._

COM-02-039-4/''N Revision 0

-( ) May 1983'' 64.305.2103

QUAD CITIES NUCLEARPOWER STATION

UNITS 1 AND 2

PLANT UNIQUE ANALYSIS REPORTVOLUME 4

INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS

Prepared for:

Commonwealth Edison Company

'''N Prepared by:

s- - NUTECH Engineers, Inc.

San Jose, California

Approved by:

AVV k

D. O. Talbott I. D. McInnes, P . E.

Project Leader Engineering Manager

h

R. H. Adams, P.E.Engineering Director

.

Issued by:

$ LLC --

-

/''N, A. K. Moonka, P.E. R. H. Buchholz

(b) Project Manager Project Director

' ).8307180158 830627 n

E8PDR ADOCK 05000237P PDR

_ _ _ _ _

I

REVISION CONTROL SHEET

,O Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, REPORT NUMBER: COM-02-039-4

V)LEl Units 1 and 2 Revision 0Plant Unique Analysis Report I

Volume 4i

I. D. McInnes/ Engineering Manager IMINITIALS

D. C. Talbott/ Consultant I [[INITIALS

'

M. D. Pratt/ Engineering Analyst

7[ITIALS

R. Fernandez/ Consultant II hINITIALS

C. T. Shyy/ Senior Engineer DIE,

,

INITIALS

'N( /'O

INITIAL 5

INITIALS,

I.PAGE(S)C- ~

PRE- ACCURACY CRITERIAgg REV- A I ^

A ED CHECK CHECK PARED CHECK CHECKPAGE (S )

g ID4-1i{ A7 N/A 4-3.1 00

| 4-1.1- g7 IM4-1.5;

| | :15 M F '*

| 4-2.16 f8([ W4-2.17 [[ 6G j

'I# Ib !4-2.18 $#" M I-d-2.190 AT M lh 0 i-2.9n

QEP-001.4-00

4-ii l

nutggh

. -

ABSTRACT4

The primary containments for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power

j Station Units 1 and 2 were designed, erected, pressure-tested,

and N-stamped in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Code, Section III, 1965 Edition with addenda up to and

including Summer 1965 for the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)by the Chicago Bridge and Iron Company. Since then, newrequirements have been established. These requirements affect

the design and operation of the primary containment system andare defined in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) SafetyEvaluation Report, NUREG-0661. This report provides anassessment of containment design loads postulated to occurduring a loss-of-coolant accident or a safety relief valvedischarge event. In addition, it provides an assessment of the

effects that the postulated events have on containment systems4

operation.

This plant unique analysis report (PUAR) documents the efforts

h undertaken to address and resolve each of the applicableNUREG-0661 requirements. It demonstrates that the design of the

primary containment system is adequate and that original designsafety margins have been restored, in accordance with NUREG-0661acceptance criteria. The Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 PUAR iscomposed of the following seven volumes:

o Volume 1 - GENERAL CRITERIA AND LOADS METHODOLOGYo Volume 2 - SUPPRESSION CHAMBER ANALYSIS

'

o Volume 3 - VENT SYSTEM ANALYSISo Volume 4 - INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSISo Volume 5 - SAFETY RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE LINE

PIPING ANALYSIS

p)i COM-02-039-4

'

Revision 0 4-iii

1

nutggb i

. . . . . ..

~ --_ - _ _ - -- .- __.

I

o Volume 6 - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION

h CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES (OUAD'

L CITIES UNIT 1)o Volume 7 - TORUS ATTACHED PIPING AND SUPPRESSION

CHAMBER PENETRATION ANALYSES (QUAD

-CITIES UNIT 2)

This volubte documents the evaluation of the suppression chamber

internal structures. Volumes 1 through 4 and 6 and 7 have been,

prepared by NUTECH Engineers, Incorporated (NUTECH), acting asan agent to the Commonwealth Edison Company. Volume 5 has been

prepared by Sargent and Lundy, who performed the safety relief

valve discharge line (SRVDL) piping analysis. Volume 5

describes the methodology and procedures used in the SRVDL

piping analysis.

4

i

'

.

4

|

1

4

I

ii

!'

:!

f| COM-02-039-4 l

Revision 0 4-iv

M ..

-_ . _ _ . . _ _ __ . . -

- - - . . . . - - ._. .- - - _-.

.

TABLE OF CONTENTS'

Page

ABSTRACT 4-lii

LIST OF ACRONYMS 4-vi

LIST OF TABLES 4-vii

LIST OF FIGURES 4-vili

4-1.0 INTRODUCTION 4-1.1>

4-1.1 Scope of Analysis 4-1.2,

4-1.2 Summary and Conclusions 4-1.4

'4-2.0 INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS 4-2.1

4-2.1 Component Description 4-2.2

4-2.1.1 Catwalk 4-2.3

4-2.1.2 Electrical Conduits 4-2.81

4-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations 4-2.9

4-2.2.1 Loads 4-2.10

4-2.2.2 Load Combinations 4-2.13

4-2.3 Acceptance Criteria 4-2.15

4-2.4 Methods of Analysis 4-2.16

4-2.5 Analysis Results 4-2,17P

4-2.5.1 Closure 4-2.20

4-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 4-3.1. .

|

|

|'

-~

,j COM-02-039-4'

Revision 0 4-v

1

'L nutggb

. - -- ._ .. . _ . --. - _ _ _ _ . ._ . - -

. . . . .. _ . . . . _. . . _

h

;

! LIST OP' ACRONYMS

'

ASME American Society of Mechanical EngineersCO Condensation oscillation

DBA Design Basis Accident

ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System |

IBA Intermediate Break Accident

IR Inside Radius

LDR Load Definition Report

LOCA Loss-of-Coolant Accident

NRC Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNVB Non-Vent Bay

OBE Operating Basis Earthquakei

PUAAG Plant Unique Analysis Applications Guide

PUAR Plant Unique Analysis Report

PULD Plant Unique Load Definition

SRV Safety Relief Valve

SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake

O VB Vent Line Bay

-

4

COM-02-039-4'( Revision 0 4-vi

._ .

- _ . . - . - . . . . . - . . . . - . . . - _ . . - . . . - - . _ . . .- . - = - ..- . - --

1

F

r5

ij LIST OF TABLES

r4

Number Title Page i

t

4-2.2-1 Internal Structures Component Loading 4-2.12

i Identification.

;-

; 4-2.2-2 Internal Structures Controlling Load 4-2.14! Combinationsi

4-2.5-1 Catwalk Stresses for Controlling Load 4-2.18 ,

Combinations

! 4-2.5-2 Maximum Suppression Chamber Shell 4-2.19Stresses at Catwalk Reinforcement Beam;

| Locationsi

.

!(

!;

|r.

i

l

i !t i

'

li!

!

!|i

(l

,

|

|-

!- COM-02-039-4-' Revision 0 4-vil

- . - - . - - - - - - - _ . --

_ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . - _-

LIST OF FIGURES

i

. Number Title Page

4-2.1-1 Plan View of Suppression Chamber Internal 4-2.5Catwalk

4-2.1-2 Suppression Chamber Internal Catwalk-Typical Support at Miter Joint 4-2.6

,-

I

4-2.1-3 Suppression Chamber Internal Catwalk- '

'

! Typical Support Between Miter Joints 4-2.7

!

id

:,

-

j;

,

E

a

:1

| !

:,

P

'

ii

4

4

4-

i

.

COM-02-039-4_ Revision 0 4-viii

,

,

_ __ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _

.. - .. .. . - . _ . . . _ . .- - _ . -

4-1.0 INTRODUCTION,

In conjunction with volume 1 of the Plant Unique

Analysis Report (PUAR), this volume documents the

efforts undertaken to address the requirements defined

in NUREG-0661 (Reference 1) which affect the Ouad

Cities Units 1 and 2 internal structures. The internal

structures PUAR is organized as follows:,

o INTRODUCTION

Scope of Analysis-

Summary and Conclusions-

o INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS (Catwalk and

Electrical Conduits)

; - Component Description

Loads and Load Combinations-

;

- Acceptance Criteria

Methods of Analysis-

Analysis Results-

!The INTRODUCTION section contains a general overview 1

discussion of the internal structures evaluation. The

INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSIS section discusses the

specific components, loads,- criteria, methods, and~

Lresults associated with the evaluation.

'\-- COM-02-039-4| Revision 0 4-1.1

. . .. . . - . . . .

4-1.1 Scope of Analysis

OThe criteria presented in Volume 1 are used as the

basis for all of the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 internalstructures evaluations described in this volume. The

internal structures evaluated are the catwalk and

electrical conduits. These structures are not required

for the safe operation of the primary containment*

system during accident conditions.

These internal structures are evaluated for the effectsof loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) and safety relief

valve (SRV) discharge-related loads, as defined by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Safety Evbluation

Report, NUREG-0661, and the " Mark I Containment Program

Load Definition Report" (LDR) (Reference 2).

The LOCA and SRV discharge loads used in this evalua-

tion are formulated using the procedures discussed in

Volume 1 of this report. The evaluation includes a

structural analysis of the internal structures to

ensure that these structures do not fail and result in

damage to safety-related components.

||

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-1.2

nutggh

. .. _ . _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ .. ___._

i

The results of the structural evaluation for each load

are used to evaluate load combinations for the internal

structures in accordance with the " Mark I Containment

Program Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide"*

(PUAAG) (Reference 3). The evaluation results are

conservatively compared with the -acceptance limits

specified by the applicable sections of the American

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code (Reference

4) to ensure that safety-related components are not

adversely affected.

i

Other internal structures evaluated were the vent line

drain, thermowells, and the emergency core cooling

system (ECCS) suction strainers. They are described in

! Sections 2 -2 .1, 3 -2 .1, 6-2.1, and 7-2.1, respectively,i

:

4

,

,

|

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-1.3

'

.

- _. . .. . . - - . - - - . .- -. . .. .

:

4-1.2 Summary and Conclusions |

OThe evaluation documented in this volume is performed

for the Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 internal structures

identified in Section 1-1.1 and described in Section

1-2.1. These structures are the catwalk and electrical

conduits.

The LOCA and SRV discharge-related events defined in

NUREG-0661 result in hydrodynamic loadings on the

internal structures. The major loadings which affect

the catwalk and ele 6trical conduits above the

suppression pool include pool swell impact and drag

loads, froth impingement loads, and pool fallback

loads. The major loadings which affect submerged

portions of the catwalk include submerged structure

loadings. Conservative values for these loadings are

developed using the methodology discussed in Section

1-4.0. Other loads such as dead weight and seismic

loads have a lesser effect on the internal structures,

| but are also considered in the evaluation.

|

|

||

||

|

||

l

|

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-1.4

nute_cb

. _ . _ . _ . - . . - . . ~ - . .. _. -- .. . = - - . . . ._

fv

The analysis results for these loadings are used to

b '

V formulate the controlling event combinations which*

affect the internal structures, as discussed in Section,

1-3.2. The results are compared to acceptance limitsi

which ensure that the internal ' structures do not failand result in damage to safety-related components. The

.

| evaluation results show that the stresses for all of;

I the internal structures are within acceptable limits.,

The NUREG-0661 requirements are therefore considered to'

be met.ii

!

i

i

4,

1 .

i

I

4

1

1

i

i

!

.

.COM-02-039-4'

Revision 0 4-1.5!

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

. _ . -. .. . _ _ .

INTERNAL STRUCTURES ANALYSISO 4-2.0

An evaluation of each of the NUREG-0661 requirements

which affect the design adequacy of the Quad Cities

Units 1 and 2 internal stru'ctures is presented in the

following sections. The criteria used in the

evaluation are contained in Volume 1 of this report.

The internal structures components which are examined

are described in Section 4-2.1. The loads and load

combinations which are evaluated are described andi

presented in Section 4-2.2. The acceptance limits to

I which the analysis results are compared are discussed

and presented - in Section 4-2.3. The analysis method-, .

ology used to evaluate the effects of these loads and

load combinations is discussed in Section 4-2.4. The,

analysis results and the corresponding design margins

are presented in Section 4-2.5.~

j

|

I:

i.

O -COM-02-039-4| v

Revision 0 4-2.1

*

.. . ., . , . , . . . , - . . . , , , , . , , . . . . , , , . - , . . , - , . . . - , . . , . .-

||

|

|| 4-2.1 Component Description

OThe internal structures which are evaluated include thecatwalk and electrical conduits, which are described in'

Sections 4-2.1.1 and 4-2.1.2, respectively.

!

:I

i|

[

i

O

|

|

COM-02-039-4| Revision 0 4-2.2

.

nutggb- .. - . - _ -

_

fG 4-2.1.1 Catwalk). .

The catwalk is a platform-type structure approximately

three feet wide, which extends around the full

The 'atwalkcircumference of the suppression chamber. c

is located in the upper outside quadrant of each

suppression chamber mitered cylinder.

The catwalk frame consists of two C9 x 13.4 stringers,

which extend from ring girder to ring girder. The

catwalk frame is supported at two intermediate

locations between ring girders in the non-vent line

bays (NVB) and at one intermediate location in the vent,

O line bays (VB) (Figure 4-2.1-1). The supports at theg,

ring girders consist of a W12 x 136 horizontal support

beam attached to a 6" XXS vertical pipe column (Figure

4-2.1-2). The intermediate supports consist of a*

W16 x 36 horizontal support beam attached to a 4",

Schedule 120, vertical pipe strut. The pipe strut

connects to a reinforcement beam which distributes the

pipe strut forces to the suppre'ssion chamber shell

(Figure 4-2.1-3).

| The catwalk platform consists of grating that spans the

|stringers. The grating is attached to the stringers by

; ON -

COM-02-039-4Revision'O 4-2.3

$

. . . . ..

intermittent welds. Additional hold-down support is

provided by L3 x 2 x 3/8 hold-down angles that are'

bolted to the stringers. The catwalk stringers are

braced against lateral loads by: L3 x 3x 1/4 angles

placed between stringer pairs, the same size angles

placed between the stringers and the ring girder, and

the horizontal support members at the ring girders

(Figure 4-2.1-1).

O

l

1

l|

|

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.4

nutggb.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

OINTERMEDIATE j

- / SUPPCRT

C9 x 13.4 si

STRINGER -'

SUPPRESSION / '( T LINEER

'===== | |\

e# [qMITERJCINT'A -

,

%s== \1^#,,>

bh5 QN 5 EIIO OIEEEI

k- _ _I .__ ..-

N '"5 8

( NON-VENT- -

INTE3MEDIATgd-

| I.INE SAY"

SUPPCRTS 3'-11 1 /2"

O-(TYP)

. W. ->

'- : i .

... S. m.,

CF CONTAINMENT

GRATINGd \ ,,,.

-f \.- ,

.' $ '~ | '

\

|t

1. SEE FIGURE 4-2.1-2 FOR SECTION A-A.2. SEE FIGURE 4-2.1-3 FOR SECTION B-B.

Figure 4-2.1-1

PLAN VIEW OF SUPPRESSION CHAMBERl INTERNAL CATWALK

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.5

nutggb- - - - - - _ _ - - - - ----

.

C CATWALK q SUPPRESSION j

CHAMBER-

I

3 X 2 X 3/8gggg7g GRATING HOLD

DCWN ANGLESo ,

i

C9 x 13.4STRINGERS,

3/4" THICK,,

PLATE |

{ y W12 x 136

c, i,

_ _l -t_

,

O

RINGGIRDER

6" DIA PIPE

1" THICK PLATE

SUPPRESSIONCHAMBER SHELL ---

13'-2 1/2" IR

1

'15'-0" 1R

SECTION A-A(FROM FIGURE 4-2.1-1)

Figure 4-2.1-2

SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL CATWALK -

TYPICAL SUPPORT AT MITER JOINT

COM-02-039-4| Revision 0 4-2.6

nutggh

-. _. -

|

|

||

O't q SUPPRESSIONCHAMBER I

g!

S4'-6" TO q )CT CONTAINMENT

' SUPPRESSIONCHAMBER SHELL

15'-0"REINFORCEMENT IRBEAM

'( CATWALK

'8'-4 7/16" ;

VENT LINE BAY,

t | -

=': '

,8'-6"

_

~

NON-VENT LINE BAY,'

.

.

i HANDRAIL i

4" DIA ' C9 X 13.4PIPE | J STRINGER_ g

_a' | 'l

,

W16 X 36'

, s .

j, 4 -Q

l

10'-10"

SECTION B-B(FROM FIGURE 4-2.1-1)

Figure 4-2.1-3

SUPPRESSION CHAMBER INTERNAL CATWALK -

TYPICAL SUPPORT BETWEEN MITER JOINTS

'COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.7

-- .

,.

_ _ _ .

.

4-2.1.2 Electrical Conduits eThe vacuum breaker conduits provide power and circuitry

for solenoids and instrumentation located on the

drywell/wetwell vacuum breakers. The instrumentation

is used to monitor the valve open and closed positions

during start-up testing. The wiring for the vacuum

breaker electrical system is routed inside 2" and 3"

diameter rigid steel conduit from two suppression

chamber penetration locations to each vacuum breaker.

The conduits are attached to horizontal members

attached to the bottom of the catwalk stringers and to

short, vertical membere that are welded to the web of

the catwalk stringers. Junction boxes at the

connection and termination points of the conduit are

also supported on short, vertical members that are

welded to the web of the stringers.

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.8

nutggb1

. - - _ _ ---_-__-_-____--______________u_

, . - - - _. _ _. . - _ __ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ -- . _ ___

, .

4

1 -

;

( 4-2.2 Loads and Load Combinations j.

,

The loads for which the Ouad Cities Units 1 and 2

internal structures are evaluated are defined in

NUREG-0661 on a generic basis for all Mark I plants.

The methodology used to develop plant unique loads forr

each applicable load defined in NUREG-0661 is discussed'

>

in Section 1-4.0. The results of applying the

i methodology to develop specific values for each of the:

y

j controlling loads are discussed and presented in

i Section 4-2.2.1. ;

1;

1

i The controlling load combinations which affect thei

! internal structures are formulated by usincj the event ,

combinations and event sequencing defined in NUREG-0661

and discussed in Sections 1-3.2 and 1-4.3. The.

controlling load combinations are discussed and1

"

. presented in Section 4-2.2.2.

ii

:i

i

(,

i

.

l |COM-02-039-4> Revision 0- 4-2.9 ;

<

.

- - -, ,. -,. , . , . - , . - ,an,,v---- , , , -- . ,n, +m, .n,-,,,n .-.-ev,e-,cea,-,. ,,,,,-m-- ,,,--,ver--nm-

1

1

!4-2.2.1 Loads

OThe loads acting on the internal structures are

categorized as follows:

.

1. Dead Weight Loads

a. Dead Weight of Steel

'

2. Seismic Loads

a. Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)

b. Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)

3. Pool Swell Loads

a. Pool Swell Impact and Drag

b. Froth Impingement and Fallback

c. Pool Fallback

d. LOCA Bubole-Induced Drag on Submerged

Structures

4. Condensation Oscillation (CO) Loads

a. Design Basis Accident (DBA) CO Drag on

Submerged Structures

b. Intermediate Break Accident (IBA) CO Drag

on Submerged Structures

5. Chugging Loads

a. Pre-Chug Drag on Submerged Structures

b. Post-Chug Drag on Submerged Structures

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.10

nutggb

. . -. _ ._ - - _ _. . - _ . ._- . - . - - -_- ._- _ _ __. --- ._- . ..._ -

.

6. Safety Relief Valve Discharge Loads

i a. SRV Discharge Bubble-Induced Drag on

Submerged Structures

:

j 7. Containment Interaction Loads:

a. Suppression Chamber Motions

Table 4-2.2-1 shows the specific loads that affect the,

catwalk an6 conduit. The methodology used to develop

values for each of these. loadings is discussed in

Section 1-4.0. The resulting magnitudes and.

characteristics of each loading are similar to those

described in Volumes 2 and 3 of this report.i

i

t'I

i

!

4

4

4

!

|

|

| !

(_

COM-02-039-4l, t Revision.0 4-2.I1

I M ;

e--*-Ju- ' _ N em- = 49-9m e e e p a-ge*1 e w- g-mw-w w -F -t--* grsqT ww-'Te '- v &y m er--ap r-w'-*gw**- **mim eta,-mmwe--1 9-ywweMe-- q p wFrr+a -e-$ -y,W---777$

. .

*

Table 4-2.2-1.

INTERNAL STRUCTURES

COMPONENT LOADING IDENTIFICATION

.

VOLUME 4 LOADDESIGNATION PUAR VOLUMEELECTRICAL

SECTIONCATWALK CONDUITSREFERENCE

CATEG'ORY N MBER

DEAD WEIGHT la X X 1-3.1

2a X X l-3.1

SEISMIC2b X X l-3.1

3a X X l-4.1.4.2

3b X l-4.1.4.3POOL SWELL

LOADS3c X X l-4.1.4.4

3d X (1) 1-4.1.6

4a X(1) 1-4.1.7.3CONDENSATIONOSCILLATION

4b X (1) 1-4.1.7.3

Sa X(1) 1-4.1.8.3

CHUGGINGSb X (1) 1-4.1.8.3

6a X W 1-4.2.4DISCH RGE

CONTAINMENT 7a X VOLUME 2INTERACTION

(1) APPLIES TO SUPPORT COLUMN AT THE RING GIRDER ONLY.

O! COM-02-039-4

Revision 0 4-2.12

nutggh._ . .

_ -- . - -- . _ _ - - ._.

A

4-2.2.2 Load Combinations

'

The loadings which affect each of the internal struc-

tures are presented in Section 4-2.2.1. The general

NUREG-0661 criteria for grouping these loads into event

combinations are discussed in Section 1-3.2. Since the

electrical conduits and a majority of the internal

catwalk components are located above or below the

suppression pool, the event combinations which produce

controlling stresses are those which contain pool swell

and SRV discharge loads.

The submerged portions of the catwalk supports are

s subjected to LOCA air clearing, condensation

oscillation, chugging, and SRV discharge submerged

structure loads identified in Section 1-4.0. The:

catwalk is evaluated for two controlling combinations.

These are the IBA 15 and the DBA 25 combinations as;

described in the PUAAG (Table 4-2.2-2). The electrical

conduits and junction boxes are evaluated for the

controlling DBA 25 combination, since the pool swell

j load is the dominant load on these components.

|

:

| COM-02-039-4 (gRevision 0 4-2.13

!!

;- - - - .- _ - - , ~ _ _ . . , _ . , .,. _ _, _ __.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

f

Table 4-2.2-2

INTERNAL STRUCTURES CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONS

f

LOAD COMBINATION

LOAD DESIGNATION ( }15(2) 25(2)

DEAD WEIGHT 1 1

OPERATING BASIS EARTHQUAKESEISMIC

SAFE SHUTDOWN EARTHQUAKE 2b 2b

POOL SWELL 3a-3d

CONDENSATION OSCILLATION (3) 4b

CHUGGING (3) Sa-Sb-

SRV DISCHARGE (3) 6 6

CONTAINMENT INTERACTION 7 7

TORUS"

SERVICE LEVEL AT WHICHSTRESSES ARE EVALUATED CATWALK AND

ELECTRICAL E( ) E(CONDUITS

(1) SEE PUAR SECTION 4-2.2.1.

(2) SEE NUREG-0661.

(3) SUBMERGED STRUCTURE LOADINGS ONLY AFFECT SUBMERGEDPORTIONS OF CATWALK COLUMN SUPPORTS.

(4) THE CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATION FOR THE TORUS SHELLAT CATWALK ATTACHMENT LOCATIONS IS THE DBA 18COMBINATION AS DESCRIBED IN REFERENCE 3.

(5) THE CATWALK IS CONSERVATIVELY ANALYZED TOSERVICE LEVEL D LIMITS.

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.14

nutggh- _ _ - - - - - - -

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O 4-2.3 Acceptance Criteria

U)8

Table 4-2.2-2 shows the service level assignments for

the internal structures and the suppression chamber

shell at attachment points to internal structures. The

table shows that the catwalk and electrical conduits

are designated as Service Level E components, and as

such, are not required to meet ASME Code acceptance

-

limits. In order to employ a consistent set of design

criteria which ensures that failure will not occur, the

catwalk is conservatively evaluated for the Service

Level D acceptance limits contained in the ASME Code.

The suppression chamber shell near attachment points to ,

'

internal structures is evaluated in accordance with the

requirements for Class MC components contained in the

ASME Code. The corresponding allowable stresses of the

catwalk components for the controlling combination arei

presented in Section 4-2.5. The electrical conduits

are evaluated to ensure that they will not impeir the

function of safety-related components.

t )v COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.15

1

i

4-2.4 Methods of Analysis ' '

OThe loadings for which the internal structures are

evaluated are identified in section 4-2.2.1.

The analysis of the catwalk is performed using manual

calculations. An equivalent static analysis is per-

formed for all catwalk loadings except for containment

interaction and pool swell loads, for which transient

analysis is performed. The transient analysis of the

catwalk is performed using a beam finite element model

which includes the stringers, hangers, and associated

catwalk components. The reaction loads from the

catwalk pipe strut to the suppression chamber are

obtained from the bounding load combination for the

attachment point. The results from a unit load case on

a finite element model composed of plate elements,

which represents a 90' section of the suppression

chamber shell and the reinforcement beam, are factored

by the reaction loads from the catwalk. The resulting

stresses in the suppression chamber shell are combined

I with the stresses obtained from the suppression chamber

analysis to evaluate local stresses in the suppression

chamber shell. Volume 2 of this PUAR describes the

suppression chamber analysis and the general state of

stress in the suppression chamber shell.

OCOM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.16

nutgsb

. - . .. .. . _ . . -- .- . . . . - - - _ _ _ _ . ._

!,

+

a

4-2.5 Analysis Results

.

The geometry, loads, load combinations, acceptance

criteria, and analysis methods used in the evaluation

of the internal structures are presented in the -

preceding sections. Table 4-2.5-1 shows the resulting

maximum stresses for the catwalk for the controlling

load combination. This table shows that the calculated

stresses for these components are less than the

corresponding allowable stresses. Table 4-2.5-2 shows

I the state of stress in the suppression chamber shell at'

the catwalk reinforcement beam locations. ,

i

The results of the electrical conduit supports and

junction boxes confirm that the conduits will not

impair the functions of safety-related components.

,

,

| '

!C!\ COM-02-039-4

Revision 0 4-2.17

- . - ._ . _ _ .- . - -

1

|

|

Table 4-2.5-1

CATWALK STRESSES FOR CONTROLLING LOAD COMBINATIONSl

LOAD COMBINATION STRESSES (ksi)

MATERIAL BEAM DBA 25ITEM MATERIAL PROPERTIES STRESS

OALCULATED( E Bu CALCULATED (1)3 3gSTRESS ALLOWABLE(SERVICE IEVEL D)

SHEAR 2.56 12.84(2)ASTM 8 = 36.0(2)

STRINGER y *

A-36 3 . $g,o BENDING 37.97 43.20(2)

32*1 SHEAR 0.76 25.68SUPPORT S =BEAM AT ASTM y 0.04

58.0MITER A-36 S =u BENDING 1.87 42.38JOINT-

8 P T COMPRESSIVE 1.25 30.00ASME 3 , 3g,yCO g 0.07A*

AT MITER S = 60.0GRADE 6 u BENDING 1.22 41,18JOINT

SHEAR 7.27 25.6832.1INTERMEDIATE ASTM S =

# **'SUPPORT BEAM A-36 S 58.0=

u BENDING 19.09 38.65

COMPRESSIVE 9.89 27.52ASTM S = 26.7INTERMEDIATE 0.63A"333PIPE STRUT S = $5.0GRADE 6 u BENDING 8.86 . 35,24

II III36.0 COMPRESSIVE 14.91 28.00S =

ANGLE ASTM y 0.86BRACING A-36 S = 58.0 IIU BENDING 13.31 43.20

(1) VALUES SHOWN ARE OBTAINED FROM BEAM INTERACTION EQUATION.(2) VALUES CONSIDERE., ARE FOR ACTUAL TEMPERATURE.

(3) TIME PHASING OF THE RESPONSE IS NOT CONSIDERED. THE PEAK-TO-PEAKVALUES ARE CONSERVATIVELY USED.

i

||

|

|

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.18

nutgg])

._

Table 4-2.5-2k'

MAXIMUM SUPPRESSION CHAMBER SHELL STRESSES AT

CATWALK REINFORCEMENT BEAM LOCATIONS

STRESS CALCULATED CALCULATEDTYPE STRESS (ksi) ALLOWABLE

PRIMARY11.94 0.41MEMBRANE

LOCAL PRIMARY 28.46 0.98MEMBPANE

PRIMARY +SECONDARY 52.32 0.75

STRESS RANGE

I

Q' COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.19

nutagh-. . ..

i

|1

.

4-2.5.1 Closure

The values of the loads used to evaluate the internalstructures are conservative estimates of the loads

postulated to occur during an actual LOCA or SRV

discharge event. The event combinations for which theinternal structures are evaluated envelop the actual

events expected to occur during a LOCA or SRV discharge

event.

The acceptance limits to which the evaluation results

are compared are more restrictive than those required

by NUREG-0661. Use of these acceptance limits ensures

that the internal structures will not fail and cause

damage to safety-related components.

The analysis results presented show that stresses in

the internal structure components are within these

conservative acceptance limits. The NUREG-0661

criteria are therefore considered to be met,

l

|

COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-2.20 .

nutggh

4-3.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. " Mark I Containment Long-Term Program," SafetyEvaluation Report, U SN RC , NUREG-0661, July 1980;Supplement 1, August 1982.

2. " Mark I Containment Program Load DefinitionReport," General Electric Company, NEDO-21888,Revision 2, November 1981.

3. " Mark I Containment Program Structural AcceptanceCriteria Plant Unique Analysis Application Guide,"Task Number 3.1.3, Mark I owners Group, GeneralElectric Company, NEDO-2 4 583, Revision 1, October1979.

4. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III,Division 1, 1977 Edition with Addenda up to andincluding Summer 1977.

O

!

\ COM-02-039-4Revision 0 4-3.1

|s

|

|

nutg_qh

t

- . - - _ - _ _ _ - . - __ - - - - _ -- .

e QUAD CITIES STATIONUNITS 1 & 2 '

,

I

i

MARK I PLANT UNIQUE|

| ANALYSIS REPORT |: i

'

i

:

O VOLUME 5

O|

MM NWEALTH E IS N MPANYOSARGENT&LUNDY

.. . .....

1

- _ - _ _ _ . - . - . - - - - - . . - . . - _ . , - . . - , - - . _ - . - _ _ , . - . - . _ _ . , _ _ .