I

NUREG/CR-5646

EGG-2655

Piping System Response During

High-Level Simulated Seismic Tests

at the Heissdampfreaktor Facility

(SHAM Test Facility)

Prepared by

R. Steele, Jr., M. E. Nitzel

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Prepared for

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
AVAILABIULTY NOTICE

Availability of Reference Matedlals Cited In NRC Publications

Most documents cited In NRC publications wfll be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Pubflc Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Lower Level, Washington. DC 20555

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082. Washington,

DC 20013-7082

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited In NRC publicatIons. It Is not

Intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for Inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room

Include NRC correspondence and Internal NRC memoranda; NRC bulletins, circulars, Information notices.

Inspection and Investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commisslon papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents In the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program:

formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, International agreement

reports, grant publications, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are regulatory guides. NRC

regulations In the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances.

Documents available from the National Technical Information Service Inckude NUREG-serles reports and

technical reports prepared by other Federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commisslon. forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries Include al open literature Items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices. Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the

Office of Administration, Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrmisslon,

Washington. DC 20555.

Copies of Industry codes and standards used In a substantive manner In the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at the NRC Ubrary, 7920 Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda, Maryland. for use by the public. Codes and

standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are

American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute. 1430 Broadway, New York.

NWr 10018.

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

This report was prepared as an acount Qf work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.

Neftherthe United States Government nor aid agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty,

expressed or ImplIed, or assumes any legal liabi Ityof responsibility for any third party's use, or the results of

such use, of any Information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that Its use

by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights....

-CN,
NUREG/CR-5646

EGG-2655

RI, RM, IS

Piping System Response During

High-Level Simulated Seismic Tests

at the Heissdampfreaktor Facility

(SHAM Test Facility)

Manuscript Completed: June 1992

Date Published: July 1992

Prepared by

R. Steele, Jr., M. E. Nitzel

G. H. Weidenhamer, NRC Technical Monitor

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Managed by the U.S. Department of Energy

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, ID 83415

Prepared for

Division of Engineering

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

NRC FIN A6857

Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761D01570
ABSTRACT

The SHAM seismic research program studied the effects of increasing levels of

seismic excitation on a full-scale, in situ nuclear piping system containing a naturally

aged United States (U.S.) 8-in. motor-operated gate valve. The program was conducted by Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe at the Heissdampfreaktor near

Frankfurt, Germany. Participants included the United States, Germany, and England.

Fifty-one experiments were conducted, with the piping supported by six different piping support systems, including a typical stiff U.S. piping support system of snubbers

and rigid struts. This report specifically addresses the tests conducted with the U.S.

system. The piping system withstood large displacements caused by overload snubber

failures and local piping strains. Although some limit switch chatter was observedthbe

nntnr operator amivalve functioned smoothly throughout the tests. The results indicate that sufficient safety margins exist when commonly accepted design methods are

applied and that piping systems will likely maintain their pressure boundary in the

presence of severe loading and the loss of multiple supports.

FIN No. A6857-Seismic tests of U.S. 8-in. motor-operated

gate valve and stiff U.S. piping support system.

iii iii ~~~~NLREG/CR-5646
CONTENTS

ABSTRACT..................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES .................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ........................ ............ viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................... xiii

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS ........ ......................... xv

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................ I

1.1 Background . .......................................................... I

1.2 Objectives ............................................................. 3

1.3 Qualification Standards and Regulatory Guides ............................... 3

2. TEST FACILITY AND SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ....... ............. .5

2.1 Heissdampfreaktor (HDR) ............ .................................... 5

2.2 Versuchskreislauf (VKL) Piping System ...................................... 5

2.3 Seismic Simulation .................... .................................. 5

2.4 Versuchskreislauf (VKL) Piping Support Systems ............................. 8

2.5 Gate Valve ............................................................. 10

2.6 Instrumentation ......................................................... 10

3. PRETEST DESIGN ANALYSES ............................... . 11

3.1 General Information ................ ..................................... 11

3.2 Design Criteria . ....................................................... 11

3.3 Piping Material Data .......... 11

3.4 Versuchskreislauf (VKL) Piping System Test Operating Conditions .11

3.5 Analysis Procedure .13

3.5.1 Computer Code Used .13

3.5.2 Load Cases Considered . ....................................... 13

3.5.3 Method of Calculation .13

3.5.4 Damping Values Used .14

v NUREG/CR-5646
3.5.5 Modeling of Supports ............................................ 14

3.5.6 Finite Element Model ............................................ 14

3.5.7 Stress Evaluation Methodology .................................... 14

3.6 Design Analysis Results ........................ .......................... 14

4. TEST RESULTS ............................................................. 18

4.1 General Information . ..................................................... 18

4.2 Data Conversion ........................................................ 18

4.3 Piping System Dynamic Response .................... ...................... 19

4.3.1 TestT41.81.1 ................................................... 19

4.3.2 Test T41.81.2 . ................................................... 23

4.3.3 Test T41.81.3 . ................................................... 25

4.4 Dynamic Support Performance ..................... ....................... 29

4.4.1 Tests Prior to T41.81.1 ........... ................................ 29

4.4.2 Test T41.81.1 . ................................................... 30

4.4.3 Test T41.81.2 . ................................................... 33

4.4.4 Test T41.81.3 . ................................................... 37

4.5 Performance of Other Support Components .................................. 41

4.6 Gate Valve Performance .................. ................................ 41

5. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................. 45

5.1 Piping System Dynamic Response . .......................................... 45

5.2 Dynamic Support Performance ............................................. 46

5.3 Gate Valve Performance ................................................. 47

5.4 General Conclusions ................................................. 47

6. REFERENCES ........................ ......................... 49

Appendix A-Design Report: Servohydraulic Excitation of Mechanical Equipment HDR

Test Group SHAM vs. No. T41 .A-1

Appendix B-Determination of Allowable Stress Values Used on the VKL Piping

Analysis for the SHAM Test Series .B-I

Appendix C-Power Spectral Density Curves for Selected Points-SHAM Tests

T41.81.1, T41.81.2, and T41.81.3 .C-I

NUREG/CR-5646 vi
LIST OF FIGURES

1-1. VKL piping system with NRC support configuration ................................ 2

2-1. Simplified view of the HDR facility showing VKL room. 6

2-2. Design response spectrum used in the VKL piping system analysis. 7

3-1. NUPIPE-il finite element model of the VKL piping system .15

4-1. 200% SSE PVRC response spectrum, Test T41.81.1, H-25 location ...... ............... 20

4-2. 200% SSE PVRC response spectrum, Test T41.8 1.1, H-5 location .20

4-3. 600% SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.2, ES3011, PVRC damping ..... ............. 23

4-4. 600%o SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.2, ES3021, PVRC damping,

H-25 location ................................................................ 24

4-5. 800% SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.3, ES3011, PVRC damping,

H-5 location ................................................................. 25

4-6. 800% SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.3, ES3021, PVRC damping,

H-25 location ................................................................ 26

4-7. Circumferential strain at Elbow 1 (Test T41.81.3) ................................... 27

4-8. Longitudinal strain at Elbow 1 (Test T41.81.3) .27

4-9. Circumferential strain at Elbow 2 (Test T41.81.3) .28

4-10.Longitudinal strain at Elbow 2 (Test T41.81.3) .. 28

4-11. Force time history plot for H-8 (Test T41.81.2) .. 34

4-12. Displacement time history for H-8 (Test T41.81.2) .. 34

4-13.Force time history plot for H-22 (Test T41.81.2) .. 35

4-14.Displacement time history for H-22 (Test T41.81.2) .. 35

4-15.Force time history plot for H-12 (Test T41.81.2) .. 36

4-16.Displacement time history for H-12 (Test T41.81.2) .. 36

4-17.Photographs of failed H-22 (PSA-1/4) snubber components .. 38

4-18.Force time history plot for H-7 (Test T41.81..2) ...................... 39

4-19.Displacement time history for H-7 (Test T41.81.2) .. 39

4-20. Photographs of failed H-7 (PSA- 1) snubber components .. 40

..i NUREG/CR-5646
4-21.Force time history plot for H-6 (Test T41.81.3) ................. .................... 42

4-22. Displacement time history for H-6 (Test T4 1.81.2) ............. .. ................... 42

4-23. Valve current history for the 800% SSE test ........................................ 43

LIST OF TABLES

2-1. VKL piping and material data ................................................... 7

2-2. U.S. support configuration and design loads ....................................... 9

2-3. Participants support configurations for the SHAM test series .......................... 9

3-1. VKL piping material correlations ................................................ 12

3-2. ASME Code allowable stresses used for design analysis .............................. 12

3-3. VKL piping system maximum design analysis stresses ............................... 16

3-4. U.S. Support configuration component information ........... ....................... 17

4-1. U.S. stiff support system test matrix .............................................. 19

4-2. VKL piping system ASME Code Equation 9 stress comparisons ....................... 21

4-3. Summary of predicted vibrational modes below 12 Hz ............................... 22

4-4. Snubber installation matrix for U.S. stiff support system ......... ..................... 30

4-5. U.S. stiff support configuration maximum dynamic support loads ...................... 31

4-6. U.S. stiff support configuration maximum snubber displacement ....................... 32

4-7. Gate valve accelerations ....................................................... 44

NUREG/CR-5646 viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes the analysis and results

from the Servohydraulische Anregung

Maschinetechnik (SHAM), an international seismic research program in which the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) participated. The program was conducted by

Kemforschungszentrum Karlsruhe (KfK) at the

decommissioned Heissdampfreaktor (HDR)

located near Frankfurt, Germany. Participating

countries were the United States, Germany, and

England. The SHAM experiments at HDR consisted of the direct excitation of a piping system

called the Versuchskreislauf (VKL) by using two

large 40-ton servohydraulic shakers mounted to

the HDR containment building and attached to

the piping system at two different locations. The

research program included the study of the effects

of increasing levels of seismic excitation on a

full-scale, in situ nuclear piping system containing a naturally aged U.S. 8-in. motor-operated

gate valve.

Earthquake-like displacement histories were

input to the servohydraulic shakers. Inputs to the

piping system started with a magnitude of 0.6 g

ZPA for the baseline load case (hereafter referred

to as 1 SSE or 100% SSE) and were stepped up,

using the same frequency content, to a maximum

of 800 percent of the baseline load (8 SSE). In all,

51 experiments were conducted, with the piping

supported by six different piping support systems.

These included support configurations typical of

those commonly used in European power plants,

a typical stiff U.S. piping support system made up

of snubbers and rigid struts, support systems containing snubber replacement devices, and a very

flexible system. This report will address the tests

performed with the U.S. stiff support

configuration.

The objectives of the INEL portion of the

research program were to

* Measure the effects of increasingly greater

dynamic loadings on gate-valve operability

and determine, if possible, the loadings

where the U.S. gate valve would sustain

structural damage

* Determine the safety margins and failure

modes of nuclear-grade snubbers, rigid

supports, trunion attachments, and concrete

anchors when subjected to dynamic

excitation

* Determine the effects of individual support

and multiple support failures on piping

response in a simulated seismic event

* Obtain data that could be used to compare

the performance of stiff, flexible, very flexible, and snubber replacement piping support systems.

The results of this testing will contribute to the

technical basis used for development of equipment qualification standards and will help establish the seismic safety margins in piping and

piping support system components.

With these servohydraulic shakers, the input

loads could be adjusted independently of the excitation frequency to balance the input to the entire

piping system. This offers the possibility of simulating a wide range of time histories. Two excitation points were used for all the tests reported

here. Both of these shakers provided input in the

horizontal plane in the global X direction. While

actual seismic input is applied to piping systems

through all their dynamic supports (snubbers and

rigid struts) and anchor points, program scope

limitations and the physical limitations of the

facility made this approach impractical. Since the

test objectives deal with the ability of the piping

and supports to withstand extremely high level

loads, the two points of dynamic excitation used

in the SHAM test series were sufficient to deliver

the level of loading that will enable the test objectives to be realized.

Based on the pretest information, a model of

the piping and support system was developed and

analyzed. Commonly accepted nuclear industry

design practices were used in the analysis effort.

ix NUREG/CR-5646
By agreement among the test participants, all piping in the VKL system was assumed to be ASME

Code Class 2. Section III, Division 1, Subsection

NC (Class 2) of the ASME Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Code was used to define the allowable

stress criteria for analyses of the piping system

and the derivation of support loads that were used

to design the piping supports. The test loads were

analyzed using Service Level C values to define

the maximum allowable stresses. Analysis of the

VKL piping system considered the effects of

weight, pressure, thermal expansion, and the

dynamic input intended to simulate the seismic

event. Dynamic analyses were performed using

the response spectrum technique in conjunction

with ASME Code Case N-411 damping. Maximum design loads for the piping supports were

obtained from the computer analysis and used to

select appropriate sizes of support components.

Components commonly used throughout the

nuclear industry were selected for use. Piping

support substructures linking component supports (snubbers, struts, spring hangers, etc.) to

their grounding points on the facility walls or

other major structures were analyzed in

accordance with ASME Code rules and commonly accepted industry practices.

Only the U.S. stiff piping support system components (snubbers, struts, and anchors) were

sized to determine safety margins and failure

modes. All other participants' support system

components were sized for much higher loads, in

an effort to avoid support failures in these configurations. The design loads for each dynamic pipe

support in the U.S. stiff configuration were calculated from seismic analyses based on 100% SSE

excitation levels. The supports were then sized

for each location, using the support manufacturer's published ASME Code, Level C

Allowables. The reason for the reduced conservatism in sizing the supports was so that support

safety margins and failure modes could be determined in the lower level tests and the effects of

multiple support failures could be investigated at

the higher loadings.

While each piping system includes its own specific details regarding materials, geometry, and

support configuration, the VKL system with the

U.S. stiff support configuration can be considered

typical of seismically designed piping systems

found throughout the U.S. nuclear industry. The

VKL piping system was exposed to significant

simulated seismic loadings, and the specific

results from tests at input levels of 200% SSE,

600% SSE, and 800% SSE were examined.

The 200% SSE test results, with all dynamic

supports operable, were most comparable to the

analytical predictions. Snubber overload failures

in the early tests of the U.S. stiff support configuration delayed characterization of the piping system, so the final 200% SSE test was performed

with snubbers larger than those called for by the

design calculations to ensure completion of the

test without snubber failures. These results

showed that the post-test design analysis predicted maximum stresses at most of the same

locations where the maximum strains were

recorded during the tests. Similarly, the PSDs calculated from acceleration histories show that the

piping responses were generally in the same frequency bands as the natural frequencies and mode

shapes predicted by computer.

Loadings in excess of 600 and 800% SSE were

applied to the U.S. system, resulting in significant

piping system responses and the overload failure

of several individual snubbers. The piping system

sustained multiple adjacent support failures, with

measured strains greater than yield, yet no significant piping system damage occurred. With the

failure of the snubbers at four locations, a major

portion of the piping system was left without

dynamic supports in the vertical (Y) direction.

The displacement and the strain data also reflect a

decrease in the response frequency, which was

expected as multiple snubber failures occurred

and the piping system became more flexible. The

timing of the failures of three of the snubbers and

the force and displacement data for these three

snubbers indicate that a zipper effect failure

phenomenon occurred. However, in spite of the

large increases in displacements and strains, no

physical failure of the piping occurred.

When the analytically predicted support loads

are compared to test loads scaled to the 100%

NUREG/CR-5646 x
SSE level it is observed that about half of the

support loads were overpredicted while about

half were underpredicted. Except for two cases,

all snubber failures occurred at loads well above

their design ratings. In one case, a load of

8.67 times the design rating was sustained prior to

failure. The test data show that most snubbers

operated within their performance specifications,

such as dead band travel, until a failure occurred.

The U.S. 8-in. motor-operated gate valve operated smoothly during all tests in the SHAM

series. In the highest level tests, some limit switch

chatter was observed; however, the limit switch

contacts did not stay open long enough to cause

the motor controller circuit to interrupt current

flow to the motor. The data show that even under

the most severe structural loading experienced

during any of the 51 tests, the valve operated

smoothly.

The test results indicate that sufficient safety

margins exist when commonly accepted design

methods and criteria are applied and that piping

systems will likely maintain their pressure boundary in the presence of severe loading and the loss

of multiple supports.

xi xi ~~~~NUREGICR-5646
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The efforts of many people and organizations were required to successfully

complete the SHAM test series. The authors wish to thank Hr. Dr. L. Malcher and

Hr. Schrammel from KfK and Herren L. Lohr and R. Machad from HDR.

Drs. G. H. Weidenhamer and J. F. Costello, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission program managers provided direction throughout the program. Dr. C. Kot of

Argonne National Laboratory also contributed to the success of this effort. The

authors wish to thank Drs. J. G. Arendts and A. G. Ware of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for their consultation and assistance in completing this work. We

would also like to thank Hr. Schrammel, Mr. H. L. Magleby, and Drs. Weidenhamer

and Kot for the valuable review of the draft report.

.x.i. xiii ~~~NUREG/CR-5646
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DEFINITIONS

ANL Argonne National Laboratory

ASME/ANSI American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American National Standards Institute,

Standard B 16.41

ASME Code The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,

Section III, Subsection NC-3650, 1980 Addition.

Baseline Functional A functional test performed without dynamic loading to establish a normal

measurement

Bechtel Bechtel Power Corporation

CEGB Central Electricity Generating Board of the United Kingdom

Cloud Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.

DIN Deutsche Institute fir Normning

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

HDR Heissdampfreaktor (superheated steam reactor)

HDU Heissdampfumformer (steam convertor)

INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

ISM independent support motion

KfK Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe (Nuclear Research Center)

kip Unit of measure equal to 1000 lbs dead weight

ksi kips per square inch, common indicator of stress

KWU Kraftwerk Union AG (German architect-engineer)

LBF Fraunhofer Institut fur Betriebsfestigkeit Darmstadt (research institute)

Nupipe-Il Piping analysis computer code developed by the Quadrex Corporation, Campbell,

California

PSD power spectral density

SHAG Shakergebaude (building shaker)

SHAM Servohydraulische Anregung Maschinetechnik (Servo Hydraulic Shaker

Technology)

SMACS Seismic Methodology Analysis Chain with Statistics Computer Code

xv xv ~~~~NUREG/CR-5646
SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake (IEEE 344)

SC Piping material allowable at room temperature (cold)

Sh Piping material allowable at operating temperature (hot)

Su Material ultimate strength

SY Material yield strength

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

VKL Versuchskreislauf (experimental piping system)

ZPA zero period acceleration (IEEE 344)

NUREG/CR-5646xi xvi
Piping System Response During

High-Level Simulated Seismic Tests

at the Heissdampfreaktor Facility

(SHAM Test Series)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background tion at the HDR) Evaluation Report. Only the

summary is in English.

During the spring of 1988, the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory (INEL) and the Argonne

National Laboratory (ANL), under sponsorship of

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

participated in the Kernforschungszentrum

Karlsruhe (KfK)-designated Servohydraulische

Anregung Maschinetechnik (SHAM) test series.

KfK, Kraftwerk Union (KWU), the Electric

Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Fraunhofer

Institut fur Betriebsfestigkeit (LBF) in Darmstadt,

and the Central Electricity Generating Board of

the United Kingdom (CEGB) also took part in the

series. This test program was conducted at the

Heissdampfreaktor (HDR), a decommissioned

experimental reactor facility located near

Frankfurt, Germany.

Each of the multinational participants had different objectives for participation in the SHAM

Test Program.

The U.S. NRC sponsored the participation of

the INEL and ANL. The INEL participation is

reported in this report. ANL's participation is

reported in NUREG/CR-5841 Verification ofNonlinear Piping Response Calculation with Data

from Seismic Testing of an In-plantPiping System.

EPRI sponsored two companies, Bechtel and

Cloud, who were developing snubber replacement devices. We do not know if EPRI reported

on this work.

KFK and KWU were performing confirmation

work for the German Nuclear Seismic Program.

KFK has put out Technical Report PHDR 96-90

September, 1990 (Structural Dynamics InvestigaCEGB was performing confirmation work for

England's first PWR, Sizewell B.

LBF designed and operated the Hydraulic

Shaker System.

The SHAM experiments consisted of the direct

excitation of a piping system called the Versuchskreislauf (VKL) (Figure 1-1). This was accomplished by using two large 40-ton servohydraulic

shakers mounted to the HDR -containment

building and attached to the piping system. The

research program studied the effects of increasing

levels of seismic excitation on a full-scale in situ

nuclear piping system containing a naturally aged

U.S. 8-in. motor-operated gate valve.

Earthquake-like displacement histories were

input to the servohydraulic shakers. Inputs to the

piping system started with a magnitude of 0.6 g

zero periodic acceleration (ZPA) for the baseline

load case [hereafter referred to as 1 safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) or 100% SSE] and were

stepped up, using the same frequency content, to

a maximum of 800% of the baseline load

(8 SSE). In all, 51 experiments were conducted,

with the piping supported by six different piping

support systems. These included support configurations typical of those commonly used in

European power plants, a typical stiff U.S. piping

support system made up of snubbers and rigid

struts, support systems containing snubber

replacement devices, and a very flexible system.

This report presents a general overview of the

SHAM test program and a specific review of the

U.S. stiff support system response at 200, 600,

and 800% SSE loadings.

I NUREG/CR-5646
Introduction

H-23 OF-F

StrutH-25 Z

V

>t< .H

Snubt

H-11 . Strut

Flow

Elbow St

H-2

Snubber

H-3

r Strut

HOU

H-1S Constant force

spring hanger

Valve detall

- DF22

200 mm (1 In.)

H-0

Strut

H-S

Snubber

Branch

connecton

OF44

* Bridge between DF1l end DF14 installed for NRC high level tests only

M838 rs-0652-01

Figure 1-1. VKL piping system with NRC support configuration.

NUREG/CR-5646 2
Introduction

1.2 Objectives

Objectives of the INEL's participation in this

multinational program were to

* Measpre the effects of increasingly greater

dynamic loadings on gate valve operability,

and determine, if possible, the loadings

where the valve would sustain structural

damage

* Determine the safety margins and failure

modes of nuclear-grade snubbers, rigid

supports, tmnion attachments, and concrete

anchors when subjected to dynamic

excitation

* Determine the effects of individual and multiple support failures on piping response in a

simulated seismic event

* Obtain data that could be used as a basis for

comparing the performance of stiff, flexible, very flexible, and snubber replacement

piping support systems.

1.3 Qualification Standards and

Regulatory Guides

The results of this testing will contribute to the

technical basis used for supporting and developing equipment qualification standards and will

help establish the seismic safety margins in piping and piping support system components. The

following equipment qualification standards and

regulatory guides may be affected by the HDR

research results:

* American Society of Mechanical Engineers,

"Functional Qualification Requirements for

Power Operated Active Valve Assemblies

for Nuclear Power Plants," ANSI/ASME

B16.41, currently being revised as

QME-QV

* American Society of Mechanical Engineers,

"Self-Operated and Power-Operated

Safety-Related Valves Safety Specification

Standard," ANSI/ASME N278.1-1975

* Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, "Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class IE Equipment

for Nuclear Power Generating Stations,"

IEEE Standard 344, 1987

* Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, "Qualification of Safety- Related

Valve Actuators," IEEE Standard 382, 1980

* Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, "Design Qualification of Safety Systems Equipment Used in Nuclear Power

Generating Stations," IEEE Standard 627,

1980

* NRC, "Development of Floor Design Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor-Supported

Equipment or Components," Regulatory

Guide 1.122

* NRC, "Damping Values for Seismic Design

of Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory

Guide 1.61

* NRC, "Functional Specification for Active

Valve Assemblies in Systems Important to

Safety in Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.148

* NRC, "Seismic Qualification of Electric

Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants,"

Regulatory Guide 1.100

* NRC, "Qualification Tests of Electric Valve

Operators Installed Inside the Containment

of Nuclear Power Plants," Regulatory

Guide 1.73

* NRC, "USNRC Standard Review Plan, Section 3.9.3., ASME Code Class 1, 2, and 3

Components," Component Supports, and

Core Support Structures, NUREG-0800,

1981

* NRC, "Qualification and Acceptance Tests

for Snubbers Used in Systems Important to

Safety," Draft Regulatory Guide SC 708-4,

Revision 1, 1981

3 NUREG/CR-5646
Introduction

* American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Examination and Performance

Testing of Nuclear Power Plant Dynamic

Restraints (Snubbers)," ANSI ASME OM4,

1982

* American Society of Mechanical Engineers,

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section

XI, Subsection IWF, Requirements for Class

1, 2, 3 and MC Component Supports of

Light-Water Cooled Power Plants.

NUREG/CR-56464 4
2. TEST FACILITY AND SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

2.1 Heissdampfreaktor (HDR)

The HDR is a decommissioned experimental

reactor facility located near Frankfurt, Germany.

A simplified cross section of the facility is shown

in Figure 2-1. The facility has been used for

several other testing programs such as the

Shakergebaude (SHAG) test series.1

2.2 Versuchskreislauf (VKL)

Piping System

The VKL piping system is constructed of stainless steel in four metric pipe sizes equivalent

to 10-, 8-, 5-, and 4-in. nominal pipe size. The

majority of the piping is 8-in. (200-mm ) nominal

size. The system is located between the 18- and

24-m elevations in the HDR facility, as shown in

Figure 2-1. The system consists of two parallel

flow loops connected to a large vessel called the

Heissdampfumformer (HDU) and a manifold

header (DF 16). Figure 1-1 shows a general

arrangement of the VKL piping system, major

components, and pipe sizes. Further information

regarding piping sizes and materials is included in

Table 2-1. The VKL system is capable of operating under high temperature and high pressure;

however, for the SHAM tests, the fluid remained

pressurized at 1000 psig (70 bar) and ambient

temperature to avoid the risk of damaging the

sensitive instrumentation in the event of a

test-induced line rupture. Seismic tests were conducted without fluid flow through the system;

valve functional tests were conducted with flow

ii~~~~w ---------- through the valve.

2.3 Seismic Simulation

We accomplished the seismic excitation of the

VKL piping system by using two large 40-ton

servohydraulic shakers mounted to the HDR containment building and attached to the piping system. With these shakers, the input loads could be

adjusted independently of the excitation frequency. This offers the possibility of simulating a

wide range of seismic time histories with a uniform input to the piping system. We used two

excitation points for all the tests reported here.

One point was located between the spherical tee

and the 8-in. gate valve replacing the horizontal

strut at the H5 support attachment point. The second shaker was attached to the 12-in. (300-mm)

nominal size piping directly above the DF16

component. Both of these shakers provided input

in the horizontal plane in the global X direction.

The shaker locations and the directions of input

can be visualized in relation to the complete VKL

piping system by referring to Figure 1-1. Further

details regarding the individual components

making up the shaker system can be found in

Appendix A.

Except for the tests of the CEGB support system, all test configurations used the same earthquake history. Differences in the displacement

magnitudes were used to amplify the input to simulate the various seismic levels (1 SSE, 6 SSE,

etc.) desired for each test. Inputs to the piping system started with a magnitude of 0.6 g ZPA for the

1 SSE baseline load case and were stepped up,

using the same frequency content, to a maximum

of 800% (8 SSE) of the baseline load.

The nominal 100% SSE input is shown in Figure 2-2 in the response spectra format. The spectrum is representative of U.S. earthquake spectra

in the frequencies associated with piping

response. Each earthquake test was 15 seconds in

duration, with approximately 12 seconds of

strong motion. Tests that imposed higher loadings

used the same frequency content, but with a linear

increase in the amplitude of the displacement history input to the shakers. CEGB used two other

displacement histories in their lower level tests,

one for the Sizewell B location and the other

based on a generic all-sites spectrum. In their

high-level tests, they used a sine burst format.

The CEGB inputs are very different from the ones

used by other participants. Therefore, a comparison of these results is not possible.

5s NUREG/CR-5646
Test Facility and System Description

MGH0oaalFigure 2-1. Simplified view of the HDR facility showing VKL room.

NUREG/CR-5646 6
Test Facility and System Description

Table 2-1. VKL piping and material data.

Nominal

Pipe size DIN standard From To

designation (mm) material component component

DR108 200 1.4961 D14 DF16

DR109 125 1.4961 D15 DF16

VN-R23 100 1.4550 DF44 D15

DR201 200 1.4550 HDU-II 135 DF21

DR202 200 1.4550 HDU-1l 305 DF21

DR203 250 1.4550 DF21 DF44

DR205 200 1.4961 DF22 D14

CD0

a)

eN

0

I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Frequency (Hz).

35

Figure 2-2. Design response spectrum used in the VKL piping system analysis.

7 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Facility and System Description

During an actual earthquake, the seismic input

is applied to piping systems through each of their

dynamic supports (snubbers and rigid struts) and

anchor points. Program scope limitations and the

physical limitations of the facility made this

approach impractical. In the previous test series

(SHAG), the HDR containment building was

excited and the piping system response was monitored. During the SHAG tests, the highest measured inputs to the piping system were from the

HDU and the H-5 support. For the SHAM tests,

we decided to input the motion as close as

possible to these two points and to compromise

by having the other support positions provide

only restraint. Since the major test objectives deal

with the ability of the piping and supports to withstand extremely high-level loads, the two points

of dynamic excitation used in the SHAM test

series are sufficient to deliver the level of loading

that will enable the objectives to be realized. The

exact duplication of actual seismic excitation is

not required to satisfy the objectives of the test

series.

2.4 Versuchskreislauf (VKL)

Piping Support Systems

The piping system and facility were modified

from the SHAG configuration before the SHAM

testing began. We replaced a reducing elbow with

a tee (DF44 in Figure 1-1) at the same location,

and installed the previously discussed servohydraulic shakers, new piping, and the U.S. support system. The design and operation of the

shakers were the responsibility of LBF. The other

participants were responsible for the design of

their respective piping support systems. These

piping support systems were based on the U.S.

stiff pipe support system, which was the responsibility of the INEL. Each participant removed or

replaced one or more components from the U.S.

stiff support system and, in some cases, replaced

them with components of their own. The result

was generally a more flexible support system.

The dead weight supports and the rigid struts at

locations H4 and H-23 remained in place in all

six systems.

Dead weight supports H4 and H-23 were used

to help control the hydraulic shakers at H-5 and

H-25. Thus they were sized for the highest anticipated loads. They were not considered part of the

experimental piping system for safety margins

purposes.

Only the U.S. stiff piping support system components (snubbers, struts, and anchors) were

sized to determine safety margins and failure

modes. All other participants' support system

components were sized for much higher loads in

an effort to avoid support failures in these configurations. The design loads for each dynamic pipe

support in the U.S. stiff configuration were calculated from seismic analyses based on 100% SSE

excitation levels. The supports were then sized

for each location, using the support manufacturer's published American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 2 Code, Level C

Allowables. We reduced the conservatism in sizing the supports to determine the support safety

margins and failure modes in the lower-level tests

and to investigate the effects of multiple support

failures at the higher loadings. Table 2-2 lists the

support type, the predicted 1 SSE design load,

and the manufacturers' ASME Code Level C

rated load for the U.S. stiff support configuration.

Note that H-6 is slightly underrated. The pretest

as-built calculations increased the load slightly

above the Level C rated load after the support was

built. The pretest as-built calculations also do not

reflect the bridge between DF16 and DF14 which

was installed for the high-level NRC tests only.

For the two hydraulic shakers, Table 2-2 defines

output loads. Further details regarding the support

design and analytical predictions are contained in

Section 3.

As previously mentioned, 51 tests were performed, using a total of six different piping support configurations. Table 2-3 lists the supports

used in each of the six systems. Since the primary

focus of this report is on the performance of the

system with the U.S. support configuration,

Table 2-3 is provided for information only.

NUREG/CR-5646 8
Test Facility and System Description

Table 2-2. U.S. support configuration and design loads.

Design load Level C rated

Support Support 1 SSE support load Support

number ypea [kip (kN)] [kip (IN)] designation

H-2 S 1.39 (6.20) 2.10 (9.34) PSA1

H-3 RS 0.85 (3.80) 2.00 (8.92) 211-13

H-4 RS N/A 45.0 (200.0) NPS-20

H-5 HS 3.39 ( 15 .2)b 87.05 (390.0) N/A

H-6 S 0.94 (4.20) 0.87 (3.85) PSA X

H-7 S 0.77 (3.50) 2.0 (8.90) A/D 150

H-8 S 0.43 (1.90) 0.93 (4.15) A/D 70

H-9 RS 0.45 (2.00) 0.87 (3.85) 211-A

H-10 RS 0.29 (1.30) 0.87 (3.85) 211-A

II-l RS 0.40 (1.80) 0.87 (3.85) 211-A

H-12 S 0.27 (1.20) 0.53 (2.30) A/D 40

H-13 S 0.32 (1.40) 0.52 (2.30) PSA X

H-14 RS N/A 90.0 (400) NPS-20c

H-15 HS 5.38 (24 .

1 )b 87.05 (390.0) N/A

a. S = snubber, RS = rigid strut, HS = hydraulic shaker.

b. Calculated force at 1 SSE.

c. Two each in parallel.

Table 2-3. Participants support configurations for the SHAM test series.

Support EPRU/ EPRInumber KfKa KWUa U. S.a Bechtela Clouda CEGBa

H-2 S SS

H-3 RS RS RS

H4 RS RS RS RS RS RS

H-5 HS HS HS HS HS HS

H-6 S SS

H-7 S EA SS RS

H-8 S EA SS RS

H-9 RS RS RS RS RS

H-10 RS RS RS RS

H-li RS RS RS RS

H-12 S SS RS

H-22 S EA SS

H-23 RS RS RS RS RS RS

H-25 HS HS HS HS HS HS

a. S = snubber, RS = rigid strut, HS = hydraulic shaker, EA = energy absorber, SS = seismic stop.

9 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Facility and System Description

2.5 Gate Valve

The NRC provided a naturally aged Limitorque, motor-operated Crane gate valve from the

decommissioned Shippingport Atomic Power

Station for installation in the VKL. The valve was

25 years old when it was refurbished and installed

in the VKL for the SHAG test series in 198. The

val~ve ex~perienedsome operational problems

during the SHAG testing that were not related to

the seismic portion of the test program. Following

SHAG, the motor operator was removed and

refurbished for thefSA et. The vle

remained in the VKL, blocked open, until 1988

when the refurbished motor operator was reinstalled and functionally checked out. The motor

operator refurbishment included replacing the

original dc motor with a new ac motor, a new

torque spring and torque switch, and subjecting

Me motor operator to dynamometer testing at the

Limitorque Test Laboratory. The valve was

installed in the VKL, motor operator down

because of overhead obstructions. This is the

second most desirable installation option. For

seismic concerns it does ot make any difference

the motor operatori doWwuorTr

pacingleaaeit does. Ours was nor a permanent installation, so long-term packing eakage

problems were not a concern.

2.6 Instrumentation

Three hundred and one data-gathering instruments of various types were used during the

SHAM test program to measure both test input

and piping system and valve response. Measurements included: acceleration, displacement,

strain, and force on the piping system and supports; and acceleration, strain, stem position, current, voltage, pressure, differential pressure, and

flow through the valve. The following numbers

and types of instruments were used:

* 90 acceleration transducers

* 29 displacement transducers

* 143 strain gages

* 28 force transducers

* 11 other transducers (pressure, temperature, etc.).

Instrument locations are shown in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.1-22 of the KfK report

included as Appendix A.

For each experiment, KfK collected the data

from all instruments through a central dataacquisition system. The data-acquisition system

was computer coupled and allowed instrument

calibrating, data filtering, and offset and drift correction. The report included as Appendix A

includes a detailed discussion of the application

of the data-acquisition system. The recorded data

were stored on magnetic tape and shared with all

test program participants.

NUREG/CR-5646 10
3. PRETEST DESIGN ANALYSES

3.1 General Information

The following information summarizes the

analytical work performed by the INEL for the

VKL piping system installed at the HDR facility.

The objective of this effort was to arrive at a support configuration representative of that resulting

from commonly accepted design practices and

analysis techniques used throughout the U.S.

nuclear power generation industry. General

design philosophy applicable to commercial

nuclear power plants built in the United States

during the mid-1970s to early 1980s was

employed in performing the analysis.

As with most piping support design analyses,

the VKL piping analysis was an iterative process.

Several different support configurations were

investigated and discarded because of their failure to satisfy the acceptance criteria. The support

configuration referred to as the U.S. stiff support

configuration or, alternatively, the NRC support

configuration, enabled all ASME Code acceptance criteria to be satisfied and, therefore, was

used as the basic piping support configuration for

the SHAM test series. The information described

below deals only with the U.S. stiff support configuration. The results discussed in this chapter

are all calculated with a seismic input at the 1 SSE

level.

3.2 Design Criteria

By agreement among the test participants, all

piping in the VKL system was assumed to be

ASME Code Class 2. Therefore, Section III,

Division I, Subsection NC (Class 2), of the

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (hereafter referred to as the "ASME Code") was used

to define the allowable stress criteria and applicable load cases for the analyses of the piping system and the derivation of support loads that were

used to design the piping supports.

Level A values to define the maximum allowable

stresses. The test loads simulating seismic input

were analyzed using Service Level C values to

define the maximum allowable stresses.

3.3 Piping Material Data

The VKL piping system uses materials designated by Deutsche Institut fur Norming (DIN)

Standards 1.4961, 1.5415, and 1.4550. Since

detailed U.S. equivalent material property information needed in the piping analysis was not provided directly, we used the following procedure

to determine equivalent U.S. materials listed in

the ASME Code:

1. Determine the equivalent material listed in

the ASME Code tables by comparing chemical analysis data

2. Obtain the allowable values of Sc and Sh

from the appropriate tables in the ASME

Code for the equivalent materials

3. Determine the allowable stress values as

defined in the ASME Code, Subsection

NC-3600 for Class 2 components.

Using the procedure described above, we

determined the material correlations shown in

Table 3-1. The corresponding ASME Code

allowable stresses are included in Table 3-2. Further details regarding the derivation of the allowable values are contained in Appendix B.

3.4 Versuchskreislauf (VKL)

Piping System Test

Operating Conditions

The temperatures and pressures used in the

analysis are

As specified in the ASME Code, the piping

was analyzed for sustained loads (weight + pressure) and thermal expansion loads, using Service

Design temperature

Operating temperature

Design pressure

Operating pressure

5500F (2880C)

5500F (2880C)

1600 psi (11 MPa)

1000 psi (7 MPa)

,,

11 NUREG/CR-5646
Pretest Design Analyses

Table 3-1. VKL piping material correlations.

DIN designation ASME Code material

1.4691 SA-312, TP316H

1.5415a SA-355, P1

1.4550 SA-312, TP321H

a. This material was used only in the DF44 tee.

Table 3-2. ASME Code allowable stresses used for design analysis.

Piping system Allowable stresses for model points

model area [ksi (MPa)]

From To Material Eq. 8 Eq. 9 Eq. 10 Eq. 11 Eq. 12

D14 DF16 SA-312, TP316H 17.5 31.5 27.9 56.4 45.4

(1.4691) (121) (217) (192) (389) (313)

D15 DF16 SA-312, TP316H 17.5 31.5 27.9 56.4 45.4

(1.4691) (121) (217) (192) (389) (313)

F44 D15 SA-335, PI 13.8 24.8 20.7 41.4 34.5

(1.5415) (95.1) (171) (143) (286) (238)

HDU DF21 SA-312, TP321H 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(135) (1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

HDU DF21 SA-312, TP32IH 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(305) (1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

DF21 F44 SA-312, TP32IH 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

DF22 D14 SA-312, TP321H 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

Sh It,

NUREG/CR-5646 12
Pretest Design Analyses

3.5 Analysis Procedure

3.5.1 Computer Code Used. The piping system was analyzed using the computer code

NUPIPE-II a proprietary code developed by

Quadrex Corporation.a NUPIPE-I1 is well known

throughout the U.S. nuclear power generation

industry and is widely used for analyzing all

classes of piping systems.

The NUPIPE-I1 computer program performs

linear elastic analyses of three-dimensional piping systems subject to static and dynamic loads.

The NUPIPE-I1 program was also written to perform Class 1, 2, and 3 stress and fatigue analyses

in accordance with various editions of the ASME

Code and the ANSI B31.1 and B31.3 piping

codes. Piping systems of more than one classification can be analyzed in the same computer run.

Multiple loadings (both static and dynamic) and

multiple stress passes may be analyzed in a single

execution of NUPIPE-I.

NUPIPE-I1 uses the finite-element method of

analysis, with special features incorporated to

accommodate the specific requirements of piping

system analyses. In accordance with the finiteelement method, the continuous piping system is

mathematically idealized as an assembly of elastic structural members connecting discrete nodal

points. Nodal points are placed to define particular types of piping elements, such as straight runs

of pipe, elbows, valves, etc. Nodal points are also

placed at all discontinuities, such as pipe supports, concentrated weights, branch lines, and

changes in cross section. System loads such as

weight, pressure, thermal, seismic, and force or

acceleration history loadings can be applied to the

piping. For the weight and dynamic (time-history

and response spectra) analyses, distributed

weight properties of the piping, as well as concentrated weights such as valves, flanges, or supports, can be considered. A lumped mass model

a. Mention of specific products and/ormanufacturers in this document implies neither endorsement,

preference, nor disapproval by the U.S. Government,

any of its agencies, or EG&G Idaho, Inc., of the use

of a specific product for any purpose.

of the piping system is used for all dynamic analyses. Both translational and rotational degrees of

freedom may be considered. A wide variety of

pipe support types are available for user input,

including rigid (user-specified stiffnesses), constant force or spring hanger preloads, and

snubbers.

The INEL program module V4AGINL (Version 1.4 of NUPIPE-I) was used for all computer

runs performed in the pretest phase for determining support design loads. This module was run on

a CDC Cyber 176 computer system. After the

SHAM tests had been performed, additional computer runs were made to compare analytical

results. These subsequent runs were made using

INEL program module CRAY21S (Version 1.8.1

of NUPIPE-I) executed on the INEL Cray X-MP

computer system. Both versions of the code have

been verified by the INEL Applied Mechanics

Group personnel using a comprehensive set of

benchmark problems. Both versions of the code

were also verified for correctness by the Quadrex

Corporation before their release.

3.5.2 Load Cases Considered. The analysis

of the VKL piping system considered the effects

of weight, pressure, thermal expansion, and the

dynamic input intended to simulate the seismic

event. Pressure effects are considered by their

inclusion in the appropriate ASME Code

equations.

3.5.3 Method of Calculation. Sustained loads

from the weight of the piping, fluid, and insulation were applied to the model as static loads at

the appropriate node points. Dynamic analyses

were performed, using the response spectrum

technique. A detailed explanation of this method

is beyond the scope of this report. Simply stated,

in this approach, the natural frequencies of the

piping system are determined and static loads are

applied at system support points, based on the

accelerations from the response spectrum at the

calculated system frequencies. The response

spectrum technique has been widely used in the

design of piping systems throughout the nuclear

industry for many years. An independent support

motion (ISM) approach was used in the piping

analysis to facilitate the two-point input of the

13 NUREG/CR-5646
Pretest Design Analyses

hydraulic shakers. One response spectrum representing the test input was applied at the two shaker input points, while a second spectrum of

essentially zero magnitude was input at all other

support points in the analytical model. The

response spectrum shown in Figure 2-2 was used

at the shaker input points. As prescribed in Paragraph NC-3652.4 of the ASME Code, the components of bending moment in all three directions

are included in the calculation of the resultant

moments. The guidelines contained in U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.92 were used to

consider closely spaced modes in the dynamic

load case.

3.5.4 Damping Values Used. ASME Code

dam ing (also known as PVRC

damping) values were used throughout the an-aysis. KfK, LBF, and KWU used 4% damping.

Direct comparisons of their response spectra

curves and analysis results with ours will differ at

some frequencies because of the different damping values used.

3.5.5 Modeling of Supports. Accurate spring

stiffnesses and set loads were used to represent

the spring hangers attached to the piping system.

All dynamic supports (snubbers and rigid struts)

were modeled using stiffness values representative of the appropriate size of the support component (snubber or strut) anticipated to be installed.

3.5.6 Finite Element Model. The finite element model that was developed for use with the

NUPIPE-JI computer program contained 190

node points and 191 elements. The model contained 1140 static degrees of freedom and 507

dynamic degrees of freedom. Figure 3-1 contains

a plot of the finite element model. As can be seen

by comparing Figures 1-1 and 3-1, all important

features of the piping system and attached major

components, such as the HDU vessel, are

included in the model.

3.5.7 Stress Evaluation Methodology. All

stress evaluations were based on the rules stated

in Paragraph NC-3650 of Section III, Division I,

Subsection NC (Class 2) of the ASME Code.2

The analysis of the VKL piping system considered the effects of weight, pressure, thermal

expansion, and the dynamic input intended to

simulate seismic input. Pressure effects are considered by their inclusion in the appropriate

ASME Code equations. Resultant moments

caused by the loads described above were combined according to the appropriate ASME Code

equations listed in Subsection NC-3650. The calculated stresses were compared to the allowable

values as defined by the ASME Code and displayed in Table 3-2.

3.6 Design Analysis Results

- Analysis of the U.S. stiff support configuration

showed that all piping stresses were below the

ASME Code allowable limits for the I SSE case.

Table 3-3 shows the five maximum code stresses

that were calculated. Table 3-3 results are for the

occasional load case with seismic input at the two

hydraulic shaker attachment points. The occasional load case includes the effects of pressure,

weight, and the simulated seismic loads. All of

the nodes listed in Table 3-3 are located in the section of piping between the DF14 and DF16 components (see Figure 1-1).

The modal analysis performed for the dynamic

load case showed that 27 natural frequencies were

calculated below the 33-Hz cutoff point. It is

commonly assumed in piping analyses that the

system response beyond 33-Hz is essentially

rigid; therefore, the 33-Hz cutoff is used to

conserve computational time. NUPIPE-II

includes the capability to estimate the effect of the

"rigid body" modes that are not calculated

directly and include them in the results. This feature was used in the design analysis and is

included in the results shown in Table 3-3. The

results discussed in this chapter are all calculated

with a seismic input at the 1 SSE level.

Maximum design loads for the piping supports

were obtained from the computer analysis and

used to select appropriate sizes of support components. Components commonly used throughout

the nuclear industry were selected. Piping support substructures linking component supports

(snubbers, struts, spring hangers, etc.) to their

NUREG/CR-5646 14
Pretest Design Analyses

WKL LOOP, TIP U.S. SUPT., SHMM SLFT

UPT OESIGN, 1-29-88, 2 PT. PVRC INPU

NUPIPE IHRTHhMTICRL MOOEL (V 2.0.31

xxLEGENDwI

X - NOM LSTIN .

0 - MSSPOINT LcmI

- SPRING IWWXR

- SHUMER

4 - RIGID SUPPORT

- ANCOR

N - CMTO JOINT

- - rVLxiE Naum

- VY1V

x

ROTRTIlN ABOUT T-I1S - -29 OCG.

X-z PLrE TILT - 3o 0CC.

' 23

Figure 3-1. NUPIPE-IL finite element model of the VKL piping system.

15 15 ~~~~NUREG/CR-5646
Pretest Design Analyses

Table 3-3. VKL piping system maximum design analysis stresses.

Stress Allowable

Node [ksi (MPa)] [ksi (MPa)]

64 14.81 (102) 31.5 (217)

65 16.98 (117) 31.5 (217)

66 19.89 (137) 31.5 (217)

67 18.44(127) 31.5 (217)

68 18.44 (127) 31.5 (217)

grounding points on the facility walls or other

major structures were analyzed in accordance

with ASME Code rules and commonly accepted

industry practices. Table 3-4 summarizes information pertinent to the U.S. support system as initially installed on the VKL piping.

The support loads that were calculated by the

computer analysis and used for design purposes

are shown in Table 2-2. Since the performance of

the dynamic supports was one of the primary

interests of this test series, Table 2-2 includes

only information regarding these support types.

NUREG/CR-5646 16
Pretest Design Analyses

Table 3-4. U.S. support configuration component information.

Manufacturer's

Support Support Manufacturer designation

number typea initial Replacement initial Replacement

H-2

H-3

H-4

H-6

H-7

H-8

S

RS

RS

S

S

S

Pacific Scientific

IT Grinnell

NPS Industries

Pacific Scientific

Anchor Darling

Anchor Darling

PSA 1

Size B

Size 20

PSA 112

A/D 150

PSA I

Pacific PSA I

Scientific

Pacific

Scientific

A/D 70 PSA 1/2

H-9

H-10

H-11

H-12

RS

RS

RS

S

ITI Grinnell

ITT Grinnell

liT Grinnell

Anchor Darling

Size A

Size A

Size A

Pacific A/D 40

Scientific

PSA 1/4

H-13

H-14

H-15

H-16

H-17

H-18

H-19

H-22

H-23

H-24

SP

SP

SP

CF

CF

CF

SP

S

RS

CF

ITI Grinnell

rIT Grinnell

ITT Grinnell

niT Grinnell

rIT Grinnell

1TI Grinnell

ITI Grinnell

Pacific Scientific

NPS Industries

lIT Grinnell

Size 16

Size 13

Size 6

GR12, Type 8111-A

GR22, Type 81H-A

GR1O, Type 81H-A

GR12, Type 81H-A

PSA 1/4

Size 20

GR21, Type 81H-A

a. S = Snubber

RS = Rigidstrut

SP = Spring hanger

CF = Constant force support

17 NUREG/CR-5646
4. TEST RESULTS

4.1 General Information

Nine of the 51 tests were conducted with the

U.S. Stiff Support System (see Figure 1-1,

Tables 2-2 and 4-1). The overload snubber failures in the earlier tests (T41.35.2 through

T41.31.5, 300% SSE) prevented a true characterization of the piping system we analyzed. A shortage of snubbers caused us to suspend the NRC

testing while we shipped additional snubbers

from the U.S. In the meantime, we tested the

other support system shown in Table 2-3. The

strains in Elbow 1 were very high, particularly in

the CEGB tests. We did not want to fail Elbow 1

until the last high-level test if possible. So, before

the U.S. stiff system was reinstalled for our highlevel tests, we built a special support (bridge)

between DF16 and DF14 (see Figure 1-1). This

bridge helped reduce the response in Elbow 1.

The bridge was installed for our tests (T41.81.1

through T41.81.3) (see Table 4-1). While the system containing the bridge was not the system we

analyzed for design purposes, we still wanted to

characterize the system response without support

failures. Reanalysis with the bridge could be performed post-test if necessary. Therefore, for the

T41.81.1 test, we repeated the 200% SSE test and

temporarily replaced the smaller snubbers at locations H-6, H-8, H-12, and H-22 with larger snubbers PSA- Is. For the final two tests (T41.81.2 and

T41.81.3, the 600 and 800% SSE tests, with the

exception of H-6), we reinstalled the smaller

snubbers at the locations stated above. H-6 was

slightly undersized in one as-built analysis and

the actual loads from the earlier test confirmed

that to be the the case, so H-6 was resized to a

PSA- 1 for all three of the final tests.

The earlier tests through T41.31.5 must be

categorized as a learning experience. We can

report the history of what happened and quantify

the loads at which it happened, but the continuous

snubber failures did not provide a system that

could be compared with the design analysis. The

T41.8 1.1 system with the bridge cannot be

directly compared, so we performed a post-test

analysis with the bridge and the actual T41.81.1

input spectra. Remarks about performance versus

design throughout the results will be referring to

this comparison, scaled up or down accordingly.

Sufficient data were obtained to satisfy most of

the program objectives. The one exception may

be pipe failure modes. Strains in excess of 0.5%

were experienced in tests with the U.S. stiff support system, without significant visible physical

damage. Indications of plastic response were

visually observed after Test T41.81.3, between

the branch connection DF44 and Elbow No.2 and

DFI 6 and Elbow 1, after the bridge broke. In tests

of other, more flexible, support configurations,

strains up to approximately 0.9% were recorded,

and indications of plastic response were observed

between the branch connection DF44 and Elbow

No. 2.

4.2 Data Conversion

For each experiment, KfK collected the data

from all instruments through a central data acquisition system. The recorded data were stored on

magnetic tapes and shared with all test program

participants. Further processing of the data was

required for post-test analysis.

The data were recorded during the tests at a frequency of approximately 200 Hz, with a 100-,

and 60-Hz filtering, which resulted in 6,875 time

steps over the length of time the data acquisition

system was actively recording. Since 301 instruments were installed on the VKL piping system, a

large amount of data was obtained from each test.

Several specialized computer programs and command procedures were developed by INEL engineers to handle the data. These programs read the

data tapes, correlated the data and time information to separate files for the individual instruments, and arranged the data in the proper format

for subsequent processing with the DADiSP

software.3

NUREG/CR-5646 18
Test Results

Table 4-1. U.S. stiff support system test matrix.

Test number Load type Load level

T41.35.2 Checkout 0.2g

T41.30.2 Random 0.3g

T41.30.1 Random 0.3g

T41.3 1.0 SSE 100% SSEa

T41.31.1 SSE 100% SSE

T41.31.2 SSE 100% SSE

T41.31.3 SSE 200% SSE

T41.31.4 SSE 300% SSEb

T41.31.5 SSE 300% SSE

T41.81.1 SSE 200% SSE

T41.81.2 SSE 600o SSE

T41.81.3 SSE 800% SSE

a. 100% SSE = 0.6g ZPA input.

b. Incomplete test, malfunction of test equipment

The DADiSP software uses a multi-windowed

screen format (termed a worksheet) to facilitate

data series processing. Typically, one window is

used to display raw data, with other windows

used to show the results of processed data. A variety of built-in functions are available, along with

the capability to develop custom macros to perform specific tasks. In addition to the quality control measures used by the program authors, the

DADiSP software has been verified for accuracy

by INEL personnel.

4.3 Piping System Dynamic

Response

4.3.1 Test T41.81.1. This test was conducted at an input level of 200% SSE. Because of

snubber failures in earlier tests, the 200% SSE

test was used as the benchmark test of the

U. S. stiff support system configuration. The output acceleration time histories of the hydraulic

shakers were converted to response spectra for

comparison to the original design spectrum curve.

As shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, the SHAM output spectra envelope the design spectra curves for

this 2 SSE test. Good correlation exists between

the SHAM output and the design curves, except

in the 20- to 40-Hz range, where the test input

curves show a secondary peak. These secondary

peaks are most probably caused by such things as

support connection gaps (pin slop) and other

inevitable differences between the idealized

mathematical model and the actual (as tested)

piping system. These peaks are in the frequency

range where rigid response is normally assumed

in design analyses.

The actual 2 SSE test spectra curves were used

as input to the NUPIPE-II finite-element model

of the as-built VKL piping system. This model

was then reanalyzed with the test spectra input,

using a cutoff frequency of 60-Hz to include any

effects of the secondary peaks. The ASME Code

stress results for these analyses are compared to

the allowable values in Table 4-2. The 60 Hz

19 19 ~~~~NUREGICR-5646
Test Results

) 4.0

O 3.5

'- 3.0

W 2.5

w

o 2.0 l

<: 1.5l

1.0l

0.5

0

0

Figure 4-1.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 E

FREQUENCY - HERTZ

200% SSE PVRC response spectrum, Test T41.8 1.1, H-25 location.

1 3-05-

u3.03.50 l

12.5

UJ 2.0

-j

w

o 1.5- 0

< 1.0

0.5l

0-

0

Figure 4-2.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FREQUENCY - HERTZ

200% SSE PVRC response spectrum, Test T41.81. 1, H-5 location.

NUREG/CR-5646 20
Test Results

Table 4-2. VKL piping system ASME Code Equation 9 stress comparisons (2 SSE).

As-tested

2 SSE stressa Allowableb

Node ksi (MPa) ksi (MPa)

176 30.89 (213) 31.5 (217)

175 30.46 (210) 31.5 (217)

160 22.77 (157) 24.8 (171)

174 22.63 (156) 31.5 (217)

162 22.63 (156) 24.8 (171)

a. Response spectra curves from test T41.81.1 used as input.

b. Service Level C stress allowable values (1.8Sh).

cut-off frequency allowed the computer code to

calculate the natural frequencies of the model in

the range of the secondary peaks. Using this cutoff value, 45 natural frequencies were calculated.

The fundamental model frequency was calculated

to be 6.10 Hz. The natural frequencies were fairly

evenly distributed between the 6.10-Hz first

mode and the 60-Hz cutoff value so that all areas

of the response spectra curves would have been

used to define loads. Table 4-2 shows that the

ASME Code Equation 9 stresses calculated with

the test input spectra (2 SSE) did not exceed the

allowable stresses. All of the points listed in

Table 4-2 are located in the VN-R23 section of

piping between support H-Il and DF16 (see

Figure 1-1).

Table 4-2 shows that seismic input levels of

200% SSE resulted in stresses very near the

ASME Code allowables for the as-tested piping

configuration with the bridge. Predictions without the bridge showed that ASME Code stresses

were exceeded. One would not expect structural

failure of the piping system at these stress levels.

The strains measured during this test reinforce

this view. Of the piping strain data for this test

that were examined, the maximum longitudinal

and circumferential values (0.05 1% and 0.039%,

respectively) occurred at Elbow 1. These strains

are well below the 0.3% strain value used to

define yield in the saiunksstel mate-rialused in

piping.

Since the strain gages were reset to a zero value

before each test, only strains resulting from the

dynamic test loads were recorded. However, it

should be remembered that the test dynamic loads

contributed approximately 80% of the total Equation 9 stresses for the 2 SSE load case. Thus, the

observations regarding the locations of the maximum total strain location would remain valid.

Observing the general shape of the response

spectra curves for the seismic input (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2) would indicate that the most

severe loading would be expected from those

vibrational modes below approximately 12 Hz.

The computer analysis determined seven vibrational modes with natural frequencies in this

range. These seven modes occurred in three general areas of the piping system, as described in

Table 4-3.

One of the more useful techniques for examining frequency domain behavior of a dynamic system such as a piping system is the mean-square

spectral density or Power Spectral Density (PSD)

method. This method was used to examine the

piping system response characteristics. The

DADiSP software described earlier was used to

calculate and display the PSDs for the selected

21 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

Table 4-3. Summary of predicted vibrational modes below 12 Hz.

Frequency

Mode (Hz) Mode shape description

1 6.10 X and Z direction displacement in DR205 piping from H-2 through DF14 and

DF16 (see Figure 1-1) (model nodes 150-158)

2 6.26 X and Z direction displacement between H- 10 and H- 11 (see Figure 1 -1) (largest

displacement between model nodes 150-158)

3 6.53 X and Z direction displacement between H- 10 and H- Il (see Figure 1 -1) (largest

displacement between model nodes 150-158)

4 7.50 Y direction displacement in area of Elbow 2 (see Figure 1-1) (model

nodes 134-145)

5 9.05 X, Y and Z direction displacement between DF14 and DF15 (see Figure 1-1)

(model nodes 61-550)

6 9.22 X displacement between DF14 and DF15 (see Figure 1-1) (model nodes 63-555)

7 11.9 Predominantly Y direction displacement (some X and Z direction displacement

also) in area of Elbow 2 (see Figure 1-1) (model nodes 134-155)

data points. PSD plots calculated from acceleration time histories taken from instruments located

throughout the VKL piping system were

examined. Considering such things as support

connection gaps (pin slop) and other inevitable

differences between the idealized mathematical

model and the actual, as-tested, piping system,

analysis of the PSD results shows generally good

agreement with predicted frequencies from the

computer analysis. The PSDs of selected points

on the piping and the gate valve are contained in

Appendix C.

Figures Cl through C9 show PSDs for all three

global directions for the three areas of the piping

system described in Table 4-3. The PSDs shown

in Figures CI, C2, and C3 correspond to data

channels QB 101, QB1102, and QB1103. These

channels recorded accelerometer data in the area

between the DF22 and DF16 components (see

Figure 1-1) and are applicable to modes 1, 5, and

6 described in Table 4-3. The PSDs shown in

Figures C4, C5, and C6 correspond to data channels RS7610, RS7610, and RS7610. These channels recorded accelerometer data in the area

between pipe supports H1-10 and H-lI (see Figure 1-1) and are applicable to modes 2 and 3,

described in Table 4-3. The PSDs shown in Figures C7, C8, and C9 correspond to data channels

QB1O11, QB1012, and QB1013. These channels

recorded accelerometer data in the area between

the DF44 component (tee) and pipe support H-9

(see Figure 1-1). The Figures C7-C9 PSDs are

applicable to modes 4 and 7 described in

Table 4-3.

The information presented in Table 4-3 shows

that the computer analysis predicted a fundamental frequency at 6.10 Hz with a mode shape of

predominantly horizontal motion. The PSDs

shown in Figures Cl-C3 indicate this same

behavior. Figure Cl shows response in the band

from approximately 4 Hz to 8 Hz with the largest

magnitude at approximately 6.5 Hz. The frequencies predicted for modes 5 and 6 are also near the

frequency bands of the response shown in the

PSDs of Figures Cl-C3. One difference between

the predicted dynamic behavior and that demonstrated by Figures Cl-C3 is in the vertical

(global Y) direction. While the X and Z direction

responses were predicted to be the main contributors, some Y direction motion was also predicted

to occur in mode 5. Figure C2 shows no discernible response in this direction. There are many

possible reasons for this difference. Based upon

both analytical and field experience, it is likely

that such things as differences in damping, differences in actual versus the nominal material and

NUREG/CR-5646 22
N

Test Results

geometric properties of the piping, etc., would

contribute to the differences in actual-versuspredicted piping response. The scope of this

project did not allow for further investigation into

additional contributors to the differences between

analytical predictions and actual test response.

The PSDs shown in Figures C4-C6 were calculated from data taken in the general area of the

piping system, where vibration modes 2 and 3

were expected to occur. The data shown in these

figures support the analytical predictions, in that

the frequency bands are in general agreement

with predictions and the magnitudes indicate predominant contributions in the X and Z directions.

Vibration mode 4 described in Table 4-3 is predominantly Y direction motion. The PSDs shown

in Figures C7-C9 also clearly indicate this behavior in the 7.5-Hz range. The analytical predictions for vibration mode 7 include motion in all

three directions. Figures C7-C9 show that the

test results also confirm this behavior. Figure C9

indicates a larger magnitude response at approximately 14.5 Hz. This is beyond the 6.0- to

20

18

16

14

12

0 .~10-

Z 8- 0

0

12.0-Hz band under discussion; however, review

of the analytical predictions shows that this generally corresponds to mode 9, which was predicted to occur at approximately 13.6 Hz.

Generally, there was good agreement between the

analytical predictions and the actual response

with respect to mode shapes.

4.3.2 Test T41.81.2. This test was conducted at

an input level of 6 SSE (600% SSE). The output

acceleration time histories of the hydraulic

shakers were converted to response spectra for

comparison to the original 6 SSE design spectrum

curve. As can be seen in Figures 4-3 and 44, the

test input spectra envelope the amplified design

spectra curves. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show good

correlation between the test input and the design

curves. As in the 2 SSE test, secondary peaks are

evident in the higher frequency ranges of the

spectra curves.

Since the primary purpose of the original

design analytical predictions was to confirm an

acceptable support configuration for the design

load case, no computer predictions were

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-3. 600% SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.2, ES3011, PVRC damping.

23 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

lo

cu 102

Ed 1

a)

8 8-

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-4. 600% SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.2, ES3021, PVRC damping, H-25 location.

performed for the 600% and 800% load levels.

Obviously, higher stresses in the piping are

expected at these levels. ASME Code stresses

nearly exceeding the allowable values were determined by the analytical predictions for the 200%

SSE input level. Thus, one would expect that the

Code stress allowables would be exceeded at the

600% SSE input level. Analytically, the higher

seismic inputs would simply be linearly scaled

from the design curve. The seismic results from

linear-elastic calculations (such as performed by

NUPIPE-II) would also then be multiples of the

design curve results.

The strain data for this test show that the

highest strains occurred, even with the bridge, at

the component labeled Elbow I in Figure 1-1.

This is the same point where the highest strains

occurred in the 200% SSE test (T41.8 1.1). The

maximum longitudinal and circumferential values were 0.197 and 0.150%, respectively.

Remember that only the dynamic strains were

measured in this test series. The maximum strains

are higher than those that would be extrapolated

from simply linearly scaling the 200% SSE

results. This is primarily a result of the failure of

supports H-8, H-12, and H-22 during this test.

Thus, larger displacements and strains were experienced throughout the system. The maximum

dynamic strains are slightly below the 0.3% strain

used to define yield in stainless steel material.

When strains contributed by the weight and thermal conditions are considered, it is likely that the

0.3% value was exceeded. However, examination

of the strain data shows no apparent plastic activity that would be evidenced by an offset of the

final portions of the strain plots from their initial

values. Also, no visual plastic deformations were

observed in the post-test inspections of the piping

system at this or other high strain locations.

The DADiSP software described earlier was

used to calculate PSDs for the various points

throughout the piping system, where acceleration

time history data were available. Figures C-10

through C- 18 show PSDs for all three global directions for the same three areas of the piping system

discussed in Section 4.3.1 for the 200% SSE test

(T41.8 1.1). The PSD plots for the 600% SSE test

(T41.81.2) show a broader frequency content and

NUREG/CR-5646 24
Test Results

much greater magnitude than the plots for the

same areas from the previous test. A higher magnitude is what would be expected considering the

higher level of input. A broader frequency content

of the PSDs is also expected since the support

failures will generally make the system less stiff

and allow system response over a broader frequency range.

4.3.3 Test T41.81.3. This test was conducted at

an input level of 8 SSE (800% SSE). As before,

the acceleration time histories of the hydraulic

shakers were converted to response spectra for

comparison to the original design spectrum curve.

As can be seen in Figures 4-5 and 4-6, the test

input spectra envelope the amplified design spectra curves. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 show good correlation between the test input and the design

curves. As in the previous tests, secondary peaks

are evident in the higher frequency ranges of the

spectra curves.

No computer predictions were made for the

800% SSE load level. One would expect stresses

25-

20-

C- 15-

1

0

a,10

0

0 -

calculated with the procedures used in the design

analysis to be well beyond the limits allowable in

the ASME Code.

The strain data for this test show that the highest strains occurred at the components labeled

Elbow 1, particularly after a weld on the bridge

between DF16 and DF14 failed at the 10-second

mark, and Elbow 2 in Figure 1-1. The maximum

longitudinal and circumferential values were

0.534 and 0.413%, respectively, at Elbow 1, and

0.323 and 0.570%, respectively, for Elbow 2.

Once again, these strains are only those for the

dynamic load. This test was run without replacing

the supports (H-8, H-12, and H22) that failed in

the previous test. The snubber at support H7

failed during this test. Thus, the piping support

configuration for this test was significantly different than the design configuration. With these supports gone, the piping was much more flexible,

especially in the vertical (Y) direction. In fact, no

dynamic supports were available in the Y direction on that part of the system beginning with the

DF21 spherical tee and extending through the

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-5. 800% SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.3, ES3011, PVRC damping, H-5 location.

25 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

1..

0)

0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4-6. 800% SSE response spectrum, Test T41.81.3, ES3021, PVRC damping, H-25 location.

a

DF44 tee to the manifold section at DF16 (see

Figure 1-1). Given this support configuration and

the higher level of dynamic input, larger displacements and strains would be expected throughout

the system. The maximum dynamic strains are

greater than the 0.3% strain used to define yield in

stainless steel. The strain plots in Figures 4-7

through 4-10 clearly show the offset indicative of

plastic action. Plastic deformation of the piping

system was observed during the inspection subsequent to this test.

The DADiSP software described earlier was

used to calculate PSDs for the various points

throughout the piping system where acceleration

time history data were available. Figures C-19

through C-27 show PSDs for all three global

directions for the same three areas of the piping

system discussed in Subsections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.

The PSD plots for this test show greater magnitude than the plots for the same areas from the

previous test. The higher magnitude is what

would be expected considering the higher level of

input. The PSDs for this test exhibit about the

same frequency content as those for the previous

test (600% SSE). The frequency band for the vertical (Y axis) direction PSD plot shown in Figure C-26 is somewhat narrower than those for the

same point in previous tests; however, the magnitude of this plot is much greater. This indicates

significant response in the vertical direction and

is what one would expect, considering the lack of

dynamic support for the piping in this area of the

system.

The project scope did not include a detailed

investigation of the piping system structural

damping experienced during the various tests.

Previous research results indicate that increases

in damping would be expected as some threshold

level of system response is passed.4 Given the

high level of system response, including plastic

behavior, increases in piping system damping

during the higher level tests is very likely. The

expected increases in damping would also affect

the overall response of the system and would

influence the changes observed in the PSD plots.

NUREG/CR-5646 26
Test Results

I-1

I=

U

0.4

03

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-03

Time (s)

Figure 4-7. Circumferential strain at Elbow I (Test T41.81.3).

4-.

II

U

0.6 2

03 -

OA

03

0.2 -

0.1 -

0.0 -

-0.1 -

-0.2 -

-0.3

-0.4 -

-05 -

I

. i Fla iM ll1 AILA II AIII !l ,r IiI 1M1

nl 

l uull 

nm~~nanmlu uuusuuulrumlllllllllllul~~~~~~~~~~ll l IIUI l Y B X l~~ .. .-. -11-11M P..W TVIIF l -'I 1' lviq 

4

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-8. Longitudinal strain at Elbow I (Test T41.81.3).

27 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

I-1

CZ)

b0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

Time (s)

Figure 4-9. Circumferential strain at Elbow 2 (Test T41.81.3).

4)

IA.

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

,0 5.0 ~~~~10.0 13.o

Time (s)

Figure 4-10. Longitudinal strain at Elbow 2 (Test T41.81.3).

NUREG/CR-5646 28
Test Results

4.4 Dynamic Support

Performance

The U.S. stiff piping support system components (snubbers, struts, and anchors) were sized

using commonly accepted industry design practices and design loads based upon the 1 SSE

dynamic input and analysis techniques described

in Section 3. This approach was taken to enable

the observation of support component performance while subjected to loads and system excitation well beyond design levels. The performance

of these components was expected to yield information about support component safety margins

and failure modes. All other participants' support

system components were sized for much higher

loads; thus, no support failures in these systems

were anticipated and none were realized except

for CEGBs, whose inputs were not comparable to

the other five systems.

The HDR data acquisition system required four

to six hours to process the data and make quicklook plots from each test. This work was typically

performed at night following each day's testing.

The test schedule required that two to four tests be

performed each day. The piping system was visually inspected after each test. Any faults detected

by the inspections were repaired before the next

test. Internally failed snubbers could not be

detected visually. As many snubbers as possible

were disconnected and tested between tests; however, several tests were performed with failed

snubbers in place.

4.4.1 Tests Prior to T41.81.1. The majority of

support performance anomalies experienced during the SHAM test series involved snubbers.

Numerous snubber failures were experienced

with the U.S. stiff support system in the tests

before Test T41.8 1.1. Table 4-4 provides a

matrix describing the snubbers installed for each

test of the U.S. stiff support system. The test numbers correlate to the input levels shown in

Table 4-1. While these snubber failures delayed a

true characterization of the response of the piping

system, they did provide useful information

regarding performance of individual components.

The following paragraphs provide further narrative on the performance of the snubbers in the

tests before T41.81.1.

During Test T41.35.2, the snubber at support

location H-7 failed at approximately one second

and at a load of 0.393 kip. The design load given

for this component in the vendor's catalog is

1.50 kip.

The snubber at location H-7 that failed during

Test T41.35.2 was replaced for Test T41.3 1.0.

This snubber again failed at approximately one

second into the test. The failure load was not

accurately determined; however, it appeared to be

small in magnitude. It appeared that the snubber

failed at the first application of load. Brittle fracture of a connecting component appeared to be

the failure mode for both of these premature failures. Both the snubbers installed at location H-7

during Tests T41.35.2 and T41.31.0 were

returned to the manufacturer for inspection and

analysis. No further information regarding these

units has been received to date.

The snubbers at locations H-8 and H-22 failed

during Test T41.31.1. The H-8 unit failed at four

seconds into the test, at a load of 1.798 kip. The

design load listed in the vendor's catalog for this

unit is 0.700 kip. The snubber at H-22 failed at

approximately 2.5 seconds into the test at a load

of 0.674 kip. The vendor's data for this unit lists a

design load (ASME Code Service Levels A and

B) of 0.350 kip. This same unit successfully

resisted a load of 0.899 kip during Test T41.3 1.0.

Although no failure occurred, anomalous behavior was also noted in the snubber at location H-6

during this test. This unit resisted a load of 1.461

kip, while the vendor design load (ASME Code

Service Levels A and B) is listed as 0.650 kip.

This particular snubber did fail in Test T41.31.2.

Subsequent to the failure of the snubber at H-8

during Test T41.3 1.1, the unit was replaced with

an alternate model from another vendor. The

replacement unit then failed during Test T41.31.3

at approximately 11 seconds into the test. The

load at failure was 1.798 kip. While the vendor's

catalog lists a design load of 0.650 kip, this same

snubber resisted loads as high as 2.248 kip during

Test T41.31.2.

29 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

Table 4-4. Snubber installation matrix for U.S. stiff support system.

Snubber installeda

Test No. H-2 H-6 H-7 H-8 H-22 H-12

T41.35.2

T41.30.2

T41.30.1

T41.3 1.0

T41.31.1

PSA-I

PSA-1

PSA-I

PSA-1

PSA-I

PSA-1/2

PSA-1/2

PSA-1/2

PSA-1/2

PSA-1/2

A/D 1 5 0 b

A/D 150C

A/D 150C

A/D 150d

A/D 70

A/D 70

A/D 70

A/D 70

PSA-1/4

PSA-1/4

PSA-1/4

PSA-1/4

A/D 40

A/D 40

A/D 40

A/D 40

A/D 150C A/D 70b PSA-1/4b A/D 40

T41.31.2

T41.31.3

T41.31.4

T41.31.5

T41.81.1

T41.81.2

T41.81.3

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-I

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA- 112b

PSA-1/2c

PSA- 1/2C

PSA-1/2C

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-1

PSA-I

PSA-1

PSA-1b

PSA-1/2 PSA-1/4c PSA-1/4

PSA-1/2b PSA-1/4c PSA-1/4

PSA-1I2c PSA-1/4c PSA-1/4

PSA-1/2c PSA-1/4c PSA-1/4

PSA-1 PSA-1 PSA-1

AID 70 b PSA-1/4b A&/D 4 0b

A/D 70C --e A/D 40C -

a. PSA denotes a snubber provided by the Pacific Scientific Corporation while A/D denotes a snubber provided by

Anchor/Darling Industries.

b. Snubber failed during this test.

c. Snubber in place but previously failed.

d. Snubber replaced for this test and failed again during this test.

e. Snubber removed-failed in previous test T41.81.2.

4.4.2 Test T41.81.1. Because of snubber failures in earlier tests, the 200% SSE test was used

as the benchmark test of the U.S. stiff support

system configuration. Overload snubber failures

in the earlier tests prevented a true characterization of the U.S. system exposed to the

dynamic loading. It was decided to repeat the

200% SSE test and to temporarily replace the

smaller snubbers at locations H-6, H-8, H- 12, and

H-22. These snubbers did not have as much load

safety margin as the larger snubbers at locations

H-2 and H-7 (refer to Figure 1-1). The smaller

mechanical snubbers were replaced with larger

Pacific Scientific mechanical snubbers Size I

(PSA-1), which were the same size as those

installed at the other two locations.

Dynamic support load summaries for Tests

T41.81.1, T41.81.2, and T41.81.3 are compared

to the post-test load predictions in Table 4-5. The

predicted loads are all positive because of the

mathematical methods used in their calculation.

The predicted loads would have the same magnitude in both tension (positive) and compression

(negative). The maximum loads shown from the

test results include the indication of whether the

load was in tension or compression when the

magnitude was recorded.

NUREG/CR-5646 30
Table 4-5. U.S. stiff support configuration maximum dynamic support loads.

Support loads-kip (kN)

Support Support Global Test Test Test

number Node typea dirb Ratedc As-tested 81.19 81.29 81.39

H-2

H-3

H-4

H-6

H-7

H-8

H-9

H-10

H-li

H-12

H-22

H-23

46

44

84

118

128

128

144

148

162

162

213

77

S

RS

RS

S

S

S

RS

RS

RS

S

S

RS

y

Hd

z

y

z

y

z

X

z

Y

y

z

2.10 (9.34)

2.10 (9.34)

24.73 (110)

2.10 (9.34)

2.10 (9.34)

0.87 (3.85)

0.87 (3.85)

0.87 (3.85)

0.87 (3.85)

0.52 (2.30)

0.52 (2.30)

49.5 (220)

2.61(11.6)

3.05(13.6)

3.57(15.9)

1.27(5.64)

1.80(8.01)

0.85(3.78)

1.28(5.68)

0.77(3.43)

1.78(7.94)

0.71(3.17)

0.52(2.35)

9.09(40.4)

-1.69 (-7.53)

3.47 (15.4)

N/A

1.36 (6.05)

4.19 (18.6)

-1.32 (-5.85)

-0.62 (-2.75)

-0.94 (-4.17)

-1.27 (-5.64)

-0.55 (-2.44)

-0.47 (-2.11)

N/A

5.04 (22.4)

10.3 (45.8)

N/A

5.64 (25.1)

9.75 (43.4)

1.87e (8.30)

2.12 (9.44)

-2.97 (-13.2)

-3.23 (-14.4)

1.07e (4.78)

-1.75e (-7.80)

N/A

4.73 (21.0)

13.5 (59.9)

N/A

9.17 (40.8)

-26.4e (-118.)

-10.5f (46.8)

4.02 (17.9)

4.85 (21.6)

-4.36 (-19.4)

-5.72f (-25.5)

Removedf

N/A

a. S = Snubber RS = Rigid Strut

b. Directions are in model global coordinate system.

c. Loads are Service Level C maximum loads-applies to tests 81.2 and 81.3 only.

d. HL = horizontal-lateral. This is a support located in the horizontal plane, perpendicular to the axis of the pipe.

e. Snubber failed during this test (see Table 4-4 also)

f. Snubber failed during previous test (see Table 4-4 also)

g. Negative signs imply compressive loads.

N/A = Not Applicable.
Test Results

The test data show that the snubbers allowed less

than 0.03 in. of dead band travel (the distance a

snubber travels from resisting the load in one

direction to resisting in the other direction). The

manufacturer specifies that this distance will be

no more than 0.1 in. at design load and at frequencies above 3 Hz. If the Table 4-5 data for the

T41.8 1.1 are compared with the predicted (200%

SSE) values, it is observed that about half of the

support loads were overpredicted, while about

half were under predicted. The existence of gaps

(pin slop), snubber dead band travel, and other

differences between the idealized mechanical

model and the actual system contribute to some of

the over- and under-predictions. However, the

analysis model is also sensitive to support

changes. The addition of the bridge altered the

predicted dynamic response so that the first mode

occurred at a frequency of 6.10 Hz. The predicted

loads at H-7 increased from the design predictions to the as-tested predictions, but not enough

to compensate for the as-measured load. H-7 is

the most under-predicted support. Without running sensitivity studies we cannot determine the

exact cause of the underprediction at H-7, but a

good guess is that it probably could be improved

by optimization of support location. Review of

the Table 4-5 data for the other tests shows that

some of the snubbers resisted loads far in excess

of their rated loadings. The rigid struts also

resisted loads far in excess of their ratings without

any failures.

Displacements in the direction of the snubber

restraint force are summarized in Table 4-6 for

Table 4-6. U.S. stiff support configuration maximum snubber displacement.

Displacements

[in. (mm)]

Support Global Test Test Test

Number Node Dir.a Design 81.1 81.2 81.3

H-2 46 Y 0.00 0.038 -0.102 -0.069

(0.978) (-2.602) (-76)

H-6 118 Y 0.00 0.052 -0.067 -0.123

(1.314) (-1.708) (-3.13)

H-7 128 Z 0.00 0.132 0.104 -0.688b

(3.362) (2.646) (-17.48)

H-8 128 Y 0.00 0.036 0 .5 88b -0.622c

(0.912) (14.93) (-15.79)

H-12 162 Y 0.00 0.048 -1.363b -2.23c

(1.224) (-34.63) (-56.58)

H-22 213 Y 0.00 0.031 -0.5 04b NAd

(0.800) (-12.82)

a. Directions are in model global coordinates.

b. Snubber failed during this test (also see Table 4-4).

c. Snubber failed during previous test (also see Table 4-4).

d. Not applicable-snubber failed during previous test and was removed.

NUREG/CR-5646 32
Test Results

all snubber locations for Tests T41.81.1,

T41.81.2, and T41.81.3. The data in this table for

Test T41.81.1 show that the snubbers restrained

piping motion to minimal values. Larger displacements were recorded in the other tests as the

individual snubber failures occurred. Where no

snubber failures occurred, displacements were

minimized. It should be noted that the snubbers

that were installed were either velocity- or

acceleration-limiting types. That is, they are not

designed to "lock" into a rigid restraint. Rather

they are intended to supply the required force

(within their design load limitations) to limit

either the perceived velocity or acceleration to the

threshold level. The displacement values for the

design case were calculated to be essentially zero,

as would be expected considering the mathematical idealization of the model and the approximate stiffness values used in the representation of

the snubbers. In addition, the repeat 200% SSE

test provided a characterization of stiff system

performance, at significant loading, to which

comparisons with predicted values and other test

results could be made.

4.4.3 Test T41.81.2. The objectives of the 600

and 800% SSE tests were to study multiple support failures and possible damage to the piping

system resulting from these failures. For the

600% SSE test (T41.81.2), the smaller snubbers

sized for the predicted loads at 100% SSE were

reinstalled at locations H-8, H-12, and H-22.

These were mechanical snubbers manufactured

by Pacific Scientific and Anchor/Darling Industries. The snubbers at the H-2, H-6, and H-7 locations were PSA-1. H-2 and H-7 were also sized

for the predicted loads at 100% SSE. H-6 was

resized for the T41.81 series because of the

observed loadings from the earlier test series.

During the 600% SSE test, the snubbers at H-8,

H-12, and H-22 failed on overload. Figures 4-11

and 4-12 are plots of the force and displacement

histories, respectively, for H-8. These are typical

examples of snubber force and displacement histories, showing the loads at which the snubbers

failed and the resulting displacements. It should

be noted that these time histories began when the

data acquisition system was started. Typically, the

data acquisition system was started about three

seconds before the shaker input was initiated. The

tests were considered to have begun when the

shaker input was initiated. Therefore, an event

that is described as occurring at three seconds into

the test will be located at six seconds on the time

scale of the time histories.

Figure 4-11 shows the Anchor/Darling

mechanical snubber at H-8 failing after resisting

1.80 kip (8 kN) loading at approximately three

seconds into the test (six seconds on the plot time

scale). This snubber was a size A/D-70, with a

rated load of 0.700 kip (ASME Code Service

Level B). Thus, the snubber failed at 2.5 times its

rated load. This snubber did not resist any load

after it failed. As can be seen in Figure 4-12,

increased displacement was experienced after the

failure. We use the Level B load for comparison

to failure, as most industry applications would be

sized for Level B.

Figures 4-13 and 4-14 show the force and displacement histories for the Pacific Scientific

snubber size 1/4 at the H-22 location. At approximately 7.5 seconds into the test (10.5 seconds on

the time history time scale), the snubber resisted a

1.6-kip (7.2-kN) loading; at this point, the displacement increased significantly. Large displacements continued, but the snubber also

continued to resist some loading as shown in the

force history. The Pacific Scientific size 1/4 snubber is rated for 0.350 kip (ASME Code Service

Level B). The snubber failed at 4.6 times its rated

load.

The snubber at H-12 failed at five seconds into

the transient (eight seconds on the time history

time scale), after resisting loads up to about

1.1 kips (4.8 kN). Figures 4-15 and 4-16 show

the force and displacement time histories for this

unit. This Anchor/Darling snubber (size AD-40)

had an ASME Code Service Level B rating of

0.400 kip. The snubber failed at more than

2.5 times its rated load. As shown in Figure 4-15, the snubber did not resist load after the

failure.

33 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

0.

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

I J

U.0 5.0 10.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-11. Force time history plot for H-8 (Test T41.81.2).

15.0

(U

Ca.

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5

-0.6

-0.7

Time (s)

Figure 4-12. Displacement time history for H-8 (Test T41.81.2).

NUREG/CR-5646 343
Test Results

.0

2.0

15

1.0

05

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-15

-2.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-13. Force time history plot for H-22 (Test T41.81.2).

-4

U)

0.2

0.0

40.2

-0.4

-0.6

Time (s)

Figure 4-14. Displacement time history for H-22 (Test T41.81.2).

35 35 ~~~~NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

2.0

1.5

I--

0

1.0

03

0.0

-0.5 ' 11 Ill , il' 1

-1 .0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.0 .0 5'.0 10.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-15. Force time history plot for H-12 (Test T41.81.2).

U-:

U~

U,

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1.0

-1.2

-1.4

-1.6

-1.8

-2.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-16. Displacement time history for H-12 (Test T41.81.2).

NUREG/CR-5646 36
Test Results

Figure 1-1 shows that snubber locations H-8,

H-22, and H-12 are all vertical locations and control the vertical response of the 4-in. branch connection and the 4-in. loop. A further review of the

data for this test shows that the snubber failures

can be observed in the strain time history plots.

The strains at the critical points on the piping system (Elbow I, Elbow 2, and the DF44 tee shown

in Figure 1-1) generally increase at the times of

the snubber failures. No physical damage was

observed on the piping system, and no permanent

piping offsets were observed at the failed snubber

locations. Photographs included in Figure 4-17

show the disassembled H-22 snubber and the

damaged ball screw shaft. The failure of the ball

screw shaft resulted in a "rigid mode" failure, in a

thermal expansion sense, that rendered the unit

incapable of normal movement while still able to

resist some load. A rigid mode failure such as this

may be beneficial during a dynamic event but

could be very detrimental during normal operating conditions when movement is necessary to

prevent large stresses resulting from thermal

movements.

Zipper effect failures of piping supports and

the associated performance of the piping system

to which the supports were attached are subjects

that have drawn much attention within the nuclear

industry. In this scenario, the failure of one piping

support results in a redistribution of loads to the

remaining supports, which, in turn, subsequently

fail from the increased loads. The timing of the

failures of H-8, H-12, and H-22 at 3, 5, and

7.5 seconds, respectively, into the test transient

show this behavior. The data plotted in Figures 4-11 through 4-16 show that, after the failure

of H-8, the loads on both H-22 and H-12

increased to near the maximum levels that were

sustained by each. Further information is given in

the displacement histories of these snubber locations (Figures 4-12, 4-14, and 4-16). The displacements at the H-8 location increased in

magnitude sequentially after the failures of H-12

and H-22. Likewise, the displacements at H-12

increased after the failure of the H-22 snubber.

The displacement data show the increasingly

flexible response that would be expected as the

snubbers sequentially failed. In spite of the large

increases in displacements and strains, no physical failure of the piping occurred.

4.4.4 Test T41.81.3. For the 800% SSE test, the

objectives changed slightly, the snubbers that

failed (at locations H-8, H-12, and H-22) during

the 600% SSE test were not replaced, in an effort

to increase the likelihood that further piping

stress could be induced. The snubber at H-22,

which failed with resistance, was removed to simulate a failure without resistance.

During this test, the snubber located at H-7

suffered an overload failure at approximately six

seconds into the test (nine seconds on the time

history time scale). Force and displacement histories are shown in Figures 4-18 and 4-19, respectively. The force history shows that the snubber

resisted loads as high as 13.0 kips (57.8 kN)

before the failure. An examination of the force

time history for this unit for Test T41.81.2 (600%

SSE) shows that this unit resisted loads up to 11.0

kips (48.9 kN) during that test without failure.

Since the ASME Code Service Level B load rating for this snubber is given in the vendor's catalog as 1.50 kip, loads up to 8.67 times the rated

load were successfully resisted. The force time

history shows the resisted force dropping to zero

after the failure, then subsequently spiking to

very large values. This is indicative of impacting

as the snubber internal components were

destroyed. The displacement history also indicates large movements after the failure. The peaks

on the displacement history after the failure are

clipped because displacements were beyond the

range of the instrument. The nominal travel limits

for a PSA-1 snubber are 4.0 in.; thus, the spikes

on the force history after the failure would indicate that total movement exceeded the 4.0-in.

travel limit. Figure 4-20 includes photographs of

some of the snubber components. As can be seen,

the ball screw shaft suffered severe deformation,

the thrust bearing was destroyed, and the ball nut

shows the effects of impacting.

With the failure of the snubber at location H-7

in this test and those at H-8, H-12, and H-22 in the

previous test, the loop from snubber H-6 (see Figure 1-1) downstream to back the DF-16 is unsupported in the vertical (Y) direction, unsupported

from H-4 to H-9 in the horizontal (Z) direction,

37 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

a. Disassembled PSA-1/4 snubber.

'I

b. Close-up view of failed ball screw shaft.

Figure 4-17. Photographs of failed H-22 (PSA-1/4) snubber components.

NUREG/CR-5646 338
Test Results

I--

04

10.0

5.0

0.0

-5.0

-10.0

-15.0

-20.0

-25.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-18. Force time history plot for H-7 (Test T41.81.2).

IU

Ui

C,

0.6

OA

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

Time (s)

Figure 4-19. Displacement time history for H-7 (Test T41.81.2).

39 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

4, Q0

,0 '

09,~ i,

a. Disassembled snubber b. Failed ball screw shaft

~Lafl

rAP ,,, 

IR A. II " "I II )W Ill 'I I

c. Close-up of ball screw shaft d. Thrust bearing components

e. Failed thrust bearing f. Damaged ball nut

Figure 4-20. Photographs of failed H-7 (PSA-1) snubber components.

NUREG/CR-5646 40
Test Results

and unsupported from H-5 to H-10 in the horizontal (X) direction. Examination of the displacement history for the H-8 location for these tests

shows that the vertical and horizontal responses

increased after the failure of H-7, but this is

clouded by the fact that the bridge between DF- 16

and DF-14 failed at nearly the same time. H-7

totally failed by 10.17 seconds and the bridge by

10.47 seconds. The videotape shot at the DF-16

location shows the bridge in what appears to be

anti-resonant plastic behavior just prior to complete failure. The failures of H-7 and the bridge

can be seen in the strain response at Elbows 1 and

2 (see Figure 1-1 and Figures 4-7 through 4-10).

Plastic behavior is also evident by the strain measurements not returning to the 0.0 line after the

test. The strain data for the DF-44 tee branch connection also show the corresponding increase in

strain and the onset of plastic behavior. The displacements and the strains also reflect a decrease

in the response frequency. This is expected

because, after the final snubber failure, the piping

system became more flexible in this area. The

change in frequency is clearly seen in the strain

plots of Figures 4-9 and 4-10.

Figures 4-21 and 4-22 show the force and displacement histories for H-6, a vertical snubber

location. Both histories show the effect of the H-7

snubber failure. They also show the lower frequency response of the piping system. After the

H-7 failure, the PSA- 1 snubber at H-6 resisted

loads up to approximately 9.0 kip, which is six

times its ASME Code Service Level B design

load. Dead band travel within the manufacturer's

specified tolerance was maintained by the H-6

snubber. The snubbers installed at locations H-2

and H-6 were tested for proper function after the

SHAM test series was completed. Both of these

snubbers passed the design functional test

required of new units.

4.5 Performance of Other

Support Components

Obtaining data regarding the safety margins

and failure modes of other piping support components was also one of the objectives of this

project. The performance of rigid struts, trunion

attachments, and concrete anchors was observed

throughout the test series.

All the rigid strut type supports performed

well. Loads in excess of five times the design ratings were sustained, with no failures or other

anomalous behavior.

Trunion attachments performed well throughout the test series. No structural failures of the

trunions were sustained and no adverse local

effects on the piping were observed.

Wedge-type concrete anchors were used to

secure some of the piping support base plates to

the facility walls. No concrete anchors failed;

however, during inspections after the high-level

tests, it was observed that several of the anchors

had loosened. There were no cases where a pipe

support substructure was incapacitated because of

the inability of the anchors to transfer load.

4.6 Gate Valve Performance

The U.S. 8-in. motor-operated gate valve operated smoothlduring all tests in the SHAM

series. Some limit switch chatter was observed;

however, the limit switch did not stay open long

enough during chatter to cause the motor controller circuit to interrupt current flow to the motor.

Figure 4-23 is a valve operator motor current history during the 800% SSE test. The histories for

Tests T41.81.1 and T41.81.2 are similar, with

variations only in opening time. The example history shown in Figure 4-23 shows that the valve

operated smoothly under the most severe structural loading experienced during testing of the

U.S. stiff support system.

Acceleration time histories were recorded at

the valve body, the valve/operator center of gravity (c.g.), and at the motor operator. PSDs were

calculated from the acceleration histories and are

included in Appendix C as Figures C-28 through

C-54. The frequency bands and shapes of these

PSDs are consistent between tests, indicating no

significant shift in response. Since the valve/

operator assembly is relatively stiff in comparison to the piping system, this behavior is what

one would expect. While the most significant

contributions to the valve/operator response

4

41 NUREG/CR-5646
Test Results

aL

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

-2.0

-4.0

-6.0

-8.0

-10.0

-12.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-21. Force time history plot for H-6 (Test T41.81.3).

0.060

0.040

__ 0.020

a 0.000

U

-0.020

ta.

a -0.040

-0.060

-0.080

-0.100

-0.120

Time (s)

Figure 4-22. Displacement time history for H-6 (Test T41.81.2).

NUREGICR-5646 42
Test Results

6.0

E

U

4.0 Wv , Ad

2.0 -

0.0 -

I. -- -- - --

0.0 10.0 15.0 2(.0 25.0 30.0

Time (s)

Figure 4-23. Valve current history for the 800% SSE test.

occur at the lower frequencies, the PSDs also

show some higher frequency response in the

30- to 40-Hz range. This is higher frequency

response than is normally considered in seismic

qualification of valves. While this is not typically

important to the structural response of valves subjected to seismic loads, it can be important to

electrical components such as switches and relays

located in valve operators. Responses in this frequency range did contribute to operator relay and

switch chatter. However, the open portion of the

switch chatter was not long enough to open the

motor controller. The maximum accelerations of

the valve/operator assembly were experienced at

the motor operator. Since the motor operator is a

significant mass essentially cantilevered off the

relatively stiff valve body, this is where the largest

accelerations would be expected. Table 4-7

includes both the accelerations measured during

Tests T41.81.1, T41.81.2, and T41.81.3 and those

predicted by the system design analysis. A

maximum acceleration of approximately 12 g

was sustained in the 800% SSE test without

apparent damage or malfunction. As can be seen

in Table 4-7, the accelerations predicted by the

design analysis differ from those that would be

obtained by scaling the accelerations measured

during the 200% SSE test (T41.8 1.1). Small

differences in the actual stiffness of the

valve/operator assembly versus that used in the

finite element representation and actual versus

idealized mass distribution would contribute to

the differing results. Also, actual input for each

test enveloped the design values (refer to

Figures 4-1 through 4-6). The higher magnitude

of the actual test input would also contribute to

the larger accelerations experienced during the

tests.

43 NUREG/CR-5646
I

CD

c(

CD

Table 4-7. Gate valve accelerations.

Accelerations-g's

Design Test 41.81.1 Test 41.81.2 Test 41.81.3

(1 SSE) (2 SSE) (6 SSE) (8 SSE)

Global

Location Instrnment dir.a Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative

Body QB9401 X 0.51 0.51 1.45 1.44 5.43 4.57 7.61 7.19

Body QB9402 Y 0.23 0.23 0.43 0.39 1.03 1.24 1.69 1.71

Body QB9403 Z 0.30 0.30 0.65 0.67 2.56 3.07 3.58 5.20

C.G. QB9411 X 0.73 0.73 1.51 1.50 6.58 6.00 9.13 7.97

C.G. QB9412 Y 0.23 0.23 0.42 0.37 1.07 1.55 2.03 1.96

C.G. QB9413 Z 0.88 0.88 0.49 0.56 2.25 2.47 3.29 4.87

Operator QB9421 X 0.89 0.89 2.25 2.21 9.10 9.80 11.38 12.03

Operator QB9422 Y 0.23 0.23 0.67 0.59 1.62 1.83 2.85 2.59

Operator QB9423 Z 1.25 1.25 1.91 1.51 4.11 4.18 7.16 10.30

a. Directions are in model global coordinate system.
5. CONCLUSIONS

While each piping system includes its own specific details regarding materials, geometry, and

support configuration, the VKL system with the

U.S. stiff support configuration can be considered

typical of those of similar size found throughout

the U.S. nuclear industry. The VKL piping system was exposed to significant dynamic loadings

and the specific results from tests at input levels

of 200% SSE, 600% SSE, and 800% SSE were

examined. These tests were numbered T41.81.1,

T41.81.2, and T41.81.3, respectively, in the

SHAM series. Analyses of the results were generally divided into three categories: piping system

dynamic response, dynamic support performance, and gate valve performance.

5.1 Piping System Dynamic

Response

The comparison of the scaled results from the

200% SSE test (T41.81.1) was not expected to

exactly match the analytical predictions. Generally speaking, piping system analyses using the

ASME Code rules and procedures that were followed will not provide information describing the

exact state of stress. Rather, satisfaction of the

Code rules provides assurance that piping system

function and performance with an acceptable

safety margin will be maintained.

The 200% SSE test results with all dynamic

supports operable would be most comparable to

the analytical predictions. Snubber overload failures in the early tests of the U.S. stiff support configuration delayed characterization of the piping

system. Therefore, the 200% SSE test was performed with snubbers larger than those called for

by the design calculations in order to ensure completion of the test without snubber failures. The

post-test analyses with the bridge installed showed

that the design analysis predicted maximum

stresses at the same locations where the maximum

strains were recorded during the tests. Similarly,

the PSDs calculated from acceleration histories

show that the piping responses were generally in

the same frequency bands as the computerpredicted natural frequencies and mode shapes.

The 600% SSE and 800% SSE test results

showed that, as the different snubbers failed,

leaving a large portion of the piping system without vertical dynamic support, the frequency

response shifted, as one would expect for a more

flexible system. The piping system was able to

sustain dynamic loads in excess of eight times the

baseline seismic input that was used for the

design analysis, without violation of the piping

pressure boundary.

The test results summarized above support the

following conclusions regarding piping system

dynamic response:

* The observed test results for the support

configuration, closely resembling those

used in the analytical predictions, showed

that predicted behavior generally agreed

with the system behavior when subjected to

similar loading.

* Application of commonly accepted good

design practice and use of the ASME Code

rules resulted in a conservative prediction of

the piping system behavior under high-level

dynamic loading.

* Actual failure of the piping and loss of pressure boundary retention was not observed,

even under dynamic loads in excess of eight

times the baseline seismic input. The actual

margin to failure of this specific system is

not known.

* Piping system behavior' reinforced

observations made in post-seismic-event

inspections of piping systems in fossil-fuelpowered plants. Specifically, the piping was

able to maintain the pressure boundary

throughout the event. Piping displacement

was accommodated by the failure of individual supports.

* Behavior of the system with several failed

dynamic supports indicates that revised

design practices resulting in a less stiff support configuration could still include

acceptable safety margins.

45 NUREG/CR-5646
Conclusions

5.2 Dynamic Support

Performance

The U.S. stiff piping support system was

designed using commonly accepted industry practices and sized for a 100% SSE loading. Loadings

in excess of 800% SSE were applied, resulting in

significant piping system responses and the overload failure of several individual snubbers. The

piping system sustained multiple adjacent support

failures, with measured strains greater than yield,

yet no significant damage occurred.

Two snubbers failed before reaching their rated

loads in tests previous to Test T41.81.1. These

two snubbers were the same size and supplied by

the same manufacturer. Brittle fracture of a connecting component was the apparent failure mode

for both of the premature failures. Except for these

two cases, all snubber failures occurred at loads

well above their design ratings. In one case, a load

of 8.67 times the design rating was sustained

before failure. The test data show that the snubbers

operated within their performance specifications,

such as dead band travel, until a failure occurred.

The snubber failures can be observed in the

strain time history plots. The strains at the critical

points on the piping system (Elbow 1, Elbow 2,

and the DF44 tee shown in Figure 1-1) generally

increase at the times of the snubber failures. With

the failure of the snubbers at locations H-8, H-12,

and H-22, the loop from the snubber at H-6 near

the spherical tee (refer to Figure 1-1) through the

branch connection (DF44) and terminating at the

DF1 6 manifold was left with no dynamic supports

in the vertical (Y) direction. The displacement history for the H-8 location shows that the vertical

displacements increased after the H-7 snubber

failure. This was accompanied by the large

increases in strain and plastic behavior. The displacements and the strains also reflect a decrease

in the response frequency, which is expected,

because after the final snubber failure, the piping

system became more flexible in this area.

The timing of the failures of H-8, H-12, and

H-22 and the force and displacement data for

these three snubbers show that a zipper effect failure phenomenon occurred. However, in spite of

the large increases in displacements and strains,

no physical failure of the piping occurred.

When the analytically predicted support loads

are compared to test loads scaled to the 100%

SSE level, we observe that about half of the support loads were over-predicted, while about half

were under-predicted.

The results discussed in Section 4.4 and summarized above support the following conclusions

regarding dynamic support performance:

* The rigid strut type supports performed well

throughout the test series. While loads in

excess of five times the design ratings were

sustained, no failure or anomalous behavior

was observed.

* Trunion attachments performed well

throughout the test series. No structural failures of the trunions were sustained and no

adverse local effects on the piping were

observed.

* Concrete anchors securing the piping supports to the facility walls performed well

throughout the tests. No concrete anchors

failed; however, during inspections after the

high-level tests, we observed that several of

the anchors had loosened. There were no

cases where a pipe support substructure was

incapacitated from the inability of the

anchors to transfer load.

* The zipper effect failure phenomenon was

demonstrated during Test T41.81.2. The

severity of this effect will vary for individual piping and support configurations; however, these test results indicate that this

zipper effect may not be the problem it is

currently considered to be in the performance of probabilistic risk analyses (PRAs),

and other safety evaluations.

* The rigid mode failure of one snubber, in

our opinion, highlights the continuing need

for ongoing snubber inspection and test programs. This type of failure has been

observed many times elsewhere throughout

the nuclear industry. While a rigid mode

failure may be acceptable during a dynamic

NUREG/CR-5646 46
Conclusions

(

event, the failure of a snubber to allow the

required thermal movements could be

highly detrimental.

* Further research on the ability to accurately

predict support loads would be warranted.

For the piping system used in this test series,

the analytical predictions were accurate for

only one dynamic support. About half of the

loads were over-predicted while about half

were under-predicted. As industry initiatives to reduce the number of snubbers

installed in nuclear power plants progress,

the ability to accurately predict the loads on

the remaining supports will become more

critical to ensuring that adequately sized

components are installed.

5.3 Gate Valve Performance

The U.S. 8-in. motor-operated gate valve operated smoothly during all tests in the SHAM

series. Some limit switch chatter was observed;

however, the limit switch did not stay open long

enough during the chatter event to cause the

motor controller circuit to interrupt current flow

to the motor. The data show that the valve operated smoothly, even under the most severe structural loading experienced during testing of the

U.S. stiff support system.

The valve performance data support the following conclusions:

* The valve/operator assembly performed

well during all tests, sustaining a maximum

.t f h geater than 12

without adverse effect.

* Higher frequency response than is normally

considered in seismic qualification was

observed. While this is not typically important to the seismic performance of mechanical devices, it can be important to electrical

components such as switches and relays.

* Further investigation into existing research

literature or additional testing to determine

the threshold level where limit switch chatter would cause current interruption would

be useful. This information would help in

identifying methods to mitigate this potential problem. Such information would also

be useful for possible future revisions to the

rules for qualifying valve operators, contained in the IEEE-382 standard. This standard currently allows a cutoff frequency

below the range of the high-frequency

effects that were observed in these tests.

5.4 General Conclusions

The analytical and test efforts described in Sections 3 and 4 show that, in general, all program

objectives were satisfied. The load level where

structural damage to the valve or operator

occurred was not established in these tests. However, the test results showed that increasing seismic loading up to eight times the baseline seismic

input had no serious effect on the operation of the

gate valve and operator. Much useful information

regarding the safety margins of piping and supports was gained from these tests. We saw that

most of the snubbers sustained loads well in

excess of their design ratings, with one unit

carrying a load 8.67 times its design rating before

failure. At dynamic input levels of eight times the

baseline design SSE loading, no piping structural

failures occurred. Some plastic behavior was

observed at Elbows 1 and 2, but pressure

boundary integrity was maintained in all cases.

The effects of individual and multiple support

failures were observed throughout the tests, and it

was found that, while system response changed,

no loss of function of the piping system occurred.

Additionally, the test results will add to the body

of data available for comparing and assessing

piping systems with differing support configurations and design philosophies.

Further analysis of the available data by ANL

and KfK may yield additional insights into piping

system and support component behavior. However, according to the results described above,

sufficient safety margins exist when commonly

accepted design methods are applied, and piping

systems will likely maintain their pressure boundary, even in the presence of severe loading and the

loss of multiple supports.

47 NUREG/CR-5646
Conclusions

NUREG/CR-5646 48
6. REFERENCES

1. R. Steele, Jr. and J. G. Arendts, SHAG Test Series Seismic Research on an Aged United States Gate

Valve and on a Piping System in the Decommissioned Heissdampfreaktor (HDR), Volumes I and 11,

NUREG/CR-4977, EGG-2505, July 1989.

2. "Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code," Section III, Division 1, Subsection NC, Class 2 Components, 1980

edition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

3. DADiSP, Version 2.01 C, DSP Development Corporation, July 1991.

4. A. G. Ware, and G. L. Thinnes, Damping Test Results for Straight Sections of 3-inch and 8-inch

Unpressurized Pipe, NUREG/CR-3722, EGG-2305, April 1984.

49 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix A

Design Report:

Servohydraulic Excitation of Mechanical

Equipment HDR Test Group Sham

vs. No. T41

PHDR Work Report No. 4.338/88

A-1 NUREG/CR-5646
HDR Safety Program

Individual Project 4000: Structural Dynamic Investigations

DESIGN REPORT

Servohydrauslc Exritation

of echeanical Equipment

ED& Test Group SEAU

VS. No. T41

PEDB Work Report No. 4.338/88

March 1988

Vibration Behavior of Kechanical Installations Under High Dynamic Load

Authors: L. Kalcher, PHDR

H. Steinhilber, LBF

D Schrammel, PHDR

Publisher: Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH

Project HDR safety program (PHDR)

Commissioned by the Federal Kinister for Research and Technology

(Project RS 1500 123 C5j

The authors want to thank Dr.Ch.A. Kot (ANL). Dr. P.T. George

(CEGS)'and their staff for the translation of this report.

A-3
3

Distribution:

Fraunhofer Institut fUr Betriebsfestigkeit (LBF), Darmstadt

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Argonne, IL, U.S.A.

Bayerisches Staatsministerium fUr Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen, MUnchen

Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.

Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB), Knutsford

Chesh., U.K.

Cloud Associates, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

Electric Power Research Institut (EPRI), Palo Alto,

CA, U.S.A.

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL),

Idaho Falls, ID, U.S.A.

Gerb, Essen und Berlin

Gesellschaft Fur Reaktorsicherheit/Forschungsbetreuung, KR5ln

Jarret, Oberhausen

Lisega, Zeven

Siemens Unternehmensbereich KWU, Offenbach

TUV - Rheinland, Ko5ln

TUV - Bayern, MUnchen

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)

Wolfel Beratende Ingenieure, Wbrzburg

Internal distribution:

MUller-Dietsche PHDR

Dr. Katzenmeier PHDR

Dr. Jehlicka PHDR

Dr. Malcher PHDR

Schrammel PHDR

Wenzel HDR

L6hr HDR

Grimm HDR

Huber HDR

Dr. Jansen HDR

Reserve (5x)

A-5
5

Preliminary remarks:

The design report describes the technical test set-up, the planned test program,

and the planned measurements for a test or test group. It shall contain the basic

information to enable advance calculation of the test and evaluation of the

results.

The test report, the supplementary report, and to a limited extent also the quick

look report and further technical reports build on the design report and do not

repeat its information. Summaries, important extracts and deviations from the

design report will be forwarded according to circumstances.

The design report is an internal work report and is distributed only to the

parties participating in the test series.

Not to be circulated outside the organization of the

recipient without the prior written consent of the

publisher.

A-7
7

CONTENTS

Page

1. OBJECTIVE OF THE TEST SERIES

2. EXPERIKENTAL FACILITY

2.1 Investigated structures

2.2 Pre-test weld seam examination

2.3 Excitation systems

3. INSTRUMENTAI ON

3.1 Measurement plan

3.2 Stress coating instrumentation

3.3 Brief description of the central measurement data acquisition system

ZEMA

3.3.1 Introduction

3.3.2 Signal processing

3.3.3 Data recording

3.3.4 Data processing and evaluation

3.3.5 Form of representation of the data

4. TEST PROCEDURE

4.1 General observations

4.2 Load functions

4.2.1 Random excitation

4.2.2 Earthquake histories

4.3 Accuracy requirements for the excitation systems

5. CALCULATIONS

5.1 Design calculations

5.1.1 Objectives of the design calculations

5.1.2 Calculation models

A-9
8

5.1.3 Calculations performed

54j.4 Summary of results

6. REFERENCES

A-10
9

1. OBJECTIVE OF TEE TEST SERIES

The tests with servohydraulic excitation of the mechanical equipment (SHAM)

are related directly to the seismic. design of nuclear power stations and have

the overall aim of investigation o. the behavior of pipes and tanks under very

high to extreme dynamic loads. This investigation it conducted firstly by

suitable experiments on the VKL (Versuchskreislauf) pipe system, which is

connected to the HDU (Heissdampfutlformer, now pressurizer) and to the primary

steam header, and secondly by accompanying calculations (design, advance and

supplementary calculations), the latter being made on the basis of measured

load time functions, but without. a knowledge of the measured vibration

responses.

In all earthquake or structural dynawic RxP4tnts so far conducted the

stresses on the mechanical-installations have intentionally been kept in the

linear-elastic range. In the SHAM experiments the sim is to achieve local

plasticization of the pipe with earthouake-type or dynamic excitation.

Upon completion of the SHAM test program, in already the second test series of

Phase III of the HDR safety program, it is planned to iisert damaged pipe

sections (with selectively introduced, quasi-natural fatigue cracks) at the

most highly stressed pipe bend and straight pipe run of the VKL system and to

load the piping with internal pressure and a superimposed dynamiL load until

failure [Phase 111, Test Series E321.

The SHAM tests serve the following purposes:

- evaluation of different pipe support concepts, using both highly flexible

as well as very rigid hanger configurations,

- determination of the shifting of natural frequencies or

- determination of the increase in damping in the system as a result of

different load stages up to local plastic deformation,

A-l1
10

- evaluation of the capability of the Calculation models or correctness of

the assumptions made for dominant Parameters and boundary conditions

i.e., in general terms to verify the calculation methods, taking

cognizance of the anticipated high excitations, and

- from the point of view of 'equipment qualification' for the performance

test on one valve under operating pressure and superimposed earthquake

loads of various magnitudes (up to 10-ftold Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)

technically attainable).

2. EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY

2.1 Investigated structures

The VKL (Versuchskreislai1f) pipe- system investigated in the SHAH experiments

is located in compartment 1.704 of the HDR between the heights 14.25 m and

30.05 m (see Figure 2.. -1). The VKL system (Figure 2.1-2) is doubly connected

to the HDU (Heissdarqfumformer) vessel (previously superheated steam heat

exchanger, now pressurizer) and the primary steam header (DF15), branched

several times and contains pipes with nominal diameters of 300, 250, 200, 125,

or 100 mm. The predominant part of the VKL consists of austenitic stainless

steel material No. 1.4550 or 1.4961); only the subsequently inserted part DF44

as well as some caps are fabricated from ferritic stainless steel

(15t03/1.54 15). The exact dimensions of the VKL are contained in the table in

Figure 2 1-3 as well as in the plan view in Figure 2.1-4 and the elevation

view ii Figure 2.1-5. The entire VKL pipe is insulated with mats 100 m thick

and with a density of 100 kg/mi3; consequently different weights per meter

.?esult according to the nominal pipe size. In all SHAM experiments, the pipes

and HDU will be filled with water, be cold, and be pressurized to 70 bar.

Hanger configurations used in the SHAM tests will be similar to those already

used in the SHAG tests (configurations 1-5). Newly added are the

configurations 6 and 7 represented by CEGB, where 7 is obtained from 6 by

removal or addition of a strut/snubber. A survey of the different hanger

configurations is presented in Figure 2.1-6. Figure 2.1-7 shows the

assignment of the dynamic hangers to the individual positions. The technical

A-12
11

details of these hangers are summarized in Figures 2.1-8 and 2.1-9 (Refs. 1,

2).

The HDU - a slender, approx. 14 m high vessel with an outside diameter of

1855 mm and a wall thickness of 45 mm - stands on an 0.77 m high support skirt

at building level + 14.25 m. Besides an electric heater (m approx. 325 kg) it

contains a thermal shield (see Figure 2.1-10), its weight when empty is about

35 tonnes, 30 tonnes being added when it is completely filled with water. *A

deflection limiter consisting of double T-sections is located at building

level 24.95 m (see Figure 2.1-11). The EDU is wedged in this deflection

limiter as in the SHAG tests, so that the excitation energy is introduced

essentially into the piping.

The annular support skirt of the EDU supports the vessel via 4 bearing zones,

viz. 1 fixed bearing, 2 sliding bearings, and 1 roller bearing (see

Figure 2.1-12), which are designed to essentially suppress thermal stresses.

The entire vessel is insulated with 100 mm thick foam; the insulation layer is

held in position by a 1 mm thick sheet metal casing. The density of the

insulation without the sheet metal casing is 100 kg/m3.

The VKL pipes are attached to the two cover nozzles II on the HDU.

Figure 2.1-13 shows the connection of the pipes to the HDU. The pipe from the

central cover nozzle I was removed for the SHAM tests.

During the SHAG-test the fitting DF16 (see Figure 2.1-14) was secured to the

outer wall of compartment 1.704 to provide a further VKL "fixed point."

During the SHAM test the components securing the DF16 were again removed and

one of the two load application points was provided above the DF16 at the

27.6 m height. The pipe DR107 (nominal pipe size 300) leaving DF16

horizontally must be cut off for this purpose. Likewise, pipe DR105 (nominal

pipe size 300) leaving DF16 vertically at the top is cut off above the

excitation location. All cut locations are closed pressure tight by caps.

The pipe (nominal pipe size 300) leaving DF16 downwards leads into the primary

steam header, which now is- changed to a fixed point (see Figure 2.1-15).

A-13
12

The NRC Valve of the Shipping Port reactor already installed during the SHAGtests will also be installed during the SHAM-tests in the VKL system (see

Figure 2.1-16).

2.2 Pre-test weld seam examination

In the regions most highly stressed during the tests as indicated by the

design calculations, the weld seams will be subjected to different methods of

nondestructive examination prior to the start of the experiments. Applied

will be:

- X-ray examination

- Surface crack examination

- Ultrasonic examination

A survey of the individual measurement locations and the test methods applied

there is presented in Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2.

Minor defects in the weld seams observed during this inspection will be

documented but not repaired. Larger defects will either be repaired prior to

the tests or will be monitored during the test performance.

A renewed inspection of the same weld seams and documentation of changes is

planned after the performance of all tests.

2.3 Excitation systems

It is planned to excite the VKL piping system to the order of magnitude of

several Safe Shutdown Earthquakes (SSE) (a maximum 10-fold SSE is technically

possible) in the course of the SHAM experiments. Imbalance exciters of a

suitable order of magnitude for direct excitation of the mechanical

installations can no longer be used here, because their size would already

falsify the dead weight of the investigated structures too much, quite apart

from the unwieldiness during operation.

A-14
13

Hence servohydraulic cylinders, with which the deflection distance or load,

for example, can be varied independently of the excitation frequency during an

experimental run, will be used. In addition predetermined distance or load

time curves can be realized within wide limits. The dependence of natural

frequencies or damping on load can be investigated in an experimental run.

Frequency ranges of interest can be directly approached selectively.

Two excitation points are planned for the hydraulic cylinder (see Figure

2.3-1). One point is located between the spherical fitting and the 1NRC

valve. Here the excitation cylinder replaces a horizontal strut (H5), acting

in the overall x direction, included in all hanger configurations in SHAG.

Overstressing of the pipe section at the load application point is eliminated

according to corresponding safety considerations.

The second excitation point is located on the nominal pipe size 300 pipe line

leaving DF16 vertically upwards. Here too the excitation direction is the

overall x direction.

The excitation systems include essentially the following:

A) Hydraulic Actuator (Cylinder)

Two hydraulic actuators (see Figure 2.3-2) each with a rated force

of + or - 400 kN (40t) and a rated stroke of + or - 125 mm will be

used. Special types for large oil flows, in this case 1000 I/min,

are involved. The operating pressure is 280 bar. The actuators

are each equipped with a servo block, differential pressure

transducer, 3-stage servo valve, remote controlled multi-valve, and

distance transducer installed in the actuator. Operating diagram

DPP3 268, see Figure 2.3-3, applies to these. Construction details

of the load appleaoion at 15 and DF16 are to be taken from

Figures 2.3-4 and 2,3-5.

A-1S
14

B) Suction pumps

These are required to remove the leakage oil from the hydraulic

actuators and return it to the hydraulic unit.

C) Supply valves

The supply -valves are used for the pressurized oil supply to the

actuators, each cylinder requiring its own valve. In the case of

system fails, the valves block the oil supply within milliseconds

and relieve the lines and systems on the pressurized oil side.

D) Piston/accumulator systems

A piston/accumulator storage system (see Figures 2.3-6 and 2.3-7)

serving as energy storage system or intermediate buffer (see Figure

2.3-8) in conjunction with corresponding amounts of nitrogen is

required for each actuator both on the pressurized oil and return

oil side.

E) Electronic control systems

An electronic system containing generators of the specified input

values and control elements as well as connections for control

signals generated by a computer for the actuators is required for

each of the two cylinders (or control circuits).

The specified input value can be predetermined directly or

indirectly with the aid of a magnetic tape device by the Genrad

system of the LBF. In this way excitation frequency and actuator

displacement are controlled for stochastic excitation (RANDOM) and

optional earthquake displacement history functions (ETH). If

required, SINE SWEEP or SINE BEAT excitation can be provided

without difficulty.

A-16
15

F) Hydraulic unit

The hydraulic unit at hand for the drive of the MK16 shaker, with

its delivery of 840 I/min at a system pressure of 200 bar, is not

adequate for the operation of the servo-hydraulic actuators. It

was therefore rebuilt for a delivery of 350 I/min at a system

pressure of 280 bar, at which time there were made different

additional alterations, such as for instance fill and ventilation

filters, filters toseparate the clean oil side (3 micron), check

valves, diaphragm reservoir for pulsation damping, etc. Such a

unit is adequate to supply only one actuator; therefore the

construction of a new second unit was required.

Figure 2.3-9 shows the connection diagram of the hydraulic unit, Figure 2.3-10

a schematic of the entire excitation system.

3. INSTRIUENTAflTION

3.1 Measurement plan

The number of measurement locations agreed upon in the meantime by all

participants is 301 channels. Essentially

90 acceleration transducers (BA)

29 displacement transducers (WA)

143 strain gages (ES)

28 force transducers (FC)

11 other transducers (trigger, pressures, temperatures, etc.)

are used to determine the excitation load histories, tE tructural dynamic

reaction, and the stresses. The operating measure.---at locations for

monitoring the functional behavior of the American valve are included with 26

channels in the above number.

A total survey of the measurement locations is presented in Figures 3.1-1 to

3.1-22. In Figure 3.1-23 to 3.1-35 these measurement locations are orderly

A-17
16

arranged according to relevant aspects, listed according to individual PCMtracks (see Section 3.3) as well as supplied with coordinates, measurement

range information, and transducer sensitivities.

If forces or displacements are measured by one and the same tranducers on

different hangers, for example, only one measurement location name is

allocated. If different transducers are used at the same location, different

measurement location names are allocated.

3.2 Stress coating instrumentation

During the SHAM-test stress coating instrumentation will be used additionally

for the first time.

With the stress coating method regions of high strain can be recognized

without knowledge of the exact position and orientation. The surface of the

pipe section to be examined is sprayed with the stress coating lacquer, which,

after the hardening period, cracks at a certain limit strain. The strain, at

which the coating cracks, can be selected within limits by the selection of

different coatings.

The stress coating used is "STRESSCOAT' by the firm Fischer-Pierce & Waldburg,

Nondestructive Haterial Testing with the type code ST 50F/10C.

The coating is selected in such a way that for the environmental conditions

during the SHAM-tests (20'C and 70% relative air humidity) the coatings cracks

at a strain of 0.15%. The value still lies below the 0.2% strain, which is

defined as a significant plasticization, so that there is a safety margin in

case the crack strain cannot be exactly provided and the surrounding

conditions in the reactor building vary somewhat.

Selected as measurement location (see Figure 3.2-1) were the two VKL-nozzles

on DF16, the T-Section DF-44, and the load application location H5, which

constitute the most highly stressed locations besides the elbows. The most

highly stressed elbows are already sufficiently instrumented with strain gages

and receive no stress coating covering.

A-18
17

The tests will be conducted for one configuration at a time with load

increase. Therefore, the stress coating lacquer will be applied before it is

tested to each new configuration at the measurement locations (undamaged

measurement locations of a previous configuration will be taken over

unchanged) and will not be renewed again during this test series.

The further procedure will depend on when the cracks occur in the stress

coating.

- If the cracks appear before the last load increase, then these will be

made distinctly visible with a contrasting substance and documented

photographically with a reference scale. At the recognized locations

of highest stress, strain gages, which measure the strain for the next

tests of this configuration, will be mounted. The stress coating will

be renewed only for the next configuration, at which time the then

mounted strain gages will be removed again.

- If cracks occur at the last load increase, the reference specimen,

which was sprayed at the same time as the measurement location, will

be loaded and the crack strain unambiguously determined. With that

one has a measure of the minimum strain that occured at the

measurement location. The measurement location proper will be

photographically documented - as mentioned above.

- If no cracks occur at the last load increase, then the reference

specimen will be loaded nevertheless and the crack strain

determined. With that one has a measure of what maximum strain was

not reached.

3.3 Brief description of the central measurement data acquisition system

(ZH&)

A-I9
18

3.3.1 Introduction

In the ZMA (Zentrale Messwerterfassungsanlage) the many electrical transducer

signals are amplified and converted via an analog/digital converter system to

pulse code modulated binary signals (PCM).

This binary signal form is used because of the high assurance against

interference during storage. The high processing speed (max. 26 M bit/sec)

requires intermediate storage on PQ4 tapes. During evaluation of the test

data these high processing speed data are transformed back to physical data by

serial processing at low bit rates/sec in the computer. Output on magnetic

tapes and in diagrams is possible.

3.3.2 Signal processing

It is necessary to use three types of amplifiers due to the application of

different measurement principles.

1. DC-coupled amplifiers

A Bell and Howell amplifier is used as pure voltage amplifier, which both

prepares the transducer signals and also provides the supply of the

transducers. A supply voltage of 5 V or 10 V is applied to the transducers,

which are controlled 'on line" via 'sense lines". Each amplifier has its own

power supply; consequently electrical isolation of the measuring chains from

each other is assured. The limit frequency of these amplifiers is 20 kHz.

The amplification is infinitely variable between 1 and 10000.

The following operating conditions can be adjusted for investigations on the

measuring chains:

Measurement: the transducer voltage is amplified.

Zero: the transducer is not disconnected and the amplifier shortcircuited at the input.

A-20
19

Cal: the transducer is disconnected and a calibration voltage

accurate to within 0.1% is switched to the input.

Test: the transducer bridge is adjusted by auxiliary resistors.

2. Carrier-frequency amplifier

The carrier-frequency method (5 k~z) is used to measure with inductive

displacement transducers. The transducers can likewise be supplied via 'sense

lines". Change-over from full to half bridge is possible. Mutual influencing

of adjacent displacement transducers by cross-talk is largely avoided by

synchronous operation of the 5 kHz generators of the individual amplifiers.

These amplifiers likewise have facilities for remote operation for Cal,

Measurement, Test, and Zero.

3. Charge amplifier

These amplifiers are already integrated in the transducers. The output signal

is transmitted to the DC amplifiers.

3.3.3 Data recording

1. Analog/digital conversion

The outputs of all amplifiers are led potential-free to a plug board; where

the amplifier position and PCK recording are freely assigned according to

track and channel. 29 measurement channels are combined to form a PCH track

in each case.

Digitalization is effected by analog/digital conversion of the 29 channels one

after the other via analog multiplexers and "sample and hold" electronic

systems. The analog range from -1OV to +10y is divided into 2048 steps (11

bits). If 29 channels are converted, time code and synchronization bits are

attached to the associated bit flow (serial form), so that defined access to a

channel and a time is possible during the evaluation.

A-21
20

Each analog channel is interrogated 5000 times per second and converted.

Consequently a serial bit flow of about 1.8 Mbit/sec is formed. As 14 digital

tracks are present, a total of 14 x 29 analog measuring channels can be

processed.

The electric coupling of the analog channels is first effected only in the

multiplexers. The digital section is electrically isolated from the analog

section via optical couplers.

2. PCM recording

The binary signals of the 14 commutators are each recorded on a separate

magnetic tape track (PCM high-density tape units with 1I tapes). For reasons

of reliability the recording is made redundant on two magnetic tape units.

3. Data recording with higher scanning rate

For transducers, for which the scanning rate of the ZMA (max. 5 kltz) is not

sufficient, a transient recorder with a max. scanning rate of 1 MHz is

available for supplementary recording. With this recorder, the signals

branched off before the ZMA amplifiers are, independent of the ZMA, amplified,

filtered, and digitally recorded.

There are 16 channels at disposal, whereby on one a reference signal should be

recorded. The maximum 1 MHz scanning rate can be reduced in steps to

0.1 Hz. For each measurement channel up to 64000 measurement values can be

stored, i.e. the recording period depends on the scanning rate. The data

recording is initiated by means of a trigger,-which can be defined by means of

logic connections, and can provide a defined time period before the trigger

instant. The filter cut-off frequency of the low pass filter can be freely

selected within the range of the selected scanning frequency.

After testing, the recorded values are stored again into the ZMA and with the

help of the reference signal an unambiguous time matching is performed.

A-22
21

3.3.4 Data preparation and evaluation

Upon termination of recording, evaluation can follow. For this purpose the

data are read track by track from the tape into a decommutator, converted from

the serial form into 16 bit parallel form, and transferred to the computer by

DMA (175 kbyte/sec).

Assignment to the individual channels is effected in the computer. The data

can be displayed as voltage values as a function of time on the screen only in

the first stage. The time resolution is freely selectable (the smallest

practical resolution is 88 ms - 440 scan values). In the second stage the

electrical values are converted into physical values and quantities.

Principle: As a calibration reference, which describes the relationship

between physical load and electrical output voltage, is stored in the computer

for each individual measurement transducer, it is first necessary to calculate

back from the electrical output voltages of the amplifiers to the associated

input voltages. This input voltage is then at the same time the output

voltage of the measurement transducer and the physical value can then be

determined via the calibration reference.

The amplifier condition (offset and amplification) can be determined in the

computer with the stored values Cal, Zero, and Measurement, so that drift and

accidental false setting of the amplifier can be recognized and corrected by

calculation. In addition an amplifier can be changed during preparation for a

test without the need for totally new adjustment of the measuring chain. The

strict separation of transducer and amplifier thus results in simple handling

in the case of intended modifications and location of faults. The physical

values determined in the computer are recorded on digital tape, whereby a

maximum of 29 channels of a track can be recorded on a tape. The conversion

is normally made only for predetermined time ranges to limit the data

quantity.

A-23
22

3.3.5 Form of representation of the data

The normal form is plotting in diagrams of physical value versus time. Both

axes are freely selectable within logical limits. A maximum of 6 series of

measured data can be superimposed in a diagram to facilitate comparisons.

Multiplex operation, which may involve a difference of max. 170 micro-seconds

in the sampling time even when a greater accuracy is pretended on the plot

(channel 29 is scanned 29 x 5.7 microseconds later than channel 1), should be

taken into account in the case of extreme time resolutions.

For purposes of evaluation the measurement values are provided on digital tape

at the central evaluation facility (ZAW).

4. TEST PROCEDURE

4.1 General observations

As was the case with SHAG, several external institutions will again

participate in the SHAM tests. These institutions or their subcontractors are

designing or developing various hanger configurations for the VKL pipe

system. Tests with -identical excitation will be conducted for five of the

different hanger configurations to enable weighting and evluation of the

operating principle of the respective solution in a direct comparison. Only

the hanger configurations of CEGB will be operated with special, English

excitation functions.

A test matrix, which presents the present stage of planning of the

experiments, is shown in Figure 4.1-1.

Basically it should be noted that the SHAM tests will be conducted with the

mechanical installations in the cold condition. All systems, VKL, HDU, DF15

will be filled with water; no throughflow of the systems will be generated.

However, a static internal pressure of 70 bar will be applied.

In the test matrix a distinction should be made between the following:

A-24
23

- Random tests for system identification, iee. tests that serve for the

identification of natural frequencies, mode shapes, and damping values

of the tested piping-system for the then used hanger configurations.

The excitation is a gray noise (2-40 Hz) of relatively uniform

intensity.

- Seismic tests in the linear-elastic stress range. During these tests,

the limit of the load increase will be fixed on the basis of

measurement stresses in such a manner, that at the measurement

locations strains of 0.12 are reached but 0.2X are not exceeded.

- Earthquake tests with plasticization.

These tests, during which the region of linear-elastic material

behavior shall be exceeded so that permanent deformation of the VKL

system or its components can occur, shall be performed for at most 3

of the tested hanger configurations (NRC, CEGB, HDR).

If no plasticization effects are achieved on the pipe by the highest

load that can be applied by the cylinders, which may be of the approx.

10-fold order of magnitude of SSE, (except CEGB), it is possible that

this condition can be achieved by so-called SINE BEAT or SINE BURSTtest procedures.

Although tests conducted with previous damage selectively introduced into the

VKL and designed to lead to failure of the pipe, will be conducted with the

same test set-up, they are no longer part of the planned scope of test group

SHAM, but are planned as test series E32 of Phase III and as such will not be

described here.

After leaving the elastic range the effects of the permanent set should be

determined after the tests. The changes in cross-section at the most highly

stressed locations will be recorded. It is currently assumed that smaller

plastic deformations will not inadmissibly change the overall rigidity of the

pipe system after readjustment of the hanger elements and thus it will be

A-25
24

unnecessary to change slightly deformed sections. Such a change should be

considered in the case of greater plasticization:

- Parts of the piping will only be exchanged, if irrepairable cracks

occured or if the permanent deformation of a pipe section leads to a

distinct alteration of the boundary conditions of the pipe line

system.

- In all cases damaged parts of the support system (hangers, frames,

anchors) will be exchanged or repaired after a test. Each of the

participating institutions will keep the corresponding space parts

ready for this purpose.

4.2 Load functions

The following different functions are planned:

1. RANDOM excitation

2. Earthquake histories corresponding to predetermined spectra

3. SINE BEAT or SINE BURST

Remark: Should plasticization not be attained with earthquake histories

for any hanger configuration, it is planned to perform supplementary

tests with SINE BEAT/SINE BURST.

4.2.1 RANDOM-excitation

A gray noise (2-40 Hz), that was additionally filtered with a low pass of 1 Hz

and 6 dB cut-off slopes, see Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, shall be input for the

path of the piston. This provides for the piston velocity to have a constant

effective magnitude of 5 cm/sec for the entire excited bandwidth.

The time history is stored on magnetic tape and identical for all

configurations.

A-26
25

- Excitation location:

- Total exitation time:

- Recording time:

H5 and DF16, individually.

2 min

-5 to +200 sec

- Conversion time:

- Scanning:

- -Filter frequency:

- Immediate evaluation:

-5 to +150 sec

625 (during data acquisition and

conversion)

100 Hz

for an acceleration measurement location

(3 directions) and excitation predetermination with LBF GENRAD system.

4.2.2 Earthquake histories

For all hanger configurations, except for those of CEGB, a common earthquake

history will be used. This is an artifically- generated displacement-time

function of 15 see duration, see Figure 4.2-3, fitted to a predetermined SSEfloor-response spectrum (D-4X). It was agreed to define a Zero-PeriodAcceleration (ZPA) of 0.6 g in the pertinent spectrum as 100% excitation level

corresponding with 1-fold potential Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) on the

floor of the VKL room.

For the tests with CEGB-hanger systems there will be used two different

displacement histories of 20 seconds duration, see Figures 4.2-4 and 4.2-5,

which were generated suitable to a spectrum for a specific location

(Sizewell B) or to a covering spectrum for all possible English locations.

Figure 4.2-6 provides a comparison of all 3 spectra used.

- Excitation location: H5 and DFl6, synchronized

A-27
26

- Total excitation time:

- Recording time:

- Conversion time:

- Scanning:

- Filter frequency:

- Immediate evaluation:

15 or 20 sec

-5 to 50 sec

-3 to 30 sec

62.5 Hz (during data aquisition and

conversion)

100 Hz

Response-spectra of the piston

acceleration with LBF Genrad-System.

Further details for the handling of

4.2-7 and 4.2-8.

the measured data are contained in Figures

4.3 Accuracy requirements for the excitation systems

The excitation systems used for the tests and described in chapter 2.3 require

perfect coordination of all electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, and electronic

components in order to accurately follow the desired load functions. As for

the three first-mentioned types are concerned, there are few possibilities to

influence these during the test period. Their tunning to each other and to

the test requirements occurs during the planning phase on the basis of the

design calculations (see Section 5). By contrast, the electronic components

i.e. the control electronics and the computer for the predetermined

excitation, still offer possibilities to fit the load functions experienced

during the test to the predetermined values.

The optimal setting of the control electronics depends principally on the

hydraulic parameters (oil flow, opening and closing behavior of the servo

valves) and is only in second order influenced by the dynamic forces (i.e.

from reactions of the excited piping). This is true for majority of the

planned tests, for which the demands on the excitation system are below its

performance limits. Thus, the control setting, due to the cooperation of the

A-28
27

electronics with cylinder, servo valve, storage facility, and hydraulic unit,

can be separated for each cylinder and optimized without load application at

the piping (because 2 completely separate servo hydraulic systems are

available). This setting is made for the initial operational acceptance test

prior to the beginning of testing with help of the transfer function between

specified and actual value, whose value in the 2 to 10 (40) frequency range

should differ as little as possible from 1. Subsequently, the thus considered

optimal setting shall be kept for all tests.

For each configuration with pipe support initial, individual tests for each

cylinder will be driven with noise excitation. These take place at a lower

excitation level and serve for the identification of the modal parameters of

the pipe system in the corresponding configuration. Since the identification

occurs on the basis of transfer function between response displacement

magnitudes of the pipe and the exciting bottom support motion, there exist no

special requirements for the accuracy with which the desired displacement

history of the excitation is followed.

The main body of the tests are the earthquake tests, at which a predetermined

floor response spectrum shall be followed simultaneously at both load

application points. At disposal for this excitation is a displacement

history, which was obtained by integration of an artificially generated

acceleration history fitted to the desired floor response spectrum. The

requirements for the accuracy of the simulation must therefore not be based on

the comparison of the specified vs. actual displacement signal (the actually

controlled parameter). Instead it will be based on the comparison of the

specified vs. actual floor response spectrum of the accelerations at the load

application point. This is important, because -at high frequencies small

deviations of the displacement can lead to significant acceleration

deviations.

Fundamentally the controlled displacement magnitude shall be selected in such

a manner, that the response spectrum (TRS) of the acceleration at the load

application point resulting from the test approaches the desired response

spectrum within tlO. This is checked at frequencies spaced by 1/6 octave in

the frequency range (2-10 Hz) of interest.

A-29
28

This accuracy shall be satisfied at the SHAM-tests for the 100% load case of

each piping configuration. For this purpose, during preliminary tests when

only the accelerations at the load application points are recorded (without

ZMA measuring technique), the TRS will be determined and the controlled

signals changed, if warranted with respect to frequency range. The changed

displacement signal, that with 100% loading satisfies the mentioned

requirements for a certain configuration, is then retained for all tests with

this configuration time wise and is only correspondingly amplified.

5. CALCULATIONS

5.1 Design calculations

5.1.1 Objectives of the design calculations

The primary aim of the design calculations for the SHAM tests was

determination of

- suitable excitation points and

- excitation forces including frequency content or time curve,

which are necessary to distinctly exceed the load ranges of a Safe Shutdown

Earthquake and the elastic range of the pipe stresses in the VKL system in the

HDR.

In addition it was important to specify

- the hydraulic actuator equipment required for this purpose and

- informative measurement locations

for the tests.

A-30
29

Three of the 5 or 7 different support concepts of the VKL system, which were

already used in the SHAG tests on the HDR, were considered in the design:

1. flexible HDR system

2. KWU system

3. rigid NRC system

Taking into account the space conditions, excitation in the horizontal

direction on the following "fixed points' of the VKL system initially appeared

logical and possible:

- Central cover nozzle of the HDU vessel (HDU 704, excitation in

z direction, i.e. turned 30° with respect to x)

- Strut H-5 between spherical fitting DF21 and USNRC valve

(excitation in x direction),

cf. drawing at top of Figure 5.1-1.

Calculations were likewise made for a further possible excitation point on

strut R10 of the NRC support system. As the calculation results revealed that

installation of a hydraulic cylinder at this point, which is not a 'fixed

point" of the flexible HDR system, greatly affects its vibration behavior,

this excitation point was not included in further considerations.

Without greater modifications to the experimental plant, the points described

above were the only ones which came into consideration for the horizontal

installation of hydraulic actuators in the VKL pipe. Without anticipating the

calculation results in detail at this point, it proved necessary to select a

more suitable excitation point instead of the HDU cover nozzle for reasons of

attainable accelerations and stresses. Removal of some pipes in compartment

1.704, which are no longer required for operation of the HDR experimental

plant, enabled fitting DF16 (excitation in x direction, cf. Figure 5.1-1,

bottom)to be used as a further excitation point.

A-31
30

5.1.2 Calculation models

The SAP model of VKL and HDU shown in Figure 5.1-2, which was taken over from

TiV Rheinland (Ref. 3), was used as basic model for the SHAM design

calculations. The model contains all supports of the rigid NRC system used in

the SHAG tests. The other two support systems are realized in the computer

model by release of the displacement degrees of freedom of the supports

removed in each case.

This basic model was suitably modified for the different load cases considered

in the course of the design calculations. For example, models were developed,

in which the central constraint of the HDU was removed and the HDU was spring

mounted, or load cases with and without water filling of the HDU. As will be

shown later, extreme requirements are imposed on the excitation system by the

heavy weight of the HDU (about 70 t when filled). Hence the case, where the

VKL pipes on the HDU were cut off and welded to a light, but rigid frame, was

also investigated.

The rigidity of inactive hydraulic cylinders was simulated in the models by

rigid springs.

The model had to be augmented by the pipe DR 105 (nominal size 300) between DF

16 and primary steam header for the calculations for the response behavior of

the VKL system during excitation at DF 16. The list in Figure 5.1-3 shows the

model variations.

5.1.3 Calculations performed

Experience has shown that design calculations with the aims specified in

Section 5.1.1 require a large number of calculation runs until the relevant

test parameters are determined in an iterative process. Hence, restriction to

linear calculations and the application of methods, which minimize the cost of

the individual calculation run, are essential. The method of making all

calculations in the frequency domain and transforming the results into the

time domain was selected for the design calculations for the SHAM test group.

A-32
31

The natural frequencies and forms of vibration were determined in the

frequency range up to 20 Hz for the model variations described in Section

5.1.2. Depending on the model and support system these are the first 15 to

19 natural frequencies. The transfer functions between the exciting force and

vibration response of the system were set up with these modal parameters. The

internal forces (bending and torsional moments) were also initially determined

in the frequency domain by complex multiplication of the determined

displacement quantities with the system rigidity matrix.

The following load cases were calculated in this way:

Load case I:

Steady harmonic excitation at one point.

The amplitudes of the

- forces

- displacements

- speeds

- accelerations

which must be applied at the excitation point to produce calculated rated

stress amplitudes of 500 N/mm2 (comparison stress according to deformation

energy hypothesis) in selected cross-sections of the linear model with

assumption of damping of 8% in all modes of the model, were calculated in the

frequency range up to 15 Hz.

With this'hardt criterion - exceeding of the yield point by more than a factor

of 2 in a linear calculation with simultaneous assumption of relatively high

damping values - the aim was to ensure that the requirements on the excitation

system derived in this way ensure that the test aims are really fulfilled (see

Section 5.1.1).

Examples of the results of these calculations are given in Figure 5.1-5 and

5.1-6 for model L (excitation DF 16) and Figures 5.1-7 and 5.1-8 for model M

A-33
32

(excitation at H5). The excitation locations and the position of the

reference cross sections are shown in the diagram in Figure 5.1-4.

Load case II:

Steady harmonic excitation at one point.

The amplitudes of the forces, which must be applied at the excitation point to

achieve input accelerations with amplitudes, of 10 m/92 were calculated in the

frequency range up to 15 Hz.

The result of these calculations supplies guide values for the dynamic mass of

the system to be excited referred to the excitation point and is important for

selection of suitable hydraulic cylinders. However, it is also used for

evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of system modifications The

example of results in Figure 5.1-9 shows that the reduced mass of the HDU

without water filling is dynamically effective only at frequencies above 7 Hz.

Load case III:

Transient excitation at one point, earthquake history original.

The force/time curve to be applied to the excitation point to realize a

predetermined acceleration/time curve at precisely this point, was

calculated. The acceleration/time curve used (see Figure 5.1-10) is an

earthquake history curve artificially generated for a given floor response

spectrum, which was standardized to a system acceleration of 10 m/s2.

Smaller damping values of 4% were assumed for all modes in these calculations

to avoid underestimation of the dynamic effects.

Load case IV:

Transient excitation at one point, earthquake history modified.

A-34
33

As shown by the floor response spectrum in Figure 5.1-10, the predetermined

original time curve contained the largest vibration proportions at frequencies

of 2 to 4 Hz. As the low-frequency accelerations are associated with large

displacements, which could not be realized in tests, their proportions were

halved; the time curve modified in this way is shown in Figure 5.1-11. The

modified floor response spectrum can be considered from the frequency content

point of view as a realistic spectrum for a reactor building on firmer

subsoil, whereas the original spectrum originates from design calculations for

a reactor building on soft soil.

In addition to determination of the required exciter forces to achieve a input

acceleration of 10 m/s2, the magnitudes required for establishing the

measurement locations and ranges were determined for this load case IV, which

has prospects of becoming the essential excitation in the planned tests. These

are in particular the magnitude and location of the maximum bending and

torsional stresses to be expected during the tests. These values were

prepared by a graphics post processor as color display. Because of the

expense (still) associated with the reproduction of color displays, this

report does not contain any examples of these results.

5.1.4 Summary of results

A comprehensive summary of individual results of the design calculations can

be found in Ref s. 4 and 5. Only the most important conclusions will, be

described briefly below:

The performance capability of a servohydraulic exciter is limited in the lower

frequency range with regard to the displacement amplitude, in the medium range

with regard to the velocity amplitude, and in the upper range with regard to

the acceleration amplitude. The maximum displacement corresponds to the

piston stroke determined by the type of construction. The attainable

acceleration depends on the rated force of the cylinder and dynamic mass of

the excited system, the rated force being determined by the effective piston

area and hydraulic pressure. The attainable piston velocity is dependent on

the rated throughflow of the servo valve used and the piston area (and thus,

with a predetermined pressure, on the rated throughflow and rated force).

A-35
34

With hydraulic cylinders to have a 250 mm piston stroke - to limit controlling

sizes of overall cylinder length and hydrostatic piston bearing - the required

piston speeds and rated forces of the exciter are the deciding design

parameters. These two parameters then determine the requirement on the servo

valve throughf low. Hence a full logarithmic graph of piston speed versus

cylinder rated force, in which the family of straight lines with a slope of -1

specifies the required rated throughflow of the associated servo valve, is

used to represent the results in Figures 5.1-12 and 5.1-13. Hence the

requirements on the exciter system, and thus also its costs, increase from

right to left and from bottom to top on this graph. The top righthand corner

of the graph represents costs of about one million DM for cylinders and oil

supply (for transient excitation of up to 15 sec), which far exceeds the funds

available for the excitation system of the project.

Test objective: To exceed the range of elastic material behavior

To establish the requirements on the excitation system in order to distinctly

exceed the range of elastic material behavior in the SHAM tests, a "hard'

criterion was intentionally selected:

-. Rated stresses of over 500 N/mm2 in a linear calculation with

8% damping in all natural vibration forms with excitation at

one point, but

- with steady harmonic excitation (load case I).

The design calculations showed that this criterion cannot be satisfied with

excitation at the tip of the HDU within the limits of the graph in Figure

5.1-12, even with flexible mounting of the HDU. On the other hand, in narrow

frequency ranges the criterion can be fulfilled both with excitation at H5 and

at DF 16 by a cylinder with a rated force of 400 kN and a rated throughflow of

at least 1260 X/min (2 x 630 t/min), cf. Figure 5.1-12.

A-36
35

Test objective: To exceed the load range of a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)

If a quite specific earthquake history is taken as a basis, a fixed

relationship exists between maximum acceleration and maximum velocity. Hence

the attainable peak acceleration for the modified earthquake history

considered as load case IV,. can also be plotted on the right as second

ordinate in the graph in Figure 5.1-13. The forces required to impose the

predetermined acceleration history onto the pipe as excitation have been

determined in the design calculations.

If it is taken into account that the dynamic excitation forces are 80X of the

rated forces, the straight lines plotted in Figure 5.1-13 with a slope of +1

give the minimum requirements on the rated force of the hydraulic cylinder to

enable use of the earthquake history scaled to a predetermined peak

acceleration and corresponding to load case IV with the different models (cf.

table in Figure 5.1-3). The results reveal that the exciter system selected

above (rated force 400.kN, rated throughflow 1260 I/min) should be adequate

both for excitation point E5 (model M) and DF 16 (model L) to achieve a peak

acceleration of over 60 m/s2, i.e. more than 10 times a Safe Shutdown

Earthquake with a maximum floor acceleration of 6 m/s2. With excitation at

the HDU tip, rated cylinder forces of at least 1000 kN and a rated throughflow

of about 2000 t/min would be required for this purpose, even with flexible

mounting of the HDU (model D).

Measurement locations and predetermined measurement ranges

The reference locations for the accelerations and stresses indicated in Figure

5.1-4 constitute the instrumentation proposal, as it can be derived from the

results of the design calculations. The table in Figure 5.1-14 shows the

calculated maximum acceleration components in load case IV (earthquake history

normalized to 10 m/s2) at the acceleration reference locations for the two

most important models L (excitation DF 16) and M (excitation H5). The table

also specifies the maximum values of the displacement components at these

points. For derivation of predetermined measurement ranges the calculated

values should be multiplied by a factor of about 10 to take into account that

an about 6-fold excitation is applied simultaneously at 2 points.

A-37
36

The table in Figure 5.1-15 contains calculation results of the maximum bending

and torsional stresses at the stress reference points for the same load cases

and models. The stress values were derived from the calculated internal

forces at model nodal points by evaluation with the smaller resistance moment

of the connected elements. Hence they should be regarded as rated stresses.

These values can only serve as guidelines for the local stresses at nozzles,

branches, elbows, and also in the regions of load applications.

6. REFERENCES

1. L. Kalcher, K.K. Wenzel, C.A. Kot, "Experiences and building behavior

during the earthquake tests with a large eccentric mass shaker (SHAG),"

Paper No. 1 of the 10th Status Report PHDR, December 1986, Work Report No.

05.27186 KfK-PHDR

2. M. Steinhilber, H. Idelberger, D. Schrammel, "Vibration behavior of the

structure and the mechanical installations during earthquake tests

(SHAG)," Paper No. 2 of the 10th Status Report PHDR, December 1986, Work

Report 05.27/86 KfK/PHDR

3. Waldner, K., "Blind comparison calculation of the vibration behavior and

stressing of the HDR experimental loop with shaker excitation (SHAG),"

Cologne, April 1987

4. Steinhilber, H., Stbrzel, K., "Status of SHAM Test Design Calculations,"

KfK-NRC-EPRI Planning Meeting on SHAH Tests at HDR, Kahl, April 1987

5. Steinhilber, H., Stbrzel, K., "Results of SHAM Test Design Calculations,"

KfK-NRC-EPRI Planning Meeting on SHAM Tests at HDR, Kahl, August 1987

A-38
- Al -

HDU + VKLPipe system

(Comportment 1.704)

2 7C 900 0

Fig. 2.1-1 HDR-reactor building with

in corrprtiment 1.704

NW and VKl pipe system

A-39
- A2 -

HDU II

D15

DF16

D14

HDR 11 1350

DF22

DF21

DF15

USNRC

Gate Valve

Fig. 2.1-2 HDU and VKL pipe system with conronents

A-40
Nominal dimensions Imm]

Pipe Nominal vaie piperun Straht Bend

designaion [DM Material from to Dia t Dia I t R

DR108 200 1.4961 D14 DF16 219.1 142 225.7 17.5 305

DR109 125 1.4961 D15 DF16 139.7 8.8 144.1 11 1905

VN-R23 100 1.4550 DF44 )" D15 114.3 6.1 114.3 8.8 152.5

DR 201 200 1.4550) HDUMM 1350 DF21 219.1 142 225.7 175 305

DR 202 200 1.4550 ) HDU-I13050 DF21 219.1 142 225.7 175 305

DR 203 250 1.4550 DF21 DF44 )* 273 16 281 20 385

DR 205 200 1A550 . DF22 D14 219.1 142 225.7 175 305

DR 105 300 1.4961 DF16 DFl5 355.6 25 361 28 525

I

I

1.4550

1.4961

)

),

X1O CrNiNb 189

X8 CrNiNb1613

750 mm fabricated from 1.4961

DF44 proper fabricated from 1.5415

FIg. 2.1-3 DimensIons and material of the YKL-pipes
.(*e;o) V

IR CENTER RGE

I

4II

Fig. 2.1-4 VKL dimensions, plan view
VIEW A

SASS35

A Ff6 9

2"rrs 1

I,

I

w6

A20o

1~oo

Fig. 2.1-5 VKI dimensions, elevation view
- A6 -

I HI a

HDR (1)

NRC (3) <

21t H 7

Nil t Mt 2

n T ; 4 t~~~~~~~~~~

F410 146 H

HIS "10144H I

H221~ ~~~I

14',~~~~~4

9 H

1415 1410PRI4SS1415

Fi.21-6Mne cniuatoso heV2ppesTe CEGB (6)

AA44
- A7 -

Fig. 2.1-7 Assignrrent of the dynaric hangers to the different configurations

A-45
- AB -

Manufacturer Nominal Load

Hanger No. Designation Type Designation lkN1

ITT Grinell

9,10,11 Strut Size A 2.9

ITT Grinell

3,9,10,11 Strut Size B 6.7

NPS Industries

4, 23 Strut Size 20 149

Carpenter & Paterson

8,9 Strut RS-7 6.9

Carpenter & Paterson

7,12 Strut RS-15 14.7

Pacific Scientific

22 Snubber PSA 1/4 1s

Pacific Scientific

6 Snubber PSA 1/2 2.9

Pacific Scientific

2 Snubber PSA 1 6.7

Anchor Darling

12 Snubber A/D 40

Anchor Darling

8 Snubber A/D 70

Anchor Darling

7 Snubber A/D 150

7,8,22 Energy Absorber Bechtel

2,6.7,8

12,22 Seismic Stop Cloud

Fig. 2.1-8 Technical data of dynamic hangers

A46
- Ag -

Manufacturer Nominal Load

Hanger No. Designation Type Designation LkN

ITT Grinell

13 Spring Hanger Size 16 31.69

ITT Grinell

14 Sprng Hanger Size 13 12.01

ITT Grinell

15 Spring Hanger Size 6 1.65

Constant force ITT Grinell

16 Hanger GR12, Type 81H-A 8A7

Constant force ITT Grinell

17 Hanger GR22, Type 81H-A 16.38

Constant force ITT Grinell

18 _ Hager GR10, Type 81HA 699

Constant force ITT Grinell .19 Hanger GR9, Type 81H-A -4.14

Constant force ITT Grinell

24 Hanger GR21, Type 81H-A 22.51

1ng. 2.1-9 Technical data of dead weight hangers

A-47
- AIO -

Nozzle lI

1350

Fig. 2.1-10 Pressurizer (HDU) with VXL.

tenwerature shield

electric heater, and

A-48
- All -

a I : I I 0 I: i l~~~:i I

I.'~~~~

;- i~~~C

*I

.4. 4 . 1

- r I

~~II~.i &4

.1

i

q

4

--'-1

-Tilum5

LI, MP

i

J II.1

4

4 4.

-4-

-4I9w

9

A=0

F.

L I I T1iU4 i .. _ II_ - .

I Wkwu A ILI

N

HDU-DISPLACEMENTLIMITATION/

CONSTRAINT

)- I. ha ! I N 4 PZi 1i m L IPW r. -I u \:' t- ?.'m- ,mla

I

IIns! 1HII.[27IiI , 42 II~ ;1HI -F

5::! 4 a.

l II I P -I ~~-I~t~- I ZR -##- ; 

Ii I I PXI Dab 1I

------- I] A-11

-P

I

as.. . L_.I~-~.44----44 - I,,:; [ iT;. .

I

rlrm 1;5 I I I Z

l

ml] ''I II-11n, , I., 1s&=m&t vihw_;M

. iiik k1

Fig. 2.1-11 HDU displacement lirrittion

A-49
Support skirt and assembly stays for superheated steam heat exchanger

H 27 063 d (Detail)

4 bearings

of these:

1 fixed bearing

2 sliding bearings 1855 mm

1 roller bearing

; a1 0 23 1 >~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fig. 2.1-12 HOU support construction
- A13 -

/

/

/

i.

IIg. 2.1-13 Connection of a VKL pipe (DR 201) to HDU cover nozzle 11 135

A-51
- A14 -

OWG. NO.

502.682-4

OWO. NO.

502.683-_

OWG. NO.

502.681-4

_ ) 0, 

rIf47X?4.2 1

rm-- Soo 6 "to

Installation

Material

Operating pressure

Operating medium

Medium

Weld joint type

DR 105

X 8 Cr Ni Nb 1613

55 - 80 atmg

440 - 520 aC

Primary superheated steam

according to work standard

I required

Material No.: 4961

Design: 110 Atmg

Design: 550 C

RN-S2. Form Ar 4

supply with designation

Acceptance

OF 16

TOV

Fig. 2.1-14 Fitting DF 16

A-52
- A15 -

Ali

Ir4

"r

I

I

ID V, 4o 0-0S 4.1

-4-

I

a

2

Nz

LA

'v:; I?% Z

Fig. 2.1-15 Primary steam heater OF 15 (fixed points)

A-53
JrI

- A16 -

7r ,F

Fp

Fig. 2.1-16 Gate Valve From Shippingport Reactor in VKL

A-54
-4

-J

SYMBOLS:

M : X-RAY EXAMINATION

a : SURFACE EXAMINATION mflJ

aN : ULTRASONIC EXAMINATION as

Z : X-RAY EXAMINATION PERFORMED 1986

_0 WELD SEA" NUMBER ACCORDING TO o DRAWNIG M1.4071-3

I

Fig. 2.2-1 Exanined weld seam of the VKL plan view
I

-a

I

ZA0%

Fig. 2.2-2 Exonined weld seam of the VKL, elevation view
to

.4

rig. 2.3-1 Excitation system of the VKl. system
- A20 -

CYLINDER

CONNECTION PLATE

PRESSURIZED AND RETURN OIL

INTERMEDIATE PLATE

/ WITH MULTI VALVE

SERVO VALVE

3RD STAGE

SERVO VALVE

A1ST AND 2ND

I STAGE

SERVO HYDRAULIC TEST ACTUATOR

Fmax = 400 kNa Smax = ± 125 mm, m = 1300 kg

Fig. 2.3-2 Servo-hydroulic test actuator

A-58
- A21 -

CYLINDER CHARACTERISTIC DATAS

Rated load FM 200 * 400 kN

Rated stroke 2 x a 250 em Pieton area Piato~~ ^x 149 2 CtOC A 149 cm Piston weight m 92 kg

Additional weight 1 2400 kg

e2 kg

M3 kg Rated through flow a 1000 I/min

Supply pressure ps 260 bar

Valve type: SV 1000/9.5

Pump Unit 1000 I/min

A * no load characteristic curve

Am - characteristic curve vtih additional weights

PF * dynamic full load line so% x

FN 200-t 400 kN

Rated Stroke 250mm

Typ .

PLz 6001/400NV .

Cylinder horizontal

with multi 'e .

" 50eA# p',

"Iff*co.C e S 0=1

Fig. 2.3-3 Characteristic curves of the hydraulic actuators

A-59
I

EXCITATION H5

VIEW IN Y DIRECTION

1ST DESIGN

IIs

IT

SECTION A-A

2950

I

is

I

I

0. I I O*-.I

-- .- I .- I I ." _

ft~v~ 1 .... 1- o o*"h*6igwft

I IW I..... I

-

i ll fttASrTurtu G ..

- Ik 1Sblltn- VEWS.IACe_ _



- - .* -- - a - - - -- *.

rig. 2.3-4 Load applicotion H5
4301

PLAUNED RELOCATOn

Of HOSE

. SAE SO

N.

HOR20W AL BRACE

IDROMAL CYUNDER WACIM

VERTCAL CYUaN BRASI

VERTICAL BRACE

I

I

I

I I

PtULAN L--- -

/.

YDRAUIC ACTUATOR

I

ROOF OPNM5

- I '

'M-~ n II_

\ 1.ESIGN

I 1 I I a '. ...

"Dt R SMAtE W SC " 9-

At4%e~uucG bF i6 FI s1

t"TAUS& 0 &CMAM40._

Fig. 2.3-5 Load application DF 16
Fll

I I

r- ---

II

CONNECTIONS TO

NITROGEN STORAGE

ON 65

AND FLL AND

TEST EQUIPMENT

I

i% CONNECTIONS

SERVO HYDRAULIC

TEST CYLNDER AND

HYDRAULIC UNIT

3xSAE 2"

4600 PSI

PRESSURIZED OIL STORAGE, V = 90 Itr, Pmax = 280 bar, mh = 50 Itr/sec

Fig. 2.3-6 Pressurized oil storage
CONNECTION ` FILL AND

TEST EQUIPMENT

CONNECTIONS

SERVO HYDRAULIC \

TEST CYLINDER

AND HYDRAULIC UNIT

3xSAE NOMINAL SIZE 50

CONNECTION NITROGEN STORAGE

PIPE 38x5

l

l

RETURN OIL STORAGE, V = 100 Itr, Pmcx = 5,8 bar

Fig. 2.3-7 Return oil storage
CONNECTION PRESSURIZED OIL STORAGE

DN 65

CONNECTION RETURN OIL STORAGE

PIPE 38x5

01 I I

I I I -: a

LL CONNECTION V

I , .

I I II . I

2400

-II S

I ;_A

I

I

Z s s s wi I i 1

I. I

I

so 3300 -

K 7 0 0 -_

NITROGEN STORAGE. VP = 890 Itr , VR = 150 Itr

Fig. 2.3-8 lirogen storage
PRESSURE MAGE

HYORAULC ACTUATORS

lYVRAUI.C STORAGE

CiEoX VALVE

--- 'O FILTER WITH FOaLWJ

I / OTOR

PRESSURE REULATOR

"EAT EXCWAKOR

-IZZ~> COOL WATER

-I -~-- OL CONTAIO

Fig. 2.3-9 Hlyroullc unit (Connection diogrom)
I ~~~~~~~~IF

L.-

F~- - -

a I I

I I

L I IAA I ,jI O

I

IIYOBA ULKWT

12 xi

rig. 2.3-10 Excitation system with hydraulic unit and control electronics

(schemalic)
-A29 -

FIg. 3.1-1 Test series: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for T41

A-67
- A30 -

Component. m~~~~dnent f ~~~~~~~~~~~~Transducer ffons Unconstrained Pipe Accelerations Name e Typ

Xx

z

\ ~ ~I I

i I

I..

us-valv 1 ..

I. .. . . .

I,.R

,. I

I I

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

QB 1111

GB 1112

GB 1113

B 1101

QB 1102

OB 1103

....QB 1221

GB 1223

....OB 1091

QB 1092

GB 1093

... QGB 1161

QB 1162

QB 1163

...QB 1061

OB 1882

GB 1083

..QJB 9401

OB 9402

GB 9403

.Q.DB 1071

QB 1072

0Q 1073

BR

BR

! BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

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

Iig. 3.1-2 Test series: SHAM

Ueasurement locations plan for T41

A-68
- A31 -

Component: Unconstrained Pipe Accelerations Trau Trme

NaeIp

:------------- "I,--""-",""", --- "I'll,

I

.-. OB

08

OB

112 1

1122

1123

.RS 76 10

RS 7611

RS 7612

BR

BR

BR

SR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

VW-W ,

VN-23

....OB tell

GB 1012

OB 1013

Fig. 3.1-3 Test series: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for 741

A-69
- A32 -

Fig. 3.1-4 Test series: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for T41

A-70
- A33 -

Component: Forces at Springhangers and at Permanent Transducer Trans.

t struts INae I ype

1513

15 17

1243

7649

7669

7659

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FIg. 3.1-5 Test series: SHAMI

Meosurernent locations plan for 741

A-71
- A34 -

Fig. 3.1-5 Test series: SHAM

Meosurenunt locations plan for 141

A-72
- A35 -

Fig. 3.1-7 Test series: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for T41

A-73
-

- A36 -

Component: Forces at Bechtel-Hangers IName Tr. Typ

Y

... QR 4492 FC

, . "I-~~~...........................

.~~~~~~~~~ I

.......................... ................................................ ......................... .

L...AR 4292

... OR 4303 FC

Fig. 3.1-8 Test series: SHAM

Ueasurenent locations plan for T41

A-74
- A37 -

hIg. 3.1-9 Test series: SHAU

- Measurement locations plan' for T41

A-75
- A38 -

Fig. 3.1-10 Test series: SHAMJ

Weasurenent locations plan for T41

A-76
- A.39 -

Component: Control of the fixed points I Transducer |Itions.

:11,11,111,111,111,11Ill""I'll'-,-"I

I

1. it

-Us

us

.. us

1704

1705

1706

BR

BR

BR

.IJS 270 1

US 2783

.RS 664 1

RS 6642

RS 6643

.RS 6631

RS 6632

RS 6633

.UJS 3781

WS 3702

US 3703

BR

BR

BR

BR

OR

BR

BR

BR

BR

.

rig. 3.1-11 Test series: SW

Meosurtment locotions plan for T41

A-77
- A40 -

hig. 3.1-12 Test seri es: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for T41

A-78
- A41 -

FIg. 3.1-13 Test series: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for T41

A-79
- A42 -

[Component: Strain Gages at Elbow 1 N aransducer ITryAS.

Circumferential

strains

Longitudinal

strains

OR

an

OR

GR

OR

OR

OR

OR

8 10 1

8 102

8 103

8 104

8 105

8106

8107

8108

8 109

8111

8112

8113

8114

8 115

8 116

8 117

8 118

8 119

GR

OR

OR

OR

OR

OR

OR

OR

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

Extrados

Cross section at

center of elbow.

927r

8

7 :0

I

2

%# ' Lj4 strains

OR 8 123

OR 8 124

OR 8 126

OR 8 127

T180.

5

I ntrados

Fig. 3.1-14 Test series: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for 741

A-80
- A43 -

Fig. 3.1-15 Test series: SHAM

MeOsurement locations plan for 141

A-81
- A44 -

hig. 3.1-16 Test series: SHAM

Meosurernent locations plan for 741
- A45 -

ITransducer ITrons.

Component: Strain Gages at Elbow 4

A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nor _ T~

I

... DR 8401

Circumferential

strains

OR 8411

Longitudinat

strains

OR 84 21

'S4.Istrains

ES

ES

ES

Extrodos Cross section at

center of elbow

I ntrados

Fig. 3.1-17 Test series: S"AY

Measurenent locations plan for T41

A.83
- A46 -

Component: Transducer DTr'nsA Valve (Structure) Nome Type

OR 937 1

OR 9372

OR 9373

OR 9374

OR 9375

OR 9376

s.s. Page 2

US-Valve

.OB 9411

0B 94 12

OB 94 13

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

BR

BR

BR

ES

ES

ES

ES

BR

BR

BR

., I ... OR

OR

OR

945 1

9452

9453

Section A-A 9454

.08 942 1

0B 9422

QB 9423

5

2 3

Fig. 3.1-18 Test series: SHAM

Ueosuremnnt locations plan for 741

A-84
- A47 -

Fig. 3.1-ig Test series: Swx~

L*esurement locatOns Ploan for T41

A-85
- A48 -

Component: Accelerations at the Building I[NOa due lTyp

39

39

39

10

12

1

39 10

39 11

3912

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

BR

I1~

... CS 7411

CS 7412

CS 74 13

Fig. 3.1-20 Test series: SHIJ

Measurement locations plan for T41

A-86
- A49 -

I Transducer Trcns. C.ompornent. Strain Gages at Etbow S I J Norm TM_

-- OR

OR

OR

QO

OR

OR

OR

8501

8502

8503

8585

8507

8508

6509

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

Cross section at

. center of elbow

Extrados

1

04 ~Prr

Introdos

rig. 3.1-21 Test series: SHAM

Meosurefrent locations plon for T41

A-87
- A50 -

I I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Transducer tos Component: Strain gages at new tee Name TM

I ' vtv ;4 a Q A ,?, 902. o ES

Q01 01O3

/

/ z2d , "14'944

If

.j

/ 4-S Qas

Qan

81'21

/ & 23

/

z

Fig. 3.1-22 Test series: SHAM

Measurement locations plan for T41

A-88
- A151 -

BA WA i: ES Other

Excitation 10 2 2 1

Pipe accelerations at unconstrained locations 3 2

Pipe accelerations at constrained locations 2 1

Forces at spring hangers and permanent struts 6

Forces at NRC hangers 1 0

Forces at Bechtel hangers ' 3

Forces at Cloud hangers 7

Displacements at hanger locations 1 6

Displacements of the pipes S

Control of the fixed points 1 2 2

Strain gages for global stresses at DR200 30

Strain gages for global stresses at VN-R23 34

Strain gages at elbows 52

Strain gages at new tee 8

Unused strain gages available 9

Valve 6 1 0 1 0

Building accelerations 9

|90 |29 |28 1431 11

Total: 301 Transducers

Date of last correction: 21 March 1988

ig. 3.1-23 Sumnmrizing survey of measurerment locations

A-89
- A52 -

**4**f *-f* * ** TRACK 1

EXCITATION ********************************* lP-S. 1  

ESiO10

ES1021

ES2011

ES2021

ES3011

ES3021

ES4011

ES4021

0S1251

081231

001252

001253

081232

Q81233

XT i

KN I

1K1N I

millm 1

I

M/S2 W/S21I

M/S21

M/521

l/S21

M/S21

1/S21

M/521

t/S21

MI/S21I152

7.90

2.80

7.90

2.80

7.90

2.80

4.80

-0.20

7.90

2.80

7.90

2.80

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

27.55

23.00

27.55

23.00

27.55

23.00

27.55

23.00

27.55

23.00

27.55

23 .00

..

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

4.20

7.35

4.2t0

7.35

4.20

7.35

4.20

7.35

4.2>0

7.35

4.20

7.35

..

I I

I I

I

I I

i I

I I

i i

I Idl

I I

II

I

I i

I I

I I

400

150

Is~ 100

2-00

50

U

so

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

609

N

159

309

is

..

LDF

LeF

LDtr

LBF

LL:F

LBF

LLP

LR)F

LL:F

LOP

LBF

LDF

LBF

Genrad

Genrja

Genr jd Genrad

Genrad

Gmnrad

Fhg. 3.1-24 Measurement locations on ZMA track 1

A-90
- A53 -

TRACK 2

#fz PIPE ACCELERATIONS AT UNCONSTRAINED LOCATIONS ** **-* HP-S. 2 *.* *

081221

B 1 2"23

001121

081112

Q81113

081101

081102

QB1103

013 161

081162

QB1 163

QB1091

0810i2

0Q1093

081081

Q82082

010863

QB9401

0Q9402

089403

001071

Q81072

081073

11/Ž21

1/621

M/S21

M/S21

M/S21

M/S21

M/S21

1/S21

1/S521

M/S21

M/S21

M/S21

fl/S2

M/S21

N/IS21

M/S21

M/S21

MI/S21

I/S21

M/S21

1/6S21

M1/I21

K/S21

7.90 ..

7. 33

6.62

..

5.86

.9

5.86

3.57

3.07

..

0.44

25.15

27.40

23.00

..

N

24.60

24.60

23.00

23.00 wa

44.20 41-

5 * 02.

.9

6.04 .S

N

6.76

N

6.76

4.64

6.22

6.96

IsN~w

I

I I

I I,I

'II I

IlI I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i I

I I

II

I I

'II

I I

200

.50

200

50

20L3

50

20Q

50

200

.50

20050

200

20.

200

so

50g

lOg

502

50g

109

509

;op

sog

,nq

50g

5Og

loop

S0g

SOg

.. NRC

NRC

NRC

****** PIPE ACCELERATIONS AT UNCONSTRANED. LOCATIONS   MP-S. 3 ** **

500 a 00

200 I 50P of i 9

Q81011

081012

0610'13

11/S2

MI/S21

/S62 I

-2.15 ..I

I

I

23.00

i

5.90 Ii

I I

I I

rig. 3.1-25 Uecsurenli locotions on ZMA trock 2

A-91
- A54 -

TRACK 3 ****** ***+**4 *** **

* ***** PIPE ACCELERATIONS AT UNCONSTRAINED LOCATIONS #  MP-s. 3 ** **

RS7610

RS76 11

RS7612

QB 1 121

QB1 a.X2

081123

51/325

71/S29

11/521

11/S29

11/S21

71/S21

3.02

5.52 N0

Is

I

I

I

I

I

I

23. d6

26.35 N

It

I

I

I

I

I

I

4.2.

3.85

..

II

I1

II

II

II

II

Soo

500 200

200 1ZO

200

I

loog

509

100.9

30g

,

sionrad

Genrad

6enrad

LSF

LOF

L8F

****** PIPE ACCELERATIONS AT CONSTRAINED LOCATIONS   MP-S. 4 ** **

081181

08112

QB1 183

QB1241

Q81242

QB1243

Q81281

Q61282

Q812a3

QB0 191

Q81192

QO 1193

Q81201

QB1202

Q81203

Q91211

081212

Q01213

Q81361

Q81362

QB1363

M1/S2 1

I/S21

M/S231

M/921

1S121

M/S21

M1/I21

M/S521

t/3S21

7/S.21

M/S231

M/S21

Ml/S21

I/S2 I

M/321

/S/21

M1/S21

M/S21

M/S21

MI/2 t

1/S21

6.62

3.46

2.54

-1.67

-0.46

0.58

i.

4.10

,,

.,

23.58

..

23. 01

23.00

23:00

23.00

23.57

26.57 N

26.48

,.

*.04

.,

7.96

..

8.40

S.

5.90

5.90

3.85

of

I I

I I

I I

i i

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

I

I j

I I

II

II

III I

I I

I I

I I

500

200

100

200

100

200

500

200

500

I

I

I

I

I

I

.1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I D0g .N

II

U

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

H-2,3

H-4

H-6

P1-7, a

H4-9,22

H-1 10 12

Fig. 3.1-26 Measurenent locations on ZUA track 3

A-92
- A55 -

44 -*fi*** *4** TRACK 4 * **4** *4*4+* #*f**

***** FORCES AT SPRING HANGERS AND PERMANENT STRUTS * MP-S. S **

GA1513

GA1517

QA1243

UA7649

UA7659

UA7669

KN

KN

KN

KN

KN

KN

I

I

7.54 1 26.95

8.26 1 R

3.46 1 23.00

3.43 1 23.00

-1.24 1 23.00

0.32-1 23.00

I

I

I

I

i

I

4 .*20

is

7.96

5.22

5.90

iII

I I

Ii

II

I i

I I

150

100

30

10

I -

I

I

I

I

I

NFIC

NRC

NRL

H-2. t

H-23.2

H-4

H-13

-214

H-15

QA3271

QA3313

0A3321

QA3333

QA3262

QA3282

QA3303

0A3292

QA3492

QA3342

f*4*44* *4*f**

FORCES AT NRC HANGERS ***w#+*.********* MP-S. 6 ****

KN

KN

KN

KN

KN

KN

K<N

KN

I

I

I

I

I

I

6.62

0. 16

O. S8

4.06

6.72

2.54

-1.58

-1.77

-1.08

4.15

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

23.91

23.00

23.57

26.46

23.24

23.00

23.00

23.00

23.00

26.46

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

6.04

5 * 9Ls

5. 'P0

3.BS

5.89

d.40

8.79

8.74

6.06

3.85

I I

'I

I I

I I

I I

I i

I I

I I

I I

I I

100

50

5U

100

a.

50

,Is

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

NRC

Nfi..

NRC

Ni.

NRC

N h4..

NRC

N 4Rih

NRC

NA4.

H-3

H-9

H-10

H-ii

H-2

H-6

H-7

H-6

H-22

H-5,.

FORCES AT CLOUD HANGERS **************** lMP-S. 7 ****

0A5262

QA5282

AS 303"

0A5292

QA5492

QA8492

0A5342

KN

KN

KN

KN

KN

KCN

I

I

aI

I

6. 72

*2.54

-1.77

-1.08

-1.08

4.15

I

I

23.24

23.00

23. *O

23.00

23 00

23.00

26.46

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

5.89

8.40

8.79

8.74

6.06

6.06

3.85

I I

I I

I I

I'I

I I

I I

50

a

200

100 2U

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

ElRi. H-2

EPRI H-6

EPR.i H-7

CPRI H-8

EPki H- 2

H-22

EPRi H -I1 .

FORCES AT BECHTEL HANGER MP-S. 8 **F*

QA4303

QA4292

0A4492

KN

KN

I

I

-1.58

-1.77

-1 .08

I

I

I

23.00

23.00

23.00

Il 8.79

8.74

6.06

iII

I I

i I

40 1

I

H-i

8-8

Fhg. 3.1-27 Measurement locotions on ZILA track 4

A-93
- A58 -

4* *4F * * *@ *** TRACK 5 ***o********** F*

DISPLACEMENTS AT HANGER LOCATIONS * mP-S. 9 ****

QN1262 MM I 6.72 1 23.-i4 1 5.89 1i 300 I .53m tl-.

QN1271 MM 1 6.62 1 23.91 1 6.04 If 300 1 .60 H-3

QN1282 MM I 2.54 1 23.00 1 8.40 il 300 .66m Fl 6

0N1303 MM I -1.58 1 23.00 1 8.79 11 300 1 .68m H-7

ON1i.92 MM 9 -1.77 1 23.00 1 8.74 il 300 .67m

QN1492 MM I -1.08 1 23.00 1 6.06 11 300 1 .46m H-22

ON1342 MN 1 4.15 1 26.46 1 3.dS of 306 * .46m 9i-.

QN3262 MM I 6.72 1 23.24 1 5.89 11 3 I NRC H-2

QN3282 MM I 2.54 1 23.00 a 8.40 *I 3 * NR(; H-6

0N3303 NM I -1.58 I 23.00 1 8.79 If 3 I NRC H-7

QN3292 MM I -1.77 1 23.09 1 8.74 il 3 i N4R H-d

0N3492 MN I -1.08 1 23.00 1 6.06 11 3 I NRC H-22

QN3342 MN 9 4.15 1 26.46 1 3.d5 it 3 J . Hk H-1l.

QN4303 MN I -1.58 1 23.00 1 8.79 If 130 I H-7

0N4292 MN I -1.77 1 23.00 1 8.74 11 i30 I H-.

QN4492 MM I -1.08 1 23.00 1 6.06 11 50 I H-22

**~***>  DISPLACEMENTS ON THE PIPES ** M*.********** MP-S. 10 **

QN1221 MM

ON 1222 MN

ON 14223 MM

014351 MM

QN1352 MN

ON1353 MN

QN1011 MM

CN'1O12 MN

ONIO13 MM

Ftg. 3.1-28

1 7.90 1?26.85?1

9 .. 9 .4 9

I? 6.37?1 23.00 l?

I . I " . I

I *6 I a4 9

1?-2.14?1 23.00 I?

I a I .. 9

I .. a4 I

4.20 I I

9 I

I I

6. 3!/J

I4 1

5.90?I I

.0 I I

is I I

300

..

I

i

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

Measurement locations on ZMA track 5

A-94
- A57 -

** .Ni* *** * * * TRACK 6

**4 ******4

RS6642

RS6642

RS66443

RS6631

RS6632

RS6633

WSI 704

* WS1705

WSI 706

WS3701

WS3702

WS3703

WS2701

WS2703

* *** 4* *******

CONTROL OF THE FIXED POINTS * Pi-S. It ***11

M/S2I

'/S21

M/s21

M/521

M1/S21

M/S52I

M/S21

n/s29

M1/S2I

M/521

M/S21

M/621

WIi I

Mit I

7.90

.1

7.55

of

,.

4.80

4.

5.e0

5.to

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

22.70

17. 90

28.40 .,

t5 *00

24 .50

a

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

4.20

2 *30

.0

5.7U

H

5 .70

5.

I I

I I

'II

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i I

I I

10

5

10

5

.4

i

I

d

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

lOg

..

N

n

BULING ACCELERATIONS *****+ 4F** ** MP-S. 20  

AS39 10

AS39 12

AS3911

CS391 0

CS391 1

CS39 12

CS741 1

CS74 12

CS7413

M/S21

MS521

1/SI21

MfS21

M/SI21

M/S2 1

M/S2 1?

M/S21

!/S21

0.cO

0.LO 4.

I

I

I

I

I

I

51.00

.,

50.o0..

.,

I

I

I

I

I

I

0.00

O.,

.of

'

I I

I I

I I

I

I I

II

I

o.

.,

4.

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

lOg

a

saI.

,,

.,

.,

,,

0.58?1724.22?1?

to I ,, I

5.90?1 1

4' II

a 11

rig. 3.1-29 Measurement locations on ZLA track 6

A-95
- A58 -

**  * *** p*** * TRACK 7

****** STRAIN GAGES FOR GLOBAL STRESSES AT DR200

OAi1001

'A 1002

QAI10J

QA1004

QAIG 05

A 1006

0A10S21

0A1022

GAiO23

(A 1S024

0AS0.25

OA 1026

OA IG.31

Q AI032

QA 1033

GA 1034

QA 1035

GA 1 036

QA1042

GA I 04 2

QA1643

QA1044

QA1045

QA 1046

QAi061

QA1062

QA I 06J

OA2064

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

£-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

7.33

a

.l

6.62

..

a,

5. se,

4.oi.

4.24

o.

..

U

3.57

..

25 *.61

2. of

2. I.

..

23.00 ..

a.

..

23 * 0

.s

.

5 .02

.4..

6.76

.a

.4

as

6.76

7.70

*

..

4*

..

*X***** *.***-**i* **

***** MP-S. 12 ***

LLF

LE;F

LP.F

LEF

L2.F

LBF

LSF

LZF

LSF

LEF

LSF

LE;F

Le-F

LBF

LiF

LBF

Lef.

LMz

LBF

L&F

LeS

LEW

LE;F LDSF

LEF

Fig. 3.1-30 Weasurement locations on ZMA track 7

A-96
- A59 -

********4 *f TRACK 8

STRAIN GAGES FOR GLOBAL STRESSES AT QR200 ****F* MP-S. 12 ****

OA2085 E-3 I

OA2066 E-3 1

3.57 I 23.76 1 if I of I

4.84 tl . I I

3 i LR

I LBF

STRAIN GAGES FOR GLOBAL STRESSES AT VN-R23

RA7671

RA76 72

RA7673

RA7676

RA7601

RA7602

RA7603

RA7604

RA7605

RA7606

RA7631

RA76Jke

RA7633

RA7634

RA7635

RA7636

RA7641

RA7642

RA7643

RA7644

RA7645

RA7646

RA7651

RA7652

RA7653

RA7654

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-S

E-3

E-3

E-3

C-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

-2.86

-2.82

.f

-1.92 St

..

..of

2.84

5.87

if

..

23.00 ..

..

.,

23.00

23.00

23J86

m..

26.35

..

8.13

..

if 7.*96

as

4. 33

..

3.t5

Hf

'II

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

'II

I I

'II

I I

I I

I1I

I I

I I

'II

'II

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

to

a

of

3

if

..

i.l

..

if

if

.

..

..

a.

**** Min-S. i3 ***

LBF

.LeF

LB:

LBF

LeOF

LBF

LEAF

LE8F

LVBF

LSF .LB

LeF

LEW

LSF

LEY:

LEF

LOF

LLF

LE;F

LEF

LEF

LBF

LE:F

Fig. 3.1-31 Measurement locations on ZIAA track 8

A-97
- A60 -

** + *+ p*1*4 ** TRACK 9

f****** STRAIN GAGES FOR GLOBAL STRESSES AT VN-R23   HP-S. 13 ** **

RA7655

RA7656

RA766i

RA7662

RA 766J

RA7664

RA7665

RA7666

E-3

C-:,

C-3

E-3

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

5. *

4,

a

I

I

26. J5

26. -5

..

of

U..

I

I

I

3. S5

3.8:5

..

U

iI

II

sI

II

'I

II

II

II

:3

..

'

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

LBF

LSF

L&F

LtSF

LE.F LSiF

LEf

LEF

******** STRAIN GAGES AT ELBOW 1 **X***** MP-S. 14 ****

QA8101 E-3

QAdkI U2 E-3

QA8103 E-3

QA8Iu4 E-3

QA810S E-3

QAd&16 E-3

QA8107 E-3

QAd I 08 E-3

QA8109 E-3

0A8111 E-3

(A8112 E-3

QAd13 JE-3

QA8114 E-3

QA8I-15 E-3

QA8116 E-3

QA&117 E-3

0A8118 E-3

QABii9 E-3

QA8123 E-3

0A8124 E-3

7.=3

..

..

..

.4

..

..

2-5.1Is of

of

of

af

S.02

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

I I

I I

I I

iI'

I I

I I

I I

iIi

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

r I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

t0

Os

Ud

LBF

LEF

LSF

L&F LWil

LOF

LEF

LiF

Lk'F

LiSF

LSF LfF

LDF LBF

LBF

LE4-

LSF

LBF

Fig. 3.1-32 Measurenvni locations' on ZlA track 9

A-98
- AsI -

X+* * ** ** TRACK 10 ******Z*****44* I

STRAIN GAGES AT ELBOW i MP-S. 14 ****

QA8126 E-3 I

0A8127 E-3 I

7.33 f 25.15 1

w I Ie

5.02 lI 10

' I i I LLO

LBF

STRAIN GAGES AT ELBOW 2 **i  m**  IP-S. 1S **4

QA8201 E-3 1 -2.27 1 23.00 I 5.90 II 10 I ".F

QAB2D2 E-3I I 0 aI 11 4' I LErQA8203 E-31 I JI a if -" I LaF

QAdA75 E-3 i I 4' I ' II 4 i L6W

QA8207 C-3 I I * I1 I LBP

0A4.Od E-3 I 4 I 4 I iI 4 s LEF

QA8209 E-3 I a I a I II I LSF

QA8215 E-3 I a I II I LEa

QA8219 E-31 I 11 LSF

*********- STRAIN GAGES AT ELBOW 3 u********************* MP-S. 16 **

QA8301 E-3 1 7.29 1 26.35 I 3.85 II 10 I L8F

QAS3U2 E-3I 4 I I ' It 11 l L&FQA8303 E-3 I I I L8F

QA&JOS E-31 I I If i * L

QA8307 E-3 I I I i t I LF

OA~djo E-3 1 I I it I LEIF

QAS309 C-3 1 I I I LEF

QA8315 E-3 I " a I 1 i L!?X

QA8319 E-3 1 * a a II I LBF

#****-***E STRAIN GAGES AT ELBOW 4 .*****m************** MP-S. 17 ****

QA8401 E-3 1 2.75 1 23.00 1 7.10 11 10 I LBF

QA&411 E-3 I a I I II B L

QA8421 E-31 I " I i f " I LBF

rig. 3.1-33 Meosurerrwnt locations on ZMA track 10

A-99
- A62 -

* .o+ ** ** TRACK 11

*********** VALVE ***. .** ************************ IP-S. 18  

089411 M1/S21 3.04 1??????'I 6.30 II 100

089412 M/521 /I o I II

0894IJ M/S21 " I " I It

089421 M/S21 3.04 I???????l 6.30 1I

.894,_2 MI/S2I " I " I It

089423 M/S2I I ' I i9 if

QA9371 E-3 I????????1tR-1

QA9372 E-31 " I uI I

QA9373 E-31 " I I II

QA9374 E-31 I I K 11 K

0A9375 E-3 I I " I II

QA9376 r-31 I I II

QA9451 £-3 I d I " II "

0A9452 C-31 " I " I119 

QA9453 E-3 I I n I ) I

QA9454 C-31 I I i It 

I i10g NRC

I " NRC

I " NRC

I a NRC

I d N RC

I H NRC

Il

I

I

I

VALVE +** e**************X*-************-** IMP-S. 19 ***-

0P9461 BAR I ????I??I??????I???????II 0 I

QP9471 BAR I K I I 0 i 11 ????? I

QT9481 GRADI " I I I II 100 I

0N9431 V I " I " I 1I??????lI

QN9432 MM I K I K I I II I I

QN9433 V I K I " I " II ^ I

QN9434 V I " N 5 K 1 9 I

QS9441 A I 1 I K I 19 0 

Q59442 V I I 9 O I 400 1

QS9443 A I " I K I " II 50 I

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

NRC

Fig. 3.1-34 Measurermnt locations on ZMA track 11

A-100
- A63 -

TRACK 12

*>**z*@**4 STRAIN GAGES AT ELBOW 5 *44 ******4 M P-S. 21 ****

048501

QWAS502

0A8503

(.'A8505

QA8507

QA8So8

QA84509

QA8515

QA6S19

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-J

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-_3

E-3

I

I

I

I

I

o.58

if

I1

I

I

I

I.

I

I

23.66

Hf

i

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

5 * 90

I.

if

U

ft

if

if

if

'I

I I

I I

I I

I F

I I

I I

I I

I I

10

4f

if

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

LL;;

LBF

LS#r

LSF

LeF

*LE~r

LSF Lk-F

STRAIN GAGES AT NEW TEE **** *h-**f**fff***f* fP-S. 22 ****

QA8901

QA8902

0A8903

QA8911

A48912

0A8913

QA6922

QA8923

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

E-3

I

I

I

I

I

-2 * 94

if

if

if

if

if

if

if

I

I

I

I

I

I

23.*00

if

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

8.28

if

I I

I I

'II

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

10

.,

at.

af

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

LEF

LE:.F' LQF

LBF LSF

LSyr

LEF

***** AVAILABLE STRAIN GAGES FOR CRITICAL LOCATIONS .** * **** * ***** ** *#

-QA8081

QA6082

0As083

QA8084

OA8085

QA6086

QA8087

QA8088

0A8089

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

of fen

of fen

offen

offen

of fen

offen

offen

offen

offen

I

I

I

I

I

I

offen

of fen

offen

offen

of fen

offen

offen

offen

offen

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

offen

of fen

offen

offen

of fen

off en

of f en

of fen

of fen

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

i i

'II

I I

I I

t0

10to

10

10

1C

10

SO

I

A

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

rig. 3.1-35 Meosureen'n locations on ZMA trock 12

A-101
Regions of stress coating instrumentation I

Regions of stress coating instrumentation

Measurement region to be covered:

For all regions the periphery should be covered by * 90 when viewed from the top.

G from elbow seam to throat of nozzle

G from tee fitting seam to throat of nozzle

® from elbow seam to throat of nozzle

G from elbow center to load application part

® from load application part to throat of nozzle

Fig. 3.2-1 Stress coating Instrunentautioh
- A65 -

EXCITATION

TEST SEQUENCE CONFIGU- MAGNITUDE

AND NUMBER TEST TYPE RATION TYPE X SSE LOCATION

T41.30.1 Identification NRC Random 50 DF16

T41.30.2 OPTIONAL n 50 H5

T41.31.1 - Earthquake linear HDR-SSE 100 Both

T41.31.2 n 200

T41.40.1 Identification EPRI/EA Random 50 DF16

T41.40.2 n n 50 15

T41.41.1 Earthquake linear HDR-SSE 100 Both

T41.41.2 n 200

T41.41.4 n 400 n

T41.50.1 Identification EPFI/SS Random 50 DF16

T41.50.2 ' n15 S 50 

T41.51.1 Earthquake linear HDR-SSE 100 Both

T41.51.2 n 200

T41.51.4 400"

T41.20.1 Identification KWU Random 50 DF16

T41.20.2 50 H5

T41.21.1 Earthquake linear HDR-SSE 100 Both

T41.21.2 u 200

T41.21.4 OPTIONAL 400

T41.60.1 Identification CEGB Random 50 DF16

T41.60.2 U H 5 50 U.

d1.62.1 Earthquake linear n Sizewell-SSE 100 Both

.41.62.2 200

T41.62.3 n n 300

T41.63.0 Allsites-SSE 50 H

T41.63.1 OPTIONAL n H n 100

T41.72.1 OPTIONAL Earthquake linear CEGB-MOD Sizewell-SSE 100 Both

T41.10.1 Identification ffDR Random 50 DF16

T41.10.2 50 5

T41.11.1 Earthquake linear HDR-SSE 100 Both

T41.11.2 H H H 200 H

T41.11.4 OPTIONAL - H 400 n

T41.31.6 Earthquake plastification NRC HDR-SSE 600 Both

T41.31.8 n 800

T41.63.2 OPTIONAL Earthquake plastification CEGB - Sizewell Highest Both

or Sine possible

T41.11.6 OPTIONAL Earthquake plastification HDR HDR-SSE 600 Both

T41.11.8 OPTIONAL n H n 800

Fig. 4.1-1 Test Matrix and Designations

A-103
- - ----- . -- jg; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-, - . -7 :.

* I ,5 '-------------~--- - ---- l------~-- --. --- ---

t ititijX°I7itza Ez! -vi P $--50 LP WITH 6DB SLOPE .1 ::.: -

OTTOM: ~~~~~~~~~~~AODITIONALLY LP FILTERED -1t- -

Fig. 4.2-1 Tine functions of the random excitation
Xt 2. O0

A SPEC I

-20. M,

Ms m 38m0 Ye -45.534

lft 100 EXPAND

AYs 25.02

LCMAG

D8

I

en)P

C.P

U'

-70.

L HZ mm.000

rig. 4.2-2 2ray noise, additionolty filtered with 1 Hz UP
*lo-3 I I I I I

M -oin 1 .77E+00 -1.96E-02 *MKWUZVBIO.VE

Max 1.9 E+00 9.74E-03

8

2

0 - -_AAAAA~5A

-2

-4

-6

-10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

LBF 09:57 TIME. SEE

rig. 4.2-3 Earthquake displacement history for HDR/lAJ/INRC/EPPd-confiaurotions , , , , v
*10 --

M

3

2

1

0

-I1

-2

-3

-4

to

I

0 5 10 15

TIME, SEC

hq1. 4.2-4 Earthquake displacement history for CEGS configuration (Sizewell 6)
*10 -2 I I I

-Min 1 .76E+01 -3 .06E-02 - *FR302.VE

M 3 [Max 2.5 E+00 3.70E-02

3

2

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

0-

-2

0 B 1.0 15

LBF 13:45 TIME. SEC

Fig. 4.2-5 Earthquake displaceqlent history for CEGO configuration (All sites)
I

X+1.01.1 ES10QO

..... 141.02.t tS1000

-- 141.03.1 ESlWO0

EZAW

EZAW

EZAW

RSBE40 04 2.02

RSBE40 BA 2.02

RSBE40 BA 2.02

41ol( 7(vPc/6Pr/ WNL4

551G& JwL L 2?1 ("tJI.)

4 L. StS I T t zJ-C . 8 SHAM

Cf I

0-

Co

06,

.4-

0

0

~ 0

C.1

<0.o

-J

<CO

0>

0)C~

A

I I 

,,I A **

j gt-Ii I

I'Ij II

I Is (V i 'I "Iv..

I

'I $4 IJ

1

I

S..

S...

S.

*.*.. -

I

I

I,

.... .. .........=....

. .

. .

. . . .

. . . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- 9

I I a I a I2

1.0*1021

FREQUENCY IN HZ

rig. 4.2-6 100% SSE Spectra of the earthqtmke excitations (4% dowplng)
- A72 -

Recording procedures to be followed by ZMA

For all tests the zero time mark is fixed by the actuation of the

trigger (Measurement position XT0001)

Time periods to be established for the ZMA operation:

The various periods are differentiated according to the two different test types

a) Random: for identification (duration of excitation = 120 s)

b) Earthquake history (Excitation duration - 15 a or 20 s)

Recording periods

a) -5 s to 200 s

b) -5 s to 50 3

Data processing periods

a) -5 s to 150 s

b) -3 s to 30 s

Time windows for table of extra

(during data acquisition a

frequency value)

a) Time window I : -1

Time window II 0

Time window III : 148

b) Time window I : -1f

Time window II : 0

Time window III : 28

Plotting periods

a) -12 s to 120 s with 100 Hz - 2 s to 20 s with 100 Hz

Fig. 4.2-7 Procedures for ZIA

eme values

-1" must be entered instead of the

3to 0s

3 to 120 s

8 to 149 a

3to 0s

3 to 20 s

3 to 29 s

A-11O
- A73 -

Procedures for the transient recorder

Tests to be recorded

T41.51.1

T41.51.2

T41.51.4

Measurement locations and filter cutoff frequencies to be used for

recording

1 kHz-Filter : XT0001

500 Hz-Filter : QA5262 QA5282 0A5303 QA5292 QA5492 QA5342

QA3262 QA3282 QA3303 QA3292 QA3492 QA3342

-A8492

50 Hz-Filter : ES1011 ES1021

Triggering

The ZMA trigger (XT001) will be used.

Recording periods and scanning rate

The data will be recorded from 1 sec before until approx. 30 s

after the trigger. The scanning rate is uniformly 2 kHz.

Time windows for table of extreme values and plotting periods

Identical with the ZMA recording for test type b).

Fig. 4.2-8 Procedures for the transient recorder

A-ill
- A74 -

Fig. 5.1-1 Test loop (VKL) with superheoted steam heat exchanger (HDU)

Test set-up (plan view)

A-112
<~~~~~~~~04 ,<_. , .,, -I _ <> *4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

E:

_ w~~~~~~,

Y.

rig. 5.1-2 Model of the test loop (VKL) with superheated steam heat

exchanger (HDU)
Model Load A pication HDU Parameter

designalion Location Direction Bearing Water level Central constraint VKL modifications

A HDU 704 Z stiff empty free Hanger H5 replaced by spring')

B H 5 X stiff empty free Spring with HDU 704 )

C H 10 X stiff empty free as A and B

D HDU 704 Z soft empty free as A

E H 5 X stiff empty free as B, H 7 rotated (450 in X-Z plane)

F HDU 704 Z . . as A, HDU separated

G HDU 704 Z soft empty free Rl- reinforcement with load application H 5

H H 5 X stiff empty free as G

I H 5 X soft empty free as G

J H 5 X soft empty free Tee fitting with VKL 601

K .HDU 704 Z stiff full free

L OF 16 X stiff empty fixed as J, OF 16 unconstrained, DR 105 up to

primary steam header connected

M H 5 X stiff empty fixed

) for simulalion of an inactive cylinder

0w

Fig. 5.1-3 Model voriotions for design colculations
RA766

ZI

1--b

tA

ACCELERATIONS. STRESSES

Fig. 5.1-4 Test loop with the excitation points and reference points

considered for accelerations and stresses
- A78 -

am

I a"

CZ

LL.

Q A100 I ' , i -a A101 1

~-RA760 f j. ,

RA765 (D

_0 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 a 9 1

Freq. [HMt

z

IJ- so

LJ

4

0i

0L

LOAD CASE I

MODEL L

EXCITATION POINT: DF16

HANGER CONFIGURATION: HDR

Fig. 5.1-5 Forces and displacements required at the excitation point

to attain a stress of 500 N/nrr at the VKL

A-116
- A79 -

E- -QA100 j

." -- QA101 5J

..--- RA760 H '

-RA765 i

O 1 s S C 7 .11 9 1

2 3 . 1 1 

Freq. [HZ]

E _ ~~QA100 Z,

QA101

c~~~~~. . .....e RA760* : -

---- RA765|

-F ofP 4L... I

4 SE

Freq. |Ht|

LOAO CASE I

MODEL L

EXCTATION POINT: DF16

HANGER CONFIWRATION: HDR

ri g. 5.1-6 Velocity and acceleration required at the excitation

point to attain a stress of SOO Nlffc ct the Vi<L

A-117
OL 1 2 i

LU -

os.-- - /A6

.I. '/ - A6 O 1 2 * S I 6 7

LOAD CASE I

/XIATO .ON:H

E d -0~~~~~~~A103

H G RA760

RA765

Dig.~~~~~ forces-- an I.- ipatm.srqirda h eclto

z

Uj

LA

0 1 2 3 4 5 7

LOAD CASE I

MODEL M

EXCITATION POINT: HtS

HANGER CONFIGURATION: HOR

rF g. 5.1-7 Forces and Displacements required at the excitation

point to attain a stress of 500 N/nmmt at the WI.

req. [14Z

A-118
- AB -

o 4 '1 .- /t -

-J /21 2 3 5 S 6 7 8

LL - / I ! I

_ Q~~A106 A

o ------ RA765 '

1 Z 3 6 a*5 

LOAD CASE I

MODEL M

EXCITATION POINT: HS

HANGER CONFIGURATION: HEIR

fg. .18Velocity and acceleration required at the excitation

point to attain c stress of 500 N/m6 et the VKL

A-119
- A82 -

CD

UAJ

0

U14

Freq. [Hz]

LOAD CASE 11

EXCITATION POINT: HOU 704

HANGER CONFIGURATION: HOR

r g. 5.1-9 Force required at the excitation point to attain on input

acceleration of 10 m/s/

A-120
30

4

20

10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Frequenz in Hz

.to3

20

.10 .1

--2

I

I

T.

j

a

0

-4

-8

-2

INk

0 2 L 6 8 10 12 14

Aw. S

0 2 1. 6 a 10 12 14

n! S 0 2 L 6 8 10 12 14

TME, S

Fig. 5.1-10 Loed case III: Original earthquake history and response

spectrum (D - 7%)
25

;P I ro 20

e15

I.10

5

0

0 5 10 15 20 2

Frequenz in Hz

5 I

.3

-10

I

8

6

2

0

-6

-8

1

*10-

2 W

. I

I

6

L

1

0

-2

-6

-8

-2

0 2 L 6 8 10 12 14

TIME. S 0 2 L 6 8 10 12 11

TMIE, S 0 2 L 6 8 10 12 14

TMlE. S

Fig. 5.1-11 Load case IV: Modified earthquake history and response

spectrum (0 - 7Z)
- A15 -

RATED THROUGHFLOW OF SERVO VALVE, L/MIN

C) 0

W0D0)

w

Ir8

U-)

80

"I1:

-1

J

LU.

z

0

I--

L'1

RATED CYLINDER FORCE, KN

LOAD CASE I STEADY HARMONIC EXCITATION

HANER CSMWIN PONTS

HDR KWU NRC EXaTAIMoN PONT

B a A v HS

L a v DF16

M a o HS9 

Fig. 5.1-12 Establishrrent of the excitation system performance: Achievement

of the criterion for plosticization at individual frequencies

A-123
- ABS -

RATED THROUGHFLOW OF SERVO VALVE, L/MIN

o 0

w~

C: 0

0 8

UI

8

0D

10.0

6.3

tA

1-J

0

I--

0~

w

4.0 <

CL

I

1.0 <CX

1.0t 0.-

0.6

RATED CYLINDER FORCE, KN

LOAD CASE IV EARTHOUAKE HISTORY (ETH)

H NGER CONF WRATIONS

______ HDR KWU NRC CITA P

A x x HDU704

B a a H5

D of i * HDU704

L 0 - - DF16

M o - H5

Fig. 5.1-13 Estobliahrment of the excitation system performrnce:

Attainable peak acceleration with earthquake excitation

A-124
- AB7 -

Model Reference HDR/L HDR/d

node no. Point m/s2 mm m/s' mm

23 QB 109 1.1 (z) 0.9 (x) 5.3 (x) 5.0 (x)

24 QB 108 0.8 (x) 0.8 (x) 4.9 (x) 4.6 (x)

29 QB 116 3.2 (z) 2.6 (z) 10.7 (x) 10.3 (x)

36 QB 940 0.6 (x) 0.6 (x) 10.3 (x) 10.0 (x)

46 H 5 0.6 (y) 0.4 (z) 10.0 (x) 10.0 (x)

55 QB 110 14.5 (x) 14.0 (x) 6.7 (x) 6.7 (x)

62 QB 107 1.7 (y) 1.5 (z) 8.9 (x) 18.2 (y)

70 QB 111 15.2 (x) 15.6 (x) 2.4 () 4.4 (z)

83 QB 101 10.7 (x) 10.5 (x) 14.6 (x) 20.6 '(y)

84 Q0 122 10.5 (x) 10.7 (x) 2.0 (z) 3.9 (z)

103 QB 112 10.9 (x) 10.5 (x) 6.6 (z) 8.2 (z)

106 RS 761 12.0 (z) 11.8 (z) 14.6 (x) 19.0 (x)

138 DF 16 10.0 (x) 10.0 (K) 1.9 (z) 3.7 (z)

LOAD CASE IV, NORMALIZED TO A__= 10M/S2

HANGER CONFIGURATION HOR

MODEL L: EXCITATION DF-16. X DIRECTION

MODEL M: EXCITATION H5, X DIRECTION

rig. 5.1-14 Maximum values of acceleration and displacement from design

calculation and earthquake history

A-125
- AB8 -

Model L Model M Model Reference M e LC C o C

node no. Point N/mmC ' N/Brw' N/mm' N/mm'B

19 QA 113 4.8 1.7 16.4 2.7

20 RA 761 2.2 1.0 18.6 1.4

27 QA 103 27.5 1.7 26.2 2.7

30 - QA 106 3.1 0.6 23.1 11.0

35 QA 102 28.5 20.9 9.2 5.1

38 QA 104 5.4 6.2 18.2 3.9

43 QA 101 22.5 24.8 11.1 5.0

58 QA 105 12.0 0.9 15.4 1.4

74 QA 100 85.9 1.7 16.8 2.2

77 RA 760 53.4 2.9 87.3 6.2

85 RA 763 43.5 3.5 53.0 4.7

92 RA 766 26.9 5.7 47.0 3.4

94 RA 764 14.6 3.9 29.5 4.8

108 RA 765 41.5 3.0 46.1 5.2

LOAD CASE [V. NORMALIZED TO A =a 10M/S2

HANGER CONFIGURATION IOR

MODEL L: EXCTATION DF-16. X DIRECTION

MODEL M: EXCITATION MS. X DIRECTION

Fig. 5.1-15 Uoximum values of bending and torsional stress from design

calculation with eorthquake history

A-126
Appendix B

Determination of Allowable Stress Values

Used on the VKL Piping Analysis

for the SHAM Test Series

B-1 B-i ~~~~NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix B

Appendix B

Determination of Allowable Stress Values

Used on the VKL Piping Analysis

for the SHAM Test Series

The VKL piping system uses materials designated by DIN Standards 1.4961, 1.5415, and 1.4550. Since

detailed material property information needed in the piping analysis was not provided directly, the following

procedure was followed to determine equivalent materials listed in the ASME Code:

1. Determine the equivalent material listed in the ASME Code tables by a comparison of chemical analysis data.

2. Obtain the allowable values of Sc and Sh from the appropriate tables in the ASME Code for the equivalent materials.

3. Determine the allowable stress values as defined in the ASME Code, Subsection NC-3600 for Class 2

components.

The following commentary describes the particular details of this process and the results obtained.

The information available from HDR personnel indicated the following chemical analysis for each of the

materials:

DIN 1.4961 0.10% C, 0.30- 0.60% Si, 1.0 - 1.5% Mn, 15.0 - 17.0% Cr, 12.0 - 14.0% Ni

DIN 1.5415 0.12 - 0.20% C, 0.15 - 0.35% Si, 0.50 - 0.80% Mn,

0.04% P (max.), 0.04% S (max.), 0.25 - 0.35% Mo

DIN 1.4550 0.10% C, 1.0% Si, 2.0% Mn, 17.0 - 19.0% Cr, 9.0 - 11.5% Ni.

Reference to Section II (Material Specifications) of the ASME Code shows that the chemical requirements of SA-312, TP316H; S-335, P1; and SA-312, TP312H match the chemical analyses of DIN 1.4961,

1.5415, and 14550, respectively. It can be seen that the ASME Code specifications for SA-312, TP316H

include 2-3% Mb, which is not specified in the analysis of DIN 1.4961. However, based on the close match

of the other chemical contend parameters, it was concluded that SA-312, TP316H was the best choice for

material properties to be used in the design analysis for the sections of piping fabricated from DIN 1.4961.

Using the procedure described above, the material correlations shown in Table B-i were determined.

B-3 B-3 ~~~~NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix B

Table B-1. VKL piping material correlations.

DIN designation ASME Code material

1.4691 SA-312, TP316H

1.5415a SA-355, P1

1.4550 SA-312, TP321H

a. This material used only in DF44 tee.

The ASME Code Class 2 piping rules require the use of allowable stress values taken at design temperature. Thus, Sh, the basic material allowable at design temperature, can be found in tables in Appendix I of the

ASME Code. Sc, the material allowable at room temperature, is also found in these tables.

The basis for establishing allowable stress values is found in Article E1-3000 for Class 2 components.

Briefly stated, the maximum allowable stress is the least of those listed below:

Carbon steel Austenitic steel

0.25 Su (room temperature)

0.25 Su (operating temperature)

0.67 Sy (room temperature)

0.67 Sy (operating temperature)

0.25 Su (room temperature)

0.25 S. (operating temperature)

0.67 Sy (room temperature)

0.90 Suy (operating temperature) but

less than or equal to

0.67 Sy (room temperature)

The information included in Table B-2 can be completed using the operating temperature for the VKL

piping system of 5500F. No information regarding possible variations of ultimate strength at operating temperatures was obtained for Table B-2.

From the information in Table B-2, we can see that the code allowable values of Sh are based on O.9SY at

design temperature (5500F) for the austenitic steels (SA-312, TP316H, and SA-312, TP321H) and 0.25Su at

room temperature for the carbon steel (SA-335, P1).

For the piping equations in Section NC-3650, the allowable stresses are given as shown in Table B-3.

NUREG/CR-5646 B-4
Table B-2. Material allowable selection matrix-VKL piping system.

Allowable stresses [ksi (MPa)]

Material Sy(R.T.)a Sy(550F9)b Su(R.T.)c .25SU(R.T.) .67Sy(5500F) .9Sy(R.T.) Sh Sc

SA-312, TP316H 30 .0d 19 .4d 75.0d 18.8 20.0 17.5 17.5d 18.8d

(1.4691) (207) (134) (517) (130) (138) (121) (121) (130)

SA-335, P1 30.Od 24.1d 55.Od 13.8 20.0 Not l3 .8d 13.8d

(1.5415) (207) (166) (379) (95.1) (138) applicable (95.1) (95.1)

SA-312, TP321H 30.Od 18.7d 75.0d 18.8 20.0 16.8 16.8d 18.7d

(1.4550) (207) (129) (517) (130) (138) (116) (116) (129)

a. Sy (R.T.) = Material yield strength at room temperature.

b. Sy (550°F) = Material yield strength at (5500F).

c. Su (R.T.) = Material ultimate strength at room temperature.

d. From ASME Code, Table 1-7.2.

z

ON
Appendix B

Table B-3. ASME Code Class 2 allowable stress definitions.

Equation Service level

8 (Sustained Loads) A

9 (Occasional Loads) A, B

9 (Occasional Loads) C

9 (Occasional Loads) D

10 (Thermal Loads) A

1Oa (Anchor Movements) A

11 (Pressure + A

Sustained + Thermal)

a. Sa = f (1.25 S, + 0.25 Sh) where it is assumed f=1.0 for this work.

Allowablea

1.0 Sh

1.2 Sh

1.8 Sh

2.4 Sh

1.0 Sa

3.0 Sc

1.0 Sh+ 1.0 Sa

The corresponding ASME Code allowable stress values and the areas of the model to which they apply

are shown in Table B4.

NUREG-5646 B-6
Table B-4. ASME Code allowable stresses used for design analysis.

Model area Model node Allowable stresses [ksi (MPa)J

From To From To Material Eq. 8 Eq.9 Eq. 10 Eq. 11 Eq. 12

D14 DF16 59 68 SA-312, 17.5 31.5 27.9 56.4 45.4

TP316H (121) (217) (192) (389) (313)

(1.4691)

D15 DF16 169 178 SA-312, 17.5 31.5 27.9 56.4 45.4

TP316H (121) (217) (192) (389) (313)

(1.4691)

F44 D15 131 165 SA-335, P1 13.8 24.8 20.7 41.4 34.5

(1.5415) (95.1) (171) (143) (286) (238)

HDU DF21 24 39 SA-312, TP321H 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(135) (1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

DF22 DF21 78 83 SA-312, TP321H 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

HDU DF21 88 116 SA-312, TP321H 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(305) (1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

DF21 F44 119 130 SA-312, TP321H 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

DF22 D14 40 59 SA-312, TP321H 16.8 30.2 27.6 56.1 44.4

(1.4550) (116) (208) (190) (387) (306)

W

4i
Appendix C

Power Spectral Density Curves

for Selected Points-SHAM Tests T41.81.1, T41.81.2,

and T41.81.3

C-1 c-i ~~~~NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

Power Spectral Density Curves for Selected PointsSHAM Tests T41.81.1, T41.81.2, and T41.81.3

I

m

tL

0

O

.e

a

0

0

4)

Z

O

0.100

0.080

0.060o

0.040 -

0.020 AiL

Figure C-1.

N

.EC', I

a0

C

0

4-

0

0)

0

0.100

0.080

0.060

0.0 5t 10.0 15.0 20.0 2 .0 34.0 35.0 40.0 450

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from QBllO1 (Test T41.81.1).

0.040

0.020

U.n 5.U IU. M.0 MM.U 5,I 3U.0 35U iau EU.U 43.U

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-2. PSD from QB1102 (Test T41.81.1).

C-3 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

I

0)

(I)

CL

0

0

0

0.100 -

0.080 -

0.060 -

0.040 -

0.020

Figure C-3.

All

I

0)

CD

a,

0

0

0.100

0.080

0.0 5.0 10.0 13.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 3S5.0 40.0 43.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from QB1103 (Test T41.81.1).

-L

0.060

0.040

0.020

UJU M LU.U IM ZU.U MM JU.U J3.U 4U.U 43.U

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-4. PSD from RS7610 (Test T41.81.1).

NUREG/CR-5646C- C-4
Appendix C

I

0)

C]on

CL

0

.0E

-a)

0

0

0.100

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

'I 1L

.0 s.0 13.0 13.0 2D.0 23.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from RS7611 (Test T41.81.1).

3b.0 35.0 43.0 45.0

Figure C-5.

N

X 0.100

4m

a 0.080

C)

a0 0.060

0)

0,> 0.040

0

0.020

Figure C-6.

0I0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from RS7612 (Test T41.8 1.1).

R0.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

C-5 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

N

0)

0

CDEa

.2

cUa

L..

a,)

UV0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

A ..

Figure C-7.

:0

CD,

CL

0

'C1

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.0 .0 1 I.0 13.0 20.0 23.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from QBIO11 (Test T41.81.1).

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from QB1012 (Test T41.81.1).

30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Figure C-8.

NUREG/CR-5646C- C-6
Appendix C

N

I

CD

cm

.24-

a,

8

vE

0

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-9. PSDfromQB1013 (Test T41.81.1).

N

I

4r

0)

0) ca

CO)

a.

0~

CD

a:

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

411 - W . d. - r&. _

I 0 ' 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

Frequency (Hz)'

PSD from QBIIO1 (Test T41.81.2).

30.0 35.0 4.0 45.0

Figure C-10.

C-7 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

N

3:

aCDan

a

0

a)

C) 0

U

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-11. PSD from QB1102 (Test T41.81.2).

I

3)

.0CD

a-CD

0

-L.

CD

a)

C.

0.20 -

0.15 -

0.10 -

0.05

ar~wu -mm 

?J7 by IL - .. - Ia

I .0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 23.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-12. PSD from QB1103 (Test T41.81.2).

NUREG/CR-5646 Cn8
Appendix C

N

0

CM

0

c

.°

0)

v

C.)

OA

0.3

0.2

0.1

.hh

( o 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 43.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-13. PSD from RS7610 (Test T41.81.2).

N

0

Cl

C

0

0)C.

t0

OA

0.3

0.2

0.1

Ik hA .. i

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-14. PSD from RS7611 (Test T41.81.2).

C-9 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

N

0

in

CD

4-

a,

-ia)

OA.

0.3

02

0.1

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-15. PSD from RS7612 (Test T41.81.2).

I

X

0)

0

ci)

C]

CD

U

en

CD

,.c8

0.0200 -

0.0150 -

0.0100 -

0.0050

a ,- , i . hi s i . v L .

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 23.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-16. PSD from QB1011 (Test T41.81.2).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-10
Appendix C

N

CQ

M

..I

C,)

a.

C

0

t

0

0.0200

0.0150

0.0100

I t

0.0050

: - 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 4.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-17. PSD from QB1012 (Test T41.81.2).

N

I

i;1 0.0200

0cm

a

CD

a. 0.0150

0

L.. ~ lo

0.0050

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-18. PSD from QB1013 (Test T41.81.2).

C-11 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

C) Is

.0

1..

0

0

0.4

03

0.2

0.1

Al A .

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-19. PSD from QB 1O1 (Test T41.81.3).

zi.

.0

a0

U)

a)

lu

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0 5.0 10.0 13.0 20.0 23.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Flgure C-20. PSD from QB1102 (Test T41.81.3).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-12
Appendix C

N

tk

c

C)

aa/) Cu

0)

C..

0.A

0.3

0.2

0.1

A J A - 4 A - - IM A 1 -- A . -2 -K - -" 

.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-21. PSD from QB1103 (Test T41.81.3).

N

0)

C,

aa

0

CDV)

0

C._

a)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Figure C-22.

A

.0 ~ 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from RS7610 (Test T41.81.3).

C-13 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

C

0)

a)

0.8 -

0.6

0.4 -

0.2 -

. 1.1t11 - -" -" -" -" -"

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 300 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

I

I

i

i

I

Figure C-23.

N

i;4 0.8

06

c

EL 0.6-4

02

Figure C-24.

PSD from RS7611 (Test T41.81.3).

Jjr.i4 .J

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from RS7612 (Test T41.81.3).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-14 C1
Appendix C

N

CO

a.

a)

0

CDC.)

O:

0.15

0.10

0.05

A JLim. .- iat i __L ---- MM - - _ L - -

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-25. PSD from QB101I (Test T41.81.3).

N

ICD

Z~

CL

an

0

4-

I0C.Q

0.15

if 0.10

0.05

A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - LJ

.0 5.0 10.0 13.0 2D.0 - 23.0 30.0 33.0 - 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-26. PSD from QB1012 (Test T41.81.3).

C-15 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

I

CD

0)

U)

0_am

0-

a,

0

0

0.15

0.10

0.03

SL1SL~~~~~-I

0I0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-27. PSD from QB1013 (Test T41.81.3).

N

I

3:

.0

C,)

CD

a.

a,

0

0

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-28. PSD from gate valve body, X direction, QB9401 (Test T41.8 1.1).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-16
Appendix C

N

?

0)

CoQ

a.

C

0

a)

C, C.

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

Figure C-29.

N

I

0)

0

C,)

CL

0

4-

CD

C

cn

cn

0.Gu8

0.006

0.004

0.0 5.0 ID.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve body, Y direction, QB9402 (Test T41.8 1.1).

0.002

U.' * 5. 1U.U 15. ZU.U M5.U J0M 35.u 4u.u 43.u

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-30. PSD from gate valve body, Z direction, QB9403 (Test T41.81.1)..

C-17 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

I

1 0.008

CM0)

C')

Xl 0.006

0

CD 0.004

0.002

Figure C-31.

A . I iA :. .A

I

QC

-;

0

0)

0.008

0.006

. -x.- -zs. '*h'

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 3s5.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve c.g., X direction, QB9411 (Test T41.8 1.1).

.004

0.002

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 2D.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-32. PSD from gate valve c.g., Y direction, QB9412 (Test T41.81.1).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-18
Appendix C

N

0)

M

0

CO

.L

4-

CUa.

0

0

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

I * ; L . . *-,-L---

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 55.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-33. PSD from gate valve c.g., Z direction, QB9413 (Test T41.81.1).

N

a)

e00im

C

,0

CO

a-.

as0

0.0100

OOW50

Idd

It _. j

lili ai .I..,11- .h J a. M I>r ---- - - -

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-34. PSD from gate valve operator, X direction, QB9421 (Test T41.81.1).

C-19 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

N

0

Z~

C)

0

U) a.

a

60

0.0100

0.0050

I.A_ ^ ^- S . ..j L - ~h. * i .

I .0 5.0 I1.0 13.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 3S.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

I

I

I

I

I

Figure C-35. PSD from gate valve operator, Y direction, QB9422 (Test T41.81.1).

0.0100

C

0

a)

S2 0.0050

6

.d.'i~i -VW-2;~ ~AA_

0.0 5.0 10.0 13.0 2D.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-36. PSD from gate valve operator, Z direction, QB9423 (Test T41.8 1.1).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-20
Appendix C

.1

N

I

in

01)

0

a.C

0

4-.

a)

-CU

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

.

Figure C-37.

N

I0)

0

U)

aCL

.2

a'

0)

Z0.080

0.060

0.040

0 .0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve body, X direction, QB9401 (Test T41.81.2).

.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

0.020

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-38. PSD from gate valve body, Y direction, QB9401 (Test T41.81.2).

C-21 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

I

C)

CO

0

L..

a)

0

a)

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

l 0 5•0 Ao -- IN.0 20.0 23.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 43.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-39. PSD from gate valve body, Z direction, QB9403 (Test T41.81.2).

N

a)

U)

a..

au0.

a)

0.080 -

0.060

0.040 -

0.020 -

0.0

WA

5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C40. SD from gate valve c.g., X direction, QB9411 (Test T41.81.2).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-22
Appendix C

N

I

0)

a..

C]

I0)

a)

c

C., -Qu

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020:

0 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 2b.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 4.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-41. PSD from gate valve c.g., Y direction, QB9412 (Test T41.81.2).

N

I

0

U,

aC

0

CDC.,

Z

0.080

0.060

0.040 4

0.020

" . L -.-

0.0 .50 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-42. PSD from gate valve c.g., Z direction, QB9413 (Test T41.81.2).

C-23 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

I

C] in

0

Cl,

co

a.

as

a)

0

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-43. PSD from gate valve operator, X direction, QB9421 (Test T41.81.2).

N

CD

L.

-N

a)

U)

a.

0.20 -

0.15

0.10

0.05

I.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-44. PSD from gate valve operator, Y direction, QB9422 (Test T41.81.2).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-24
Appendix C

N

I

Ct

c

0

I)

a)

0AV

a)

C,

C.

0.20

0.15

0.10 -

0.05

1. A I u. I . -.- -1.   .. II- . . 0o0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 "40.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-45. PSD from gate valve operator, Z direction, QB9423 (Test T41.81.2).

45.0

cn

In

CD

CL

I-.

a, 0

0)

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

Figure C-46.

i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - A - .- L, I> & - L -t

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve body, X direction, QB9401 (Test T41.81.3).

45.0

C-25 NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

i

I

I

I

N

? ~ 0.080 -

M

0

C3 0.040 -

CD

0.020

Figure C-47.

t .0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve body, Y direction, QB9402 (Test T41.81.3).

45.0

N

I

0)

0

cm

a-CO

0

Ia)

UD

U

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

Figure C-48.

A. . ILd.1 .

0 5.0So 10.0 13.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve body, Z direction, QB9403 (Test T41.81.3).

45.0

NUREG/CR-5646 C-26
Appendix C

N

X

0

C,,

aCu

0

0)

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020 -

I h -, , . .

Figure C-49.

N

X

0)

aC/

a-.

a,

C-,

0.080

0.060

0.040

10.0 15.0 20.0 23.0 3.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve c.g., X direction, QB9411 (Test T41.81.3).

0.0 5.0 [OA I5.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 S5.0 40.0 45.0

0.020

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-50. PSD from gate valve c.g., Y direction, QB9412 (Test T41.81.3).

C-27 C-27 ~~~NUREG/CR-5646
Appendix C

N

CI

aCD

co

a_

C

U:D

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

Figure C-51.

_ th. .. I hN

0)

c

Zo

a)

C

0

iu

0

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.0 51.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Frequency (Hz)

PSD from gate valve c.g., Z direction, QB9413 (Test T41.81.3).

0.05

U.U 3.U IUJ.U IL.U ZU.U hZJ.U 3U.U ).L) 'IV.U %J.U

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-52. PSD from gate valve operator, X direction, QB9421 (Test T41.81.3).

NUREG/CR-5646 C-28
Appendix C

N

I

Mn

C40)

0

a-C/

Ia

0

0

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

I I -

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-53. PSD from gate valve operator, Y direction, QB9422 (Test T41.81.3).

45.0

N

0)

0

C',

a.

C

0

4-

CD

C.)

0

0.20

0.15

0.10 I

0.05

. . -. . ,* ^ . L

I 

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0

Frequency (Hz)

Figure C-54. PSD from gate valve operator, Z direction, QB9423 (Test T41.81.3).

45.0

C-29 NUREG/CR-5646
NRC FORnm 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . REPORT NUMBER 1249! lAnIonea by NFRC. Add Vo.. Sup. Row.,

NACM 1102. and Addendfum Nunitr,. If y

3201.3202 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

I$.. instnrcrions on the reversel NUREG/CR-5646

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE EGG-2655

Piping System Response During High-Level Simulated Seismic Tests 3. DATE REPORTPUBLISHED

at the Heissdampfreaktor Facility (SHAM Test Series) MONTH YEAR

July 1992

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

A6857

S. AUTHORIS) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

R. Steele, Jr.

M. E. Nitzel Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED v~ntiu, uI

* .PROMN RAIAIN-NM N DRS l rA rvd ii n fieo.RgaUS ai egltr omuo.admiigades l.~rvd

'S. PERFORMING ORGANdIZATION-NAME rslieli ss)COnrft AND ADDRdESS N RCvidesivision, Ofice or toon, c U.SrN1 At won, ad r

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

EG&G Idaho, Inc. I

P.O. Box 1625

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS iii NRC. type 'woos.': aconuracror.provide NRC Diviulen. Of Vice or Region, U.& PAciearReguiatervConunission. 9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION -NAME AND ADDRESS fit fiftC, tvim*s"M as abomeR if contractor. provideNAC Diviiton,Officeor wRego, U.S. NIW-rA t~twrC0rM~isaio. ane Omiling addlw,

Division of Engineering

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT f2W om, of'ms)

The SHAM seismic research program studied the effects of increasing levels of seismic excitation on a full-scale,

in situ nuclear piping system containing a naturally aged United States (U.S.) 8-in. motor-operated gate valve. The.

program was conducted by Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe at the Heissdampfreaktor near Frankfurt, Germany.

Participants included the United States, Germany, and England. Fifty-one experiments were conducted, with the piping

supported by six different piping support systems, including a typical stiff U.S. piping support system of snubbers and

rigid struts. This report specifically addresses the tests conducted with the U.S. system. The piping system withstood

large displacements caused by overload snubber failures and local piping strains. Although some limit switch chatter

was observed, the motor operator and valve functioned smoothly throughout the tests. The results indicate that

sufficient safety margins exist when commonly accepted design methods are applied and that piping systems will

likely maintain their pressure boundary in the presence of severe loading and the loss of multiple supports.

12. KEY WOROS/DESCR!PTORS lust words oropnus wehat wHwIsist iEtreAset h Inocsing mue our.J 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Seismic, Unlimited

Heissdampfreaktor Facility 14. SEcURITY CLASSIFICATION

Motor-operated gate valve lThIt Pae)

Stiff piping support system Unclassified

rier tc~oyl

Unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

VRC FORM 3n 1249?
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRINTED USING RECYCLED PAPER
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

USNRC

PERMIT NO. G-67

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300