Dresden Station, Units 2 & 3 - Short Term Program Plant Unique Torus Support … · 2017-07-31 · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1--1 Revision Control Sheet Dresden Nuclear Generating

',_.

I I I I I I I:

I I I I I I I I I I I I··

Prepared by:

DRESDEN NUCLEAR GENERATING

PLANT UNITS 2 & 3

SHORT TERM PROGRAM

PLANT UNIQUE TORUS SUPPORT

AND ATTACHED PIPING ANALYSIS

Prepared for:

Commonwealth Edison Company

r-·.

COM-01-040 August 1976

~ill,, .

~~~s-11 G. R. Edwards J. F. Emerson

.p,;t@di· Dr. N. W. Edwards

. Kont01fdakis, P.E.· ·

R; ·F. Petrokas, P.E.

M. Shamszad Is;f!~ ~AJdf~-. D. K. McWilli~~.E. R. E. Keever, P.E.

nutech ·."·!. -:·· .. . "~ ., : . ' . .. ' ~~ . " .,, . ..... <.'' •• : ..... .. ·:·

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-1

Revision Control Sheet

Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant SUBJECT: Units 2 & 3 Short Term-Program . REPORT NUMBER: COM-01-040

Plant Unique Torus Support and ·Attached Piping Analysis

Prepared Checked •. Prepared Checked Page Rev. By By Page Rev. By By

i 0 .J':iA JJS 2 . 5 0 QflE .JJS ii 0 M/J)f. (JI,£' 2. 6 0 J./S t;/Z&"

iii 0 A/IJJ[ ·t;,PG 2 .7 0 JJ5 ~ NIU£ ~K

iv 0 2.8 0 ~ JJS v 0 Qfl-lr .J.Js 2.9 0 ~ll6 J.)S

.~ . ~I' vi 0 2.10 0 JJ.S Gilb-

vii 0 2.11 0

I (i~ viii 0 2.12 0 G~.J

,

ix 0 2.13 0 JJS GI!£ 0 2.14 0 "]> J:: /v\ 0--x ~

xi 0 2.15 0 t t xii 0 2.16 0 .'uk:M j~

I

xiii 0 I

I 3.1 0 A/J£ Qte xiv 0 I 3. 2 0 Af4f GI&

I . J---xv 0 3. 3 0 J> .t: M -tt;·

I I t 1.1 0 • ~, 3. 4 0

1. 2 0 ~ j)J 3.5 0 1> .k'.: i"'-. .JK 1. 3 0 A/fJJf GR.e' 3.6 0 Qile' ~

j~

2. l 0 Git' J.JJ' 3.7 0

2. 2 0 ./.15 ~- 3.8 0 .

2. 3 0 .J.15 ~ 3.9 0 I ,p

2.4 0 GI/£ JJ.S 3.10 0 r;,ee ~

nutech ... ,f:" .... ., ':. ·, ·- ··,·.

'. I • • , l' , •; }•'. '• . .·

; ··.·... .. .·.

;

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1--

1


Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant SUBJECT: Units 2 & 3 Short Term Program

Plant Unique Torus Support and Attached Piping Analysis

Prepared Checked Page Rev. By By Page

3.11 0 ~et !flH' ' 3.33

3.12 0 4.

1 3.34

3.13 0 3.35 I

3.14 0 I 3.36 I I

3.15 0 I I 3. 3 '/ I

3.16 0 i 3.38

3.17 0 I 3.39 I

3.18 0 I 3.40 ! ;

'

3.19 0 i

3.41 ~

3.20 0 i 3.42

3.21 0 3.43

3.22 0 3.44 '

3. 23 0 \ 3.45

' 3.24 0 ! 4.1 i

3.25 0 I 4.2 t I

3.26 0 \ 4.3 l I .!

3.27 0 .l 4.4

3.28 0 I 4.5 , , I j

3.29 0 . • 4.6

3.30 o. GRt ~J 4.7

3.31 0 <iitfJ ~ .4.8

3.32 0 M=IJ ~eE 4.9

,.

REPORT NUMBER: COM-01-040

Prepared Checked Rev. By By

0 ~! GJ!.C" 4~

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 ' 0 ~! Gt£ 0 Gfl£'

l 0 G1£ 0

0 44f-0

0

0 I, 0 G/1£ 0 ~ 0 C!ZE 0 GflE , 0 Ge£ ~ !I

i

nutech

'

j

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I

"

Revision Control Sheet ·-"'

Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant SUBJECT: Units 2 & 3 Short Term Program REPORT NUMBER: COM-01-040


Prepared Checked Prepared Checked Page Rev. By By Page Rev. By By

4.10 0 G/.6 r 5.16 0 JJ5 Q1$ ,

4.11 0 GIG 5. 17 0 c,1£' J./5 4.12 0 Qfle 1)4<' 5.18 o· Gil£ ls 4.13 0

! ls 5.19 0 ~fl€ -- ~r~ 4.14 0 5. 2 () 0 '1-r.c 4.15 0 5.21 0 ·t J.Js 4.16 0 {lff JtE: 5. 22 0 JF~- '1)~

5.1 0 GflE JJ.S 6 .1 0 GR.e' ./JS 5.2 0 JJS Gfl£ 6. 2 0 ~ J.JJ

' .~ '

Gr 5.3 0 ,

6.3 0 .}JS ·~

5.4 0 6.4 0

5. 5 0 6. 5 0 .

5.6 0 6.6 0 JJs Gil£ 5. 7 0 6.7 0 ~ JJS

! -~

"

5.8 0 6.8 0

5.9 0 , , , 6.9 0

~- . 5 .10 0 ))5 6.10 0 GI/£ JS

' 5.11 0 ::J:.,A 6.11 0 JJ.S Gfl£

.,j ' ! Gil£ 5.12 0 6.12 0

5.13 0 6.13 0 r;l!G' I ./JS

5.14 0 6.14 0 11i ././5 t ,, J 5.15 0 J.JS ~A \ 6.15 0

"1£ JJJ

nutech



Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant SUBJECT: Uni ts 2 & 3 Short Term Program REPORT NUMBER: COM-01-040


Prepared Checked Prepared Checked Page Rev. By By Page Rev. By By

Git Gt£ i

6.16 0 JJS 6.38 0 JJ> 6.17 0

.~ 6.39 0 JJS (J,RG

6.18 0 6.40 0 .ill-

6.19 0 6.41 0

6.20 0 6.41 0

6.21 0 I,,

6.43 0 ~t

Gf/£ 6.22 0 JJ.5 6.44 0

6.23 0 J.f UJG GIE 6 '. 45 0

6.24 0 tl1J£ GU 6.46 0 1 '

' 6.25 0 'RE 6.47 0

~

~l!E JJs JJS 6.26 0 .J.15 ~ 6.48 0 'DEi'-'\. JFt:-

l • A

l !

6.27 0 6. 4 9 0 I

! I

6.28 0 6.50 0 l }

6.29 0 .JJ.5 ~ 6.51 0

6.30 0 'vt.t'v\ ~n: 6.52 0 l

G!IE I

6.31 0 JJS 6.53 0 l 'J ... ...

~re 6.32 0 6.54 0 '-:VErv'-

Q/IE \

6.33 0 7 . 1 0 JJS

6.34 0 1 t

7 . 2 0

J 1 t

6.35 0 GR£ n 7.3 0

.)JS 6.36 0 JJS ~ 7. 4 0 Q,P£ JJ.s 6.37 0 Gi!G' JJ.5

7. s 0 j)~ti\ J-te

;

'

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1--

1


Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant SUBJECT: Units 2 & 3 Short Term Program

Plant Unique.Torus Support and Attached Piping Analysis

Prepared Checked Page Rev. By By Page

7. 6 0 'D~iV\ J-F€ C.8

8 . 1 0 ~ t;eE C.9

8. 2 0 J€JIN Gi!G C.10

A. 0 0

~ )JS D.O

". l () i D. L

~ A. 2 0 JJs A.3 0 JF€ 1:> k' J"v\._

I j\ 0

A. 4 0

A. S 0

A.6 0

A. 7 0

A. 8 0

B.l 0

B.2 0

c.o 0

C.l 0

C.2 0

C.3 0

C.4 0

c.s 0

C.6 0

C.7 0 ,. ~"

REPORT NUMBER: COM-01-040

Prepared Checked Rev .. By By

0 t l 0

0 J~ 't:>ld~

0 t;I,€ JJ.s u ~l&f,f/, ../JS

€~'-

i ·.·

f, ,,

nutech·


/

ABSTRACT

DRESDEN NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT UNITS 2 AND 3

SHORT TERM PROGRAM PLANT UNIQUE TORUS \

SUPPORT AND ATTACHED PIPING ANALYSIS

COM-01-040

New loadings have been pbstulated to occur on the suppression

chamber of the General Electric ~ompany (GE) Mark I contain-

ment vessels following the design basis loss of coolant accident

(LOCA). This report presents the results of stress analyses

which predict the behavior of the suppression chamber torus

support system and external attached piping if these new

loads wer~ to be appli~d to the containment vessel of the

Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant which is owned and operated

by ColllITlonwealth Edison Company.

The GE Mar'k I containment vessel consists of: (a) a drywell,

which has the form of an inverted light bulb, (b) a suppres-

sion chamber, which is toroidal in shape and encircles the

drywell, aQd (c) a vent system which connects the drywell and

the suppression chamber. The suppression chamber operates

approximately one half full of w~ter. In the event of a LOCA,

the steam is communicated from the diywell to the suppression

chamber via the vent system and condenses in the water con

tained in the suppression chamber.

The newly postulated loads are those which result from the

clearing of the air from the vent system immediately following

the LOCA prior to the entry of steam into the suppression pool.

- ii,. nlitech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-

1

COM-01-040

Initially, the load consists of a pressure load acting down

ward on the suppression chamber. Immediately following the

downward phase of the loading transient, a portion of the

suppression chamber wat.e1· raises in a bulk pool swell mode.

This results in both a compression of the free air space

above the pool producing a net dynamic upward pressure and

a pool surface impact load on the vent system within the

suppression chamber. The result of the pool swell impacting

on the vent system is to produce an upward reaction on the

suppression chamber via the vent system support columns.

The criteria being used to evaluate the r~sults of these

analyses is one which has been discussed with and agreed to

by members of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

staff. Basically, for the torus support system, it is ex

pressed in terms of either ASME Section III Code allowables

or a parameter identified as the Strength Ratio (SR). The

SR is defined as the ratio of load, (or stress, or strain) in

an element resulting from the postulated load, divided by the

failure load (or stress, or strain) for that element. The

criteria requires that either the ASME Section III Code allow

ables be satisfied for both a base case analysis and a sensi

tivity analysis or that the SR be less than 0.5 for the base

case and less than 1.0 for the sensitivity analysis.

The criteria for the piping attached to the outside of the

torus is expressed in terms of comparison of the maximum

-iii- nutech

I I I I I I I I I I 1,

I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

computed stress, with ASME Code allowable stress. It is

permitted to compute the stress by imposing a static upward

displacement on the piping system at the point of attachment

to the torus equal to two times the dynamically computed

upward movement of the' torus at that point. This criteria

applies to both the base case and the sensitivity analysis

case.

It has been determined that, with the exception of the pin in

the connecti6n at the base of the outside torus support column,

every component of the torus support system for Units 2 and 3

meets ASME Code allowables. The outside column connection

pin is approximately 25% over Code allow~ble; however, the

strength ratio is below the criteria limit. The external

piping attached to the Unit ? torus has also been shown to

meet ASME Code allowables. The Unit 3 pipjng is currently

being analyzed and the results will be reported in an

addendum to this report.

-iv- nutech


COM-01-040

PREFACE

Pool swell loads have been identified as additional loadings

on GE Mark I Containments. The analysis work previously

reported has been done on a generic basis with plant unique

considerations being addressed by applying appropriate

sensitivity factors.

This document reports the results .of a plant unique three

dimensional finite element analysis of the Conunonweal th

Edison Company, Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 2

and 3, suppression chamber support structure and attached

piping subjected to loads currently identified in the Mark

I Short Term Program.

-v-

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1. 0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION

COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Suppression Chamber 2.2 Support Structure 2.3 Attached Piping

CRITERIA AND COMPONENT CAPACITIES

3.~ Criteria

3 .1.1 3 .1. 2

Torus Support System Attached Piping

3.2 Component Capacities

3. 2. 1 3. 2. 2 3. 2. 3 3. 2. 4 3. 2. 5 3. 2. 6

Column Column to Shell Connection Ring Girder and Torus Shell Pin Connection Column Anchorage Vent Line Bel~ows

LOADINGS

4.1 Torus Support Loading

4 .1.1 4 .1. 2 4 .1. 3

4 .1. 4 4 .1. 5

4 .1. 6

Torus Steel Dead Load Torus Water Dead Load Vertical and Horizontal Seismic Load · Bubble Pressure Torus Air Space Compression Pressure Vent System Loads

4.2 Attached Piping Loading

METHODS OF ANALYSES

s. 1 Base Case Analysis

vi

COM-01-040

viii

x

1.1

2 . 1

2.4 2.8 2.14

3.1

3.2

3. 2 3.3

3.6

3.6 3.31 3.35 3.36 3.43 3.45

4.1

4.2

4. 3 4.3 4.4

4. 4 4.10

4.13

4.16

5. 1

5.2

nutech

..


1

6.0

7.0

5. 2

5 .1.1 5 .1. 2

5 .1. 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

2-D Ring with Vent System Model 3-D Shell and Support System Model Seismic Analysis

Load Sensitivity Analysis

5.2.1 5. 2. 2

Torus Uplift Analysis Attached Piping Analysis

RESULTS OF ANALYSES

6.1 Base Case Analysis Results

6 .1.1 6. l. 2 6 .1. 3

Downward Load Phase Upward Load Phase Attached Piping Evaluation

6.2 Load Sensitivity Analysis Results

6. 2 .1 6. 2. 2

CONCLUSIONS

Torus Uplift Evaluation Attached Piping Evaluation

7.1 Torus Support Conclusions 7.2 Attached Piping Conclusions

8.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A - ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

APPENDIX B - PIPING SYSTEM DRr\WINGS

APPENDIX C - PIPING INSPECTION REPORT

APPENDIX D - UPLIFT COMPARISON ON REFERENCE PLANT

vii

COM-01-040

5.3 5.8

5.17

5.18

5.18 5.20

6.1

6. 2

6.7 6.23 6.30

6.31

6.31 6.48

7. 1

7 • 2 7. 5

8.1

. A. 0

·B. 0

c.o

D~O

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I .I

I I I I I I

Table 2.3-1.

Table 3.2.1-1

Table 3.2.2-1

Table 3.2.2-2

Table 3.2.4-1

Table 3.2.4-2

Table 3.2.4-3

Tab:te 3.2.4-4

Tab:te 3.2.4-5

Table (5.1.1-1

Table 6.1.1-2

Table 6. 1.1- 3

Table 6.1.1-4

Table 6.1.1-5

Table 6.1.1-6

LIST OF TABLES

Dresden Unit #2 Piping Systems Evalua:ted .

Categorization of Column Stresses

Column to Shell Connection Capacity Criteria

Column to Shell Connection Capacities

Pin Connection Capacity Criteria

Inside Pin Connection Properties

Outside Pin Connection Properties

Downward Load Pin Connection Capac;ity

Upward Load Pin Connection Capacity

Torus Support Column Maximum Compressive Locids

Torus Support Column Bending Moments, Displacements and Rotations Due to Pool Swell Dynamic Loads

Torus Support Column Bending Moments, Displacements and Rotations Due to Deadweight of Steel and W~ter Plus Vertical and Hori~ontal Seismic

Torus Support Column Deformation at Time of Maximum Column Compressive Load

Torus Support Column Code Allowable Load a~d Strength Ratios

Column Pin Connection and Shell Conn~ction Code Allowable Load and Strength Ratios

viii

COM-01-040

2.16

3.8

3.33

3.33

3.37

3.38

3.39

3.40

3.41

6.11

6.12

6.13

6.14

6.15

6.16

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I 1-

1

Tab le 6 . 1. 1 - 7

Table 6.1.2-1

Table 6.1.2-2

Table 6.2.1-1

Table 6.2.1-2

Table 6.2.1-3

Table 6.2.1-4

Table 6.2.1-S

Table 6.2.2-1

Table 6.2.2-2

Table 7.1-1

Table 7.1-2

Table 7.2-1

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Stress Intensities and Strength Ratios for Ring and Shell-Downward Load Phase

Torus Support Component Code Allowable Loads and Strength Ratios (Upward Load Phase)

Stress Intensities and Strength Ratios for Shell and Ring -Upward Load Phase

Single Degree of Freedom Model Parameters

Results of One Degree of Freedom Uplift Model

Torus Support Component Code Allowable Loads and Strength Ratios (Upward Loads)

Torus Support Component Code Allowable Load and Strength Ratio (Post-Liftoff Compressive Load)

Upward Displacement for Attached Piping Systems Evaluation

Piping System Line Stresses Resulting from Upward Displacements

Piping - Valve/Pump Interface Stresses

Base Case Analysis - Downward Loads Component Capacities and Strength Ratios

Sensitivity Analysis - Upward Loads Component Capacities and Strength Ratios

Summary of Max Pipe Stresses and Max Piping-Equipment Interface Stress~s (Dresden 2)

ix

COM-010-40

Page

6.17

6.25

6.26

6.35

6.36

6.37

6.38

6.39

6.50

6.51

7. 3

7.4

7.6

nutech·


Figure 2~Q"."1

Figure 2.0-2

Figure 2.1-1

Figure 2.1-2

Figure 2. 2-1

Figure 2. 2- 2

Figµre 2. 2- 3

Fig4re 2.2-4

Figure 3.2.1-1

Figure 3.2.1-2

Figure 3.2.1-3

Figure 3. 2. l :-: 4

Figure 3.2.1-5

Figllre 3.2.1-6

LIST OF FIGURES

General Arrangem~nt of Containment -. Schematic

Plan View of Suppression Chamber -Schematic

Composite Section Through Suppression Chamber

Miter~d Joint Reinforcing Ring

Suppression Chamber Support Columns

Support Column Reinforcement

Inside Sµpport Column Pin Connection Reinforcement

Insid~ Support Column Shell Connection

Elevation Section of Torus and Torus Support Columns

Exaggerated Elastic Deformation of Torus Cross-Section

Exaggerated Column Deformation

Code Allowable Load - Moment Interaction Diagram-Equation 19 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Primary Stresses-Dresden Inside Column

Code Allowable Load - Moment Interaction Diagram-,Equation 20 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Primary Stresses Dresden Inside Column

Code Allowable Load - Moment Interaction Diagr~m-Equation 19 (Appe~dix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses-Dresden Inside Column

:x;

COM-01-040

2. 2

2.3

2.6

2. 7

2.10

2.11

2. 12

2 .13

3.13

3.13

3.14

3.15

3.16

3.17

nutech


1

Figure 3.2.1-7

Figure 3.2.1-8

Figure 3.2.1-9

Figure 3.2.1-10

Figure 3.2.1-11

Figure 3.2.1-12

Figure 3.2.1-13

Figure 3.2.1-14

COM-01-040

LIST OF FIGURES (Contintied)

Page

Code Allowable Load - Moment 3.18 Interaction Diagram - Equation 20 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses - Dresden Inside Column

Code Allowable Load - Moment 3.19 Interaction Diagram - Equation 19 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Primary Stresses - Dresden Out-side Column

Code Allowable Load - Moment 3.20 Interaction Diagram - Equation 20 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Primary Stresses - Dresden Out-side Column

Code Allowable Load - Moment 3.21 Interaction Diagram - Equation 19 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses - Dresden Outside Column

Code Allowable Load - Moment 3.22 Interaction Diagram - Equation 20 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses - Dresden Out-side Coluinn

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment 3.23 Interaction Diagram - Equation 19 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated.for Primary Stresses - Dresden In-side Column

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment 3.24 Interaction Diagram - Equation 20 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Primary Stresses - Dresden In-side Column

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment 3.25 Interaction Diagram - Equation 19 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses - Dresden In-side Column

xi nutech

_I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1·

I

Figl1re 3.2.1-15

Figµre 3.2.1-16

Fig4re 3.2.1-17

Figure 3.2.1-18

Figure 3.2.1-19

Figµre 3.2.2-1

Figµre 3.2.4-1

Figure 3.2.5-1

Figµ re 4. 1. 4 -1---

Figure 4.1.4-2

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment Interadtion Diagram-Equation 20 (Appenqix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses-Dresden In-· side Column

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment Interaction Diagram-Equation 19 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Primary Stresses-Dresden Outside Column·

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment Interaction Diagram-Equation 20 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Primary Stresses-Dresden Outside Column

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment Interaction Diagram-Equation 19 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses-Dresden Outside Column

Ultimate Capacity Load - Moment Interaction Diagram-Equation 20 (Appendix XVII) Evaluated for Secondary Stresses-Dresden Outside Column

Column to Shell Connection Capacity Calculati9n

Clevis Failure Planes

Axial Load vs. Displacement for 1 l/2"cj> Anchor.Embedded in Concrete

Torus Pressure Measurement Locations

Dresden Base Case Analysis Pressure Time Hi~tory at P4

xii

COM-01-040

3.26

3.27

3.28

3.29

3.30

3.34

3.42

3.44

4.6

4. 7

nutech


1

Figure 4 .1. 4-3

Figure 4.1.4-4

Figure 4.1.5-1

Figure 4.1.5-2

Figure 5.1.1-1

Figure 5.1.1-2

Figure 5.1.1-3

Figure 5.1.2-1

Fi·gure 5.1.2-2

Figure 5 • L 2 - 3

Figure 5. L 2-4

Figure 5 • 1. 2 - 5

Figure 5.1.2-6

Fmgure 6.1-1


Dresden Base Case Analysis Pressure Time History at PS

Dresden Base Case Analysis Pressure Time History at P6

Dresden Base Case Analysis Pressure Time History at P3

Dresden Base Case Analysis Net Pressure Time History

STRUDL Model of 1/16 Vent System Section

COM-01-040

Page

4.8

4.9

4.11

4.12

s.s

STRUDL Model of Torus Ring Girder 5.6

STRUDL Model of Torus Support 5.7 Columns and Connections for Vent System and Torus Ring Girder Analysis

Developed View of STRUDL Model - 5.11 Lower Half of Suppression Chamber -Node Numbers

Developed View of STRUDL Model - 5.12 Upper Half of Suppression Chamber -Node Numbers

Developed View of STRUDL Model - 5.13 Lower Half of Suppression Chamber -Element Numbers

Developed View of STRUDL Model - 5.14 Upper Half of Suppression Chamber -Element Numbers

STRUDL Model of Torus Ring Girder 5.15

STRUDL Model of Torus Support 5.16 Column and Connections

Force in Inside Vent Header Support 6.3 Column - 100% Mass of Torus Shell and Ring, 80% Mass of Water

xiii

nutech.


Figure 6,1-2

Figure 6.1-3

Figure 6.1-4

Figure 6.1.1-1

Figure 6.1.1-2

Figure 6.1.1-3

Figure 6.1.1-4

Figure 6.1.1-5

Figure 6.1.2-1


Force in Outside Vent Header Support Column - 1001 Mass of Torus Shell and Ring, 80% Mass of Water

Force in Inside Vent Header Supp6rt Column - Mass of 1.56 /ITT: of Torus Shell, 100% Mas.s of Ring, Mass of Water above 1.56 Rt Length of Shell

Force in Outside Vent Header Support Column - Mass of 1.56 llIT of Torus Shell, 100% Mass of Ring, Mass of Water above 1.56 Rt Length of Shell

Axial Force in Insi<le Torus Suppqrt Column Due to Pool Swell Oynamic Loads

Axial Force in Outside Torus Support Column Due to Pool Swell Dynamic Loads

Direct Stress in Reinforcing Ring at Time of Maximum Column Compressive Load

Local Membrane Stress Intensities in Shell Adjacent to Reinforcing Ring at Time of Maximum Column Compressive Load

Primary Plus Secondary Stress Intensities in Shell Adjacent to Reinforcing Ring at Time of M~ximum Column Compressive Load

Direct Stress in Reinforcing Ring at Time of Maximum Column Tension Load

xiv

COM-01-040

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.18

6.19

6.20

6.21

6. 2 2

6.27

nutech


Figure 6.1.2-2

Figure 6.1.2-3

Figure 602.1-1

Figure 6.2.1-2

Figure 6.2.1-3

Figure 6.2.1-4

Figure 6.2.1-5

Figure 6.2.1-6

Figure 6.2.1-7

Figure 6.2.1-8

LIST OF FIGURES (tontinued)

Local Membrane Stress Intensities in Shell Adjacent to Reinforcing Ring at Time of Maximum Column Tension Load -

Secondary Stress Intensities in Shell Adjacent to Reinforcing Ring- at- Time of Max-imum Column --Tension Load

Total Applied Force for 1/16 Segment Due to Pool Swell Pressures -Base Case

Total Applied Force for 1/16 Segment Due to Pool Swell Pressures Plus Vent Column Reactions - Base Case

Elastic Deformation of Piping Attachment Location for Lines 303A and X303D

Elastic Deformation of Piping Attachment Location for Lines X303B and X303C

Elastic Deformati.on of Piping Attachment Location for Lines X310A, X310B, X311A and X311B

Elastic Deformation of Piping Attachment Location for Line X304

Elastic Deformation of Piping Attachment Location for Line X317A

Elastic Deformation of Piping Attachment Location for Line X318A

xv

COM-01-040

Page

6.28

6.29

6.40

6. 4 ]_

6.42

6.43

6.44

6.45

6.46

6.47

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1~

I

COM-01-040

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The first major generation of General Electric (GE) Boiling

Water Reactor nuclear systems are housed in a containment

structure designated as the GE Mark I containment. A total

of ?S of these containments have been built or are being

built jn the United States. ·Included in this number are the

containment vessels for the Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant.

The original design of the Mark I containments considered all

the Joads normally associated with containment vessel design.

These included pressure and temperature loads associated with

a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), seismic loads, dead loads,

jet impingement loads, hydrostatic loads due to water in the

suppression chamber, overload pressure test loads and con

strµction loads. The Dresden containment vessels were analyzed

and designed in compliance with the design specification (Ref

erence i) and ASME Code (Reference 2) requirements. The re

sults of that analysis and design is documented in the con

tainment vessel Stress Report (Reference 3).

Since the time of the original design criteria, possible

additional loading conditions have been revealed. These ad

ditional loading conditions result from pool swell in the

suppression chamber produced by the clearing of air from the

vent system following a LOCA. Pool swell loads have been the

1.1

nutech

I I I I I I 1·

I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

subject qf detailed studies by GE acting on behalf of the Mark

I Owners Group. The possible effects of these postulated

16ad~ acting on the vent system, vent line expansion bellows,

relief valve discharge piping inside the suppression chamber

and other internal structures have been determined and formally

reported to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in

GE Report No. NEDC-20989 (Reference 4). This work was done

on a generic basis with plant unique considerations being

addressed by grouping the plants or actually performing plant

unique aQalyses of a particular component.

Similar generic analyses were performed to evaluate the torus

support system and external pipins attached to the torus.

This work was reported to the NRC in presentations made by

GE on behalf of the Mark I Owners Group.

The purpose of this report is to present the results of a . .

plant unique analysis of the Dresden torus support system

and attached piping. This report consists of: a description

of the suppression chamber, support structure and attached

piping, a discussion of the acceptance critaria, a de~crip-

tion of the loading, a discussion of the methods of analysis,

analysis results and conclusions of the analysis.

1. 2

nutech


COM-01-040

The results presented in this report are for pool swell loads

which are postulated to occur in the event of a design basis

accident, assuming that the plant is operating with a pressure

differential of 1.0 psi between the drywell and the suppression

chamber. It is Commonwealth Edison's current intention to also

perform an analysis with the techniques described herein for

.the loadings which are postulated to occur following a design

basis accident with no drywell pressurization prior to the

accident. If the results from the forthcoming analysis indicate

that the Short Term Program Criteria described herein are satis

fied without drywell pressurization, it is Commonwealth Edison's

intent to provide that information in the form of an addendum

to this repoTt.

nutech 1. 3


COM-01-040

2.0 COMPONENT DESCRIPTION

The Dresden containment vessels are General Electric Company,

Mark I designs with a drywell and toroidal suppression chamber

as illustrated schematically in Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0~2. This

section of the report provides a description of the suppression

chamber, ~upport structure and attached piping which are affected

by the pool swell loads and possible torus uplift.

The basic dimensions of the suppression chamher are as estab

lish~d by the original design specification (Reference 1) and

are documented in the Stress Report (Reference 3). Modifica

tions to the suppression chamber support system which are

currently being implemented consist 6f adding reinforcement

to the inside support columns and the pin connection at the

base of the inside columns. Details of the modifications are

contained in NUTECH Report COM-01-022, "Dresden Nuclear

Generating Plant Units 2 & 3, Modifications to _the Suppression

Chamber Support Columns and Pin Connection'', June 1976, (Refer

ence 12).

2.1

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I

-1

I

VENT LINE

E.X PANSION BELLOWS

COM-01-040

'/: DRYWELL

--.,j.<

JETDEFLE/

/

VENT H~ADE:R

SUPPJ?ESSION Cl-IAMBER

OUTSIDE COLUMN

DOWNCOMEl<S

IN&IDE COLUMN

figure 2.0-1

GENDRAL ARRANGEHENT OF CONTAINMENT - SCHEMATIC

2.2

nutech

·I I I I I I I I I I I I

·I I I I I I I

INTERSECTION OF VENT LINE • SUPPRESSION CMAMBER (8 PLACES)-

L ¢_ DRVWELL

541

- G"

Figure 2.0-2

PLAN VIEW OF SUPPRESSION

CHAMBER - SCHEMATIC

2.3

COM-01-040

COLUMNS (TYP.@16LOCATIONS)

MITERED JOINT

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I

COM-01-040

2.1 Suppression Chamber

The suppression chamber is in the general form of a torus.

It i~ constructed using sixteen mitered cylindrical shell

segments as shown in Figure 2.0-2. A reinforcing ring with

two supporting columns is provided at each mitered joint.

The suppression chamber is connected to the drywell by eight I

vent lines. A bellows assembly at the suppression chamber

end of the vent line allows for differential expansion be

tween the drywell and the suppression chamber. Within the

suppression chamber, the vent lines are connected to a

common header. Connected to the header are downcomers

which terminate below the normal water level of the suppres-

sion pool. To accommodate the downcomer thrust loads,

column supports are provided which connect the vent header

to the reinforcing ring at the suppression chamber mitered

joint.

The inside diameter of the cylindrical segments which make

up the suppression chamber is 30'-0". The shell plate in the

upper half of the torus is 0.585 inches thick and in the·

bottom half of the torus the thickness is 0.653 inches. The

major diameter measured at the midsection of the mitered

cylinders is 109'-0''. Figure 2.1-1 provides a composite

.section through the suppression chamber.

The reinforcing ring at the suppression chamber mitered

joints is shown in Figure 2.1-2. The ring is located

2.4

nutech


COM-01-040

slightly off the mitered joint in a plane· parallel to the

mitered joint. The intersection of the ring web with the

shell plate is an ellipse. For ease of fabrication, the

inner flange 6f the ring is rolled to a constant inside

radius. Thus, the depth·of the l" thick web varies from

24. 0 inches to 27. S inches. The ring flange is 15" wide,, .1 1/ 4"

thick plate rolled to a constant radius of 1.2'-10 3/4".

2. s nutech

I I I I I I I I I

::: 0

.. I \D

I I I :

'9 I -I t:

I I I I I I

' I

' ..

rl

30~0'' 1.o.

' 9~0"

Figure 2.1-1

-----~· -· ....__

. INSIDE CO~UMN

COMPOSITE SECTlON THROUGH .

SUPPRESSION CHAMBER

2.6

COM-01-040

VENT L.INE

SAFE1Y RELIEF VALUE PtSCMARGE LINE

. I

.. ,

'.•

nutech.-··.

i I

1 I


VAR It':> 24 11

TO 27.s''

INTERSECTION OF MITERED

COM-01-040

3" RADIUS IN PLANE OF GIRDER= 121-104

. RADIU5 PERPENDIC.UL~R TO 5Hl:LL= 15~0 11

I':> II

l::ip:ure ~. 1- 2

(585 TOP SHELL l 653 BOTTOM

MITERED JOINT REINFORCING RING

2. 7

nutech


COM-01-040

2.2 Support Structure

The suppression chamber support columns and details of the

connection between the suppression chamber and the columns

are shown in Figure 2.2-1. The inside columns and pin con

nection at the base of the columns are presently being

reinforced.

The outside columns consist of lO"<P pipe (2 1/4" wall). The

inside columns are being reinforced by longitudinally

splitting sections of 10"<1> pipe (l" wall) and then fitting the

lO"<P pipe halves around the existing 8"<P pipe columns as

shown in Figure 2.2-2. Refer to NUTECH Report COM-01-022

(Reference 12) for more detailed information concerning the

column reinforcement.

The pin connection at the base of the outside support columns

consists of a 6 l/2"ip pin and double 2" clevis plates. The

pin connection at the base of the inside support column orig

inally consisted of a S"<P pin and double 1 1/2" clevis plates.

The inside column pin connection is being reinforced b~ install

ing a cradle assembly above and below the pin between the inner

clevis plates as shown in Figure 2.2-3. Wedges above and

below the cradle .allow cradle installation without pin removal

and insure complete bearing contact between the pin and cradle.

Refer to NUTECH Report COM-01-022 (Reference 12) for more de

tailed information concerning the pin connection reinforcement.

2.8

nutech


COM-01-040

The support column anchorage consists of two 1 1/2"<1> anchor

bolts, embedded 3'-0" into the floor slab. The connection of

the coiumn to the torus shell consists of a reinforced web

plate welded to the torus shell as shown in Figure 2.2-4.

The weld of the web plate to the shell consists of a double

3/8 in~h p~rtial penetration groove welds with 1/2 inch rein-

for~ing fillets on the inside columris and 5/8 inch reinforcing

fillets on the outside columns.

2.9

nutech


INSIDE COLUMNS

1~0 11

- ' N

('() = -· ~ ...... 0 - I I'()

Figure 2.2-1

SUPPRESSION CHM.tBER

SUPPORT COLUMNS

2.10

COM-01-040

OUTSIDE COLUMNS

-· ii.

~

I

4'k~~·>< z!.911 t

nutech '.


EXIST IN GS

INTERMITrENT WELD

Figure 2.2-2

COM-OJ --040

ADDEO ·~o0 SEG OF 1011 ~ PIPE REINF. SC._,. 140

SUPPORT COLUMN REINFORCEMENT

2 .11

nutech


Figure 2.2-3

COM-01-040

8 11 ~ PIPE COLUMN (ORIGINAL DESIGN)

1011

</J PIPE COLUMN (REINFOR:.EMENT)

,~WEOGES

----5" ¢ PIN

SUPPQRT CRA.DLE

BASE P~TE

INSIDE SUPPORT COLUMN PIN CONNECTION

REINFORCEMEN1'

2.12 nutech


11 I-~--'

a" b I

2~

--0 :: ~ ~ '9 (.()

' ~

WING PLATE :: (")

COLUMN

Figure 2.2-4

INSIDE SUPPORT COLUMN SHELL CONNECTION

2.13

COM-01-040

ARC=

68."411

ON o.s.

RIMG GIRDER

TORUS

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1··

I

COM-0'1-040

2.3 Attached Piping

The ECCS pump suction header and attached pump _suction piping

systems, and several other piping systems are attached ~irectly

to the torus. Table 2.3-1 lists the thirteen piping systems

that were evaluated for Dresden Unit 2~ Geometry information

for these .systems was obtained from physical and isometric

drawings supplied to NUTECH by Commonwealth Edison Company.

All of the piping is constructed of carbon steel with welded

joints. Details of the support systems for the piping were ob

tained from the isometric drawings. The piping geometry and

support information was supplemented by a field inspection of

the piping systems. Details of this field inspection are

reported in Appendix C. The purpose of the field inspection

was to clarify existing information and check for interferences

which may have potential for reducing the capacity of the piping

system to withstand the torus uplift. The results of the

clearance and interference inspection is reported in Appendix

C. Details of the inspection to verify the piping mathematical

models are on file at NUTECH.

The supports used on the piping attached to the torus are

standard type supports. The hangers are either spring or

rigid hangers. Hangers were used to support· the piping from

both above and below the piping. Most of the hangers below

* T·he piping systems for Unit 3 are similar to those of Unit 2. However, the <lifferences that do exist are such that a separate analysis for some of the systems is required. This report considers only Unit 2. An addendum to this report which will provide an analysis of the Unit 3 piping systems will be provided at a later date.

2.14 nutech


the piping rest on pads and do not restrain the pipe for

upward displacements. The hangers above the piping use I . '

eyebolts and clevises which, in most instances, have an

upward clearance of gre&ter than one inch. Therefore,

these hangers provide no resistance to upward displacements

of the torus of less than one inch.

Snubbers are located on some of the piping systems. They

are devices that become active during a dynamic event. Their

locations ~nd details were verified by field inspection.

Rigid restraints are located on some of the piping systems.

Information from drawings was supplemented by the information

obtained in the field inspection.

The piping evaluated ranged in size from 6 inches to 24 inches

in diameter. The penetrations for the piping into the torus

are typically fabricated, unreinforced nozzles. The piping

tee connections were either forged, fabricated (reinforced),

or fabricated (unreinforced).

Several piping systems penetrate through reactor building

walls and floor into various auxiliary rooms. Most of these

penetrations were designed so as to provide no restraint to

the.piping. These reactor building penetrations were also

checked during the field inspection for potential interferences

between the piping and the penetrations.

2.15 nutech


Table 2.3-1

DRESDEN UNIT #2

PIPING SYSTEMS EVALUATED

PIPING SYSTEM LINE SIZE

I

Pump Section Ring Header Torus Pene - X303A, X303B, X303C, X303D 24"

LPCI (East) 2A & 2B Pump Suction 14"

LPCI (West) 2C & 2D Pump Suction 2 4" &- 14 II

Core Spray (East) 2A Pump Suction 16 11

Core Spray (West) 2C Pump Suction 16 II

HPCI Pump Suction 16"

LPCI Outlet 2A (East) Torus Pene - X310A & X311A 6", 14 II & 18 11

LPCI Outlet 2B (West) Torus Pene - X310B & X311B 6" , 14 II & 18 II

Core Spray (East) 2A Discharge Torus Pene - X310A 8 11 & 1 2 II

Core Spray (West) 2B Discharge Torus Pene - X310B 8 II & 1 2 II

HPCI Turbine Exhaust torus Pene - X317A 24 11

Pressure Suppression Torus Pene - X318A 18 II

Vacuum Relief Torus Pene - X304 18 II & 2 0 II

* See Appendix B for piping drawings.

2.16

DRAWING *

COM-0321-01

COM-0321-01

COM-0321-01

COM-0321-01

COM-0321-01

COM-0321-01

COM-0321-02

COM-0321-03

COM-0321-04

COM-0321-05

COM-0321-06

COM-0321-07

COM-0321-08

nutech

I I I 1-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-:-040

3.0 CRITERIA AND COMPONENT CAPACITIES

Provided in this section is an identification of the criteria

which has been established for evaluating the torus support

system and attached piping. The criteria is then used to

establish the ASME Section III (Reference 9) Code allowable

load an~ ultimate capacity of each structural element in the

support system load path .. Section 3.1 discusses the details

of the criteria .. Section 3.2 reports structural element Code

allowable loads and ultimate capacities. Also reported in

Section 3.2 is the capacity of the vent line bellows.

3.1 nutech


COM-01-040

3.1 Criteria

The criteria being used to evaluate the results of the plant

unique torus support system and attached piping analysis is

described in NUTECH Report M.Kl-02-012, "Description of Short

Term Program Plant Unique Torus Support Systems and Attached

Piping Analysis," (Reference 5). The criteria is expressed in

terms of:

a)

b)

Base Case Analysis, and

Load Sensitivity Analysis.

3.1.1 Torus Support System

For the base case analysis, it is required that each struc

tural element in the torus support system load path meet

ASME Section III Code allowables or have at least a factor of

safety of two (2) against failure. Base case analysis criteria

has been established for piping systems attached to the torus

as well as requirements fbr comparison of the predicted

upward movement of the torus relative to the vent system with

the nominally permissible lateral and axial displacements of

the vent line bellows.

It is generally accepted that the sensitivity of the response

of the structural elements of the torus support system is

linear with the load for the downward phase of the loading.

The same cannot be concluded regarding the upward phase of

the loading transient. Therefore, a load sensitivity analysis

is required. The details of the loading for the sensitivity

3. 2 nutech


COM-01-040

analyses are given in Section 4.0 of this report. Basically,

the value of the upward load judged by GE to be the best

estimate of the load at this time is multiplied by a load

factor of 1.5. The acceptance criteria for the load sensi-

tivity analysis is that no structural element in the support

system load path be loaded beyond its ultimate capacity when

subjected to the increased load.

3.1.2 Attached Piping

The STP criteria document (Reference 5) requires that the

piping systems be evaluated in terms of specific stress

limits, which are established as follows:

(a) For active containment system piping, i.e.,

ECCS suction or other piping required to

maintain core cooling after LOCA, it will be

required that the stresses in the piping

be limited to:

< 3.0 s - c

where, MD is the resultant moment due to twice

the predicted upward torus displacement, and the

other quantities are as defined in ASME Section

III, NC-3600.

3.3 nutech


COM-01-040

.(b) For other containment system piping attached to

the torus, it will be required that the stresses

in the piping be limited to:

No increase in Sc is permitted to account for the dynamic

nature and short duration of the load.

The pumps and valves included in the piping systems were also

evaluated to assure operability. This was accomplished by

first establishing stresses at the equipment-piping interface.

Stresses due to torus uplift at the piping-equipment interface

below 20000 psi, which is less than one-half of the piping

allowable stress, and is well below the yield stress for the

pipe and equipment, are considered low enough to eliminate

any potential for permanent equipment deformation. Since

no permanent deformation of the equipment would occur at this

stress level and since the equipment is not required to

operate until after the significant portion of the poo~ swell

phenomenon is over, the 20000 psi stress level is used in

this report as the screening criteria for obviating the need

for further detailed study of operability.

If the pipe~equipment interface stresses do not satisfy the

sereening criteria (i.e., the stress level is greater than

20000 psi), the following actions will be taken:

3.4 nutech

I 1-

1· 1·

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

(a) A determination will be made as to the require-

ments for post-pool swell operation of the

particular piece of equipment.

(b) If the answet to (a) is that operation is

required, then detailed information on the

equipment in question will be obtained and

the actual equipment capabilities with respect

to operability vs. stress level will be deter-

mined.

In no case is the stress criteria of 3.0 S or 5.0 S c c

to be exceeded at the piping-equipment interface.

In addition, the piping systems are to be inspected to

ensure that adequate clearance exists between the pipe and

any possible obstruction.

3. s nutech


COM-01-040 (

3.2 Comp6nent Cap~cities

Provided in Appendix A of the Short Term Program (STP) cri

teria document (Reference 5) are methods which may be used

to evaluate structural element capacities for the torus

support system. The· methods described in Section A.3.1 of

that appendix are used to compute the ultimate capacities

of each torus support system structural element. Provided

in this section are the ASME Code, Section III allowable

loads for each of those elements.

3.2.1 Column

The Code allowable column loads are computed using the rules

of ASME Section III, Subsection NF Paragraph NF-3300 "Design

of Class 2 and Cl.ass MC Component Supports" references para

graph NF-3230 for linear type supports, such as the columns

of the suppression chamber torus. Paragraph NF-3230 makes a

distinction between stresses resulting from the application

of mechanical loads and those resulting from the constraint

of free end displacements. That is, Subsection NF recognizes

the difference between primary and secondary s~_resses as· is

done in the other subsections of the ASME Code, S~ction III

for pressure vessels.

From an inspection of the torus support structure, it is

clear that there are secondary stresses in the columns

as a result of the constraint of free end displacements.

The conclusion that the stresses resulting from the con-

3. 6 nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-1 I

COM-01-040

straint of free end displacements are indeed secondary stresses

is substantiated by the fact that the imposed displacements and

rotation at the top of the columns are self-limiting in nature

and that the stability of the structure (torus and torus

support structure) is nat dependent upon the bending stiffness

of the column~. Figures 3.2~1-l and 3.2.1-2 serve to illustrate

the above statements.

The elastic deformation of the support columns shown in Figure

3.2.1-2 results in a displacement of the top of the column

relative to the base of the column and a rotation at the top

of the. column. These displacements and rotations are caused

by the following conditions:

a) Initial preset of the base of the columns at the time of construction of the structure

b) Overall thermal growth of the torus shell due to chaqges in temperature of the shell

c) ·Elastic deformation of the ring and shell due to the imposition of mechariical loads on the structure.

Items a), b) and c) above are all self-limiting imposed dis-

placements and rotations at the top of the columns. It is

clear that the resulting bending stresses at the top of the

column are secondary stresses when consideration is given to

the fact that the structure would be stable even if the columns

were pinned at the top as well as at the base. Stability of

the structure to resist lateral loads is provided by the horizon-

tal seismic restraints. In the analyses reported herein, no

nutech 3. 7

I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I

-1 I

COM-01-040

credit is taken for the bending strength of the columns to

resist lateral loads.

The self-limiting displacements and rotations at the top of

the columns do, however, introduce primary bending moments

along the length of the column. This is a result of the

curvature that is introduced in the column as shown in Figure

3.2.1-3.

From Figure 3.2.1-3 the following categorization of stresses

can be made:

Table 3.2.1-1

CATEGORIZATION OF COLUMN STRESSES

STRESSES RESULTING FROM CATEGORY

v (Axial Load) Primary --cos a

_v_* 6 (Bending along the Primary cos a Column)

M (Bending Moment at Top of Secondary Column)

The Code allowable column load is therefore a function of V,

a, 6, and M. Since the rotations, a, are less than one degree

for this type of structure, it can be assumed that cos a = 1.

The·magnitude of the parameters a and M vary for the different

3.8 nutech


COM-01-040

design conditions (i.e., temperature of the torus, irnposed

mechanical loads, etc.). Thus, there is no unique value for

the Code allowable column load. Therefore, interaction dia

grams have been constructed for both the inside and outside

torus support columns. Four interaction diagrams are pre

sented for each column to define the Code allowable load for

a given primary or secondary bending moment. Figures 3.2.1-4

through 3.2.1-7 are interaction diagrams for the inside columns.

Figure 3 .. 2 .1-4 is the interaction diagram resulting from the·

evaluation of Equation (19) of paragraph XVII-2215 of Appendix

XVII of ASME Code Section III for primary stresses and primary

stress allowables .. Figure 3.2.1-5 results from the evaluation

of Equation (20) for primary stresses and primary stress allow

ables. Figures 3.2.1-6 and 3.2.1-7 result from the evaluation

of Equations (19) and (20) for secondary stresses and secondary

stress allowables. Figures 3.2.1-8 through 3.2.1-11 are the

corresponding interaction diagrams for the outside columns.

It is recognized that this method of computing Code allowable

column capacities is a deviation from the methods employed in

conventional AISC building design. The fundamental difference

being the distinction between "primary stress" and "secondary

stress'', where these terms are used in the context of their

strict definitions given in Section III of the ASME Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code. Three notes of caution are in order ..

-1-------------

1 3.9 nutech


1)

2)

3)

.COM-01-040

Careful consideration must be given to the cate-

gorization of.stresses. For example, it is

difficult to imagine a gross compressive axial

stress (axial load/area of column) as being any-

thing other than a primary stress. The mis-

categorization of this type of stress as a

secondary stress may result in satisfaction of

the code equations using secondary stress allow

ables, however column stability would not neces

sarily be ensured. Another exampl~ is for 0

structures in which the bending stiffness of

the column is depended upon for overall stability

of the structure, the bending stresses must be

considered as primary.

When bending stresses are categorized as secondary

it is not possibl~ to justify the use of an effective

length factor, "K", less than 1. 0. This is due to

the ~act that when secondary bending stresses are

allowed, to approach secondary stress allowables,

plastic hinges may develop at the ends of the

column· and no credit can be taken for bending re

sistance to inhibit buckling. If a K factor less

than 1.0 is used in the equations, then all bend-

ing stresses must be considered as primary.

If the designer categorizes certain qualifying

bending stresses as secondary, then he must check

-1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

I 3.10 nutech

I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

for local stability of the individual components

which make up the column cross-section, such as

the flanges and webs of an H-section. The purpose

of this check is obviously to ensure that the over-

~11 stability of the column is not compromised by

local buckling of a particular component of the

cross-section at some point along the length of

the column. The rules given in Part 2 (Plastic

Design) of the Specifications and Codes section

of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction could

be used as the criteria for ensuring local stab

ility.

The ultimate load carrying capacity of the torus support columns

is computed in accordance with paragraph A.3.l(a) of Reference

5. The effects of bending moment in the column, both secondary

and primary, are accounted for by the evaluation of Equations

XVII-2215(19) and XVII-2215(20) of Appendix XVII of ASME Code

Section III. For the evaluation of Equation (19), the denom

inator of the first term of the equation, F8

, is taken as the

numerator of Equation XVII~2213.1(4) multiplied by the factor

1.6. In the evaluation of Fa' the yield strength of the

material is taken as the minimum specified yield strength

with no increase due to strain rate. For the evaluation of

Equation (20), the denominator of the first term of the

equation is taken as 0.6S multiplied by the factor 1.6 times y

-1-------------

1 3.11 nutech

'


COM-01-040

the denominator of Equation XVII-2213.1(4). For both Equations

(19) and (20) the value of Fb is conservatively taken as the

Code allowable value of 0.66S . Interaction diagrams for the y

ultimate load capacity of the inside and outside torus support

columns are presented in· Figuies 3.2.1-12 through 3.2.1-19.

-11~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I 3.12 nutech


Moment Connection

Pin Connection·

I

' Xl

Figure 3.2.1-1

ELEVATION SECTION OF TORUS AND TORUS SUPPORT COLUMNS

,,;--/ ...

Figure 3.2.1-2

EXAGGERATED ELASTIC DEFORMATION OF TORUS CROSS-SECTION

COM-01-040

X-bracing in all bays to provide stability for horizontal loads (i.e., horizontal seismic)

-11~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I 3.13 nutech


v

--,--

Pigure 3.2.1-3

-1--------J...·XAG.GJLRA-+-I~D-G-G-J:,UM-N-D-P.-F-Gm+A_-~F--I-~i:!

I -~ .14

COM-01-040

nutech

1. 11

> >< ,......;

> r-'

r-' 0 1. 03 > L u ,--..,

"" H

'"d en '--'

0 . 95 >< f--' c

Vl

0.87

:J c 0. 79

CD o.o n ·:::T

0. 2

Figure 3.2.1-4

CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR PRIMARY STRESSES

DRESDEN INSIDE COLUMN

0.4 0. 6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2

PRIMARY BENDING MOMENT (IN-KIPS) X 10 3

1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3::

I

f--' I

0 ..i::. 0

VJ

1--1

C>

- -'- - - - - - - - - - - - -· - - - - -

1. 119

1. Il.l

> x i-;

> t-<

-· L

0 1. 13 >

t:J

,...-., ~ 1--i '1j (fJ

'-'

>< 0. ·s !--' 0

VJ

0.87

0.2

Figure 3.2.1-5

CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAN

EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVI I) EVALUATED FOR PRIMARY STRESSES


0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2

PRIMARY BENDING MOMENT (IN- KIPS) \ 103

1. 4 1.6

ll 0 :!:

I

,_. I

b.6

2.6 :;t> >< H :;t> l'

t-< VI 0

1. 6 ;J> t-' b -....)

,-..,

""' H

'"'O CfJ '--'

>< (i). 6 t-' 0

V-1

0.0 0.2

Figure 3.2.1-6

CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR SECONDARY STRESSES


0.4 0.6 0. 8 1. 0 1. 2

SECONDARY BENDING MOMENT (IN-KIPS) X 10 4

1. 4 1. 6

n 0 :s::

I

0 t-'

' 0 ..,. 0

3.6

>-x 2.6 H

;.t> t:--<

t-' 0 >-d

VJ ,.--, 1. 6 7'

~ H :xi '"O

(/) '--'

x ~

0 0.6 VJ

0.0

I

0.2

Figure 3.2.1-7

CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM

EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR SECONDARY STRESSES DRESDEN INSIDE COLUMN

0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2


1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

0 .........

I

0 +:> 0

L8 1 ].6

>->< 1-1 :;.:. r

V-1 r . 4 i--' 0 \.D ;i:>

t::l

,......._ ~ 1-1

>-o (/) .__, ] . 2 >< i--' 0

VI

1. 0

0. 8

0.0 0.2

Figure 3.2.1-8

CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DlAGRAM EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR PRIMARY STRESSES

DRESDEN OUTSIDE COLUMN

0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2


1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

0 !--'

I

0 ~

0

1. 8

1. 6

>-x H

>-r VI L'

0 1. 4 N >-0 t:::J

,.-... ~ H >-1j (fl

'-'

>< 1. 2

J--1 0

VI

1. 0

:::1 0.8 c ,.. CD n :::J"'

0.0 0 . 2

Figure 3.2.1-9

CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR PRIMARY STRESSES


0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2

PRIMARY BENDING MOMENT (IN-KIPS) x 10 3

1. 4 1.6

n 0 3:

I

8.0

'. 0 > >< 1-1 ):;> r-'

r-' 0 > VI 0 4.0

N ,,-.., t-' :::-::

,..-;

""d (fl '-'

>< t-' 2.0 Cl

VI

0.0

0.0 0. 2

Figure 3.2.1-10

CODE ALLOWAB~E LOAD - MOMENT INTER~CTION DIAGRAM EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR SECONDARY ~TRESSES


0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2

SECONDARY BENDING MOMENT (IN- KIPS) X 10 4

1.4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

0 t-'

I

Cl ~ Cl

:..N

N N

8.0

6.0

>->< H

>-t'"""

t'""" 0 4.0 >-d

,-._

~ H

"'d Cf)

'---'

>< 2.0 1--' 0

(J,j

0.0

0.0 0.2

-------------Figure 3.2.1-11

CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM

EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR SECONDARY STRESSES DRESDEN OUTSIDE COLUMN

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1. 2


1. 4 1.6

! ' !

'--~~-+~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J

3.4

> 3.0 >< H

> c-r 0 > vJ ::::i

2.6 N ,.-., VJ :::>:::

H

"'d c.n .__,

x f--' 2. 2 0

VJ

1. 8

0.2

Figure 3.2.1-12

ULTIMATE.CAPACITY LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM

EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVI I) EVALUATED FOR PRHl~RY STRESSES

DRESDEN 1NSIDE COLUMN

0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2

PRIMARY BENDING MOMENT (IN-KIPS) X 103

1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

0 ......

I

0 +>-0

- I - -

3.4

> >< 3.0 H

> r t""' 0 > 0

Vl 2. 6 ,..--_

N 7\ .;::.. H

'""Ci Cfl '-'

>< 1--' 0 2. 2

V.J

1 8

:J 1. 4 c 0.0 ..+ <D n ::::r

-

0.2

- - - - - - -Figure 3.2.1-13

ULTIMATE CAPACITY LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR PRIMARY STRESSES


(). 4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1.2

PRIMARY BENDING MO~IENT (IN-KIPS) x 10 3

l. 4 1.6

n 0 3:

I

0 I-'

I -------------------

1. 6

> 1. 2 x H

> t-

-0

VJ > . t:l 0.8 N ,-, (Jl

0 H

'"Cl \fl '-'

>< I-'

0.4 o

+:>

0.0

I

0.0 0 • 2

Figure 3.2.1-14 ULTIMATE CAPACITY LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM

EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR SECONDARY STRESSES


t:

0. 4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2


1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

o I-'

I

o +:> o

r.

1. 6

1. 2

)> >< H )> t-'

t-' ["-.) 0 0.8 °'

)>

u ,-.., 7" H

'iJ CJ)

'--'

>< 0.4 I-' '.::)

~

0.0

0.0 0.2

------Figure 3.2.1-15

ULTIMATE CAPACITY LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM

EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVI I) EVALUATED FOR SECONDARY STRESSES DRESDEN INSIDE ~OLUMN

0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. z

SECONDARY BE~DING MOMENT (IN-KIPS) X 10 4

1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

0 ........

I

0 ~

c

5.6

4.8 > >< H

> t""""'

r 0

VI > 4.0 0

N ,..--._ '-l

~ H

'"Ci Cfl '--'

>< 3.2

i-' 0

(J.I

2. 4

::s ].6 c ...

(D n ::r

. I

0.0 0.4

Figure 3.2.1-16

ULTIMATE CAPACITY LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTIO:J DIAGRAM EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR PRIMARY STRESSES


0.8 1. 2 1. 6 2.0 2.4


2.8 3.2

n 0 :s::

I

0 ~

I

0 +::-0

v~

N 00

5. 6

4.8

::» >< H

::» t-

t-0 4.0 ::» u

,.--.. ;:><: !-I

'"O (/)

'--'

>< 3 7

!--' 0 ~

2 4

:J 1. 6 c .... (1) n ::::r

0.0 0.4

Figure 3.2.1-17

ULTIMATE CAPACITY LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM

EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR PRIMAR~ STRESSES DRESDEN OUTSIDE COLUMN

~ 0. 8 1. 2 1. 6 2.0 . 2. 4

PRIMARY BENDING MOMENT (IN-KIPS) x 103

2.8 3.2

------;-----------------------------------------------•:

n 0 3:

I

0 l-'

I

0 .p. 0

].6

].2

> >< H

> r V-l r 0.8

0 N > \.D t:::

,---., 7' H

'-' VJ .__, 0.4 >< i-' c ~

0.0

0-. 0

I

. 0. 2

F i g u re 3 . 2 . ·l - l 8

ULTIMATE CAPACITY LOAD - MOMENT INTERACTIO\ DIAGRAM EQ 19 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR SECO\DARY STRESSES


0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1.2


1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

0 I-'

I

0 .+::> 0

1. 6

>- 1. 2 >< H

>-r r 0 >-t:i

VJ 0.8 ,-.. VI' ~ 0 H

'"Cl en '-'

>< I-' 0 0.4

+:-

0.0

:::s c r+. 0.0 0.2 CD n :::r

Figure 3.2.1-19

ULTIMATE CAPACITYLOAD - MOMENT INTERACTION DIAGRAM

EQ 20 (APPENDIX XVII) EVALUATED FOR SECONDARY STRESSES DRESDEN OUTSIDE COLUMN

0.4 0.6 0.8 1. 0 1. 2

SECONDARY BENDING MOMENT (IN- KIPS) x 10 4

1. 4 1. 6

n 0 3:

I

0 I-'

I

0 +:C>


COM-01-040

3.2.2 Column to Shell Connection

The capacity of the column to torus shell connection is con

trolled by the shear stress in the effective throat of the

connection welds. The ASME Section III Code allowable value

for the shear stress on the throat of the weld is 0.6S , where m

S is the allowable stress for the base metal. m For SA-516

Grade 70 material, S is 19300 psi. The weld os the web plate m

to the shell consists of double 3/8 inch partial penetration

groove welds with 1/2 inch reinforcing fillets on the inside

column arid 5/8 inch fillets on the outside column. It is con-

servative to assume that this weld was made by manual shielded

metal arc welding. Then, ASME Section III, Appendix XVII,

paragraph XVII-2454(c) requires that 1/8 inch be deducted from

the groove depth to obtain the effective throat thickness.

With a 1/2 inch reinforcing fillet the effective throat is

0.53 inches and with a 5/8 inch reinforcing fillet the effective

throat is 0.62 inches as shown in Figure 3.2.2-1.

It is assumed that the column axial force is carri~d by the

web plate weld and the moment forces are carried by the wing

plate welds. The column axial force is resolved into tan

gential and radial components as shown in Figure 3.2.2-1. If

the allowable shear stress on the effective throat of the ~eld

is the square root of the sum of the squares of the shear

stresses due to the tangential and radial components of the

-1-----~-------

1 3.31 nutech


COM-01-040

column force, theri the equation for Code allowable load pre

sented in Table 3.2.2-1 can be derived. Solving this equation,

the ASME Code allow~ble load is computed to be 843 kips as

presented in Table 3.2.2-2.

As established in Section A.3.1 of Reference 5, the ultimate

capacity of the connection can be determined by using a shear

stress on the throat of the welds of 0.68S , where S is the u u

ultimate strength of the base metal of the shell. For SA-516

Grade 70 material, S is 70000 ·psi. u

With these value~ and

using the computational method described above, an equation

for the ultimate capacity of the connection is obtained and

presented in Table 3.2.2-1. Solving this equation, the

ultimate capacity is computed to be 3463 kips as presented in

Table 3.2.2-2.

-1-----'------------3.32 nutech

I


.COM-01-040

Table 3.2.2-1

COLUMN TO SHELL CONNECTION CAPACITY CRITERIA

ITEM CRITERIA

Code Allowable Pa = 0.6S 1 t m w w

Ultimate p = 0.68S 1 t

COLUMN

Inside

u

Table 3.2.2-2

COLUMN TO SHELL CONNECTION

CAPACITIES

CODE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

I (kips)

843.

Outside 986.

--

3.33

u w w

ULTIMATE CAPACITY

(kips)

3463

4051 I

I

nutech


WEB WELD

~= Pe1N a

P = U .('w tw

I. 'lz • I Y4 .. I FILLET GROOVE

foigure 3.2.2-1

COLUMN TO SHELL CONNECTION CAPACITY CALCULATION -.-----···---

3.34

COM-01-04.0

nutech

I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

3.2.3 Ring Girder and Torus Shell

The ASME Section III Code allowable stress intensity for the

ring girder material is 19~00 psi. The shel.l adjacent to the

ring girder is permitted to have a local membrane plus pri

mary bending stress intensity of l.5Sm (28950 psi) for a

distance of 0. 5 /Rt away from the ring. In the above, R is

the mean radius of the mitered cylinder, which is 180.3

inches, and t is the wall thickness, or .653 inches. Thus,

the shell membrane plus primary bending ASME Code allowable

stress interisity is 28950 psi for a region .5 /180.3*.653 =

5.43" either side of the web of the ring girder. Otherwise,

the basic Code allowable of 19300 psi applies for shell mem-

brane stress intensity.

For the evaluation of ultimate capacity, Section A.3.1 of

Reference 5 permits the use of 2.0Sy (76000 psi) for the

stress in the ring girder and local torus shell. The shell

material is SA-516 Grade 70 with a minimum Sy = 38000 psi.

No increase due to dynamic strain rate is being used in this

evaluation.

3.35 nutech

I I I I I I I I I I

-1 I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

3.2.4 Pin Connection

The ASME Section III Code allowable load and ultimate capa

cities of the pin connection at the base of the torus support

columns are computed by investigating bearing stresses on

the pin, clevis and support cradle, bending and shear in the

pin, and tension and shear in ligaments of the clevis. Pin

connection capacity criteria is presented in Table 3.2.4-1 and

pin connection properties are presented in Tables 3.2.4-2 and

3.2.4-3.

For the downward loading the bearing stresses between the pin

and the clevis control the Code allowable load capacity. Table

3.2.4-4 summarizes the downward load capacities. When cal

culating the capacity of the pin connection, the minimum spec

ified material properties of the pin, pin cradle and clevis

plate material are used. For the inside column load sharing

is assumed to be proportional to the bearing areas of the

clevis and cradle. For allowable load capacity, the connec

tion capacity is limited when the clevis reaches its allow

able bearing stress. For ultimate load capacity, both the

clevis plate and cradle are permitted to reach ultimate

stress levels.

For upward loading the clevis failure planes shown in figure

3~2.4-1 are investigated. Table 3.2.4-5 summarizes the up

ward load capacities.

3.36 nutech

I 1··


COM-01-040

Table 3.2.4-1

PIN CONNECTION CAPACITY CRITERIA

CODEl ALLOWABLE ULTIMATE TYPE OF STRESS CAPACITY CAPACITY

Shear 0.40 Fy 0.68 Fu 2

'

Bearing 0.90 F y 1. 60 Fu 2

' Bending 0.75 Fy .2.0 Fy

Tension @ Pin 0.45 Fy 1. 0 Fu Hole

References:

1. ASME Code Section III, Appendix XVII, (Reference 9)

2.

Shear Bearing Bending Tension

- paragraph XVII-2212 - paragraph XVII-2216.1

paragraph XVII-2214.3 - paragraph.XVII-2211

Section A.3.1 of Report MKl-02-012, (Reference 5)

3.37 nutech


I

'-

COM-01-040

Table 3.2.4-2

INSIDE PIN CONNECTION PROPERTIES

ITEM PROPERTY

Clevis Bearing Area 15.0 in2

Cradle Bearing Area 21. 77 in 2

Total Bearing Area 36.77 in2

Pin Elastic Section Modulus 12.27 in3

Pin Plastic Section Modulus 20.83 . 3 in

Pin Cross-Sectional Area 19.63 in 2

Clevis Tensile Area 11. 82 in 2

Clevis Shear Area 13.26 in2

Pin Material C-10:18

Yield Strength 40 ksi

Ultimate Tensile Strength 60 ksi

Clevis Material A-283 Gr c


Ultimate Tensile Strength SS ksi

Cradle Material SA-516 Gr 70



3.38 nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I ·I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

Table 3.2.4-3

OUTSIDE PIN CONNECTION PROPERTIES

ITEM . PROPERTY

Clevis Bearing Area 26.0 in 2

Pin Elastic Section Modulus 26.96 in 3

Pin Plastic Section Modulus 45.77 in 3

Pih Cross-Sectional Area 33 .18 . 2 in

Clevis Tensile Area 21. 7 5 . 2 in

Clevis Shear Area 21. 44 in 2

Pin Material C-1018

Yield Strength. 40 ksi

·Ultimate Tensile Streng.th 60 ksi

Cl.evis Material A 212 B FBX I

I Yield Strength 38 ksi


3.39 nutech


Table 3.2.4-4

DOWNWARD LOAD PIN CONNECTION CAPACITY

TYPE OF CODE ULTIMATE COLUMN STRESS ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

(kips) (kips)

Shear * 1540 3926

Inside Bearing 987 3410

Bending * 1110 2960

Shear 1062 2707

Outside Bearing 889 2496

Bending 761 2029

* Load taken by pin in bending and shear is proportional to the bearing areas of the cradle and clevis plates.

3.40

COM-01-040

nutech


Tqble 3.2.4-5

UPWARD LOAD PIN CONNECTION CAPACITY

TYPE OF CODE ULTIMATE COLUMN STRESS ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

(kips) (kips)

Shear 159 496

Inside Bearing 405 1320

Tension 160 650

Bending 454 1211

Shear 326 1021

Outside Bearing 702 24 96

Tension 372 1523

Bending 761 2029

3.41

COM-01-040

nutech


COM-01-040

f . ~SMEAR FAIL.URE

~~~ ............. ~ PLANE

Figur~ 3.2.4-1

CLEVIS FAILURE PLANES

3.42

TENSIL.E FAILURE PLANE

nutech


COM-01-040

3.2.5 Column Anchorage

As described in Section 2.2, the anchorage consists of two

1 1/2"¢, A-36 anchors embedded 36" into the floor slab.

The ultimate strength of the 1 1/2"¢ anchors is controlled

by their pullout from the concrete. Tests by Nelson Stud

Welding Co. (Reference 11) indicate that anchor pullout oc

curs at approximately two-thirds of the breaking strength

of the anchor. Using the minimum specified tensile strength

of A-36 material (Fu = 58 ksi), the ultimate strength of the

1 1/2"¢ anchor is 68 kips. Load displacement curves for em

bedded anchors indicate that there is no well-defined yield

load. However, from the curves, the load at 0.1" displacement

is between 0.52 and 0.63 times the breaking strength of the

anchor. Therefore, the yield load is taken as one-half the

anchor tensile strength. Two-thirds of this value can be

used for a design allowable load. The design load for each

1 1/2"¢ anchor is therefore 34 kips.

It is important to note that the displacement curve for em

bedded anchors is nonlinear. Also, the ultimate strength

of the anchors is reached only after considerable deforma

tion. A load displacement curve based on da~a extrapolated

from Reference 11 is presented in Figure 3.2.5-1. Based on

the data from Reference 11, displacement before failure of

1.5 inches for a 1 1/2"¢ anchor bolt is considered conserva-

tive.

3.43 nutech

I I 90

I 80

I I 70

I 60

I r-,

CJ)

I c:... H ~ '-' so

I i::::l < 0 .....:i

.....:i

I < . H

>< <

40

I 30

I I 20

I 10

I I I I I

0 0 .1 0. 2 0.3 0.4

F = 67 ksi u

48" Embedment

COM-01-040

Based on Data Extrapolated From "Engineering Design Data for Nelson Concrete Anchors", Nelson Stud Welding Co. (Reference 11)

0. 5 0.6 0. 7

DISPLACEMENT (INCHES) Figure 3.2.5-1

AXIAL LOAD VS DISPLACEMENT FOR 1 EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE

3.44

l/2"<j> ANCHOR

nutech


COM-01-040

3.2.6 Vent Line Bellows

Displacements of the suppression chamber relative to the

vent system were considered in the original design. In

order to accommodate relative displacements, the vent line

is connected to the suppression chamber with a bellows

assembly. The manufacturer's stated allowable displacement

is 0.875 inches in contraction, 0.375 inches in extension

and +0.625 inches normal to the vent line (See CB & I

Drawing No. 225, Revision 0). These values are compared to

the.computed relative movement in Section 6.0 of this report.

3.45 nutech


\

COM-01-040

4.0 LOADINGS

The pool swell dynamic loads employed for the analysis of the

torus suppo!t system- and attached piping· are those given in • - -· ··--· ___ .,-•>

Part 2 of Reference 8 (torus shell pressure loads) and Refer-

ence 10 (vent system impact loads). The methods given in

References 8 and 10 for adjusting the magni tude1

and timing

of the loads for the D!esden plant-specific parameters have

been employed and the resulting plant-specific loads are

given in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

The loads given in Sections 4.1 and 4~2 below incorporate the

load mitigating effects of the drywell to suppression chamber

~P of 1.0 psi which is currently being maintained at the Dresden

Units 2 and 3.

4.1 nutech

'I

I I I I I I I

,..,

I I I I I I I I I I ·I

I

COM-01-040

4.1 Torus Support Loading

The loads employed in the analysis of the torus support

structure at the time of pool swell are as follows:

a) Torus Steel Dead Load

b) Torus Water Dead Load

c) Vertical and Horizontal Seismic Loads

d) Hydrodynamic Pool Swell Loads

Bubble pressure on wetted surface of torus shell

Torus air space compression pressure

Vent system loads

The plant unique analysis consists of a base case analysis

and an analysis to determine the sensitivity of the structural

response to variations in the hydrodynamic pool swell loads.

The loads used in the base case analysis are those which were

identified during a presentation to the NRC staff on January

28, 1976 (Reference 6) as the most probable loads with modifi

cations to reflect the effect of drywell pressurization. These

plant unique loads are reported in Addendum No. 2 of the STP

Report (Reference 8).

4.2 nutech

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

\\ \

.,. .

COM-01-040

Since the January 28, 1976 presentai~on: additional refine-

ments have been made to the pool swell definition by quanti-

fying conservatisms .. _ For the sensitivity analysis, the loads --

given in Addendum No. 2 are-·correc;:ted to reflect refinements

made to the loading definition.

Sensitivity Analysis Load = LF x (CF x Addendum No. 2 Loads)

where: CF = 0.8, correction factor on upward load phase to account for load conservatisms in the current value of the most probable load

LF = 1.5, load factor to evaluate sensitivity of the structural response to changes in load

A more detailed description of the torus support loading fol-

lows in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.6.

4.1.1 Torus Steel Dead Load

The dead load of the suppression chamber shell, reinforcing

ring at the mitered joint and support columns is incorporated

in the analysis using a weight density of 0.283 pounds per

cubic inch. The total dead weight of steel per mitered

cylinder (1/16 of torus) is approximately 72 kips.

4.1.2 Torus Water Dead Load I

A water level corresponding a ~inimum 1 downcomer submergence I i

of 3.67 feet was used in calculating the hydrostatic pressures.

The tot~l dead weight of water in one 1 mitered cylinder is approx-

imately 460 kips.

4.3 nutech


COM-01-040

4.1.3 Vertical and Horizontal Seismic Load

To account for the effects from seismic excitation, a static

vertical coefficient of acceleration of :0.134g and a static

horizontal coefficient of acceleration of 0.20g is assumed

to act on both the torus steel and water loads. The seismic

coefficients are those appearing in the plant FSAR (Reference

13) .

4.1.4 Bubble Pressure

After a pipe rupture LOCA, the drywell begins to.pressurize

as a steam-liquid coolant mixture flows through the break

opening. As the drywell continues to pressurize, the air in

the vent system also pressurizes and accelerates the water

leg in the downcomers. Once the water within the downcomers

has been cleared, an air bubble forms at the downcomer exit.

As the air bubble expands beneath the surface of the suppres

sion pool, the water above the bubble is accelerat~d upward.

The torus shell and support system is subjected to a downward

pressure force equal and opposite to the force accelerating

the water slug upward. \

The magnitudes of the pressures on the torus during the initial

period following the LOCA were obtained from Addendum No. 2

to the STP Report (Reference 8). Pressure transients are pro

vided at four locations on the shell as shown in Figure 4.1.4-1.

P3 is the torus air space compression as described in Section

4.4 nutech


COM-01-040

' I

-4. 1. S. P4, PS, and P6 a re t_he downward bubhl e pressures.

The pressure between P4, PS, and P6 is assumed to vary linearly

alo.ffg the circumfer:ence of the shell. !letween the horizontal -·

centerline and P6 the variation is also assumed: to be linear,

and the pressure at the horizontal centerline is equal to the

pressure associated with the air space compression (see Section

4.1.5). Figures 4.1.4-2, 4.1.4-3 and 4.1.4-4 give the pressure

transients at locations P4, PS, and P6 for Dresden Units 2 & 3.

These pressure transient curves are derived from the reference

plant curves given in Reference 8 by applying, in the prescribed

manner, the plant-specific correction ~actors which are also

given in Reference 8 for Dresden. The specific values of

these correction factors are given in Figures 4.1.4-2, 4.1.4-3,

and 4.1.4-4. Note that for this base case analysis the "MC 11

factor is 1.0. Also note that the load mitigating effect of

the 1.0 psi AP is accounted for by the appropriate factors

AP and APd . which have beeti obtained from the AP sensitivity up own

curves given in Reference 8.

4.5 nutech . } .

I COM-01-040

I I I IP3

I I .WATER

L.£VEL

I 1+ ~

I ~

-"'---

I I I 1P4

I I I I Figure 4.1.4-1

TORUS PRESSURE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

I 1· I I 4.6 nutech

:J c: ,.. CD n :J"'

2 3.

15.

-1.

- 9 •

-------------

12.85 psi

Figure 4.1.4-2

DRESDEN BASE CASE ANALYSIS

PRESSURE TIME HISTORY AT P4

---

Plant

Md own

MC down

6P down

M up

MC up AP up -

Unique Load

= .91

= 1. 0

= . 71

= 1. 03

= 1. 0

= .89

i ' I

! .' I I Ii

I

Mul tip·liers

-·· .

CJ 0 3:

I

0 ,_. I

0 +:> 0

-17 . .,_~~~~+-~~~~+-~~~~t--~~~~~~~~~a--~~~----~~~~---11--~~~~ .00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .so .60 .70 . 80

TIME (SECONDS)

2 3.

15.

"'d :;i:i tTl (/) (/)

+::> c::: 7. :;o 00 tTl

,....... "O (/) .

H ("') .._,

-1.

- 9.

:J -17. c ,.. .00 CD n :::J"'

11.88 psi

.10 . 20

Figure 4.1.4-3


PRESSURE TIME HISTORY AT PS

.30 .40 .so

TIME (SECONDS)

Plant Unigue Load MultiJ2liers

M down .91

MC = 1. 0 down

6Pd own . 71

M = 1. 03 n up 0

3: MC 1. 0 I = 0 up ~

6P = .89 0 up +::> 0

.60 .70 .80

-------------Figure 4.1.4-4


PRESSURE TIME HISTORY AT P6

23.

15. '

"'C

I ' i I

:xi rn (/) (/}

c: ~ tn

""" 7. 6.81 ,........

ID "'C (/}

Plant Unigue Load Multi)2liers >-I

C') '--' Md own .91 . I

' ;

-1. MCd = 1. 0 own

6P = • 7 1 down

M = 1. 03 up

-9. MC 1. 0

CJ = .. 0 up 3:: I

6P = .89 0

up ...... I

0

""" 0

~ -17.-t--~~~r-~~~+-~~~+-~~~-+-~~~-+-~~~4-~~~_._~~~~ ... .00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .so .60 .70 .80

~ TIME (SECONDS)

:::J"'


COM-01-040

4.1.5 Torus Air Space Compression P;e~suie

During the period of pool swell, the rising water slug com

prejses the air originally ~hove the pool surface. The pres-

sure transi~nt (P3) produced by the decrease i~ air volume

above the pool during pool swell for the reference plant is

obtained from Addendum No. 2 to the STP Report. Figure 4.1.5-1

presents the P3 pressure transient after the plant-specific

correction factors have been applied. This pressure transient

is applied to the entire upper half of the torus.

The 11 net pressure" time history due to' bubble pressure on

the wetted surface and air space compression acting on the

upper half of the torus shell is the integrated summation of

the time histories at P3, P4, PS, and P6. This net pressure

time history is presented in Figures.· .1.5-2. The negative

pressure peak is 10.46 psig and the positive pressure peak is

4.32 psig.

It should be noted that the dead weight of the steel and water

is equivalent to a downward pressure of 5.68 psi on the horizon

tal projected area of the torus. Therefore, frir the base case

loads, at the time of maximum.net upward pressure due to pool

swell, there remains a "total net pre~sure" of 5.68-4.32 = 1.36 [

psi pressure acting downward on the torus projected area.

4.10 nutech

23.

15.

""O :;c:l tn (fJ (fJ

c: :;c:l ..,. tTI 7.

~ ,.....,

~ 'i:j (fJ H

CJ '--'

-1.

- 9.

:J -17. c: ..+ (D n :J"'

. 00 . 10 . 20

Figure 4.1.5-1


PRESSURE TIME HISTORY AT P 3

.30 . 40 .SO

TIME (SECONDS)

Plant Unique Load Multipliers

Md own = .91

MCd = 1. 0 own

6P down .71

M 1. 03 n 0 up 3:

MC = 1. 0 I

0 up ....... I

6P = .89 0 up ..,.

0

.60 . 7 0 .80

.i;:.. . ~ N

- - - - - - - -· - - -

23.

Plant

M down 15. MC down

'"d t,p ~ down tT1 (/) M (/)

c: up ~ 7. MC tT1 up

,....... t.P '"d

(/) up H Cl '-'

--.:.i.

-9.

Unique

= .91

= 1. 0

= .71 = = 1. 03

= 1. 0

= .89

Load

Figure 4.1.5-2


NET PRESSURE TIME HISTORY

Multipliers

10.46 psi

psi

:J -17 c -~~~-t-~~-+-~~-+-~~~~~~+-~~-+-~~-+-~~---f

... .00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 . 70 . 80 .60 (D (') TIME (SECONDS)

::::r

("')

0 3:

I

0 ~

I

0 .i;:..

0


COM-01-040

4.1.6 Vent System Loads

During pool swell the vent system is subjected to loads which

ultimately result in vent support column reaction forces

acting on the suppression chamber. These loads are:··

a) The Deadweight of the Vent System,

b) Vent System Thrust Loads,

c) A Net Downward Pressure Due to the P3-P4 Dif

ference During the Upward Phase of the Transient

and

d) Pool Surface Impact Loads on Vent Line and

Vent Header

From the plant construction drawings, the deadweight of 1/16

of the vent system was determined to be approximately 10 kips.

Loads due to (b) and (c) are given in Reference 8 for the 0.75

seconds from the start of the LOCA event which is the time

period during which pool swell loads are of significance.

During this period, loads due to (b) and (c) are ramp functions.

However, si~ce there is only minor pressure fluctuations, these

loads can be considered as static loads with a magnitude equal

to the value that exists at the point in time of interest.

Loads due to (d) above are given in Reference 10. Unlike loads

due to (a), (b), and (c) above, the pool surface impact lo~ds on

the vent system must be treated as dynamic loads for a structure

4.13 nutech


COM-01-040

with dynamic properties such as those of a Mark I containment

vent system. In addition, the magnitude of these loads'are

considerably greater than those due to (a), (b), and (c) above.

The analysis conducted to determine the force time histories in

the vent system support columns (refer to Section 5.1.1) utilizes

only the loads due to (d) above. The justification for neglect

ing loads due to (a), (b), and (c) is given below:

During the downward load phase of the pool swell transient it

is conservative to neglect loads which tend to subtract from

the total downward load acting on the torus. During this

phase of the transient the upward vent thrust loads exceed the

dead weight of the vent system. Therefore neglecting the loads

due to (a) and (b) during this portion of the transient is a

conservative assumption. Loads due to (c) are of course non

existent during the downward load phase of the transient.

During the upward load phase (i.e., vent system water impact

loads and air space compression pressure) it is conservative

to neglect loads which tend to subtract from the total upward

load acting on the torus. For this phase of the loading

transient the downward load due to (a) and (c) exceed the

upward load due to (b). Therefore neglecting the loads due

to (a), (b), and (c) during this portion of the transient is

conservative in the evaluation of torus uplift.

4.14 nutech


COM-01-040

I

Plant specific loads due to (d) are provided in Reference 10.

The hydrodynamic function. varies with location along the vent

sys.tern and consists:_of a single parabolic impact impulse. There

are two loading functions. fo-r the-·vent header a~d for the vent

pipe there are loading functions at 8 stations.

For the vent pipe, the pressure loads are applied normal to

the tangent to the vent pipe surface. The pressures are

average values over the projected area.

4.15 nutech

I I I I I I I I I ·I

I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

I ;'

4.2 Attached Piping Loading

The loads imposed on piping attached to the torus are in the

form of disp_l<3:_cemen~t-time histories at the piping penetrations

and attachments to the torus.

The source of the vertical torus displacement at the piping

attachment points is described in detail in Section 6~2.1

and the results are tabulated in Table 6.2.1-3. Consider

ation has been given to both the elastic deformation of the

torus shell and support system, as well as the amount of

rigid body torus uplift.

: 4 .16 nutech


COM-01-040

5.0 METHODS OF ANALYSES

Consistent wiih the criteria summarized in Section 3.0 of

this report, the analyses reported herein are divided into

two parts. The first is the base case analysis and the

second is the sensitivity analysis. The nature of these

two analyses is such that different methods are used for

each. Methods used for each are described below in Sections

5.1 and 5.2.

,,.

5.1 nutech


\ \

COM-01-040

5.1 Base Case Analysis.

For the base case analysis, a three dimensional (3-D)

finite element niocfel of a 1/ 32 segment of the torus shell --- . - - ----·-· - - ........ ~ .

was utilized for the determination of the torus support ..

column forces, ring and shell stresses, and elastic de-

formations of points on the shell where piping is attached.

The 3-D model does not include the vent line, vent header,

downcomers or vent header support columns. The loads which

the vent header support columns exert on the ring are ap-

plied to the 3-D model as force time histories at the

points on the 3-D model corresponding to the vent header

support columns attachment locations. These force time

histories are determined utilizing a two dimensional (2-D)

beam element model which includes the torus reinforcing

ring at the intersection of mitered cylinders, the torus

support columns and the vent system. The plant specific

vent system loads provided· in Reference 10 are applied to

the vent system portiori of the 2-D beam model and the forces,

as a function of time, are extracted from the results and

applied to the 1/32 3-D model.

Further descriptions of these two models as well as an

explanation of how earthquake effects were included are

provided in Sections 5.1.1, 5.1.2 an~ 5.1.3 which follow.

5.2 nutech


COM-01-040

Solol 2-D Ring with Vent System Model

As dis~ussed in Section 5.1, the objective 0£ the 2-q ring with

the vent system model is to determine the force time histories

in the vent header support columnso The details of the model

are shown in Figures 5. 1. 1-1 through 5. 1.1- 3.

This model was analyzed with the STRUDL-DYNAL computer program

which is described in Appendix A. The plant unique pool swell

vent system impact loading transients for the Dresden vent

system as ~pecified in Reference 10 were applied to the model

as indicated in Section 4.106 of this report.

It has been recognized that the magnitude and distribution

of the inertial mass on the ring portion of the model will

have a significant influence on the dynamic structural res

ponse to the applied loads. Two different mass distribution

assumptions have been investigated and the case which resulted

in the larges~ magnitudes of vent column force time histories

was used for application to the 3-D modelo

The first assumption of mass distribution is a sinusoidal

variation around the ringo The total mass is equal to 80%

of the mass of the water and 100% of the mass of the torus

shell and ringo This assumed distribution is based on the

theoretical sinusoidal variation of membrane shear as the

shear load transfer mechanism for a cylinder. This

'

5.3 nutech

I I I I I I I

' .

; ~

I I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

.. ;

assumption represents the boundary ca~e'for the maximum

amount of mass that could be postulated to be effective in

the-dynamic respon_s~-of the suppress ion chamber and its

contained water to the vent syste~ roads.

The second assumption of mass distribution represents the min-

imum amount of mass that could be postulated to be effective.

The mass consists of the mass of the ring, plus the mass of

a characteristic length of shell . (taken as 1. 56 /R-t), plus

the mass of the water directly abov~ that portion of the shell.

The mass of the water was distributed 6n the ring in pro-

portion to the depth of water at each point.

The results of each assumed mass distribuiton in the form of

force time histories for the vent header support columns are

provided in Section 6.1. Since the forces were larger from

the model with the total mass distributed ~inusoidally, those

are the ones which were used as load inputs to the 3-D finite

element model.

5.4

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·~ r

~·~

:

I ',;· (

: .

DRYWELL SHELL

(

RING GIRDER ( FOR DETAILS OF MODEL

REFER TO DWG. 5.1.1-2)

VENT LINE SYMMETRY

ISOMETRIC VIEW

/

/-SYMMETRY PLANE

/

/

943

Ill

VIEW A-A

DOWNCOMER OMITTED FOR CLARITY-, · REFER TO VIEW 8-8

c 933

FOR DETAILS OF RING GIRDER REFER TO DWG 5.1.1-2

c@ 8 931

c@ A 927 0@ 0§

C952 A@ A@ C951 c 8946

@:j) 8 A936 . ~A

@ cm

8948 A938

c 8 A

@e§ C 956 8 9~0 A940

c@) 0@ A@

VIEW 8- 8

TYPICAL 3 LOCATIONS

8945 c A935 8 . @ ~9 026

C953 8947

A937

A 8 c @.@~

A939 8 949 C955

FIGURE 5.1.1-1 STRUDL MODEL OF 1;16 VENT SYSTEM SECTION I

. !,

nutech

I I I I I I 1·

I I

I

I I I I I I I I I • ·.J

-~~ ... J '';,

I ·.·

. 278 2.92.

296.

274

·----- - ----+ ---

1

i

'

FIGURE 5.1.1-2 STRUDL MODEL OF TORUS RING GIRDER

13~

1'30 t I

116

112:

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

.~r.~.

I ~ : ..

. '.f.

1543 .------.

1544i-------

1555 1557 1556

9 1539 8 Oa ve 1535 ____ ......_ __ _... __ ........... ___ 357 1548 154~ 1550

8 1651

1551

Is

e 9

8

e

OUTSIDE CONNECTION WEB AND SUPPORT COLUMN

INSIDE CONNECTION WEB AND SUPPORT COLUMN

FIGURE 5.1.1-3 STRUDL MODEL OF TORUS SUPPORT COLUMNS

AND CONNECTIONS FOR VENT SYSTEM AND TORUS RING

GIRDER ANALYSIS

1508

1509

1510

1511

1512


COM-01-040

5.1.2 3-D Shell and Support System Model

The mathematical model that was used for the 3-D shell and

support system analysis is shown in Figures 5.1.2-1 thru

S.lo2-6. The PBS2 flat plate element of the STRUDL-DYNAL

program was used to model the suppression chamber shell and

the regions where the support columns attach to the suppres

sion chamber. The straight prismatic beam element was used

to model the reinforcing ring and the support columns. The

model consists of 576 nodes, 587 flat plate elements, and

106 beam elements.

The following assumptions were employed in developing the

model:

a) The location of the reinforcing ring is assumed

to be on the mitered joint rather than 4" from

the joint as is the case for the actual geometry.

This assumption makes it possible to model only

half of a mitered cylinder since (1) the vent

line penetrations in the suppression chamber do

not, affect the overall behavior of the torus and

(2) the loads for the analysis are symmetric

about the centerline of each cylinder. The

boundary conditions which must be imposed at

each boundary node to insure that su~netry is

preserved consists of restraining both the trans

lation normal to the plane of symmetry and the

rotations about lines in the plane of ,ymmetry·.

So8 nutech


' . :·~

COM-01-040

b) The angle between the reinforcing ring web

and the torus shell plate varies a~ound the

circumference from 78.76° to 90°. For the

model, the web was assumed normal to the

shell at all points. Also, due to the symmetry

boundary condition' at the mitered joint, one

half of the computed cross sectional proper

ties of the reinforcing ring (excluding the

shell} are utilized.

c) The regions where the support columns attach to

the suppression chamber are modeled with the

PBS2 flat plate element. Each column however,

is modeled as a prismatic beam element. To

insure the continuation of the·assumption that

plane sections remain plane at the juncture of

the beam element with the flat.plate elements,

additional beam elements with large moments of

inertia are used to join the "boundary" nodes

of the flat plate element.

d) In addition to the boundary restraints listed in

(a) above, the base of the columns are restrained

against translation in all directions as

well as against movement in the vertical direction.

The effects of this boundary condition are dis

cussed in Section 6.1~

:;· 5.9 nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'

I

l.OM-01-040

As described above, the vent system support reactions were

applied to the model as force time histories. Downward pool

dynamic pressures and upward air space compression pressures

as well as other loads identified in Section 4.1 were applied

in the manner specified therein. The pressures were used to

compute loads for each node on the shell. The kinematic

condensation feature of the STRUDL DYNAL program was used to

reduce the number of translational dynamic degrees-of-freedom

to about one third the number of static translational degrees

of-freedom. The pertinent results of the 3-D finite element

analysis are discussed in Section 6.0 of this report.

5 .10

nutech


(\J C\J

i,

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, INC.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

DRESDEN SUPPRESSION CHAM~ER MODEL - TORUS SHELL i

Fy = F 'l = M x. o}@ e .. II. 2. s 0

ELEVATION

=..i l.O

~ @J Ill

4 w L)

~ Ill i.n 3

1:·1~ cc-= 0° 4°

KEY DIAGRAM

){

11.25°

541-6

11= 654" C{, SUPPRESSION CHAMBER

PLAN

<t. DRYWELL I I

22 SPACES @ 8°" 176°

'TfRM=S66.Sl11

SUPPRESSION I CHAMBER (

b. =0y"9z=O · x ' LINES QF SYMMETRY

Fy a F 'l"" M-x • 0 Ax .. 0v"0~·0

ct DRYWELL I

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

AGURE 5.1.2-1 DEVELOPED VIEW OF STRUDL MODEL - LOWER HALF OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER - NODE : NUMBERS

:I 180°

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I,

I I I I

0( = 180°

I I I

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, INC .


DRESDEN SUPPRESSION CHAMBER MODEL - TORUS SHELL

22. SPACES @ 8°= 176°

crTRM"' 566.5111

' '

419 8 7

6

s

4

3

z. 40

I o 356 3~0°

!FIGURE 5.1.2- 2 DEVELOPED VIEW OF STRUDL MODEL~ UPPER HALF OF SUPPRESSION CH~MBER -NODE NUMBERS

: nutech.

I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

5

4

3

2

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, INC.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ANO DESIGN

DRESDEN SUPPRESSION CHAMBER MODEL - TORUS SHELL

20? 218 228 239

18~ 196

163 174

i52 ! 130

141 119

97 I 206 21? 22? 238 195

75 86 173 184 64 tSl . 162 I

53 140 ' 43 129

107 118 85 96

63 74 216 226 237 42 52 194 205

10 21 32 161 172 183 128 139 150

106 117 62 73 64 95

9 20 31 41 51

12? 138 149 160 171 182 193 204 215 225 236

8 19 30 40 so 61 72 63 94· 105 116

. I . FIGURE 5.12-3 DEVELOPED' VIEW OF STRUDL MODEL - LOWER HALF OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBER - ELEMENT NUMBERS

nutech

I I I

·1


488

487

486

485

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY , INC.


DRESDEN SUPPRESSION CHAMBER MODEL - TORUS SHELL I

477 466 455 444 433 422 411 400

389 378

367 356 476 465 454 443 345

432 421 334 323 410 399 388 377 .366 355 344 333 475

322 464 453 442 431 420 409 398 387 376 365 354 343 332 321

474 463 452 441 430 419 408 397 386 375 364 353 342 331 320

FIGURE 5.1.2 - 4 DEVELOPED VIEW OF STRUDL MODEL - UPPER HALF OF SUPPRESSION

312

311

310

309

. 1

I I !

301

300

299

~98

I

290

289

288

287

CHAMBER j ELEMENT i

279 268 257 250

278 267 256 249

277 266 255 Z48

276 265 254 Z47

NUMBERS

nu tech


---+---

FIGURE 5.1.2-5 STRUDL MODEL OF TORUS RING GIRDER

. t ( (TYP.90 EQ.SPCS)

t

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i'

•·. '. =t.

I . . •

15 AA ;

5 154!

;

'

154 7

fi535 D

@

@

@

@

VIEW A-A

FLANGE

351

~ @ lb37 1&34

r:: __ ___, @ ~ 1638 1635

@ @. 9 1559

15bl

VIEW 0-0

15b3 t 154b ____ ......... ____ . BOTTOM STIFFENER PLATE

@ ~

1523

c

1565

§ ~ 1548 1549 1550 1551 845 482

1517 151&

@ It.SI

CONNECTION WEB AND SUPPORT COLUMN 1581 .--------7':,------r--~

3?5 374 1'107

VIEW C-C

TOP STIFFENER PLATE

BOTTOM STIFFENER

FIGURE 5.1.2-6 STRUDL MODEL OF TORUS SUPPORT COLUMNS AND CONNECTION

1"21

llo3\

I I

I I 427 I

I @Y 1· I

4~

~

@

@ @ i

1522 I 1521

@; ~ I

1515 :~ 1514

@ 1'150

.~:1

1509

1510.

1511

1512

1;1:.J

ti;4 F

152 ~

152 B

fi53 G

2

@

@

§

@

VIEW E-E

FLANGE

1509 + F

1510

1!:>11

1512

1si31 G

l~b2.----------.-13---------.438

I 1514 .

I.

·• I

1524

VIEW F-F

TOP STIFFENER

nu tech


5.1.3 Seismic Analysis

The original design criteria for the Dresden containment

vessel required the use of the equivalent static seismic

factors. The factors which appear in the Dresden plant

FSAR have been used in this analysis to compute column

COM-01-040

loads due to the vertical acceleration and column loads

required to resist the overturning moment associated with

the horizontal acceleration. The values of these equivalent

static loads are included in the results discussed in

Sect ion 6. 1.

5 .17

nutech

I I I I I ·1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

5.2 Load Sensitivity Analysis

Described in this section are the methods of analysis used to

conduct the required load sensitivity analysiso

S.2.1 Torus Uplift Analysis

The 3-D finite element model des~ribed in Section S.1.2 pro

vides an elaborate procedure for evaluating the effects of

downward loads and does provide some valuable information

regarding the upward loading phaseo However, since it is a

linear, elastic model, it has some limitations if the results

indicate that tensile loads develop in the torus support

columns since the resistance to uplift at the base of the

column is not the same as the resistance to downward loado

As discussed in Section 6.1, ~ensile loads are computed in

the columns of the 3-D·model. Therefore, an alternate pro-

cedure is required to address the possibility of torus uplift

and to determine anchor bolt loads. What has been used in

the Short Term Program to address this concern is a single

degree-of-freedom model of the torus support system. The

single degree-of-freedom equation of motion given below is

numerically integrated with a special purpose computer programo

The equation of motion, without a consideration for damping

is:

M .x + k(x)x = e +

Sol8

F (t)

nutech


where:

COM-01-040

x = Torus vertical displacement,

M = Effective inertial mass of the torus e

and contained water,

k(x) = The spring ~onstant representing the

stiffness of the torus supports (note

that this is a function of the dis-

placement),

FD = Torus and water dead load and

F(t) = The total dynamic vertical load on

the torus which consists of both

pressure loads and vent system

support reactions acting on the torus.

It is understood that such a mathematical model provides

an indication of whether or not uplift is a matter of concern

GE has performed studies which indicate good agreement

between the single degree-of-freedom results and results of

non-linear 2-D models (Appendix D).

The above described mathematical model was utilized for the

load sensitivity analysis by using load factors and correction

factors applied to the base case loads as required by the

STP criteria document (Reference S)o The results of these

analyses are presented and discussed in Section 6.2 of this

report.

S.19 nutech


COM-01-040

5.2.2 Attach~d Piping Analysis

The piping systems externally attached to the torus were

analyzed for the ~ffects of torus uplift and ·the resulting

stresses in the piping were determined. The piping was

analyzed by statically applying the vertical displacement of

the torus at the points of torus piping attachment. Since

the displacement time history is in the form of a pulse, a

reasonable representation of the dynamic piping response due

to torus uplift is to multiply the static input displacement

by a factor of two, to obtain correlation with dynamic

response results.

The stresses in the piping were evaluated using the NUTECH

proprietary computer program PISTAR (Piping STress ~nalysis

and Reporting). PISTAR is explained in greater detail in

Appendix A. Computer plots of the finite element mathematical

models of the various piping systems are given in Appendix B.

The piping systems are modeled as an assemblage of stiffness

elements and lumped masses, for which force deformation charac-

teristics can be categorized. The stiffness elements are

described as linear elastic elements. Since the system is des-

cribed by stiffnesses and masses, the following standard matrix

equation can be applied and solved for static analysis.

[K] - stiffness matrix

\ xJ - displacement vector

{'F} - applied force vector

5.20 nutech


COM-01-040

Where the {F} vector is derived simply by applying a relatively

high stiffness at the points of applied displacements> and

" then applying the forces which displace the high stiffness

elements by the desired imposed displacements. Due to the much

lower stiffness of the remainder of the piping system, the

resulting displacements from the above-described forces will be

essentially those of the desired applied displacements. The

matrix equation is then solved for {x} , using the Wilson

method of solution as used in the SAP IV Structural Analysis

Program developed at the University of California at Berkeley.

Most of the hangers were not modeled due to the fact that they im-

pose no restraint for upward displacement as described in Section

2.3. Snubbers are modeled as springs, since the uplift event is

dynamic in nature and has the potential of activating the

snubbers. Once the snubbers become activated, they are

essentially very stiff springs. Any other restraints on

the systems were appropriately modeled. If a restraint had

a small gap, and would have produced piping restraint at some

time during the event, it was conservatively modeled as rigid with

no gap.

The piping mathematical models. were generated from the torus pene

trations to a point in the system which was determined to be an

anchor point~ Since the an~lysis was essentially a flexibility

5. 21 nutech


COM-01-040

analysis, the conservative approach is to truncate the model

and put a fictitious anchor at that point. In all cases, the

piping was anchored at conservative locations.

Stresses in the piping system were calculated by PISTAR in the

following manner. The equation used for stress calculations

is as follows:

where,

S = iM z

S = stress in piping component

i = stress intensification factor for components,

as described in Article NC-3600 of ASME

Code Section III

M = resultant total moment applied to component from

struciural analysis

Z = section modulus of piping component

Axial and shear forces in the piping are ignored for stress

calculations, as they typically produce relatively low stresses.

Since the applied stress intensification factors are conserva-

tive the calculated stresses are conservative. The stresses

are then compared to the allowable stresses 3.0 Sc for piping

needed to maintain core cooling, and 5.0 S for other contain-c

ment system piping, as described in Section 3.1.2. These allowable

stresses were established in the STP document (Reference 5).

5. 22 nutech


COM-01-040

6.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

The Dresden suppression chamber support system and attached

piping described in Section 2.0 of this report have been

analyzed by the methods described in Sectiori 5.0 for both

the base case loads and the load5 specified for the sensiti

vity analysis. The results of these analyses are extensive.

It would nqt be practical to report all of the results that

could be extracted from these analyses. Rather, the most

significant results are summarized in Section 6.1 of this

report for the base case analysis and Section 6.2 fqr the

sensitivity analysis. The maximum values of the pertinent

parameters are also compared in this sect~on to their respec

tive allowables as established by the criteria identified in

Section 3.0.

The results reported he1ein are summarized in the form of

conclusions in Section 7.0 of this report.

6.1 nutech

I I I

I I I· I I.

I I I I I I I

;'I

COM-01-040

6. 'l Bas·~ Case Analy~ is Results

The base case analysis has been performed using the base case

.loads identified in Section 4.0. Because of the relative

·n-iagnitude of downward and upward loads, the results of primary

interest for the base case analysis.are the values of the

column loads, shell stresses, and ring stresses at the time

of maximum downward load. For completeness, the response que

tq the upward portion of the base c~se loading transient is

also discussed in this section. It must be ~mphasized that

the results from the upward load phase of the 3-D an~lysis

are no~ an accurate representation of the forces in the ·

strticture due to modeling limitations. Realistic values for

the 'upward loaq phase are reported in Section 6.2.

The loads which were applied to the ~orus shell for the support

system evaluation are specified in S~ctions 4.1.1 through 4.1.5.

In addition to those loads, the torus support 5ystem is sub

jected to loads from the vent header support colµmns. Thes~

loads have been computed by the methods de~cribed in S~ction

5.1.1. Force time history plots of the v~nt header suppgrt

reactions are shown in Figures 6~1~1 through 6.1-4. The 3-p

shell and support system and uplift models described in

Sections 5.1.2 an4 5.2.1 are loaded with the force time

history shown in Figl1res.6~ .. l-l and 6.1-2 since they represent

the maximum vent header column force time history for th~

two cases discussed in Section 5.1.1.

6.2 nutech

··.··::. . . . ~ ,. < '


,-... CJ)

i:l.. ~

::.i:: "--'

IJ,.:l u p::; 0 r.i..

lSO.

100.

so~

0

- so.

-100.

-lSO. .40

+ Denotes Tension

- Denotes Compression

- 139. S6 ~ips

100.93 kips

.. s 0 .60 . 70 .80

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.1-1

FORCE IN INSIDE VENT HEADER SUPPORT COLUMN 100% MASS OF TORUS SHELL AND RING, 80%

MASS OF WATER

6. 3

COM-01-040

.90 1. 00

nutech

I I I I I ,.....,

Cf)

0...

I H ::..::: '-'

1-1.l u

I i:i::: 0 ~


1 so.

100.

so.

0

so.

-100. • .4 0

COM-01-040

+ Denotes Tension


- 12S.4.kips

·· -66. 4 kips

.SO .. 60 .70 .80 . 90 1. 00

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.1-2 .;

FORCE IN OUTSIDE VENT HEADER SUPPORT COLUMN -100% MASS OF TORUS SHELL AND RING, 80%

MASS OF WATER

6.4

;·.

nutech


,..-.., U)

0... t--1

::..:: '-'

~ u ~ 0 ~

lSO.

100.

so.

0

- so.

-100.

-lSO.

.40

+ Denotes Tension


-139.3 kips

--111. 9 kips

.so .60. • 7 0 • 80

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.1-3

FORCE IN INSIDE VENT HEADER SUPPORT COLUMN -

MASS OF 1. S6 /RT OF TORUS SHELL, 100% MASS

COM-01-040

.90 1. 00

OF RING, MASS OF WATER ABOVE l.S6 /R'f LENGTH OF SHELL

6.S nutech / .. '· ' '

I I I I I I ,.......

ti)

i::i... 1-4

I ~ '-'

i:.il u ~

I 0

""

I I I I I I I I I I I

·.t>·.':. ... ,· .. · .•:- .,

COM-01-040

• + Denotes Tension

- Denotes G~mpression

150.

-119.4 kips 100.

so.

0

- so. -91.42 kips

~100 . .+--~-+~--4-----+---~---+----+~--+-~-+-~-+-~--+----+---~ .;·. 40

. ~- ' ... . . . .

.so .60 .70 . 80 .90

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.1-4

FORCE IN OUTSIDE VENT HEADER SUPPORT COLUMN -MASS OF 1. S6 /ITT' OF TORUS SHELL, 100% MASS

OF RING, MASS _.OF WATER ABOVE 1. 56 /RT LENGTH OF STEEL

. 'l. . :···· .. · .. :···

1. 00

nutech

:·, .; . :_,

I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

6.1.l Downward Loading Phase

It is convenient to discuss the results of the base case

suppression chamber support system analysis in two parts.

Attention is focused in this section on the response to

the downward loading phase.

The loads in the torus support columns as a function of

time due to the pool swell dynamic loads are shown in Fig

ures 6.1.1-1 and 6.1.1-2. The maximum column compression

loads due to pool swell dynamic loads are taken from these

figures and combined with the loads in the columns due to

the deadweight of the· water plus the deadweight of the

steel and seismic, to arrive at the total maximum compres

sive column loads. These loads are tabulated in Table

6.1.1-1.

I The maximum value of bending moment, rotation, and horizontal

I displacement at the top of the columns at the time of maximum

compressive force due to pool swell dynamic loads are given

I in Table 6.1.1-2. The values of these parameters due to the

deadweight of the water and steel plus vertical and horizontal

I seismic are given in Table 6.1.1-3. Using the values given in

I Tables 6.1.1-2 and 6.1.1-3, calculations are made to determine

the maximum primary bending moment in the columns. This is

-1~---~cton-e-by-d-e-term±n±ng-tfre-c-o-1-umn-d-e-f-o-rm-at-:i:-o·n-(-o-)-fre-f-e-r-t-0,---------

I I I

F i gu re 3.2.1-3) and then multiplying it by the total maximum

6. 7 nutech


-1 I I I

COM-01-040

compressive load in the column as given in Table 6.1.1-1

(column 6). Column deformations at the time of maximum

column compressive load are tabulated in Table 6.1.1-4. A

STRUDL model of the column is used to determine the value

of o for the applicable values of rotation and displacements

utilized as imposed boundary conditions. Note that the value

of displacement used is the algebraic summation of the values

from Table 6.1.1-2 and 6.1.1-3 and the imposed preset at the

base of the columns at the time of construction of the con

tainment vessel. The column preset values are taken from the

construction drawings for the containment vessel. The pieset

for the inside column is +.1875 inches (sign convention per

Table 6.1.1~2) and for the outside column +.6875 inches.

The values of primary and secondary bending moments and column

axial loads that are used to enter the interaction diagrams

of Section 3.2.1 are given in Table 6.1.1-5. For the outside

column the value for the secondary bending moment is the

algebraic sum of the bending moments given in 7ables 6.1.1-2

and 6.1.1-3 and the bending moment at the top of the column

resulting from the preset at the base of the column of +.6875

inches. For the inside column the bending moment due to a

preset of +.1875 inches is algebraically added to the values

from Tables 6.1.1-2 and 6.1.1-3.

-nutech 6.8


COM-01-040

Also given in Table 6.1.1-5 are the values for the ASME

Section III Code allowable column loads, ultimate column

. capacities arid resulting strength ratios. The Code allow

able column loads are determined by entering the four

interaction diagrams for Code allowable load (Section

3.2.1) with the appropriate value of primary or secondary

bending moment, reading the corresponding value of allowable

axial load from the ordinate, and using the lowest of the

four values. The ultimate column capacity is obtained in a

similar manner from the four interaction diagrams in Section

3.2.1 for the ultimate column load capacity.

Havi.ng evaluated the effects of the maximum column compressive

load on the columns themselves, the maximum value of the load

is then used to evaluate its effect on the pin connection at

the base of the'column and on the connection of the column to

the torus shell. These evaluations are made in Table 6.1.1-6.

Considering the number of finite elements in the shell model

and the number of beam elements in the portion of the model

which represents the ring as well as the number of time steps

in the solution, it is not practical to physically search the

complete output file looking for the element and the point in

time where the maximum stress intensity occurs. Rather, it

is necessary to make a judgment as to which point in the

6.9 nutech

--, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

loading transient should be investigated. The points in time

selected for these investigations are the times of maximum

o~tside column compression and inside column tension. At

these points in time all 3~D model shell and beam elements

were investigated for maximum stress intensity. The maximum

stress in.tensities in the shell and ring were found in the

region of the outside column to shell connection. The max

imum stress intensities in the ring are plotted in Figure

6.1.1-3 for t = 0.290 sec. The stress intensities are

computed at the extreme fiber of the ring and are conserva

tively assumed to represent the primary membrane stress

intensities. Also, local membrane and secondary shell stress

intensities are plotted in Figures .6.1.1-4 and 6.1.1-5

.respectively. The maximum values of the ring and shell

stress intensities ate reported in Table 6.1.1-7 and com

pared to the ASME Section III Code allowable and Short Term

Program criteria.

6.10 nutech

I I I I :I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

·J

( 1

COLUMN

Inside

Outside

Table 6.1.1-1

TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN MAXIMUM COMPRESSIVE LOADS

2 3 4 5 POOL STEEL & VERT. HORIZ.

SWELL WATER SEISMIC SEISMIC LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD

(kips) (kips) (kips} (kips)

469.6 241. 8 32.4 I 13.4

! 596.2 290.5 38.9 . 23.5

!

1

6.11

, COM-01-040

6

TOTAL LOAD

(kips)

757.2

' ! \ 949.1 ' ; : i

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I

COM-01-040

Table 6.1.1-2

TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN BENDING MOMENTS, ~.ISPLACEMENTS

AND ROTATIONS DUE TO POOL SWELL DYNAMIC LOADS

BENDING COLUMN MOMENT ROTATION DISPLACEMENT

(in-kips) (deg) (in)

Inside + 25.9 -0.02397 -0.0676 ! I

!

Outside l +168.0 I + 0.0537 +0.0617 i ! i

Note: The above values of bending moment, rotation and displacement are taken at the time of maximum compressive load in the column.

Drywell

Outside Column

NOTATION AND SIGN CONVENTION

6.12

+Displacement

+Rotation

Inside Column

nutech


COLUMN

Inside

Table 6.1.1-3

TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN BENDING MOMENTS, DISPLACEMENTS AND ROTATIONS DUE

TO DEADWEIGHT OF STEEL AND WATER PLUS VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL SEISMIC

BENDING

COM-01-040

MOMENT ROTATION DISPLACEMENT (in-kips) (deg) (in)

+ 2.03 -0.0184 - 0.0446

I j ' ' i 1

Outside + 40.5 + 0.0301 + 0.0558

Note: The sign convention for bending moments, rotations and displacements are as defined in Table 6.1.1-2.

;

6.13 nutech

I I I ·I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COLUMN

Inside

Outside

COM-01-040

Table 6.1.1-4

TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN DEFORMATION AT TIME OF MAXIMUM COLUMN COMPRESSIVE LOAD

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR STRUDL MODEL OF COLUMN COMPUTED VALUE

OF 11 011 PER . DISPLACEMENT* ROTATION FIGURE 3.2.1-3

(in) (deg) (in)

-·

+0.07523 -0.0423 0.031

· +O. 80502 +0.0838 0.13

*Displacement includes I. S. column pres et of + .18 7 511

and O.S. column preset of +.6875".

6.14 nutech


Table 6.1.1-5

TORUS SUPPORT COLUMN CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD AND STRENGTH RATIOS

l 2 3 4 5 6

PRIMARY BENDING SECONDARY CODE ULTIMATE

COLUMN COLUMN MOMENT BENDING ALLOWABLE COLUMN LOAD (2) x 0 MOMENT LOAD CAPACITY

(kips) (in-kips) (in-kips) (kips) (kips)

Inside 757.2 23. -736. 1050. 3000.

Outside 949.1 120. - 2 591. 1310. 3300.

NOTES:

Values of column load obtained from Table 6.1.1-1.

Value of primary bending moment is the column load times the column deformation obtained from Table 6.1.1-4.

Value of secondary bending moment is the algebraic sum of bending moments given in Tables 6.1.1-2 and 6.1.1-3 plus the moment due to the preset of the base of the columns.

Value of Code allowable load and ultimate capacity obtained from the interaction diagrams of Section 3. 2. 1

Value of strength ratio obtained by dividing column load by ultimate capa~ity

6.15

COM-01-040

7

, STRENGTH RATIO

(2) (6)

NA (MEETS CODE)

NA (MEETS CODE)

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I

1

Table 6.1.1-6

COLUMN ·PIN CONNECTION AND SHELL CONNECTION CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD AND STRENGTH RATIOS

2 3 4

COM-01-040

5

CODE STRENGTH COMPONENT COLUMN ALLOWABLE ULTIMATE RATIO

LOAD LOAD I CAPACITY C 2) I (kips) (kips) i (kips) (4)

! I

Shell l Cl) Conn. 757.2 843. i 3463. NA

"d . ! (MEETS CODE) 'M I

Ul Pin I I i::

I H Conn. 757.2 987. 2513. NA

I (MEETS CODE) I 1 I 1. Shell '

'Cl) l I

"d Conn. 949.l 986. ! 4051. (MEE~~ CODE) 'M f Ul

' .µ l

16 Pin ,

Conn. 949.l ! 761. : 2029 0.47 ! i

NOTES:

Values of column load obtained from Table 6.1.1-1.

Values of Code allowable load and ultimate capacity obtained from Sectiori 3.2.2 and 3.2.4.

6.16 nutech

~-------------------

1

COMPONENT

!

Ring

! I Shell

~

' '

Table 6.1.1-7

STRESS INTENSITIES AND STRENGTH RATIOS FOR RING AND SHELL - DOWNWARD LOAD PHASE

2 3 4 5 6 7

MAX. STRESS CODE ALLOW. STP ALLOW. INTENSITY STRESS INTENSITY STRESS INTENSITY

(ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

PL PL + Q p+, PL + Q PL PL + Q

11. 5 11. 5 19.3 57.8 NA 16.0

16.0 23.6 28.9 57.8 NA I 76.0 I

! I

8 9

STRENGTH RATIO

.

PL PL + Q

NA NA

NA NA I ! I

' I

n 0 :!:

I

0

"'""" I

0 ~

--0

I I I I I I 600

~

(/)

0...

I H 400 :..:: '---'

r..u 200 u

I IX 0 ri.. 0

I -200

I -400

-600

I 0

I I I I I I I I

+ Denotes Tension - Denotes Compression

Dead Load Steel+Water=241.8 kips

469.6 kips

.10 • 2 0 .30 .40 . so

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.1.1-1

AXIAL FORCE IN INSIDE TORUS SUPPORT

COLUMNS DUE TO POOL SWELL DYNAMIC LOADS

6.18

COM-01-040

-493.28 kips

. 60 .70

nutech

I I I I I 600. r-..

en

I ~ 1-4 ~ 400. '-'

''-0

I u 200. c::x: 0 ~·

0

·I -200.

I -400.

I -600.

0

I I·

I I I I I I I

:;:;.:,·.,' .

+ Denotes Tension Denotes CompTession

f

COM-01-040

Dead Load; Steel+Water=290.5 kips -410.22 kips

.10

596.24 kips

.20 .30 .40 . so .60

TlME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.1.1-2

AXIAL FORCE IN OUTSIDE TORUS SUPPORT

COLUMN DUE TO POOL SWELL DYNA~fI.~ LOAD

6.19 I '- .

.70

nutech

. ..... , ...

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·I

I I I I

NOTE:

Plotted values of direct stress same numerical value as stress intensity

-IZ. -b. 0

Figure 6.1.1-3

DIRECT STRESS IN REINFORCING RING

COM-01-040

I 2.

(ks i "j

AT TTME OF MAXIMUM COLUMN COMPRESSION LOAD

6.20 nutech


COM-01-040

'

18

Figure 6.1.1-4

LOCAL MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITIES IN SHELL ADJACENT TO REINFORCING RING AT TIME OF MAXIMUM

COLUMN COMPRESSIVE LOAD

6.21 j '··'

nutech


COM-01-040

() 10 20

(ksi)

Figure 6.1.1-5

PRIMARY PLUS SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITIES IN SHELL.

ADJACENT TO REINFORCING RING AT TIME or MAXIMUM COLUMN COMPRESSIVE LOAD

6. 22 nutech


COM-01-040

6.1.2 Upward Loading Phase

The 3-D finite element model which provided the results re

ported for the base case dowrtward load phase was also

utilized for the upward phase of the loading transient. If

the model indicates tension in the torus ~upport solumns,

then the results must be qualified. That is, once the

indicated torus support column tension load exceeds the

prestress in the column anchor system, the model does not

accurately represent the boundary ~ondition at the base

of the column. This· is because the resistance to uplift

is not the same as the resistance to downward load. The

maximum computed tension in the columns of the Dresden

torus support system occurs at the inside column and equals

297.2 kips. It is not known what, if any, preload exists

in the anchorage system.

Since the actual resistance to upward movement at the base of

the column is less than modeled, it is clear that the column

tensile load which would actually be developed is considerably

less than the one computed using this linear model. A more

accurate value of the column tension load is computed using

a non-linear model in Section 6.2. Nevertheless, it is of

some interest to report these very conservative results for

column tension. They are ieported in Table 6.1.2-1 along

with the ASME Code allowable and ultimate capacity values for

this mode of loading in the column, pin connection, and the

6.23 nutech


shell connection. Similarly, values of stresses in the

ring and adjacent shell corresponding to this very con

servative value of column tension are shown in Figures

6.1.2-1, 6.1.2-2, and 6.1.2-3. The results are summarized

and compared to Code allowables and STP allowables in

Table 6.1.2-2.

6.24 nutech


<l.l '"d ·rl !fl ~

1--1

<l.l '"d •rl !fl µ ;:j

0

COM-01-040

Table 6.1.2-1

TORUS SUPPORT COMPONENT CODE ALLOWABLE LOADS

AND STRENGTH RATIOS (UPWARD LOAD PHASE)

I UPWARD CODE ULTIMATE COMPONENT I LOAD* ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

LOAD

(kips) (kips) (kips)

Column 1180. 3371.

Pin 297.2 159. 496. Conn.

Shell 843. 3463. Conn.

Column 1514. 3605.

Pin 182.1 326. 1021. Conn. . Shell Conn. 986. 4051.

* Upward load is an upper bound.

Notes:

Value for column Code allowable load and ultimate capacity is column cross-sectional area multiplied by Code allowable tensile stress and material ultimate strength respectively.

- Value for pin and shell connection capacities is obtained from Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4 respectively.

- Since the actual structure's resistance to upward load is much less than modeled with the 3-D model, the computed column tensions are much larger than would be experienced by the structure. Nevertheless, these values are repoited herei11 for the sake of c-0mpleteness. Realistic values of the maximum column tension loads are reported in Section 6. 2.

6.25 nutech

-------------------

N

°'

COMPONENT

Ring

Shell

I I I i ' l l I

MAX. STRESS INTENSITY

(ksi)

PL I PL+Q

. 5. 05 5.05 '

;

7.03 11. 0 : !

Table 6.1.2-2

STRESS INTENSITIES AND STRENGTH ~~TIOS

FOR SHELL AND RING - UPWARD LOAD PHASE

CODE ALLOW. STP ALLOW. STRESS INTENSITY STRESS r~TENSITY

(ksi) (ksi)

PL I PL+Q PL I PL+Q i I

' i I ' I ' 19.3 ! 57.8 I 76.0 i 76.0

I i

! I : . I

28.9 l

' 57.8 i 76.0 76.0 i I

.

COM-01-040

STRENGTH RATIO

I PL PL+Q

NA NA (Meets (Meets Code) Code)

NA NA (Meets (Meets

I

! Code) Code) i


NOTE: Plotted values of direct stress same numerical value as stress intensity

Figure 6.1.2-1

DIRECT STRESS JN REINFORCING RING AT TIME OF MAXIMUM COLUMN TENSION LOAD

6. 2 7

COM-01-040

3. 6.

(ksi)

5.05

nutech


Figure 6.1.2-2

LOCAL MEMBRANE STRESS INTENSITIES IN SHELL ADJACENT.TO REINFORCING RING AT TIME OF MAXIMUM COLUMN TENSION LOAD

6.28

COM-01-040

nutech

I I I I I I I I I .I

I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

Figure 6.1.2-3

SECONDARY STRESS INTENSITIES IN SHELL ADJACENT TO REINFORCING RING AT TIME OF MAXIMUM

COLUMN TENSION LOAD

6.29 nutech


COM-01-040

6.1.3 Attached Piping Evaluation

No evaluation of the piping attached to the torus is reported

for the base case analysis since the value of upward pipe

movement will be larger for the sensitivity analysis. The

acceptance criteria for the piping is the same for both the

base case and sensitivity analysis. Therefore, it would be

redundant to report on the piping evaluation in this section.

6.30 nutech


COM-01-040

6.2 Load Sensitivity Analysis Results

The results of the analyses which have been performed to

assess the s~nsitivity of the strcutural· response to changes

in the magnitude of the load are described in this section.

It is generally accepted that the sensitivity of the response

of the structural elements of the torus support system is

linear with the load for the downward phaseof the loading.

Therefore, the STP plant unique analysis criteria (Reference 5)

does not require that strength ratios for downward loads be

computed for any value of loads otherthan those used for the

results reported in Section 6.1.1.

6. 2 .1 Torus Uplift Evaluation

The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to assure that small

changes in the loading transient will not result in unexpectedly

large changes in the response. This is of concern as it relates

to the amount of uplift of the torus and the resulting loads which

occur in the columns, anchor bolts, etc., after the uplift. Also

of concern is the effect of the uplift on the piping attached to

the torus.

The torus uplift evaluation has been performed using the single

degree of freedom model (SDOF) and the approach described in

Section 5.2.1. The pertinent parameters for the model are

shown in Table 6.2.1-1.

6.31 nutech


COM-01-040

The analysis has been performed for two loading transient

cases. The first uses a load factor (LP) = 1.5 over the entire

pressure loading transient. The second case uses a LP = 1.5

on only the upward portion of the pressure loading transient.

The total force due to ihe pool swell pressure loads for a 1/16

segment of the torus are shown in Figure 6.2.1-1. These forces

are multiplied by the applicable load factors given in Table

6.2.1-1. The combination of these forces with the vent header

support column reactions is shown in Figure 6.2.1-2.

The spring constant for the downward response of the SDOF

model is based on the total area of the two columns at the

mitered joint of the torus and the corresponding lengths of

those columns. The spring constant for the upward response is

based on the cross-sectional area and length of the 1 1/2"<1>

anchors at the base of the columns.

The computed uplifts for case 1 (LF = 1.5 entire transient)

and case 2 (LF = 1.5 upward phase only) are given in Table

6.2.1-2. Also given in Table 6.2.1-2 is the value for the

total anchor bolt loads at a mitered joint and the values for

the maximum computed column compression observed in the

remainder of the transient following initial column tension.

To determine the value of the displacement for use in the piping

evaluation, the elastic deformation of the shell and the torus

support columns must be added to the single degree of freedom

model results. These have been obtained from the base case 3-D

6.32 nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I~

I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

finite element model discussed in Section 6.1.2. Plots of

vertical displacement vs. time for the points of interest on

the shell are provided in Figures 6.2.1-3 through 6.2.1-8.

The value of the upward elastic displacement is taken from

the "peak" nearest the point in time when the 3-D model

indicated the change in the ~olumn load from compression to

tension. This value is then increased by the factor

LF x CF = 1.2 for use in the sensitivity analysis. These

values are shown in Table 6.2.1-5. The maximum uplift value

given in Table 6.2.1-2 is added to these amplified values of

elastic deformation. These sums are multiplied by two and

the product is added to 0.120 inches which is the nominal

clearance between the pin and the pin holes in the clevis

plates at the base of the column.

The maximum vertical movement of the torus at the center of

the vent line penetration has also been computed for the

purpose of evaluating whether or not deformation of the bellows

is a matter of concern. From the base case analysis of the

3-D finite element model, the elastic deformation of the torus

at the point of vent line penetration is 0.059 inches. Multi

plying this by 1.2 to account for the larger sensitivity

analysis loading; adding the uplift of 0.045 inches computed

from the single degree-of-freedom model; doubling this sum;

and adding the clearance tolerance of 0.12 inches gives a

total vertical movement of the torus at the vent line of 0.35

inches. This displacement can be easily accommodated by the

6.33 nutech


COM-01-040

axial and thermal displacements originally specified for the

bellows as reported in Section 6.2.6.

The results of the single degree of freedom uplift model

reported in Table 6.2.1-2 are used in Tables 6.2.1-3 and

6.2.1-4 to compare the computed column tension load and

the post-lift off column compression load to the Code allow

able load and ultimate capacities of the shell·connection,

pin connection, anchor bolts, and torus support column.

6.34

nutech

I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COM-01-040

Table 6.2.1-1

SINGLE DEGREE OF FREEDOM MODEL PARAMETERS

PARAMETER VALUE

Mass of Steel' 186.7 I 2 1)-sec

1n

lb-sec 2 Mass of Water 1192. in

Effective 1. 0 for Mass of Mass Factor Steel 0.8 for Mass of

Water

Percent of Critical Damping 2%

Acc. Due to 386 in/sec 2 Gravity

Load Factor on Case 1 - 1. so Downward Loads Case ? - 1. 00 ...

Load Factor on Case 1 & 2 : Upward Loads 1. 20 Press. Loads

1. 00 Vent Header Loads

,.

Spring Constant for Downward 29378. kips/in Response

Spring Constant for Upward Response 1428. kips/in

Integration Time Step .002 sec

6.35 nutech

I I I I I I I I CASE LF*CF

I Down = 1. 5

I 1 Up 1. 2 =

Down = 1. 0

I 2 Up 1. 2 =

I I I I I I I I

Table 6.2.1-2

RESULTS OF ONE DEGREE OF FREEDOM UPLIFT MODEL

--

TENSILE MAXIMUM FORCE PER up~IFT COLUMN

(in.) (~ips)

- -· ..

0.045 32.0

0.045 ~2.4

----

6.36

COM-01-040

~

POST LIFT-OFF COMPRESSIVE

FORCE PER COLUMN (kips)

~96.6

332.4

nutech


Q)

'"d 'M Vl i::

H

Q)

'"d 'M Vl .µ ;::::l

0

COM-01-040

Table 6.2.1-3

TORUS SUPPORT.COMPONENT CODE ALLOWABLE LOADS

AND STRENGTH RATIOS (UPWARD LOAD)

1 2 3 4 5

UPWARD CODE ULTIMATE STRENGTH COMPONENT LOAD ALLOWABLE CAPACITY RATIO

LOAD (2) (kips) (kips) (kips) I C 4)

Shell 843. 3463. 0.01 Connection

Column 1180. 3371. 0.01

32.4 Pin Connection 159. 496. 0.07

Anchorage 68. 136. 0.24

Shell 986. 4051. 0.01 Connection

Column 1514. 3605. 0.01

32.4 Pin 326. 1021. 0.03 Connection

Anchorage 68. 136. 0.24

6.37 nutech ·.'.'·

I I-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

<I.> "C •r-1 (/)

~ H

<I.> "C •r-1 (/)

.j.J ;j 0

COM-01-040

Table 6.2.1-4

TORUS SUPPORT COMPONENT CODE ALLOWABLE LOAD

AND STRENGTH RATIOS (POST-LIFTOFF COMPRESSIVE LOAD)

1 2 3 4 5

POST-LIFTOF1 CODE ULTIMATE STRENGTH COMPONENT COMP. LOAD ALLOWABLE CAPACITY RATIO

LOAD C 2) I (kips) (kips) (kips) (4)

Shell 843. 3463. 0.11 Connection .

Column 396.6 1050. 3000. 0.13

Pin 987. 2513. 0.16 Connection

Shell 986. 4 0 51. 0.10 Connection

Column 396.6 ·. 1310. 3300. 0.12

Pin 761. 1723. 0.23 Connection '

6.38 nutech


COM-01-040

Table 6.2.1-5

UPWARD DISPLACEMENT FOR

ATTACHED PIPING SYSTEMS EVALUATION

1 2 3 4 5

.PIPING SHELL 1.2 X TORUS TORUS TOTAL SYSTEM MODEL ELASTIC UPLIFT DISPLACEMENT

NODE DEFORMATION @ UPLIFT 2[(3)+(4)]+.12

(in.) (in.) (in.)

Ring Header Hanger 315 0.0860 0.0454 0.383

Ring Header Pent. A&D 315 0.0860 0;0454 0.383

Ring Header 318 0.0594 0.0454 0.330 Pent. B&C

Torus Spray 307 0.0453 0.0454 0.301

Vacuum Relief 196 0.0251 0.0454 0.261

LPCI & Core Spray 307 0.0453 0.0454 0.301

HPCI Turbine -Exhaust 308 0.0322 0.0454. 0.275

·Pressure Suppression 215 0.0628 0.0454 0.336

References:

- Valu~ 1or elastic defo~mation (Column 3) obtained from Figures 6.2.1-3 thto~gh 6;2.1~8, peak ~earest 0.532 sec.

- Value for torus uplift (Column 4) o6iained fro~ Table 6.2.1-2. - Pin hole clearance is 0.12 inches;

6.39 nutech

I I I I I I I

,,--._ Cl)

0... H

~ '--'

I µ..i

0 0::: 0

I ~

I I I I I I I I I I

600.

400.

200.

0

-200.

-4 00 ..

-600.

-800.

-1000. 0

+ Penotes Upward Load

- Denotes Downward Load

-405.3 kips

-981. 4 2 kips

. 40 .80 1. 20 1. 60

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.2.1-1

TOTAL APPLIED FORCE FOR 1/16 SEGMENT

DUE TO POOL SWELL PRESSURES -

BASE CASE

6.40

COM-01-040

2.00

nutech

I I I I 800.

I 600.

I 400.

,-.. 200.

I (/) p.. 1-t

~ '-' 0

I ~ u 0::: -200. 0 µ..

I -400.

I -600.

I -800.

I -1000.

I I I I I I I

0

COM-01-040

+ Denotes Upward Load

- Denotes Downward Load

-- 608. 4 kips

-981.42 kip

.4 . 8 1. 2 1. 6

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.2.1-2

TOTAL APPLIED FORCE FOR 1/16 SEGMENT

DUE TO POOL SWELL PRESSURES PLUS

VENT COLUMN REACTIONS - BASE CASE

6. 4 1 nutech

I I I I I I I r-"\

U)

::i.:i ::r:: . 1 s u

I z H '--' .10 r

I z ~

.OS ~ .,:;., p..:i u

I < 0 .....:i p.. U) H -'. 0 s 0

I .....:i < - .10 u H

r

I ci:: - . 1 s µ..:i

> -.20

I 0.0

I I I I I I

.10 .20 .30 .40

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.2.1-3

.SO

Initial Column Tension

.60

ELASTIC DEFORMATION OF PIPTNG ATTACHMENT LOCATION FOR LINES X303A AND X303D

6.42

COM-01-040

. 7 0

nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1· I I I I

.30 ,....,, Cf)

i:.:...l . 2 5 :r: u z ....... . 20 '--'

r< z

.15 ~ ::;:: ;.u u • 10 <r::: -:l ~ :./)

. () 5 a ~ 0.0 <r::: u

~ - . 05

> - . l 0

- . 1 5

0.0 . I 0 . 20 . :rn

Co I u11111 Tension

. 4 ll . 5 ()

T f M 1.: ( SEC 0 ND S )

Figure 6.2.1-4

• () 0

ELASTIC DEFORMATION OF PIPTNC /\'J'TACHMENT

LOCATION FOR LINES X303B AND X303C

6.43

COM-01-040

.70

nutech

I I I I I I .10

,.-..,

I Cl)

.08 µ..i ::r: u z .06 H

I .__,

E- . 04 z µ..i ..,...

I ~. µ..i u .02 ~ ,_J p.,

0

I Cl)

H

c: ......:l - . () 2

I < '-'

'-- - . 0 4 _,. ... ~

I > -.06

- . 0

I I I I I I I

0 • .10 . 2 () . :rn • 4 ()

TIMI: (SECONDS)

1:igure 6.2.1-5

• '.i ()

Initial Colurnn Tension

• (i (}

COM-01-040

.70

ELASTIC 1n:1:crn.MJ\TION OF PlPJN(; ATT/\Ul~1EN'J' LOCJ\TJON ---------------···---··--···-·-------------H1R LINES X3J_QAL_!3~~ _ _Q]}, X31_.~A, AND X311B

6.44 nutech

I I I I I I . () 8

,.......,

I U)

. () 6 ~ :r: u z

• Otl ,......,

I '-"

r . () 2 z ~ ~

I ,....;

() u < .....:; ~

- • 0 2

I r.r: I-'

::::: ,....; - . () 4 <(

I ':..) ......

- . ()ti :....., ~ ~

>

I - . () 8

- . J ()

I I I I I I I

() .JO • 2 () . ~) ()

•

In ~i t i ;1 I Col1111rn

Ten~; i 011

. ·t 0 .. s ()

TJME (Sl:CONDS)

Figure 6.2.1-6

. () ()

ELASTJC DEFORMATION OF P.ll'TNC A'l'TACllMENT LOCATION FOR LINE X304

6.45

COM-01-040

. 7 (}

nutech

I I I I I I .08

r--.. (./')

I U-l .07 :I: u z ....... .06 '-'

I :-z . 0 s ,_ ;:.::

I ~ c .04 < ....... ,... ,_ Cf; . () 2

I ....... p

.....:l <:t: 0.0 u

I h

r-- - lP 0:: • ,... ~

>

I - . 0 4

-.06

I 0. 0

I I I I I I

. 10' . 20 .30 . 4 ()

TIME cs1:coNDS)

Figure 6.2.1-7

.. 5 ()

Initial C:o 1 umn Tens.ion

.60

ELASTIC DEFORMATION or PIPING ATTACHMENT

LOCATION FOR LINE X317A

6.46

COM-01-040

. 7 ()

nutech

.30

.25

. 20

. 1 s

.10

• OS

0

- ; 0 5 .

- . 10

(). 0 0.10

. . · ... · /' : ;, : . '

f

Initial Column Tension

0.20 0. 30 0. 4 0 0.50 0.60

TIME (SECONDS)

Figure 6.2.1-8

ELASTIC DEFORMATION OF PIPING ATTACHMENT LOCATION FOR LINE X318A

6.47

1. .....

. .. . '•: .·

COM-01-040

o. 70

nutech . . . · .. · . .·.· •' ..

. ·.·.· .

I I 1· I I I I·


COM-01-040

6.2.2 Attached Piping Evaluation

The results of the analysis of the piping attached to the

Dresden Unit 2 torus, as described in Section 5.2.2, are

tabulated in this section. The three important considerations

for the piping are t~e piping stresses, the interface loads on

the equipment in the piping system, and a check to ensure

adequate clearances between the piping and any possible obstruc

tions.

The maximum stresses in each piping system attached to the

torus are given in Table 6.2.2-1 for displacements given in

Table 6.2.1-5 and are compared to the allowable stresses as

described in Section 3.2.6. Stresses were calculated for each

element in the piping analysis diagrams given in Appendix B.

The maximum stresses reported include an intensification factor

for ~he particular type of component. The maximum calculated

piping stress in all the systems analyzed was 43,113 psi on

the (2B) core spray pump suction line (2-1402-16") which is

below the maximum allowable stress of 45,000 psi.

The loads imposed on each piece of equipment are also of concern

in the evaluation of the piping system to torus uplift. In

general, the loads imposed on the equipment have the potential

of causing a malfunction of the equipment if they are of large

enough amplitude. The calculated stresses imposed on .equipment,

for the effects of upward displacement, are reported in Table

6.2.2-2. Given in the tables are the maximum stresses at the

equipment-piping interface. The equipment stresses ranged from

6. 48 nutech


. . ..

COM-01-040

a negligible stress in the vacuum relief line, to a high of

5, 724 psi in the (2B) torus spray line (2-1S21-6"). Table

6. 2. 2· -2 shows- that all equipment have piping- interface stresses

below 20000 psi. Therefore, no equipment requires further

detailed investigation.·

Clearances for the piping attached to the torus were inspected

in the field. Although some interferences were found, they

were evaluated and it was determined that they would not

result in a violation of the criteria for pipe stress level

or equipment operability. Refer to Appendix C for a descrip

tion of results of the field inspection for clearances. Results

of a separate inspection of Unit 3 are presently being evaluated.

This inspection indicates differences between Unit 2 and Unit 3

piping. A separate piping analysis is being performed, and the

results will be reported in an addendum to this report.

6.49

nutech .. :> .


Table 6.2.2-1

PIPING SYSTEM LINE STRESSES RESULTING FROM MAXIMUM UPWARD DISPLACEMENTS

(DRESDEN 2)

LINE MAXIMUM COMPUTED ALLOWABLE DESCRIPTION PIPE STRESS STRESS

(psi) (psi)

;

Core Spray (East) ··42,983. 45,000. Pump Suction

LPCI (East) 30.,710. 45,000. Pump Suction

HPCI 27,819. 45,000. Pump Suction

LPCI (West) 26,374. 45,000. Pump Suction

Core Spray (West) 43,113. 45,000. Pump Suction

LPCI Outlet from :6,906. 45,000. H.E. (East) Torus Pene - X310A & X311A

LPCI Outlet from 19,492. 45,000. H.E. (West) Torus Pene - X310B & X311B

Core Spray Discharge 7,226. 45,000. (East) Torus Pene - X310A

Core Spray Discharge 5' 2.8 g. 45,000. (West) Torus Pene - X310B

HPCI Turbine Exhaust 3,982. 45,000. Torus ·Pene - X317A

Pressure Suppression ·. 7,707. 75,000. System Torus Pene - X318B

Vacuum Relief System 1,635. 75,000. Torus Pene - X304

Pump Suction Header 12,042. 45,000. Torus Pene - X303A, X303B, X303C, X303D

6.50

COM-01-040

r utech


': ., .. •.· .. COM-01-040

Tab 1 e· 6 . 2 . 2 - 2

STRESSES ON EQUIPMENT RESULTING FROM

MAXIMUM UPWARD DISPLACEMENTS - DRESDEN 2

LINE NUTECH VALVE OR - ,•

EQUIPMENT/ DESCRIPTION PUMP NUMBER PIPING STRESSES

LPCI (East) Pump Suction

2-1502-24" VALVE/2-1502-Vl 677.

2-1502-14" VALVE/2-1502B-Vl 1,218. PUMP/2B-1502 2,982.

2-1502A-14" VALVE/2-1502A-Vl 789. PUMP/2A-1502 1,777.

LPCI (West) Pump Suction

2-1507-24". VALVE/2-1507-Vl 699 .

2-1507-14" VALVE/2-1507A-Vl . 1,285.

PUMP/2C-1502 2,304.

2 - 1 5 0 7 B - 14 "1

VALVE/2-1507B-Vl 748.

PUMP/2D-1502 1,201.

Core Spray (East) Pump Suction

2-1401-16" VALVE/2-1401-Vl 3,495.

2-1401A-16" PUMP/2A-1401 . 120.

Core Spray (West) Pump Suction

.2-1402-16" VALVE/2-1402-Vl 3,499.

PUMP/2C-1401 73.

6.51 nutech


-I I

Table 6.2.2-2



(Cont.)

LINE NUTECH VALVE OR EQUIPMENT/

COM-01-040

DESCRIPTION PUMP NUMBER PIPING STRESSES

HPCI Pump Suction

2-2302-16" VALVE/2-2302-Vl 1,076.

VALVE/2-2302-V2 430.

LPCI Outlet from H.E. (East)

2-1516-6" VALVE/2-1516-Vl 1,058.

VALVE/2-1516-V2 1,236.

2-1506-18" VALVE/2-1506-Vl 81.

VALVE/2-1506-V2 274.

2-1517-14" VALVE/2-1517-Vl 2'5 3.

Torus Pene-X310A & VALVE/2-1517-V2 339. X311A

Core Spray Discharge (East)

2-1403-12" PUMP/2A-1401 0 70.

2-1406-8" VALVE/2-1406-Vl 2,371. Torus Pene..:X310A

LPCI Outlet rrom H.E. (West)

2-1509-18" VALVE/2-1509-Vl l' l.63.

VALVE/2-1509-V2 . 115.

2-1521-6" · VALVE/2-1521-Vl 2,2-62.

Torus Pene-X310B & VALVE/2-1521-V2 5,724. X311B n111· -- ech

6.52


•

Table 6.2.2-2



(Cont.)

LINE NUTE CH VALVE OR EQUIPMENT/

COM-01-040

DESCRIPTION PUMP NUMBER PIPING STRESSES c

LPCI Outlet from H.E. (West)

(Cont.)

2-1522-14" VALVE/2-1522-Vl 1,021.

Torus ·Pene - X310B & VALVE/2-1522-VZ 851. X3],1B

--Core Spray Discharge (West)

2-1409-8" VALVE/2-1409..:Vl 1,166.

2-1404-12" PUMP/2D~l401 483. Torus Pene - X310B

Pressure Suppression

2-1603-,18" VALVE/2-1603-Vl 1,446. Torus Pene - X318A

HPCI Turbine Exhaust

2-2306-24" VALVE/2-2306-Vl 453.

Torus Pene X317A VALVE/2-2306-VZ 224. -

Vacuum Relief

2-1601-20" VALVE/ 2-1601-Vl .. 9.

VALVE/2-1601-V2 7. VALVE/2-1601-V3 16. VALVE/2-1601-V4 17.

Torus Pene - X304

6.53

nutech


Table 6.2.2-2

STRESSES.ON EQUIPMENT _RESULTING FROM


(Cont.)

LINE NUTE Ch VALVE OR EQUIPMENT/

COM-01-040

DESCRIPTION PUMP NUMBER PIPING STRESSES

Vacuum Relief (Cont.)

2-8506-18" VALVE/2-8506-Vl 175.

2-1604-18" VALVE/2-1604-Vl 17 7.

VALVE/2-1604-V2 0.

Torus Perre - X304 ·~

6.54 nutech


COM-01-040

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

The suppression chamber support system and the external piping

attached to the suppression chamber of the Dresden Nuclear

Power Station Units 2 and 3 have been analyzed for the e£fects

of postulated pool swell dynamic loads. Both a base case

analysis and a load sensitivity analysis have been performed.

The results of these analyses have been compared against Short

Term Program (STP) criteria developed by the Mark I Owner's

Group working within guidelines established through discussions

with staff members of ~he U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As

shown in Section 6.0 of this report and as summarized in Sections

7.1 and 7.2, all elements analyzed meet the criteria established

for the Short Term Program. The piping for Unit 3 is currently

being analyzed and the results will be reported in an addendum

to this report.

nutech 7.1


COM-01-040

7.1 Torus Support System

Shown in Table 7.1-1 are the results from the base case analysis

for downward load. As can be seen, all elements in the torus

support load path except the outside column pin connection

satisfy ASME Section III' Code allowable criteria. The outside

column pin connection does not satisfy ASME Section III Code

allowable criteria, but it does meet the STP base case criteria

of a SR less than 0.50. Similarly, Table 7.1-2 presents the

results corresponding to the tensile loads in the columns, with

the suppression chamber subjected to the load sensitivity analysis

loads. Note that all elements in the load path meet basic ASME

Section III Code allowable criteria. Thus, all STP criteria

has been satisfied for the torus support system.

7 . 2 nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I I I I

Cl) 'lj .,., Vl ~

H

Cl) 'lj •r-1 Vl .µ ::l 0

1

COMPONENT

Col. to Shell Connection

Column

Pin Connection


Column

Pin Connection

.Reinforcing Ring

Shell

COM-01-040

Table 7.1-1

BASE CASE ANALYSIS - DOWNWARD LOADS COMPONENT CAPACITIES AND STRENGTH RATIOS

2 3 4 5 6

CODE ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

CODE ULTIMATE STRENGTH STRENGTH LOAD ALLOWABLE CAPACITY RATIO RATIO

(kips) (kips) (kips) (2) I (2) I (3) (4)

843. 3463. 0.90 0.22 --

757.2 1050. 3000. 0.72 0.25

987. 2513. 0.77 0.30

986. 4 OSl. 0.96 0.23

949.1 1310. 3300. 0.72 0.29

761. 2029. 1. 25 0. 4 7

STRESS CODE INTENSITY ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

PL STR. INTEN. STR. INTEN. (ksi) (ksi) (ksi)

-

11. 5 19.3 76.0 0.60 0.15

16.0 28.9 76.0 0.55 0.21

7.3 nutech


' . . . . '·:

...

(])

"O ·r-i t/)

s:::: ~

(])

"O •r-i t/) .µ ;::3 0

1

COMPONENT


Column

Pin Connection

Anchorage

Col. to Shell . Connection

Column

Pin Connection

Anchorage

Reinforcing Ring

Shell

COM-01-040

Table 7.1-2

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - UPWARD LOADS COMPONENT CAPACITIES AND STRENGTH RATIOS

2 3 4 5. 6

CODE ULTIMATE CODE ULTIMATE ALLOWABLE CAPACITY

LOAD ALLOWABLE CAPACITY STRENGTH STRENGTH RATIO RATIO

(kips) (kips) (kips) (2) I C 2) I (3) (4)

843. 3463. 0.04 0.01

118 0. 3371. 0.03 0.01

32.4 159. 496. 0.20 0.07 .

68. 136. 0.48 0.24

986. 4 051 . 0.03 0.01

1514. 3605. 0.02 0.01 32.4 <

326 . 1021. 0.10 0.03

'

68. 136. 0.48 0.24

STRESS CODE STP INTENSITY ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE

. PL STR. INTEN . STR. INTEN. (ks1) (ksi) (ksi)

.56 19.3 76.0 0.03 0.01

. 7 7. 28.9 76.0 0.03 0.01·

7.4 nutech ··· ... ·,·

. ·.:

'


COM-01-040

7. 2 . Attached Piping Evaluation

The results of the piping analysis of the systems attached to

the torus for Dresden Unit 2, summarized in Table 7.2-1, show

that the piping and integral equipment attached to the torus

meet the criteria set forth in NUTECH report MKl-02-012,

"Description of Short Term Program Plant Unique Torus Support

Systems and Attached Piping Analysis", (Reference 5). All

piping stresses are less than the specified stress criteria

of 3.0 SC. All piping-equipment interface stresses are well

below 20,000 psi, which was determined to be the stress level

above which the equipment would require detailed evaluation

for operability.

Therefore, it has been determined that the piping attached to

the torus, and its integral equipment, is capable of with

standing the effects of torus displacements, while maintaining

pressure integrity, and remain operable immediately following

the pool·swell event for Dresden 2.

The differences in design between Dresden 2 and Dresden 3 were

found to be significant enough to justify a separate analysis

of the attached piping for Dresden 3. The detailed stress

results and conclusions for Dresden Unit 3 are not presented

in this report. They will be reported in an Addendum to this

report.

7. 5

nutech


COM-01-040

Table 7.2-1

SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PIPE STRESSES AND MAXIMUM PIPING-EQUIPMENT INTERFACE ST~ESSES (DRESDEN 2)

LINE MAXIMUM DESCRIPTION PIPE STRESS

(psi)

Core Spray (East) 42,983. Pump Suction

LPCI (East 30,710. Pump Suction

HPCI 27,819. Pump Suction

LPCI (West) 26,374. Pump Suction

.Core Spray (West) 43,113. Pump Suction

LPCI Outlet from 6,906. H.E. (East) Torus Pene. X310A & X311A

LPCI Outlet from 19,492. H.E. (West) Torus Pene. X310B & X311B

Core Spray Discharge 7,226. (East) Torus Pene. X310A

Core Spray Discharge 5,289. (West) Torus Pene. X.310B

HPCI Turbine Exhaust 3,982. Torus Pene.-X317A

Pressure Suppression 7,707. System Torus Pene.-X318A

Vacuum Relief System 1,635. Torus Pene.-X304

Pump Suction Header Torus Pene.-X303A,

:X-303B, X~08C, X303D

12,042.

·.

7.6

ALLOWABLE PIPE STRESS

(psi)

45,000

45,000

45,000.

45,000.

45,000.

45,000.

45,000.

45,000.

45,000.

45,000.

75,000.

75,000.

45,000.

MAXIMUM PIPINGEQUIPMENT INTERFACE

STRESSES (psi)

3,495

2,982.

1,076.

2 '304.

3,499.

1,236.

5,724.

2,371.

1,166.

453.

1,446.

177.

NIA

nutech


COM-01-040

8.0 REFERENCES

1.

2.

3 ~

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Specification for Containment Vessels, Dresden Units 2 and 3, Sargent and Lundy Engineers, Chicago, Illinois.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Rules for Construction of Nuclear Vessels, 1965 Edition.

Primary Containment ASME Section IT! Stress Report for Dresden Units 2 and 3, Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, Oakbrook, Illinois.

GE Report No. NEDC-20989, "Mark I Containment Evaluation Short Term Program", Volumes I thru IV, September 1975.

NUTECH Report MKl-02-012, "Description of Short Term Program Plant Unique Torus Support Systems and Attached Piping Analysis", Revision 2, June 1976

GE Letter to Mr. Barnard Rusche, NRC, dated February 4, 1976, Subject: Handouts for January 7, 8, and 28, 1976, Mark I Owners Group Meetings.

ICES STRUDL-DYNAL User's Manual, McDonnell Douglas Automation Company.

GE Report No. NEDC-20989-P, "Mark I Containment Evaluation Short Term Program, Addendum 2, Loads and Their Application for Torus Support System Evaluation'', June 1976.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Nuclear Power Plant Components, 1974 Edition with Addendum up to and including Winter 1975.

GE Letter, B. W. Smith/R. H. Buchholz to Mark I Utilities, dated June 25, 1976, Subject: Pool Swell Vent Header and Vent Pipe Impact Characteristics, Methods and Results for all Domestic Plants.

"Engineering Design Data for Nelson Concrete Anchors", May 1968, Nelson Stud Welding Co.

NUTECH Report COM-01-022, "Dresden Nuclear Generating Plant Units 2 & 3, Modifications to the Suppression Chamber Support Columns and Pin Cbnnection'', June 1976.

Final Safety Analysis Report for Dresden Units 2 & 3 Section 12.1.1.3 (Rev. 7-1-69)

8.1

nutech

I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I I I I

14.

15.

16.

COM-01-040

"NUTECH/PISTAR User's Information Manual", Revision 0, NUTECH Document TR-76-002

"NUTECH/PISTAR Program Verification Repo1·t 11, Revision 0,

NUTECH Document TR-76-001.

Wilson, E. L., Bathe, K. J., and Doherty, W. P., "Direct Solution of Large Systems or Linear Equations'', Computers and Structures.

8.2

nutech

I COM-01-040

I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

I I I I I I I I A.0

I nutech


COM-01-040

STRUDL DYNAL Computer Program

The analytical procedure that was used in performing the

analyses of the suppression chamber consists of the applica

tion of the STRUDL DYNAL computer program. This program is

an integral part of the·STRUDL program and is employed to

perform dynamic analyses utilizing the modal superposition

method for space frames and trusses, plane frames, trusses

and grids; and combinations of the above types of structures

including finite element models consisting of membrane,

bending, and solid elements. In addition to modal extrac

tion, STRUDL DYNAL can be used to compute the structural

response for the following excitations:

a) Shock spectrum excitation from acceleration,

velocity or displacement shock spectra in any

combination of the three global translational

directions,

b) Harmonic excitation from forces and/or moments

applied at the structural joints, and/or support

translational and rotational displacement, velocity

and/or acceleration, or

c) Transient excitation from forces and/or moments

applied at structural joints, and/or transla

tional and rota tio,nal base accelerations.

The user has the option to specify output which may consist of

the frequencies and the mode shapes of the structural system,

A. l

nutech


COM-01-040

the node displacements at specified times, the member forces

and moments and/or the element stress resultants.

The STRUDL DYNAL system was developed through the coopera

tive efforts of McDonne·ll Douglas Automation Company and

Engineering Computer International and is available for

public use. It is widely used and accepted in the nuclear

power industry. Additional information about the program

can be obtained from the User's Manual (Reference 7) or

McDonnell Douglas Automation Company.

A. 2

nutech


COM-01-140

PISTAR Computer Program

The analytical procedure that was used in performing the analysis

of the piping systems attached to the torus consists of the appli

cation of the NUTECH computer program, PISTAR (Piping STress

~nalysis and ~eporting). 'PISTAR is a NUTECH proprietary computer

program developed to perform the analysis, evaluation, and design

of piping systems and piping system supports that are used in a

nuclear power plant.

PISTAR performs ASME Code Section III Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3

analysis and evaluation as well as ANSI B31.l and B31.7. PISTAR

offers a complete and fully integrated system of analytical solvers

which may be employed at the user's discretion. All, or any of

the solvers may be employed in a single run, thus eliminating

the usual requirement of multiple runs. Currently, PISTAR handles

Automated Hanger Design, Static Analysis, Modal Extraction,

Response Spectrum Analysis, Dynamic Time History Analysis (direct

integration), and Time History One-Dimensional Heat Transfer

Analysis.

The PISTAR computer program is a versatile piece of computer

software developed to handle the full range of piping system

design and analysis. The program was jointly developed by

NUTECH and McDonnell Douglas Automation Company (MCAUTO). PISTAR

employs state-of-the-art programming and engineering techniques

to make the program efficiently user oriented, and versatile.

nutech A.3


COM-01-140

spacing is used wherever possible to make for ease of reading.

Extensive pre-processing data checking and sorting is performed

by PISTAR to safeguard the user from making catastrophic input

errors which will result in wasted resources. All the data is

processed through this checking phase regardless of errors. This

helps to ensure that all errors are found in the first run so

that the user is reasonably confident that he will receive good

data results on the second run. A fast and efficient automatic

bandwidth optimization scheme is used by the program.

PISTAR has various plotting options available to the user to

assist in model verification and interpretation of results.

A sophisticated geometric plotting package has been developed

which will produce draftsman-quality computer isometrics and

plan views with full headings, annotations, and support

configurations needed to describe a piping system in a stress

report. (i.e., most of the piping isometrics in this report

were generated by PISTAR). PISTAR can interface with any

plotting hardware commonly available. Fnst interpretation of

dynamic time history results may be obtained by the use of

PISTAR's variable v~ variable time history plotting package.

All of the plotting options have been bui.lt into the program

in such a way as to promote ease of use and ease of understanding.

nutech A. 4

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . · ...

COM-01-140

Program verification is available in a separate document "PISTAR

Program Verification Report" [15].

PISTAR utilizes extensive built-in and streamlining features

to eliminate most of the tedious research and cross-checking

required in inputting standardized data into a piping system

analytical model. All the commonly used cross-sectional

properties, material pr6perties, stress indices, allowable stresses,

and fatigue curves exist internally to the program and may be

accessed easily by the user~

The program was developed with a compact and readable input

scheme which is easily learned and logical to understand.

Extensive use of alphanumeric variables has been implemented so

as to make checking much easier. PISTAR utilizes a semi-free

format type of input which eliminates typical user-type

justification errors while maintaining organization for checking

and ease of reading. For more detailed input information,

refer to the "PISTAR User's Information Manual" [14].

Output from the PISTAR computer program is in report format,

with block headers on every page, of a quality suitable for

direct insertion into a stress report. All important tables

are printed so as to fit on 8 1/2" x 11" paper so that

expensive reduction requirements are eliminated. Double

nutech A. 5

I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I 1.

I I I

COM-01-140

In this analysis of the ECCS piping systems and piping systems

attached to the torus, only a small portion of the PISTAR

analysis and design system was utilized. The following is a

list of options and solvers used in this analysis.

Input-Processing: The various piping mathematical

models were input into PISTAR utilizing an off-set

coordinate generator scheme, the models were checked

for errors, and the nodal points were optimized to

reduce the bandwidth. Nodal point coordinates,

support configurations, element connectivity, flexi

bility factois, stress intensification factors, and

'weld considerations were reported.

Geometric Plotting: Each piping mathematical model was

processed through the plotting section to produce

high-quality CALCOMP geometric plots for model

verification and use in reports.

Static Analysis Solvei: The piping mathematical models

were processed through the static analysis routine to

analyze the effects of support displacements. The solu

tion technique used was based on the widely accepted

E. L. Wilson static equation solver [16]. Nodal displace

ments, support reactions, and element stress resultants

were reported. More details of the ~elution technique

are given in the following paragraph.

nutech A.6


COM-01-140

ASME Section III, Class 2 Evaluation: After the

resultant static stresses were determined, a com-

plete ASME Class 2 evaluation is performed on the

prescribed nodal points in the piping systems in

accordance with the requirements of NC-3600 [2].

In these analyses, faulted conditions were con

sidered and processed through Equation No. 9. The

working table results of the evaluation and a

summary of the ten maximum stresses were reported.

A static analysis involves the solution of the equilibrium

equations

(1)

followed by the calculation of element stress resultants.

The load vectors iR} have been assembled at the same time as

the structure stiffness matrix [K] and mass matrix were

formed. The solution of the equations is obtained using the

large capacity linear equation solver. This solver uses

Gauss elimination on the positive-definite symmetrical system

of equations. The algorithm performs a minimum number of

operations; i.e., there are no operations with zero elements.

In the program, the LTDL decomposition of [K] is u~ed; hence,

Equation (1) can be written as

(2)

and

~ v} = [R] [L] ~ u} (3)

nutech A. 7


COM-01-140

where the solution for l v} in Equation (3) . is obtained by

a reduction of the load vectors; the displacement vectors

{ u} are then calculated by a back-substitution.

A. 8 nutech

COM-01-040

I I I I I I I I I

APPENDIX B

I PIPING SYSTEM DRAWINGS

I I I I I I I I B.1

I nutech


NUTECH DRAWING

COM-0321-01

COM-0321-02

COM-0321-03

COM-0321-04

COM-0321-05

COM-0321-06

COM-0321-07

COM·-0321-08

COM-01-040

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NO. DESCRIPTION

Dresden Unit #2 Ring Header Model with Attached Pump Suction Lines

Dresden Unit #2 LPCI Outlet ( 2A)

Dresden Unit #2 LPCI Outlet (2B)

Dresden Unit #2 Core Spray ( 2A) Discharge

Dresden Unit #2 Core Spray ( 2D) Discharge

Dresden Unit #2 HPCI Turbine Exhaust

Dresden Unit #2 Pressure Suppres-sion Piping

Dresden Unit #2 Vacuum Relief Piping

B.2

nutech

I I I I T

I ECCS-MWU-24

I I I I I I I I I I

..

I I I

'"

I

,.

llEFEJIDICtS ·1. SAR&DIH WNDY DWGS

1-25 M-10 M-71 .. _.,,, ·w-83.· M-87 M-96 M·545 M-547 M- 5411 M-5'5· M-~

ILPl

, ....

T.

[LPCI A.MP 28-1502

" . I l.

:-:COORDINATI SY5TtH--··

LPCI AMPl . V.-l502 J

45

\ .

I 1· 11

\)

I I I y

}-. I z

/ COORDINATE S~STEM

N

I HI '116A

I 712

I (!.·1srr-v1 Z·IS06·V~

713

I I I I REFERENCE

I. SARGENT• LUNDY DWG. NO. H·548

I <171506-VI

·1

I :!

550

I I

11

" .i

" I ii I• I

I'

I I ._,_ J: I' ·I

I I I I I ...

I , ... ·.a·AE.O.

I I

RU<RlNCl' I SAJ>GENT • UN7f DRAWING, NO. M-5'5

I I I

420

I I I I "" .. I,

I -1 I ..

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I·

I I

210

205

200

195

190

2-1403-12"

CORE SPRAY PUMP 2A-1401

150

IQ5

280

290

~QOS

q301"

2-1406-e"

'(

.~. COORDINATE SYSTEM ."'

REFERENCES I. SARGENT• LUNDY DR.I.WINGS

H-71 M-73

N

I

I y

I I

)-._1 z '

COORDINATE SYSTEM

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

@-1409-VI

550

X310.._

180

170

130

120

REFERENCE

1.SARGENTHUNDY DWG.NO. M-71 M-63

260

250

2~0

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

~-- - - -- -

I

...

/24··20·Rm

_MPC! n..uil~

,,.

...

... ...

...

...

COORtxNATl SYSTEH

ECCi PIPIN6 HPCI 'NR81Nll. l'INAUST'

DRntJOi NUCLUA. POWER STATION UNIT 2


I

' I

·--·------

· .. :!\

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-;-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~!

130

120

10

IOO

X318

1

LUNO"I" DRAWING, NO. M-5'8

170 ----160

;

I I I I I I I

.,. ...

I I I I I I I I I I I

·-------- --

I

y

f-x~ Z N

COOROINAlE SYSiEM

RUVIDICES: ~ SARCttNT • LUNOY' ORAWHG, NO. M~"8

Ec.:s PIPiNG IACUUM RELIEF' SY.STEM Pl~TAR ANAl.YTICA:. MODEL

I I I

I

I COM-01-040

I I I I I I I ·1 APPENDIX C

I. PIPING INSPECTION REPORT

I I I I I I I I c.o

I nutech

I I

.. ..


COM-01-040

.P~ping Clearance Inspection Report •• 'i • '

A.·'£ield in~~ection was conducted at the site to evaluate

the clearances between the piping systems attached to the

torus and adjacent structures and equipment. The piping

systems were inspected for the following information:

1) Inspect the hangers for details. Check whether

there is enough gap in the hanger assemb.l:i.es to

allow upward displacements equal to or greater

than one inch. This is to estahl:i.sh whether the

hangers are active during the torus uplift event.

The results of this inspection are reported in the

third column, marked "Hanger Check", of Table C-1.

A designation of >1.0" means that the visual inspec-

tion revealed that all of the hangers on the line

had adequate clearances to give one inch of upward

displacement before the hangers caused interference.

If otherwise, a note and the actual clearance is

inserted in the column.

2) All existing penetrations were checked to ensure a

clearance of at least one inch of vertical upward

motion through the penetration. If the pipe has a

minimum of one inch of upward clearance, the pipe

was designated as >1.0" in the fourth column of

Table C-1 designated as "Penetration Check". If

.a clearance of less than one inch was observed, it

was noted in that column.

C.l nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I· I I I I I I

COM-01:-040

3) The piping systems were visualty in~pected to ensure

that all oth~r clearances were at a minimum of one.

inch. If no smaller clearances were observed, a. . ' . . . . ' .

>l. 0" was designated in the fifth. column of Table

C-1 designated as "Interferences and Clearances".

If any interference or clea~ance problems we~e

observed, they were noted in that column.

All of the above inspections were completed by NUTECH and

Commonweal th Edisor1 Company engineering personnel. The

piping system~ were visually checked on site to make the

above observations. Notes and photographs of the actual

calculations are in NUTECH files. Any as-built deviations

from the design information supplied to.NUTECH are reflected

in the piping mathematical models as given in Appendix B,

and noted in NUTECH files.

C.2 nutech

.. . :


LEGEND FOR TABLE C-1

Explanation of Clearance Problem

Lays on Torus (794) thru (800) Approx. 20' from Penetration

07

C.3

COM-01-040

Indicates Footnote Explanations and Clarifications

Parentheses Jndicate Node Number Existing in PISTAR Analytical Models

Indicate Photograph Number Existing in NUTECH File

nutech

I I I I I I I I I 1,

I I I I I I I I I

PIPING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

HPCI PUMP SUCTION

HPCI TURBINE EXHAUST

LPCI PUMP SUCTION 2A & 2B

LPCI PUMP SUCTION 2C & 20

CORE SPRAY PUMP SUCTION ( 2A)

CORE SPRAY PUMP SUCTION (2B)

TORUS SPRAY X-31 lA

COM-01-040 Table C-1

CHECKLIST FOR FIELD INSPECTION

FOR CLEARANCES

OF PLANT PIPING SYSTEMS ATTACHED TO TORUS (DRESDEN 2)

tlUTECH I I MTERFEREt·lCES i DRAWING HANGER PENETRATION ANO NUMBER CHECK CHECK . CLEARANCES

COM-0321-01 > 1. 011 RIGID PENE. INTO > 1. 011

LPCI PUMP ROQM (670P) rm

, COM-0321-06 > 1. 011 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

-

COM".'"0321 ".'"0l > 1. 011 > 1. O" > 1. 011

- -

COM-0321-01 > 1. 011 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

- - -

COM-0321-01 > 1. 011 > 1.0 11 > 1. 011

-

COM-0321-01 > 1. 011 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

-

COM-0321-02 RIGID *4 > 1.0" >l. 011

HANGER BEFORE LAST VALVE BUT AFTER ELBOW

(635)

I 06

C.4

nutech

I I I.

I I I I I I I I 1. I 1·· 1· I .. ··

-I I I

. . - ' - .

PIPING SYSTEM . DES CR I PT ION

TORUS SPRAY X-3118

LPCI TEST X-310A

LPCI TEST x~310B

CORE SPRAY TEST X-310A.

CORE SPRAY rTEST X-3108

PRESSURE SUPPRESS ION

..

..... '·

.. COM-01-040 I • • .

; < ! ·,;'.:.

Table C-1 Contd. CHECKLIST FOR FIELD INSPECTION

FOR CLEARANCES


NUTE CH INTERFEREflCES~ DRAWING HANGER PENETRATION AND NUMBER CHECK CHECK . ~LEARJ\NCES

.

COM-0321 7 03 RIGID HANGER > 1. O" > l. O" BEFORE LAST - -

VALVE BUT l\FTER ELBOW

( 315) COM-0321-02 > l. 011

· > 1. O" *l - - ... AYS ON TORUS

{794) THRU (800 1\PPROX .. 20 I FROM )ENE. ro7 --

COM-0321-03 > l. 011 > 1. O" · *l - - ... AYS ON TORUS

·(420) THRU (440 ~PPROX. 20 1 FROM

PENE. COM-0321-04 UGID HANGER ~ 1. O" > l . 011

3ETWEEN LAST /ALVE AND

· :>ECOND TO .LAST ELBOW

(440S)

f06 .. COM-0321.,.05 > l. 011 > l. O" > l. O" -

COM-0321:...07 2 1.0'\ HORIZONTAL > l. o•• SEISMIC GUIDE AT FLOOR PENETRATION

( 170) ,

'

·: ...

... •' .. :· .

nutech i .·

I I I 1. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

; ; ..

COM-01-040 Table C-1 Contd.

, CHECKLIST FOR FIELD INSPECTION

FOR CLEARANCES

~ OF PLANT PIPING SYSTEMS ATTACHED TO TORUS (DRESDEN 2)

PIPING NUTE CH INTERFERENCES SYSTEM. · DRAWING HANGER PENETRATION AND DESCRIPTION NUMBER CHECK CHECK " CLEARANCES . VACUUM COM-0321-03 PUMP

~1.0 11 >1 .011 ~ l .0 11

*2 HPCI NONE > l .011 > l . 011 3/4 11 CLEARANCE DISCHARGE - W/TOP OF TORUS

1 oa LPCI TEST ON *3

HPCI NONE > l. 011 ·. > l. 011 TORUS, HPCI STEAM - STEAM SUPPLY ON SUPPLY LPCI BUT ENOUGH

INSULATION FOR l. 011

., ..

I 07

C.6 .·· nutech

'.,' . ,

I COM-01-040

Table C-1 Contd.


I FOR CLEARANCES

I OF PLANT PIPING SYSTEMS ATTACHED TO TORUS (DRESDEN 3)

PIPING tlUTECH I INTERFEREMCES ::·.

I SYSTEM DRAWING HANGER PENETRATION AND DESCRIPTION NUMBER CHEk:K CHECK CLEARANCES . ·, HPCI N/A RIGID WELDED ANCHOR

I PUMP SUPPORT TYPE OF PENETRA- > 1. 011

SUCTION UNDER TEE TION PIPE-PLATE-AT JUNCTION SLEEVE FROM TORUS

I OF CONDKN- ROOM TO LPCI ROOM SATE STOR-AGE IN HPCI

I ROOM

f08 f09

I HPCI N/A > l .011 > 1. 011 > l. 011

TURBINE -EXHAUST

I LPCI PUMP N/A ..:: 1.011 WELDED ANCHOR > l. 011

SUCTION TYPE OF PENETRA-

I (3A & 3B) TION PIPE-PLATE-

SLEEVE FROM TORUS - ROOM TO LPCI ROOM -·

I ~ ..

I LPCI PUMP N/A · _.:: l . 011 · WELDED ANCHOR > 1. 011

SUCTION TYPE OF PENETRA- -

I (3C & 30) TION PIPE-PLATE-... ~LEEVE FROM TORUS

ROOM TO LPCI ROOM

I I I

CORE SPRAY N/A > 1. 011 WELDED ANCHOR TYPE OF PENETRA- > 1. 011

· PUMP SUCTION TION PIPE-PLATE- -(3A) SLEEVE FROM TORUS

ROOM TO CORE SPRAY PUMP ROOM

-1

I I

C.7 nutech

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

-1 I I


CORE SPRAY PUMP SUCTION

(38)

LPCI DISCHARGE

( 3A)

LPCI DISCHARGE

(38)

TORUS SPRAY (3A)

TORUS SPRAY (3B)

LPCI TEST (3A)



FOR CLEARANCES


tlUTECH INTERFERHICES DRAWING HANGER PENETRATION AND NUMBER CHECK CHECK CLEARANCES

N/A 2 1.011 WELDED ANCHOR > 1. 011

TYPE OF PENETRA-TION PI PE-PLATE-SLEEVE FROM TORUS

-- ROOM TO CORE SPRAY PUMP ROOM

N/A > 1. 011 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

- - -

N/A > 1. 011 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

- - -

N/A SEISMIC > 1. 011 > 1. 011

TYPE RE- - -STRAINT 3' UPSTREAM FROM. VALVE # 1501-19A

N/A > 1. 011 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

- - - ,.

N/A SEISMIC > 1. 011 HPCI STEAM *S - SUPPLY 1 /2 11 TYPE RE-

ST RA INT FROM LPCI TEST 5' FROM 20' FROM PENE-PENETRATION

' TRATION AND HPCI SWAY BRACE WITH.: IN 1 /2 11 OF LPCI

. fi8 TEST [i9

C.8 nutech


-I I I


LPCI TEST (38)

CORE SPRAY TEST (3A)

CORE SPRAY TEST (3B)

PRESSURE SUPPRESSION

VACUUM RELIEF

HPCI DISCHARGE



FOR CLEARANCES

OF PLANT PIPING SYSTEMS ATTACHED TO TORUS ·(DRESDEN 3)

tlUTECH I IMTERFEREMCES ' DRAWING HANGER PENETRATION AND

NUMBER CHECK CHECK CLEARANCES

N/A > 1. 011 >l. 011 > l. 011

- - -

N/A 1/411 CLEVIS 3/811 CLEARANCE CLEARANCE > l. 011 FROM SUPPORT AT HANGER - BRACE FOR 4' FROM I INJECTION LINE PENETRATION rw-SEISMIC RE-

N/A STRAINT 11 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

- -DOWNSTREAM . OF ISOLATIONf2l VALVE

N/A > 1. 011

' > l. 011 > 1. 011

- - -

N/A > l. 011 > 1. 011 > 1. 011

- - -

N/A > l. 011 > l. 011 BOTTOM OF *6 - ! - 5UPPORT WITHIN

1/211 FROM TORUS

C.9 nutech


--1

I I

COM-01-040

FOOTNOTES:

*l LPCI test line lays on torus approximately 20' from torus penetration. The effects of this contact are small because of the absence of intermediate vertical restraints. This contact lends no apparent problem.

*2 There is approximately 3/4" clearance between the trapeze lug and the top of the torus on the HPCI discharge line. This offers no apparent problem since twice the predicted uplift is only 0.383".

*3

*4

*5

*6

The HPCI steam supply line lays on the LPCI test line which lays on the torus. Only the outside of the HPCI line is in contact with the LPCI. There is enough isolation on the HPCI line to absorb a 10" uplift. This contact lends no apparent problem.

This hanger has been loosened upon NUTECH recommendation to allow for 0.383" uplift.

HPCI steam supply and its sway brace within 1/2" of LPCI test line. This has no apparent problem because it is a clearance greater than the calculated uplift displacement.

Bottom of trapeze support on HPCI discharge is within 1/2" of torus. This has no apparent problem because it is a clearance greater than the calculated uplift displacement.

nutech C.10

.,

I COM-01-040

I I I I I I I I

APPENDIX D

GE SUPPLIED GENERIC INPUT

I TO PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS __ REP OR~~

I I I I I \ 1 ·

--1

I D.O

I nutech

I I I I I I I" I I I I 1.

I I I I

-·I I I

..

TABLE· 1 - UPLIFT COMPARISON ON REFERENCE PLANT

1-0 Model 2-D Model

Total Weight Ckips): 575 575

Total Mass x 9 (kips.) 534 535

Col. Sprinq Constant (kips/inch) . 12400* 10940**

Damping 5% ·2,

Uplif·t Cinches) 0.050 .o. 069

At time (sec.) 0.610 0.625

·NOTES:. ·• This. is t.~e alope of the elastic portion of the force-displacement curve imput. to,the 1-D model.;

·•- This is the spring constant imput for the . (ANSYS) gap-spring element.

J{_ • .l

..

nutech

Documents

Dresden Station, Units 2 & 3 - Short Term Program Plant Unique Torus Support … · 2017-07-31 · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1--1 Revision Control Sheet Dresden Nuclear Generating