ML20024A683
| ML20024A683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1983 |
| From: | TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024A676 | List: |
| References | |
| 5960-3, NUDOCS 8306220053 | |
| Download: ML20024A683 (31) | |
Text
~
SeTri m(NE ENGNEERING SERVICES Enclosure I e
RESPONSES TO NRC REQUEST FOR INFORMATION MARK 1 TORUS PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE REPORT YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR STATION JUNE 10, 1983 8306220053' EI30617 PDR ADOCK 05000271 P PDR
.. . - - , . , . . , . . . . . , ~ . .. .
~ . - . s
" vet 51 PTT(NE
, 1983
$$_3 -2_ ENGINEERING SERVICES ITEM 1 QUESTION Provide a summary of the analysi's and the results for the following penetrations:
e Vent pipe torus intersection e Vacuum breaker line and RCIC torus penetration ANSWER The vent pipe is isolated fromi the torus at their intersection by a large diameter bellows. Therefore, the torus shell is essentially isolated from the vent pipe Mark 1 torus loads. The bellows deflections from the original and Mark 1 loads are approximately 10 percent of the allowable design deflections.
Therefore, the combined effect of loads defined by the LDR does not produce stresses greater than 10 percent of the allowable value and no further evalua-tion is required.
The TES Torus Attached Piping Technical Report (TR-5319-2) is scheduled for release by Yankee Atomic Electric Company during the f all of 1983. This report will contain a summary of the analysis and results for all torus attached piping penetrations, including the drywell/wetwell vacuum breaker i
line and RCIC piping penetrations.
i
. ITEM 2 l QUESTION i
i Comment on the effect of the neglected loads indicated on page 66 of Reference 4 on the stress results for the drywell-to-vent penetration.
l i
L ___
SPTn m(NE U
jy_3'1983 _3_
ENGINEERING SERVICES ANSWER The original loads on the drywell-vent pipe intersection, due to seismic and thermal . response of the drywell, were not available when the PUA for the torus was issued. The effects of seismic and thermal response using original calculation methods has now been considered with torus loads without exceed-ing code allowables in that area.
The next revision to the PUA report will include the Seismic and Thermal in the stress summary. The following is a summary of the local membrane stress to be reported: .
Pl = 23108 psi < 28950 psi, Allowable ITEM 3 QUESTION Provide evidence that the fatigue criteria for the bellows, as required by s
Paragraph HE-3365-2, Section III of the ASME B&PV Code, are met.
ANSWER l
TES has reported that the maximum calculated differential motion across the bellows is less than 10% of the rated movements for the rated cycles l
(A1000) . BasedonEJMA(*)fatiguedataofunreiuforcedausteniticbellows,
! the permissible cycles for the present condition are well in excess of the endurance limit ( 4 (10)6 cycles). Therefore, the condition does not impact i the fatigue acceptability of the bellows.
(*) Standard of the Expansion Joint Manufacturers Assoc., Inc.
l
! Fifth Edition, 1980.
l
'MTri m(NE jQ_j'1983 _4_ ENGINEERING SERVCES ITEM 4 QUESTION Provide a summary of the analysis with regard to the vacuum breaker valves; indicate whether they are considered Class 2 components as required by the criteria (1).
ANSWER The work recently completed for the wetwell/drywell vacuum breaker valves indicates that they do not actuate during a chugging event at Vermont Yankee. Therefore, no additional analysis beyond the original plant design scope is required at the present time.
The USNRC is in the process of reviewing the Mark 1 wetwell/drywell vacuum breaker valve loading transients. Any revisions to the loading tran-sients which may result from this review will be evaluated for the Vermont Yankee vacuum breaker valves when the NRC review is completed.
ITEM 5 ,
QUESTION Provide analyses of the piping systems not included in this report.
ANSWER The analysis techniques used, piping stresses, support loads and required modifications will be summarized within TES Technical Report TR-5319-2. This report is scheduled for release during the fall of 1983.
'RTF1 mVNE
$$_3'1983 _s_ ENGINEERING SERVICES ITEM 6 QUESTION .
~
Provide details of the construction of the SRV line as it exists in the
-Vermont Yankee plant, specifically in the region of the elbow support, if any.
ANSWER The details of the Safety Relief Valve Discharge Line elbow support and a typical isometric of an SRVDL are included for your review. Note that all four SRVDL's are identical from t,he vent pipe penetration to the quencher support.
ITEM 7 QUESTION Describe the end conditions assumed for the beam model of the vent header deflector shown in page 4-5, how these were derived, and the sensitivity of maximum calculated stresses to boundary assumptions.
ANSWER The Vermont Yankee Vent Header Deflector is a continuous structure through the 16 torus bays. Figures 2-6 and 2-7 of the PUA Report (TR-5319-1) illustrate the end connection details. The 16-inch deflector pipe slides into a short stub which is welded to the vertical deflector support plate. This connection arrangement does not allow moment transfer; therefore, analysis was performed assuming each span was simply supported.
Figure 4-5 of the same report was intended primarily to show the level of load that is applied to the V.Y. vent header model. It creates a misleading impression regarding the analysis assumptions that were used.
SPTF I FTT(NE ENGINEERING SERVICES The analysis was actually performed for the uniform 2.9 Kip per foot load applied to a simply supported beam 19.5 feet long. This non-vent bay analysis bounds that of the vent bay and was used for both.
ITEM 8 QUESTION Provide a detailed sketch of the actual diagonal brace-catwalk attach-ment, together with its stress analysis results.
ANSWER We are including, as a part of this package, a set of catwalk drawings which contain the actual diagonal brace-catwalk attachment. Item 9 below discusses stress / buckling results for this structure. A summary of the stress analysis results for other major components appear in Section 7.0 of the PUAR.
ITEM 9 QUESTION Provide the results of the buckling analysis, including the margin of safety for the catwalk components, i.e., the 4-inch diameter schedule 80 pipe i
supports and the 2-inch pipe brace.
ANSWER l
l The buckling analysis results for the Vermont Yankee catwalk supports are as follows:
- 1. The new vertical support leg, four-inch schedule 80 pipe, has a i
maximum compressive load of 9.2 K with an allowable buckling capa-
- city of 132.0 K. The margin of safety is equal to 13.35.
l I
~
a --- -
'RTri FrWNE June 10, 1983 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5960-3 2. The new diagonal braces, all four per bay, are four-inch schedule 80 pipe, have a maximum compressive load of 15.3 K with and allowable buckling capacity of 77.6 K. The margin of safety is equal to 4.07.
ITEM 10 QUESTION Provide full justification for the stress values shown as representative of those that may occur in the containment shell mitre joint. Establish limits of maximum possible error. ,
ANSWER Early in the Mark 1 program it was decided that not modeling the four-inch offset strip between the ring girder and mitre joint was technically justified, and, in fact, might produce more accurate results if it was omitted.
A technical concern that was avoided by omitting this four-inch strip was one related to the substantial change in grid size and pattern. The torus model responds primarily to ring and cylinder modes of the shell. We knew from early experience with this model, that the combination of the thin shell l and very high water mass produced sensitive mode shapes. Our concern was that the transition from a very small grid near the ring girder to the much larger grid that would be required on the free shell might affect these sensitive modes and would have an uncertain effect on all results. It was not practical to carry the refined mesh throughout the entire model.
l- In fact, the four-inch wide strip is closer to two inches wide. The four-inch dimension includes half the saddle thickness, the saddle-to-shell weld and the mitre joint weld. We attempted to instrument this regi.on in one of our in-plant SRV tests, but did not have room to install the strain gages.
l
'RTF1 fry /NE June 10, 1983 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5960-3 In addition to these practical limitations, we believe the assumption is technically justified based on the following information regarding shell stresses.
The stress analysis that TES has completed confirms the following:
e All major loadings on the torus shell are in the form of a uniform or hydrostatic pressure distribution.
e The primary membrane stress can be calculated using basic strength of materials and will be' maximum at mid-bay bottom dead center of the torus shell.
e It follows that the maximum membrane stress cannot occur in the four-inch offset str.ip of shell in question.
e All bending stresses in the region .of the ring girder or mitre joint, including the four-inch offset strip may be considered to be secondary because of the gross structural discontinuity.
e Since there is no primary bending, it follows that the maximum primary local plus bending stress in this region must be less than
( the maximum membrane stress and will therefore meet the increased
( allowable.
e The maximum total stress (primary plus secondary) range occurs in the region of the shell adjacent to the ring girder. Since the membrane stresses are reduced in this region, the range'of stress would result from the local bending produced by the increased stif-fness of the saddle and ring girder.
e The bending of the shell wauld be symnetric about the two sides of the ring girder if the four-inch offset strip was not present.
l
"RTA FrWNE SE_3'1983 _g_ ENGINEERING SERVCES e The torus structure may be considered a beam fixed at the ring girder for purposes of this discussion. The increased stiffness of the mitre joint should, therefore, result in lower bending stresses in the. torus shell to the mitre side of the ring girder. A review of the shell analysis results adjacent to the ring girder for the five TES plants was completed. The margin of safety on total stress for the plants ranges from .27 to 1.31. The additional margin is more than adequate to support any unexpected increase in total stress which may occur in the four-inch offset strip.
e It follows that the range of total stress on the, mitre side of the ring girder must be less than the range reported to the opposite side which was analyzed.
e The fatigue evaluation was completed with a stress intensification-factor of four (the maximum SIF required by the Code). All elements analyzed exhibited usage factors less than 10 percent of the allow-able, remote from the torus attached piping penetrations.
9 The conclusion of this study is that it is not possible to produce a stress intensity within the four-inch offset strip between.the ring girder and t ,
mitre joint which will exceed those allowable values reported.
,1 i
l '
ITEM 11
~
lt QUESTION Provide a list of the componenc materials and their corresponding metal temperatures used for the stress limit selection.
l ANSWER The torus structure and major components were evaluated at a temperature of 200 F. This temperature conservatively bounds the maximum temperature obtained from the Plant Unique Load Definition (Reference 10 of PUA) at 1720p,
- \
g i
SPTA m(NE jQ_j,1983 10 ENGNEERING SERVICES The major component materials are as follows:
A 516 Gr 70 Torus Shell Support Columns
, Ring Girder
- Saddle Support Earthquake Restraints 1
Drywell Vent System
,' Vent Pipe Vent Header Downcomers A 333 Gr 1
- o 1
/-
Vent Heador Support Columns A 333 Gr 6 Vent Header Deflector
.;-e D
,i
^
[ '
ITEM 12
-QUESTION I
, ', Indicate whether each torus attached piping and its supports have been i
+
,e r 7, . classified as Class 2 or Class 3 piping, Class 2 or Class 3 component sup-
' ports, and essential or non-essential piping systems. Also, indicate whether
-/ ,
a pump or valve associated with the piping mentioned above is an active or
- ). r inactive component, and is considered operable.
} .
r WTri prWNE 0
jQ_3'1983 _13 ENGINEERING SERVICES ANSWER Al', Vermont Yankee Torus Attached Piping systems have been classified as essential Class 2 piping systems and all components associated with these sys-tems are considered active, for purposes of these analyses and evaluations.
ITEM 13 QUESTION With reference to Table 1 of Appendix B, indicate whether all loads have been considered in the analysis and/or provide justification, if any load has been neglected.
ANSWER All loads shown on Table 1 of Appendix B in the PUA report have been considered in the analysis, except those that were specifically identified and discussed in the report. Discussion of these exceptions'follows:
CONTdINMENTSTRUCTUREANALYSIS All loads were analyzed on the torus shell with the exception of the post chugging load. Analysis done on one of the TES plants produced very low stresses and loads that were bounded by pre-chug values. Additional work published (Ref.12 PUA Report) showed that pre-chug bounded 'O' -hug (to 50 Hz) for column and saddle loads. It also showed that P1 + Pb 6s due to post chug exceeded pre-chug by 53%. TES analysis for post chug used the pre-chug stress values which may be increased by 53% and still meet allowable stress. (Taken from Section 3.0 of the PUAR).
The attached piping reaction loads on the torus shell will be con-sidered in the Torus Attached Piping (TAP) Technical Report (TR-5319-2).
These loads are a function of the final piping configuration. The local stresses will be added to the exirting state of stress for the appropriate region of the torus shell.
"R TF1 m(NE June 10, 1983 5960-3 ENGINEERING SERVICES VENT HEADER SYSTEM (The following are taken from Section 4.0 of the PUAR).
The following vent system loads were not analyzed:
o Pool Swell Drag LOCA Jet Forces The vent header support columns are loaded by forces from LOCA-Jet and LOCA-Bubble drag. By inspection, it was con-cluded that LOCA-Jet loads would not combine with water impact on the vent system,due to differences in timing and, there-fore, would not contribute to the maximum stress calculations.
e Submerged Structure Drag (Support Columns Only)
Examination of the load combinations that include chugging makes it clear that these cannot control maximum stress level in the support columns; combinations that include vent header water impact will produce much higher stresses. For this reason, stresses in the vent header support columns were not calculated for chugging drag.
e Drag Forces on Support Columns Inspection of approximate total loads on support columns due to CO, CH and pool swell showed that condensation oscillation would not contribute to the maximum column load, due to dif-ferences in timing.
e Condensation Oscillation - IBA Stresses and loads resulting from IBA condensation oscillation are bounded in all cases by either DBA condensation oscilla-tion or chugging.
J
SPTF1 pry (NE jQ_$0'1983 _13_ ENGINEERING SERVICES OTHER STRUCTURES (The following are taken from Section 7.0 of the PUAR).
All direct loads were applied to the torus catwalk. Indirect effects, due to motion of the ring girder at attachment points were considered, but judged to be negligible. Except for the handrails, the entire catwalk is submerged before froth , loads reach this part of the torus; because of this, froth was only considered on the handrails.
The internal spray header is attached to the ring girders and to a penetration on the shell. The motion of the ring girder that results from pool swell loads on the shell was considered but judged to be a negligible input to the spray header. Shell displacement at the nozzle connections was input to the computer analysis. The spray header is high enough in the torus so it does not experience direct water impact; froth is the only pool swell
. related load that was applied.
ITEM 14 QUESTION Provide a summary of the analyses for the new modifications yet to be supplied; these include items 5, 6, 10, 12 and 15 of the key for Figures 2.3 and 2.4 of Reference 4. In addition, if the final configuration of the catwalk is to be changed, update the analysis accordingly.
ANSWER Items 6,10,12 and 15 on Figures 2.3 and 2.4 of the PUA pertain to Torus Attached Piping analyses. These items will be summarized in the TAP Technical Report TR-5319-2 scheduled to be issued in the fall of 1983.
SOTF1FIWNE NE-3'1983 ENGINEERING SERVICES Item 5, the Vent Header to Downcomer Stiffener stresses are bounded by those summarized in Section 4.4.1 of the PUA. The detailed vent header model as shown in Figure 4-1 includes the stiffeners.
Since the PUAR was issued, a decision was made to remove most of the catwalk at vermont Yankee. The catwalk has been removed from fourteen bays and only remains in the two bays where the access hatches exist. The non-vent bay portion of the 1/16 STARDYNE model was removed and the vent bay portion has been re-analyzed. A list of the catwalk modifications follows:
- 1. 4 x 4 angle support legs changed to four-inch schedule 80 pipe, pinned at both ends.
- 2. Addition of four four-inch schedule 80 pipe diagonal braces, pinned at both ends.
- 3. Additional 7 x 1/2 plate welded to the existing 4 x 3 angle .for lateral stiffness.
- 4. Additional 3/4 inch steel rod or equivalent, added to increase horizontal stiffness.
- 5. New cable handrails and posts.
- 6. Adaitional hold-down plates for grating.
- 7. Removal of the ladders during plant operation.
The report will be revised to reflect the new stress results. A summary of these results are as follows:
1
'A P W NE June 10, 1983 ENGNEERING SERVCES 5960-3 e Main Frame Pool Swell + SRV + Seismic + Weight (Case 25)
Bending + Axial Stress = 24,400 psi, 40,600 psi allowabl'e a Support Columns, Support Diagonal Braces and End Joints Pool Swell + SRV + Seismic + Weight (Case 25)
Bending Stress of Outboard Diagonal Brace = 18,445 psi, 42,000 poi allowable e Welds to Ring Girder Pool Swell + SRV + Seismic + Weight (Case 25)
Tensile Stress = 18,264 psi, 42,000 psi allowable ITEM 15 QUESTION Provide details of f atigue analysis for piping systems.
Indicate whether the fatigue usage factors for the SRV piping and the torus attached piping are sufficiently small that a plant-unique fatigue analysis is not warranted fce piping. The NRC is expected to review the conclusions of a generic presentation (6) and determine whether it is suffi-cient for each plant-unique analysis to establish that the expected usage l
factors for piping are small enough to obviate a plant-unique fatigue analysis of the piping.
ANSWER ,
TES has provided typical fatigue information to the Mark 1 Owners' Group generic study for all five of the plants for which we are analyzing torus
SPTA AWNE June 10, 1983 ENGNEERING SERVCES 5960-3 attached piping. Therefore, the conclusion of the generic presentation to the NRC, which established that the f atigue usage f actors are small enough to obviate a plant-unique fatigue analysis, applies. We anticipate NRC agree-ment with the generic presentation, shortly.
ITEM 16 QUESTION Submit a summary of the analysis for the miscellaneous internal piping.
ANSWER The following is a summary of the maximum stresses associated with the miscellaneous torus inter'nal piping:
Maximum Allowable Load Item Stress Type (PSI) Conditions Main Junction 12850 Bending 21600 DL + SSE I + FRTHIA Box (No. 855)
! Thermocouple 18080 Bending 27000 DL + SSE I + FRTHIA
! Junction Box Dewcell Support 2117 Bending 21600 DL + SSE I RTD Support 10690 Bending 27000 DL + SSE I l Thermocouple 17874 Bending 27600 DL + SSE I + IMP +
Support ,
DRG + MH 3/4"fConduit 18641 Bending 27000 DL + SSE I + FRTHIA Supports on Ring Girders Support for Main 3891 Tension 16000 DL + SSE I + FRTHIA Power Cables (from penetration to main junction box)
Supports on Monorail ,
"RTri pnYNE
-17_ ENGINEERING SERVICES
- Definitions DL - Deadload ,
SSE I - Safe Shutdown Inertia FRTHIA - Froth Load (Region lA)
IMP - Impact Load DRG-Drag (SubmergedStructure)
MH - Hydrodynamic Load (Associated with Impact)
ITEM 17 QUESTION The ASME Code provides an acceptance procedure for computing fatigue usage when a member is subject to cyclic loadings of random occurrence, such as might be generated by excitations from more than one type of event (SSE and SRV discharge, for example). This procedure requires correction of the stress-range amplitudes considered and of the associated number of cycles in order to account for the interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character.
State whether or not the reported usages reflect use of this method. If not, indicate the effect on reported results.
ANSWER The fatigue analysis of the torus shell does correct the stress-range amplitudes and associated number of cycles to account for the interspersion of stress cycles of unlike character. The reported usage factors do reflect the use of this method.
It should be pointed out, however, that the usage factors reported do not contain the fatigue usage factors at the Torus Attached Piping Penetrations.
l The fatigue analysis for the TAP penetrations will be discussed in detail in l TES Technical Report TR-5319-2 scheduled for issue in the fall of 1983.
i w
WTA m(NE June 10, 1983 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5960-3 ITEM 18 QUESTION Justify the reason for not considering skew symmetric boundary condi-tions in the analysis of the torus shown in Figure 3.1. Evaluate the effect of the thus neglected modes.
ANSWER It has been our position that the geometry of the torus structure, the nature of the loads imposed, and the constraints imposed by the support saddles and ring girder will force the symmetric modes to dominate shell response to the extent that asymmetric modes can be omitted; the logic follows:
The nature of the loads was considered first. Most Mark 1 loads are both vertical and uniform.- For these loads, asymmetric modes clearly are not excited. The loads which do not satisfy this description are SRV, asymmetric chugging and horizontal earthquake.
Of these loads, earthquake is a static load, so the question of mode shapes does not apply. (Seismic analysis of the restraint system was done on a 360 model (ref. Figure 3.4, PUAR). Chugging consists of two components, pre-chug and post chug; the post chug component of chugging is a small load and is bounded by pre-chug for all stresses controlled by gross structural response (ref. para. 3.0, PUAR). Therefore, SRV and asymmetric pre-chug are the two loads which must be addressed.
Although these loads are not uniform, they always produce pressures that are in-phase in adjacent bays. Such a loading will produce response controlled primarily by symmetric modes. This is especially true if we consider the fact that both these loads can exist anywhere within a frequency band, but must be assumed to reside at the single worst fre-quency in that range. Because of the in-phase characteristic of the
"RTn m(NE June 10, 1983 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5960-3 load, that worst single frequency will be one associated with a symmetric mode, not an asymmetric one. On this basis, asymmetric modes were considered to be unnecessary.
It is also true that the use of symmetric boundary conditions implies that the load is uniform, and because of that, introduces some conserva-tism in results. We believe this conservatism more than compensates for the small error that may be associated with neglecting asymmetric mode shapes.
ITEM 19 QUESTION Specific comments addressing the method of summation used and its com-pliance with the probability of non-exceedance (PNE) criteria of 84% stated in para. 6.3b of Reference 1 should be incorporated into the text.
ANSWER As we understand the question, it relates to use of the cumulative distribution function in combining dynamic load effects. The cumulative distribution function method of combining any two structural responses has not been used for any analysis. All combinations of two separate dynamic loads were done by absolute sum.-
ITEM 20 QUESTION Provide justification for analyzing only one SRV discharge line, as shown in Section 6.0 of Reference 4. Indicate whether all discharge lines are identical in configuration to the one modeled, and whether the model investi-gated is conservative enough to represent all lines.
'RTn rrT(NE -
ENGINEERING SERVICES
$5_3'1983 _20_
ANSWER Analysis of the SRV discharge line has been done and will be reported as two separate analyses. Analysis of the quencher, quencher supports and piping in the torus is reported in TES Technical Report TR-5319-1. Analysis of the vent pipe penetration and all upstream piping and supports will be reported in TR-5319-2, scheduled for release later this year.
This separation is possible because stresses in the piping and structure in the torus are controlled by water clearing and pool drag loads alone.
Stresses in the penetration and the#drywell are affected by all loads, includ-ing gas clearing. The separation of analysis was made to provide early results for torus wetwell piping, which previously had been identified by the NRC as an area of concern.
The portion of the SRVDL shown in Figure 6-1 of the PUAR is identical for all Vermont Yankee discharge lines.
ITEM 21 QUESTION Submit a summary of the analysis for the vacuum breaker and its penetration.
ANSWER The vacuum breaker piping and penetration analysis for the torus and vent pipe penetrations will be contained in the Torus Attached Piping Technical Report TR-5319-2 scheduled for release by Yankee Atomic Power Company in the f all of 1983.
WTri mYNE
$8_j0,198 -21_ ENGINEERING SERVICES ITEM 22 QUESTION 0
Justify that the 45 model of the vent' header and downcomer used in the analysis is adequate to meet the intent of the criteria which requires at least 180 .
Justify the reasons for not considering skew symmetric boundary condi-tions to evaluate the effect of the resulting modes.
ANSWER ,
A generic analysis was performed using a 180 segment vent system beam model with symmetric boundary conditions for the appropriate asymmetric loading cases. The two loading cases considered are synchronized chugging and static seismic.
The static seismic values of 0.179 horizontal and 0.lg vertical used envelop the original plant design seismic spectra for the five TES plants analyzed (Nine Mile Point, Millstone, Vermont Yankee, Fitzpatrick and Pilgrim).
The combined seismic and chugging stresses of the 180 segment model are 0
less than the combined stresses of the 45 segment model because of the conservative assumptions used to apply the anti-symmetric chugging load on the 45 model.
The ratios of the combined seismic and chugging stress of the 180 /45 models are:
970 psi /7851 psi = 0.13 for the downcomers 3630 psi /6020 psi = 0.6 for the vent headers l
r I
{
I 1
June 10, 1983 "RTri Frh'NE 5960-3 ENGNEERING SERVICES Therefore, the combined stress analysis reported in the PVAR using the results from the 45 model is conservative.
ITEM G1 QUESTION Describe fully the procedures used to assess cumulative f atigue damage.
In particular, address:
- 1. Where departures from standard code procedure were introduced.
- 2. How critical points were selected and how stress (or stress inten-sity) ranges were computed.
- 3. Which cyclic loads were omitted, if any, in these computations. For example, were thermal transients given consideration?
- 4. Whether cyclic amplitudes and the associated number of cycles were adjusted to account for the interspersion of cycles of unlike char-acter.
l l 5. How the cumulative usage factor was computed.
l f
- 6. What impact departures from code procedures have on the n'argins of safety shown for each component for which cumulative usage was l computed.
L i
ANSWER I
The following items highlight the major considerations used to assess the cumulative fatigue damage for the torus structure. A description of the, actual procedure used is described in Section 3.2.7 Fatigue Analysis of the 1
l
- 0. - . - . . - - . . - . - _ - . . _ .
WTA FfWNE June 10, 1983 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5960-3 -PUAR. The Fatigue Analysis of the torus was completed using the procedures set forth in Section NE-3221.5 " Analysis for Cyclic Operation" of the ASME BPVC.
e The cumulative fatigue usage f actors were conservatively calculated using the maximum stress intensification factor recognized by the ASME BPVC of 4.0.
e The maximum alternating stress intensity for a particular loading event is calculated independently of other loading events (Sa =
Sr/2). The alternating stress intensities are then conservatively combined by absolute summation. We are, therefore, assuming that each loading case will increase the magnitude of the stress range for the number of cycles over which it acts.
e Critical points were chosen based on the stress analysis. Those elements in the region of the torus shell which exhibited the maxi-mum membrane, bending and total stress intensity as shown in Figure 3-9 of the PUA were analyzed for fatigue.
e Section 3.2.3.2 on Post Chugging indicated that pre-chug stress values for the torus bounded post chug. Therefore, the fatigue analysis was completed using the pre-chugging stresses. The dura-tion of loading'for both chugging events is identical.
e Thermal transients were not given consideration. Item G2 addresses this subject.
e The torus attached piping penetrations will be addressed for fatigue in TES Technical Report TR-5319-2.
e As discussed in Item 17, adjustments to the cyclic amplitudes and the associated number of cycles were made.
June 10, 1983
'RTFI m(NE 5960-3 ENGINEERING SERVCES ITEM G2 QUESTION Is the method described in Section 4.3.6 of Reference 4 ior assessing thermal stress typical of all evaluations made in the report?
Please discuss the tacit assumption that either:
- 1. Thermal equilibrium is achieved before other significant mechanical loads are experienced by the structure.
Or
- 2. Maximum transient thermal stresses are conservatively bounded by the assumptions made.
ANSWER The resultant alternating stress intensity from one cycle of LOCA ther-mal transient event will not significantly affect the magnitude of the cumula-tive fatigue usage factor. The following discussion is provid'ed to support our decision not to consider the thermal transient events and complete our fatigue analysis with steady state thermal results where required.
The ASME BPVC NE 3221.5 Analysis for Cyclic Operation, Section (d) Ve;sels l not Requiring Analysis for Cyclic Service, Number (4) Temperature Difference -
l Similar Material states:
A temperature difference fluctuation shall be considered to be signifi-cant if its total algebraic range exceeds the quantity S/E Cel
'RTF1 Mi tNE June 10,1987: - ' ENGINEERING SERVCES 5960-3 . /!
where S is the value of Sa obtained from the applicable design fatigue curve for (10)6 cycles.
For carbon steel, this quantity is, approximately 70 F.
The PULD temperature transients for the five plants which were analyzed by TES were reviewed with the following results:
e All wetwell and drywell temperature transients for the SBA and IBA events were less than 70 F.
O e All wetwell temperature' transients for the DBA events were less than 70 F. -
e The maximum DBA drywell transient of the five plants considered was 217 F.
Therefore, the only transient of concern is the DBA drywell temperature.
The major portion of the DBA transient occurs very early in the event (within the first 1.5 seconds) while pool swell is still in progress. Since the PUAAG does not require that the DBA pool swell events be considered for the f atigue analysis or primary plus secondary stress intensity range, the temperature transient may be excluded from further consideration.
? e
! The effects of the Transient Thermal Conditions associated with the LOCA related events can, therefore, be excluded from further consideration.
I i
b wamu m wwm n
r --
~~
l _ _ _ _
mr -- ~
Desrtt6 7 p, . :5*MA$ 194TERGECTl0W a _ so'.s . ANGLE I' M sea -
N [ "T 41Liffit44r l10 + SCH so PIPC
@@$ % m , V
.g . ~ <. a n s
v%
1 -s'ia'" -
r ite 8F OG9t'IpiG W12.s65d
, /W~
- o g -
M
- -22#
m w. .w, tra .
ii _u m== ' ~ 5 ,
i
== ='q , % i \\ st V % oewco 1 g
- wEm oema 3 y \ '
4-- sroot nccs @.
m * %
)
/\ $T
-mn-<= %8e*4%:N % ~g
====*
s~ -
gg __ gp r, m ~
(22-7h
/\'5L
)
L g WELD DETAIL'E' ma g, c, .
xWP6*g R C$g (Zyh 1 -uc o it
'b NT E - bi!-
we65 4
. _ _ E A_ __ _ . . -
l ^o
@SPCOt. PLECE
~
N (n-% % '
( (Es) f(1twtus,swmaBEADA, h _'
8 l W quENWER A
' S -s -
i RtNG C4RDER th rM4 Actual OR\b.1550E PER E I4- D
- PLAN VIEW l
0 ggeg gg . gg [sg 42og 5 3.e2 d//,
REY. DESCRIPTION SY CHKD APPil*D OQAD b
, Also Available On Aperture Card
1 St t' (FTQuENCHER M6y. O A I; a r- - - ._.,,m_ _ _ .
MPPusD EP( 9.E'. f
~
^ '
' T N6TAl.1ED EP( C.Bl oi
- Rust 104 sett so pipe *n, P" **
- A 9 et. zW-elt 1 3-t"8 teureuse of v5umao*&T YA 4K84 I 32-1 -
sesrAu.so of cas 4 iot sa 90tRedELeow%'% 6 A 4 StrsP SuPruto el VERMDetT YANKE%'
- , mMTALLED EN C64 '
le 51D D FL(sestasser h. - 4 0 4% M 4L ' C T
,' A-- ^
{ .
h 16 22-0
.. e I ; ; se s. xmn:
(soepuso at vtsmont. Wts) .
+ ext *A zo sza %.4 levy Pt.9*e ssoionseem a *. - c %
y ee c, %
- Otun so st s 1We* t.n soi.T w sw.~
,e 4t.wisA ro se.g. %d HvTwastavve ' Iso.ecq -
as c e6e.1 f6 se17. Vwvvexam o= %4 sromas. *. m - c p Sumisn sy vusemenst- mee.Ker, j .
- C l
'Y )1632-t3 Fs.AT WAsnER 2 X% E83f l 0 l T. '
I .h N, l
- 7 g mvmr si sAes vs.assrs.
(SoPPLIED BY VEftNONT VANMEE.)
3 - -
) ** *' M
\
.hK _
- n. ni . d wngs:
- ms c't amua'-
) *$ PIPtLSfl : 3 2. TYPE 3o4 i
k P)veau tws owe.O cwes ts-ts (so t)*tw.t.c.on ,o iome. =cta as i
-.* cxx. Pieut sov am*Ebanve. wepee,vmbiim, cotoc emn.e,.en espett n.M-il. . even ecct, enssim,,es esa b oce s.*s' A.....L
\- !
4)st one.t roe saimme, or vaauereonst Atso poerts@
g) nti n Cu1 (4) SRV f.ao46 CutENt4084 *tEKE. % nO'h.pt
,ese espw W j 'og o' e nan mstmu. i.esee ( aseestos cum 4 ' " "
-h h DnAs E Nervo.nvD N.*
m mnon
~ M i .mi. %r8'E%%u MJ % , e .4 e> = s.o %
ga . gig.5g s ow.uM URN m E ELEVATION VIEW
- 81) FIELD MOVE ExisTiN(, Ba. TING lt RS RE491RE.O HOO TD INSTALA. NEla) u-Bot.TS. CUT Ents r:NG FnAET*
geq WEI.DS AND REPLRCE. Witet Fiu.s.T WG.s.O Sloosaea ;
,,, 3 ,og, gg,g,vayg,4 y,,,,3, (RJtG CARDOR -
- e. .'
4ac .& -
O r=w 3 -
, g
)[h,,, .
_ = _ _ ,
) { .CBI ComT N0. 03581 (5meP) 4 09585 (.F8Et.D)
_._5' M $ h k 1
CWesse BrWes & he Campsey &
s e c -
i.3 nEte tHsTAu.AftoN DETAlt.5 d '
j " FDR SRV UNE am r acacats mu na d nao omu.w-)
T9vear cne ousu.cs l g+
casa s3 veamoNT yANxes 1 ou sorrcm "
~
5920 -9 \ B 4 2 h sm. cWeb i
- p. ~ , - , s. fid$: I n jn r_. . _ = .- _. 32 _.
Jn ,
' RC #
A 3 : 3 -~
l - \ -
oc l\ L i
i
.. CARJ if 3M 22 0 0 63-O/
U i :
. N, n 3 . .
l 1 l
i
( ev... i.. i.s ...r, .. , . t r, , .
g _Ff -
.y .s , g,e - se.,
( i .
...,,i. 4
.. .. m.. . . . r.. .... ., .
. . - x /g .,v .. -
o.X. : -w l / -
-a .- ,.- ,.
,1 . ;.
2 m.- , ( ,- m..u.
- .r ..
t: ...i t.
I e b.. .. :?
s :. - -
.n
, .. :3
- ii .
. . .1 .- i. -
r' e.1 3
1:
an i6 i
,1J.'.'
i ... . ..
. ss x
.. s, t .. . ... .. . 2 @ . .::. .
.g r s r.
.T . @ _l G(. c
.o...- s.w>+- .c- -_-
. - - - . --. a
- s. J V- ,' -
i: p'. y "e i). -i {_^ / ,,
> g(# Q. .d = , . . .. . .'. . e
, ,s, .. ..... ~ . .e. /..e
- 3
, g* ~ss
.....es-n...,
'4 O U
!.er t'
.i.)
,. ,. J. .
(s /T, n , -} -
. l *:-
l
- i. f I * *2'c .- '
,M.,a. ;:
. p.)
s ..,g... -
<a . -. . lL
. .4
.... .s , . s I ...,........ -
l.,,
i
, ' ~~ 3 )'. '.J)c e., . _'- .
s, _ r .,' ...c L SY l l -l' y rp j ~ - Wl .
,p,-a.sy m f) p n., e.
e j . ] , :j v.,- ~.. ;.
_ . . . ... . o c %.. o . ...
\., .\ t . . . .
i
- i. ., ;
.u - - - - .
't W :
< i g
11.e- y ,
s , .. - , , 2 .' ."
l /.,
1 3 TC - l,
' 3_..- t .su r 'c . a l
, i
, , * , ,-. .,,, e, .) .
,,j b ,ae. P :, @
l s
~~
n....-..,s. \ aiv ... : er
.., m< c_ . '*' S.. : .s . . .
(
l .'
n.
_n. --
pl N ,u) . ,,,',. . .
/* 3 -
d .4 l
..s.t s.i6.e . ..ars e# *... ... m. 3 T7 Q r L ;(8) .; ?
Jy ' *
- t**'A '-
,s . .,. d _ ,
.. ...'_. g .g. tied ,4
'I_. f s.
pi:
l ~~
g g l . . ,.4 . -
&Ti 7 .3' i, e
~
I - ' ' - -
rs l i. 2.. . .
sb~ <<.zNX..a . -' .- '.-.
. . ...... . .. , i n m ., . , {,
i -
i i, ne ..~ , .
5 F
N ,
Ns
%.,.,+\
j .
I 1
[ ,:
. NNN ,
- 3l.n..o
- 1 I'
.s N. j ei-d i !I t , .
.. .t . .
n . . :rg
, ,. \ 7- i ,_,
,- @ 3,
" .". z#.,
'j. .;
.t
. , ,-;p.,si . g' r,
\
.. ... .,. .. T._.
'" ' 'i c . . 2 e,W*
...s .
\
Eh I' " 4
-, [$ ((',h . (.h;,4.n; pp" a 4 $3 'N. r, ..
hk d ' N W: r.Lb WW$;i .$ $ fjY~ M.a .
f : _
a
_-9 '
,.. - u ._ ,
e
- 1; '
,...a.. i. . I;i
.v e i .: . . . . . . c ~
- 6. '. 4 al I ll :. .
'g .
g.. _.i_r._y.- b 3 l . I I
.s I
e p _._. d fi9 << .._ 5. _ _ _ !
d.i E- L*J._ J n .
. r. . .c
- t i . .. .. .. . @ c .,... ... x ..... e , (.
..n...
....u... ,,......a.... ..
l m c. ...,,_T_r,-- .
s r.s . ,
4 a b i..... ...
1 e
r
'O
,, .i ...,......,..,........,.m.
.. (
l~
nL - ._1.
! C..*94**.*..*...-.8-*'..e.4*1
.um . ., e . a .. . ,,i .
. ......;.. 1
........w....e. .
.f hh 5 I
1@
e-v.,.:.. ,u.
m
~ ~
m.. e -
1 lt g P.. . .. f g g . . g
~
y*'-
'- ?*1f e.i f s.v . ......
- 3. .- - ,i . r 7 .. a C.3 - d b
8
....et siet E.
.............m.....
.ts n 6.. s o* e ..
6 l 1 L o -d
- 5 * * " I g ***".'.*'.*L.'t*
L a w, 9511 9'C' .. ' I
- -. '- I
. . . . . . ... . o,.o .. . it.
- t. '4
.l . J.
s I o.m .. ... . . g .e.o..
.g.eg
, n . a.. . e ....
.....%..e.,...g...
. .g.
.i.. ,,.4.e J.. 4,.s ... 6 # t.. . . .: . s o. . t..
.J et.u s. .u4.s' , ..
I "
4.
.t.c. ' u..p.. . . b.s . . . k,.
g, .a
,.e.....,.m....9 e: . % .. .s. . . ..s.. ,i g , , - c .. .. .t .. a .
t L . ; .~_- . .:.= ,1- . . .. . .4 g<, r' . f -f. { 4 l.. l \.
--L .i ae_ < w ..
. .r -
......: . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . o i .....
-_+--
- 4. . .. . _li
.c
.p
. . . . 3, . . .
pr -g (,*
, i r ,. &
j $
, Li t *.o C -C , . /
g .__,' ' B.tf "'"-'9' n. t '~a .___...c........ n ...
. M )(
. . t . . . . . . ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . .
T ' rN.. 2:.;;;.*..'?-' "'""'
/ 7547 6
'i j , q,'9 yonour ypera-
.g *; :
.9 e - - - - r e . ar _ . . .
a d.ar
,, s 2.. . .. .....- .....a
.*y ,. .. l
,......2.............. .. ,
s......
. .. . . . u .
i , . ." . Also Avallable On
- 2 :.1
~
i.~ > 2. 7 1 Aerwe t
"/P 1ELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES 0*'o^'c?"",
' or je,manc 1%xee s""'"- PROJ.NO. - {.# ..y'- L' CHKD.DY[ D AT C 3 * * / -
.:.ote rna /.,EV .Jupoor l'
, n u ,3 b y p h / h lO Cl* , i f.D /U!L
.._______s
~,
I T: - :.': Ys ,
>W,' . 1- -% _ . - - -X ,
,7! ll o: , i :o R,', lOl.
..Ol y, ',ts ;
i
!l! lll
- b\
't' +O m
s , h,4 tyf. k., -
- \ ,
i
=
b \
, ,w-c. - .I
\
Tv.T 2 T'tC1
/ s
\
l \ y. l' g. [' " l CC R N [ %
~
f N g
=.
r _f . __ f f* ,__ ,
<% Ty r.
m,
,2 s PLCS.
1/ c
/
r ' .> ' g.s k/-- s
. . . . . .1 1 '
Ol( 1.
. p t
__. /Tt Y I
+ ~
N;7.05. 3, 6 te 0 ~rf;oa A- A
* "A'TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES sy ~~ C[/ *', DATC '!!'!
h em un e Vaa, ke e s"C ET No-A ll or S"
./yc CHKO. BY pc D ATE 2* ,y. o2 s p '
- J n f e rna / OR V lujojou r* b JL o a us-f W/o .r's/, c a hk 4 Si//of i%fe e.l3/s Jor:,.nha. ./ vie rs,:.a / i co ,,, ... l
! D*w Vo \ . . .
\ 3 "6 sc!>. *o p jsc w 6LQ. / 4 crni- A n g I - - - . . .
l i. 4 3 r.v7 .4 % z, L % "x 4*3.D.IP / l
.Wo f f 5 .*
l) Su,bjJurt tr'o :'ls t r:sfly>.13 L pihal s t' 4 JRyf lin e /c a + b n s 4 e e W 9
-4 a O
(
- _. -}}