ML13323A449
| ML13323A449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1985 |
| From: | Shieh L, Tsai N LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13323A450 | List: |
| References | |
| UCID-20481, NUDOCS 8509260395 | |
| Download: ML13323A449 (31) | |
Text
Attachmn'nC2
.TECHNICAL1YALUATION REPORT FOR-THE UICENSEE'S PROPOSED.-YMOL RE SOON SE _WbBINATIO
£
_~TECHNIQUES -EOR-LOtG JERX S ERVICE SEISMIC RtEEVALUATION:
SAN ON0FREAUCLEAR, SENERATING STATION UNIT 1I I
M. C. -Tsa*.___
L. C. Stiieh ANCT -Engineering June 1985 Th Is a informal report intended pdriarl) for intermal or limlted external ist Tkis work was savported by the United States Nuclcv RegulatMr Commissio der a Memonoadamz of Understanding with the United States Departmnt of EwvW.
8509260395 850919 PUR ADOCK 05000206 P
1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE LICENSEE'S PROPOSED MODAL RESPONSE COMBINATION TECHNIQUES FOR LONG TERM SERVICE SEISMIC REEVALUATION SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 By N. C. Tsai L. C. Shieh Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1.0 INTRODUCTIOW
1.1 Background
In aid 1982, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 (SONGs 1) was shut down for upgrading of safety-related structures, systems and components to resist seismic loadings developed for the SONGS 1 seismic reevaluation.
In 1984, the plant was allowed to return to service for refueling cycle, during which further upgrading was to be planned and prepared for by the licensee.
In a meeting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (IRC) staff on February 12. 1985 (Ref. 1), and through a letter dated March 12, 1985 (Ref.
2), the licensee (Southern California Edison Company) proposed their criteria and analysis methodology for the Long Term Service (LTS) upgrading to ensure adequate seismic design margins for those safety-related structures, systems and components in the plant.
A technical evaluation of the licensee's proposed plans is needed in order for the NRC to reach a decision regarding approval of the Full Term Operating license for the plant.
Assessment of technical adequacy of the licensee's proposed LTS criteria and analysis methodologies are given in the following three areas:
.1. Soil-structure interaction analysis.
- 2.
Direct generation of floor response spectra accounting for the interaction effect between the supporting structure and piping systems considered in the spectrum generation, and the application of the generated floor spectra to the response analysis of a secondary system within the supporting structure with the response spectrum method of analysis.
- 3.
Modal and directional response combinations for the response analysis of the secondary system with the response spectrum method of analysis.
1.2 Criteria of Review SONGS 1 Is one of the NRC designated Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP) plants which was not designed to current codes, standards and NRC require aents. It Is therefore necessary to perform "aore realistic" cr 'best estimate" asessments of the seismic capacity of the facility and to consider any conservatism associated with the existing design. For the purpose of the SEP plant seismic review, the NRC developed a set of review criteria and guidelines, as follows:
- a.
NUREG/CR-0098, *Development of Criteria for Seismic Review of Selected Nuclear Power Plant,* by N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall,
- May, 1978.
- b.
'SEP Guidelines for Soil-Structure Interaction Review,'
by SEP Senior Seismic Review Team, December 8, 1980.
- c. Letter from W. Paulson, WRC, to R. Dietch, SCE, 'Systematic Evaluation Program Position Re: Consideration of Inelastic Response Using NRC NUREG/CR-0098 Ductility Factor Approach,* June 23, 1982.
- d.
Letter from W. Paulson, NRC, to R. Dietch, SCE, *SEP Topic 111-6.
Seismic Design Considerations, Staff Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation Criteria for the SEP Group II Plants," July 26, 1982.
- e.
(Revision of Criteria (d) above, to be issued.) For cases that are not specifically covered by the above criteria, the following SRP sections and Regulatory Guides are used as the basis for our review:
- 1.
Standard Review Plan, Sections 2.5, 3.7 and 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10.
- 2.
Regulatory Guides 1.26, 1.29, 1.60, 1.92, 1.1QO, and 1.122.
In the event that the licensee's proposed methodology and criteria deviate from the aforementioned review criteria and guidelines, we have reviewed, based on our experienoe and best engineering judgment. the justifications presented by the licensee.
We recognize that plant specific deviations on a case-by-case basis may be necessary and may be found acceptable so long as they reasonably meet the intents of the SEP review guidelines.
This technical evaluation report (TER) presents our conclusions on the technical adequacy of the methodology proposed by the licensee for Task 3, directional and modal response combination in the response analysis of secondary systems.
Our assessment I5 acoomplished by reviewing the pertinent theory, methodologies,'
omputer codes, and the licensee's planned applications to SONGS 1.
To help substantiate our assessment, we also designed a test problem that compares the solution from the licensee's proposed methodology with the solution from certain other methodology.
Section 2.0 discusses the licensee proposed methodology and associated computer codes. Section 3.0 describes the test problem and results of the comparison between the proposed and the independent methodologies. Section 4.0 presents our conclusions. Details of the test problem and analysis results are provided in Appendix A. Additional analysis results from lapell Corporation are included In Appendix B.
2.0 DISCUSSION OF LICENSEE'S PROPOSED METHODOLOGY 2.1 Methodology For the analysis of the piping systems, the licensee proposed two options for the response calculation and response combination as explained in the following:
Option A -- The piping system is analyzed once using a single envelope spectrum input, which envelops the floor response spectra at all support locations. The CQC (Complete Quadratic Combination) method developed by Wilson et al. (Ref. 3), is proposed by the licensee to perform the combination of modal responses (Ref. 4).
The CQC method was derived based on the random vibration theory with the assumption of a stationary white noise input. The method calculates the maximum combined modal response considering the
correlation between nodes and the algebraic sis : of the modal responses. As
. an illustration, the CQC sethod oabinea the responses from two modes, t and R2, as follows:
R:*
- 2C12 R R2
- R2 2 (1)
The correlation coefficient, C12. is a function of the modal damping and frequencies. For two very Closely spaced modes, the correlation coefficient approaches 1.0 and the combined response approaches the algebraic sum, i.e.,
R1+R2. For two modes having frequencies far apart from each other, the correlation coefficient approaches zero and the combined response approaches the SRSS of the modal responses R12 + R.
Option B -
The piping system Is analyzed by the multi-level response spectrum (MLRS) method implemented in SUPERPIPE.
In other words, the piping system is analyzed as many times as the number of support levels.
In each analysis, only supports belonging to a support level are subjected to the corresponding floor response spectrum.
For each mode in each earthquake direction, the responses from all level analyses are then combined by the absolute sum method.
The final result is obtained by combining modal responseg and directional components according to the Regulatory Guide 1.92.
For the methodology of Option A, the acceptability of the CQC method for the modal response combination is assessed in this TER based on the results of the following test problem. As to our understanding, the proposed CQC method is not suitable for modes of high frequencies because the CQC method does not take into account the fact that the higher the modal frequencies, the stronger the correlation between modes becomes.
The acceptability of the methodology, Option B, is addressed in Reference 5.
3.0 TEST PROBLEM The test proble was designed to assess the acceptability Of the theory of the CQC modal combination method and its computer code implementation.
In order to achieve this goal, we calculated the piping responses by using the time history analysis method and the response spectrum method with the COC modal combination technique.
The time history analysis method Is acceptable to the NRC.
The response spectrum method using the CQC modal combination techniques was intended to gain further confirmation with the code implementation of the licensee proposed CQC modal combination.
3.1 Description A piping model selected from the Zion Nuclear plant was analy7-?
to test the CQC method. The piping system Is shown in Fig. 1. The figur
.so indicates the locations where the resultant moments were nalculated for the comparison study.
The detailed description of the test
- em is in Appendix A.
Both the licensee and we calculated the piping resultant moments and support.
reactions independently by the response spectrum uethod of analysis with the CQC method of the modal combination.
In addition, we calculated the same response quantities using the time history analysis.
The comparison of the results is discussed below.
3.2 Results Table 1 summarizes the statistical mean and standard deviation for the resultant moment and support force ratios between the licensee's analysis (Ref. 6) and NCT's time history analysis. Thirty-one resultant moments and twenty-four upport forces were considered for each direction of earthquake input. Table 2 summarizes the corresponding statistics for the ratios between NCT's response spectrum analysis using the CQC method for modal combination and time history analysis. The results of Tables 1 and 2 show good agreement and are In line with other pub1.i2 ed comparison results between the CQC response spectrum analysis method and the time history antlysis method (Refs.
3 and 4).
4.0 CONCLUSION
The methodology Proposed by the licensee for the modal (CQC) response ombination In the envelopa response spectrum method of analysis appears sufficient.
5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors vish to thank Dr. M. S.
Yang and Mr. W. L. Wong, both of NCT Engineering, for their contributions to this TER.
They participated in generating the UCT portion of the test problem results and in preparivg the draft report. In addition, Dr. Yang assisted in reviewing the licensee's proposed methodology.
6.0 REFERENCES
.1.
Memorandum from E. McKenna to C. I. Grimes, dated February 12, 1985.
- 2.
Letter from M. Medford, SCE, to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, dated March 12, 1985.
- 3.
Wilson, E. L. et al., "Short Communications -- A Replacement for the SRSS Method in Seismic Analysis," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 9, 187-194, 1981.
- 4. Letter from M. Medford, SCE, to J. A. Zwolinski, NRC, dated March 29, 1985.
- 5. 1. C. Tsal, L. C. Shi", "Technical Evaluation Report for MLRS Piping Response Analysis Technique for Long Term Service Seisaic Reevaluation, San Onotre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1," Lawrence Livermore lational Laboratory. Livermore, California, UCID-xxxx, June, 1985.
- 6. Letter from H. Medford, SCE, to J. A. Zvolinski, NRC, dated June 4, 1985.
Table I RESPONSE RATIOS BETWEEN LICNSEE'S CQC AND OUR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS X(Horiz.)
T(Vert.)
Z(Horii.)
Input Input Input Overall Moment Mean 1.02 1.02 0.93 0.99 Resultant e
0.25 0.09 0.18 0.19 Support Mean 1.21 1.07 1.45 1.24 e
Force e
0.49 0.20 1.02 0.68
- C:
Standard Deviation (D-CLIICNT wo.
5 -NO DC tO.
0 --
LJ,5PPPRT 60 48 I PR G
17e.
C6-10
APPENDIX A DETAILS OF TEST PROBLEM ANALYSIS A.1 Problem Description This problem Involves the testing of the CQC modal combination method by analyzing the residual heat removal and safety injection piping system (RHR) of the Zion nuclear plant.
For this problem, a listing of SAP4 input riles presenting the geometry and properties of the RHR piping system ia given in Table A.1.
An isometric view of the piping system is shown in Figure 1.
The figure indicates the locations where the output resultant moments are to be determined by both licensee and NCT Engineering for comparison study.
Table A.2 is a listing of output locations of the pipe moments. Thirty-one resultant moments and all twenty-four support forces are considered in each direction of earthquake input. In addition, 3S modal dampings are used for both response spectrum analysis and time history analysis.
A.2 Licensee Analysis The licensee Is involved in the calculation of piping resultant moments and support forces for the RHR piping system using the CQC method for modal response combination.
The program SUPERPIPE is used to perform the response spectrum method of analysis. In order to obtain equivalent comparison between the results from SUPERPIPE and our analyses, the licensee has performed this task using the CQC method for modal combination without the consideration of missing the mass effect from higher modes.
The seismic input is a 3% damping horizontal and a 3% damping vertical floor spectra. The same horizontal spectrum is used for the two horizontal directions. Plots of input spectra are provided as shown in Figure A.1 and A.2. The piping resultant moments and support forces are calculated for each of the three earthquake inputs. The directional combination among the components is not performed. The results from the licensee using the CQC method for modal response combination are as shown in Table A.3.
A.3 NCT Analysis In the analysis performed by NCT Engineering, the same RHR piping model is analyzed using the SAP4 time history method of analysis.
The seismic input 11
czntains a horizontal and a vertical floor time history corresponding to the spectra shown tn Figures A.1 and A.2.
The same horizontabltime history 13 used for the two horizontal directions. Plots of time history inputs are provided as shown in Figures A.3 and A.4. The resultant moments and support forces calculated using the SAP4 time history analysis are shown in Table A.3. In addition, NCT Engineering also calculate the piping resultant soments and support forces by the response spectrum analyla using the CQC method from RESCOM for the modal response combination. The input spectra are identical to those provided to the licensee as shown In Figures A.1 and A.2 in each earthquake direction. A comparison study among the three sets of response, namely, the licensee CQC, the NCT CQC, and the SAP4 time history results are discussed in the text. The statistical means and standard deviations of the response ratios of the licensee CQC to time history and the NCT CQC to time history are shown in Tables 1 and 2 in the text.
12 -
.5' TABLE A.1 RHR Piping Model SAP4 Input Listing Unit:
FT-LB-SEC 0
Vertical: Y-Axis A MACHINE 03/28/85 11*31**6 BOX Y66 NCT IT
- RHR PIPING 0
96 9
i8 1
- 0 1 6 1
1 1-4.
$Do 7990 S7.1000 6
15 000 79.9000 -57.0000 S
461 1
1 1
1
- 46. 000
- 80. 0000 7.000 0
4 1
1 1
-46. 000
- 79. 000 *5.0000 0
0 0 0
0 0
-46.5000
- 74. 670 -257.0000 0
6 0
0 0
0 4
-46. 000
- 74.
30 -57.0000 0
7 0
9 0
a 0
0
- -46. 000
- 73. 330 *258.9000 0
a 0
0 0
0 0
-46.
000
- 75.
330 -261.7500 0
9 0
0 0
a 0
0 *46.
000
- 73.
330 2457500 0
17 0
0 0
0 147071 72.259 *266.7500 0
11 0
0 -47.000 72.330 -266.7500 0
12 0
0 0
0 0
0 47.7071 72.1259 -266.7500 0
i0 S
9 0
0 0
0
-48.0000 71.418 -266.7500 a
14 0
0 0
0 0
0 -48.0000 70.9990 -266.7500 0
22 I
0 0
0 0
0 -49.0000 70.1870 -266.7500 0
23 0
0 0
0 0 -43.0000 69.5000 -266.7500 0
17 0
a 0
0 0
0 -48.0000, 68.5120 -266.7500 0
i8 0
9 0
0 0
0 -48.0000 59.0620 *266.7500 0
19 0
0 0
0 0
0 -48.0000 58.2500
- 66.7500 0
20 0
0 0
0 0
0
-47.
00 6.7500 6.183 0
28 0
0 0
0 0
0 -4.640 537500 967 0
22 S
0 0
0 0
0 -39.9142 57500 -266.7550 0
23 0
0 L a
0 a*39.2071 57.2500 *266.4571 0
24 0
0 0
0 0 -38.5000 56.7500 -265.700 0
26 0
0 0
0 0
3 00 53.7500 -292.50 0
27 0
0 0
0 0
0 8.5 53.7500 -276.2137 0
-28 0
0 0
0 0
0 -38.5000 53.7500 -
81.9367 0
49 0
0 0
0 38.5000 53.7500 -
87.2 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
- 38.5000 53750 91.9090 0
31 9
0 0
0 9
- 38.5000 54.7500 -292.8420 0
32 0
9 0
0 0 -I.5000 53.7500 96.9737
.33 0
a 0
0
-43.5000 53.2500 - 01.1053 0
34 9
0 0
0 a
0
- 8.5000 53.7500 -07.2370 0
40 0
0 0
0 0
0 -38.580 53.7500 -306.0290 0
16 0
0 0
0 0
0 -38.7500 54.7500 -307.0290 0
37 0
0 0
0 0
0 -40.0000 56.20 -307.0290 0
38 0
0 0
0 0
9
-43.5000 561.2500 -307.0290 0
39 0
0 0
0 0
0 -45.6287 556.2100 -307.0290 0
40 0
0 0
0 0
0 -46.6893 556.6893 -307.0290 0
41 9
0 0
0 0
0 -48.7500 558.7500 -307.0290 0
42 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.950 560.9520 -307.0290 0
43 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.4600 561.5483 -307.2390 0
44 0
0 0
0 0
0
-52.0000 562.3130 -307.7790 0
45 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.4402 56.9369 -308.2192 0
46 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.7500 563.9964 -308.5290 0
47 0
0 0
0 0
0
-52.7500 567.0010 -308.5290 0
48 0
0 0
0 0
0
-52.7500 570.8620 -308.0290 0
49 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.7500 574.7230 *308.5290 0
s0 0
0 0
0 0
0 *52.7500 578.5840 -308.5290 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.7500 580.0840 -310.0290 0
52 0
0 0
0 0
0
-52.7500 580.0840 -311.0290 0
53 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.7500 580.0840 -314.0290 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.7500 580.0840 -317.0290 0
55 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.7500 580.0840 -320.0290 0
56 0
0 0
0 0
0 -52.7500 580.0840 -323.0290 0
57 8
0 0
0 0
0
-52.7500 580.0540 *324.2367 0
TABLE A.1 (Cont.)
J f 4.04 9 Be.0840 j:20
- 1 0s 0840 24.0902
- 1 1
1 0
0
-10. 'l 80.40 :
f.2 t*
14 5
-4 6 54 50.64 27.2355 G0 I
1 0
7. 9 9 1 5 5 - 0 0 2
8 2
0 66 to 40 218 500&
7 0
0 0
0 0
5 0-00 0 1-.
0 O
- 7.7500 co 5
4 1 3 0
0 0
0 -*2.7500 5S.
00
- 58.
840 72 0
- 0 0
0 0 -15.260 55.
00 -58.840 a
3 0
0 0
0 0
a1. 0 5 50- 854 83 1
1 1
00 -
- 58.
4.400 0
85 1
11 1
- 47.700 50. 500 -258 40 79 1
1 1
1 1
1
-86
.74500 5.
5 0 -
- 8. 540 g0 S 1
1 1
1 o7 5. 500 -0 08040 1
0 0
0
- 13.
000 0 -O2 5
0 8 1 1 1 1 1
-.00 7s.9990 -.
0 g 3 1
1 1 - 47.700 7.9 0 -2 5 5 0 o
924 1
1 1
1 1 *7.700 9
oo 1
1
-1
.2500 80 1
1 1
1 18 1o 385-0 5.00 -2S7.5 550 0
87 1
1 1 1 1 1 -37.0s000 5.70
-29.700 0
48 1
1 1
1 1
1
-.9. 5000 700
-23.6420 0
94 1
1 1
1-47 1.000
- 57.
Z01 -JO7. SOO 0
as 1
1 1
1 1
1 24.750 S.b
-07.290 0
S 1
1 1
1 1
1 00 81.0.40 -1.02.0 0
97 1 1 1 1
1 1 30 08 00 8.080 2913.090 0
3 1 1 1
141000 0
.20 0
9 1
1 1
1 1:
1o 00 140 -
03.0ZNO 0
5 1
1 1
1 1
1
.0000 15.0 00 0 6829 1
1 02.4500 550-258.58400 0
9~~~~8.
1
- 25.
1 80-3309052 1
304SS 400.00.4075E8lo 03000
.9.94E*2S 1.062
.8.4 112.5 2
2.4938
- 2.7188
.0208 55.7800 1.7354 3
.7188
.0537 397.8000 12.540 8 IN VALVE 4 1.625
.2187 122.000 8 37.9503 12 IN VALVE 5
1.0625
.1093 207.9000 6.4568 12 N PIPE 6
1.0525
.2187 0.0000 0.900 0.08 0.6 5
5.0.*08.840
- 5.
00.08.80 15 1
1
-400.00 100000.00 2
s 5
1 2
-400.00 100800.00 33 6 7 1
2
-400.00 100800.00 1.0000 45.50005 00 73.3*3
-257.0000 4
7 52
-400.00 100800.00 5
8 9
1 2
-400.00 100800.00 73 9
10 1
2
-400.00 100800.00 5914.
2
TABLE A.1 (Cont.)
1.00 1.0000 Ti
-4g.5000 5 7 3.330 3j66.7500 If it I,
-'400.1 1000.00 11 4 1 0100I800.00 S60800.00 1.0000 3'1 -48.0000 571.8330 -264.7500 is 1 14 1
2
-'400.80 100800.00 14 15 1400.00 100800.00 8-11 1
0400.0 00800.00 1
17
-400.00 0500.0 14 17 1i 1
-400.00 1000.00 15s 19 1
-400.00 10500.00 s19-400.
1000.00 1.9000
-45.0000 357.2500
-266.7500 17 go 1
-400.00 00800.00 18 1
2 1
2
-400.00 100800200 3
022 01 2
-400.00 100800.00 I.000 11-39.5000 557.2500 -266.7500 203 23 4
1 2
-400.00 100800.00 1.000 fl
-3.SOOO 557.2500 26S.7500 21 24 25 1
2
-400.00 100800.00 22 25 26 1
1
-4C0.00 100800.00 23 26 27 1
1
-400.00 00800.00 24 27 28 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 25 28 9
1
-400.00 00800.00 26 9
0 1
1 -400.00 100800.00 27 S0 1
1
-400.00 00800.00 28 St 2
1 1
-400.00 100800.00 29 2
3 1
1 400.00 100800.00 30 3
14 1
1
-400.00 110800.0 31 4
5 1
1 -400.00 100500.00 323 35 6
1 1
-400.00 100800.00 1.6000 TI
-58.5000 553.7500 -307.0290 338 36 7
1 1
-400.00 00800.00 1.5000
-38.5000 556.2500 -307.0290 34 7
1 1
-400.00 100800.00 35 a9 1
1
-400.0 0800.00 640 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 1.5000 TZ
-46.2500 S56.2500 -307.0290 37 40 41 1
-400.00 100800.00 38 41 4Z 1
1 -400.0 100800.00 393 42 43 1
1
-400.00 100800.0 1.5000 II
-51.2500 561.2500 -307.0290 40 43 44 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 41 44 45 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 423 45 46 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 1.5000 TI
-52.7500 S63.3760 -308.5290 43 46 47 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 44 47 48 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 45 48 49 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 46 49 50 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 473 s0 51 I
1
-400.00 100800.00 1.5000 TI
-52.7S00 0.0840 308.5290 48 51 52 1
-400.00 00500.00 49 52 53 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 50 S3 54 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 51 54 55 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 52 15 56 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 53 56 57 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 543 57 58 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 I Scoo TI
-52.7500 580.0840 -325.5290 4015 08
TABLE A.1 (Cont.)
5s 18 59 1
-4
- 400.90 100808. 0 6
9 60 1
4
-40.0 160800.30 7
.50 61 1
400.00 18080.
1
.8 61 62 1
4 0 100800.0
- 59 62 6
1400.0 100800.90
't0 25 67 1
1
-400.00 160800.00 613 67 68 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 1.5000 TI
-38.5000 553.7500 -260.0840 625 68 t9 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 1.5000 I
-38.5000 555.2500 -258.5840 43 9
70 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 64 0
71 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 65 71 72 1
1
-400.00 100800.60 64 72 73 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 67 73 74 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 68 74 75 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 49 75 76 1
1
-400.00 100800.00 70 76 77 1
1
- 400.00 100800.00 71 1
1 400.00 100800.00 7.
4 1
2 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 1
3 100000 9.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 1
4 100000
.000000 0.600000.1200E+12 43 44 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E*12 43 65 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 43 46 100000 0.000000 1.000000.1200E+12 77 78 100000 0.000000 9.000000.1200E+12 77 79 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 77 80 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E*1 14 2
100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+1 14 5
100000 0.000000 0.600000.1200E+1z 18 4
100000 9.000000 6.000000.1200E+12
- 21.
85 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E*12 29 86 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1ZOOE+12 30 87 100000 0.000000 6.000000.1200E*12 31 8
100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 47 89 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 47 90 100000 0.000000 0.000000.IZOE*12 52 91 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 53 92 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+12 53 93 100000 0.000000 0.000000.100E+12 56 94 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1ZOOE+12 71 95 100000 0.000000 8.000000.1200E+12 71 96 100000 0.000000 0.000000.1200E+IZ 81 0
31.615 31.615 31.415 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
33.00 16
TABLE A.2 Output Locations of Pipe Moment Resultants No.
Pipe Element No.
- Mode No.
- 1 1
5 2
3 6
3 4
8 4
6 9
5 9
12 6
11 15 7
14 17 8
15 18 9
16 19 10 17 21 11
- 19.
22 12 20 23 13 21 25 14 22 26 15 24 28 16 28 32 17 32 35 18 33 36 19 34 38 20 36 39 21 39 42 22 42 45 23 44 48 24 47 50 25 51 55 26 54 57 27 57 60 28 60 25 29 61 67 30 62 68 31 66 73
- Refer to the SAP4 input listing of the RHR model.
17 -
NT ENGINEERING pso.acCT Pef tAO
&i N
TABLE A.3 RHR PIPE MOMENT RESULTANTS (UNIT - I-FT)
---4
-D' -
- FIR..
a-impeLL r4c T
£.
f & IPCL L NCT Ah C-~L JC
~
3 418 I.3 155 1To a
tr 4g MS
$30 1.%6 f147-
- 1
- i~oT 7461
- -919 046' 6
1 fo 50 1.%
ao 65~i 9
6209 9
441 6
1.0 114 1q4 i.oo igo (4&
11 to lool
,of t.i 1.I 145 b'I a.z5 14 1162 419
[.l 174 140
'.14 l
137 10 15o M3 62 ao' 1?
1110 (00 4i3 I-4.41?
465 0.o 11 -30 39 409 0 o.9 I7 4_2*
41 b li 1161 1420
.93 450 07 o-9 531 34
.f4 20 14?o 110 07 610
%f.oS ;(.4 z~~~~~~~~
1 2
3 19.
443p q
o O
zz 611 13V& 0.
of
- l7f 11c4.q0 (4 1 4 f i9 24 1 '0%
141 I. Z 6o08
/1&o IAJj
- 1.
25 r7?4d 1097 C4f3 6 15 7413 1.0 o97 4 14(B SE 4r4?
6417 CF3 2101-7141 0qg' 4
,og oqa iI~ 67i1! 0.83 22q1 2441 0 10 1I lop
- 4 4653 o8?
2 'b6 2 I6 I-c5 1031 1! 60o cg' 46 419 016 g 4C 1i52. 1,04 26-1 1 iw5 o.q 9 1551 15o7455 2,r g
.R Io C219 o
42 048 19 40.Y A9t z
u n ori rc
NCT ENGINEIERING C,06aPV.nw my c,*rC.KCDy Y _____________
caIT4LI w
TABLE A.3 PHR PIPE MOMENT RESULTANTS (UMIT sf-Fl)_____________
WO-GCvf H
-i a -
-I E m fl H
c & c t1 411 4t bV
~
(61,Z LO9i 1060 1~o 101 51 Q55l 69o' 14ol i142 1,
Y~q 3o6
-1 1.11
[018 R33
-19
NCT EN3NEERING c
ACoT i%CE B
HDAEFT tooy TABLE A.3 WIR SUPPORT FORCES (UNIT = LB)
N. IMpenL NcT corc Imert wcT
.c reLL N r1 c
a
(<.f..
m*..
- TH.
- rM.
- [.
-r~g.
-64 vas lb S.f1 1*8* 4 6.4 111!
11,1 6r7.1 16.o' 18 16.1 1 6 674
+4g.o r45) s.
651 1, A re 414.o to I 5
15.2 7.17.
.z 3741 0.99.15 40, Z5I
'e1, 197.5 (.Co q4-6 0.90 55*
6fq.2
.13 7
110 IS o.15 2A I 24.8 Let 2to Z014.9 o.
10.J 1.1 1,EA 174 196.9 Il 11 el5 4.c6 6o.3. (.4 Ii 1 3.3 1.67 o.;.
0 365 If IS 0.q 1411 fSe4I 0c4 415 5i7.1.
'I 47 4q7. '05 10.1
'p31 as
- 29.
1 12 41 14-:
1,65 at 1-1 05 0-f. z.e 13 179
- 161, 0.99 114&
1?1 D.'3 441 5A7.6 a.l4 14I 6
11Oo.Al 1b 1I5 o
4 I.
I5 411 ZZf 0.64 607
.-6 3
04
'6151 2r5.
0.91 qW4.
.4 0 6,g 1
Z605z c.)
6
- 55 I-o5 745 00.5 DIT.
464 451.1 0.11 o.5 0.07 4W(o 494f 0.94 19 11 1o4
(,06 67F 6642.q I.01 1,
.77 C.1I Io 1r 114-9 1-47 66.2, 1.41 10 70 D80 0.f tv 15 72't I 11 Z1 D0.4 116& bq 0.
1.04
-2 f) 2.6 1, 11o
NCT 1ENGINEMERING COOAPVTED Dy--
CMEKE DY
_____________-mv TABLE A.3 RHR SUPPORT FORCES_(UNIT L B)
.4 "y wort 0
WT. VI, VAReb~~'.
r~.flfi wI1T S C( C WIN w NCOT mr IMPLL Nd* f £&
q?4.
?
K i
c4 6o I
14: 1144 4h 1.$
oliyt
- 4jj, 0.1 i2
=
Coy.
0.415 CT~~
14 6
3.0
.I.I I
Frequency (Hz)
FIGURE A-1 History 2. Top of Sacrificial Shield (Horiz-XdZ) 3%
-22
2.0 1.5 1.0 5
0 0ar)O0 Frequency (Hz)
FIGURE A-2 History 2. Top of Sacrificial Shield (Vert-Y) 3%
23 -
I aI.
-~ d JO I
a I
S I.
S I
4
~ I U.
I.
I
~*S.
C
-~
L 9eJ U
U C.
Li:.
- ~-
C-.
C c-s.
.~
- .c FIGURE A-3 Horizontal Flow Time History 24
I I
- a.
I I
1*
4 St I
a I
I I
191 L
I I
I I
I I
I S
~
I..
U...
C 1
LI U
~-
7 C
FIGURE A-A Vertical Flow Time History 25
APPENDII I IMPELL ANALYSIS RESULTS The Analysis Results data transmitted by Impell for the test problem include:
o Piping moment resultants for the pipe element specified in the text.
o All pipe support loads of the piping model.
26 -
Le AD tEll t-A k-7 10ai 5oI71)l
~r19 iti
-Z 592 I95
_g_
5 5
197
-711.
S
?o4 I90
__o_
17 If2.12.
(__I o1 14.8 I
- 22.
%r2.
a16I q
2.7 6oo
%5 LO___
o~O61 S'709 o__
4577 70/
1117 4s$'15 L%6w, I'
3 3
39 6I1 M
Joe N Ojo o
PAGE By DATE C4ECKED D
LM)Thoor whp W ic b
-4 o f1,14n i u 17 z
ZZ94 12.b 4A 72.7 3555
- o__,
91_
4225 or(V, 41 4 ;
4o3C.
I1(,s7 55
_525 1526 1_
(
57 6o 955
/617 ss Y7 4_
si to w lieso? 7U1T 6 IN PEtLy -
PG E-V by-DATE CECKED DATE ccou__
28 -
WS ARAccoNS Afr gte
/x OAD.
Loo%#
Fx__ /,
F__
__P__,,
Fx
_ r 74 ff 2%,
17
% - stto a
Y 7o IIFF lt4'M~
I 01
-7 (ax) 2 7
so 3*
7 2_
1471 Aco.
/2-47 2n..
10
-~
mln d
3oIW (7
5I7ZI 7
C" 5
3 75__
_r n
.__r 27.0 v
I670 t-7 ri
V IL ell Joswo P
~
u1 r~tI 4ba CALC NO
~LL
- ~
__I~vLLL1A 0
REV my DATE
_CKED]
VAn 0