA, IBA, and SBA), with different load sequences for each. A loading combination versus time chart for each of these events is shown in Figures 4.2.1-1, 4.2.2-1, 4.2.2-2, and 4.2.3-1. A breakdown of the applied loads for the ncrmal and LOCA events is shown in Table 3.2 2-1. There were many differerit possible loading aethods or contributions for some of the combinations shown. This is discussed further in subsection 6.2.1.4. J 6.2_1.3 Design Allowables lhe design allowables for the vent system are from the ASME Code, Sub- , section NE, 1977 Edition throi.gh the Summer 1979 Addenda, and the struc-tural ecceptance criteria (Reference S-2). The ASME Code design service levels for the load combinations are given in Table 3.2.4-1, and the de:.ign stress allowables are given in Table 6.2.1-2. r~y (aj 6.2.1.4 Method of Analysis This subsection describes the methods employed in analyzing the vent header assembly. The analytical methods were developed based on the evaluation requirements described in the preceding subsection. The basic procedure used in evaluating the vent header system was a finite element model that captured the local as well as gross vent system response. The computer program used in performing the analysis was MSC/NASTRAN. The NASTRAN elements used to make up the finite element model were the membrane-bending elements QUAD 4 (for the base element) and TRIA3 (for the transition elements). These elements used a modified isoparametric theory that takes into account the transverse shear energy to map a flat' plate onto a curved surface. This feature considerably improves the convergence. The ROD and BAR elements were used to model the linear support members and stiffeners. The material properties used in the analysis of the system were: Young's Modulus 27,900,000 psi Poisson's Ratio 0.3 Shear Modulus 10,800,000 psi Mass Density 0.283 lbm/in3 O 6.2-3
I All static analyses were made using NASTRAN Solution 24 procedures (the displacement method). The finite element model contained about 14,750 static degrees of freedom. The local element stiffnesses of all the elements not constrained were combined into the total structural stiff-ness matrix. A description of the static analyses follows. o Deadweight - 1.0g uniform gravity load applied in the vertical direction in accordance with subsection 4.1.1. o Thermal - SBA, IBA, DBA, and design thermal expansion loads were applied in accordance with subsection 4.1.2. o Pressure - Unit pressure loads were applied and scaled for the appropriate pressures specified in subsection 4.1.2. Some pressure stress calculaticas were performed by hand for hoop stress determination. o S/RV - Unit loads were applied to the S/ W vent pipe penetration points. From these, the equivalent sprirgt for the vent systen,s were calculated and used in perfwming the S/RV analysis (see subsection 6.4.1). Static, dynamic tiac history, and frequency "Jependent loads were applied to the S/RVDL analysis. Once the S/RVOL/ vent pipe reaction loads were obtained, these loads were applied to the vent sistam to take into account the reaction loads on the vent system. A DLF vas applie,1 to tne reactions of the dynamic and frequency dependent loads to account for the amplifying effects of the S/PV lines on the vent pipe. This DLF was based on theoretical analysis for each particular load. o Seismic - In accordance with subsection 4.1.1, 0.5g and 1.0g uniform gravitational loads were applied to the vent system in the vertical, north-south, and east-west directions to account for the OBE and SSE earthquakes, respectively. o Pool Swell Loads on Downcomers - An 8 psi pressure load with a DLF of 2 was applied to the bottom 60-degree section of the angled portion of the downcomer. This load was to account for the pool swell impact load on the downcomers as specified in subsection 4.1.4.3. o C0 Loads on Vent Header and Main Vent Pipe - The IBA and DBA C0 loads specified in subsection 4.1.5.4 for the vent header and main vent pipe are for determining hoop stresses. Frequency response analyses of these loads justified analysis by hand using the 2.5 psig pressure load and a DLF of 1. o CH Loads on Downcomers - The CH lateral loads on the downcomers are analyzed statically as specified in subsection 4.1.6.3. The normal modes analyses were made using the NASTRAN Solution 3 proce-dure with the modified givens method for extracting frequency. The mass and stiffness matrices were calculated at every node and were condensed to the dynamic degrees of freedom using the generalized dynamic reduction technique. Several frequency analyses were made to establish the number of degrees of freedom that were required to accurately represent the vent 6.2-4
system. The structure did not respond above 75 Hz; therefore, accuracy (s V) in the model was conservatively held to 150 Hz. Hydrodynamic mass on the submerged portion of the downcomers and supports affected the frequency of the vent system, depending on the type of load. A description of the normal modes analyses follows. o Dry Structure - For dynamic loads such as pool swell, the fluid does not act on the structure. Therefore, no hydrodynamic mass was included. There were 100 eigenvectors below 150 Hz, and 161 generalized coordinates were required to represent the structures. o Wetted Structures - For C0 dynamic loads, the fluid acts on the outside of the downcomers. Thus, a hydrodynamic mass equal to
- the displaced volume of the submerged portion of the downcomers was included. There were 127 eigenvectors below 150 Hz, and 203 generalized coordinates were required. This analysis was performed with and without downcomer ties, o flooded Structures - For chugging dynamic loans, the fluid acts on the inside of the downtomers as well as the satside. Thus, a hydrodynamic mass equal to tvice the displaced volume of the i downcomers was included. There were 157 eit ynvectors Delow 150 Hz, and 252 generalized coordinates vere required. This analysis was performed with and without dcwncemer ties.
L The modal frequency response analyses were made using the NASTRAN Solu-fm- tion 30 procedure, which utilizes the eigenvectors calculated in tha normal modes analysis (Solution 3) and calculates the respcnse of the r (v) structure for each frequency of interest in the computer analysis. This is accomplished by superimposing the responses for each of the modes calculated in the normal modes analysis due to the loading frequency being investigated. A description of the modal frequency response analyses follows. o C0 Loads - The vent system C0 loads were made utilizing the wetted structure normal modes analysis. The model was loaded by applying the loads specified in subsection 4.1.5.3 to the downcomers. The analyses were made for the IBA and DBA' condition with 2 percent critical damping, as specified in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.61. o Unit Pressure Loads - NASTRAN computer analyses were made by applying unit internal pressure loads to the downcomers via PLOAD2. These unit pressure loads were developed into a fre-quency response dynamic load (RLOAD1) by correlating the unit pressure loads (PLOAD2) with the frequency versus pressure loads , that were applied (TABLED 1). The frequency response was of the form: P(f) = A[C(f)] where: O V P(f) = the pressure as a function of frequency 6.2-5
A = the static loed set and/or DAREA card C(f) = the function varying with frequency. The analyses were made at the first three predominant structural frequencies of the system (FREQ). o Differential Pressure Loads - The differential pressure loads were applied to the downcomers for the loading cases shown in Figure 4.1.5-6. Internal pressure loads on all downcomers were simultaneously applied to the differential pressure loads for all cases. Two worst-case conbinations were identified (Cases D and E of Figure 4.1.5-9), and all event conbinatioas were made with each load case. These analyses were made for both IBA and DBA LOCA events The modal transient analyses were made using the NASTRAN Salution 31 procedure. This procedure utilizes the eigenvectors calculated in the ncrmal modes analysis (Solution 3) and calculates the total response of the structure by superimposing the responses corresponding to these individual modes. The analysis was performed using step-by-step integra-tion. The time steps used varied, depending on the duration of the load impulse, and the time steps were set small enough to ensure that several points of integration occurred in the regions of maximum response. These time steps ranged from a fraction of a millisecond tc a cocple of milli-suonds and are noted for each individual load. Two percent critical danping was used for all mcdal transient analysis. A description of the nodal transient analyses follows. o Vent System Thrust Loads - The vent system thrust loads defined in subsection 4.1.3 are resultant time history force loads caused by the rapid pressurization and fluid momentum changes of the vent system. Since these loads are actually produced by pressure, the computer analysis was made by applying a portion of a unit force (f;) to several nodes at each of the areas to be loaded and in the direction specified in Figure H2 4.2-1 of the Hatch 2 PULD (i.e., if five nodes were used to distribute the load, each node might receive 0.2 fg ). The dry structure normal modes analysis was utilized in performing the analysis. The applied force loads (FORCE 1) were then developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD1) by correlating each of the forces representing a portion of the total force with the time history force (TABLED 1) for the full load that was to be applied at that location. The transient response was of the form: F(t) = Af(t) where: F(t) = the force as a function of time f = the function with varying time (t) 6.2-6
A = a static load set and/or DAREA card. C'\ U All. vent system thrust loads were then combined through a dynamic load combination-and scale card (DLOAD). The loads were applied until the vent system response stabilized and started decaying. Time steps of 5 milliseconds were used for the time of maximum load and response. o Pool Swell Impact / Drag Pressure Transients - The vent system pool swell loads on the vent header and main vent. pipe were made utilizing the dry structure normal mcdes arjalysis. The time history pressure loads developed in subsection 4.1.4.3 were applied to the NASTRAA computer model by first applying unit pressure loads to the portion of the vent header and main vent that was impacted (PLOAD2). These unit pressure loads were then developed into a transient response dynar.,ic load (TLCA?l) by , correlating the unit pressure loads (PLOA02) with the time history pressure loads that were apolied (TABLED 1). The tran-sient ressor.se was c1 the form: P(t ) = AF(t) where: F(t) -= the piessere as a function of time A = the static load set and/or DAREA card
\ F - the functica with varying time (t).
Individual time history pressure loads were developed for every element by determining the projected centroid of each element. The pressure amplitudes and impact times were then adjusted by the methods given in subsection 4.1.4.3 for the coordinates of the element centroid. These individual element time history l pressures were then combined for a complete load definition on i the vent header through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). Two percent critical damping was applied to the structure. Time steps of 1/2 millisecond were used for all time l steps where maximum loading and response occurred, and the analysis was continued until all responses decayed out. o CH Loads - The vent system CH loads are time history pressure loads. There are three different CH loads identified in sub- ! section 4.1.6.4. These are gross vent system pressure oscillation, l acoustic vent system pressure oscillation, and acoustic downcomer j pressure oscillation loads. The structural response of the latter load case is such that a static load analysis can be performed. A discussion of the gross acoustic pressure oscil-lation loads follows. f% i t O 6.2-7 L
Gross Vent System Pressure Oscillation Loads - The flooded downcomer normal modes analysis was used for calculatir.g the response due to the gross vent system pressure oscillation loads. The NASTRAN computer model was loaded by applying unit pressure loads to the main vents, vent header, and downcomers (PLOAD2). These unit pressure loads were developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD1) by correlating the unit pressure loads (PLOAD2) with a unit amplitude time history pressure load (TABLED 1). The transient response was of the form: P(t) = AF(t T) where: P(t) = tae presst'rc ep 3 fur.ction of tile 1 = the time delay (set equal to zero) F = the flinction with varying time (t) A = a static lesd set ana/cr DAREA card. Therefore, P(t) = AF(t) , The loads were appl;ed through fe.r complete cycles to ensure that the worst.-case response was developed, and 40 time steps were evaluated in each cycle to ensure adequate response.The unit time history loads were then ratioed to the appropriate magnitude for each element of the model through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). Two percent critical damping was applied to the structure. Acoustic Vent System Pressure Oscillatian Loads - The flooded downcomer normal modes analysis was used for calcu-lating the response due to the acoustic vent system pressure oscillation loads. The NASTRAN computer model was loaded by applying unit pressure loads to main vents, vent header, and downcomers (PLOAD2). The unit pressure loads were developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD2). This response was of the form: I {0} , i < 0 or t > T2 - T1 P(t) = ? - I {At eB Ctcos(2nFt + P)}, 0 5 t 5 T2 - T1 O 6.2-8
p where: I, = t - T1 - T (T is time delay) t i V t = time from 0. By setting 8, C, P, and T to zero, we reduce the solution to: P(t) = A cos(2nFt) where: A = the static load card set and/or DAREA set F = the frequency in cycles. FPESsVRE (PSIG) L I \ . i , . . . .
-1 -- TIME (SEC)
(m) w/ n, 3 '4T
, 4T Ti T2 WHERE T IS THE PERIOD l-By starting the time at 3/4 of a period (T), a sine wave load was created where the load magnitude was zero for all time less than T1 and greater than T2. The load was applied through four complete cycles to ensure that the worst-case response was developed. The frequency of loading was varied to determine the worst-case response within the frequency band specified in Table 4.1.6-5. This worst-case response l was used in the stress evaluations. The unit loads were then ratioed to the appropriate amplitude specified in Table 4.1.6-5 for each component of the model through a dynamic load combination and scale card (DLOAD). Two percent critical dattping was applied to the structure.
Acoustic Downcomer Pressure Oscillation Loads - The circum-ferential structural response of the downcomers was obtained i by applying the pressure to the downcomer statically, using p a hand solution for the hoop stress only. 6.2-9
o Submerged Structure Loads - The vent system downcomers and downcomer ties are subjected to the submerged c:.ructure loads specified in subsections 4.1.4 and 4.1.7. Tne loads were developed as time history nodal force loads for applying to the downcomers and downcomer ties. These analyses were made by utilizing the wetted structure normal modes analysis. T ht- time history forces were applied to the NASTRAN computer model by first applying unit forces (FORCE 1) to node points on the down-comers and downcomer ties. These unit forces were developed into a transient response dynamic load (TLOAD1) by correlating the unit forces (FORCE 1) with the time history force loads that were applied (TABLED 1). The transient response was of the ferm: F(t) = Af(t) where: F(t) = the force as a function of tim A = the static load set ar.d/or l' AREA cc.rd f = the f unctica varying witn tLna (t). Dif ferent time history forces were develop 3d based on the different locations of the submerged structt,re targets, The complete submerged structure leading ,vas then developed t'y combining all load conponents with a dynanic load cotination and scale card (Cl.0AD). The LOCA and T quenchec '_ubble sub-mergeo structure Icads were applied and evaluaLEd at the same time increments in which these loads were develuped. The resultant reactions were also obtained at these same time increments. 6.2.1.5 Analysis Results For the static and dynamic analyses, the NASTRAN computer output was in the form of element hoop, longitudinal, and shear stresses. This infor-mation was obtained and filed for all elements. The output stresses were postprocessed to calculate the stress intensities. For multiple event load combinations, the postprocessor combined absolutely the element hoop, longitudinal, and shear stresses for all load cases considered and then calculated the stress intensities from the summed element hoop, longitudinal, and shear strcsses. A special purpose FORTRAN program was O 6.2-10
4 O used to calculate the ASME Code membrane and membrane plus bending or the h - local and local plus bending stress intensities for all elements. The following formulae were used for the calculation of the principal' stresses: a3 -= (ox +c)+lh(o y x- c )2 y + t y2
+
02 = h(O x y) ~ *("x ~ "y) *I xy 03 = negliglible where: ox= normal stress in x direction o = normal stress in y direction y r = shear stress in x y plane 1 at, 02, 03 = principal :; tresses. , The principal stresses thus calculated were used to compute tile stress I intensities as follows: 51 ,2 = og -02 '
$2 .3 = 02 03 i
S3 .1 =03 -01 The maximum stress intensity used for. code stress evaluation was the absolute maximum of S i ,2 5 2 .3, and S 3 .1 The combined stress results from the postprocessor analyses for the governing load cases for major areas of the vent header assembly are shown on Tables 6.2.1-3 through 6.2.1-6. 6.2.1.6 Summary of Results The vent header assembly has been analyzed and designed for the required loading conditions and meets the structural acceptance criteria. Tables 6.2.1-3 through 6.2.1-6 provide a comparison of the actual stress with their allowables. All components of the vent system are within the allowable value. 6.2-11 .
- w -~~- rr- r . - -
9 .3 ,. ,<-.7-,__ ,-.c.,, _ , _ _ , - , . , , , _ , __,,,.,,-..._,,_-.,(_y-- , , . . _ _ _ ~ , _ . , _ . , , _ , . . - - _ _ _ . . . , - - - _ _ , . . . , , _ - , , - - - - - - - , . - - - - -
TABtE 6.2.1-1 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY STRUCTURAL LOADING LOADS STRUCTURES Normal Operations Main Vents *!pnt Header Downcomers S/RV Piping X 4.1.2 Containment pressure and temperature X X X 4.1.3 Vent system thrust loads X X X 4.1.4 Pool swell 4.1.4.1 Torus net vertical loads 4.1.4.2 Torus shell pressure histories 4.1.4.3 Vent system impact and drag X X X X 4.1.4.4 Impact and drag on other structures X X 4.1.4.5 Froth impingement X X 4.1.4.6 Pool fallback X 4.1.4.7 LOCA jet LOCA bubble drag X 4.1.4.8 4.1.5 Condensation oscillation 4.1.5.1 Torus shell loads Load on submerged structures X 4.1.5.2 Downcomer dynamic loads X X 4.1.5.3 4.1.5.4 Vent system loads X X 4.1.6 Chugging 4.1.6.1 Torus shell loads X 4.1.6.2 Loads on submerged structures X 4.1.6.3 Lateral loads on downcomers X 4.1.6.4 Vent system loads X X 4.1.7 S/RV discharge X 4.1.7.2 Discharge line clearing 4.1.7.3 Torus shell pressures X 4.1.7.4 S/RVDL reflood transient X X 4.1.7.5 Jet loads on submerged structures X X 4.1.7.6 Air bubble drag X 4.1.7.7 Thrust loads on T quencher arms X 4.1.7.8 S/RVDL environment temperature G 9 9
O O . O l i I l i TABLE 6.2.1-2 VENT HEADER ASS'MBLY E DESIGN All.0WABLES STRUCTURAL COMPONENT DESIGN STRES$ ALLOWABlFS (KSI) l.evel A/Leve? 8
~ --
Level C i Stress Stress P, P, + Pb , P , e +P P, + Pb , PL , PL+Pb b P +Pb+0 P, Internal and external vent pipe, 19.3 28.95 57.9 38.0 @ 100 F 57.0 @ 100 F drywell (at vent), vent header, 34.6 @ 200 F 51.9 @ 200 F vent header / vent pipe intersection, 32.7 @ 300 F 50.55 @ 300 F downcomers, and all attachment welds- 32.6 @ 400 F 48.9 @ 400 F i Vent header penetrations (i.e., downcomer intersection, etc.) 19.3 37.635 57.C 38.0 0 100 F 57.0 @ 100 F i 34.6 @ 200 F 51.9 @ 200 F i 33.7 @ 300 F 50.55 @ 300 F.
- 32.6 @ 400 F 48.9 @ 400 F -
r i (Material: SA-516, Grade 70) I i 4 r_mt-- e n
TABLE 6.2.1-3 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS VENT HEADER /DOWNCOMER INTERSECTION (Units = KSI) STRESS CLASSIFICATION m P m
+P b "L PL+Pb P+P*O L b LEVEL A/B Actual / Allowable Actual /Allowabic Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable NOC Load Combination N + E(0) + SRV 73 */19.3 **/28.95 19.4/28.95 25.08/28.95 28.1/57.9 N + E(0) + SRV 2,M 19.3 **/28.95 22.2/28.95 28.8/28.95 33.1/57.9 SBA/IBA Load Combination
*/19.3 **/37.64 32.7/37.64 34.2/37.64 54.0/57.9 N + E(0) + PCH + SRVADS 18.1/19.3 25.9/37.64 29.0/37.64 34.4/37.64 56.2/57.9 N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M STRESS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL C DBA Load Combination N + E(S) + PC0 + SRV1,5 */38.0 **/57,0 33.63/57.0 46.43/57.0 N/A N + E(S) + Pp3 + SRV1,3 */38.0 **/57.0 30.0/t7 0 41.2/57.0 N/A
*The PL stresses meet P,allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
- The PL+Pb stresses meet P,+ Pb alsowables; therefore, additicrial analysis is not required.
O O O
i l' TABLE 6.2.1-4 l VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS VENT HEADER / MITER REGION k STRESS CLASSIFICATION P, P, + Pb P g PL+Pb. Pt+Pb +'O , LEVEL'A/B Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable NOC Load Comaination N + E(0) + SRV y,3 */19.3 **/28.95 10.8/28.95 13.1/28,95 19.7/57.9
- N + E(0) + SRV 2,M */19.3 **/28.95 13.1/23.95 15.3/28.95 23.0/57.9 l SBA/IBA Load Combination N + E(0) + PCH + b ADS 1.3 " /28.95 15.9/28.95 19.1/28.95 28.7/57.9 l N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M */19.3 **/28.95 17.0/28.95 18.4/28.95 27.6/57.9 ,
STRESS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL C t i DBA Load Combination N + E(S) + PC0 + SRVy3 */38.0 **/57.0 17.7/57.0 22.0/57.0 N/A N + E(S) + Pp3 + SRVy,3 */38.0 **/57.0 22.0/57.0 23.7/57.0 N/A l
^The P L stresses meet P, allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not requfred.
**The PL+Pb stresses meet P,+ Pb allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
l i l 2
TABLE 6.2.1-5 f VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS VENT HEADER / vet'T LINE INTERSECTION STRESS CLASSIFICATION P, P, + Pb P, _ PL+Pb PL+Pb+0 LEVEL A/B Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable NOC Load Combination N + E(0) + SRV 73 */19.3 **//8.95 11.4/28.95 14.4/28.95 21.6/57.9 N + E(0) + SRV 2,M 19.3 " /28.95 13.9/28.95 18.0/28.95 27.0/57.9 SBA/IBA Load Combination N + E(0) + P CH 4 SRV */19.3 **/28.95 12.9/28.95 14.3/28.95 21.5/57.9 ADS N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M /19.3 **/28.95 1E 9/28.95 20.9/28.95 31.4/57.9 STRESS CLASSIFICATION LEVEL C DBA Load Combination N + E(S) + PC0 + SRV1,3 */38.0 "/57. 0 19.0/57.0 28.0/57.0 N/A N + E(S) + Pp3 + SRV1,3 */38.0 "/57. 0 17.65/57.0 22.2/57.0 N/A
*The PL stresses meet P, allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
- The PL+Pb stresses meet P,+ Pb allowables; therefore, addithnal analysis is not required.
G G
~
7-2.-* - T - 4 4+4 - * "+--Mt-
- 44 "" --1 W+""
O O O TABLE C.2.3-6 VENT HEADER ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS RESULTS : ! VENT LINE/DRYWELL INTERSECTION i STRESS CLASSIFICATION P, P, + Pt> L PL+Pb Pt+Pb + Oi LEVEL A/B Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable Actual / Allowable NOC Load Combination N + E(0) + SRV y,g */19.3 **/28.95 7.2/28.95 14.0/28.95 20.9/57.9 N + E(0) + SRV 2,M */19.3 **/28.95 7.3/28.95 14.3/28.95 21.5/57.9 ! SBA/IBA Load Combination N + E(0) + PCH + SRVADS */19.3 **/28.95 7.7/28.95 14.7/28.95 21.8/57.9 N + E(0) + PCH + SRV2,M */19.3 **/28.95 7.9/28.95 14.9/28.95 22.4/57.9 STRESS CLASSIFICATION l LEVEL C DBA Load Combination N + E(S) + PC0 + SRV1,3 */38.0 **/57.0 8.1/57.0 15.5/57.0 N/A N + E(5)'+ Pp3 + SRV1,5
*/38.0 **/57.0 12.2/57.0 19.6/57.0 'N/A
*The P stresses meet P, allowables; therefore, additional analysis is not required.
**The PL+Pb stresses meet P,+ Pb allowables; tirerefore, additional analysis is not required.
+ Q allowables.
tThe PL+Pb + Q + F. actual stresses are less than PL*Pb
- e v w mi
6.4 PIPING SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS V) 6.4.1 S/RV Piping and Supports 6.4.1.1 Analytical Model Description The S/RV discharge lines were analyzed using the SUPERPIPE and ANSYS structural analysis programs and the finite element technique. Each pipe segment was modeled using flexural beam elements. Flexibility and stress intensification factors recommended in the ASME Code were applied to stresses at elbows, branch connections, and discontinuity locations such as welds and reducers. A sample analytical model is shown in Figure 6.4.1-1. A typical model begins at, and includes a portion of, the main steam line. It extends through the drywell and ends at the T quencher assembly inside the torus. " Data points were placed at both ends of each elbow, at each pipe support location and at points of analytical and/or physical importance. The vacuum breaker valve was incorporated as an additional lump weight to the line. The stiffnceses of the supporting vent pipe and the T quencher support were evaluated and considered in the model. The model was then analyzed for the load cases described in the following subsection. Only S/RV iine M has an intermediate support inside the torus. Since this intermediate support is attached to the T quencher support beams, it was incorporated in one of the T quencher and support finite element models. The analytical model description, which includes the inter-mediate support and a tummary of the results, is presented in subsection 6.4.2. All 11 S/RVDLs have intermediate supports inside the drywell. A typical drywell support configuration was shown in Figure 2.4.1-7. These support configurations were modeled as three-dimensionas flexural beam elements using either the STRUDL computer program or hand calculations. The support models were then analyzed for the reaction loads resulting from the load cases described in the following subsection. 6.4.1.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations ' Design loads consist of two categories: (1) original design specifica-tion loads, and (2) LTP-related loads. The original design specification loads include:
- a. Weight load, which accounts for pipe and insulation, plus buoyancy inside the torus.
- b. Thermal load, which includes thermal modes during normal opera-tion and LOCA.
- c. Seismic load, which accounts for inertia and anchor movement effects during 08E and SSE.
O O 6.4-1
- O
- d. S 1V blewdown load, which is redefinea and described in the LDR as one of the LTP loads.
The LTP-related loads include:
- a. Hyd odynamic loads associated with LOCA, which include: pool swell load, C0 load, CH load, and torus pool drag load resulting from S/RV blowdown.
- b. Torus pool drag load resulting from S/RV blowdown during plant
, normal operation.
The S/RVDLs were analyzed for the load combinations described in Sec-tien 4.2 of t.his repart.
- 6. 4.1. 3 Desion Allowables The S/RV discharge lines are classified as escential piping systems, and the level B service limit is assigned to the system. Litriting stress requirement 1 are in accordance with Section NC-3650 and Tabla I. 7'1 of the ASME Code.
For load ccmbinations associated with LOCA and earthquake, the 1.2 S h limit in Equation 9, NC-3652.2 of the ASME Code is increased to 1.8 S h r 2.4 Sh, depending upon the load cases considered. As defined by the PUAAG, the S/RVOL support systems are Class 3 component O supports covered by subsection NF of the ASME Code. The allowable stresses which vary with service level are defined in Appendix XVII of the ASME Code. The service levels used were per Table 3.2.4-1. All vacuum relief valves inside the drywell are designed for a minimum c,f 40 years' service life during normal operation and are designed to operate satisfactorily,during accident and post-accident conditions that uay be encountered during the design life of the equipment. 6.4.1.4 Method of Analysis For the original der,19n specification loads, the S/RVDLs were analyzed using the originai design criteria found in the FSAR. For the LTP-related loads, they were analyzed by the finite element nathod using SUPERPIPE 'and MSYS prr, grams. Except for the C0 and CH loads, the modal time history t(chnique was employed for the analysis associated with LOCA-related h3d rodynamic loads and the S/RV blowdown load. The gener-ation of the input force time histories is described in Section 4.1. P" tor to perforn.ing a complete dynamic analysis for a given S/RVDL, studiis were made to determine the dynamic characteristics of the piping syt. tem and the input f( ecing function. The values of 50 Hz and 0.002
~
O 6.4-2
/
i second were then adopted as the modal cutoff frequency and the numerical () integration time step, respectively. These values were considered adequate in providing an accurate dynamic solution. For C0 and CH loads, which are applied to the submerged portion of the S/RV discharge lines and are defined in frequency content format com-prised of 50 frequency-amplitude pairs, the ANSYS program was used for evaluating piping response to each individual steady-state forcing function input. The absolute sum method was then used to obtain the total response to the combined 50 loading functions. Damping values used were 1 percent for the NOC and 2 percent for the LOCA condition. All the responses to the CO and CH hydrodynamic loads were increased 10 percent to account for the fluid-structure-interaction (FSI) etfect. 6.4.1.5 Analysis Results The reflood analysis results for the four low-low set S/RVDLs B, D, F, and G (see subsection 4.1.7.1) are shown in Figure 6.4.1-2. These four lines may experience subsequent actuations during normal operating conditions or during an IBA/SBA event. In order to limit reflood height during subsequent actuations, one 10-inch vacuum breaker has been added to these lines to supplement the existing 6-inch vacuum breaker. The design water leg analysis results for each S/RV discharge line are g presented in Table 6.4.1-1. The pipe stress summaries for the governing load combinations are sum-marized in Tables 6.4.1-2 through 6.4.1-7. 6.4.1.6 Sumary of Results The analysis results show that the governing load combination for ' e S/RVDLs is the IBA/SBA condition, in which drag loads from CH and 3fRV blowdown are acting simultaneously on the submerged portion of the lines. Inside the drywell, modifications to the existing supports and additional supports were required in order to maintain the structural integrity of the S/RVDL piping systems. A summary of the modifications / additions was presented in Table 2.4.2-2. As shown in Tables 6.4.1-2 through 6.4.1-7, all S/RVDL pipe stresses under all load combinations are within the allowable. A 6.4-3
TABLE 6.4.1-1 O S/ RVDL DESIGN WATER COLUMN DESIGN WATER COLUMN' LINE REMARKS NO. NOC" DBA IBA/SBAt _ A 11.2 11.2 4.2 No subsequent actuation B 11.2 11.2 4.2 tt C 11.2 11.2 4.2 No subsequent actuation D 11.2 11.2 4.2 tt E 112 11.2 4.2 No subsequent actuation F 11.2 11.2 4.2 tt O G 11.2 11.2 4.2 tt H 11.2 11.2 4.2 No subsequent actuation K 11.2 11.2 4.2 No subsequent actuation L 11.2 11.2 4.2 No subsequent actuation M 19.3 19.3 3.4 No subsequent actuation
- Water column measured from top of ramshead.
- Normat operating water level.
t Waterlevet at bottom of downcomer. ti Low-low-set line. Subsequent actuation may occur during NOC (39.0 seconds minimum time interval) and IBA/SBA (38.0 seconds minimum time interval).
6.4.3 Torus-Attached Piping and Supports Q(~h 6.4.3.1 Analytical Model Description All torus-attached piping systems have been analyzed by the finite element technique, using the SUPERPIPE computer program, for responses to torus shell excitation due to the pool hydrodynamic loads. Except for lines at renetrations X-205, X-210A and B, and X-211A and B, the analytical model adopted was a system decoupled from the torus. Each pipe segment was modelled as a flexural beam element. Flexibility and stress intensification factors per recommended values of the ASME Code were imposed at elbows, branch connections, and discontinuity locations, such as welds and reducers. Each uncoupled model represented the piping and supports from the torus attachment point to the first rigid anchor or to the point where effects of torus motion have been demonstrated to be insignificant. If a piping system extended into the torus, then the torus-internal portion was also included. A branch pipe with a section modulus less than 'O percent of that of the run pipe was considered as having an insignificant effect.on the run pipe response, and was, therefore, not included. However, a separate analysis will be done later for the branch line using the run pipe response at the attachment point as input. Figure 6.4.3-1 shows a 4 sample model. Data points were placed at both ends of each elbow, at pipe support locations, branch line attachment points, and at points of analytical and/or physical importance. The rotational stiffness of the p d shell at each penetration was evaluated and considered in the analysis. Translational stiffness was not used, for the reasons explained in subsection 6.4.3.4. Valve assemblies were modeled as stick models with concentrated masses lumped at the actuator and the center of gravity of the valve body. Member stiffness was established so that the resulting dynamic characteristic of the stick model would be the same as that of the actual valve assembly. For lines at penetrations X-205, X-210A and B, and X-211A and B, uncou~ pled analyses were first performed resulting in overly conservative shell motions and piping responses. Coupled analysis, which combines torus and piping in a single integrated model, was therefore adopted for these lines. Prior to performing the actual coupled analysis, a study was made to establish an acceptable finite element shell model, a model that has a reasonable degree of fineness and would yield a reasonably accurate solution. The modelling technique on the piping portion was the same as on the uncoupled model. A sample coupled model for penetration X-205 is shown in Figure 6.4.3-2. A modification requirement was installation of nuclear metal hose in the lines listed in Table 2.5.2-2. Figure 6.4.3-3 shows the typical analytical model for lines with flexible metal hose. Since the natural flexibility and the high damping characteristic of the hose prevent amplification of the input torus motion, the piping beyond the hose was considered to be analytically decoupled from the torus. The portion before the hose was modeled as a single-degree-of-freedom system with a lump mass at the end
) accounting for the weights of the pipe, the valve, and the flexible hose.
+ 6.4-8
All the torus-attached pipina cystems have intermediate supports located outside the torus. Typical piping support configurations outside the torus were shown in Figures 2.5.1-13 and 2.5.1-14. Inside the torus, restraints exist on the return lines (see Figures 2.5.2-3 through 2.5.2-8). Supports both outside and inside the torus were modeled as three-dimensional flexural beam elements using either the STRUDL and ANSYS computer programs or hand calculations. The analytical models used in evaluating return line restraints X-214 and X-210 inside the torus are shown in Figures 6.4.3-4 and 6.4.3-8, respectively. With the analytical models established for both the piping and supports, the torus-attached piping systems were analyzed for the load cases described in the following subsection. 6.4.3.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations Design loads consist of two categories: (1) original design specifica-tion loads, and (2) LTP-related loads. The original design specification loads include:
- a. Weight load, which accounts for pipe and insulation plus weight of fluid in pipe.
- b. Thermal load, which includes thermal modes during normal oper-ation and LOCA.
- c. Seismic load, which accounts for inertia and anchor movement effects during OBE as well as SSE.
The LTP-related loads include:
- a. Hydrodynamic loads associated with LOCA, which include:
pool swell load, C0 load, CH load, and S/RV blowdown loads.
- b. Hydrodynamic load resulting from S/RV blowdown force during plant normal operation.
The piping response was evaluated for the combined loads described in Section 4.2 of this report. The vent locations and S/RVDLs considered in evaluating the return line restraints X-214 and X-210 inside the torus for submerged loads are shown in Figures 6.4.3-5 and 6.4.3-9, respectively. 6.4.3.3 Design Allowables All torus-attached piping is classified as essential, and the level "B" service limit is assigned to each system. Limiting stress requirements are in accordance with Section Nr-3650 and Table I.70 of the ASME Code. For load combinations associated with LOCA and earthquake, the 1.2 S h limit in Equation 9, NC-3652.2, is increased to 1.8 S UI 2'4 b , depending upon load cases considered. h h 6.4-9
As defined by the PUAAG, the torus-attached piping supports are Class 2 (m or 3 component supports covered by subsection NF of the ASME Code. The allowable stresses which vary with service level are defined in Appen-dix XVII of the ASME Code. The service levels used were per Table 3.2.4-1. 6.4.3.4 Method of Analysis The torus-attached pipin0 systems have been analyzed for the original ; design specification loads with a methodology consistent with that i stipulated in the FSAR. Analysis results were directly taken for use in load combinations. Dynamic analyses using the uncoupled model evaluated piping response to torus motion due to the LOCA-related hydrodynamic load and the MSRV blowdown load. Dynamic input in this case was the torus shell motion at the attachment point. Except for the CO and CH loads, the motion was the acceleration time history resulting from the uncoupled torus shell analysis. The modal time history technique was used for the analysis. The input motion amplification 1 characteristic was first analyzed by performing a response spectrum analysis. The values of 50 Hz and 0.002 second were then adopted as the modal cutoff frequency and the numerical integration time step, respectively. These values are considered to provide acceptable accuracy in calculating the dynamic solution. It has been recognized that a fully coupled torus piping dynamic analysis is not practical. Instead, the uncoupled analysis is the preferable
/"'N approach. It has also been recognized that a piping analysis using an V uncoupled torus response as input would yield conservative results because the stiffness and the mass of the piping system, which may be important in suppressing torus response, are not considered. The degree of conservatism in the uncoupled analysis, therefore, depends primarily upon the stiffness and mass. relationships between the torus and the piping. For small bore piping the torus is relatively stiff, and no significant coupling effect is to be expected. In this case, coupled and uncoupled analyses would yield similar results, and a complete fixity can be reasonably assumed at the penetration point in a piping model.
However, for large bore piping, the coupling effect may be significant, and the inclusion of the actual torus stiffness, which is soft in some directional components, may become important in correcting an over-conservative uncoupled response. , A study was undertaken investigating the effect of torus stiffness on l uncoupled piping response. A coupled torus piping finite element model,. l including several representative piping systems ranging from 6 to 24 inches, was developed. Analyses were then performed for the pool swell and the S/RV loads. The results were to be used as the basis for com-parison with the uncoupled analyses for the same load cases. To perform the uncoupled analyses, the stiffness was evaluated and the uncoupled shell response in terms of three-directional translation and 6.4-10 l
rotation acceleration time-histories, was obtained at each penetration point. Piping analyses were then carried out for the following three cases.
- a. Input three-directional translation and rotation time-histories; complete fixity at the penetration point was used. In this case, no interaction would occur. The final piping motion at the penetration point is the input motion.
- b. Input three-directional translation time-histories; springs simulating torus translational and rotational stiffnesses at the penetration point were used. The final piping motion at the penetration point is the algebraic sum of the original input motion and the resulting spring motion.
- c. Input three-directional translation time-histories; complete translational fixity and springs simulating torus rotational stiffness at the penetration point were used. The final piping motion at the penetration point is the original input motion in translation and the resulting spring motion in rotation.
Piping response in terms of pipe stress, displacement, and valve load at selected points was summarized and compared with those obtained from the coupled model. All three cases resulted in varying degrees of conser-vatism. The third case was identified as having the most reasonable degree of conservatism, and was, therefore, adopted as the approach for all the torus-attached piping system analyses. For the C0 and CH loads, shell motion was expressed in a frequency response format containing a range of frequencies from 1 to 50 Hz. Piping response was evaluated for each frequency by response spectrum technique. The total response was then obtained by the absolute sum-mation method. As mentioned in subsection 6.4.3.1, coupled analysis was employed for lines at penetrations X-205, X-210A and B, and X-211A and B because of the excessively conservative piping responses resulting from the uncoupled analysis. The input hydrodynamic load and the technique of obtaining coupled shell motion were the same as the uncoupled model and are described in subsection 6.1.1.4. The final piping analysis was per-formed by first applying the three-directional translation and rotation shell motions at the penetration point and then solving the system with the same modal time history technique as for the aforementioned uncoupled analysis. Since in this case the coupled shell motion had already accounted for the full interaction effect between the torus and piping, complete fixity was used in the piping model, and the resulting piping analysis was an exact solution. Branch lines were modeled separately. Response at the attachment obtained from the run line analysis was used as input to the branch line model. The line was then analyzed by the same modal analysis technique. O 6.4-11
s Damping values used were: o Small-diameter piping systems, diameter 1 percent NOC equal to or less than 12 inches: 2 percent LOCA o 'Large-diameter piping systems', pipe 2 percent NOC diameter greater than 12 inches: 3 percent LOCA 6.4.3.5 Analysis Results Sample input acceleration time histories and the corresponding response spectrum curves are shown in Figures 6.4.3-13 and 6.4.3-14. Pipe stress summaries for each line are presented in Tables 6.4.3-1 through 6.4.3-23. The analysis results for the two worst-case return line restraints inside the torus are shown in Tables 6.4.3-24 through 6.4.3-29. 6.4.3.6 Summary of Results The analysis results showed that, in general, the governing load combina-tions are those including the S/RV load during the IBA/SBA. They resulted in pipe overstress and/or equipment overload.in several large bore sys-tems and most of the small bore lines. The extent of modification is described in subsection 2.5.2. The overloaded large bore lines required varying degrees of modification, including support rearrangement (adding, deleting, or both) and valve m relocation. The overloaded small bore lines were to be modified with the installation of nuclear metal flexible hose near the torus. Reaction loads on the ring girder due to applied loads on the HPCI X-214 restraint and the RHR X-210 restraint are summarized in Figures 6.4.3-6 and 6.4.3-7 and Figures 6.4.3-10, 6.4.3-11, and 6.4.3-12, respectively. These reaction loads were used in the evaluation of the suppression chamber shell, ring girder, and supports (see subsection 6.1.1). I O lD l ! 6.4-12
TACLE 6.4.3-1
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-203 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WElGHT (D) 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 PRESSURE (P O ), (P )
A 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
$ EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) ,NA 0.51 NA 0.51 0.51 e
$ SRV** (SRVTP) 4.38 4.38 13.87 13.87 3.49 N POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
$ 6 CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 1.05tt ii: g OSCILLATION (COTP)
Q- CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.26 0.26 0.26 TOTAL 6.19 6.70 15.94 16.45 6.86 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 THERMAL (T ), (T ) 1.15 O A gE SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 0.97 EE [ TOTAL 2.12 ALLOWABLE t SA = 21.00
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-3Ei60. tt The hig5est DBA load is used in the load combination. O O O
$ D J l 1 TABLE 6.4.3-2
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI)
> TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-204 A/B i ,
SRV SRV+EQ SBA+SRV SBA+SRV+EQ 4'
+ +
EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA+SRV IBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27
, WEIGHT (D) 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 l PRESSURE (Pol,(PAI l 81 1 81 1 81 1 81 1 81 NA 0.50 NA 0.50 0.50
.g h EARTHQUAKE (E(SI)
I $ SRV" ( SRVTP) 5.49 5.49 14.10 14.10 1.89 l < 4 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG. I E o CONDENSATION O OSCILLATION (COTP) NA NA NA NA 1.91tt i [ i CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.41 0.41 0.41 TOTAL 7.91 8.41 16.93 17.43 6.72 i f ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.2 2.4Sh = 33.2 2.4Sh = 33.00 1 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 16.29 4 SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 7.19 O i 2 l 8 TOTAL 25.90 (INCLUDING WEIGHT AND PRESSURE, EQUATION 11, NC-3850, ASME CODE) l ALLOWABLEt SA+Sh = 34.2 i I
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
! ** SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever is greatest. f Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-3060. I if The highest DBA load is used in the load combination.
TA"LE 6.4.3-3
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-204C/D SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.58 0.50 0.59 0.58 0.58 PRESSURE (Po),(PAI 1 81 1 81 1 81 1 81 1 81 g EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) NA 0.71 NA 0.71 0.71 E
$ SRV"(SRVTP) 9.25 9.25 14.06 14.06 9.25 E POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
h $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 2.49 tt iE o OSCILLATION ICOTP) 0.60 0.00 0.60 CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 11.75 12.46 17.16 17.87 14.95 ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.M 1.8Sh = 25.M 2.4Sh = 33.M 2.4Sh= 33.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 6.92 gg SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT 6.29 8 p m TOTAL 13.21 ALLOWABLEt SA = 21.M
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever le greeteet.
t Alloweblo per Toble 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3850. f f The higheet DBA load le used in the load combination.
TAB LE 6.4.3-4
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-206 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA l 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 g EARTHQUAKE (EtSI) NA 7.68 NA 7.68 7.68 E
18.60 14.94
$ SRV"(SRVTP) 14.94 14.94 18.60 g PCOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
E y CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 5.00 f t iE o OSCILLATION (COTP) 2.50 2.50 2.50 CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 16.21 23.89 22.37 30.05 28.89 ALLOWABLE t 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 THERMAL (T O),(T A) 26.37 ! g SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT INCLUDED IN PRIMARY STRESSES l 5 27.64 (INCLUDING WElGHT AND PRESSURE, EQUATION 11, NC-3860, ASME CODE) u$ TOTAL ALLOWABLEi SA+Sh = 34.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.42.
" SRV toede considered are first and subsequent actuatione, whichever le greeteet.
t Allowable por Table 3.2.42 and ASME Code, Section NC-3NO. f f The highest DBA load is used in the load combination. NOTE: SRVTP, COTP, and CHTP etresses are coupled enelysis results.
TABLE 6.4.3 5
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETFATION NO. X-206F SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SSA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBERS 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 g EARTHQUAKE (EIS)) NA 127 NA 1.37 1.37 E y SRV"(SRVTP) 1.85 1.E 22.55 22.55 1.5
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
2 8 CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 0.5 ft 22 O OSCILLATION ICOTP) 0.32 0.32 0.32
' CHUGGING (CHTP)
TOTAL 3.13 4.50 24.15 25.52 5.15 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 21.00 1.8Sh = 32.00 1.8Sh = 32.00 2.4Sh = 42.00 2.4Sh = 42.00 - THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 15.54 gg SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT 0.99 8: u$ TOTAL 28.53 m ALLOWABLEi SA = 28.00
- Combinetton number per Table 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads considered are first and cubeseguent actuations. whictiever le greatest.
t Allowsble per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3ESB. it The highest DBA load le used in the loed combination. O O O
O O O TAB LE 6.4.3-6
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PlPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-206H SRV SRV + EG SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 16 25,27 WElGHT(D) 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 PRESSU HE (Po),(PA) 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 g EARTHOUAKE(E(S)) NA 3.52 NA 3.52 3.52 e
$ SRV" (SRVTP) 4.86 4.86 7.31 7.31 4.86 g POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
E $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 1.00ft iE g OSCILLATION (COTP) 0.50 0.50 0.50 CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 6.16 9.68 9.11 12.63 10.68 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 21.00 1.8Sh = 32.00 1.8Sh = 32.00 2.4Sh = 42.M 2.4Sh = 42.M THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 8.36 Q Z W SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 0.62 OE , u$ TOTAL 8.97 l . ALLOWABLE t SA = 28.00
- Combinetton number per Table 3.2.4-2.
** SitV loads considered are fleet and subsequent actuatione, whichever le greeteet.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3EEO. ff The highest D8A load le used in the load combination, i
TABLE 6.4.3-7
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-207 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 16 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 cn EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 0.17 NA 0.17 0.17 SRV"(SRVTP) 2.71 2.71 10.91 10.91 2.71
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
j $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 1.17 tt g O OSCILLATION (COTP) 0.39 0.39 0.39
- c. CHUGGING (CHTP)
TOTAL 4.02 4.19 12.61 12.78 5.36 ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 2.13 m SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 1.24 OE TOTAL 3.37 ALLOWABLEt SA = 20.60
- Combination number per Toble 3.2.4-2.
- SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations. whichever le greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-3Rii0. . it The highest DBA load is used in the load combinetton. O O O
i TABLE 6.4.3-8
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KGI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-208A/B SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION DBA + SRV + CQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 16 25,27
.i WElGHT (D) 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 i PRESSURE (Po),(PA l 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 m EARTHQUAKE (EIS)) NA 2.37 NA 2.37 2.37 m SRV"(SRVTP) 5.50 5.50 8.86 8.86 5.50
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP)
NA CONDENSATION NA NEG.
$ o $ NA NA NA NA g OSCILLATION (COTP) 3.05 tt
- n. 0.62 0.62 0.62 CHUGGING (CHTP)
) TOTAL 6.97 9.34 10.95 13.32 12.39 i ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.M 2.4Sh = 33.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 9.34 i >
$us SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 9.35
! @E I TOTAL 8h 18.69 E ALLOWABLEi SA = 20.60
- Combinetion number per Toble 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads conaldered are first end subsequent actuations, whichever le greatest.
f Allowsble por Toble 3.2.4 2 end ASME Code, Section NC-3EEO. ff The highest DWA lood le used in the load combinetton. i
TABLE 6.4.3 9
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-210A/B l l SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ 1 3 11 16 25,27 COM BINATION NUMBER
- 1.77 1.R 1.77 1.77 I WEIGHT (D) 1.77 l
l 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) NA 0.89 NA 0.89 0.89 EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) 12.62 16.79 16.79 12.62 SRV"(SRVTP) 12.62
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
h $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 6.72tt E o OSCILLATION (COTP) 3.36 3.36 3.36
- n. CHUGGING (CHTP) 15.63 15.63 23.16 24.05 23.24 TOTAL ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 8.25
$ 7.88 gg SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT 8e 16.13 p TOTAL m
ALLOWABLE t SA = 20.60
- Combinetion number per Table 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads considered are first end subsequent actuations, whichever le greeteet.
t Alloweble perTable3.2.4-2end ASMECode.Section NC-350. i t The highest D BA load is used in the load combination. NOTE: SRVTP. COTP. and CHTP stressee are couplod enelysis results. O O O
T 1 TABLE 6.4.3-10
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-211 A/B , SRV SRV + EQ SRA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ 1 EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ 4 i COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27
.I j WEIGHT (D) 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 l PRESSURE (Po),(PA l 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 2.33 i l m EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 1.27 NA 1.27 1.27 j m SRV"(SRVTP) 7.75 7.75 12.96 12.96 7.75
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
y $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 2.46 it l g o OSCILLATION (COTP) 1.32 1.32 1.32 2- CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 12.09 13.36 19.88 21.15 18.54 4 l ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 i i THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 13.58 i $ 1 o SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT 14.24 i l ! @E l 0h TOTAL 32.16 (INCLUDING WEIGHT AND PRESSURE, EQUATION 11, NC-3050, ASME CODE) a ALLOWABLE i SA+Sh = 37.50 g
- Combinetton number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are fleet and subsequent actuations, whichever le greeteet.
l f Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-M. j f f The highest D8A load is used in the lood combinetton. f NOTE: SRVTP. COTP. and CHTP stressn are coupled analysis results. l
TA!LE 6.4.3-11
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-212 SRV SRV+EQ SBA+SRV SBA+SRV+EQ EVENT COMBINATION DBA+SRV+EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA+SRV IB A + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) NEG. NEG. NEG. NEG. NEG.
to PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06
% EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA NEG. NA NEG. NEG.
m
$ SRV** (SRVTP + SRVBD) 3.10 3.10 3.36 3.36 3.10 E
E 4 POOL SWELL NA NA 16.86 tt E o CONDENSATION g OSCILLATION (COTP + COBD) NA NA NA NA 2.20 CHUGGING (CHTP + CHBO) g,j4 g,j4 1,14 TOTAL 4.16 4.16 5 56 5.56 21.02 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh= 36.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) NEG. j$ SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT NEG. zE h5 TOTAL NEG. m ALLOWABLEt SA = 22.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV toads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
f Allowable per Table 5 2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-3650. tt The highest DBAload(PSTP + PSBD + PSFI) is used in the load combination. O O O
h
\
TAB LE 6.4.3-12
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-213 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER' 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 i l PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 i u3 EARTHOUAl(E (EtS)) NA 1.55 NA 1.li5 1.55 i l $ V) SRV**(SRVTP + SRVBD) 1.11 1.11 7.30 7.30 1.11 i 1' > cc POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA 31.21it j $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 0.80 ! ji: O OSCILLATION (COTP) 0.20 0.20 0.20
- n- CHUGGING (CHTP) l TOTAL 2.43 3.98 8.82 10.37 35.19 i
i ! ALLOWABLE i 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 i 2.4Sh = 36.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 5.11 i $
<r e SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT NEG.
i om I ZE i 8g TOTAL 5.11 l E l ALLOWABLEi SA = 22.50 l
- Combinetion number per Table 3.2.4-2.
- " SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuatione, whichever le greatest.
l t Alloweblo per Table 3.2.4 2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3NO. I ti The highest DBA load le used in the load combination. I i
TABLE 6.4.3-13
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-214 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 16 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 m EARTHQU AKE (E(SI) NA NEG. NA NEG. NEG.
E
% SRV"(SRVTP + SRVBD), (SRVTJ) 16.70 16.70 26.70 26.70 16.70 m
$ POOL SWELL NA NA 14.4 5 4 CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 11.5 h
h
-.8 OSCILLATIONICOTP + COBD) g,g 9.8 9.8
[ CHUGGING (CHTP + CHBD) TOTAL 18.98 18.98 30.70ti 38.78 33.38 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 21.00 1.8Sh = 32.00 1.8Sh = 32.00 2.4Sh = 43.00 2.4Sh = 43.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) NEG. SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT NEG. i E O$ TOTAL 0 m ALLOWABLEi SA = 28.00
- Combination sumber per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loads co: *3d ered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
i Allowable per . sa 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-38Ei0. it SRSS of SRVar CH:38.78 ABS. The highest DBA load (PSTP + PSBD + PSFI) is used in the load combination. l---" O O O
O TABLE 6.4.3-14
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-218A SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 WEIGHT (D)
PRESSURE (Po),(PA l 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.M 0.M NA 4.43 NA 4.43 4.43 g EARTMQUAKE (E(S)) E 4.65 y SRV"(SRVTP) 5.23 5.23 11.01 11.01 N POOL SWELL (PSTP) . NA NA NEG. h $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 8.62tt iE o OSCILLATION (COTP) 4.31 4.31 4.31 A CHUGGING (CHTP) 7.28 11.71 17.37 21.81 19.75 TOTAL ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.M l THERMALIT ),(T O A) 0.G SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 0.22 zW h vs TOTAL 0.25 ALLOWABLEt SA = 21.M
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loado conaldered are first and subsequent actuatione. whichever le greatest.
t Allowable per Toble 3.2.4-2 encASME Code, E oction NC-3NO. ff The highest DB A load le used in the load combir.etion.
TAB LE 6.4.3-15
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-220 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 PRESSURE (Po).(PA) 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 u3 EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) NA 0.92 NA 0.92 0.92
!O SRV"(SRVTP) 5.78 5.78 17.24 17.24 5.78 $ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
y g CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 3.87 ++ E o OSCILLATION (COTP) 1.29 1.29 1.29 Q-CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 6.53 7.45 19.28 20.20 11.32 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 12.12 m SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 4.38 SU TOTAL 16.50 m ALLOWABLEt SA = 21.00
- Combination number por Table 3.2.4-2.
- SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuatione, whichever le greateet, t Allowable por Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-3Blio.
+t The highest DBA load le used in the load combinetton. O O O
! O O O TABLE 6.4.3-16
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-221A EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.39 8.39 PRESSURE (P O ). (PA) 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 vs
@ EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 7.25 NA 7.25 7.25 E
y SRVa (SRVTP) 7.83 7.83 15.69 15.85 7.83
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG. ! $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 6.70 f g g OSCILLATION (COTP)
CHUGGING (CHTP) 3.35 3.35- 3.35 TOTAL 16.54 23.79 24.75 tt M.00 30.49 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.M 1.8Sh = 27.M 2.4Sh = 36.M 2.4Sh = 36.M THERMAL (TO ), (TA) N.93
$$ SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 5.28 55
{ TOTAL 34.92(INCLUDING WEIGHT AND PRESSURE, EQUATION 11, NC-3050, ASME CODE) ALLOWABLE t SA+Sh= 37.M
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is Greatest.
i Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC.3NO. ti SRSS of SRVTP and CHTP: 27.75 ABS.
@ The highest DBA load is used in the load combination.
TABLE 6.4.3-17
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-222B SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 PRESSURE (P O ), (P )
A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 g EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 12.29 NA 12.29 12.29 e
$ SRV" (SRVTP) 6.20 6.20 13.87 13.87 2.83 $ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
y 6 CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 6.89 t t g O OSCILLATION (COTP)
- n. CHUGGING (CHTP) 1.96 1.96 1.95 TOTAL 7.09 19.38 16.71 29.00 22.90 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 THERMAL (T ), (T ) 27.21 O A E
SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 6.35 o [E TOTAL 34.45(INCLUDING WEIGHT Af;D PRESSURE, EQUATION 11, NC-3660, ASME CODE) l ALLOWABLEi SA+Sh= 34.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
i Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-3660. ti The highest DB A load is used in the load combination. O O O
O O O TABLE 6.4.3-18
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PlPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-224A/B. SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SSA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION 18A + SRV 18A + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 l WEIGHT (D) NEG. NEG. NEG. NEG. NEG.
PRESSURE (Pol,(PA) 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.66 EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA NEG. NA NEG. NEG.
% SRV"(SRVTP + SRVBD), (SRVTJ) 6.52 6.52 18.79 18.79 5.63 v)
E POOL SWELL NA NA 18.22 ti CONDENSATION NA h j OSCILLATIONICOTP + COBD) NA NA NA 5.61 m o M M 4.21 4.21 4.21 g -.8 CHUGGING (CHTP + CHBD) TOTAL 7.17 7.17 23.66 23.65 24.50 ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) NEG. rn SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT NEG.
- 90 TOTAL NEG.
- a l
ALLOWABLE t SA = 22.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads conaldered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever le greateet, t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code, Section NC-Wi0.
if The highestload(PSTP + PSBD + PSFI) is usedin theload combinetton.
TABLE 6.4.3-19
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-226A/B SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) .06 .06 .06 .06 .06 PRESSURE (Po),(PAI 99 99 99 99 99 m EARTHQU AKE (E(S)) NA .18 NA .18 .18 N SRV"(SRVTP) 5.58 5.58 19.74 19.74 3.06 m
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
CONDENSATION
$ $ NA NA NA NA 1.10tt g g OSClLLATION (COTP) 0.54 0.54 0.54
- n. CHUGGING (CHTP)
TOTAL 6.63 S.82 21.33 21.52 5.42 4 ALLOWABLEi 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sg= 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.00 2 ash = 33.00 THERMAL (T O ) (TA) 2.68 E g SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 1,46 5 TOTAL o$ 4.14 ALLOWABLEt SA = 21.00
- Combination number per Toble 3.2.4 2.
** SRV leado considered are first ord subsequent actuatione.whichever le greeteet.
t AHowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3NO. tt The highest D B A load le used in the load combinetton. O O O
O O O TAB LE 6.4.3-20 i
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-230 i SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SSA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 i
WEIGHT (D) 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
- g EARTHQUAKE (E(S)) NA 0.09 NA 0.09 0.09 e
$ SRV"(SRVTP) 1.81 1.81 7.49 7.49 1.81 g POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
2 $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 1.14 ti . iE o OSCILLATION (COTP) 0.38 0.38 0.38 l n- CHUGGING (CHTP) i TOTAL 2.40 2.49 8.46 8.55 3.63 1 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 THERMAL (T O ),(T A) 12.75 5 g SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT 2.33 zg g TOTAL to 15.08 ALLOWABLEt SA = 22.50
- Combinetton number perTable 3.2.4-2.
** SRV loads considered are first end subsequent actuations, whichever le greateet.
t Allowable per Toble 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3MO. ff The higheet D8 A load le used in the load combination.
TABLE 6.4.3-21
SUMMARY
OFTORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-231 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA t SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 16 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 PRESSURE (Po),(PA) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 u) EARTHQUAKE (EISI) NA 3.41 NA 3.41 3.41 S RV** (SRVTP) 6.67 6.67 18.71 18.71 6.67
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
j g CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 3.34 tt Hi o OSCILLATION (COTP) 1.67 1.67 1.67 0- CHUGGING (CHTP) TOTAL 7.89 12.52 21.60 25.01 14.64 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.SSh = 27.00 , 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 THERMAL (T O ).(TA) 13.88 v3 SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT 8.45 OE TOTAL 22.33 ALLOWABLEt SA = 22.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV load i considered are fIret and subsequent actuatione whichever le greateet. t Allowable por Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3850. tf The highest DBA load le used in the load combinetton. 9 O - _ O
O O O TABLE 6.4.3-22
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-233 SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ EVENT COMBINATION (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WElGHT (D) 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 PRESSURE (P ),(P A) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 O
en NA 6.90 NA 6.90 6.90
@ EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) i'i 6.22 6.22 17.16 17.16 6.22
[ SRV" (SRVTP)
$ POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG.
E $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 13.06tt g g OSCILLATION (COTP) CHUGGING (CHTP) 5.01 5.01 5.01 TOTAL 6.88 13.78 22.94 29.84 26.83 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 16.50 1.8Sh = 25.00 1.8Sh = 25.00 2.4Sh = 33.M 2.4Sh = 33.M THERMAL (TO ), (T ) A 9.70
$$ SAM AND/ORTORUS MVNT 2.94 ;
EE 1 f TOTAL 12.64 ALLOWABLE t SA = 21.M
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
f Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3860. f f The highest DB A load is used in the load combination.
TABLE 6.4.3-23
SUMMARY
OF TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES (KSI) TORUS PENETRATION NO. X-234A EVENT COMBINATION SRV SRV + EQ SBA + SRV SBA + SRV + EQ (NOC) (NOC) IBA + SRV IBA + SRV + EQ DBA + SRV + EQ COMBINATION NUMBER
- 1 3 11 15 25,27 WEIGHT (D) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 PRESSURE (P ),(P ) 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 O A
$ EARTHQUAKE (E(SI) NA 1.02 NA 1.02 1.02 E
b SRV" (SRVTP) 13.84 13.84 14.81 14.81 13.84 POOL SWELL (PSTP) NA NA NEG. g $ CONDENSATION NA NA NA NA 2.00ft a: o
" OSCILLATION (COTP)
CHUGGING (CHTP) 0.38 0.38 0.38 l TOTAL 14.66 15.68 16.01 17.03 17.68 ALLOWABLEt 1.2Sh = 18.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 1.8Sh = 27.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 2.4Sh = 36.00 THERMAL (T ), (T ) 0.32 O A gg SAM AND/OR TORUS MVNT 6.86 5
,8'5TOTAL 8
7.17 ALLOWABLE i SA = 22.50
- Combination number per Table 3.2.4-2.
" SRV loads considered are first and subsequent actuations, whichever is greatest.
t Allowable per Table 3.2.4-2 and ASME Code. Section NC-3850. l f f The highest DBA load is used in the load combination. O O O
l O O O j TABLE 6.4.3-24 i ANALYSIS RESULTS I HPCI X 214 RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS i NOC LOAD COWINATION: D+Ro +SRVTJ s.s ( LINE 'C' A1.1 ) LOADING I SERVICE , SRVTJ.s t LEVEL A D % LINE C ( A1.1 ) TOTAL ALLOWABLE COWONENT (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) CANTILEVER BEAM i (W10X89 W/ 0.2 2.4 7.5 10.1 21. 6 ( F b) i 3/," COVER f.) l RESTRAINT BEAM l (W10X89 W/ 0.3 2.9 8.8 12.0 21. 6 ( F b) l 1 - COVER E.) I BRACE i (5's PIPE 0.5 0.0 0.9 1.4 21.1 (Fb)
- SCH 120) l
TABLE 6.4.3-25 ANALYSIS RESULTS HPCI X 214 RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS SBA/IBA+SRV+EQ LOAD COMBINATION : D+R o+R +CHBD+ g MAX. 1. S ( L INE 'C'A1. 2 ) +E( 0 ) LOADING MAX. SERVICE
* ' AB E E(0) TOTAL
~
D Ro R CHBD A COMPONENT (KSI) (KSI) (KSI.) (KSI) LINE 1.2) (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) CANTILEVER BEAM (W10X89 W/ 0.2 2.4 5.0 7.5 5.8 1.1 22.0 21. 6 ( F b)
%" COV. E)
RESTRAINT BEAM (W10X89 W/ 0.3 2.9 2.8' 6.7 6.8 1.4 20.9 21. 6 ( F b) 1- COV. E) BRACE (5 0 PIPE 0.5 0.0 0.2 7.8 3.4 0.8 12.7 21.1 ( F b) SCH 120)
O O O l i i TABLE 6.4.3 26 i ! ANALYSIS RESULTS j HPCI X 214 RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS 1 i , i ! DBA+SRV+EQ LOAD COW 31 NATION: D+R o 4+R +PSBD+PSFI+SRVTJ 1.s(LINE t' A1.1 )+E( S ) l i LOADING i SERVICE ! SRVTJj,s LEVEL C D PSBD PSFI E(S) TOTAL AL LE COW'ONENT Ro RA LINE C (A1.1) CANTILEVER BEAM i (W10X89 W/ 0.2 2.4 2.2 3.4 1.1 7.5 1.6 18.4 28.8 (Fb) 3/," COVER E.) ! RESTRAINT BEAM l (W10X89 W/ 0.3 . 2. 9 1.2 4.4 1.3 8.8 1.9 20.8 ,8 (Fb) l 1 - COVER E) i BRACE l (5 s PIPE 0.5 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.1 0.9 1.1 7.0 28.1 '(Fb)
- SCH 120) l
l TABLE 6.4.3-27 l ANALYSIS RESULTS RHR X 210 A AND B RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS NOC LOAD COMBINATION: D+Ro+SRVBD i ,y [LINE C ( A1.1 )+LINE D ( A1.1 )] i LOADING 2 SRVBD SRVBD TOTAL SERVICE D Ro LINE D LINE C (KSI) LEVEL A (KSI) ( A1.1 ) ALLOWABLE (KSI) ( A1.1 ) COWONENTS (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) RES EAM 0.6 0.6 6.7 21. 6 ( F b) 89 3.2 2.3 CANTILEVER BEAM ( W10X89 0.1 0.5 0.7 2.5 3.8 21.6 (Fb) W/ 3 /8 " R.) BRACES 14 ( 2-L4X4X3 /8 ) 0.7 0.1 1.2 3.4 21. 6 ( F b) BRACES PE. o.9 0.1 2.6 2.4 6.0 21.1 (Fb) (lCH 2O) O O O
I l TABLE 6.4.3-28 f ANALYSIS RESULTS I RHR X 210 A AND B RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS SBA/IBA+SRV+EQ LOAD COMBINATION: D+R ,+R ,+SRVBD1 .s ( LINE D' A1. 2 ) +CHBD+E( 0 ) l LOADING SRVB01 .s CHBD l ! D Ro (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) Rg LINE D E(0) TOTAL gggg3 (gSI) (KSI) y$C B 1 ( A1. 2 ) ALLOWABLE i COWONENT (KSI) ggSi)
- i I
1 RESTRAINT BEAM 0.6 0.6 2.1 4.9 10.9 1.5 20.6 21.6 (Fb) ( W10X89 ) i ! CANTILEVER BEAM 1 ( W10X89 0.1 0.5 1.9 1.7 5.4 1.5 11.1 21. 6 ( F b)
~,.
j W/ 3 /8 - It.) BRACES ( 2-L4X4X3 /8 ) 0.7 0.1 0.3 3.7 4.0 1.4 10.2 21. 6 ( F b) r BRACES ! ( 5 '11 PIPE. 0.9 0.1 0.5 3.8 9.1 1.3 15.7 21.1 (Fb) ! SCH 120) 1 . I i i 4
TABLE 6.4.3-29 ANALYSIS RESULTS RHR X 210 A AND B RETURN LINE RESTRAINTS DBA+SRV+E0 LOAD COMBINATION: D+R o+R +CHBD+SRVBD x t .s LINE 'C' ( A1.1 ) +E( S ) LOADING D RO R 18 LINE C (CHBD E(S) TOTAL SERVICE (KSI) LEVEL C ( A1.1 ) KSI) (KSI) A (KSI) (KSI) (KSI) ALLOWABLE COMPONENT KSI) (KSI) RESTRAINT BEAM 0.6 0.6 0.1 3.2 10.9 2.1 17.5 28.8 (Fb) ( W10X89 ) CANTILEVER BEAM ( W10X89 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 5.4 2.1 8.9 28.8 (Fb) W/ 3 /8" R ) BRACES ( 2-L4X4X3 /8 ) 0.7 0.1 0.0 1.4 4.0 2.0 8.2 28.8 (Fb) B ACES (gc, eIge,. 0.2 0.i 0.0 2.e e.i i.e 24.e 28.i (Fb) O O O
O O O c .
- ..s 2..
660 I1' + ,,
* #0 670 ,# * *g.
+ o ,
so % '3 !;* A Y [, 630 e "< ~ .. ,. ' # ,,D ,
@ s 4^ m, g B
,s us - g;V qd",,e .> >p- .' *-
,565' . .N' *g, s'
h so de 4'& l v . .e + 71 -- e
" < ~ . ..,
l 9
?'.g.
f
#0 %*
( N DIRECTION OF DIRECTION OF RESTRAINT EXPANSION SNUBBER O- SPRING HANGER R!CID MANGER g ANCHOR FIGURE 6.4.3-1 ANALYTICAL MODEL
; TORUS-ATTACHED PIPING X-226B
v c 8 2 _a
\
a
// b x ! %E*
'/ E o 4 4 2
$ g O i EEE o a. =
h b $ g i '$5 5 0 o h
- O 8 t
\ a O
\\ c t'% !
NY
\
i e f,
\ '
.s m
4 E E' Obm . u +
i FLEXIBLE Hose- PIPE l N 1 ! / ) b PIPE ANCHOR I l 1 i VALVE LUMP MASS = VALVE +.5(PIPE + FLEXIBLE METAL HOSE) N -PIPE i l i H TORUS _
~
EXITATION FROM TORUS SHELL PENETRATION
~/ u FIGU RE 6.4.3-3 ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR SMALL BORE PIPING WITH FLEXIBLE METAL HOSE
O O O
+ 0*
51 i
/
(\ 1 2
=
3
=
4 i
/ 5
=
W10x89 W/1
- COVER t 6
=
T 8 [ 9 61! 10
=1 I
si I 19 : DETA I L/T\ l l
% / W ' ' 2 '
2T0* l l 90* (RESTRAINT 8 l PIPE BRACE p p
% ST PIPE , ,
, , 21 l l l
- 1 l l IT e e 22 4T XXS PIPE !
Ig d ! ! ,
!- ! '9 '
, QRINGCIROER 8
TRUSS ELEENTS C 0R SECTION M N 012 D HPCI X214 RESTRAINT 24T PIPE 5 ,, RINC CIRDER FINITE ELE ENT MODEL 30 13
\ ,,,, - ~
TOP VIEW i 24T HPCI PIPE 35 r24T PIPE TORUS SHELL 34ii TORUS SHELL ,
"33 TORUS WATER LEVEL TRUSS ELE ENT 0 32 1.958' iB M I g #,
3 29 k W10x89 W/1
- COVER t SETIM M
/ D
~
26 HPCI X214 RESTRAINT DETAIL M 25 FINITE ELEENT MODEL D PLAN VIEW HPCI X214 RESTRAINT FIGURE 6.4.3-4 24 HPCIX 214 RESTRAINT ANALYTICAL MODEL
O O O 0* I DEF ION VENTS OR SRVOLS CONSIDERED 1 HPCI x 214 RESTRAINT s
\W g gk. SRVB01 .5 A1.1 SRVOLt*
{ SRVOLt* (RPV 2 SRVB02 .S C3.1 90 V v SRVB0 9 ,y A3,, M C ' W 9* SRVB02 .M C3.1 h SRVB0g ,3 , SRVOLt*
)
, 1.M A2.2 SRVBD,,g 3, SRVOLt*
h SRVB0 SRVOLt* fh PSB0 ALL VENTS PSLJ VENTS @8 @ COBO ALL VENTS - AVE. SOURCE STRENGTH
/ COBO VENT @ - MAX. SOURCE STRENGTH
/ COBO VENT @ - MAX. SOURCE STRENGTH H
/
p CHBO CHBO VENTS @8 @ IN PHASE VENTS @8 @ OUT PHASE G !g G PARTIAL PLAN VIEW - TORUS INTERIOR 1 FIGURE 6.4.3-5 VENTS AND SIRVDLs CONSIDERED IN HPCI X 214 RESTRAINT ANALYSIS
t F hY
= CONNECTION d RING GIRDER ASSEWLY , 77 7 COORDINATE
+ " '
D g STIFF. R_1-SYSTEM
-E ye-k
-EEE-
\ \
ELEVATION VIEW BRACE TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION O ( e NODE 18 ) EVENT COWINATION gg(pg3 gg(pg3 gg(pg3 N.O.C. 2.5 8.7 7.4 SBA/IBA + SRV + EO 5.6 20.2 17.2 DBA + SRV + EQ 5.5 19.1 16.4 (e NODE 23) EVENT COWINATION gg(pg3 gg(pg3 gg(pg3 N.O.C. 3.0 10.6 10.3 SBA/IBA + SRV + EQ 7.8 27.1 27.6 DBA + SRV + EQ 6.6 22.4 22.8 FIGURE 6.4.3 6 HPCI X 214 RESTRAINT - REACTION
SUMMARY
AT PIPE BRACE TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
I I l l g; EXIST RING GIRDER FLANGE l l 11 "Y i i Z N
.- m. t
- x l lN l l l l l(EXIST 3 /8- COVER t/S W10X89 WITH I I COORDINATE SYSTEM ll l
-4 l
ELEVATION VIEW RESTRAINT TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION O ( e NODE 51 ) EVENT C0681 NATION (K(PS) (K(PS) (K(PS) (IN- IPS) ( IN- IPS ) N.O.C. 5.8 3.3 45.4 42.4 47.4 SBA/IBA + SRV + EQ 17.7 5.2 60.5 1 01.0 65.0 DBA + SRV + EQ 20.3 8.2 70.5 130.5 108.3 ( e NODE 61 ) EVENT C06SINATION (K(PS1 (K(PS) (K(PS) (IN- IPS) (IN- IPS) N.O.C. 27.8 8.0 54.1 126.5 150.0 SBA/IBA + SRV + EQ 65.1 21.0 107.1 326.8 369.1 DBA + SRV + EQ 38.7 18.0 75.6 333.2 320.6 FIGURE 6.4.3 7 HPCI X 214 RESTRAINT. REACTION
SUMMARY
AT RESTR AINT TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
O O O 4
.- RING CIROER x 8 e i
[. TORUS
% " DETAIL A i
% y g W10x89 270* l 3 90* p rvW-p X -
AZ 90* e F e 7C j g g S e 8 4 e PIPES 16 e RHR P!PE / 4 h% f W10x89 W/%t 180* 2L 4 x4 x% * - RING CIROER KEY PLAN PLAN VIEW RHR X210A 8 8 RESTRAINT FINITE ELEE NT MODEL R!NC CIROER @ _ y Y A h o 16T PIPE O ,g 0 eX TORUS SHELL [
@\ D 25Em r ' ""5 5""' @t**;/p@
i \ / '
\y y[ 's !
X E1 103 *-6%* TORUS WATER LEVEL I '#
/ RESTRA!NT e EL.101 *-7%*
16 e RHR PIPE
,6= @@y R1NC CIROER e'g ~'s SECTION/IN SECTION/TN @
w w ' SECTION m W DETAIL /TN / W PLAN VIEW RHR X210A 8 8 RESTRAINT l l RHR X*210 A AND B RESTRAINT
- ANALYTICAL MODEL
O O O O* RHR x 2108 RESTRAINT
'N c der ION VENTS OR SRVOL'S CONSIDERED h '
SRVB09 ,3 y ,g SRVOLD* MPV SRVOLD' SRVBD2 .S C3.1 W Y SRVBD3 , 3 SRVDLt' and O' 2 Y SRVBD2 .W O .1 SRVDLt* and O' SRVDLO* SRV801 .5 .2 I - SRVB09 ,g SRVDLO' SRVB01 .W A3.2 h SRVBD2 .5 N SRVDL C' 00WNC0hER VENT PSB0 ALL VENTS ITYP.1 ALL VENTS - AVE. SOURCE STRENGTH CMD VENT @ - MAX. SOURCE STRENGTH
'/ CoBo Couo VENT @ - MAX. SOURCE STRENGTH VENTS @ 8 @ IN PHASE YENTS @8 @ OUT PHASE O y a
i PARTIAL PLAN VIEW - TORUS INTERIOR FIGURE 6.4.3-9 VENTS AND SIRVDLs CONSIDERED IN
- RHR X 210B RESTRAINT ANALYSIS
0) V h y CONNECTION 2 ASSEWLY
; d RING GIRDER I# # I X -
g h STIFF t.1-COORDINATE , g SYSTEM
-E E-h
-EEE-
\ \
ELEVATION VIEW BRACE TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION O (e NODE 46) FX FY FZ MX MY MZ EVENT C06SINATION (KIPS} (KIPS 1 (KIPS 1 ( IN-K IPS ? ( IN-K IPS ) ( IN-KIPS 1 N.O.C. 5.2 14.8 19.3 0.0 10.4 0.0 SBA/IBA+SRV+EQ 11.6 34.1 47.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 OBA+SRV+EQ 11.3 33.2 45.9 0.0 11.2 0.0 (e NODE 55) FX FY FZ MK MY MZ EVENT ColeINATION (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIPS) ( IN-K IPS ) ( IN-K IPS ) ( IN-K IPS 1 N.O.C. 9.3 27.1 25.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 SBA/IBA+SRV+EQ 14.9 43.0 40.2 0.0 13.4 0.0 DBA+SRV+EO 13.8 40.5 37.8 0.0 11.3 0.0 FIGG RE 6.4.310 RHR X 210 A AND B RESTRAINT REACTION
SUMMARY
\/ AT PIPE BRACE TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
~,
e ,
"Y X
Z 2 L4x4x3/8 COORDINATE SYSTEM f 3/8" GUSSET WEB OF RING GIRDER TORUS SHELL ELEVATION ylEW ANGLE BRACE TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION O @ NODE 26 EVENT COMBINATION (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIPS) (IN-KIP) (IN-KIP) (IN-KIP) N.O.C. 7.5 16.1 9.4 0.0 0.0 6.9 SBAllBA + SRV + EQ 4.7 10.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 DBA + SRV + EQ 4.0 9.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 5.9
@ NODE 31 EVENT COMBINATION (KIPS) (KIPS) (KIPS) (IN-KIP) (IN-KIP) (IN-KIP)
N.O.C. 3.5 7.1 4.4 0.0 0.0 7.5 SBAllBA + SRV + EQ 6.9 13.6 8.2 0.0 0.0 17.8 DBA + SRV + EQ 5.8 12.1 7.3 0.0 C9 10.7 FIGU RE 6.4.3-11 O RHR X 210 A AND B RESTRAINT REACTION
SUMMARY
AT ANGLE BRACETO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
l 1 I O
- 4 g';
l EXIST RING GIROER FLANGE j 11 oY ' '
' I i
'.m m.I x l lN i 11 8
I l l I EXIST W10X89 WITH 3 /8
- COVER R/S I I COORDINATE SYSTEM ll
-4 ELEVATION VIEW RESTRAINT TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
( e NODE 17 ) FX FY FZ MX MY MZ EVENT C06SINATION (KIPS) (KIPS 1 (KIPS 1 ( IN-KIPS } ( IN-K IPS ) (IN-KIPS 1 N.O.C. 9.7 5.4 13.6 238.2 0.0 107.4 SBA/IBA + SRV + EQ 17.1 3.9 20.6 189.6 0.0 97.9 DBA + SRV + EQ 17.2 3.9 20.2 174.5 0.0 104.8 (e NODE 21) EVENT ColeINAT10N (K(k) (K(PS) (K PS1 ( IN-KIPS } (IN- IPS1(IN- IPS ) N.O.C. 3.2 3.9 6.8 106.9 0.0 100.8 SBA/IBA
- SRV + EQ 25.3 8.5 33.2 204.6 0.0 131.9 DBA + SRV + EQ 20.7 8.0 26.7 208.8 0.0 127.0 FIGU RE 6.4.3-12 RHR X 210 A AND B RESTRAINT REACTION
SUMMARY
AT RESTRAINT TO RING GIRDER CONNECTION
O O O 12.00 0 8.00_ - l Z J 9 i O I 4.00_ n 9
- F ,
0.00 ~- AbAbAA m v v v v v \1 y y ' I L U
-4.00 _ i ,
y i i ta I a O -8.00 _ o
-12.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.'40 0.'50 0.'60 0.70 0.'80 0.'90 1.00
, TIME [ SEC ] MAX ACCEL -6.9612 AT TIME 0.682 FIGU RE 6.4.313 X-ACCELERATION TIME HISTORY FOR PENETRATION NO. X-226B S/RV CASE A2.2 (SHEET 1 OF 3)
.-,.-_,,a a a , n 1
0 ! O w* l I O
- P
- \
O co
- O O
y. m O , O gmE O O N O$g
- W I $"a O M ZUF wog w Q -
d_ 4 mz z m M Azm W m m e W z-o~ O m- OH N
^ ~
E N' m
' O
~
2 m m ze
$ lb w m
a
% O r 0 gE5
> n o om l
< J d
x SE>E
>- m O
< > u -
C
> 0 (s d
< >. O C3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N co v O v a) N
*- a : -
8 [ 0 1 N0 11V837300V
(. O O P f 1 O y O O i P d 8
" b g CD E
.dow ! R 0
F C9
=
I *b
*H
=
Ei
- m. " < r = =
O y CO E I M 4 pZm. W d 29
~
O E W 9EN
-T 2 5 $ EEE
= O e4 i
o zum d E W Z ft) d W4 3 OW O
- n. o O >
O < q =
/ yEG C O g
5 W> C4 O 3 - o O P O 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 A 5 6 i y ? [ 0 1 N011VB37300V
\
O OOL a J J L L J K4b: wO - 0 0 0 _ 0 , 1 D A h P I 0 N 1 G 0 0 V A _ L U P F E E N S R l TE 1 RR E _ VA R E CT S I Q 0 AOP F SNO I G U O E N A N S U 2 O E R E 2XS E
- P 6
( S2 E 4 N H 62 C 3-E E B RT 1 C TX U - 4 Y 1DM OR-I FE [ 3C
)
T I - O C 1 N 0 ' P 0 S i 1 L 1 _s 0 0 0 O
i O O O DAl#ING VALUE
.0100 4
~
200 M O 1 0
~
s 100 i E w J W O U J
< f i L l ,
_ / N ---- ! O i
.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 FREQUENCY [ CPS 1 FIGURE 6.4.3-14 i RESPONSE SPECTRUM--
PENETRATION NO. X-226B Y-DIRECTION SIRV CASE A2.2 (SHEET 2 OF 3) T l
O
< OO L t
! m< .OZ
.- wa -
2 4 6 0 0 0 0 1 D A N P I 0 N 1 G 0 0 V A L P U E F E N SET I R RR R 1 VA E E . CT S 0 A OP I F O S NO I O E N G U A N S U 2O E R E (
.XS 2
P E 6 S2 E . N H2 E 6 C 4 3 E8T R 1 C TZ U- 4 3DM I Y OR-FE ) 3C [ T I O C 1 N 0 - P 0 S l f 1 1 l I t 1 0 0 0 O
6.4.4 Valve and Pump Operability and Functionality V In accordance with Reference 6-2, operability is oefined as the ability of an active component to perform mechanical motion. The term " active componant" applies to a valve or pump in an essential piping system that is required to perform such motion while accomplishing a system safety function. Functionality is defined as the ability of the piping system to pass rated flow. Rules for application of operability and functionality requirements follow. o Valves Active components are considered operable and functional if a) level A or B service limits are met unless the original component design criteria establish more conservative limits, and b) structural integrity of the entire assembly is established by considering appropriate material allowable limits. If the original component design criteria do establish more conservative limits, conformance with these more conservative limits shall be demonstrated even if level A and B service limits are met. - If level A and B service limits are not satisfied, and therefore either level C or D service limits are satisfied, then demonstra-tion of operability is required. p o Pumps Pumps are considered operable and functional when the piping load on the pump nozzle does not exceed the nozzle design allowable load. 6.4.4.1 Analytical Model Description The valves and pumps on the torus-attached piping were modeled as an integral part of various piping systems. The method of modeling valve assemblies is described in subsection 6.4.3.1. For pumps, the connec-tions between the piping and the pump nozzle are modeled as anchors capable of resisting axial and shear forces as well as torsional and bending moments. 6.4.4.2 Design Loads and Load Combinations ,, Valve assemblies and pumps are directly exposed to and evaluated for LTP and non-LTP related loads as applied to the respective piping systems. The design loads and load combinations applicable to these piping systems are shown in subsection 6.4.3.2 and Section 4.2, respectively. For valves (in addition to the above design loads), the actuator thrust and service pressure are considered for evaluation by the valve manufacturer. v 6.4-13
6.4.l.3 Design Allowables Valve assemblies and pumps as related to the torus-attached piping are classified as Class 2 components. These components were originally procured to met.t the requirements of subsection NC-3000 of the ASME Code. For valves, the acceleration levels specified in the project specifica-tions are considered as allowables for qualification. For pumps, where design allowables per the manufacturer's drawings are exceeded, allowables given in the FSAR are considered applicable. 6.4.4.4 Method of Analysis The valve accelerations and loads on the pumps for the torus-attached piping systems were determ{ned by the analysis methods shown in subsec-tion 6.4.3.4. The criteria for valve evaluation are surnmarized below. o The LTP accelerations were combined with the seismic accelera-tions by the absolute summation method. The two highest combined acceleration cc.mponents are compared with the manufacturer's qualified acc.eleration levels for valve assemblies in accordance with project specifications. If the qualified acceleration levels are not exceeded, the valve assemblies are considered acceptable. If the qualified acceleration levels are exceeded, the SRSS of the tue highest combined acceleration components is compared with the SRSS of the qualified acceleration levels to
. ensure that the qualified acceleration levels are not exceeded.
o The accelerations are recalculated based on the SRSS method of combining the LOCA-related acceleration components. If the SRSS combination of the two highest components of the recalculated
-accelerations does not exceed the SRSS of the qualified levels by more than 25 percent, the valve assembly is considered acceptable. The sources of conservatism cited in Section 8.0 provide sufficient justification for accepting these results, o if the above eriteria cannot be satisfied, the vendor is requested to requalify for higher accelerations.
The criteria for evaluating pur.ps ara summarized below. o Determine piping loads at pump nozzles. o Ensure that piping loads on the nozzle are below the manufacturer's/ FSAR allowables. o If loads exceed the allowables, recalculate the loads by combining the dynamic load components using the SRSS method (instead of the absolute summation method), and then compare them with the allowables. If the recalculated loads still exceed the allowables, the increased la w are referred to tne pump manufacturer for resolution. O 6.4-14
s 6.4.4.5 Summary of Results
'_ The valves and pumps evaluated in the torus-attached piping analyses are those up to the first rigid anchor or up to the point where the effect of torus motion has been considered insignificant. The piping systems considered for analyses are listed in Table 2.5.1-1.
o Valves Out of a total of 52 valve assemblies considered in the analyses, 38 have been evaluated for operability and functionality, and were found to be acceptable based on criteria cited in subsec-tion 6.4.4.4. The remaining 14 valves are currently under evaluation. ' o Pumps Out of a total of eight pump assemblies considered in the analy-ses, six have been evaluated for operability and functionality, and were found to be acceptable based on criteria cited in sub-section 6.4.4.4. The remaining two pumps are currently under evaluation, 7y t v]
\ -)
~
6.4-15
6.5 REFERENCES
6-1 G. Everstine, " Coupled Vibrations of a Structure in a Compressible Fluid." 6-2 " Mark I Containment Program Structural Acceptance Criteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide," General Electric Company, Report No. NE00-24583-1, October 1979. 6-3 F. A. Leckie and R. K. Penny, "(1) A Critical Study of the Solutions for Asymmetric Bending of Spherical Shells, (2) Solutions for the Stresses in Nozzles in Pressure Vessels, (3) Stress Concentration Factors for the Stresses at Nozzle Intersections in Pressure Vessels," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 90 (September 1963). 6-4 K. R. Wichman, A. G. Hopper, and J. L. Mershon, " Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells due to External Loadings," Welding Research Council Bulletin No. 107 (August 1965, revised March 1979). 6-5 " Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association, Inc.," Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association, Inc., Fifth Edition, 1980. 6-6 S. S. Manson, " Thermal Stress and Low Cycle Fatigue," McGraw-Hill, 1966. O O 6.5-1
O O o i v APPENDIX C (Continued) 1 . 1 COMP 0NENT CATEGORY MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION DESIGN DRAWING /AE FABRICATION / ERECTION DRAWING - CB&I i Internal Structures 1. Modification of cat- H-25965/Bechtel Drawing 26 (Contract No. 04392) walk inside the torus Drawing 27 Drawing 28 i 4
- 2. Modification of H-25082/Bechtel Drawing 70 (Contract No. 04392) -
monorail inside the torus a Addition of T-S/RV Piping 1. GE N/A l quencher discharge ! devices inside the i torus
- 2. Addition of vacuum N/A N/A breakers to low-low ,.
set S/RVDLs 1 i S/RV Piping Supports 1. Addition of T- H-29272/SCS Drawing 8. (Contract No. 04392) quencher supports H-29273/SCS Drawing 9
- a. Support beams H-29274/SCS Drawing 10
- b. Beam supports H-40097/SCS Drawing 12
- c. Gusset plate H-50000/SCS Drawing 13 d
reinforcing H-50001/SCS Drawing 14
- Drawing 15 ,
j Drawing 16 ' Drawing 17 j Drawing 21 i Drawing 40 - Drawing 41 l Drawing 42 ) Drawing 43
, Drawing 44 Drawing 45 f i
i
APPENDIX C (Continued) COMPONENT CATEGORY MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION DESIGN DRAWING /AE FABRICATION / ERECTION DRAWING - CB&I S/RV Piping Supports Drawing 46 (Continued) Drawing 47 Drawing 48 Drawing 49 Drawing 50 Drawing 51 Drawing 52 Drawing 53 Drawing 54 Drawing 60 Drawing 61 Drawing 62 Drawing 63 Drawing 64 Drawing 65 Drawing C6 Drawing 67 Drawing 68 Drawing 69 Drawing 77 Drawing 79
- 2. S/RV line M inter- H-25031/Bechtel Drawing 34 mediate support Drawing 35 Drawing 36 Drawing 37 Drawing 38 Drawing 39 Drawing 55 Drawing 56
- 3. Addition /modifica- DCR 82-76/Bechtel N/A tion of S/RVDL supports inside the drywell
O O O APPENDIX C (Continued) COMPONENT CATEGORY MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION DESIGN DRAWING /AE FABRICATION / ERECTION DRAWING - CB&I 4 Torus-Attached Piping 1. Addition of elbows S-2-22-79/SCS Drawing 25 and Supports Inside to the RHR test j
; the Torus lines l 2. Modification to return H-25083/Bechtel Drawing 29 .
! line restraints H-25087/Bechtel Drawing 30 H-25119/Bechtel Drawing 31 Drawing 32 Drawing 33 Drawing 74
- 3. Removal of spare DCR 82-76/Bechtel N/A 4
piping - X227A t i Torus-Attached Piping 1. Addition of flexible N/A N/A l and Supports Outside metal hose to small l the Torus bore piping, conduit, 1 and instrumentation
- j. lines
- 2. Addition / modification DCR 82-76/Bechtel N/A of piping supports
- 3. Modification of TAP
- N/A valve components
- 4. Modification of TAP ** ~
N/A
- pump components
, *If required. Thirty-eight. valve assemblies have been evaluated and were found to be acceptable. The ! remaining 14 valves are currently under evaluation.
**If required. Six pump assemblies have been evaluated and were found to be acceptable. The remaining two l pumps are currently under evaluation.
APPENDIX C (Continued) COMPONENT CATEGORY MODIFICATION DESCRIPTION DESIGN DRAWING /AE FABRICATION / ERECTION DRAWING - CB&I Suppression Pool 1. Addition of thermo- H-25066 Drawing 23 Temperature wells and half H-25067 Monitoring couplings H-25068 S/RV Logic Change 1. MSIV isolation N/A N/A level logic change
- 2. SRV low-low set N/A N/A logic O O O}}