ML20133D941

Pressurizer Safety & Relief Line Evaluation Summary Rept - Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station,Unit 2

ML20133D941
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	02/29/1984
From:	Antaki G, Valasek L WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20133D879	List: ML20133D876 ML20133D913 ML20133D941 ML20133D960
References
NUDOCS 8510090221
Download: ML20133D941 (78)

Text

-

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF LINE EVALUATION

SUMMARY

REPORT NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 2 L. M. Valasek February 1984

/

Approved:

G. A. Antaki, Manager Systems Structural Analysis BBAoSBBEABi8'oih2 P

0951s:10-1

. - . . . - - - - . - .. . . . _ , , - , - , . . . ~ . . - - , .. . , , , , . . - _ . - - - . - ,~-y.......e, . ., -__

. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION 4 2 PIPING EVALUATION CRITERIA 5 2.1 Pipe Stress Calculations and Load Combinations 5 2.2 Design Conditions 5 2.2.1 Design Pressure 5 2.2.2 Design Temperature 6 2.3 Plant Operating Conditions 6 2.3.1 Normal Conditions 6 2.3.2 Upset Conditions 6 2.3.3 Emergency Conditions 6 2.3.4 Faulted Conditions 7 3 LOADING CONDITIONS ANALYZED 11 3.1 Pressure 11 3.2 Weight 11 3.3 Seismic 11 3.4 Safety and Relief Valve Thrust 12 3.5 Thermal Expansion 12 4 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND MODELS 16 4.1 Piping System Model 16 4.2 Deadweight and Thermal Analyses 16 4.3 Seismic Analysis 18 4.4 Pressurizer Safety and Relief Line Analysis 19 4.4.1 Plant Hydraulic Model 19 4.4.2 Comparison to EPRI Test Results 21 4.4.3 Valve Thrust Analysis 23 0951s:10-2 2

a .

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont)

Section Title Page 5 METHOD OF STRESS EVALUATION 45 5.1 Primary Stress Evaluation 45 5.1.1 Design Conditions 45 5.1.2 Upset Conditions 45 5.1.3 Emergency Conditions 46 5.1.4 Faulted Conditions 47 5.2 Secondary Stress Evaluation 48 6 RESULTS 49 6.1 Thermal Hydraulic Results 49 6.2 Structural Results 50 6.3 Summary of Results and Conclusions 51 0951s:10-3 3

. i SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge piping system for pressurized water reactors provides overpressure protection for the reactor coolant system. A water seal is usually maintained upstream of each safsty and relief valve to prevent a steam interface at the valve seat. These water seals practically eliminate any unwanted steam leakage through the valves and, in doing so, maximize plant availability. Driven by a high system pressure which actuates the valves, however, the water slugs can generate severe hydraulic shock loads on both piping and supports.

Under US NRC NUREG 0737,Section II.D.1, "Perfomance Testing of BWR and PWR Relief and Safety Valves," all operating plant licensees and applicants are required to conduct testing to qualify the reactor coolant system relief and safety valves under expected operating conditions during design basis transients and accidents. In addition to the qualification of valves, the functionability and structural integrity of the as-built discharge piping and supports must be demonstrated on a plant specific basis.

In response to these requirements, a program for the performance testing of PWR safety and relief valves was formulated by the Electric Power Research Institute. The primary objective of the test program was to provide full scale test data confiming the functionability of reactor coolant system power operated relief valves and spring loaded safety valves for expected operating and accident conditions. The second objective was to obtain sufficient piping thermal hydraulic load data to permit confirmation of the accuracy of computer codes and analytical methods which might be utilized for plant unique analyses

' of safety and relief valve discharge piping systems.

This report summarizes both the results of and the analytical methods used in the thermal hydraulic analysis and structural evaluation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge piping system. In particular, this report is the response of the Northern States Power Company to the US NRC plant specific request for piping evaluation.

0951s:10-4 4

a .

SECTION 2 PIPING EVALUATION CRITERIA 2.1 PIPE STRESS CALCULATIONS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS The pressurizer safety and relief valve piping was analyzed according to the requirements of the ANSI B31.1.0-1967 Power Piping Code with one exception:

allowable stresses for load combinations which include hydraulic shock loading from valve discharge were adjusted to agree with those reconmended by the piping subconnittee of the EPRI test p ogram. Stress equations from the Code were used to establish limits for str/ esses from pressure plus sustained moment loads, pressure plus sustained moment plus occasional moment loads, and either thermal expansion moment loads or pressure plus sustained moment plus thermal expansion moment loads.

In order to evaluate the effects which hydraulic shock loading from valve discharge could have on piping, appropriate load combinations must be considered. The load combinations and allowable stresses used for this evaluation are identical to those recommended by the piping subcommittee of the EPRI test program.

The complete list of load combinations and allowable stresses is shown in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Definitions for all abbreviations are provided in Table 2-3.

2.2 DESIGN CONDITIONS 2.2.1 DESIGN PRESSURE The specified internal and external design pressures are not less than the maximum difference in pressure between the inside and outside of the component, which exists under the specified normal operating conditions. The design pressures are used in the computations made to show compliance with the Code.

0951s:10-5 5

L__

. 4 2.2.2 DESIGN TEMPERATURE' The specified design temperature is not less than the actual maximum metal temperature existing under the specified normal operating conditions for each area of the component considered. It is used in computations involving the design pressure and coincidental design mechanical loads.

2.3 PLANT OPERATING CONDITIONS 2.3.1 NORMAL CONDITIONS A normal condition is any condition in the course of system startup, design power range operation, hot standby, and system shutdown, other than upset, faulted, emergency, or testing conditions.

2.3.2 UPSET CONDITIONS An upset condition is any deviation from normal conditions anticipated to

occur often enough that design should include a capability to withstand the condition without operational impairment. Upset conditions include those transients resulting from any single operator error or control malfunction, transients caused by a fault in a system component requiring its ! solation from the system, or transients due to loss of load or power. Upset conditions include any abnormal incidents not resulting in a forced outage and also forced outages for which the corrective action does not include any repair of mechanical damage. '

2.3.3 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS Emergency conditions are defined as those deviations from normal conditions

( which require shutdown for correction of the conditions or repair of damage in the system. The conditions have a low probability of occurrence but are included to provide assurance that no gross loss of structural integrity will result as a concomitant effect of any damage developed in the system.

0951s:10-6 6

s .

2.3.4 FAULTED CONDITIONS Faulted conditions are those combinations of conditions associated with extremely low probability - postulated events whose consequences are such that the integrity and operability of the nuclear energy system may be impaired to the extent that considerations of public health and safety are involved.

i 0951s:10-7 7 c ,-- , - ., ,,,...___-_,_--..% 7..c - , . . _ - ,,.p._ _.._ r, ,,, , , _ _ ,_.mry.._. . , ~ _ rm , , - , _. ____ , . . .-.m. , _ -- , -- ,..---

TABLE 2-1 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE PIPING UPSTREAM OF VALVES Plant / System Operating Condition Load Combination Allowable Stress Nomal P + WT 1.0 S h Upset P + WT + 08E + SOT g 1.2 S h Emergency P + WT + SOT 1.8 S h E

Faul ted P + WT + MS/FWPB or DBPB 2.4 S h or LOCA + SSE + SOTp All TH 1.0 S, All P + WT + TH 1.0 Sh + 1.0 S, NOTES: (1) Definitions for all abbreviations are provided in Table 2-3.

(2) The square-root-sum-of-the-squares method (SRSS) is used for combining dynamic load responses, f

J 0951s:10-8 g

TABLE 2-2 LOAD COMBINATIONS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES FOR PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE PIPING DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES Plant / System Operating Condition Load Combination Allowable Stress Normal P + WT 1.0 S h Upset P + WT + SOTg 1.2 S h

Upset P + WT + OBE + SOTg 1.8 S h Emergency P + WT + SOT 1*0 S h E

Faul ted P + WT + MS/FWPB or DBPB 2.4 S h or LOCA + SSE + SOT y All TH 1.0 S, All P + WT + TH 1.0 Sh + 1.0 S, NOTES: (1) Definitions for all abbreviations are provided in Table 2-3.

(2) The square-root-sum-of-the-squares method (SRSS) is used for combining dynamic load responses.

?

0951s:10-9 9

s

. s TABLE 2-3 DEFINITIONS OF LOAD ABBREVIATIONS P = Pressure loads WT = Weight loads during normal operation SOT = System operating transient shock loads SOTU = Relief valve discharge shock loads SOTE = Safety valve discharge shock loadsIII SOTy - Maximum of SOTg and SOT E  ; or transition flow OBE = Operating basis earthquake loads SSE = Safe shutdown earthquake loads MS/FWP8 - Main steam or feedwater pipe break loads DBPB = Design basis pipe break loads LOCA = Loss of coolant accident loads TH = Range of loads between thermal transients S

e

- Basic material allowable stress at minimum temperature Sh = Basic material allowable stress at maximum temperature S, = f (1.25 S c + .25 Sh ) where f is a stress range reduction factor

! (1) Although certain nuclear steam supply system design transients (for l example, loss of load) which are classified as upset conditions may l actuate the safety valves, the extremely low number of actual safety valve actuations in operating pressurized water reactors justifies the emergency condition from both the ASME design philosophy and a stress analysis viewpoint. If actuation of safety valves would occur, however, a limitation must be placed to shut down the plant for examination of system integrity after an appropriate nunber of actuations. This number can be determined on a plant specific basis.

l l

0951s:10 10 10 L

SECTION 3 '

LOADING CONDITIONS ANALYZED 3.1 PRESSURE Pressure loading considered in the analysis was from either the design or maximum operating pressures. These pressures were used in the calculation of longitudinal pressure stresses.

3.2 WEIGHT A weight analysis was performed by applying a 1.0 g uniformly distributed downward acceleration to the distributed mass of the piping system. The distributed mass of the piping includes the mass of the pipe, insulation, and contained fluid during normal operating conditions.

3.3 SEISMIC Seismic motion of the earth-is treated as a random process. Certain assumptions reflecting the characteristics of typical earthquakes are made so '

that these characteristics can be readily employed in a response spectra analysis.

Piping rarely experiences the actual seismic motion at ground elevation since it is supported by components attached to the containment building. Al though a band of frequencies is associated with the ground earthquake motion, the butiding itself acts as a filter to this environment and effectively transmits only those frequencies corresponding to its own natural modes of vibration.

Forcing functions for piping seismic analyses are usually derived from dynamic response analyses of the containment butiding when subjected to seismic ground motion. These forcing functions are in the form of floor response spectra. A response spectrum is obtained by determining the maximum response of a single mass-spring-damper oscillator to a time history base motion. This single mass-spring-damper oscillator represents a single natural mode of vibration of 0951s:10-11 11

the piping system. A plot of the maximum response versus the natural frequency of oscillator foms the response spectrum for that particular base motion.

The intensity and character of the earthquake motion producing forced vibration of equipment mounted within the containment butiding are specified in terms of floor response spectrum curves at various elevations within the containment building. Seismic floor response spectrum curves corresponding to the highest elevation at which the component or piping is attached to the containment butiding are used in the piping analysis. The response spectrum curves used in this seismic analysis were taken from the report by John A.

Blume and Associates, Engineers, entitled " Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Earthquake Analysis: Reactor-Auxiliary-Turbine Building Response Acceleration Spectra," Report JAB-PS-04, revised February 16, 1971.

3.4 SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE THRUST The two spring loaded safety valves and two power operated relief' valves, located on top of the pressurizer, are designed to prevent system pressure from exceeding set values. A water seal formed by condensate accumulation on the inlet side of each valve is maintained to prevent any leakage of hydrogen gas or steam through the valve. If the pressure exceeds the set Wint and a valve opens, the slug of fluti in the water seal discharges. T5.is water slug,

driven by high system pressure , generates transient thrust forces at each location where a change in flow direction occurs.

l The safety and relief itnes were analyzed for two cases of thrust loading.

! One case assumes the simultaneous opening of both relief valves, and the other case assumes the simultaneous opening of both safety valves.

3.5 THERMAL EXPANSION A thermal analysis was performed by conservatively applying steady state temperature distributions to the piping. The distributions used in the expansion analyses are based on available information and include pertinent 0951s:10-12 12

valve opening cases. Because of many possible operating modes, the system may experience many different thermal transients. Temperature distributions used

, to represent possible operating transients are shown in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1.

Thermal growth of the pressurizer, pressurizer relief tank, and intermediate safety and relief valve piping was considered. The modulus of elasticity, coefficient of thermal expansio'n, external movements transmitted to the piping, and temperature rise above ambient temperature define the required data to perform a flexibility analysis for thermal expansion of a model.

d 0951s:10-13 13

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

. =

FI*ERE 1-1 SECTIO!!S FOR TFERMAL CASES 2 3 2

1 ~

7 8 4 1 ,=

1 9 10 , 11

-, 5 m

w ,-

12 6

t The pointe correspond to the point r.umben and sectio: r.wben shrin in Table 3-1.

14

TABLE 3-1 TEMPERATURES FOR THERMAL CASES CASE DESCRIPTION 1 Normal Operation 2 Safety valve at point 3 open 3 Safety valve at point 8 open 4 Safety valves at points 3 and 8 open 5 Relief valve at point 10 open 6 Relief valve at point 12 open 7 Relief valves at points 10 and 12 open TEMPERATURES (*F) FOR EACH CASE

.SECTION 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 1-2 650 670 670 670 670 670 670 2-3 350 670 350 670 350 350 350 3-4 70 450 70 450 70 70 70 4-5 70 450 450 450 70 70 70 5-6 70 450 450 450 400 400 400 1-7 650 670 670 670 670 670 670 7-8 350 350 670 670 350 350 350 8-4 70 70 450 450 70 70 70 1-9 650 670 670 670 670 670 670 9-10 200 200 200 200 670 20 0 670 10-11 70 70 70 70 400 70 400 11-5 70 70 70 70 40 0 400 400 9-12 200 200 200 200 200 670 670 12-11 70 70 70 70 70 400 400 The point numbers an'd section numbers correspond to the points shown in Figure 3-1.

0951s:10-15 15

SECTION 4 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND MODELS 4.1 PIPING SYSTEM MODEL The complexity of a safety and relief valve piping system requires the use of a computer to obtain the displacements, loads, and stresses caused by a given type of loading. To achieve accurate results, an adequate mathematical representation of the system is required. The modelling considerations involved depend upon the degree of accuracy desired and the manner in which the results will be interpreted and evaluated. All static and dynamic analyses were performed esing the WESTDYN computer program. This program has been reviewed and approved by the US NRC (NRC letter dated April 7,1981 from R. L. Tedesco to T. M. Anderson).

A piping system model constructed for WESTDYN is represented by an ordered set of data which numerically describes the physical system. The geometric description of a model is based upon isometric piping drawings and equipment drawings. Node point coordinates and incremental lengths of members are determined from these drawings. Node point coordinates are placed on network cards; incremental member lengths are placed on element cards. The spatial properties along with the modulus of clasticity, coefficient of thermal expansion, average temperature change from ambient temperature, and weight per unit length are specified for each element. The distributed mass of the piping is combined into a series of lumped masses, and these are spaced throughout the model so that they accurately represent the distributed mass of the system. Supports are represented by stiffness matrices which define their restraint characteristics. A plotted model for the safety and relief valve discharge piping system is shown in Figure 6 1.

4.2 DEADWEIGHT AND THERMAL ANALYSES Static solutions for deadweight and thermal loading conditions are obtained j using WESTDYN. This program is based on the use of transfer matrices which

! relate a twelve element vector consisting of displacements, three translations and three rotations, and loads, three forces and three moments, i

0951s:10 16 16 i

( '

i

at one location to a similar vector at another location. The fundamental transfer matrix for an element is deterwined from its geometric and elastic properties. If thermal effects and boundary forces are included, a modified transfer relationship is defined as follows:

a #

11 12 'o t 1

+ =

T T F, f Fj 21 22

_ - __ _t - -.

or Tg B, + Rg=By where the T matrix is the fundamental transfer matrix, and the R vector includes thermal effects and boundary forces. The,B vector for an element is a function of geometry, temperature, coefficient of thermal expansion, weight per unit length, lumped masses, and externally applied loads.

The overall transfer relationship for a series of elements, a section, can be written as follows:

B g = TgB, + Rg B2 TB2g+R 2 = T2g T B, + T N21+R2 83=TB32*R 3 = T32g T T B, + T T R32g+TR32*E3 or

. fn \ n f,n T \

B =, wT p

• B, + I R +R n n r-1 1

j r2 r r

A network model is made up of a number of sections [each having an overall transfer relationship formed from its group of elements. The Ifnear elastic 0951s:10-17 17

properties of a section are used to define the characteristic stiffness matrix for the section. Using the transfer relationship for a section, the loads required to suppress all deflections at the ends of the section arising from the thermal and boundary forces for the section are obtained. These loads are incorporated into the overall load vector.

After all of the sections have been defined in this manner, the overall stiffness matrix and associated load vector needed to suppress the deflection of all of the network points is detennined. By inverting the stiffness matrix, the flexibility matrix is determined. The flexibility matrix is multiplied by the negative of the load vector to detennine the network point deflections due to thermal and boundary force effects. Using the general transfer relationship, the displacements and internal loads are then determined at all node points in the system. Support loads are computed by multiplying the support stiffness matrix by the displacement vector at the support point.

4.3 SE!SMIC ANALYSIS The solution for a seismic disturbance uses the response spectra method. This method employs the lumped mass technique, linear elastic properties, and principle of modal superposition.

From the mathematical description of the system, an overall stiffness matrix is developed from the individual element stiffness matrices using the transfer matrix associated with mass degrees of freedom only. From the mass matrix and reduced stiffness matrix, the natural frequencies and nonnal modes are determined. The modal participation factor matrix is computed and combined with the appropriate response spectrum value to give the modal amplitude for each mode. Since the modal amplitude is shock direction dependent, the total modal amplitude is obtained conservatively by the absolute summation of the contributions for each direction of shock. The modal amplitudes are then converted to displacements in the global coordinate system and applied to the corresponding mass point. From these data the forces, moments, translations, rotations, support reactions, and piping stresses are calculated for all significant modes.

0951s:10-18 18

The seismic response from each earthquake component is computed by coivbining the contributions of significant modes.

4.4 PRESSURIZER SAFETY AND RELIEF LINE ANALYSIS 4.4.1 PLANT HYORAULIC MODEL When the pressure in the pressurizer reaches a set value (2,500 psia for a safety valve and 2,350 psia for a relief valve) and a valve opens, high pressure steam forces any condensate in the water seal through the valve, down the piping, and into the pressurizer relief tank. For the pressurizer safety and relief piping system, analytical hydraulic models, as shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, were developed to represent the conditions described above.

The computer code ITCHVALVE was used to perform the transient hydraulic analysis for the system. This program uses the Method of Characteristics approach to generate fluid parameters as a function of time. One-dimensional fluid flow calculations applying both the implicit and explicit characteristic methods are performed. Using this approach the piping network is modelled as a series of single pipes. The network is generally joined together at one or more places by two or three-way junctions. Each of the single pipes has associated with it friction factors, angles of elevation, and flow areas.

Conservation equations can be converted to the following characterisitic equa tions:

h.V+c c(F + pgcose) 9' h + oc h 8 17 h.V-c 0951s:10 19 39 l

h - oc h = -c(F + ogcose) 4' C n

w C

2 - sh/so

" an 1 W~W z = variable of length measurement t = time V = fluid velocity c = sonic velocity p = pressure p = fluid density F = flow resistance g = gravity e = angle off vertical J = conversion factor for converting pressure units to equivalent heat units h = enthalpy q = rate of heat generation per unit pipe length The computer program possesses special provisions to allow analysis of valve opening and closing situations.

Fluid acceleration inside the pipe generates reaction forcas on all segments of the Ifne that are bounded at either end by an elbow or bend. Reaction forces resulting from fluid pressure and momentum variations are calculated.

These forces can be expressed in tems of the fluid properties available from the transient hydraulic analysis performed using program ITCHVALVE. The momentum equation can be expressed in vector fom as:

g 3 . .. .

F =-- pVdv + g pV(V

• ndA)

Ic 8t y E From this equation, the total force on the pipe can be derived:

0951s:10-20 20 e

. o r g (1 - cos alI aW r

2 (1 - cos a2I aW pipe * { sin og af Bend 1 { sin a 2 Bend 2

+hstraightc pipe h di A = piping flow area v = volume F = force r = radius of curvature of appropriate elbow a = angle of appropriate elbow W = mass acceleration All other tems are previously defined.

Unbalanced forces are calculated for each straight segment of pipe from the pressurizer to the relief tank using program FORFUN. The time histories of these forces are stored on tape to be used for the subsequent structural analysis of the pressurizer safety and relief lines.

4.4.2 COMPARISON TO EPRI TEST RESULTS Piping load data has been generated from the tests conducted by EPRI at the Combustion Engineering test facility. Pertinent tests simulating dynamic opening of the safety valves for representative commercial upstream environments were carried out. The resulting downstream piping loads and responses were measured. Upstream environments for particular valve opening cases of importance., which envelope the comercial scenarios, are:

A.

Cold water discharge followed by steam - steam between the pressure source and the loop seal - cold loop seal between the steam and the val ve, 0951s:10-21 21

, I B. Hot water discharge followed by steam - steam between the pressure source and the loop seal - hot loop seal between the steam and the val ve, C. Steam discharge - steam between the pressure source and the valve.

Specific thernal hydraulic and structural analyses have been completed for the Combustion Engineering test configuration. Figure 4-3 111ustrates the placement of pressure and force measurement sensors at the test site. Figures 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 illustrate a comparison of the thernal hydraulically calculated results using ITCHVALVE and FORFUN versus experimental results for Test 908, the cold water discharge followed by steam case. Figure 4-4 shows the pressure time history for PT09, a sensor located just downstream of the valve. Figures 4-5 and 4-6111ustrate, respectively, the force time histories on sensors WE28/WE29 and WE32/WE33 Significant structural damping in the third segment after the valve was noticed at the test and was verified by

, structural analyses. Consequently, no comparison of force on sensor WE30/WE31 is presented here. No useable test data for sensor WE34/WE35 was available for Test 908.

j Figures 4-7 through 4-11 illustrate a comparison of calculated versus experimental results for Test 917, the hot water discharge followed by steam case. Figure 4-7 shows the pressure time history for PT09.

+

Figures 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, and 4-11 illustrate, respectively, the thermal

hydraulically calculated and the experimentally determined force time histories for sensors WE28/WE29, WE32/WE33, WE30/WE31, and WE34/WE35 Blowdown forces were included in the total analytically calculated force for WE34/WE35 since this section of piping vents to the atmosphere.

Although not presented here, comparisons were also made to the test data available for safety valve discharge without a loop seal (steam di scharge) .

0951s:10-22 22

The application of the ITCHVALVE and FORFUN computer programs for calculating the fluid induced loads on the piping downstream of the safety and relief valves has been demonstrated. Although not presented here, the capability has also been shown by direct comparison to the solutions of classical problems.

The application of the structural computer programs (discussed in Section 4.4.3) for calculating the system response has also been demonstrated. Structural models representative of the Cembustion Engineering test configuration were developed. Figures 4-12, 4-13, and 414111ustrate, respectively, a comparison of the structural analysis results and the experimental results for locations WE28/WE29, WE32/WE33, and WE30/WE31 for Test 908. No useable test data for sensor WE34/WE35 was available. Figures 415, 4-16, 4-17, and 4-18 show for Test 917, respectively, the structural analysis results versus the test results for locations WE28/WE29, WE32/WE33, WE30/WE31, and WE34/WE35.

4.4.3 VALVE THRUST ANALYSIS The safety and relief ifnes were modelled statically and dynamically as described in Sections 4.1 through 4.3. The mathematical model used for dynamic analyses was also used for valve thrust analyses. Time history hydraulic forces detennined by FORFUN were applied to the piping system lumped mass points. Dynamic solutions for valve thrust were obtained by using a modified predictor-corrector integration technique and normal mode theory.

Time history solutions were found using program FIXFM3. Input to this program consists of natural frequencies, normal modes, and applied forces; output consists of time history displacements at lumped mass l points. The natural frequencies and normal modes for the pressurizer l safety and relief Ifne dynamic model were determined in WESTDYN.

1 0951s:10-23 23 l

l l

Time history displacements from FIXFM3 were used as input to program WESDYN2 to determine time history internal forces and deflections at the ends of each piping element. For this calculation, the displacements were treated as imposed deflections on the pressurizer safety and relief line masses.

Time history internal forces and displacements from WESDYN2 were used as input to program POSDYN2'to determine the maximum forces, moments, and displacements that exist at each end of the piping elements and to determine the maximum loads for piping supports. The results from POSDYN2 were saved for use in pipe stress calculations and support load summaries.

l 0951s:10-24 24 l

1 t

3 .

6 4

2 7

5 19

)

"3 22 go ,

l Of A 1 18 21 17 pressurizer i

l 1

The numbers correspond to the force numbers i n Table 6-1, 4

4 i

i I

4 1

PIGilRE 16 -1 11ti:1.';tlRI/.MR liAPRTY LINE IlYDilAtil,1C MODEL 4

4 l

A e  ?

l i

. q~

~ -

I C C E 4 C U T M

_C -

M

. . N F <

m , ,

• 7 c 4

- >=

w y O E

- e =

-7 4 m

~ G A

=

C >

c N x

t 'r-L -<

C ~7 G

~

C E'

.C c4 4 >

~

m C w a ;7 e - *l G

- c =

_k.

C ^

L

• L a C C y C C

x c v C L f: C w

& .: l

, E  %

G O C Cz' W :r e e Q O C _C U k y

• Cr.

L I

N b

C C

C L

O.

26

.e 4 _

3 -

16 17 y

?

0 6

7 1

A pressurizer l

The numbers correnpond to the force numbers i n Table 6-2.

I l

VIGUllR 16 -2 IHimUHIZKlf ItMI.IEF I.IllE IfYDHAULIC NODEI,

i I

s D l

l l

M cm3 t C~ Q

( 8 O

% Z C C C M -

y 4  :.

e D b: <

, k b U Z 4 C m

N L g e

1. O -

n _

w

- h= A C -

Z C w A

{ M C

2 E M

~ N T

C C 4 ta en

=

C S

=

4 C L

" c.

1 O

0 8 L

• 4u 4 4 C C p U

• d ,

U J W O $

I e

C 7

k '

E

=.

W h 4'

I

% H Z k.

=

v; T.

C 6

28 l

~

Je- . .

X -

J L

• . >+

c 'N N

w' g 6 g

' t a: rr t =e s

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Q( h t;

s s

\

s

$ j y ,

s a i

\ >

r .

2ts .

. I s

kSit' ,

1 0

=

U

> s [-  :

. 2 -

+ ,

&W a 's e F

.xI ~

Y

~~

> $==  :

s

% *, , = , E

~

tgi '

.}._

8 E # Ei # b} EE s

)

_T.

% ' E2

%l.

~ *

"/ \  :

)" os 5 s

~ c

_j 6

gc.y 1

gg WW w

\ -

's s

- 5 s s

s J s l\ g 29

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

e 1

500.* '

/ \

I \

I '

400 ,- ,8 g

i tests I g

. . l 1

--- rremtvE 8

t

' \

l s

[ 300.= -

[ {

L , i 1

• I i ,

f /

c

'E l

\ #..---

t I

t /

22.= - \ /

1 \ /

s

\

l I I

\s/

n

! t i

f i

100.= ,8 8

E

. . I I

i

_____ -? > . . .

C. Q.'1 0.'2 0.3 0.4 time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-4 : Comparison of the EPRI Pressure Time-History for PT09 from Test 908 with the ITCHVALVE Pre-I dicted Pressure Time-History 30 -- ._ .

~ - -

2 = -- .:.....

1.0E4 A

r4 \

l

) <

l l . <

) g .

% / l

/ \

/ 5 i l 0.0 -

d I

i /

s I i 1 i i g i <

1 g . I I g -1.0E4 l -p w ,

I l w I l t

N w \ n l

1 i i

t

)

-2.0E4 \)- ,

tests

---

ignynyE:

-3.0E4 0.05 0.15 0.25 4

Time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-5: COMPARISON 0F THE EPRI FORCE TIME-HISTORY FOR WE28 and WE29 FROM TEST 908 WITH THE ITCHVALVE PREDICTED FORCE TIME-HISTORY i

31

. o

. 1.0E5

~

lR 0 .

W '

~

f 1.0E5 l

2.0E5 L

.I

=meme. tests

- ITCEVALVE 3.0E5 - 1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time (seconds}

FfGURE 4-6: COW /ARIS0N OF THE EPRI FORCE TIME-HISTORY FrlR WE12 AND WE33 FROM TEST 908 WITH THE ITCHVALVE PREDICTED FORCE TIME-HISTflRY b

32

~ww-,w- sm-ww --

f. . .. . . - . - - - ......_.

500.,

\

\

400 , .

~

l \ '

\

\

. \

\

300m . g 3 \

t I \

I \

I \

$ i #1 r g _

I y

a.

200. .

I s% _ _ _ _

I i 1 1  !

I Test i

100 .

[ --- ITCHVALVE f

l 1

! l l 1

/"'s,#

• e .

O. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-7 : Comparison of the EPRI Pressure Time-History from i

PT09 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted l Pressure Time-History 1

i

.- _ . . . . . 33_ ,,__ , , _. ,

l

~ - - - -

. . . . ..~... . . _ . . .. .. .

t 4000

_l 2000 I I , ": ~~ '

i [ }*

7

E 0.0 <* '! '

All} I

- lI.'l l

i L

l

/V

=

E i

i I f

, t d, .I, ,)

I E -2000  !

ll !l , 1 i

i

-4000 ll .

l 1

) .

I \ 1

'V

-6000 l

tests ~ ;

s

--- ITCHVALYl

-8000

' O.D t.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0. 6 time (seconds)

FIGURE 4.g : Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for WE28 and E29 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History i

I 34

_ .. . . . . . . _ . _ _ ... .. .- u. - - . . - ---

4

~-

,. ...~ .

. = ' ::'. . . .~2. '~.~ '~. .. .

2.0E4 t

s \. .,

1.0E4 l ;1 i i

• 8

! 'i <

i e i t

i

,* ' .I i  ! bMe. vv A

- D. y j .y v v t' Il t /

E I

I

-1.0E4 '. '

i ,4 I

s tests ,

ITCHVALVE

-2.0E4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-9 : Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for WE32 and WE33 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History 35

b *. . :.... . 7 *.T.* ~ : T : .' r ~.~.'

3.0E4 tests ITCHVALVE.C

\

2.0E4 .',

\

\

' l t I \

l 1 I t

\

7 1.0E4 ,

2  ! \.\'

! 5 t t O e

e > \

0.

ti A 1

l /

\ a' s

-1.0E4 ,/

i

-2.0E4 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time (seconds)

FIGURE 4-10: Caiparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History 36

.1. - . . .:. . . :. . . .. -  : .--- .

2.0E4-L tests

---

ITCHVALVE

,'\

. u s 2  ! \\

C I e I \

2 8

\

2 1.0E4 ,' ',

t i

\

\

J '

I s i \

I I

i i

I I

I I

/

0.0 '

O.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 time (seconds) i 1

FIGURE 4-11: Corgarison of the EPRI Force Time-History l For WE34 and WE35 from Test 917 with the ITCHVALVE Predicted Force Time-History .

37 y ---.-,------g,

i

, o i

i 20,0 I

10.0 f

/{s I)

~

$ 0,0 --

f

\ l hbl\ bb 1) h .

f I f 6 hj V' W7 k

. s, j iJ }

E ,I E 1 Jh f

-10.0 4

> i V Tests

. -20.0 .

---

FIXFM3 0 (Structural Analysis)

V

-26.11 - -

0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 Time (Sec.)

FIGURE 4-12: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History for

( WE28 and WE29 from Test 908 with the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History l

4 38

D 4 111.01 100.0  !

li ,.

50.0 '; ' ' ,

e' 0.0 u /* 's fw . , taA, . $iA 1

_ -50.0 l ik i

E ,! g!

c

~ c E -100.0 2

-150.0 Tests

-200.0 -

FIXFM3

-(Structural Analysis) f 1

-246.92 ' ' '

O.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Time (SEC)

Figure 4-13: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE32 and WE33 From Test 908 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History 39

90.896 ,

i I 75i.0 '$

\ '

l l f I

50.0 ' dl' I l

f I I

' {I

! o I e 25.0 1,

h

!\

g ,

!A I I [f t, g i g

' 8 #

s  ! f l 1 E o,o 4 f r I

c

~ vv ' i g

pI g

=

i I

=

e ,e i i E g i I I g 1 I E -25.0 , ,' . I i g 8I i I

l E.

-50.0  ?!

p

\\ ,

d\lI -

4 I 4

l8

-75.0

• Tests Il g

---

FIXFM3 I (Structural Analisis) ff

-98.324 -

D 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

~

Time (SEC) i Figure 4-14: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE30 and WE31 From Test 908 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History

-~-..m- . .. . .- ---

--n y ~:~ -- - - : - . . . .. ....

i l

5.0 .

4.0 l i

i r

J ,

.. 3.0 ,'

,!  ; l

!o

, l I 2.0 ,?

' l l

, , i L 1.0 .

f 3

i fj

[ ,

d

,~

t f

' 1[ '

, N' ,

(;

0.0

}

,] { m . q_i, -- v -

~ - - -

. i i

![h U l' I

-1.0 .. .

l l

i I

j

• i f i j .

j /h E  ! I f n 2 -2.0 .

ti a e '

I E }

-3.0  ;

s2 L l

i

-4.0 "- -

l i

5

-5.0 j i

l'

-6.0 -

=

Tests 1 -7.0

) l

---

FIXFM3 j j (Structural Analysis)

, -8.0 ,

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.495 Time (SEC)

Figure 4-15 Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE28 and

j. WE29 From Test 917 With the FIXFH3 Predicted Fort:e Time-History i

I 41 l

t l

l - ___ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . .. . . _ - . _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ _ , _ . , _ _ . . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

b %

12.956

, p

\

\.

- 10.0 r 7 .

f  ;,

I i

I l l 5.0 I h f. \

lJ j f

- k '

2 i b _ _ _ - .<I')b>\

\

i .* f s/ t h

?-

E l

i 'y v g I, y y a i i jj 2 '

i W/ L I

-5.0 i 1 g r li

\ g Tests

! ---- rixrna

-10.0 b)

] f 3 ,

(Structural Analysis)

I .

-13.266 ']

O.0 O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.495 Time (SEC)

Figure 4-16: Comparison of the EPRI Force Time-History For WE32 and WE33 From Test 917 With the FIXFM3 Predicted

,. Force Time-History

.-- _ .. ..- z -

25.863 -

25.0 l' l

. s\ <

0 0

_ 20.0 i i

I i g

e 15.0' i i.

i I

'l 10.0 i i

1 5.0 # '

s

! {\ '

.s h

l r a s'

1. 4 l

I E

D u

00

^^

r T r' 'j v r yvv r

i

'# \"

i f - -

j l,

es T l E <

o i s  !

-5.0  ; / l A I l

'I s J '

-10.0 ,

i Tests

-15.0 - '

---

FIXFM3 Y (Structural Anal-

-20.0 ,

_ysis),

1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.495 l

l

! I Time (SEC)

Figure 4-17: Comparison of.the EPRI Force Time-History For  !

l WE30 and WE31 From Test 917 With the FIlFM3 l

Predicted Force Time-History e

l l

I j

43 I

i

-..,.,._,_-.._.,.._.r._.__. __m ___._,, _ , . _ , _ . , _ . _ . . _ . _ , _ . - - . , . . . - , , _ , _ . , _ _ . . ._,,.._,,,_,___ _ ,., ..--_-_- - -..-- --.-

I . 4 i

14.588 ,,

I

~

l \\

l \

1. 1 12.5 f

I \

l I

i 10.0 _'

f 7.5 I G

a- i i G t

$ 5.0

• h-

! i

/

Tests (StUtuh!tb$alys is) 2.5 e l I

l -

/

n,o -

- _s l

. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.495 Time (SEC) i figure 4-18: Comparison of the EPRI Ferce Time-History For WE34 and WE35 From Test 917 With the FIXFM3 Predicted Force Time-History 1

l l

44

.. 1 t ..

SECTION 5 i METHOD OF STRESS EVALUATION 5.1 PRIMARY STRESS EVALUATION In order to perform a primary stress evaluation, definitions of load combinations are required for the normal, upset, emergency, and faulted plant conditions as defined in Section 2. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 illustrate the allowable stress intensities for the appropriate combinations as discussed in Section 2. Table 2-3 defines all pertinent terms.

5.1.1 DESIGN CONDITIONS

, Coabined stresses due to primary loadings of pressure, weight, and any other design mechanical loads, calculated using applicable stress intensification factors, must not exceed the allowable limit. The resultant moment, M9 , is calculated using the following equation:

l i f 1 M + 2+ M + M  !

2 I= 'M*wt #

( M*DML) ( #wt DML) f i 1/2

+ 2 M + MZ (Zwt DML) where -

M ,M ,M = deadweight moment components

,M Z = design mech ~anical load moment components M*DML,M#DML DML l 5.1.2 UPSET CONDITIONS Con 6fned stresses 'due to primary loadings of pressure, weight, operating basis earthquake, and relief valve thrust, calculated using applicable stress intensification factors, must not exceed the allowables. The resultant moment, M 9

, is calculated as shown below.

0951s:10-23 l 45 t

l I

. 4

[ f (1/2)2+ [ M f ., p 1/2)2 M g= M 2+ '

,M M*2 +l M

( *wt + 'M*0BE i SOT / ( #wt i 7 0BE #

SOTf )

[ /

2 2 1 1/2)2 1/2

. M 1M M \ ,

z (Z wt (z08E SOTg /

) -

'where M, ,My ,M g = deadweight moment components M ,M ,M = OBE moment components x y z OBE OBE OBE

,M = relief line operation moment components M* SOT ,M ySOT SOT g U U 5.1.3 EMERGENCY CONDITIONS Combined stresses due to primary loadings of pressure, weight, and safety valve thrust, using applicable stress intensification factors, must not exceed the allowable ifn.its. The magnitude of the resultant moment, M 9

, is calculated from the moi ent components as shown below.

f I { I 1 M M + M + M + M 2 . g . g 2 1/2 I=

wt SOT OT wt

(* SOT E ) (# E ( E where

,M = deadweight moment components M*wt,M#wt Z wt

,M ,M = safety line operation moment components M* SOT E SOT E

SOT E

0951s:10-24 4B

o 6 5.1.4 FAULTED CONDITIONS Combined stresses due to primary loadings of pressure, weight, safe shutdown earthquake, and SOT p , using applicable stress intensification factors, must not exceed the allowable limits. The magnitude of the resultant moment, Mg ,

is calculated from the three moment components as shown below.

2 + 2 I 1/2 , 2 M M I= g*wt y* SOTp M*SSEj

_ )

+

ff 2 2i 1/2 \2 M + M + M Q SOTp #SSE / #wt)

+

[l 2

+

2I 1/2

+

)2 1/2 M M z

M* SOT y SSE )

Z wt) where

,M ,M g = deadweight moment components M,wt yt w wt

,M ,M = SSE moment components z

M*SSEYSSE SSE

,M ,M = maximum of SOT y and SOT m ment components M, SOT 750T SOTp E

p p For safety and relief valve piping, the faulted condition .'ad combination including pressure, weight, and valve thrust is considered as given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 and defined in Table 2-3. Pipe break loads (MS/FWPB, DBPB, or LOCA) can be ignored. These loads have very little impact on the pressurizer safety and relief valve system when compared to the loading conditions

, discussed in this report.

0951s:10-25 47

. 4 S.2 SECONDARY STRESS EVALUATION Combined stresses due to all thermal loadings, using applicable stress intensification factors, must not exceed the allowable limit of S #0" A

themal only or (S h

• SA ) for thernal, pressure, and weight. For the resultant moment loading, M 9, thermal moments are conbined as shown below:

M 2 + M -M 2 + M 2 1/2 I= Y (M* MAX -M* MIN) (7 MAX MIN) (* MAX -M* MIN) -

M ,M ,M = maximum thermal moment considering all thermal cases Z

• MAX # MAX MAX including normal operation M* MIN,M YMIN , M* MIN =including minimumnormal thermaloperation moment considering all themal cases

0951s:10-26 48

SECTION 6 RESULTS 6.1 THERMAL HYDRAULIC RESULTS The thermal hydraulic analysis used computer programs which-have been shown to match the results of the EPRI test program (Section 4.4.2). Hydraulic forcing functions were generated assuming either the simultaneous opening of both safety valves or the simultaneous opening of both relief valves since each of these represents the worst probable valve discharge shock loading for its applicable plant operating condition.

Table 6-1 shows the maximum forces on each straight run of pipe for the simultaneous opening of both safety valves, while Table 6-2 shows the maximum forces for the simultaneous opening of both relief valves. To account for uncertainties in valve flow capacities due to tolerances and deviations, a conservative factor of over 1.20 was included in the maximum rated valve mass flow rates for these cases. The inclusion of this factor results in conservative forcing functions.

Cold water seals were assumed to exist upstream of the relief valves.

Hot water seals were assumed to exist upstream of the safety valves. The loop seal temperature distribution for this case was presumed to be consistent with the distribution in EPRI Test 917. That is, the fluid temperature at the valve inlet was about 300*F, and, approximately eight feet upstream, the fluid temperature was near the system saturation temperature of 655*F. Based upon engineering judgement, significant flashing of hot water to steam occurred near the valve for Test 917, thus reducing downstream loads significantly.

Based on analytical work and tests to date, all acoustic pressures in the upstream piping, calculated or observed prior to and during safety valve hot t

or cold loop seal discharge, are below the maximum permissible pressure. The piping between the pressurizer nozzles and the inlets of the safety valves is 6-inch schedule 160. The calculated maximum upstream pressure for this size l

i 0951s:10-49 49 l

j

of pipe is below the maximum permissible pressure. A similar evaluation of this inh. piping phenomenon, applicable for temperatures below 300*F, was conducted and the results are documented in a report entitled " Review of Pressurizer Safety Valve Perfonnance as Observed in the EPRI Safety and Relief Yalve Test Program," WCAP-10105, dated June 1982.

6.2 STRUCTURAL RESULTS Stress sunniaries for all loading cases considered are provided in Tables 6-3 through 6-24. A plot of the structural model is shown in Figure 6-1.

For the purpose of providing stress summaries, the system was divided into the following four sections:

Section 1: Piping between the pressurizer and the relief valve outlet nozzles (upstream of valves).

Section 2: Piping between the relief valve outlet nozzles and the pressurizer relief tank (downstream of valves).

Section 3: Piping between the pressurizer and the safety valve outlet nozzles (upstream of valves).

Section 4: Piping between the safety valve outlet nozzles and the pressurizer relief tank (downstream of valves).

Our evaluation conducted prior to the completion of the structural analysis and based upon the thermal hydraulic loadings for the simultaneous discharge of either both safety valves or both relief valves indicated that the piping could be qualified. The structural analyses have been completed and have confirmed and quantified this as shown in Tables 6-3 through 6-24 In addition, the acceptability of the valve nozzles, valve accelerations, and equipment nozzles was assured for the applied loads.

0951s:10-60 50

6.3

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The thermal hydraulic analysis and structural evaluation of the Prairie Island Unit 2 pressurizer safety and relief valve discharge piping system have been completed. In summary, the operability and structural integrity of the system have been ensured for all applicable loadings and load combinations including all pertinent safety and relief valve discharge cases.

0951s:10-51 51

9 9 C

m N

C C

N w

O C

N w .

( W

\ -

9

=

P.=

c h

E CC C C D

- "8 "I ba C < '*

[ m $ #

0C N T %. 4 f C CA p

N f C ,.:

w b h

= CC *

- CC

\M 9

~

NN

~N

[

c,,

=

C

=

I

~ 5 N.2.

= S

' , c ~ .:

& M&m k n .U en

$H w j -a

? k hq J .1 5

+-

Y*e

- e D

~~

b 2

O > D d O C

l O 8 M h

LT cri h-V 4 > "b k.' h2 C N b -

g N hk i C. LL -j l I l

l 5 CC C. X- ,.

l 1

= Ni7 s

=

5 5 ===

i e l = = c:: 7

- p &

a MME i i i n NcN b

= ,l C C *o C '.r C "Gl N ti o

- ew -

52

t t l

O O

n C I C

n o

n n n C

C J n l y n -

O Z

3

~~

CC

• N P. 3 C' h C' n F Cd - C\ ~ N O 4'

1 > N-N- =

4 O P. F F ~

o < f I i 1 9

e. &

> >>>> 0

\ $_ -O ZOZO m Ca!

E

/

~~

z CCCC  ::

% w C' c

• O C

n-ND-C Q N -

N m n n n'~ Ca.

M 6 w L A

E2

g. ~

CS C C L Z C <

D d =

~

5 C E C --C O

- cd N C F C Oe =

0 -- L x C X Jd C O =

n /n -

O b L.

C C

> >C

.N Z

O O O

- U

\ 2

( C N 4 w

C g tr 'c n cc c- x a ,3 - L' *

>e 3 4- a C 5. L, 5 w

C C r w n -CO i-. &Pa -

2 1 1 0 I Q

m ZZC

-~ V

/ 1 OOO

-~~ i.0

~

C N

5 ITI 3

-~

NNN O

~

1 ,

h CCC

- C-O

ror enr 53

i 9 6

A

C C.

O E

A

=

O C 2d C C C e~

m o- m N g O + A e

- h - - c:

S g to n

l \,f 4 Cr' I

A Cr

%% 'i C j W -

NO C4 n

a C

CC NG =

& C .Cs

=

W

.- Q NO

.7 =.a:

NO.

c b

- 4 Cr.

m r-4 CD >C > > > >C > -

O

&. Q =

v C C C

- C N m

k h b b .

t" M id C

-=

't-t= T-..LCt- tph*C. O .O be a a Tt

=--- .M

=

C t; O o

> L = .C tt." " e=

L =L" C y C. C k 6 kC b 4C C. 4 L L q

v f.=l MC C C C C e w

b Cs NO b- V e

• m \; - - C .* e/ c w

=

E-. 0; N: o'

• 1 I O( 7 'l TJ ** W C NC

• 3 **

=============a a7 i e a  %

1 C4 g .

e'o* =

L =

c: C: = c:: = = = t = M = = =

b _M_ 2_ -E_ M . E M C e_5 b M_. M _-- S M 0

P tr} l 1 I e a e i e 4 a e i 4 N z .

N o. O , N F NNNNtNc,N & t:

L E*1

=

= C C O C C C O o' e e e e c C

- < CC < P * ; O F< NO NO T - B C' e 4;

C

.1 rn=?&@C CsCC;CCC k

-- - - - - - - 4 54

I e ..

1 TABLE 6-1 l HYDRAULIC FORCES PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE Force No. Force (1bf) Force No. ' Force (1bf) 1 70 17 70 2 290 18 290 3 1460 19 1460 4 2390 20 2390 5 2400 21 2400 6 2430 22 2440 7 4010 23 3450 8 6880 9 13200 10 9420 11 31900

. 12 13500 13 12600 14 6210 15 21700 16 3200 e.

The' force numbers correspond to the segment numbers on Figure 4-1.

0951s:10-55 55

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

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

, s TABLE 6-2 HYDRAULIC FORCES PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE Force No. Force (1bf))

1 50 2 140 3 140 4 230 5 1390 6 4270 7 1900 8 1280 9 1380 10 4270 11 610 12 310 13 250 14 1310 15 150 16 320 17 600 The force numbers correspond to the segment numbers on Figure 4-2.

l l

0951s:10-56 56

e .

TABLE 6-3 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT < 1.0 S h Node Maximum A110weble Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3080 Straight run 7.8 15.9 3080 Butt weld 7.8 15.9 3230 Socket Weld 11.8 15.9 3080 Elbow 6.6 15.9 3220 Reducer 12.6 15.9 3500 Tee 5.4 15.9 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-57 57

, s TABLE 6-4 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + OBE + SOTU < 1.2 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3050 Straight run 14.4 19.1 30 30 Butt weld 15.1 19.1 3230 Socket weld 19.0 19.1 3040 Elbow 12.0 19.1 3220 Reducer 19.0 19.1 3500 Tee 9.0 19.1 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-58 58

TABLE 6 5 STRESS SIMtARY PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SOTE < 1.8 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3050 Straight run 13.1 28.6 3030 Butt weld 13.6 28.6 3230 Socket weld 21.7 28.6 3040 Elbow 10.9 28.6

't 3220 Reducer 23.0 28.6 3500 Tee 7.3 28.6 4

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10 59 59

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

a s TABLE 6-6 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE UPSTRLAM OF YALVES P + WT + SSE + SOTp < 2.4 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 30 50 Straight run 18.9 38.2 3030 Butt weld 19.9 38.2 1

3230 Socket weld 27.6 38.2 3040 Elbow 15.6 38.2 3220 Reducer 28.8 38.2 3500 Tee 10.6 38.2 i

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

f 1

0951s:10-60 60

, o TABLE 6 7 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE UPSTREAM OF YALVES P + WT + TH < 1.0 Sh + 1.0 S, Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3090 Straight run 32.6 43.4 3020 Butt weld 36.6 43.4 3230 Socket Weld 43.3 43.4 3040 Elbow 33.1 43.4 3220 Reducer 40.1 43.4 3500 Tee 31.9 43.4 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-61 61

)

d 4 l

4 TABLE 6-8 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT < 1.0 S h Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3310 Straight run 5.7 15.9 3660 Butt weld 5.0 15.9 3600 Socket weld 10.0 15.9 3200 Elbow 4.8 15.9 3600 Reducer 10.0 15.9 1860 Tee 3.4 15.9 3690 Branch connection 12.4 15.9

, See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-62 62 a

i

. . - - , . , - , - _ _ , _ _ . . , . - _ , _ _ . . , , , -- . ., ,.._ - ..._ - ,.. .~,,. .. _ _ , , _ . , _ , , _ _ _ _ _ . , _ - . - , . . , -._---mc. , ,-,-..y- -- --

TABLE 6-9 STRESS SlMtARY -

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SOTU < 1.2 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component _

Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3435 Straight run 14.2 19.1 i

j 3435 Butt weld 14.2 19.1 3600 Socket weld 12.9 19.1 3620 Elbow 8.3 19.1 3600 Reducer 12.9 19.1 1860 Tee 3.8 19.1 3470 Branch connection 21.3 21.4 k

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-63 63

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

e s TABLE 6-10 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE DOWNSTREAM OF YALVES P + WT + OBE + SOTU < 1.8 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3435 Straight run 14.4 28.6 3435 Butt weld 14.4 28.6

3600 Socket weld 12.7 28.6 3620 Elbow 8.7 28.6 3600 Reducer 12.7 28.6 1860 Tee 3.8 28.6 3470 Branch connection 27.0 28.6 l

f.

l See Tables 21 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-64 64 i

TABLE 6-11 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE

! DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SOTE < 1*0 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Pipfng Component

, Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1690 Straight run 10.0 28.6 1895 Butt weld 10.4 28.6 3600 Socket weld 11.5 28.6 1895 Elbow 13.6 28.6 3600 Reducer 11.5 28.6 1860 Tee 7.9 28.6 3690 Branch connection 21.9 28.6 e

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-65 65

0  %

2 TABLE 6-12 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SSE + SOTy < 2.4 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3435 Straight run 15.2 38.2 3435 Butt weld 15.2 38.2 3600 Socket weld 14.2 38.2 1895 Elbow 13.6 38.2 3600 Reducer 14.2 -

38.2 1860 Tee 7.9 38.2 3470 Branch connection 35.1 38.2 l

l See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l r 0951s:10-66 66 I

, o +

TABLE 6-13 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER RELIEF LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + TH < 1.0 Sh + 1.0 S, Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 3320 Straight run 37.0 43.4 3320 Butt weld 37.0 43.4 3250 Socket weld 43.3 43.4 3270 Elbow 34.2 43.4 4

3330 Reducer 43.3 43.4 l 1860 Tee 5.6 43.4 l

3690 Branch connection 43.3 43.4 r

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-67 67

o - r TABLE 6-14 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT < 1.0 S h Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 2070 Straight run 5.0 16.5 2160 Butt weld 5.1 16.5 c

2160 Elbow 4.8 16.5 i

l See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l l

l 0951s:10-68 68 l

4 r, TABLE 6-15 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + OBE + SOTg < 1.2 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 2040 Straight run 7.0 19.8 2030 Butt weld 7.2 19.8 20 30 Elbow 6.3 19.8 4

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l 0951s:10-69 69

@ - k TABLE 6-16 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SOTE < 1.8 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1070 Straight run 13.0 29.6 1030 Butt weld 13.2 29.6 1030 Elbow 10.8 29.6 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10 70 70

< o . l TABLE 6-17 STRESS SlMMARY PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + LOCA + SSE + SOTp < 2.4 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) i 1070 Straight run 13.1 39.5 1030 Butt weld 13.3 39.5 1030 Elbow 10.9 39.5 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 fw load combinations and definitions.

i 0951s:10-71 71

a u s TABLE 6-18 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE UPSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + TH < 1.0 Sh + 1.0 S, Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 2040 Straight run 19.4 44.1 2030 Butt weld 23.0 44.1 2030 Elbow 15.7 44.1 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-72 72

e . .

TABLE 6-19 STRESS SIMtARY PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT < 1.0 S h Node Maximum Allowable i

Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1662 Straight run 4.2 15.9 1450 Butt weld 3.9 15.9 1450 Elbow 4.1 15.9 1320 Reducer 4.3 15.9 1860 Tee 3.4 15.9 2270 Branch connection 5.1 15.9 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-73 73

. a s TABLE 6-20 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SOTU < 1.2 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1305 Straight run 5.6 19.1 2230 Butt weld 7.5 19.1 1340 Elbow 5.9 19.1 1310 Reducer 6.7 19.1 1860 Tee 3.8 19.1 3470 Branch connection 21.3 21.4 f

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l l

0951s:10-74 74

o

• o TABLE 6-21 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + OBE + SOTg < 1.8 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1310 Straight run 5.7 28.6 2230 Butt weld 7.5 28.6 1340 Elbow 6.0 28.6 1310 Reducer 6.8 28.6 1860 Tee 3.8 28.6 l 3470 Branch connection 27.0 28.6 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

5 0951s:10-75 75

. s .

TABLE 6-22 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SOTE < I'0 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1310 Straight run 10.6 28.6

?

2230 Butt weld 11.7 28.6 1895 Elbow 13.6 28.6 1320 Reducer 12.4 28.6 1860 Tee 7.9 28.6 2270 Branch connection 24.0 28.6 1.

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-76 76

O

• e TABLE 6-23 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + SSE + SOTp < 2.4 Sh Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1310 Straight run 10.7 38.2 2230 Butt weld 11.8 38.2 1895 Elbow 13.6 38.2 1320 Reducer 12.5 38.2 1860 Tee 7.9 38.2 3470 Branch connection 35.1 38.2 1

'l 4

See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

l l

0951s:10-77 77 l

, _ _. . _ _ . _ _ _ , - . . - _ _ - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - " - ~ ' ~ - ~ ' ~ ' ' ~ ' '

e ~ s TABLE 6-24 STRESS

SUMMARY

PRESSURIZER SAFETY LINE DOWNSTREAM OF VALVES P + WT + TH < 1.0 Sh + 1.0 S, Node Maximum Allowable Point Piping Component Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1310 Straight run 21.0 43.4 1310 Butt weld 21.0 43.4 1730 Elbow 19.6 43.4 1320 Reducer 24.9 43.4 1860 Tee 5.6 43.4 2270 Branch connection 35.0 43.4 See Tables 2-1 through 2-3 for load combinations and definitions.

0951s:10-78 1 78

..