ML18026A821

Torus Integrity Long-Term Program Plant-Unique Analysis Rept

ML18026A821
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	12/21/1983
From:	Duke S, Rochelle J, Williams J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML18026A822	List: ML18026A821 ML20083G103
References
RTR-NUREG-0661, RTR-NUREG-661 CEB-83-34, CEB-83-34-R, CEB-83-34-R00, NUDOCS 8401060067
Download: ML18026A821 (42)

Text

TVA10752 {EN OES-2W3)

TITLE s Ferry Nuclear Plant rus Integrity Long-Term Program Pl t Unique Analysis Report REPORT NO.

CEB-83-3 BFN it sA Ec'r{oN{s)

VENOOR N/A APPLICABLEOESIQN DOCUMENTS BFN-50-D706, BFN-50-D711 REFERENCES NUREQ-0661, CEB-76-23 O TRA o.

N A REV RO Rl R2 Torus Inte rit

{FOR MEOS USE) ontainment stems MEOS ACCESSION NUMBER EB 831221 008

/

f4NESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY IVISION OF ENGINEERING DESIGN CIVILENGINEERING SUPPORT BRANCH L

Date Prepared Checked Revision 0 December 21, 1983 W+c&c "

Rl Submitted Reviewed Recommended Approved

• Prepared by CEB, NEB, and BWP representatives, J.

See Acknowledgment.

8401060067 840103 PDR ADQCK 05000259 PDR

C C

'E 1

'l h

1 II II I

I

COORDINATION LOG Document No.:

CEB S3 34 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

Title:

TORUS INTEGRITY LONG-TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT Revision:

R-Denotes review A-Denotes approval ENGINEERING SUPPORT BRANCHES CEB EEB MEB NEB QEB R

V1>L A"""A""

R A

ggfS 65 Iv'C A

R A

R A

R A

NUCLEAR PROJECTS DESIGN BLP R

.A R

BWP A

R DNP A

R IRP A

PWP R

A R

WBP A

R A

R A

FOSSIL, HYDRO, 5 SPECIAL PROJECTS DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURALSUPPORT BRANCH CBP COP FDP HDP SDP ASB R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A R

OQA PBB MEDS ESB A

R A

R A

R A

R A

R A

R A

R

t

COORDINATION LOG Document No.:

CEB S3 34 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

Title:

TORUS INTEGRITY LONG-TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORT Revision:

R-Denotes review A-Denotes approval ENGINEERING SUPPORT BRANCHES CEB EEB MEB NEB QEB R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A A

R A

NUCLEAR PROJECTS DESIGN BLP R

A BWP A

R DNP A

R IRP A

PWP A

WBP A

R A

A FOSSIL, HYDRO, 5 SPECIAL PROJECTS DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURALSUPPORT BRANCH CBP COP FDP HDP SDP ASB A

A R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A R

A ESB MEDS A

PBB A

OQA A

A A

R A

R A

I Oz

BFN-PUAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.2.4 Post-Chu H drod namic Loads

~Pa e

4-4 4.2.4.1 Inter retation 4.2.4.2 Justification 4-4 4-5 4.2.5 DBA Pool Swell H drod namic Loads 4>>5 4.2.5.1 Inter retation 4.2.5.2 Justi icat on 4-5 4-6 4.3 Load Combinations and Allowable Stresses 4-7

.3.1 General 44.3.2 Torus Dr well and Vent S stem 4-7 4.3.

4.3.

Pressure Boundar Com one 3

Pi in S stem Com onents 4

Linear Ri id Su orts and S

nts

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

r s

~

~

~

o

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

nubbe 4-7 4-7 4-8 4.3.4.1 Allowable Stress Criteria 4.3.4.2 Justi icat on 4-8 4-12 4.3.5 Variable S rin Su orts 4-12 4.3.5.2 Minimum Re uirements 4.3.5.3 Justification

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~ t

~

4-12 4-13 4-15 4.3.6 0 erabilit and Functionalit of Com onents 4.3.7 Nonsa et -Related Internal 4-15 4.3.

4.3.

St rue tures

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

0

~

~

~

~

~

~

9 Fa i ue valuat on

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

res 4-16 4-16 4-16 4.4 Anal sis Procedures 4-17 4.4.1 General 4.4.2 Load Combination Techni ues

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

4-17 4-17 4.4.

4.4.

2,1 Torus and Vent S stem...

2.2 Torus Attached Pi in S

s n

S s

ems Inside t and Other Nonsa et

-Re n erna tructures

~

~

~

~

~

tern S/RV he Torus ate

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

4-17 4-17 PUAR. TC

BFN-PUAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.4.2.3, S/RV Pi in S stems Inside the Dr well and Vent S stem 4.4.2.4 Justi ication

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~Pa e

4-17 4-18 4.4.3 4 ' '

4.4.5 4.4.6 4.4.7 4.4.8 4.4.9 S/RV Load Reduction Factors Torus Anal sis Procedure Vent S stem Anal sis Procedure Torus Attached Pi in S stems Anal sis Procedure S/RV Pi in S stems Anal sis Procedure Com onent 0 erabilit Procedure

.Other Internal Structures Anal sis P rocedure 4-18 4-18 4-19 4>>20 4-22 4-23 4-24 4.5 Construction Code for Modifications 4.6 S RV Con irmator Test 4-25 4-25 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3 4.6.4 Test Ob'ective Basic Test Re uirements Test Re ort Correlation of Test Data With Anal s

~

~

~

~

~

~

i s

~

~

~

4-25 4-25 4-26

'-26 4.7 Permanent Anal sis and Desi n

Documentation 4-26 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.7.5 4.7.6 Desi n Criteria Anal sis Calculations Desi n Re u rements Re erences Desi n Calculations and Drawin s

or Modi icat ons Summar Re ort

~

~

~

~

~

~

4-26 4-26 4-26 4-27, 4-27 4-27 5.0 TORUS CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS ANALYSIS AND 5-1 5.1 General Descri tion 5.2 Torus Mod ications 5-1 5-1 5.2.1 D namic Rin Girder Restraints 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 S nubbers

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

T edowns Local Stiffenin 5-2 5-3 5-3 5-4 PUAR.TC

BFN-PUAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 10.4 Results and Conclusions 10.5 Descri t on o

Tem erature Mon stem.....................

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

itorin

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~Pa e

10-4 10-5

11. 0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUS IONS ll-l 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 eneral G

Browns Ferr Desi n Criteria Structural Anal ses and Desi n

Re uired Modi ications S/RV Con irmator Test Installation o

Modi cations

~

~

~

~

~ s

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

of and ll-l ll-l 11>>2 Final Conclusions

12.0 REFERENCES

11-2 12-1 APPENDIX A.O TORUS ATTACHED PIPING ANALYS PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA IS A-1 A.l A.2 A.3 Introduction

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Sco e

s

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Definitions A-1 A-1 A-2 A.3.1 Essential Pi in A.3.2 Nonessential Pi in A.3.3 Ac ve om onent A-2 A-2 A-2 A.4 Anal tical Models A-2 A.4.1 Pi in Model Boundari A.4.2 Torus Inter ace eS

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

A-3 A-3 A.4.2.1 Coordinate S stem A-3 A-3

,A.4.

A.4.

A.4.

A.4.

A.4.

A.4.

A.4.

A.4.

3 Process Pi in 4

Branch Lines 5

Valves 6

F~lan as 7

Reducers 8

~Su or ts 9

S ec>al Consideration 10 Com onent Nozzle Atta S

~

~

~

~

chment

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

s

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

A-4 A-4 A-5 A-5 A-5 A-5 A-6 A-6 XXV PUAR.TC

BFN-PUAR TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

A.S Load Sources

~Pa e

A-6

.5.1 General AA.5.2 Seismic Loads A-6 A-7 A.5.2.1 A.5.2.2 0 erative Basis Earth uake Safe Shutdown Earth uake A-7 A-7 A.5.3 Thermal Loads A.5.4 Torus Motion and Dra Loads

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

A-7 A-8 A.6 Anal sis Procedures A-8 A.6.

A.6.

A.6.

A.6.

A.6.

A.6.

1 2

3 4

5 6

Introduction 0

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

0

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

Modelin Assum tions Deadwei ht Anal sis Thermal Load Case Anal sis Se smic Anal sis LOCA and S

RV Anal sis

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

A-8 A-8 A-9 A-9 A-9 A-10 A.6; A.6.

A.6.

A.6.

6.1 namic Inertial Efforts 6.2 D namic D

s lacements,......

6.3 Thermal and Pressure Dis lac 6.4 'u d Mot1on

~

~

~

~

emen

~

~

~

ts A-10 A-ll A-11 A-11 A.6.7 Anal sis Results A.7 Load Case Combinations A.7.1 Introduction and Active Com onent Evaluations A.7.3 Comb>nat>ons Used or valuation of A-11 A-11 A-11 A-12 Pi in S stem React ons on Penetrations U

Valve Accelerat ons A.8 Process Line Evaluations orus

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

on of A-12 A-12 A-12 A.8.1 Code Jurisdiction A.8.2 Pi in Evaluation Procedure A-12 A-12 PUAR.TC

0 BFN-PUAR 4.3 Structural Acce tance Criteria 4.3.1 General The basic reference for load combinations and allowable stresses was the Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide (PUAAG), Reference 13.

The PUAAG defines a total of 27 load combinations for structural analysis.

These load combinations and associated service level designations are defined by PUAAG Tables 5-1 and 5-2 with associated notes.

Controlling load combinations were identified in the analysis documentation for each type of BFN component (see Sections 5 through 9).

For torus attached piping systems the controlling load combinations were defined in the detailed analysis criteria, Reference 46 (see Appendix A).

Allowable stress and/or

)oad criteria for each category of structure which was analyzed are described in the following sections.

These criteria are consistent with the intent of the PUAAG.

Justification is given for those criteria which differ from the PUAAG.

4.3.2 Torus Dr well and Vent S stem Pressure Boundar Allowable stresses for these components were in compliance with Subsection NE of the 1977., ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Code,Section III, including Suraner 1977

addenda, or later editions of that code.

These requirements satisfy the intent of PUAAG Section 5.3 for Class MC structures.

4.3.3 Pi in S stem Com onents

- Excludin Su orts Allowable stresses for these components were in compliance with Subsection NC of the 1977 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Code,Section III, including Sumner 1977 addenda.

Alternately, later editions of this code were utilized.

Note 5

on page 5-6 of the PUAAG was applicable to all piping

systems, whether essential or nonessential.

Notes 3 and 4

on page 5-6 of the PUAAG designated use of Service Levels C

and D allowable stresses, respectively, except where limited by the following special criteria:

4-7 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR 1)

Torus and vent system penetration nozzle loads were limited as required to satisfy torus and v'ent system allowable stress criteria.

2)

Nominal (unintensified) pipe stresses were.

limited to Service Level B allowables at attachments to pumps and active 'valves..

3)

Active pump nozzle loads were limited as required to satisfy nozzle load allowables in the BFN FSAR (Reference 16).

4)

Accelerat,ions of active valves were limited as required to ensure 'that extended structure stresses did not exceed 60 percent of the material yield

strength, except for the 0.0 hP pool swell case where 80 percent of material yield stress was permitted.

Extended structure stresses for inactive valves were limited to 90 perent of material yield strength.

Active pumps and valves, essential piping systems, and piping system temperatures were designated in the torus attached piping criteria (see'ppendix A).

All S/RV piping systems were considered essential and the valves were considered active.

S/RV piping system temperatures and pressures were defined in accordance with LDR Section 5.2.7.

1-Special branch line analysis criteria was included in the torus attached piping design criteria.

That criteria ensures that stresses in small piping (2 inches and smaller) which branches from larger process piping do not exceed Service Level D allowable stresses (see Appendix A).

The requirements of this section satisfy the intent of PUAAG Sections 5.4 and 5.5 for Class 2 and 3 piping sy'stems, excluding supports.

4.3.4 Linear Su orts and Snubbers 4.3.4.1 Allowable Stress Criteria Use of the allowable stresses for normal loads from the 8th edition of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, Design Specification Part 1,

was acceptable and appropriate for this program as an alternative to Service Level A primary load allowables of the 1977 ASME Code,Section III,

'Subsection NF.

4-8 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR The following stress mul tiplication factors, as 1 imi ted by the associated

notes, were applied to the AISC normal load al1owables to obtain appropriate allowable stresses for Service Level A, 8, C,

and D condi ti-ons.

Consideration of the associated notes was mandatory when applying these factors.

Service Level Stress Factor Primary Primary plus Secondary Primary Primary plus Secondary Primary Primary plus Secondary A and 8

A and 8 C

C D

D 1.0 1.5 1.33 1.6 1.5 1.6 Associated Notes:

. 1)

Primary loads result from sustained

effects, such as deadweight, and dynamic inertia loads.

Fluid impact and drag loads are all considered primary.

2)

Secondary loads result from constraint of free end displacements as in thermal expansion of piping systems and torus thermal movement effects on piping systems.

I 3)

Service'evel assignments for piping supports correspond to those used for the piping.

The appropriate service level assignments are indicated by Table 5-2 of the PUAAG.

Notes 3 and 4

on page 5-6 of the PUAAG indicate Service Levels C and D, respectively.

4)

These allowable stresses are applicable for linear supports for the S/RY piping systems, torus attached piping systems, torus containment structure, and the vent system.

Torus containment

cradles, ti edown supports, external ring girder reinforcement

beams, and torus resistant snubbers are classified as linear supports.

The inner flange and web of the torus ring girder are classified as containment vessel sti ffeners. and are therefore subject to ASME Section III NE-3000 membrane plus bending allowable stresses.

4-9 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR 5)

The listed stress factors are assigned with consideration for bolted and welded connection

capacity, fatigue, and buckling concerns.

The intention is to ensure elastic support action for all conditions.

6)

The primary plus secondary stress factors may be increased on a case-by-,case basis.

A special evaluation to justify each increase must be placed in the permanent analysis or design documentation for the support in question.

The justification must ensure that other supports for the system are not overstressed and that shakedown to elastic action will occur.

Such cases must be minimized.

7)

Component standard linear piping supports which are designed and constructed in accordance with the 'Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Fittings Industry's Practice, SP-58, 1975 edition, for use in ANSI B31.1 piping systems may be used for the BFN LTP.

Thi-s includes snubbers and their end attachments.

Load ratings for these supports may be established on the basis of vendor test or analysis data for each service level.

Load factors up to the corresponding stress factors which a'e listed above may be justified in this manner.

Service levels A and B primary load ratings must not exceed the ANSI B31.1 load rating.

Design calculations which justify the load ratings must be documented.

8)

Component standard linear supports which are designed and constructed in accordance with ASME Section III Subsection NF may be used as an alternative to those described by note 7).

Vendor documentation which is required for NF supports is adequate justification for Service Level A, B, C,

and D load ratings.

9)

When evaluating snubber a'ssemblies, all applied loads are considered primary and only primary stress and load factors are applicable.

10)

Bolt stress factors for structural steel connections, excluding concrete anchorage, are limited to 1.33.

Also, weld stress factors for fillet, plug, and slot welds are limited to 1.33.

4-10

'UAR. 4

BFN-PUAR These limits are applicable for primary loads at Service Level D and for primary plus secondary loads at all service levels.

11)

Critical buckling occurs when a member is loaded to a state at which an infinitesimal increase in load causes the member to change from a state of equilibrium to instability.

Compressive stress allowables in linear support members due to axial forces and bending moments are limited to 0.80 times the critical buckling stress for Service Level D primary loading conditions and for Service Levels A and B primary plus secondary loading conditions.

The corresponding stress allowables for Service Levels C and D primary plus secondary loading conditions are limited to 0.85 times the critical buckling stress.

These critical buckling requirements restrict the associated allowable stress factors (listed above) if, and only if, the AISC elastic design specifi-cation for normal. loads does not result in a

minimum critical buckling safety factor of 1.9.

The following guidelines are applicable.

In

general, a critical buckling safety factor of 1.9 is ensured for standard compact structural members made of ferritic steel.

(Section 1.5.1.4.1 of the AISC Specification defines compact structural members.)

A critical buckling safety factor of at least 1.7 is ensured for noncompact standard members of ferritic steel.

Finally, a critical buckling safety factor of at least 1.5 is ensured for heavy nonstandard ferritic steel members with high residual stresses and effective slenderness ratios greater than 50, but that safety factor is 1.9 when the effective slenderness ratio is 25 or less.

Adjustments in these approximate critical buckling safety factors may'be made for specific structural members on the basis of more precise evaluation or load test results.

12)

The requirements of TVA Civil Design Standard

'DS-C6.1 or DS-C1.7.1, as applicable (References 51 and

52) must be applied for evaluation and design of concrete anchorages for supports.

(Appendix B

describes specific criteria applied for BFN LTP anchorage evaluation and design.)

4-11 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR 4.3.4.2 Justification Allowable stresses in this criteria met all the requirements of the structural acceptance criteria in NUREG 0800 (Standard Review Plan) Section 3.8 for Seismic Category 1

Steel Structures.

The AISC Code was the code of record for all existing BFN piping system supports.

'I'his criteria ensured reliable elastic action of all piping system supports, whereas the 1977 ASME Subsection NF

criteria, proposed by the PUAAG, did not.

The 1977 NF criteria did not=.require evaluation of supports for restraint of pipe free end displacements for Service. Levels C and D conditions.

This criteria required consideration of restraint of free end displacements as a primary plus secondary load condition for all service levels, consistent with approved design criteria for safety-related piping supports in other TVA nuclear plants.

This criteria was not as conservative as the current NF code criteria with regard to critical buckling stress evaluation but the overall piping support system safety factor was comparable because of the ensured elastic support action described above.

Upper bound loads were defined for each support as a result of the requirements in other sections of this design criteria.

The probability that dynamic loads on any major support will actually reach analytically predicted values is extremely l.ow.

This fact is supported by the analysis and design correlation in Appendix C.

In surrrnary, this criteria ensured upgrading of the support systems in a manner which was consistent with the intent of NUREG 0661 as well as the practical considerations of an operating plant such as Browns Ferry.

4 3

5 Variable S rin Su orts The objective of these requirements was to ensure that only realistic and necessary modifications were. made to existing variable spring pipe supports.

4-12

.PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR In general, torus motion effects were analyzed by response spectrum techniques and anchor point movement effects were considered by separate static analysis.

The response spectrum technique considered the effects of input at'torus attachments only and local coordinate input was utilized.

Combination techniques for multiple torus attachment inputs were justified in the analysis calculations.

Modal responses were combined by SRSS except for closely spaced

modes, which were added absolutely in accordance with NRC approved procedures.

Response

spectrum peaks*were broadened by 10 percent to account for uncertainties in piping and torus structural mode frequencies.

Rigid response effects were combined with dynamic response effe'cts by SRSS methods.

Time history analysis was performed for pool swell loads in order to reduce conservatism for selected systems with multi'pie torus attachment points.

Those results were compared with response spectrum results to justify combination techniques for other load cases on the same piping systems.

Equivalent springs were incorporated in the pip.ing models to simulate local torus shell flexibilities at penetrations and other attachments (see Section 4.4.4).-

Torus motions were input through the equivalent springs.

Snubber supports were assumed to be locked for all loads except thermal expansion, deadweight, and quasi,-static pressure.

Submerged

drag, pool swell

impact, and other internal fluid induced loads were applied to the internal piping and supports.

These effects were combined with torus motion effects for each load case.

All attached piping sys'tems were analyzed as ASME Section III, Class 2 piping.

This included the ECCS header and other -piping which was in the scope of PDM containment design contracts for Browns Ferry.

Applied nozzle

loads, support reactions, and valve accelerations were'etermined for each controlling load combination.

Nozzle loads were defined for analysis of torus penetrations and active pumps.

Piping reaction loads were specified for external support evaluations.

Internal support reactions were defined for evaluation of local effects on the torus.

4-21 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR External supports were evaluated for applied reaction loads from the piping.

Internal supports were evaluated for fluid,-,

~

impact and drag loads, torus

response, and pipe reaction loads.

For 'small diameter piping systems, 1 percent damping

was, assumed for Service Level B load combinations and 2 percent damping was assumed for Service Levels C and D load combinations.

The corresponding damping values for large diameter piping systems (12-'inch diameter and larger) were 2 percent for Service Level B combinations and 3 percent for Service Levels C and D combinations.

Referring to PUAAG Table 5.2, nbtes 3

and 4 implied use of the higher damping values associated with Service Levels C and D.

Fatigue analysis requirements were satisfied by demonstration of compliance with ASME Code Section III, Paragraph NC 3600, equations 9,

10, and ll.

Anchor point movements were included in either equation 9,

10, or 11.

A detailed attached piping analysis criteria was prepared (Appendix A).

That criteria included lists of active components, essential

systems, piping temperatures, and other in formation necessary to perform a piping analysis.

It defined controlling load combinations for rigorous analysis of process piping systems and a special procedure fori dynamic analysis of small branch lines which were excluded from the process piping models.

(The torus attached piping analysis criteria is Reference 46.)

4.4,.7

. S/RV Pi in S stems Anal sis Procedures (See Section 7)

S/RV piping in the torus was analyzed separately from that in the drywell.

Justification for a separation region near each vent system penetration was provided in the analysis calculations.

Each typical line inside the torus was analyzed for all blowdown thrust, load cases listed in the LDR.

These cases included second actuation under extreme SBA and IBA conditions.

Blowdown thrust effects were combined with the numerous LOCA load effects, including vent system motion, torus motion, and fluid impact and drag loads.

Seismic loads also were considered for appropriate load combinations.

4-22 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR Selected S/RV lines in the drywell were analyzed for blowdown thrust and seismic effects.

The results of previously existing dynamic analyses were utilized in selection of the critical lines for analysis.

Blowdown thrust and seismic load effects were combined by SRSS methods in accordance with the existing analysis techniques.

Quencher discharge devices and their supports were included in the torus S/RV piping models and 10-inch vacuum breakers were included in the drywell piping models.

Drywell S/RV piping blowdown thrust loads were defined by the RELAP-4 compu ter code, and torus piping thrust loads

'were defined by GE's RVFOR computer code.

S/RV piping which is located inside the main vents was analyzed for water clearing loads predicted by RVFOR under the extreme SBA/IBA conditions.

Drywell and main vent piping supports were evaluated for new piping reaction

loads, as required.

Torus piping supports were evaluated for fluid impact and drag

loads, torus response, and piping reaction loads.,

Support reaction loads were defined for torus and main vent attachments, and penetration reaction loads were defined for the main vents.

S/RV piping systems were analyzed as ASME Section III, Class 3 piping.

One percent damping was assumed for the Service Level,B

.load combinations, and 2 percent damping was assumed for the Service Levels C and D combinations.

'ther S/RV piping analysis assumptions and techniques

'were consistent with those used for attached piping analysis (see Section 4.4.6).

4.4.8 Com onent 0 erabilit Procedure (See Sections 7 and 8)

Valve extended structures were evaluated for, acceleration, deadweight, and applied support loads determined from the torus attached piping analysis.

Compliance with BFN FSAR listed nozzle load allowable was demonstrated for active pumps in torus attached piping systems.

I 4-23 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR Operab i 1 i ty o f o ther ac t i ve componen ts wi th i n the scope o f this program was demonstrated by appropriate analysis or test for the intended service.

4.4.9 Other 'Internal Structures Anal sis Procedure (See Section 9 and Appendix D)

The major nonsa fety-related internal structures were analyzed by rigorous analysis methods for fluid impact and drag loads as well as torus response effects.

Equivalent static analysis methods were applied for small nonsa fety-related structures, In both cases, Service Level D

allowable stresses'were satisfied.

Very small nonsa fety-related internal items were disregarded on the basis that they would not penetrate the ECCS header inlet stra iners or damage any safety-related internal component.

Damping values for nonsa fety-related internal structures analysis complied with recommendations defined in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.6.1, Reference 55.

Reaction loads were defined for nonsa fety-related structural attachments to the torus.

I Limiting submerged

drag, pool swell impact and drag, water jet, froth impingement, and other fluid induced loads were defined for all structures and components inside the torus.

(Structural analysis of the safety-related internal components was accomplished as described in the preceding analysis procedures sections.)

Fluid-structure interaction effects for condensation oscillation and chugging submerged drag loads were defined by a procedure which recognized the predominant in fluence of torus shell acceleration in the vicinity of the internal structure.

This procedure removed excess conservatism from the fluid-structure interaction portion of the fluid drag loads.

A special procedure was developed for application of fluid drag loads on submerged internal structures.

That procedure removed excess conservatism for S/RV, condensat-ion oscillation, and chugging drag loads.

It complied with the load interpretations described in Sections 4.2.2, 4.2.3, and 4.2.4.

4-24 PUAR. 4

BFN-PUAR

12.0 REFERENCES

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, "Safety Evaluation Report Mark I Containment Long-Term Program,"

NUREG 0661, July 1980.

2.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term Pro ram Final Re ort vol.

I Pro ram Descri tion and Sunmar o

Conclusions NEDC-20989-P, September 1975.

3.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term Pro ram - Final Re ort vol. II LOCA-Related H drod namic Loads EDC-2 9

-P, September 1975.

4

~

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term Pro ram Final Re ort vol. III Load A

lication and Screenin of Structural Elements NEDC-20989-P, September 1975.

5.

Bechtel Power Corporation, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term. Pro ram Final Re ort vol.

IV Structural Evaluation NEDC-20989-P, September 1

75.

6.

7.

Teledyne Materials Research, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term Pro ram - Final Re ort vol.

5 Inde endent Assessment o

,the Mark I S ort-Term

~Pro ram NEDC-20989-P, September 1978.

Bechtel Power Corporation, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term Pro ram Final Re ort Addendum I to Volume IV Structural Evaluation NEDC-20989-P, November 1975.

8.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term Pro ram Final Re ort Addendum 2

NEDC-20989-P, June 1976.

9.

General Electr ic Company, Mark I Containment Evaluation Short-Term Pro ram Final Re ort Addendum NEDC-20989-P, August 1976.

10.

"Torus Support System and At tached Piping Analysis for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1,

2, and 3,"

TVA Repor t CEB 76-23, rev.

1, November 1976.

12-1 PUAR.12

BFN-PUAR REFERENCES (Conti.nued) 12.

U.S.

Nucl'ear Regulatory 'Corrrnission, Mark I Containment Short-Ter'm Pro ram Safet Evaluation Re ort NUREG 04 8, December 1977.

Letter from USNRC to Hugh G. Parr is, Docket Nos.

50-259, 50-260, 50-296, January 1982.

13.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram-Structural Acce tance Criteria Plant Uni u'e Anal sis A

lication Guide rev.

1,

-24583-1, ctober 1979.

14.

General Electric'ompany, Mark I Containment "Pro ram-Load Defi:nition Re ort rev.

NEDO-21 8'8,

'November 1.981.

15.

General Electric Compa'ny, Mark I Containment Pro ram-Plant Uni ue Load Definition Browns Ferr Nuclear Plant Units 1

2 and 3

rev.

2, NE

-2 58 Januai'y 1982.

16.

4 17.

Browne Ferry 'Nuclear 'Plant Units 1,

2, and 3, Final Safet A'nal sis Re ort Tennessee Valley Authority.

Bechtel Power Corporation, Anal sis of Browns Ferr Vent S stem Mark I Lon Term Pro ram rev.

0, February 1980.

.18.

19.

General Electi ic Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram-1/4 Scale Two-Dimensional Plant Uni ue Pool Swell Test R~e ort Report No. NEDE-21944-P, August 1979.

Structural Me'chanics Associates, "Evaluation of Harmonic Phasing for Mark I Torus Shell Condensation Oscillation Loads," Report No.

SMA 12101.2-R-001D, May 1980.

20.

Structural Mechanics Associates, "Design Approach Based on FSTF Data for Combining Harmonic Amplitudes for Mark I Post-Chug

Response

Calculations,"

Report No.

SMA 12101.05-R001,

'by Robert P.

Kennedy, October 1982..

21.

MPR Associates, Mark I Containment Pro ram Au ented Class 2/3 Fati ue Eva.luation Method and Results or T

ical Torus Attached and S RV Pi in S stems Report No. MPR-751, November 1982.

12-2 PUAR. 1 2

4' BFN-PUAR REFERENCES (Continued) 22.

E General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram Bucklin Evaluation of a Mark I Torus Report WE8109.31, January 1982.

23.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 1977 Section III, Sunmer 1977 addenda.

24.

"Standards of the Expansion Joint Manufacturer's Association, Inc.," 4th edi tion,

1975, New York, New York.

25.

TVA Division of Engineering Design, "General Design Criteria for the Torus Integrity Long-Term Program,"

Design Criteria No.

BFN-SO.-D706, July 1980, rev.

1.

26.

27.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram A

lication Guide 10 R2 NEDE-24555-P, September 1 80.

Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., Manual of Steel Construction Chicago, Illinois, 1980.

28.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, "Suppression Pool Temperature Limit for BWR Containments,"

NUREG 0783, November 1981.

29.

"Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant Units 1, 2,

and 3

Suppression Pool Temperature Response,"

Report DRF-BID-00004, October 1981.

30.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram Final Re ort Monticello T-uencher Test NEDE-21864-P, July 1978.

31,.

General Electiic Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram Monticello T-uencher Thermal Mixin Test Final

~e ort NEDE 24542-P, April 1979.

32.

Rush, R. H.

and Jackson, J. E.,

"Treatment of Hydrodynamic Effects for Toroidal Containment Vessels,"

Nuclear En ineerin and Desi n

North Holland Publishing

Company, 9 9.

33.

Anamet Laboratories, "Fluid Structure Interaction Using Nastran,"

Laboratory No. 78.029, 1978.

12-3 PUAR.12

BFN-PUAR REFERENCES (Con't i nu'ed )

34."

Adams, R. H., "Ev'aluat ion of Fluid Modeling Techniques for Mark I Supp'ress ion 'Chambers,"

Nu tech

Report, GEN-46-002, 1979.

35.

Rush, R. H., "A Modal Analys is of the Fluid-Shell (Hydroelastic)

Dynamic Interaction Problem," Master' Thes is; Un i ver s i t y o f Alabama i n Hun tsv i 1 1 e, Alabama, 1975.

36.

Adams, R. H., Applica'tion Guide - "Computation of Fluid Add'ed Mas's in Nastr'an,"

Nutech Rert GEN-46-0'03, 1979.

37.

Chung, T.,J.

and Rush, R. H.,

"Dynami cally Coupled Motion of Surface-Fluid-Shell System," Transactions ASME Journal of A li'ed Mechanics Series E,

No.

3, 1976.

38.

Control Data Corp'oration, "Calculation and Implementation of a 3-Dimens i ona 1 Cons i s ten t Fluid Mass Ma tr ix for Use in the Br'owns Ferry Torus Containment Model," TVA Report No.

EN DES 3-33, November 1979.

39.

Biggs, John M., Introduction to Structural D namics McGraw-'Hill, 1964.

40.

General Electric Co.,

Mark I Containment Pro ram Anal sis of Submer ed Structures in Mark I

Containment Due to LOCA and S

RV Dischar e

Task 4.2.3, NEDE-24639-P, June 1979.

41.

Teledyne Engineering

Services, Browns Ferr Unit 2

Torus Res onse Tests A ril 12-13 1983 Final Report TR-5172, 3 Volumes, November 1983.

42.

Structural Mechanics Associates, "Response Factors Appropriate for Use with CO Harmonic Response Combination Design Rules,"

Rep'ort No.

SMA 12101.04-

R002D, March 1982.

43.

Tennessee Valley Author ity, 1973 Browns Ferr Uni t 1

Torus Ex erience 1974.

12-4 PUAR.12

BFN-PUAR REFERENCES (Continued) 44.

'Tennessee Valley Authority, Browns Ferr Nuclear Power Station Earth uake Anal sis:

Reactor Buildin May 1967.

45.

Teledyne Engineering Services, Browns Ferr Nuclear Plant Units 1

2 and 3 Main Steam Line Stress Evaluation Considerin Relic Valve Sinner Modifications Technical Report TR-2688, Book 1 of 6, October 1977.

46.

Tennessee Valley Author ity, Divis ion of Engineering

Design, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - Detailed Design Criteria for Analysis of Torus Attached Piping (Long-Term Torus Integrity Program,"

Design Criteria No.

BFN-50-D711, rev.

1, 1983.

47.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Engineering

Design, General Construction Specif ication No. G-32 "Bo 1 t Anchors Se t in Hardened Concre te," rev.

6, February 1981.

48.

General Electr ic Company, Mark I containment Pro ram A

lication Guide 1 - LOCA Bubble Induced Loads on Submer ed Structures NEDE-24555-P, September 1980.

49.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram A

lication Guide 2

Condensation Oscillation and Chu in Induced Loads on Submer ed Structures NEDE-24555-P, September 1980.

50.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram A

lication Guide 6 - T-uencher Water Jet Induced Loads on Submer ed Structures NEDE-24555-P, September 1980.

• 51.

Tennessee Valley Author i ty, "Civi 1 Des ign Standard DS-C6.1, Concrete Anchorages,"

Revision 1, August 1976.

52.

Tennessee Valley Authority, "Civil Design Standard DS-Cl. 7. 1, Gene ra 1 Anch orage to Conc re te,"

May 1983.

• Note:

Civil Design Standard DS-C6.1 superseded by Civi 1 Design Standard DS-C1.7.1 in May 1983.

12-5 PUAR.12

8FN-PUAR REFERENCES (Continued) 53.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Engineering

Design, General Construction Specification No. G-66, "Installation, Inspection, and Testing of Maxibolt Undercut Anchors," July 1982.

54.

Tennessee Valley Author i ty, Divis ion of Engineering Des ign, Br owns Fer ry Nuc 1 ea r P 1 an t Pr o j ec t Cons t rue t ion Spec i f i cat ion No. NlC-911, "Installation Procedures for Dr i 1 leo Maxibolt Undercut Anchors Used for Torus Tiedown,"

May 1981.

55.

56.

U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmiss ion, Re ulator Guide

1. 61.

Lawrence Livermore Labora tory',

"The Effec ts o f Torus Wall flexibi 1 ities on Forces in the Mark I Boi ling Water Reactor Suppression Pool System,"

NUREG/CR-0746, UCRL-52624,

'Oc tober 1979.

57.

American Concrete Institute, Reinforced Concrete Desi n

Code 318 1977.

58.

General Electric Company Letter MI-G-11 to Tennessee Valley Author ity dated Apri 1 15,

1983, "Mark I Containment Program -

NRC Acceptance of SRSS Method for Combining Dynamic Responses in Mark I Piping Systems,"

With Attachments.

59.

Welding Research Counc i 1 Bulletin 107, "Local Stresses in Spherical and Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings," April 1972.

60.

Tennessee Valley Author i ty, Divis ion of Engineering

Design, "BFN LTP Suranary Index of Analysis Calculations,"

December 1983.

61.

Tennessee Valley Author ity, Div is ion of Engineering

Design, "BFN LTP Sumnary Index of Modification Design Requ i remen ts," December 1983.

62.

Tennessee Valley Author ity, Divis ion of Engineering

Design, "BFN LTP Surrrnary Index of Design Calculation and Drawings," December 1983.

12-6 PUAR. 1 2

BFN-PUAR REFERENCES (Con t i nu ed )

63.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram A

lication Guide 5

T-Quencher S

RV Bubble-Induced Loads on Submer ed Structures NEDE-2 555-P, October 1980.

64.

Bijlaard, P. P.,

"Stresses from Radial Loads and External Moments in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels,"

Weldin Journal 34(12),

Research Supplement 608-5 to 617-5, 1955.

65.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Engineering

Design, "General Construction Specification No.

G-43 for Support and Installation of Piping Systems in Category I

Structures."

t 66.

General Electric Company, Mark I Containment Pro ram A

lication Guide 9

NEDE-24555-P, September 1980.

67.

Kaiser Engineers, Torus Relief Valve Pi in and Vent Su ort Modification Browns Ferr Nuclear Plant Units 1

eod 2

Report No. 78-83-R, October 1878.

12-7 PUAR.12

0 0

I C,

BFN-PUAR A.4.1 Pi in Model Boundaries Each analytical model represented all torus internal piping and supports, as well as the piping and supports from the torus attachment point to the first rigid anchor or to the po,int where effects of torus motion were demonstrated to be insignificant.

As a guideline, the PUAAG (Reference 13) states that:

If the ratio of the actual stress to allowable value is less than or equal to 10 percent at the termination point, then sufficient piping has been included to ensure that the effects of torus motion are insignificant past this point.

When it was necessary or economical to reduce problem size, the model was terminated by structural overlapping with the next problem in a manner which provided a conservative design.

Stress and support forces were determined in the overlap region by sunning the results.

The overlap region did not include the torus nozzle.

A pipe system model was terminated at equipment

nozzles, anchors, or'concrete embedment if these terminal points could be considered 'rigid in the analysis.

A.4.2 Torus Interface A.4.2.1 Coordinate S stem The degrees of freedom at the point of attachment of the piping to the torus were defined in terms of nonglobal coordinate systems which conformed to the basic geometry of the torus.

Figures A-3 and A-4 illustrate local coordinate systems used at the torus penetrations.

Local torus shell flexibilities were represented as springs in the piping models.

Spring rates were calculated by a

Bijlaard method, Reference 64.

Figure A-4 illustrates the spring rate definitions and the values are tabulated in Table A-1.

The torus was considered infinitely rigid in the remaining rotational and translational degrees of freedom (all in the plane of the shell).

This rigidity was modeled by applying restraints (supports) in those directions at the point of attachment to the torus.

Input motion from the torus shell to the piping was applied through the local "shell springs" and rigid supports.

A-3 PUAR. A

BFN-PUAR A.4.3 Process P,i in Piping models idealized the physical piping system as a

series of nodal points connected by straight and curved beam elements having lineai elastic properties and known mass distribution.

Translation and rotational restraints were applied at the support points corresponding to the type and direction of restraint furnished by the support points for each type of loading (deadweight,

thermal, dynamic).

As-built conditions were considered in accordance with NRC O.I.E Bulletin 79-14 inspection requirements.

Node points were spaced to satisfy thtee require'ments.

First, nodes were located to adequately model the physical geometry of the system.

Secondly, nodes were placed to acconmodate supports.

Finally, node points were included to 'adequately model the system dynamically.

In order to provide an accurate dynamic definition of the

problem, at least one node point was required between support points, and added points were required where the span of pipe was long relative to "the pipe size.

The plant global cooidinate system used for locating node points is shown in Figure A-1.

All analyzed piping systems were modeled according to the plant coordinate system for convenience in correlating locations with the plant layout and other piping systems and equipment.

Nonglobal coordinate systems were used wherever convenient, i.e.,

for skewed

supports, valves, torus penetrations, etc.

Water mass effects on the below pool torus internal piping were considered using the added mass methodology described in Reference 46.

Appropriate ASME Code stress intensification factors were applied at points of structural discontinuity.

Assumed structural damping is discussed in Section A.6.

A.4.4 Branch Lines Branch lines were excluded from the mat'h model of the process piping as follows:

1)

Instrumentation connections were not modeled, subject to limitations noted in item 2.

A-4 PUAR. A

BFN-PUAR A.5.2 Seismic Loads Inertial effects produced by seismic events were defined by acceleration response spectra.

The response spectra for the torus and the response spectra for the surrounding building'tructures were assumed to be identical.

Seismic accelerations were considered in the vertical and horizontal directions for all the supports attached to either the torus or building structure.

Seismic motions, in the form of acceleration response spectra at

~ various elevations in the reactor building are given in Reference 44.

Seismically induced differential movements at anchors and other pipe support locations were considered negligible.

A.5.2.1 0 eratin Basis Earth uake The Operating Bas'is Earthquake (OBE) is defined as that earthquake which produces the maximum vibratory ground motion for which those features of the nuclear power plant necessary for continued operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public are designed to remain operational.

This requirement was assured by designing for shutdown of the reactor and maintaining it in a safe shutdown condition following an OBE.

A.5..2.2 Safe Shutdown Earth uake The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) produces the maximum vibratory ground motion for which Class I structures,

systems, and components are designed to perform their safety functions.

A.5.3 Thermal Loads Because of the large quantity of water in the torus,, the temperature rise due to a

LOCA is gradual.

Prom Table A-3, the maximum temperature of the torus shell during any LOCA event is 158 F.

Por all post LOCA events, it is 172oF.

These maximum LOCA temperatures along with 70oF cold shut-.

down and 95oF normal operating temperatures were considered.

The associated torus thermal movements (see Section 5.4.2.6) were imposed on the torus attached piping and supports.

The attached piping temperatures in Table A-3 are enveloping values for all LOCA events.

Less conservative temperatures based on the BFN LTP general design criteria (Section 4) and the BFN FSAR were used on a case-by-case basis.

A-7 PUAR.A

BFN-PUAR Limiting differential temperature conditions between the torus and ECCS header during postulated LOCA events are designated by Figure A-S.

A.5.4 Torus Motion and Dra Loads LOCA and S/RV events produce torus motion.

Three types of torus motion data were provided for all attached piping analysis.

Inertial effects were defined as acceleration response spectra or acceleration-time histories.

Dynamic movements of the torus were defined as dynamic displacements.

Finally, LOCA pressurization eff'ects (see Section 5.4.2.3) weie defined as static-displacements.

The inertial effects produced primary stresses in the piping

system, while the dynamic and static displacements produced secondary stresses; Additional data was provided for LOCA and S/RV loads on the internal torus piping.

Impact forces and drag forces were represented in terms of response spectra

plots, time histories, or static equival'ent forces (see Appendix D).

These load cases were dynamic in nature and produced primary stresses in the piping system.

A.6 Anal sis Procedures A.6.1 Introduction For analysis of a particular attached piping system, the applicable load cases were selected from Table A-2.

Then the appropriate piping system model was utilized for analysis of each load case using the TPIPE computer program (Appendix F).

A.6.2 Modelin Assum tions The "gravity" support configuration (spring hangers and rigid supports fixed with snubbers free) was used for the deadweight load case.

The "thermal" support configuration (rigid supports fixed with all others free) was used for all thermal and static load cases.

The "dynamic" support configuration (snubbers and rigid supports fixed with all others free) was used for all dynamic load cases.

PUAR. A

TRBLE 2-3 (CONTINUED)

ACTIVE COMPONENTS FOR OPERABILITY EVALUATION PUMPS SYSTEM CS RCIC HPCI RHR DESCRIPTION Ar Br Cr Dr CS PUHPSr MOTOR DRIVEN RCIC PUMP WITH DRIVE TURBINEr CONDENSRTE PUHPr VRCUUH PUMP MRIN AND BOOSTER HPCI PUMPS WITH DRIVE TURBINES CONDENSATE PUMPr GLRND EXHRUSTER Rr Br Cr 0

RHR PUMPSr MOTOR DRIVEN

I~

TRBLE A-1 SPRING CONSTANT

SUMMARY

(SEE FIGURE A-4 FOR DEFINITION OF DIRECTIONS)

PENETRATION NO.

205 210 A

8 B

211ACB 212 214 216 220 223 A

8 B

231 204 A 4 D

204 B 4 C

214 S

A 214 S

B 221 SYSTEM HVAC RHR SPRAY HEADER RCIC HPC I RHR HPCI C.S HVAC RING HEADER RING HEADER HPC I HPC I RCIC PIPE SIZE (IN.)

20 is 12 24 10 10 18 30 30 SXSX 1

2 6X6X 1

2 RADIAL P/W (LB/IN.)

14.6 X 104 5.67 X 104 6.39 X

1 17.90 X 104 6 ~ 76 X 104 7.75 X 104 7.85 X 10 4 15.7 X 10 4 9.03 X 10 4 6.85 X 104 9.SO X 1O4 6.36 X 10 4 6.36 X 10 4 3.00 X 10 5 CIRCUMFERENTIAL Mc/8 IN-Li3/RAD 20.5 X 10 6 1O.O X 1O6 4.36 X 106 21

~ 3 X 106 12.3 X 10 6 3

~ 36 X 106 7.31 X 106 14.4 X 1O6 12.2 X 106 16.1 X 106 18.3 X 106 3.20 X 106 2.63 X 106 1.02 X 10 7 LONGITUDINAL ML/8 IN-LB/RAD 23.3 X 106 20.0 X 106 5.91 X 106 12.7 X 106 29

~ 9 X 106 4.63 X 106 9.76 X 106 9.76 X 1o6 20.0 X 106 47 5 X 106 47.8 X 10 6 4.20 X 10 6 3.61 X 10 6 7.68 X 10 6 222 UNIT 2 HPCI -TURB EXH 222 UNITS-1 4 3 HPCI TURB EXH 4.74 X 10 4 6.36 X 10 4 1.70 X 10 6 90 X 106 2.28 X 10 6 2.28 X 10 6

TRBLE R-2 LOAD CASES FOR TORUS ATTACHED PIPING SYSTEMS LOADS Z

I MQ I

QJ o~

0 ill Q Z0 M~u)

V)

(0 LU

>- CL DO-cC 1-DEADWEIGHT THERMAL NORMAL/UPSET/LOCA OBE EARTHQUAKE E H 4 VERT OBE EARTHQUAKE N S 4 VERT SSE EARTHQUAKE E H 4 VERT SSE EARTHQUAKE N S 4 VENT INTERNAL DESIGN PRESSURE PIPE PEAK PRESSURE PIPE A S F PIP N

ATTACH T

THE T S

S LL RSA LOADS:

POOL SHELL 4 VENT HEADER REACTIONS 1.1 PSID (DBA)

POOL SHELL 4 VENT HEADER REACTIONS 0.0 PSID (DBA)

CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (DBA)

CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (IBA)

CHUGGING-PRECHUG-(DBA)

CHUGGING-POSTCHUG-(DBA)

CHUGGING-PRECHUQ- ( IBA)

CHUGGING-POSTCHUQ- ( IBA)

CHUGGING-PRECHUG- (SBA)

CHUGGING-POSTCHUQ- (SBA)

DH TH Ei E2 PPwx Pi P2 COD-D COD-I CCD-D CCD-I CCD-S R/TH R/TH R

R R

R R

R R

R G = GRAVITY SUPPORT CONFIGURATION (SPRING HANGERS ACTIVE)

T = THERMAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATION D = DYNAMIC SUPPORT CONFIGURATION (SNUBBERS LOCKED)

S = STATIC ANALYSIS R = RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS TH = TIME HISTORY

TRBLE R 2 (CONTINUED) r SHEET 4 LOADS Z:

I UUJ UJD mm cC cC Ul Q g 0 QJ Q Z Q

g)M (fl Mhl

>-Q UO-cC I-PRECHUG DRAG LOADS MAX (SBA)

POSTCHUG DRAG LOADS PHASINQ CASE 1

(DBA)

POSTCHUQ DRAG LOADS PHASINQ CASE 2 (DBA)

POSTCHUQ DRAG LOADS PHASINQ CASE 1

( IBA)

POSTCHUQ DRAG LOADS PHASINQ CASE 2 (IBA)

POSTCHUQ DRAG LOADS PHASINQ CASE 1

(SBA)

POSTCHUQ DRAG LOADS PHASING CASE 2 (SBA)

DYNAMIC FORCE:

LOCA POOL SWELL IMPACT 4 DRAG AIR BUBBLE (DBA DOWNCOMER (LOCA)

WATER JET DRAG LOADS (DBA)

POOL SWELL FALLBACK (DBA)

(NOTE 20)

S/RV DRAG (DBA)

S/RV DRAG (ZBA)

S/RV DRAG (SBA)

S/RV DRAG (NORMAL)

DYNAMIC FORCES:

ABOVE POOL IMPACT 4 DRAG (DBA)

PODLD PODLI PODLS PSDL DWJDL PSFB SRVDD SRVDI SRVDS SRVDN APID RR-R R

R R

R G = GRAVITY SUPPORT CONFIGURATION (SPRING HANGERS ACTIVE)

T = THERMAL SUPPORT CONFIGURATION D = DYNAMIC SUPPORT CONFIGURATION (SNUBBERS LOCKED)

S = STATIC ANALYSIS R = RESPONSE SPECTRA ANALYSIS TH = TIME HISTORY

TRBLE R-3 SHT i EXPECTEO PIPINt SEGMENT TEMPERATURES FOR BFN DBA IBA DBR POOL CONDENSATION DBR CONDENSATION IBR SBA OBR SEGMENT SHELL OSC ILLRTION CHUGGING OSC ILLRTION CHUGGING CHUGGING MRXIMUM DESCRIPTION (0 SEC)

(5-35 SEC)

(35-65 SEC) (5-500 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) (POST LOCA) 47H600-134R6 02 AND Hg 105/100 SENSOR CRLI-BRRT ION GRS SUPPLY: INS IDE/

OUTSIDE TORUS 105/100 105/100 105/100 105/100 105/100 105/100 47H811-1 47H812-1 (HPCI )

RHR PUMP SUCTION RNO DISCHARGE RHR MINIMUM FLOH BYPRSS HERT EXCHANGER DISCHARGE DRYHELL SPRRY CODLING SUPPLY SUPPLY TO RERCTOR VESSEL HERD SPRRY DIS-CHARGE INTO REACTOR RHR VENTS SUPPRESSION POOL RECIRCULRTION PUMP SUCTION FROM CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK 95 95 140 95 143 140 95 150 140 95 158 95 140 95 158 95 140 136 95 140 172 172 158+

158~

158m 158m 172 95 95 TURBINE DIS-294/283 CHRRQE TO SUPPRESSION POOL~.'I 294/283 294/283 2S4/283 294/283 294/283 95

DWG NO SEGHENT DESCRIPTION PUHP HINIHUH BYPASS FLOW TRBLE R 3 (CONTINUED) r SHEET 2 OBA IBA DBA POOL CONDENSATION OBA CONDENSATION IBA SBA SWELL OSCILLATION CHUQQING OSCILLATION CHUGGING CHUGGING (0 SEC)

(5-35 SEC)

(35-65 SEC) (5-500 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) 140, 140 140 140 140 140 DBA HAXIHUM (POST LOCA)

PUHP SUCTION FROH ECCS RING HDR SUPPRESSION POOL SENSORS TURBINE EXHAUST DRAIN TURBINE EXHAUST VACUUM RELIEF 47W813-1 PUHP SUCTION (RCIC)

FROM CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK PUMP SUCTION FROH ECCS HEADER 95 95 283 140 95

~

95 143 283 143 140 95 150 150 140 95 95 158 283 158 140 95 95 158 283 158 140 95 136 283 136 140 95 172 283 172 140 95 TURBINE DISCHARGE 240-228~~

240-228~+

240-228~~

240-228+~

240-228+~

TO SUPPRESSION POOL 240 228++

240-228 ++

PUHP HINIHUH BYPASS FLOW VACUUH PUHP DISCHARGE RHR TEST LINE 140 160 95 140 160 140 160 95 140 160 95 140 160 95 140 160 95 140 160 95

TRBLE R 3 (CONTINUED)

SHEET 3 DHG NO SEGMENT DESCRIPTION TURBINE EXHAUST VACUUM RELIEF 95 143 150 158 158 136 172 DBA IBA DBA POOL CONDENSATION DBA CONDENSATION IBA SBA DBA SHELL OSCILLATION CHUGGING OSCILLATION CHUGGING CHUGGING MAXIMUM (0 SEC)

(5-35 SEC)

(35-65 SEC) (5-500 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) (POST LOCA) 47M814-1R15

'PUMP. SUCTION FROM ECCS RING

- HDR PUMP'ISCHARGE TO REACTOR 95 95 143 143 150 150 158 158 158 158 136 136 150 150 PUMP SUCTION 95 FROM CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK 95 95 95 95 95 47M818-1 R10 ALL SEGMENTS 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 47M855-1 (FUEL POOL COOLING)

POOL SUPPLY FROM RHRS 95 143 150 158 158 136 172 47M858-1 POOL SUPPLY 107 FROM SURGE TANKS SUPPLY TO RHR 125 PUMPS HEAT EXCHANGER 95 SERVICE MATER SUPPLY 107 125 95 107 125 95 107 125 95 107 125 95 107 125 95 107 125 95 47W860-1 (CONTAIN-MENT) 47M862-1 (CADS)

SUPPLY TO SUPPRESSION POOL SUPPLY TO DRYMELL AND SUPPRESSION POOL 100 105 100 105 100 105 100 105 100 105 100 105 100 105

TRBLE A-3 (CONTINUED) ~

SHEET 4 DWG NO DBA IBA DBA POOL CONOENSAT ION DBA CONDENSATION IBA SBA DBA SEGMENT SHELL OSCILLATION CHUGGING OSCILLATION CHUGGING CHUGGING MAXIMUM DESCRIPTION (0 SEC)

(5-35 SEC)

(35-65 SEC) (5-500 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) (300-1200 SEC) (POST LOCA) 47H865"1~

AIR SUPPLY TO 95 47H865-12 ORYHELL AND SUPPRESSION POOL 95 95 DISCHARGE FROM 150 ORYHELL 150 150 150 150 150 150 DISCHARGE FROM 105 SUPPRESSION POOL 105 A TEMPERATURE DROP OF 14 F HAS ASSUMED TO OCCUR ACROSS THE HEAT EXCHANGERS.

FOR HPCI AND RCIC TURBINE DISCHARQE LINES+ THE HIGH TEMPERATURE CORRESPONDS TO A POINT IMMEDIATELYDOHNSTREAM OF THE TURBINE.

THE LOH TEMPERATURE CORRESPONDS TO A POINT IMMEDIATELYUPSTREAM OF THE SUPPRESSION POOL.

TRBLE R-4.

(SHEETi)

ANALYSIS CRITERIA FOR TORUS ATTACHED PIPING-LOCA EFFECTS (ii 2r 5)

PLANT CONDITION (LOAD SOUR E TYPE)

NORMAL 4 NON-LOCAL NON-S/RV EVENTS HOMENT CONSTITUENTS FR H

A S

RCE (SYMBOLS.ARE DEFINED IN TABLES A-2)

E AT NS AN STR S

L M TS (SYMBOLS ARE DEFINED IN ASHEN'ECTION 111 i SUBSECTION NC)

POSTPROCESSOR 1

S GNLIM T ENTI L AND NONESSENTIAL PIPING MA

=

H (DW + PL)

~P2 72 7X2 22 2

(0

-d

)

EVEL A SV L MITS N IAL P PING NONESSENTIAL PIPING AND ACTIVE COHPONENTS MC H [Tl +

(EDO OR EDS)]

c = ii2 (H c SA z

OR P

2

+

7 H

+IH $ S (D, -d

)

L NONESSENTIRL PIPING AND ACTIVE COMPONENTS LEVEL SVC L M TS EBS N IA AN MA

=

M (DW+ PL)

MBU = M(E1 +

WH+

OCC)

P2222x d

+ 0 ~ 75( (M< + M>U(

= 1.2 Sj (0~2 -d21 Peax

= 1.1P LEVEL C SVC LIMITS S

N AL AND NONESSENTIAL PIPING MA

=

M (DW+ PL)

MBE =

M (E2+

WH

+ OCC)

~2 (MA.+ HBE) 1.8 Sg (0

-d

)

Rna'x ~ 1.SP