ML20038C482
| ML20038C482 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1981 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-1901, NUDOCS 8112110120 | |
| Download: ML20038C482 (29) | |
Text
.
DATE ISSUED:
10/15/81 ACRS- /90l ACRS Fluid Dynamics Subcommittee gg Meeting Minutes San Francisco, CA (F
September 24-25, 1981
/ 80 4 e) YtS
Purpose:
The purpose of the meeting was to review plans for addressing N#
resolution of issues associated with Mark III containment pool dynamic loads and the application of resolution of these issues to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant.
Attendees:
Principal attendees of the meeting included:
Q\\1
,, [ T [; g gy'Ili JL{Vji) g ACRS NRC u,
M. Plesset, Chairman J. Kudrick 9
6, NOV2 01981* 7 J. Ebersole W. Butler 3
D. Ward M. Fields
, u.sgggm S. Bush T. Su O
I. Catton 9
J. Lienhard GE W
T. Theofanous Z. Zudans M. Davis S. Hucik BNL T. McIntyre H. Townsend C. Economos A. Sonin Mississippi Power & Light G. Maise G. Bienkowski T. Johnson-J. Richardson J. McGaughy A complete list of attendees is attached to the office copy of these minutes.
Meeting Higlights, Agreements and Requests 1.
Mr. J. Kudrick (NRC - Containment Systems Branch) provided an overview of the NRC review of the Mark III containment pool dynamic load issue.
He noted the significant differences between the fiark III and Mark I&II containments (Figure 1). These included:
larger containment volume 6
3 (410 f t ), use of horizontal vents versus vertical downcomers in the suppression pool, and a containment design pressure of 15 psi (drywell g 2 g 20 811015 1901
,oDR
o Fluid Dynamics 9/24-25/81 design pressure 30 psi) NRC review of the Mark III issue was not handled as a Unresolved Safety Issue as was the Mark 1811 rrefews.
The review centered in the Containment Systems Branch with Braokhaven Laboratories providing consulting support. NRC made GE the fo;al point of the review rather than an Owners Group. The review was docketed on the GESSAR docket.
The LOCA chronology and related containment loads were discussed. Full scale tests conducted by GE at the Pressure Suppression Test Facility (PSTF) in 1972-73 showed significant pool swell. GE also conducted 1/3 scale PSTF tests to obtain data on pool motion, velocity and impact loads on equipment. Condensation and chugging were also investigated in the 1/3 scale facility. Af ter the GESSAR CP review, further tests were run to investigate chugging (full scale), condensation (1/3 scale), and multivent effects (1/9 scale).
During the above discussion, Mr. Ebersole expressed concern that equipment vital to assuring safe shutdown could be damaged by the LOCA dynamic loads.
He suggested that NRC examine this possiblity and address it with the same vigor as the Staff is addressing the dynamic load issue.
2.
Mr. Mel Fields (NRC-CSB) discussed the current status of the Mark III dynamic loads issue. The significant review issues and respective licens-ing issues are as follows:
' Pool swell loads (Figures 283) - GE and NRC disagree over the pool swell velocity to be used in the load definition.
GE believes 40 f t/sec is adequate - NRC believes 60 ft/sec is a conservative value. Scaling relations are being investigated by GE and NRC to resolve the issue.
' Froth drag on gratings at the HCU floor - GE proposes a 11 psid specifica-tion to be applied to the total grating area. Grand Gulf applied the load to the solid area or grating only. Without modifications, the Grand Gulf grating can only withstand a load 1/3 of that resulting from use of the 11 psid value.
Rasolution of the item is currently underway.
i Fluid Dynamics 9/24-25/81
' Pool Swell Impact Loads (Figure 4) - These loads are under investi tion because of the possible non-conservatism of the 40 f t/sec pool ga-velocity value and the possibility that the duration of the impact may be nonconservative.
' Condensation Oscillation Loads (Figure 5) - Licensing issues f or CD include questions on the scating of the load frequency data based on 1/3 scale tests, the effects of varying initial plant parameters, and the fact that the C0 load specification does not bound the high frequency test data.
" Chugging Loads (Figures 6-8) - Items of potential concern includes the exceedance of the weir wall design value chug load in the high frequency range during tests, the lack of definition of an asymmetric chugging load, and the need for further justification of the selected chug source strength value.
i Other loads of interest are submerged structure loads, non-uniform pool temperature loads and fluid structure interaction loads.
In response to a question from Dr. Bush, Mr. Fields said the most significant of the above items to be addressed are the pool swell velocity specification for the GE generic load definition, and the froth drag loads on the HCU floor for the Grand Gulf plant.
3.
Mr. T. McIntyre (GE) provided a description of the Mark III confirmatory test program in closed session (proprietary information).
The tests were conducted in 3 scales (full,1/3,1/9) at the PSTF (Figure 8A).
Pro-gram goals were to provide data for model confinnation and quantify phenomena and dynamic load conditions.
The scaling approach used in-volved unit cell modeling, area scaling, and use of a modified Froude scale interpretation of the data.
I There was extensive discussion of the scaling approach.
Dr. Catton noted that GE had violated a cardnial rule of scaling (geometric simultude).
GE agreed that the scaling was distorted.
In response to specific Sub-committee inquries on the scaling approach used, NRC said that Dr. Sonin (BNL consultant) would address this issue in a 'later presentation.
'9 Fluid Dynamics 9/24-25/81 GE detailed results of the various PSTF tests.
These included:
(1) pool swell and systems dynamics (impact) tests, (full scale and 1/3 scale-run in 1973-74 and 74-75 respectively), (2) 1/3 scale condensa-tion tests (run in 1977), (3' full-scale condensation tests (run in 1978) and (4) 1/9 scale multivent tests (run in 1979-80). Overall, GE believes the above tests have demonstrated that the relevant phenomena are under-stood, the loads have been quantified, and the associated analytical models confirmed.
4.
Mr. S. Hucik (GE) discussed the development of the load definitions for pool swell, CO, and chugging in closed session (proprietary informa-tion). The pool swell velocity specification (40 f t/sec) is based on a PSTF full scale air test which saw a peak measured velocity of 34 ft/sec.
One-third and 1/9 scale tests confirm the 40 ft/sec value. Peak velocities in these tess were 24-28 ft/sec (1/9 scale) and 30-36 ft/sec (1/3 scale).
GE's analytical model supports a swell velocity of 38 ft/sec. Using a modified Froude interpretation of the data gives 42 ft/sec velocity.
GE believes that there are conservatisms in both the PSTF tests and the analytical model that support use of the 40 f t/sec value.
Drs. Catton and Theofanous expressed skeptism that the test data and scaling used supported GE's swell velocity figure.
Related pool swell parameters include the bulk impact specification (Figure 9), froth impact specification, and froth drag at the HCU floor.
The HCU floor drag specification is 11 psid which GE believes is 3.5 to 4 psid conservative relative to the test data.
The condensation oscillation (CO) load definition is based on a forcing function wave form (Figure 10). The C0 data base was obtained from full, 1/3, and 1/9 scale tests. GE indicated that there is substantial conser-vaitsm in the C0 load definition and the corresponding plant analysis.
GE discussed the chugging load definition. A total of 113 chugs from the full scale PSTF tests were used to develop the chug load definition.
The load definition is based on a global load and assumes synchronous chugging
Fluid Dynamics,
9/24-25/81 in all top vents, GE said the 1/9 scale tests show chugging is desynchronzied.
GE also indicated that the test data was interpreted conservatively and the test results were conservatively applied.
5.
Mr. J. McGaugby (Mississippi Power & Light) discussed the modifications made to the Grand Gulf plant as a result of the increased loads due to the pool swell phenomenon (Figures 11-12).
In response to a question from Mr. Ebersole, MP&L said that water stored in the refueling canal above the reactor must be dumped inta the suppression pool after a LOCA to assure long term cooling.
In response to questions from Dr. Plesset.
NRC said that the review of the froth drag load specification is not yet complete.
6.
Dr. A. Sonin (MIT-NRC Consultant) discussed the NRC evaluation of the determination of the pool swell velocity specification.
The justification given by GE for a value of 40 ft/sec ant the NRC concerns are noted below:
' full scale tests - NRC believes this test had poor simulation and was nonconservtive (post-vent clearing drywell presure was far below design value).
'1/3 and 1/9 scale tests - These scaled tests had distorted geometry and basically assume one-dimensional actions. Extrapolation of 1/9 to 1/3 to 1/1 scale would suggest a swell velocity > 40 f t/sec.
l
'Use of modified Froude scaling - Froude scaling gives a swell velocity below 42 ft/sec. NRC believes such scaling applied to test data gives 47 ft/sec with considerable uncertainty attacned to that value because of the scaling uncertainties seen in the test facility (1/3 scale).
I 7.
Mr. G. Maise (BNL) discussed the NRC evaluation of the impact loads.
This area is still under review by the NRC. The chief concerns are:
(1) test data does not provide sufficient information to assess the froth impact on the HCU floor (roof of test facility too low); (2)
Fluid Dynamics 9/24-25/81 impact tests on structures not prototypic (structures saw too low pool velocity in tests).
Item 1 is under discussion for resolution - GE is attempting to justify the 15 psid forth impact load based on the dis-tances between the HCU floor and bubble breakthrough elevation of the pool.
Item 2 is also under resolution.
GE is attempting to use methodology approved by NRC for the Mark II containment and apply this methodology to the Mark III problem.
+
8.
Dr. Sonin discussed the NRC review of the HCU floor froth loading. He said that the model used to obtain the 4p value of 11 psid used in the analysis is simplistic.
One-third scale tests were used to develop this value. However the model does show a conservatism of 3.5 + 1 psid compared to the test data (Figure 13).
Dr. Sonin indicated that while the model hasn't been checked at full scale, he is fairly comfortable with it.
9.
Dr. C. Economos (BNL) discussed the CO and chugging load methodology developed by GE.
For the C0 load case, concerns were noted in the following areas:
(1) applicability of 1/3-scale tests for load dsfinition (lack of a complete set of full scale test results).
(2) uncertainty in source frequency scaling.
(3) Bounding of all test measurements (data exceedances at low and high I
end of frequency spectrum on ARS (amplitude response spectrum) basis).
All of the above concerns either:
have been resolved (1), have resolutions in progress (384), have proposed resolutions (2).
The chugging load evaluation shows substantial conservatism in many areas.
Two concerns were noted:
(1) exceedance of weir wall local load at high frequencies (not believed significant), and (2) an absence of an asymmetric chugging load which is necessary to evaluate the randomness of the chug amplitude (the asymmetric chug loads may be bounded by the asymmetric pool swell load).
Fluid Dynamics,
9/24-25/81 e
10.
Dr. Bush, referring to the above presentations, asked if NRC had evaluated the potential for damage to vital equipment in or near the suppression pool area.
He suggested NRC analyze this potential with the goal in mind of preventing loads that will damage structures to the extent that critical equipment is disabled, since the ultimate concern is the functionability of the vital equipment.
NRC agreed and said MP&L has been asked to look at the equipment survivability question.
11.
NRC evaluation of submerged structure loads and pool thermal strati-fication loads revealed that the only item of concern for submergea structure loads is the uncertainty in the data used for development of the source strength for the chugging loads. Sufficient conservatism in the model must be demonstrated. RELAP-4 MOD 5 was used to show that concerns related to pool thermal stratification (scaling distortions, effect of break size) were unfounded. Dr. Cctton said the RELAP code can't model pool stratification.
Dr. Economos said he would look into this concern.
12.
N. Su (NRC-Generic Issues Branch) discussed the issue of SRV related l
pool dynamics loads for Mark III (TAP A-9).
Mr. Su said that there are no open items for this issue.
{
NRC will issue two NUREG reports -
0802
" Safety / Relief Valves - Load Evaluation Report - Mark II and III Containments" and - 0783 " Suppression Pool Temperature Limits for BWR Containments" that closes out the TAP A-39 issue.
The Kuoshen (Taiwan) Mark III SRV in-plant tests were discussed.
Kuoshen is the first operating BWR 6/ Mart III plant in the world.
The SRV tests were conducted in August 1981. Figures 13A-15 detail the test plan and associated instrumentation. NRC actively partici-pated in the test program.
The test results were characterized as preliminary - quantitative data is not yet available (may be made proprietary). Strain gauge i
t measurements were very small in comparison with expected values.
Acceleration (building) and pressure measurements were within expected
Fluid Dynamics 9/24-25/81 l
values. There was "significant" acceleration in the pool region which is under investigation. For the extended blowdown test (9 minutes) the bulk-to-local pool temperature difference was measured at 19 F without 0
0 use of the RHR pool cooling system, and 9 F with RHR operating one hour before the test.
NRC conclusions from the Kuosheng tests:
'The structural model overpredicted piping, equipment, and building response.
'The forcing function marginally predicied maximum pressure for first valve actuation (further investigation needed for global pressure), most cases of consecutive actuation pressures were over-predicted.
'While the themal mixing data will be applicable to all Mark III plants, the SRV forcing function requires detailed investigation before any conclusions can be reached on its applicability to plants.
Dr. Economos discussed the NRC evaluation of the GE cross quencher SRV methodology.
GE proposed modification to the original (1976) methodology in 1980. There are a few minor open issues associated with the new methodology. Resolution is expected since there is signi-ficant margin in the GESSAR design value to accommodate the data (Caorso in-plant tests) adjusted to the Mark III design. There are questions with individual elements of the multiple valve bubble phasing model used to evaluate piping system and equipment response. The methodology is acceptable when considered in its entirety.
In-plant tests planned at Grand Gulf are expected to provide further confirmation of the model.
- 13. Mr. Fields briefly reviewed the modifications to be made to Mark III plants due to changes in the pool dynamic load criteria. The changes noted generally resulted in a strengthened containment, and reduced or eliminated equipment exposure to pool and froth swell loads.
Fluid Dynamics h 9/24-25/81 14.
Mr. M. Johnston (MP&L) reviewed the proposed SRV in-plant testing program for Grand Gulf. The test program and related instrumentation is not as extensive as the Kuoshen tests.
MP&L stated that the Kuoshen data will be reviewed for applicability to the Grand Gulf plant and if appro-priate MP&L will request that the above tests be deleted.
In response to questions from Dr. Catton, NRC said tht the tests won't be required if Kuoshen data applicability is sufficiently demonstrated. Mr. Ebersole urged that MP&L look into the potential problem of field installation techniques adversely effecting the environmental qualification of critical equipment subjected to the LOCA environment.
15.
M. Fields summarized the NRC approach to resolution of the dynamic load issue.
For the Generic Load Definition
' Examine GE's justication for current load definition.
'For aspects of the current load tiefinition that are not acceptable, NRC l
will propose alternative criteria in a draft SER to be issued in December 1981.
'NRC will issue conservative LOCA-related pool dynamic criteria via a NUREG in February 1982.
For Grand Gulf Structural Evaluation 1
'MPL to use generic load criteria that have been accepted by NRC.
'A bounding approach will be used for load criteria still under review.
' Figure 16 provides details on the bounding approach for resolution of the issues of pool swell, and froth drag load on the HCU floor grating.
i l
- 16. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m. on September 25, 1981.
i
m
~
,.- p.-s.
. [..f., a.;. T. -- _ _ _
.... f.,
-c.
.~
7,.,.
.e
.; ]
.. +.
.=.:.,
'.'=, ""'r?~
g.
..J -
- e. - -,
s
...-. y...
s
,.... e
..s r.'M.- 4.,
- 4.,
A s
' * ~..
s.
.'(L'; p. ; *.. E
- t
- _..i......p.,.4
..... : s h. e.~.:. %..
t.,.
. Ga... g W
..,.r.-:..
.., e.e.
- e. r..;.'. ',, -u.&., * * :.. ' w+w M. O. ~ -..*,.D
- a
.s.
e.
,..r s...
- t.,, ;,....
w.
..'...s*.
- c. : 1. *.~.A::
- a:
...,,,.. ".. : C. :. : u. '..,,;? %...
r.
........w.-..-..
.. ~...-
s
.~.r..m.,.,..,..-..,.
t l
d I
-r
.N 4 s *.-
'EduktBedans
.~
y.'.
, r..
y.:
~
- . h4l
- l W
1,g
.:e g"..
tt.4' e.[ it'en
/
e.
..e4
(
de a,f
.};
).... -% _. ; x..-
-i
..9
- s. :.:
... :vy.a -
i
- ...a...
.. a.~..
p n..<
h
%ehng Pistform
-/
g, p.,g
. l.
t t
t f
4 I
- 'g g
f
}
4
)
E r ?
d f
1'.fdd L
F
.j
?
_Q.
j 1;
3 g
6 g
I s,
y r
.j j
l I:
)
l
. h,.
O)1
}
- i;
[~'?
l.
y 3
-4 I
l j
i 1
i.
(..
d(,,
,,b.
6 o
e i.
p t
5 i
185' l
l l llt 7
E
!. /.
I' 't.
e i
u _.i 1
i
[./'Y"'M t
i
'g jg
- F /
F '
.Vesset 4
a
,.i 9
e.y Man 5me..
s b
.n
,,,, = = ' ' ' ' '. " '19 LN.
t1
. D' s
j:
y-j a',
active
)_y 1;.c.f. d.,
, T.c -f1;
- f..
- ~,
n,
..c.*
.,1 4.
s.
q,,,
.r -
f i..,.
. !/*;
i.' *.
4.. J-4.,
.. 3 a
.T.
..g 6. r >.
L.-
a a
t
- L
.~
o
'r.
.?:
4%
}.g; v g
Q
. p s.;
.i
< -,..4
-. i. t t.:.
e m
w
+
,e f,. 3' {,:,.;;
p. ;d,., -
s
'L. i.n...t a
..a j
s,,
.;i i.=*f
.s... r - v...-
1 4
l'. L.
f-.
,,,. J 6
"=,$
a s.,-
I
\\.
_ Y,tg f,grl..
'l
~
{-
4
,Je
=
.G* s.m,a,
[..
.c -
5 o'
',t.
.a.
y,,.
.,1
- e......,n 1-
...~.s..*..
v...s.;
Horiaorea' Veens t.s...~
('.,'
's.
4 4
. M.
.c 1
~~'
t L n,
1-o.
. v.: J. i 8 I""
f
.g
-;\\
w
. ;..
- y..*n < p lw
.. ~.,
f a
i
~. w-g
,,f
. k-........%
- g...,., PRESSUR1i SUNRESSION,'t, rUsiids'iN[........
u
.[. 2'
/
\\
- gy..
... ~ 1,. v. *. ?,;.,, ;...: f...n o, s,>.. '
,. s 4 *...$.; ' 'ap.'*
- h5. r.!
- ..'.**C. L..
i 1
L *..
.s-n.
.s
.,4. / p
- +. *.
- a. :. : e,w
- w, a'.-?.e.4.... ti?.- *
?... '. W J.*i'.t. M.h. %... s
.*.~c..
.r:.....,...., -........ jh.,....
.,7,
<..,.N...,..c.:.,.
%-s
.,..:.,.. a. ;*
a:
.y.?..
y
,y.
.s
- :..W
- r..
. ?..
~.t
,.., u (...,.. 3: y; p. p e,r.. '...;..J. :..,:.M.. q : y..,,3.
- g..,.- ai. ;. '.V,...
...._ s.,...z. h... +
a..
.r.s n.
s.
. s v.a..
..,a....
..'......;.'s.:'r-;*T,:..%-
. w..-.~~........ '.... - *. f..; r..C-
- ../.,,..
~*
....r W.'e.,...
..., ; 4.*.U..'
.%. fw.,...ps.:q i,~. s.(*.,4 **
- ..y..........
. u. -. r.
N.
- f,* ;pv*.*.,
w_ _ - A.J '- n wMA _k.'"v
. n,9*
.r..,
e
- 1. ~ '.'. *
?
~
v.s.
V '.- :.? h m ?t' '-
- a. '~..
.., x._ h
-n.
-.M..=
?.
--2 4%c. - ' '3 -- Am.
b MARK III
~
FOOL SWELL LOADS LOAD DEFINITION 4
LOAD VALUE o
POOL BOUNDARY DRYWELL 21.8 PSID
, CONTAINMENT =_10 PSto.
~
WATER VELOCITY, 40 FPS (CONSTANT) o TYPICAL DRAG LOAD
-- 20 PSI o
BREAKTHROUGH. HEIGHT 18 FT o
FROTH VELOCITY 50 FPS TYPICAL DRAG LOAD
-- 10 PSI 1
l e
um
$J I
i l
1 MARK III POOL SWELL LOADS BUBBLE PRESSURE ON BOUNDARY CQ % T Al% W E %?
Daymggg s-i t. :
s.c; y
-.S I.S]
, f, b..D i
'C
a 22.1"
.P i
'.s.
l 7
k*s Y
[ *t'a 5'
2 l.
ms..
y*. ~ o y
v
^ 10 PSID gg
[
kN
' s
/p
~
20.4' r
ia
'g,3 g* L (s' R '
i 22 PSID u
=
l k.%%'
4
(%.g,L._
.,us r..
,=
T
-7, YT,'.
-:~[.Qw.
iP i>
t
~%.,. l;-
% h.? 10 PSID N y, 22 PSID
~
3 FM3
r--
MARK III LOAD DEFINITION
/
POOL SWELL IMPACT LOADS LOADS VALUE o
WATER IMPACT ON BEAMS 115 PSI o
WATER IMPACT ON PIPES 60 PSI o
WATER DRAG (BEAM) 22 PSI o
FROTH IMPACT 15 PSI o
FROTH DRAG (BEMD 10 PSI S
me
LOAD DEFINITION C0 PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION u
rett Sum 8 ACE
=
N LsNian atttNuaTace.
I TO 2:*ac af a st a sur.r Ac.
i I J - _ _ _ _ _ LO
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ C.18.
g;,.J.o_:.
/o t
M A
i
=
R.
=
/r.
=
/<'
=
i
/f'
=
e f
E f
i
~
?
--o-t e
e I
/r:
..i r
+
E
/
5 0 24 SA$lMAf 0.15 f
v i
i i "i"
O,-
LINF au ATTENej f tSN r secta sie rwt L W AL L f 0 CON 1 AaNUf NT wat WW W 9
e _h f' /
v:S f/4 f
W f
I N
e%
Ez U
e a
Y A
ec O
~
M{
c.
w H G H 2.
O m I
x a uJ g
=
cc 2:. LJ
=:
CL
~
C d cl 3
a I
2l':
C' e
L O
E LI Ut J 3
6
(
L 1
e 5
A it
}>T..
l l
8 zT t
a
[
E 3
1:
A j
5 I
L' Y
'4
^
T 1
1 iE V
T T
A T'l cPsalICruJ1dWY S
.G:
'a' l M
K 4
MRK_LLL CJIUGGil!G10aRS l.0AD_DEFJfill10ft 2'1 PSID AT VEill IL'lsim imn Gs Ej rone.m o.cnunoa 2.2 PSID a
9 I Eb
_p
- Y j U 8 tiSEC V i
i n.c.uo o o.
.mm l
-2.65 PSID 125 MSEC N
AI.F sr l
~
LJ P00LH01IrlDARLGIUGGJfLG_L060
MARK III CHUGGING LOADS LOAD DEFIfilTION' v
_._.A _-
=={
7J M d
0.2
.De 0.8 CJ 14
- P' e
y ree v %t t
?
e I **
i
.!-'k
- J
=
i a
l 5
E.
I E
5
_,0 8 As tW AT j
si 0.cs l
)
l i
i i
n o.m SUPPRESSION POOL Ci!UGGIt!G SPIKE ATTE.NUATION p MO
l f
s o
t t" 2 e
2 w
F hif
[
6 5:
e e
e:
t IC R.?
c 5
_,/
i,
- s. ><
=
p
>[
c Ee i
=
f j
f
-.._____.1.
_l a _. L_.L L
v E
>u 3.-
e
{
/
at
- w
.Oja E_
r v
t!:
<t
"~
y
- st E-
= 'L p s v.r e
l cce i
i car.
ee
,_' _ s gra c
E o
s J
l7 I
\\\\
sm m
E E
.= v.x
,h EM M s
g go.g M
Et E
un E
E5 r
s s
g 3:
r f_5
, "h r
X
=
I(
3._
._.))
fe!.![
t,____
E. =-
E t
=
1 TRIDli 9/25/81 lfM1b
22A4365 Rev. 2 10-5 Wu 4
be w
3 in 3
e a
o M
C f
O O
2 A
e G
w O
g e
M w
e W
o O
M w
us 5
=
E g
e 9
5
~
W w
M aC m
u O
w C
3 w
e O
ha u
s
~~
~
J C
to wa
,,o g
3 w
4 mwC E
E C
to wl
- e
<a C
3a o
a O
$g0 e
- C 4
k
- i
~
2e y
.S
< io m
a l
u e"'
55 C
e iS m
cm W
e o
EE g
m 9
b 1
C b
e e
N h
m
=
W I
=
.J u
en w
e O
O
- D'AN3W38850 Ewritt3Wd 03FI7vnwoN SAH-13 f'f/dW 9/24/81 nan
LOAD DEFINITION C0 FORCING FUNCTION WAVE FORM
(
DRYWELL WALL 10 8
6 4,
2 5
0 e
L g
-2 w
E l2
-4 e
l c.
-6
-8 l
-10 i
i i
i l
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 1
TIME AFTER LOCA (SEC) l SAH-27 rpgjg/24/81
In f's L
SUMMARY
OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO PLANT EQUIPMENT CAUSED BY NEW LOADS o
POLAR CRANE o
AFTERC00LER FOR PURGE COMPRESSORS o
CRD HYDRAULIC SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS o
107 VALVE OPERATORS MODIFIED o
723 PIPE SUPPORTS MODIFIED o
236 PIPE SUPPORTS ADDED o
STIFFENED POLAR CRANE RAll SUPPORT BRACKETS o
SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO FLOOR STEEL 9/24/81 i
i
]ALL
/7; l'> L
_ CHANGES TO DES IGN DUE TO POOL SWELL 1.
DELETED SOLID CIRCUMFERENTIAL CONC AND ADDED A STEEL GRATING CATWALK DUE T0 P0OL SWELL - RELOCATED EQUIP 2.
RELOCATED AND STRENGTHENED MAINST5A AB0VE POOL SWELL ZONE (APPR0X. 5 FT. )
3.
ADDED SUPPRESS 10N POOL MAKEUP SYSTEM '
4.
TIP STATION FLOOR-PROJECTED DOWN INTO POOL TO ELIMINATE POOL SWELL LOADS 5.
RELOCATED PIPING TO THE REGION AB0VE B 6.
CHANGED PIPING SUBMERGED IN P0OL TO SM AND HEAVIER WALL TO ACCOMMODATE SUBME LOADS 9/24/81 L
l { l S-a:
?
COMPARISON OF MEASURED AND PREDICTED TWO PHASE PRESSURE DROP - K = 5.0 12 CONSERVATIVE NONCONSERVATIVE
/C F F5/M 11 Bedickdfor l ~f ~ ~ ~~ /
23F g/an/
g PREDICTED = OBSERVED 10 c
a e /o 9
b/
-5 OO o /o a
8 S
[b Q
SYMBOL SUBMERGENCE 7
E o
g 6
e 5 FT o
s o&
s 6 FT W
/
V 3'NI f#'
A 7 1/2 FT S
4 4O COMJerYA$3M O
O 0
10 FT 3
E 2
1 0
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 l
MEASURED PRESSURE - PSID e
= -
runL
.'t e GENERAL INFORMATION e TESTS STARTED ON AUGUST 22, 1981 0 TESTS COMPLETED ON AUGUST 28, 1981 0 TOTAL NUMBER OF TESTS - 32 4 INSTRUMENTATION
- 128 ACCELEROMETERS 71 PRESSURE SENSORS 62 STRAIN GAGES 22 THERMOCOUPLES
~
f TE51E I':CLUDED
- SIN 3LE VALVE FIRST ACTUATION
- SINGLE VALVE CONSECUTIVE ACTUATION l
- TWO ADJACE!:T VALVE ACTUATION
- FOUR VALVE ACTUATION
. WITH RHR
. WITHOUT RHR 9/17/81 f/S U A
~
N m
7 as 0
e ei a
e" 27,0*
j q
g' s
,p
.e..
a PS6
- 55 p P 54 1%
.=
g p.u
,e
,,, C,.
.C
' 17,
-e v,
v,f.,
W E *E V' l= ~'
127 s.
/
0; }
/
J
,.,, g
- 5 -.
- F:,
i"15,vy
.D an.:s.re.sz.*e s-g 3
40 5,
.**b
-ezi m s
s
,..a.4. d e;5.
,et 4g,t se its
,f y
I
'N
- t
/
_ P: 7.e s.
p a s. s t,-
4 p y,
. >s. t>.
'um:.._
'"'6'O-W s Q'"y
?$
IE..
.,-- s: ;l;(I 3 ~ g --
.:.c.
n p,
~-
.c.
l
~
M '...
N.
V9 i
en N'
. ' ~
}%.
c'...~r
\\ res q;
~. '
..G...
~~
.s p
v
- ,s s', l/
^
s
<-~.
s s
s s
\\
\\
'Y'
- . --. s -
..,(n \\
/
l 5
,t-
.n.. h.I,.-
'1.V
'/ vw...
,n-s
\\
_,,.f Vs' s;,;
p.
t
' 81 E e,E
- t..- eg e
. :.v. E... / * ' '-
l
't
- n 6
J*
L c o.JT A N VT s.7 V,a.i.
2 n
.,.ms es s.nry e w e.-
v e s O
SUPPRESSION POOL PRESSURE SENSOR LOCATIONS (PLAN VIEW)
l-Fe b A 4-d l
I, t
l Cs 57 P47
! - s-DETAIL 'A' CUEN*uER ACMS ROTCED INTO VIEW (P46, P47 MEASUEE INTEENAL PRE 55utE)
.dm N
d NOR M61 WAM LEvt L g
1..
s L. m 7.o C*
e
/q.
~
P EL r.425'-c))"
8' g EL.
- 25*.5*
. ' A ?'h
-Q.(
l i
g ','
N'\\
a'
\\
t_.w. r,
\\
- "' SO 3h, g N, n
g k
s
- C.EN*eER.
/ cc. s as o n *)
\\_,z
.,. i 2 i
l
-(t!E :Em
. e s.-,
- l l
1 l
c7 \\
-l
, i r,, 84ti!LL Oc*/... A)
.:,it *
,o.u 1-r 1
_, m...
r e, r n. 4s.e-es~\\
vs/-
L er g
).
__ _r. _.
. - __ s. ".. -. s.. =t
..g savyger
.l a*.th' I
_ co wTaiw e.wr 2' s*
PRESSURE SENSOR LOCATIONS - QUENCHER Y-S (Elevation VieE)
[/g/[
4 fossiiI< Gr ed Calf Guadi; Age.%
l ts Can w >< he< l Pee itsoke5r &u La
+4sf 4&It f
Sal,J Enf ut) is Tre e
- W a fw
~
Fee Pre % Zmpad an HC u Floor Anah2 unjommTens bown din y sfuikq
}c Ncv flac peavioft a
v; a n of r k
,a? r k tw%s sen nu i b de ed be unedim!iky/ufe
, s ofs, 9
Er 4A pre,
en HC u 9le.e Gs fines Q
m :
- Reco lealds B P A sean if
- usin, tfe ao.J G lF plas,+ cot Floet
- Peaoth a eon seradir, y Lp for %n sfer:ns +Als e P m[o a
le e d s{meaniun utOdities e s eass N' usu s
eron