ML20133E227
| ML20133E227 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1985 |
| From: | Gears G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8508070610 | |
| Download: ML20133E227 (52) | |
Text
lb Q SV 9 'O A 2 41985 50- a;t 7S'
~
LICENSEE: Philadelphia Electric Company FACILITY: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING BETWEEN THE NRC STAFF, THE PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY AND BECHTEL HELD ON MAY 30,1985 RELATING TO " ENERGY ABSORBERS" INTRODUCTION A meeting was held in Bethesda on May 30, 1985 at the request of the NRC staff relating to memorandum subject. A list of the attendees is enclosed.
The' meeting was requested by the NRC staff to discuss the proposed use of " energy absorbers" at the Peach Bottom facility as a superior replace-ment for conventional snubbers.
DISCUSSION Philadelphia Electric in its presentation indicated that it was preparing to utilize ' energy absorbers' on a case-by-case basis during the upcoming Unit 3 reload (August / September).
Bechtel presented a technical review of its ' energy absorbers' including laboratory experiments, analytical correlations, linearization methology, and design. A summary of the Bechtel presentation is enclosed.
Philadelphia Electric indicated that it sought guidance on the need for NRC review and approval on the use of ' energy absorbers' at Unit 3. Most specifically, Philadelphia Electric inquired into the use of these absorbers in the place of conventional snubbers and the effect of this proposed change on the Peach Bottom Technical Specifications. The NRC Project Manager (G. Gears) indicated that this issue would be discussed between the NRC Technical and Legal staffs and a decision or approach would be conveyed to Philadelphia Electric. The Philadelphia Electric and Bechtel-meeting participants indicated that they would provide the NRC technical staff with more detailed test data as well as the plant specific report for the Peach Bottom facility for staff review and comment.
l 8500070610 850724 7 DR ADOCK 050 l
t
g:
- _2 Summary It was' agreed that the NRC staff had a better understanding on the use of
' energy absorbers' as a replacement for conventional snubbers. The staff wished to further review more technical data on the absorbers as well the supporting documentation for plant specific applications. Philadelphia Electric and Bechtel agreed to provide this information to the staff. The staff agreed to review and comment on this additional technical information.
In addition, the staff indicated that it would pursue the question of the potential effects of the use of ' energy absorbers' on the present Peach Bottom Technical Specifications.
"OlticlNAL SIGNED W Gerald E. Gears, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #4, DL
Enclosures:
As Stated cc w/ enclosures:
See next page ORB #4:DL GGears;cf 7/ /85
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company
- Copies also sent to those people on service (cc) list for subject plant (s),
i
OELD-Edordan, IE ACRS-10 PMorriette NRC Meeting
Participants:
H5 haw
' FCherny RBosnak l DTerao.
l -
i i
l L
v L
'_g?
Enclosure MEETING ON ENERGY ABSORBERS FOR PEACH BOTTOM MAY 30, 1985 BETHESDA, MARYLAND
- Name Organization Phone Number -I Ronald Hess Philadelphia Electric Co. 215-841-4523 William'Alden Philadelphia Electric Co.- 215-841-5022 Joseph Cratic, III Philadelphia Electric Co. 215-841-4546 John O'Rourke Philadelphia Electric. Co. 215-841-4575 Horance Shaw NRC 301-492-4420 Frank Cherny NRC 301-492-8437 Robert-Bosnak 'NRC' 301-492-7733 David Terao NRC 301-492-4421 Gerry Gears - NRC 301-492-8362 G. Butler Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. 301-234-5747 Don Ward Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. 301-234-5420 (Kaly) Kalyanam Bechtel/Gaithersburg,MD 301-258-3167 Ran Patel Bechtel/Gaithersburg,MD 301-234-4433
- Glenn Wang Bechtel/Gaithersburg, MD 301-258-3574 Hong-Ming Lee Bechtel/ San Francisco, CA 415-882-2773 Mohamed Khalfallah Bechtel/ San Francisco, CA 415-882-2778 Larry Shipley Bechtel/ San Francisco, CA- 415-768-7706 Richard Schlueter Bechtel/ San Francisco, CA 415-768-2023 Karl Wiedner Bechtel/TPM 415-768-4602 William Lapay Westinghouse / PED,Pitts. 412-825-6166 4
L.
k BECHTEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR ENERGY ABSORBERS J
)
)
)
)
)
)
TYPES OF CONVENTIONAL
) PIPE SUPPORTS
)
L
- SPRING TYPE SUPPORTS
) . niGio rvee sueroR1s
[
- - - ~ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
[
f
)
) SNUBBERS
?
)
e COMPLEX APPARATUS
- HYDRAULIC TYPES
- MECHANICAL TYPES
[ # HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE RECORDS e EXPENSIVE ... INITIAL COST
... ,~ SERV,cE ,~SPEcz,eN l
[
MECHANICAL SNUBBER HOUSING g
TRANSITION TUBE TELESCOPING CYUNDER SPHERICAL BEARING BALL NUT -
_ -P .
BALL SCREW SHAFT
/
~
CYLINDER END PLUG KEYWAY -([""
/ / \
SueeORT CYtmDER
/ CAPSTAN SPRING
/ C+ 6NERTIA MASS TOROUE TRANSFER ORUM 1
1
/, Y %,
t ,
hr 51 $b, o
s i
l SECTIONAL VIEW C C
e
) HYDRAULIC SNUBBERS
)
- v p
= .
~c
_ Oll __
CHECK RESERVOIR _ CHECK VALVE VALVE
_ i
{
RJ.
^ = RJ.
^
NEEDLE NEEDLE 8 VALVE VALVE h: -
{ s{ -
PIPE 4
CYLINDER AND PISTON "
BRACKET I
i CURRENT DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF PIPING SYSTEMS SEISMIC
}
- BASIC APPROACH IS TO USE RESPONSE SPECTRA METHOD.
(DAMPlNG SPECIFIED BY OTHERSD e OUTCOME
, - REQUIRE LARGE NUMBERS OF SNUBBERS
(
- RESULTS IN RIGID PIPING SYSTEM DESIGN
)
ALTERNATIVES l
e REDUCE CONSERVATISM IN ANALYSIS l - USE TIME HISTORY METHODS
- USE MULTIPLE RESPONSE SPECTRA
. . . ETC.
- RESULTS... INCREASED COST WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT l # BASIC RESEARCH INTO FLEXIBLE SYSTEM DESIGN 1
- REQUIRE NEW ANALYTICAL METHODS
- EMPHASIS ON DAMPING b
1 DAMPING
[
o DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE DEGREE OF CONSERVATISM IN RESPONSE SPECTRA
! TYPE ANALYSIS o RELATES TO NUMBER OF SUPPORTS AND SNUBBERS o VALUES USED IN PIPING ANALYSIS T0-DATE ARE EMPIRICAL AND ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.
o 1/27, o REG. GUIDE 1.61 f o PVRC/C0DE CASE N-411 o SOURCES OF SYSTEM DAMPING
{
0 INHERENT SYSTEM DAMPING ASSOCIATED WITH j
o MATERIAL YIELDING 0F PIPE OR SUPPORT STRUCTURES ---
{ "SMALL" ENERGY DISSIPATION MECHANISMS IN SUPPORTS ---
f o
" DEPENDS ON TYPES --- VARIES"
( o ENGINEERED DAMPING ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY ABSORBERS o ADDS PREDICTABLE AMOUNTS OF HIGH DAMPING
( 0 ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR SNUBBERS l
l l
l 1238
DESIRABLE FEATURES
- LARGE ENERGY ABSORPTION ,
- WELL-DEFINED HYSTERESIS
- MAINTENANCE FREE
- LOW SENSITIVITY
- ACCOMMODATION OF THERMAL AND DYNAMIC LOADINGS
}
L f
l X-SHAPE ENERGY ABSORBER l
- MEETS DESIRABLE FEATURES l
- ADDED ADVANTAGES SIMPLE / INEXPENSIVE EASE OF VISUAL INSPECTION
(
SIMPLE CONNECTIONS l
i t
[
DEVICE e NO MOVING / INTERNAL PARTS l
- SIMPLE DUCTILE STEEL MEMBERS WITH
! LOW STIFFNESS TO ALLOW FOR THERMAL l EXPANSION
- TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPES
- X SHAPES
- THICKNESS OF 1/16"+
l STRUCTURE a l >///
l PIPE D I
{ ROD Q= =
MOTION
l
(
l EARLY CONCEPT INVESTIGATIONS o MATERIAL o MECHANISM ENERGY ABSORPTION THROUGH TORSION AND/OR ABSORPTION THROUGH BENDING
- CONFIGURATION ONE-DIMENSIONAL I -
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL l
t i
[ DEVELOPMENT OF DUCTILE STEEL ENERGY ABSORBERS PROFILE DEFORMATION STRESS DISTRIBUTION 6
&fy+
i O - -
(
1 2 :ll'c ==
.E -b
_;}l:ijf, ==
+'y+
-s i 3
TV =
1 ,
A e I
4 =-
m n ,_ , - - - _ _ _
~ ~ ~ ~ _
j DEFORMATION MODEL FOR X-TYPE ENERGY ABSORBER
,,,,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
,,C..iiii-g l M I ,
is l l t l l
\ /
F4 i , pp 1 a r X
s l
I l
I M
l v ,r pa ,, ,
/////f///////////////////////////f//// ///////
b
2
- ~ - - -- ---
POTENTIAL SAVINGS
- REDUCED INSTALLATION COST. '
NO TESTING, ADJUSTING OR PRECISION INSTALLATION COMPARED TO SNUBBERS
- REDUCED INSERVICE INSPECTION COST
- REDUCED PLANT DOWNTIME COST
- SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN HARDWARE COST
- REDUCTION IN INTERFACE LOADS TO l BUILDING STRUCTURES l
RESEARCH PROGRAM e PERFORM TESTS TO PROVE THE CONCEPT
- PERFORM NONLINEAR ANALYSIS TO CORRELATE TEST RESULTS ,
o PERFORM SENSITIVITY STUDIES
- DEVELOP RELIABLE ANALYTICAL DESIGN METHOD THAT IS ECONOMICAL e DESIGN THE DEVidE
DEVELOPMENT FLOW CHART L
[ EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ]
/ \
l RESTRAINER DESIGN l l SHAKING TABLE TESTS ON PIPING SYSTEMS l l / -
\ /\
l FATIGUE l l MATERIAL l l GEOMETRY l l THERMAL l l SEISMIC l 1
l ANALYTICAL AND THEORETICAL STUDIES l
/ \
l SENSITIVITY H CORRELATION STUDY l:
{
/ NN l HYSTERESIS l l DAMPING l l SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY l
- : LINEARIZATION l LOCAL DAMPING l l GLOBAL DAMPINGl l MODAL DAMPING l
\ \
ITIME HISTORIES l l MODE SUPERPOSITION l
\
l COMPARISON WITH NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY l l DESIGN PROCEDURES
{
l ANALYSIS l
\ l DEVICE l
_____ )
i
\ -
{ w
~~
g# s
\ N h
> \ / %
\ i l
\'"4.
L
/
/N %[< \
T; k
% }
/
( \
p.
mw
(
C I
is i
D M
~l/ !
8 I;
C
~
! u
> .s
+ te
-n .-+-
+ ,
ee
>x-- ---- -- == "' '
""1 W 3 _ _ _ _ . _ __
i e us -
rn -c r, -
/
g
\ /y 1U pE L. -
T
.e ,,/+N!e.
4
+
4 .
-t V T
~
^
B l l
ummumms
P
\
\
}
=3= atsinAwT(v)
)
) + sPano y f
/\{
h ***ia
-c- sNU4BCR
)
i ++ -
3-- n(sinAWT(2) /.
g%s
., /-
/
- ' */ ,
' g- . , ,
j #
D,/j/ ~Y /
l s
/,/
's x' ,/,,/
s yT
'l-l )'
s
~ ; I '/i , , N
~
l .
p j:}q u; x 'N g.
\.
Pipe Model Supported by Steel Frame
l
! Rod Restraint *#
) W Snubber / Energy Absorber
]
I W Spring ,
sr O Acceleration
! O Displacement
) C3 Strain Gases Jzr Load Cell t
A O
.x 3*
a Top of Frame
,e 5
,,i s E- -
l 53 h
',A @
- ya%
f A
e i
Q e e
- gd Ua,A 39 a s ~.
Shaking Table Pipe with Instrumentation. Snubbers Subsequently Replaced with Energy Absorbers
COlV PARISON OF
( SNUBBER PERFORMANCE Vs. ENERGY ABSORBERS
SSE RESPONSE COMPARISON SNUBBERS VS ENERGY ABSORBERS A.* 4}
! ! r p )+ m l
5 'I y ;, ,
{ ,
s
!{ %
ii !
- 1
' 1 '
j/"
[ ,-
il gf <
K%1 l
lU~ 's /'
SNUBBERS 2" x 1/8" 1.0 g 0.1IN
{ 0.1 MIL /IN 200 LBS
ijIl )
l 9
2 ES S
F yH 5 O 1 ^R O
A, :
T C
" 8 A
F ef r
, y . ,
/
1 Y
T eh s
s et r
.,
- I hr o
/
5 S
N E
T t a rE .
a k t e ak ra w . 'W .
9 N
I Eee s neo l eu pq ueh Oh oSt t d r ise er va
- S.
htinc lE e n a
- e. Vg er.
red n
ept ei hs ta SOu dd e 0
3 ee.
ll eer f r oc n
2 8 0
ece sI Sss F
n
- .= - or
._ 5 O
t 33t io tf e .
1 s
O T
38s 30s a re f, .
, C A
F es l n eo cp
. * . 8 YT cs f
- I Ae
,, S N
E
,R T . se o
. 5 NI ee.
ce nl
/ .
S om ib aa ee rT
_ l t 9 lbe aa Sr e
_ . - - - - - tL ek 0 . ,
pa l t ih rr PS ee HV fg
- oni HY HY sd 8 S en 0 2 SS 0 a
- uo
- l ps ase
." F 5
O t
l 0 ii nn Vei eri rt
- o y ,
. 0 ~
1 T
C 24 mos eCn A r e
/ ..
/
Y
- y. . e YT F
b r
eb em a
tdt xnn EaI o .
J,.
1 I
S h..
s
' N r SEE nn
/, / E T
'a N ys . E. I oao
's . S 3
3
. 4 3, 2 9 , 0 8 . 9 ,' ,,
]
5 g S g 5 4 ,. 2 g ,
i n 9 . 9
/ 3 1
gT IM e :#. ACC '
t e nA C C
l 1I li
a %
.s
..= -- ~-d' --
- s. {.
. b=_ %'. .
h_}. _
m - .
_nw*-- -- .= ,_ W Mc y. -
-===7*-
&c ".ic
~-L-a r
J. ---- -
~~~ ~ ~
45~.c .
2-
.dC -2
<1 e
~:# -
J r_- .-
- = -.c=_ .--
_ - ~--s ~- .%M._ - - _
- ~. g__
G-
~.
^S-
-c. u e
m.L 4
,,( >
1-c J ~-
c 5;i=-i-- JLm .,
-=5>
- _ - ~ -
k W=_=- . - _
2%
m ._ -m _- -
~ A? C
_5
-3==--
W:. s. ~. *= - . 51
.gg. - - h-
=_ -_ _.
. ,.s
- _=a=-
- w%- -
-~r _..7- - ---~~~
-.--r%. ;
p.:r ge--- =h ---
t y,.. _- V-
- -- z_ w._ -a "e _
g
- y. --
E b_ %
.h r,
~
~
4 -h.- .
. ~.
..=
j y .- ';-
i S3HONI l
S3HONI S3HONI W* @ O.
w w w o' 6 $ 6 G
RESPONSES OF SNUBBERS (TOP) AND ENERGY ABSORBERS (BOTTOM) SUBJECTED TO SAME EARTHQUAKES '
I ' '
4.e.-' e98382.e4 .90382 4 3es.--
2ee.--l -
igg,_-
y g los.-- ;
e.-: H n e .- -
W D
f -lee.- -
\
.,ee._ > .
~3 ~'~ ~
2 2es.-:-
-4ee.- -
^
! ! i i i i i i i i
- eSe
. e.ses e.eSe .eSe.e49.e39.929. ele.eeW.el5.e29.e3e DIST 21 DIST 33 l 420. y ' ' _,, '
e 2. e'i . Ise382.e5 .
~' ~
~
s__ _
g
- e. g y
\
8
, g .sa.__ _
-ies.__
.ies._- - _
-tse.--
2
-2es.4 ; . .;. .1, . .;. -p -2m. -
.2ee .ies e.ees e.iee e.2ee .ese e.oos e.ese e.ies DIST 2 DIST 33
FOURIER SPECTRA OF SNUBBERS (TOP) AND ENERGY ABSORBERS (BOTTOM? SUBJECTED TO SAME EARTHQUAKES ~'~
l
~ ' '
'em;2.4
'.m42.4 30.9- -
78.9- -
,gg,.
, .w -
e
- se.w -
- 4. 9- -
< l - .--
I . j . .
1 , ,. ,
is:. =:.
1, a.:. as..
M
,o .. s .',..
i.:.
Ih =:. I 4
a.:. as..
s .'. i.'.. 2s'.. is.. 2s..
FREOLENCY t HZ l FREOLENCY t HZ
- , i i ,
s- 'si 1 i ii > i i, i.
2 .__
ls .--
g ise.--
' " ' ~~
~
ise.--
}
l M--
S..-- g (l 1 l
M S.e
- - N
/
s.O l... Is.. 2... O ..
2s.. 3 3s..
0.9 18.8 is.S 20..
FREGKMCY t HZ l 2s.. 3... 36.8 FREOLENCY t HZ l pu
7 FORCE DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR SNUBBER VS ENERGY ABSORBER
........................ ..................,...j
! b 4ee. -- i i SNUBBERi se0.-i. 2" x 1/8" 4 e
ENERGY i > i 200.--- ,
!. ABSORBER ? i.
C')
LO 100.-i-: 4
~
E
- 4 /7 b.
5 g
0.
i f,//F- i:
o -100.-t: .,' i g,
E E
i
-200.-?: ,
b b i
-300.-E: i :
b b
4
-400.-F i i: :
.20 -
. 10 0.00 0.10 0.20 DIST 21
' s a s O.87 i'"- i,,,e i, .
~
( = 5.7 %
Ig3^^^^^- SNUBBER 4 - 36.0 %
"y w w w - -
og
- JVV Hl I t f f f 22.84 88.N g. g, gggy g a i ' -
a 0.5 i 6
~
kffIk ( - *
)
2*xl/8" 8 - 49.5 % b[N ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ v - ~ v v ~ .- - - ENERGY f= 7.5 Hz : ( k k
- ABSORBER i i k i i I f .=
e,33 * . t . I t IS.M g, g, gggy g is.84 S38302.s3 9
\ c- 5.6 %
I ) ) q a , A ^f _ _ _ _ - 5*xl/ 8* 8 - 35.2 % ENERGY f= 6.65 Hz 4 ((j((VVVy ) t t ABSORBER e e i
.,78 .
88 " 88 " m - m. nier n 3
,,a ..... ..... .....
NO DEVICE th0//#//O /-
., u ..... .,. ..... .... . . . .... .... .,.
87 # as.n m . m. niet u Damping Ratio of System IV with Different Support Devices in Position and Corresponding First Natural Frequencies
f ) ) 1 CONCLUSIONS i
- SUPERIOR TO SNUBBERS
- GOOD CONTROL
- HIGH DAMPING 4
- LOCAL DECOUPLING
- THERMAL AND SEISMIC RESPONSE NOT ADDITIVE i
- RELIABILITY AND REPEATABILITY OF I RESPONSE
- MAINTENANCE-FREE
} \
} ) i I CORRELATION s o NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS PROGRAMS USED
*ABAQS
- ANSR ll
- ACCELERATED NONLINEAR CODE HYSTERESIS LOOP MODELING SPATIAL SYSTEM U-LOOP SYSTEM 4
o CONCLUSIONS SUCCESSFUL ANALYSIS
- VERIFICATION OF ANSR 11, ACCELERATED CODE AGAINST TEST RESULTS t
3
CORRELATION NONLINEAR TIME HISTORIES VS TEST 0.26 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' N40BSEXY32 -
- I
- a. ,
y AA i bl %3% A n . ! $ rahlf yiW:v y
~
, f V.t.i? " /p y
~
g< U I i t I
- e g .26 . . . ......i.........i.........i......... 4*"
8 '" CH - 8 DISY 30 210. ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 32 l I N4C l I; d A bl n l .
!! l : .
- l 1 i k' ,
J h 4
\\ -210. . . . . ... ..i.........i.........i........-
- CH - 19. AXFORC 69
CORRELATION NONLINEAR TIME HISTORIES VS TEST
,_g ~...... RSEXYl32 ~
- I -
. I-J
)
i g i i : .
~
~
_ A ft. / OL A .a A / anAk : 9 _ V V 0 vv vv / g ' l' V V t ( i s
, Vg . ; _
l l . I l_
.47 - ------ n - ---- n - -- - - - - n - ------ -
**EI 4*"
CH - 13 DISZ 18 gggg, , . ......,,........., ....... N 40iiSEXY32 I i i .; , I ( . E hkkhh ? b ' I klA$hN \\ \ i
\ n n pg 6 ;s! ,
r S ilvgj'lyl i h f -
<) j I
, j . I :f
-sees. . . .....................................
8*88 CH - 15. MYYI 29
SENSITIVITY TO CHANGES IN SYSTEM ~ FLEXIBILITY AND ENERGY ABSORBER I HYSTERESIS LOOP .........,........ ...
,........,.........,.........,.........,.........,...s f..................,.........
ACCY 48 3 ACCY 48 .3 0.20- - 3 0.30 . E
. 1
. l
- - - ; : l O.10 jf-j .
l
-- p i l 0.20-:- E
/'
$ i
$ i ?
M { O.00 . 2 k\- , E :. \s '
/
O.10- '\ ,- g ' : N g .10-i-/ i 3
/' .
N / : i i
- . s s -
0 00 : .20 - E- 4
- ........i.........i.........i.........i.........i...
I I I I I I 1 I I T
- 28. 29. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
- 24. 25. 26. 27.
E(R= 5.7.11) E(R =5.7.11) LEGEND: RED LINE: R = 5, GREEN LINE: R = 7, YELLOW LINE: R = 11 RMSDR = ROOT MEAN SQUARE DIFFERENCE RATIO PADR = PEAK AREA DIFFERENCE RATIO
SENSITIVITY TO CHANGES IN THE ENERGY ABSORBER HYSTERESIS LOOP i3gWWWWgWWvvgayvvgyWWWgWTWTguWwTgWWT vvgvvvvguvvvgvvvvgywvvgyywwgwwwwgvvvv i ACCY 48 [ 0.20- i- A C C Y 4 8 .i O.30* ,
- 0.10s - .
- ~
O.20 2- - E- 3
,/ !
8
< 0.00 =
!-Qx !
s'm h-%: i 2 /, . a. . E .b E O.10- ,.tgs ,, f f:: :
,s s_,- >f
/
sg e - .
- s_
0.00 : .20- :-.
.. ....i........i........i........- I I I I I I I T I I I I I I 2.0 2.5 3.03.54.04.55.05.5 2.0 2.53.03.54.04.55.05.5 ALPHA (R= 5.7.11) ALPHA (R=5.7.11)
LEGEND: RED LINE: R = 5, GREEN LINE: R = 7, YELLOW LINE: R = 11 RMSDR = ROOT MEAN SQUARE DIFFERENCE RATIO PADR = PEAK AREA DIFFERENCE RATIO
REG. GUIDE POSITIONS !
- 1.61 SEC. C "2. DAMPlNG VALUES HIGHER THAN THE ONES DELINEATED IN TABLE 1 OF THIS GUIDE MAY BE USED IN A DYNAMIC SEISMIC ANALYSIS IF DOCUMENTED TEST DATA ARE PROVIDED TO SUPPORT HIGHER VALUES."
- 1.92 SEC.1.2.3. INFERS THAT USE OF DIFFERENT MODAL DAMPING RATIOS FOR DIFFERENT MODES IS ALLOWED.
LINEARIZATION LINEAR TIME HISTORY VS NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY i I LNHAEC$:74 - ng I !
- >. e :
. >,at p .
c ts 3 I g ./k : :h} lN.4 kJ ; Sd G [ "
$1 J
~v '
m vj g- JV W g Ti!!y vyr . V i
/ T. ;.
(;.1
) wf i 6.
'u l 3 4 t k
'l il -
u d 1 s t< - i . V t I i li
-tise. ..................i.........i........I- 48 4.85 S.90 CH - 11. ACCY g,47
~
.s l
! 5 LSIMAECS7)r d, f ;r
- g. I ,s y -
I l
'. A e I.AM b h 7 A AA Al A Af.
f yr yy > jvy v") T vv t Yv h -
.: : t t. ,.
i v - J .i.' .S l Y:
.47 v l DISY 48 4.88 8.98 CH - 18 c -
LINEARIZATION RESULTS FROM MODE SUPERPOSITION METHOD . COMPARED WITH NONLINEAR TIME HISTORIES 1.i. _____ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - ___ ._ ___m__ , , _ .
. AOb AAA bA Af I" VV"V V V" V g V V V V V V V V V v.
.g.ig ----r- __ -.. -
**" 5.M CH - 8 DISY M 0.e ' ' ' '
y M . V ~ 3A MVW 7 .. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .____________________7
" 5.00 CH - 8. O(TEpe El r- __- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
G8IAAAAM2 h A b b_ A A A A b M b rs _? _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ -!_?_i
- _ _N_ .
. se..
_. ... _ . ., 5. l 1. lee.es . ' ' '
? A _A A b b [
l v t y_y_ vy_vo vv vv g vv vv v v t . t K.es - i i , ,
'*" 5.M CH - 1 NZZJ 25 2See.
-_ .' _ _ _' _ r -
- - _ Ge i AAAA382 ,
f' _ P
$ Y _
2988. N \\ Y' A . - l h h \\ M( $ M NV
. i CBI - 7 AIFINIC 51 '"
litet. - - = - g . b A A 17008. "_
~____
_ . .b _ _ __ CH S. &#CNPC 53 '"
l LINEARIZATION RESULTS FROM MODE SUPERPOSITION METHOD COMPARED WITH NONLINEAR TIME HISTORIES 8 *'
~ - ______,,_,:
I An bAA.kAb\ b. kAAA8L&. A a l
,3 ,
.,aAAA(
" V V V' 1.
""y'VVVVV\VV\NVV V V V V ' v ' V ~ ".
L V_(____ ___ . 8" 04 - .. Ol5Y 32 a= __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g _ _ _ _ _ ,, _ ,.. __ m d $8 A . . .A A AAAnAAAAAAI$ A A A A .n si A _ a_n (VvrWrV"' V v' T V V"V"VVVV)V{ i
..a
_________________l . .
..=
o.a o, . i.. one. .
...i
;_ _ _ _ - ,i _ i..
* ~
A An.\.b.m \. 3 A an A AA A AM A $AnAA.ut J ( V ' V r V"'
! ~ ' '" vv'T v' ( vvy v < v ~ y v V V \
V(D . Q4
- 12. EYTD6 78 1.________.______- _ _ _ _ __ ,, ,,
' d
- A Aa 4. al khbb h b kk \JubAakt.kaa n.
V~' 'I ' ]yy' h V VV~{ 'V y 'V V 7' l lFVT hWil t\
--_-.m_
.r 4>W 8 88 04 g, eggJ 34
~ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,.,.,_ _'_ __.,, _ ,
['nl\\ M .s l i l
dI M l
,1 f\ n if f Rf V fV f,Q . . _
4, 3. i __ l_L .____ 8'" 04 - 16. &JEFWDC 78
LINEARIZATION DISTRIBUTION OF MODS /PKLV RATIOS OF PIPE SYSTEMS IV, V, VI AND THEIR COMBINATIONS gyg.yg-29.- - 13.-h, SYS-IV - . . 15.- - le.- - ig,_ .
- l 5.- -- -
5.- - g, AA - g, I 1 i I s I I I I i 9.70.8S.S1.91.11.21.31.41.5 I i s I S.79.8S.S1.81.11.21.31.41.5 MODS /PKLV RAT 10 MODS /PKLY RATIO
.- 43.-- . . . . . .
gy,y & vg - gys-y - 29.-7 . 30.-F i 15.- -
~ 29.-!-
Is.- - I8 - - 5.-k E. S. ,
-t. . ..- -.-- .- -..-.. I I I i I I I I I I I I
9.79.89.91.91.11.21.31.41.5 I i i 3 I 9.79.89.91.91.11.21.31.41.5 MODS /PKLV RATIO MODS /PKLV RATIO
INSERVICE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS o VISUAL.IN-PLACE a EXAMINATION L 3. o VT-3 ' '41 ",
ISI JUSTIFICATION o SIWLICITY OF Q)NCEPTIDESIGN 0 NO ACTIVATION WCHANISMS l i o PLATESIBOLTS ARE ACCESSIBLE TO DPLACE VISUAL VIEWING o BASIC FAILURE MODE IS GRETE FATIGJE CRA0GG OF ONE OR MORE PLATES o EXTENSIVE PROTOTYPICAL FATIGUE TESTING OF ENERGY ABSORBERS DEMONSB ATED THAT: o DEVELOPING CRACKS ARE EX BEW LY VISIBLE o SIGNIFICANT NT1BER OF CYO_ES ARE NEEDED TO PROPAGATE A DEVELOPING CRACK INTO COWLETE FATIGUE FAIllRE o TENS IN HIGH STRAINS o R NJREDS IN LOW STRAINS o ONE PLATE PER ASSENLY COWLETELY FAILS FIRST WITH RB%IND0 R_ATES INTACT. L22B
DESIGN PROCEDURE l DEFINITION OF BOUNDARIES l I SUPPORTS FO GRAVITY LOADS l l PHYSICAL INSPECTION l
, r ESSENTIAL PROBLEM)
SEISMIC THERMAL OR THERMAL
+ SEISMIC
- l SELECT RESTRAINERS l l SELECT RESTRAINERS l:
EIGENVALUE, MODESHAPE DAMPING, DYNAMIC THERMAL ANALYSIS l ANALYSIS r YES / PIPE OVERSTRESS DUE\ / PIPE OVERSTRESS DUE\ YE_S
\TO THERMAL LOADING / \TO DYNAMIC LOADING /
PIPE OVERSTRESS DUE PIPE OVERSTRESS DUE\ (TO DYNAMIC LOADING TO THERMAL LOADING / RESTRAINER DISPLACEMENT \ NO DUE IN TO THERMAL ALLOWABLE RANGE LOADING [ YES l CALCULATE RESTRAINER GEOMETRY l
ME101 Verification November 30, 1984 l
. A n*
240 EAB
*30 RO
' 267 BAS gnB 902 ,/
a
-f'ANC II2 34 gy gg i
-s-152 EAS N
RAS
'M x q...,
l i l OCCMf f L plPimG ment eili PROGRAM----ME IDI Il
#an utme sens: Sm.se.4 SSont v m stmit Omeeg t ig e o0011 6-10-01 040705 182640 Y[\ z
ME101 Verification November 30, 1984 h PRCBLEM: ME101VER28 Finally the new responses are Acc. Resp
- Damped Acc. Resp (g)
Mode Ww g Hand Calc. ME101-EAB(K2) I 1 .6725 9.1559 7.9685 7.9679 6 .3795 15.9572 6.0556 6.0553 12 1.002 21.6034 21.8034 21.8034 The computed response is compared with FE101 run, hereafter identified as hand calc., with input of modifiec spectral curves for given frequencies and usin9 SNB of the replaced EAL stiffness. The results are compared as follows: Hand Calc. GLOBAL FORCES Hand Calc. ME101-SNE ME101-EAB PIl01-SNB FIl01-EAE 112 ANC FX 1150 1150 MA 5462 5462 130 EAB FX 2592 2592 FZ 465 455 130 EAB FX 1244 1244 FZ 2946 2946 218 EAB FZ 4236 4236 236 EAB FX 4931 4931 FY 1695 1695 252 EAB FZ 5414 5414 DISPLACEMENTS (IN) DATA PT Hand Calc. F1101-EAB(K2 ) 215 DX 1.133 1.133 215 DY 1.494 1.494 215 D2 .519 .519 - 215 RX .007823 .007623 215 RY .015733 .015733 215 R2 .014115 .014115 236 DY 3.675 3.675 23c RZ .022974 .022974
ME101 Verification November 30, 1981 HYSTERESIS COMPARISON es..n 3E101 DT = .01 sec.
/
8 % 9. De6kl. /'
. s . ,s . m . .
l . /
.s..urs .
/ '/
/
....-~.
eo a tiest on OAAAA322 Mod. ANSRII '
"8 " DT = .01 sec.
S. jgf[J : 333 . .
.ng . . .
33g,..
-l.00 .Se 0.9e 0.58 8.es DISX 2
l l COMPARISON OF RESULTS IN RHR HEAD SPRAY SYSTEM. l
s ( w - r1 6"O beor [ l 12 i Il 13 l w ' F 4 j e REST RAINT DIMENSION M 1st (IN MIN) l j 6 10 1 7 80 m .431
- 4i g 2 3.10 m .461*
3 4.13 m .357 j 4 5 25 m .413 I 6 9 28 m .604 l 6 5.28 m .523 7 8C5m.585 8 5.46 m .535 9 7.49 m .524 10 8,78m.583 11 4.43 m .586 12 5.80 m .637 13 LINEAR l
- MAY BE GIVEN AS LINEAR ELEMENT CONT Km : .SNU88ER
= ENE RGY ABSORBER RHR DESIGN WITH SNUBBERS 4 : RIGID P RHR DESIGN WITH ENERGY ABSORSERS
( I RHR CASE COMPARISON ENERGY A ORBER ITEM COMPARED SNUBBER CASE o FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY 23 HZ. 4 HZ. o DAMPlNG FACTORS 1% 2.5% TO 25% o MAXIMUM STRESSES 9,El0 PSI 15,400 PSI
- THERMAL 17,900 PSI 18,400 PSI
- SSE
' VALVE ACCELERATON
- RESULTANT S.3 G's 5.8 G's o NOZZLE LOADS (SSB l
- RESULTANT FORCE 3,200 LB. 5,000 LB.
- RESULTANT MOMENT 55,000 IN. L8. 178,000 IN. LB.
o SUPPORT LOADS (SSE
- TOTAL NUM8ER OF SEISMIC SUPPORTS 21 13 6 LOAD RANGE 1 KIP TO 9 KIPS 1.5 KIPS TO 5.7 KIPS
- TOTAL LOAD 57 KlPS 43 KIPS
- -}}