-.-

WH C-SA-2 633-FP

Snubber Reduction Analysis of Secondary Hot Leg in Fast Flux Test Facility

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Off ice of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Westinghouse Hanford Company Richland, Washington

Hanford Operations and Engineering Contractor for the US. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-87RL10930

Copyright Licenm By acceptance of thhr &de, the pubbher and/or redpient acknowledges the U.S. Government's right to retain 8 nonexdusive, roydty-free license h and to any copyright covering this p a p a .

Release

OF THIS DGCLCME

A

WHC-SA-2633-FP

Snubber Reduction Analysis of Secondary Hot Leg in Fast Flux Test Facility W. W. Chen M. R. Lindquist

Date Published January 1995

To Be Presented at ASME Pressure Vessel & Piping Conference Honolulu, Hawaii July 23-27, 1995

To Be Published in Proceedings

Prepared for the U.S. Department of -Energy Off ice of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

Westinghouse P.0 Box 1970 Hanford Company Richland, Washington

Hanford Operations and Engineering Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-87RL10930

Copyrighi Liccnn By acceptance of this utide, the pubeisha mdlw recipient adolowIedgea the U.S. Government's right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty-free license in Sld to my copyright

Approved for Public Release

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

. Analysis o f Snubber Reduction

of Secondary Hot Leg in Fast Flux Test Faci l i ty

W. W. Chen and M. R. L indquis t Westinghouse Hanford Company

Abstract

This paper describes analyses t o qualify the structural integri ty of the secondary hot leg (SHL) dump heat exchanger(DHX) piping system of the Fast Flux Test Facil i ty (FFTF) under seismic loading af te r the deletion of a number of seismic snubbers. A baseline geometric model was developed, with ADLPIPE computer code, Version Z E l A , 1984.

Several seismic analyses were performed by i terat ion with the maximum

A thermal number of snubbers reduced t o obtain a support configuration having acceptable anchor and suppor t loads as well as acceptable piping stresses. analysis was performed a t an operating temperature of 965 O F (518 "C) t o qualify the piping system following the replacement of some seismic snubbers with r igid suppor t s .

A ser ies o f displacements from flow- o r pump-induced vibration were measured. These vibrations, on the order of tens of seconds or minutes apart , were n o t continuous and steady, b u t rather o f a series of forced displacements tha t rapidly damped o u t t o zero. A scoping evaluation o f the effect o f the vibration found that the calculated s t ress i s within l imits.

Results of the s t ress analysis of the piping with snubber reduction are qualified in accordance with ASME, Section 111, Class 1, requirements. Nearly 67% of the snubbers in loop 1 of the SHL piping system may be eliminated or replaced with rigid struts a t the same location and orientation.

The effects of inelastic s t ra in accumulation, creep-fatigue damage and interaction, and e las t ic follow-up are evaluated by comparison t o the resu l t s of inelast ic analysis. comparison t o those from the original seismic analysis.

Revised anchor and hanger loads also were evaluated by

INTRODUCTION

Nuclear power-pl ant piping systems generally include some several hundred snubbers . The large number of snubbers could result from the need t o sa t i s fy many layers of conservatism in the original design involving codes, standards, and seismic loading requirements. A unique high-temperature piping sytem i s responsible for the conservatism bui l t into the design original FFTF.

1

Ov& many years of successful operation and t e s t s t o meet various requirements, a significant number of snubbers failed. These fai lures suggest t h a t i t i s time t o reassess the need for a large number of snubbers.

The purpose of t h i s analysis i s t o qualify the structural integrity of the SHL DHX piping system for the FFTF under seismic loading af te r the deletion of seismic snubbers. A baseline geometric model was developed w i t h the ADLPIPE computer code (ADLPIPE 1984). Deadweight, seismic and thermal analyses used th i s model , and the results were compared with those from a baseline analysis using PIPESD computer code, as described in WHC 1980a. Several seismic analyses were performed with a number of snubbers reduced t o obtain a support configuration w i t h acceptable anchor and support loads as well as acceptable piping stresses. After some of the seismic snubbers had been replaced with rigid supports, thermal analysis was performed t o qualify the piping system.

Results of the piping s t ress analysis with fewer snubbers were qualified in accordance with ASME, Section 111, Class 1, requirements (ASME 1980). The effects of inelast ic s t ra in accumulation, creep-fatigue damage and interaction, and e l a s t i c follow-up were evaluated by comparison t o the resu l t s of an inel as t ic analysis (WHC 1980b). Anchor and hanger loads also evaluated by comparison t o those from the seismic analysis report (WHC 1980a) and are presented as tab1 es.

SYSTEM AND MODEL DESCRIPTIONS

The analysis, hereafter called snubber reduction analysis (SRA), was performed for one of the three similar loops (8-in GCA-5110X; X = 2, 3, 4, 5) in the SHL. The piping system being analyzed consists of one of the three loops in the SHL; each loop divides into four symmetric subsystems through four 16- by 8-in. (40.6- by 20.3 cm.) reducers, and terminates a t the inlet nozzles of the four DHXs in the Main Heat Transport System (HTS) o f the FFTF, as shown in Figure 1. system have identical dimensions and geometry as described in WHC 1976 and WHC 1980a; therefore the resul ts of the seismic and thermal SRAs for loop 1 are applicable t o loops 2 and 3 .

The three loops of the 8-in. (20.3 cm) SHL piping

Detailed descriptions of the geometric model and the data used for analysis are described in WHC 1980a.

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

The analysis uses the ADLPIPE, Version Z E l A , computer program (ADLPIPE 1984). The steps in the analyses are described below.

The f i r s t step was t o develop an ADLPIPE analytical baseline model and verify i t against the results of the PIPESD analysis o f record as described in WHC 1980a. Deadweight, seismic and thermal analyses were performed with the ADLPIPE baseline model t o verify the results against those from the PIPESD

2

_.-

model. 1980a.

Information and d a t a used as the basis for analysis appear in WHC

The second step was t o perform the seismic analysis by modifying the ADLPIPE baseline model: supports. would optimize the reduced support configuration by minimizing the number of seismic snubbers was obtained by determining that the maximum primary s t ress f a l l s within the allowable stress and t h a t the anchor and support loads are comparable t o those from the baseline results reported i n WHC 1980a. optimized configuration was considered t o be one w i t h as few seismic snubbers as necessary t o sat isfy the acceptance cr i ter ia . considered modes up t o 33 Hz for the design-basis earthquake (DBE).

snubbers were deleted o r replaced w i t h r igid The existing r i g i d supports were n o t changed. An analysis t ha t

An

The seismic analysis

The third step was t o modify the validated thermal baseline analytical model by adding the required rigid suppor ts as described in the seismic model and t o perform a thermal analysis a t an operating temperature o f 965 O F . The components that sustained h igher stresses than the base1 ine values were checked t o determine whether c r i t e r i a were met as described i n WHC 1980a. The anchor and suppor t loads were evaluated against the baseline values from the PIPESD analysis t o determine whether the variations were w i t h i n the acceptable l imi t s . loads as reported in the tabulated results. The increases in thermal s t ress in the elbows as a result of adding the rigid suppor t also were evaluated t o meet the elevated temperature s t ra in limits and creep-fatigue damage allowed by the Code.

The replaced rigid supports were assumed t o be designed t o carry the

FLOW-INDUCED DISPLACEMENT'S

Flow- or pump-induced vibration has been noted i n the DHX piping since plant startup (WHC 1980~). This vibration i s n o t continuous o r steady s ta te , b u t rather a series of forced displacements t h a t rapidly damped t o zero. These ser ies of displacements occur on the order of tens of seconds o r minutes apart as recorded during an operational t e s t in September of 1992. largest displacements occur a t the end of the long expansion loop containing hanger H-2; maximum peak-to-peak d i spl acements have been measured on the order of 100 mil (0.254 cm).

The

A scoping evaluation of the effect of the vibration may be obtained by considering the f i r s t cantilevered mode of the long expansion loop.

For a cantilever beam, the maximum stress i n the member as a result of end displacement i s obtained as follows:

Stress = [3(E) (disp) ( C ) ] / ( l ' ) ,

where E disp = given displacement C 1

= modulus of e las t ic i ty

= distance t o outer f iber (radius for pipe member) = length o f beam member.

3

The pipe conf igura t ion and the maximum measured d isp lacements i n d i c a t e t h a t the v i b r a t i o n response occurs i n the f i r s t c a n t i l e v e r mode i n the reg ion between hangers H-1 and H-2. The d i s t a n c e between these hangers i s 14.78 f t (4.505 m ) ; the maximum measured peak-to-peak displacement i s 100 mil (0.254 cm) i n the v e r t i c a l d i r e c t i o n . a c t u a l stress i n the pipe should be based on one-half the peak t o peak va lue (0.05 i n . or 0.127 cm). results i n

Because this displacement i s peak t o peak, the

S u b s t i t u t i n g t h i s value i n t o the above equat ion

S t r e s s = [3(28x106 lbf/in ')(0.05 in . ) (4 .31 in . ) ] / (177 in.) '

= 578 l b f / i n 2 (3.98 mpa).

This c a l c u l a t e d stress by i tself i s n e g l i g i b l e when compared t o the a l lowable stresses. pipe where the stresses a r e r e l a t i v e l y low and where stress i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n i n d i c e s need not be appl ied. Thus, f o r the cantilever assumption, 100 mil o r 0.254 cm (peak t o peak) of v ib ra t ion displacement is accep tab le f o r DHX pi ping.

In add i t ion , the stress occurs on a s t r a i g h t s e c t i o n o f

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Base1 i ne Model Val i d a t i on

A deadweight base l ine model t h a t used ADLPIPE code was analyzed t o v e r i f y a g a i n s t the results from the PIPESD models descr ibed i n WHC 1976. system weight r e f l e c t e d i n the ADLPIPE model was 32,329 l b (14,695 kg) compared t o t h a t o f 32,297 l b (14,680 kg) i n the PIPESD model. were i n very good agreement. The deadweight stresses from ADLPIPE appear s l i g h t l y h igher than those from PIPESD.

The t o t a l

The results

The fundamental frequency from the seismic a n a l y s i s using the ADLPIPE b a s e l i n e model was ca l cu la t ed a t 8.81 Hz, a s shown i n Table 7, while t h a t from the PIPESD b a s e l i n e seismic model was 8.79 Hz (WHC 1980a). good. The anchor and support loads from the se ismic and thermal b a s e l i n e ana lyses appear t o d i f f e r moderately from those o f t h e b a s e l i n e PIPESD ana lyses (WHC 1980a) but no t s i g n i f i c a n t l y enough t o warran t a d d i t i o n a l v e r i f i c a t i o n ana lyses , which a r e c o s t l y and time consuming.

The agreement i s

Anchor and Suooort Loads

The results o f the seismic and thermal a n a l y s i s f o r the ADLPIPE b a s e l i n e and snubbers reduced model appear i n Tables 2 and 4, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The results o f the seismic and thermal SRAs using the ADLPIPE computer code i n d i c a t e that many o f the snubbers can be removed and some rep laced wi th r i g i d suppor t s , as descr ibed i n Table 1. Nearly 40 snubbers may be removed o r d e l e t e d , from a t o t a l of 60 snubbers i n loop 1.

The anchor loads from the seismic SRA and b s e l i n e a n a l y s i s appear i n Table 3. The loads af ter the snubber reduct ion appear no t t o have increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y compared t o those from the base l ine a n a l y s i s (WHC 1976). The

4

fundamerkal frequency o f the seismic SRA was calculated a t 4.16 Hz, which is lower than the baseline frequency described above. Loads increased in the r igid supports, which replaced the snubbers. Anchor loads a1 so increased; however, maximum seismic stresses in the pipe adjacent t o the anchors are low (4,406 lb,/in2 or 30.4 mpa), so anchor loading i s not expected t o be a probl em.

The anchor loads from the thermal SRA and baseline analysis appear in Table 5. with those from the existing supports. newly placed rigid supports and a t those supports replacing the snubbers. These supports need t o be designed and installed.

The loads on the anchors indicated no significant increase, compared Higher suppor t loads do occur a t the

PiDe Stresses

Stresses from the seismic and thermal SRAs were compared w i t h the baseline values from the s t ress report WHC 1980a and in Table 6. The baseline values o f the seismic analysis using ADLPIPE also appear in Table 6. The primary s t ress intensity for the stressed components under faulted conditions may be qualified per ASME Section I11 code requirements by satisfying the following equation:

S f aul ted = B, PDJ2t + B, Do M,/21 I 3S,,

= s t ress intensification factor where B1' = design pressure

Do = pipe outside diameter t = wall thickness

= bending moment :b = moment iner t ia 3S, = allowable s t ress (ASME Section 111, Appendix F ) .

From thezseismic SRA, the maximum stress a t node 40 (tee) in,Table 8 i s 28,279 lbf/ in (195 mpa). The deadweight s t ress S, = 8,351 l b / in (57.6 mpa). The p rpsu re s t ress may be calculated as S, = 1.0(250)(8)/0.3f5 = 5,333 lb,/in (36.8 mpa). 1980, which i s conservative, while the new ASME Code o f 1989 has reduced B, t o 0.5 .

The B, = 1.0 i s based on the ASME Section I11 Code o f

The total maximum primary s t ress for the faulted condition is

s = s, + s, t SDBE

= 5,333 t 8,351 t 28,279 = 41,963 lb,/in: (289.4 mpa) < 45,600 l b f / i n (314.5 mpa ) = 3S,

The highest deadweight s t ress occurred a t node 40 tee. The20ther tee (node 250) showed a much lower deadweight s t ress of 2,325 lb , / in (16 mpa); therefore node 250 i s also qualified for the primary s t ress requirements. Similarly, other pipe elbows have even lower primary stresses and t h u s are simi 1 arl y qual i f i ed.

5

. Thermal Stress

The comparison of the stresses resulting from the thermal SRA, as shown in Table 6, indicate that the maximum thermal stresses for some of the elbows have increased approximately 15 % compared with the PIPESD base1 ine resul ts . The s t ress increase in those elbows had been identified previously as highly stressed (WHC 1980b) and were resolved through inelastic analysis.

The resul ts of the inelastic analysis (WHC 1980b) indicated t h a t the s t ra in accumulations of the elbows met Code- specified s t ra in l imits: and 5% for the averaged strain, linealized s t ra in and peak s t ra in , respectively; these are less than half the allowable. The creep-fatigue damage evaluation indicated that creep-fatigue accumulation is negligibly small without any interaction effect . follow-up and buckling instabi l i ty of the piping system show no indication of appearing throughout the 1 ifetime operation of the plant.

1%, 2%,

Evaluations of the effects o f e la s t i c

Because the increase in thermal stress in the SRA was not significant, the piping system retains a large margin of safety against s t ra in limits and creep-fatigue damage 1 imits.

CONCLUSIONS

A seismic SRA indicated that nearly 67% of the snubbers i n l oop 1 o f the SHL piping system of the FFTF may be eliminated or replaced w i t h r igid supports. A thermal analysis has confirmed the conclusion from the seismic analysis that replacing snubbers w i t h rigid supports will no t significantly increase the anchor and support loads resulting from thermal expansion.

The number of snubbers proposed for replacement and removal i s the maximum number that may be replaced or removed without inducing significant increases i n piping stresses and hanger loads. Defective o r improperly functioning snubbers may be replaced with rigid struts b u t not eliminated so that the pipe supporting capacity can be retained. loop 1 may be applied t o loops 2 and 3 with snubbers replaced w i t h rigid suppor t s .

The results of the SRA for

From the results of inelastic analysis, the thermal s t ress increase i n elbows from the results of seismic and thermal analysis was evaluated. Analysis shows that the highly stressed elbows s t i l l retain a large margin below the elevated-temperature Code strain l imits and incur negligible creep- fatigue damage. The balance design o f the piping system does not resul t in creep and fatigue interaction, and e las t ic follow-up. New rigid supports should be designed in accordance with the loads calculated, and other supporting c iv i l structures should be evaluated for the revised loads.

6

REFERENCES ASME, 1980, ASME B o i l e r nd Pressure Ves 21 Code, Section 111.

WHC, 1976, BR-5853-S-51-3, Rev. 0, "Design Stress Report o f Secondary P ip ing - from I H X t o DHX Ou t le t Mix ing Tees," December 29, 1976. (DTRF No. B-12959, ERO 8-9940).

WHC, 1980a, DTRF No. A-3638, "Seismic (DBE) Analysis o f 8" Secondary Hot Leg P ip ing w i t h Support F l e x i b i l i t y , " January 2, 1980.

ADLPIPE, 1984, "ADLPIPE, S t a t i c and Dynamic Pipe Design and Stress Analysis Inpu t Preparat ion Manual," Version ZElA, A p r i l , 1984, ADLPIPE, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.

WHC, 1980b, HEDL Report No. SSA-51B-1-ABA-2, "System 51 Pipe, Subsystem 51BOlF01, ASME Class I Pipe, Temperature Greater than 300°F Plus Argon Lines Subject t o Large End Displacement (Type 1.3), As-Bui l t Pipe Stress Report Addendum No. 2," dated November 1980.

WHC, 1980c, HEDL Report No. SSA-PVS-3, " H I S Pipe V ib ra t ion Survey F ina l Resul ts , P1 ant Acceptance Test Program, It dated October 1980.

7

.

.

Table 1. Summary of the Snubbers Removed and Reduced

LINES SNUBBERS REMOVED

8"-GCA-51104 H2-X, H3-Z, H5-Y, H7-Z, H8-Z, H9-XYY

H8-Z. H9-X.Y /I 8"-GCA-51103 I H2-X, H3-Z, H5-Y, H7-Z, H8-Z. H9-X.Y

SNUBBERS CHANGED REMARKS

H6-Z, H8-X t o R i g i d 9 ou t I o f 14

Hl-Y, H4-XyY, H8-X t o

H6-Z, H8-X t o R i g i d

11 o u t

~~

Hl-Y, H4-XYY, H8-X t o 11 ou t R i s i d 1 o f 1 6

9

Snubber Reduction

Table 2. Support Loads from Seismic Analysis

NODE TYPE

57 58 63 73 77 82 88 93 94 107 108 113 124 127 132 138 143 144 257 258 263 273 277 282 288 293 294 307 308 313 324 327 332 338 343 344

SN RI SP RI SN RI SN RI SP SN RI SP RI SN RI SN RI SP SN RI SP RI SN RI SN RI SP SN RI SP R I SN RI SN RI SP

FX (LE) 3605.

0. 0.

5908. 4375.

0. 2075. 529. 0.

4009. 0. 0.

6872. 4509.

0. 1948. 483. 0.

5174. 0. 0.

7890. 4384.

0. 2090. 564. 0.

3645. 0. 0.

6307. 5142.

0. 2149. 520. 0.

FY (LE)

0. 2198. 3890. 3120.

0. 0. 0. 0.

2702. 0.

1874. 2695. 2612.

0. 0. 0. 0.

2673. 0.

1986. 4732. 3750.

0. 0. 0. 0.

2828. 0.

1979. 2881. 2859.

0. 0. 0. 0.

2847.

FZ (LE)

0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

4044. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3053. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

3104. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

2665. 0. 0. 0.

NODE

57 58 62 63 68 73 77 78 82 88 93 94 97 107 108 I12 113 118 123 124 127 128 132 138 143 144 147 257 258 262 263 268 273 277 278 282 288 293 294 297 307 308 312 313 318 323 324 327 328 332 338 343 344 347

Baseline Analysis

TYPE

SN RI SN SP SN RI SN SP SN SN SN SP SN SN SP SN SP SN SN SP SN SP RI SN SN SP SN SN R I SN SP SN RI SN SP SN SN SN SP SN SN SP SN SP SN SN SP SN SP RI SN SN SP SN

FX (LE) 2457.

0. 2600.

0. 0.

1537. 4932.

0. 0.

2215. 2190.

0. 1503. 2292.

0. 2121.

0. 0.

1534. 0.

4839. 0. 0.

2117. 1843.

0. 1365. 21 13.

0. 2133.

0. 0.

2005. 3860.

0. 0.

1641. 2391.

0. 1118. 3029.

0. 2291.

0. 0.

2109. 0.

5472. 0. 0.

2324. 3050.

0. 1751.

FY (LE)

0. 1695.

0. 3028.

0. 981. 0.

854. 0. 0. 0.

2214. 736. 0.

2591. 0.

4391. 0. 0.

1559. 0.

1436. 0. 0. 0.

1959. 744. 0.

1705. 0.

3300. 0.

2058. 0.

1578. 0. 0. 0.

3883. 1016.

0. 1653.

0. 2853.

0. 0.

1455. 0.

1716. 0. 0. 0.

1876. 631.

FZ (LE)

0. 0. 0. 0.

1769. 0. 0. 0.

1703. 241. 710. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

2070. 0. 0. 0. 0.

2135. 249. 709. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

2577. 0. 0. 0.

2111. 951. 1639.

0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1775. 0. 0. 0. 0.

1825. 217. 626. 0. 0.

Note: RI: Rigid support SN: Snubber SP: Spring support 1 kg = 2.2 Lbs

10

t

NODE

1 100 150 300 350

NODE

1 100 150 300 350

Table 3. Anchor Loads From Seismic Analysis

Snubber Reduction Anal v s i s

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ (LB) (LB) (LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB)

7033. 11786. 14751. 4257. 40393. 19739. 711. 1674. 1203. 5978. 3263. 1337. 663. 1856. 1259. 6751. 3235. 1256. 869. 1306. 1265. 4702. 4574. 1791. 705. 1877. 1267. 7017. 3648. 1387.

Base1 i ne Anal vsi s

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ (LB) (LB) (LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB)

1935. 11468. 9622. 4222. 24713. 4753. 564. 922. 957. 4131. 4451. 1528. 520. 913. 1055. 3842. 4008. 1797. 396. 775. 961. 3516. 3162. 1920. 608. 844. 1016. 3658. 5088. 2493.

Note: 1 kg = 2.2 l bs .

11

t

.

Table 4. Support Loads From Thermal Analysis

Snubber Reduction Basel i ne

NODE TYPE

58 RI 73 RI 82 RI 93 RI 108 RI 124 RI 132 RI 143 RI 258 RI 273 RI 282 RI 293 RI 308 RI 324 RI 332 RI 343 RI

FX (LB) 0.

-27. 0.

-284. 0.

184. 0.

-565. 0. 86. 0.

321. 0.

-208. 0.

567.

FY (LB) 126.

-106. 0. 0.

215. 391. 0. 0. 62.

-118. 0. 0.

199. 392. 0. 0.

FZ (LB) 0. 0.

2076. 0. 0. 0.

312. 0. 0. 0.

2335. 0. 0. 0.

306. 0.

NODE TYPE FX (W

58 RI 0. 73 RI 77 * 132 RI 0. 258 RI 0. 273 RI -56. 332 RI 0.

FY FZ (W (LB) 78. 0. 151. 0. 0. -119.

-85. 0. 161. 0. 0. -132.

Note: RI stands for r i g i d support. 1 kg = 2.2 lbs .

Table 5. Anchor Loads From Thermal Analysis

Snubber Reduction Anal v s i s

NODE FX FY FZ MX MY MZ (LB) (LB) (LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB)

1 19. -1088. -4201. 4016. 1259. -495 * 100 447. 124. -1154. 7256. 206. -772. 150 545. -173. 795. -7570. 692. -1562. 300 -541. 148. -1263. 7717. -590. 656. 350 -543. -172. 794. -7563. -699. 1584.

Basel i ne Anal ys i s

NODE FX FY FZ MX MY MZ (LB) (LB) (LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB) (FT-LB)

12

'1 13. -418. -238. -3512. 594. -589. 100 52. -8. -431. 3884. -2678. 608. 150 88. 54. 697. -5910. 3949. 449. 300 -82. 6. -470. 4165. 2802. -764. 350 -91. 61. 692. -5880. -3894. -449.

Note: 1 kg = 2.2 lbs, 1 f t = 0.305 m

Table 6. Comparison o f the Maximum Stresses

Seismic Analysis (Eq. 9, ASME, 1980)

Node ADLPIPE Stress(ps1) PIPESD Stress(psi) ADLPIPE Stress(psi) (Type) Reduction Analysis Base1 ine Analysis Baseline Analysis

64 El 25 , 919. 12,475. 9,532

40 Tee 28,279. 27,430. 13,341

250 Tee 30,480. 9,192. 14,174

285 El 28,817. 7,456. 7,937

314 El 21,056. 13,164. 10,049

321 El 17,248. 13,274. 10,423

Thermal Analysis (Eq. 10 , ASME 1980) Node (Type) ADLPIPE Stress(psi) PfPESD Stress(psi) Remarks

Reduction Analysis Baseline Analysis 40 Tee 18,354. 5,750.

114 El 18,811. 13,701.

133 El 19,842. 15,923.

135 E l 22,702. 19,827.

314 El 18,970. 13,790.

285 El 17,134. 14,927. -

333 El 1 9,830. 16,071.

335 El 22,688. 19,937.

--

Note: 1 mpa = 145 psi

13

MODE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Table 7. Frequency Response o f the Baseline Seismic Analysis (ADLPIPE)

FRQ MODE FRQ

8.810 9.224 9.529 9.639 9.662 10.145 10.369 10.525 10.667 11.694 12.353 12.407 12.458 12.475 13.456 13.480 13.492 13.504 13.645 13.838 14.013 14.178 14.301 14.386 14.597 14.662 14.730 14.899 15.067 15.628 15.660 15.867 16.070 16.278 16.335

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

16.483 16.652 17.025 17.335 17 -442 17.877 17.890 18.470 19.531 19.583 20.228 20.317 20.687 21.672 21.808 22.115 22.266 22.559 23.529 25.310 25.893 26.311 26.530 26.587 26.777 32.042 32.464 32.655 33.116 34.384

14