ML051230028

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Xgen 2005-1, Revision 2, Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer.
ML051230028
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 04/22/2005
From: Manan Patel, Ranganath S
XGEN Engineering
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
XGEN 2005-1, Rev 2
Download: ML051230028 (76)
v • d • e


Text

ATTACHMENT 4 "Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer," XGEN 2005-1, Revision 2, dated April 2005

XGEN 2005-1 Revision 2 April 2005 FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF THE QUAD CITIES REPLACEMENT DRYER April 2005 Prepared by: O4r -/

Mahadeo Patel Date Prepared by: z51'~

Date Date Sam Ranganath XGEN engineering 7173 Queensbridge Way San Jose, CA 95120 Tel: 408-268-8636 Fax: 408-268-7536 www. XGENengineering.com

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer REVISION CONTROL SHEET Section Revision Number Date Description of I I _Revision All Sections Rev. 0 Initial Draft Report All Sections Rev 1 2/27/2005 Changes to account for new pressure time history inputs.

All Sections Rev 2 4/17/2005 Changes to account for design modifications.

2

XGEN engineering Report XGEN2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary ............................. 6
2. Introduction ............................. 10
3. Fatigue Design Criteria ............................. 11
4. Finite Element Model ............................. 14
5. Sensitivity Analyses ............................. 14
6. Stress Analysis of the New Dryer Design ............................. 17
7. Conclusion ............................. 18
8. Reference ............................. 18 3

Y XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer List of Figures Figure 1 Weld Fatigue Factor Flow Diagram [Reference 2] .......................... 25 Figure 2 Analysis Model: Whole Dryer ............................................... 26 Figure 3 Analysis Model: Dryer Support Plane Components and Skirt ......... 27 Figure 4 Analysis Model: Dryer Bank Vertical Support System .................... 28 Figure 5 Analysis Model: Dryer Bank Modeling Details ................................ 29 Figure 6 Analysis Model: Dryer Banks ............................................... 30 Figure 7 Analysis Model: Design Mods (Reinforcements in the Horizontal Load Path) ............................................... 31 Figure 8 Analysis Model: Including the Design Modifications ....................... 32 Figure 9 Maximum Pressures (Trend) across the Dryer ............................... 33 Figure 10 Maximum Pressure Distribution (Typical) on the Outer hood ......... 34 Figure 11 Outer Hood Pressure History Used to Select 2-Second Analysis Time Interval ............................................... 35 Figure 12(a) Stresses in Different Dryer Components as a Function of Time .36 Figure 12(b) Stresses in Different Dryer Components as a Function of Time .37 Figure 13 Maximum Stress Intensity: Outer Hood ........................................ 38 Figure 14 Maximum Stress Intensity: 1/2 inch Transitions Between Outer Hood and Dryer Vane Cap ........................................ 39 Figure 15 Maximum Stress Intensity: Outer Tee Web .................................... 40 Figure 16 Maximum Stress Intensity: Outer Hood Gusset .............................. 41 Figure 17(a) Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hoods .42 Figure 17(b) Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hoods .43 Figure 18 Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hood Tee Webs ......................... 44 Figure 19 Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hood Gussets............................. 45 Figure 20 Maximum Stress Intensity: Cross Beams ....................................... 46 Figure 21 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Side Plates ............................. 47 Figure 22 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Bottom (Drain Channel) ........... 48 Figure 23 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough End Cap ................................. 49 Figure 25 Maximum Stress Intensity: Tie Beams ........................................... 50 Figure 25 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Supports .................................. 51 Figure 26(a) Maximum Stress Intensity: Tie Beam Supports .52 Figure 26(b) Maximum Stress Intensity: Tie Beam Supports .53 Figure 27 Maximum Stress Intensity: Frame Beams ...................................... 54 Figure 28 Maximum Stress Intensity: Floor Plate ........................................... 55 Figure 29 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Vane Caps ................................ 56 Figure 30 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Upper Rails ................................ 57 Figure 31 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bottom Rails .............................. 58 Figure 32 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bank Outer End Plates .............. 59 Figure 33 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bank Cover Plate Assemblies .... 60 Figure 34 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bank Inner End Plates ............... 61 Figure 35 Maximum Stress Intensity: Skirt ............................................... 62 Figure 36 Maximum Stress Intensity: Drain Channels and Skirt Beam Support ............................................... 63 4

XGEN 'engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Figure 37 Maximum Stress Intensity: Drain Channel and Beam Support Side Plates ............................................. 64 Figure 38 Maximum Stress Intensity: Support Ring ....................................... 65 Figure 39 Maximum Stress Intensity: Center and Middle Trough Support Blocks ............................................. 66 Figure 40 Maximum Stress Intensity: Mounting Block .................................... 67 Figure 41 Maximum Stress Intensity: Vane Cap Doubler Plate ...................... 68 Figure 42 Maximum Stress Intensity: Frame Center Post Foot ...................... 69 Figure 43 Maximum Stress Intensity: Center Trough Bridge Extension ......... 70 Figure 44 Maximum Stress Intensity: Stiffener for Center Trough Bridge Extension ............................................. 71 Figure 45 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Bridge Extension ..................... 72 Figure 46 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Bridge Extension End .............. 73 Figure 47 Maximum Stress Intensity: Center Reinforcing Plate ..................... 74 Figure 48 Maximum Stress Intensity: Bank to Bank Reinforcing Plate ........... 75 List of Tables Table 1 Design Fatigue Limit for Dryer Components ................................... 12 Table 2 Parametric Analysis Results Normalized to Maximum Stress ........ 16 Table 3 Maximum stresses in the different dryer components .................... 19 Table 4 Stress Comparison Away from Welds ............................................ 21 Table 5 Stress Comparison at Welds ............................................ 23 5

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF THE QUAD CITIES REPLACEMENT DRYER

1. Executive Summary Extended power uprate (EPU) has been implemented at the Quad Cities and Dresden units at Exelon. The original steam dryer at Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2) has operated for over 25 years at the rated power with virtually no cracking (referred to as the pre-EPU condition). Since the implementation of EPU in Feb 2002 cracking has been discovered in the original dryer configuration and in two subsequent implemented repairs. Exelon is planning on replacing the current dryer with a new dryer that is designed with sufficient fatigue margin under EPU conditions. This report describes the fatigue analysis of the new dryer design for pressure loading corresponding to EPU conditions.

Acoustic circuit analysis was used to determine the pressure time history on the dryer surface. Since no measurements are available with the new dryer in place, the loading on the new dryer has to be designed for estimated loads based on either scaled model testing or EPU measurements made with the current Quad Cities Unit 2 dryer, but with the acoustic circuit analysis performed using the new dryer design. The XGEN analysis was based on the QC2 based pressure time history predicted using the in-plant EPU measurements.

The time history analysis was preformed using a shell finite element model of the steam dryer with element size as small as 3 inches and time steps sufficiently small to model the response to frequencies up to 200 Hz. The time history analysis was performed assuming 1%damping.

As part of the analysis effort to understand dynamic response of the dryer under pressure loading, several cases were analyzed during the model development:

  • Static analysis of the dryer with peak pressure stresses: The analysis used maximum pressures at different locations regardless of the time.

The static analysis showed that the stresses were approximately 1/3 the stresses from the time history dynamic analysis. This showed that dynamic response and inertial stresses were significant.

  • Analysis of the dryer with the dead weight preload (1 g) applied statically before application of the pressure time history showed that the stresses were sensitive to the preload. The static 1 g load produces sufficient prestress to significantly change the natural frequencies of some components.

6

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer The dead weight load from the dryer banks did result in differences in the local stresses at the attachments, but had no impact on the stresses in the hood.

Based on the above observations, the analysis of the dryer was performed with the static 1g loading applied prior to the application of the pressure loading. This report describes the results of the detailed finite element analysis of the new dryer. Out of the period for which pressure time history was provided by the acoustic circuit analysis, the time segment with the highest pressure loading (from 8 seconds to 10 seconds) was selected for analysis.

The analysis results were processed to extract the maximum calculated surface stress intensities (membrane + bending) anywhere in the dryer components during the 2-second period considered in the analyses. These stress intensities were conservatively assumed to equal the maximum alternating stress intensities although they include the contribution of a steady state deadweight load. The stress intensities are within the specified design fatigue endurance stress limits.

So the dryer components away from the weld meet the design requirements.

Also, the maximum calculated stresses were assumed to occur at the weld and were multiplied by applicable weld factors to obtain conservative values for the weld stresses. These values are compared with the design limits in the following table. Again, the estimated weld stresses are within the design limits.

7

X*GE engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Maximum stresses at Welds Max alternating stress Component intensity, psi Design limit, psi *Design marginl Hoods Outer hoods 3982 10800 1.71 Outer hood transition (1/2-inch) 2265 10800 3.77 Outer tee - webs 2057 10800 4.25 Outer gussets 2941 10800 2.67 Inner hoods 6300 13600 1.16 Inner tee - webs 4917 13600 1.77 Inner gussets 2741 13600 3.96 Support structure Frame beams 9207 13600 0.48 Cross beams 11552 13600 0.18 Tie beams 2926 13600 3.65 Trough sides 3726 13600 1.84 Trough bottom 3796 13600 2.58 Trough ends 5087 13600 1.67 Trough support top 2272 13600 4.99 Trough support base 1915 13600 6.10 Tie beam support side-thin 5191 13600 1.62 Tie beam support side-thick 3940 13600 2.45 Tie beam support base-thin 5195 13600 1.62 Tie beam support base-thick 2297 13600 4.92 Floor plate 4689 13600 1.90 Skirt assembly Support ring 10931 13600 0.24 Skirt 10756 13600 0.26 Drain channels 8182 13600 0.66 Drain channel sides 9024 13600 0.51 Bottom ring 438 13600 30.0 Mounting block 6077 13600 1.24 Middle trough support block 2380 13600 4.72 Center trough support block 1690 13600 7.05 Bank cover pleat assembly 5193 13600 1.62

  • Design margin = (allowable stress / calculated stress) - 1 8

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Maximum stresses at Welds Max alternating stress Component intensity, psi Design limit, psi *Design margin Dryer banks Vane cap 8285 13600 0.64 Vane top rail 4273 13600 2.18 Vane bottom rail 2700 13600 4.04 Vane inner endplate 7297 13600 0.86 Vane outer endplate 3816 13600 2.56 Dryer modifications Vane cap doubler plate 2027 13600 5.71 Support beam doubler plates 5830 13600 1.33 Frame center post shoe - sides 679 13600 19.0 Frame center post shoe - top 275 13600 48.4 Trough bridge extension 7695 13600 0.77 Center trough bridge extension 3652 13600 2.72 Center extension stiffeners 1750 13600 6.77 Trough beam extension end 4406 13600 2.09 Center reinforcement plate 5611 13600 1.42 Bank to bank plate 2736 13600 3.97

  • Design margin = (allowable stress / calculated stress) - 1 9

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer

2. Introduction Extended power uprate (EPU) has been implemented at the Quad Cities and Dresden units at Exelon. The original steam dryer at Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2) has operated for over 25 years at the rated power with virtually no cracking (referred to as the pre-EPU condition). Since the implementation of EPU in Feb 2002 cracking has been discovered in the original dryer configuration and in two subsequent repairs. Exelon is planning to replace the current dryer with a new dryer that is designed to have sufficient fatigue margin under EPU conditions.

This report describes the fatigue analysis of the new dryer design for pressure loading corresponding to EPU conditions.

Acoustic circuit analysis (ACA) was used to determine the pressures on the dryer components. The methodology employs a set of specific, local pressure measurements, making it possible to predict transient pressures at other locations of interest in a system of fluid regions connected by flow paths, which contain various flow elements. The model is 'tuned' based on the measured pressure differences at specific locations. Validation of the model is based on comparisons with measurements at other locations. Besides providing a validated solution of the governing fluid mechanics equations, the acoustic circuit analysis also provides pressure time histories on the dryer components. The time history approach preserves the phase relationship between the loads on different dryer components. One limitation is that the measured pressure differences based on the original QC2 dryer are also used for the acoustic circuit analysis of the new dryer. The only way to get the actual pressures on the new dryer is to measure the pressures at the specific locations (e.g. in the steam line) with the new dryer in the vessel and performing the ACA for the new dryer based on tuning the model with the new data. At this point, using the QC2 measurements based on the original dryer is the most feasible approach for the design analysis. The new dryer is instrumented and will provide sufficient information to compare against the ACA results once the dyer is in service under EPU conditions.

A finite element analysis (FEA) model was developed by XGEN to evaluate the stresses in the dryer. The pressure time history from the ACA was applied directly to the different components of the dryer model and the stress results of the time history analysis were evaluated. The XGEN analysis was based on the measured QC2 pressure time histories. The calculated cyclic stress ranges were compared with the allowable values based on the acceptance criteria for the dryer fatigue analysis. The acceptance criteria were based on the requirement that no alternating stress can exceed the design endurance limit.

The time history analysis was preformed using a fine mesh shell element model of the dryer with element size as small as 3 inches and time steps sufficiently 10

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer small to predict the response to frequencies up to 200 Hz. The analysis was performed assuming 1%damping.

ANSYS post processor was used to extract maximum stress intensities in the different dryer components. These stress intensities were conservatively assumed to occur at welds and were used with specified weld factors to obtain weld stresses for comparison with the design limits.

3. Fatigue Design Criteria The design criteria consist of two parts. The first part is the determination of the fatigue threshold - endurance limit including the factor of two on stress from test data (part of the factors of two on stress and twenty on cycles consistent with the ASME Code Section Xl fatigue design approach) for high cycle fatigue. The second part is the determination of the applied stress including stress concentration factors from the FEA results.

Fatigue Limit Reference 1 provides guidance for the determination of the fatigue limit.

The alternating stress intensity amplitude due to vibratory loads, which are continuously applied (infinite number of cycles) during normal reactor operation, shall be limited to a conservative 10,800-psi fatigue threshold.

An alternate 13,600-psi criterion, per the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Appendix I, Figure 1-9.2.2, Curve C, may be used at specific locations if justified........

The higher alternate criteria would not be appropriate for outer bank hood, cover plate and associated welds. Justification to apply the alternate criteria shall be individually justified in the design/stress report and be approved by both GE and the plant owner.

Field experience shows that the cracking in the Quad Cities dryers was predominantly in the outer bank hood, cover plate, and associated welds. Thus the more conservative limit of 10.88 ksi will be used for these components. The lower limit is based on the approach used in the ASME Operations and Maintenance Code which provides requirements for preoperational and initial start-up vibration testing of nuclear power plant piping systems. For steady state vibrations of Class 1 piping systems, the maximum calculated alternating stress intensity is limited to 80% of the Sa at 1011 cycles (for stainless steel piping). This translates into an alternating stress limit of (13,600x0.8) or 10,880 psi (10,800 psi is used). The technical basis for the selection of 80% of the threshold value is not clear but assumed to be based on engineering judgment or the expert consensus within the ASME Code group. For components other than the outer bank hood, cover plate and associated welds where the field experience has 11

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer been more favorable, the Curve C limit of 13,600 psi will be used. Table 1 shows the appropriate stress limits for the different steam dryer components.

Table 1 Design Fatigue Limit for Dryer Components Component Fatigue Limit Outer bank hoods, cover plates and 10,800 psi associated welds All other locations 13,600 psi Determination of Peak Stresses Once the results of the stress analysis are known, the next step is to examine the stress distributions and i) compare the maximum stresses to the stress limits directly if the stresses are away from geometric stress concentrations and welds, ii) calculate the local stresses at geometric stress concentrations, apply stress concentration factors, and compare with the stress limits, or iii) calculate the weld stresses at welds, apply the weld factors and compare with the stress limits. The following procedure is used to determine the peak stresses for fatigue analysis.

1. Locations in plates or shells away from welds or geometric stress concentration factors This case is straight forward as there are no discontinuities. The finite element stresses are directly compared with the fatigue limits in Table 1 as part of the fatigue analysis.
2. Local stresses at geometric stress concentrations In this case, peak stresses (for fatigue analysis) are calculated by multiplying stresses away from geometric stress concentrations by the Stress Concentration Factor Kt (SCF) or Fatigue Strength Reduction Factor Kf.
3. Stresses at welds This case is important for the steam dryer since the dryer is assembled by welding. The new dryer design has been improved significantly by using full penetration welds where possible, by using robust welds for fillet welds (i.e. higher throat thickness), and by moving welds away from geometric 12

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer discontinuity regions. For example, the drain channel consists of double V groove full penetration welds away from geometric discontinuities.

Reference 2 provides guidelines for the appropriate stress concentration factors for use in the fatigue evaluation of dryer welds. The methodology is based on a combination of the criteria in Subsections NB and NG of Section 1I1,ASME Code.

Figure 1 summarizes the recommendations of Reference 1. Both full penetration butt welds and fillet welds are addressed in Reference 2.

Full Penetration Butt Welds For the case of full penetration welds, the recommended SCF value is 1.4. In this case, the finite element stress is directly multiplied by the appropriate SCF to determine the alternating stress.

Fillet Welds For the case of a fillet weld, Figure 1 shows two distinct paths depending on whether the stress was obtained from a shell element or a solid element model in which the fillet was modeled. The following excerpts from Reference 2 provide guidance on the fatigue analysis of the welds One acceptable approach in the case of a shell element model is to calculate the major bending moment and force at the element nearest the weld or discontinuity. The nominal stress can then be based on the calculated moment and force.

An alternate suggested approach relies on the calculated peak stress from FEA along with a modified SCF to calculate the fatigue stress. The recommended SCF is 1.8 for a fillet weld when the FEA peak stress intensity is used. Various studies have shown that the calculated fatigue stress using this alternate approach at a fillet weld correlates reasonably well with that using a nominal stress and a SCF of 4.0 For the analysis in this report, the second approach (i.e. use of the calculated peak stress from the FEA) is used to screen out welds. If a specific weld meets the fatigue limit (FEA peak stress multiplied by the SCF of 1.8 is less than the Table 1 value), the fatigue criteria are met and no additional analysis is needed.

If this approach is not successful, then a detailed consideration of the weld stress is needed in accordance with the first approach above. Nodal forces and moments will be used to determine the weld stresses and the peak stress will be determined by multiplying the weld stresses with the SCF of 1.8. The process is consistent with Figure 1 taken from Reference 2.

Summary of Fatigue Analysis Approach 13

XGEW engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer

1. All peak stress amplitudes are compared with the fatigue limits in Table 1.

A component is acceptable from the fatigue viewpoint if the peak stress amplitude is less than the Table 1 fatigue limit.

2. For locations in plates or shells away from welds or geometric stress concentration factors the fatigue criteria are met as long as the FEM stress is less than the Table 1 fatigue limit.
3. For full penetration butt welds, if the peak FEM stress is less than the fatigue limit divided by 1.4, the fatigue criteria are met.
4. For fillet welds, if the peak FEM stress is less than the fatigue limit divided by 1.8, the fatigue criteria are met.
5. If the criterion in (4) above is not met, the peak weld stress will be determined by dividing the average nodal generalized force by the effective weld area and applying the appropriate fatigue strength reduction factor. The peak stress is in turn compared with the fatigue limit.
4. Finite Element Model Figure 2 shows the analysis model of the whole dryer. Figures 3 through 8 show details of the load paths and individual components in the model. The component models essentially follow the design drawing with the exception of the dryer banks where the dryer chevrons are not included in the model. Instead, the weight of the chevrons is assumed to be uniformly distributed over the upper two tie rods of the dryer vanes (Figure 5). Also, the section area of the tie rods in the horizontal direction is increased to limit calculation of rod deflections larger than available clearances in the design.

The analysis model is composed of shell elements with the exception of use of beam elements for the dryer vane tie rods and hanger bolts and parts of the beam and trough supports, and use of solid elements for a part of the mounting blocks and the guide rod brackets. Variable element sizes are used with small sizes (about 3 inches) for elements in the hoods subjected to pressure variation so as to assure that local pressure variations are represented accurately.

Direct time integration analysis was performed using Version 8.1 of the ANSYS finite element code. Analysis was performed assuming 1% damping. This value is reasonable for a welded and bolted structure of the type used in the dryer.

5. Sensitivity Analyses Several pressure histories were produced during the development of the acoustic loads for the dryer. Pressures developed during the earlier iterations were used to investigate the spatial and temporal pressure variations and to investigate the sensitivity of various modeling assumptions on the analysis results. These studies were used to finalize the analysis model and to select a 2-second time interval to be used for detail analyses from the 20-second total time history 14

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer produced in the acoustic analyses. The results of these studies are summarized in Figures 9 through 11.

The sensitivity analyses were limited to the outer hood of the dryer.

Figure 9 shows the maximum pressures across the dryer. Figure 10 shows the pressure loads on the outside surface of the dryer hood. It is seen that the pressure distribution is asymmetric across the dryer. Also, there are phase differences at different locations so that at a given time the pressure may be positive at some location of the dryer hood and negative at a different location.

The color-coding on the pressure plots shows an approximately circular region with the highest pressure. The region in the area of the ring shows a blue band corresponding to the ring that implies a negative pressure, but this an artifact of the order of nodes (clockwise or counterclockwise) in the elements developed by the ANSYS automatic mesh generation. Figure 10 also shows that on the outer hood, some areas had a positive pressure and others had negative pressure, again showing the effect of the phase differences. Figure 11 shows the pressure distribution on the outer hood as a function of time. The ACA input covered almost 20 seconds of data, but the dynamic structural time history analysis was limited to about two seconds. Figure 11 shows how the region for the analysis was selected to give the maximum stress response.

Results of scoping analyses are summarized below:

1. Effect of Dynamic loading Analysis was performed using the maximum pressures at various locations during the entire time history applied as a static pressure distribution. The analysis used maximum pressures at different locations regardless of the time. The static analysis showed that the stresses were approximately 1/3 the stresses from the time history dynamic analysis. This showed that dynamic response and inertial stresses were significant. In particular, it highlighted the importance of accurately predicting the natural frequencies so that the dynamic response is evaluated accurately.
2. Analysis of the Dryer With Static 1G Loading Analysis of the dryer with dead weight (1G loading) applied before the application of the pressure time history showed that the stresses were significantly lower than those without the inclusion of the dead weight as the steady-state load superposed on the pressure time history.
3. Other Parametric Studies Other parametric studies were performed to evaluate the effect of the weight of the dryer banks, distribution of the weight of the vanes on the different 15

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer rods, support tie beams etc. Table 2 shows the normalized stress differences for the different cases. For each location, the stresses were normalized by dividing the stresses for the different cases by the highest stress at that location. Some of the key conclusions from the parametric study were:

  • Comparison of the cases with fixed and free tie beams (Cases 5 and
3) showed that the difference in hood stress was not significant. This supports the use of the partial outer hood only model for the fine mesh analysis for the dryer design considered in the analyses. (This conclusion is not valid for the new dryer design where all the hood/vane assemblies are connected by reinforcement plates).
  • The 1G weight steady-state load affects the stress distributions indicating the prestressing effect of the relatively large mass of the dryer banks on the frequencies.

. The distribution of the weight of the dryer vane (i.e. whether the weight goes into the top rods or whether it is shared by all the rods) affects the stresses in the dryer bank components but has a relatively small effect on the hood stresses.

Table 2 Parametric Analysis Results Normalized to Maximum Stress Latest weight vanes Latest weight Latest weight (300 lb/ft)

Light weight Heavy weight vanes vanes on upper rods vanes vanes (300 lb/ft) on (300 lb/ft) + 1g preload, zero weight (145 Ib/ft) (600 lb/ft) all rods on upper rods no tie beam anes on all rods n all rods 1g preload 19g preload support +1g preload CASE NUMBERS CASE1 CASE2 CASE3 CASE4 CASE5 CASE6 hood 1 0.94 0.58 0.73 0.62 0.77 Tee 0.68 1 0.54 0.38 0.37 0.54 Gusset 0.95 1 0.54 0.42 0.40 0.33 Dryer bank top- 0.27 1 0.34 0.25 0.22 0.24 plate Dryer bank inner 0.94 1 0.63 0.30 0.26 0.30 end plates Dryer bank outer 1 0.70 0.54 0.69 0.59 NA end plates Crossbeam 1 0.26 0.47 0.44 0.53 0.24 16

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer

6. Stress Analysis of the New Dryer Design Analysis Results The ACA pressure input with pressure histories at dryer locations in the ACA analysis model was converted into ANSYS pressure history inputs for the structural analysis model. The analyses were performed using sufficiently small times step (0.0005 sec) to recognize the bounding frequency (200 Hz) in the pressure input and 1 % damping. The damping is implemented in the analysis as Raleigh damping. The parameters alpha-beta are calculated for 100 Hz frequency assuming equal contribution of stiffness and mass damping in view of the relatively large mass of the dryer panels.

The ANSYS post processor was used extract the maximum surface stress intensities (membrane + bending) required for design evaluation from the analysis output. For this purpose, the dryer was divided into different parts separated by plate intersections or weld lines. The analysis output was scanned to determine the maximum stress in each part during the time history. Table 3 summarizes the maximum stress intensities in the different components and the time of occurrence of the maximum stress intensity. The highest stresses occur at different times in the two second time period for which the analysis was performed. Figures 12(a) and 12(b) show the stress variation as a function of time. The stresses are typical of forced vibration dynamic responses. They do not show an increasing trend with time or any evidence of resonance. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the maximum stress values in the Table 1 and the stress plots are representative of the highest stresses during the period for which pressure time histories were provided by the acoustic circuit analysis.

Design Evaluation Table 3 lists the maximum surface stress intensities anywhere in the components during the 2-second time history. These stress intensities were assumed to equal the maximum alternating stress intensities although they include steady mean stresses from the dead weight load. Table 3 lists the absolute maximum alternating stresses in the components before application of stress concentration or weld factors. A conservative enveloping approach is used when comparing these values to the design limits in order to address the large number of dryer components with a much larger number of welds. Specifically, the criteria discussed in Section 3 are applied in the following manner:

Stress intensities in Table 3 are compared directly with the applicable design limits (10800 psi for the outer bank hood and cover plate, 13600 psi for other components). As shown in Table 4, all the components are within the design limit showing acceptability of the dryer design away from welds and away from stress concentrations possibly not accounted for in the finite element analysis.

17

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Figures 13 through 47 show stress distributions in each component at the time of occurrence of maximum stress in that component. The figures also identify welds associated with the components. The figures show that the maximum stress intensity does not occur at a weld for a large number of components.

However, the calculated maximum stress intensities are conservatively assumed to occur at welds and are multiplied by Kt factors of 1.8 and 1.4 for fillet welds and butt welds, respectively, to obtain weld alternating stresses. When the high stresses are not at a weld, the weld factor for butt welds (1.4) is used for the components containing only butt welds, or for components where the butt welds are closer to the maximum stress location and any fillet welds are far and in low stress region. Otherwise the factor 1.8 is used. The calculated weld stress intensities are compared with the design limits in Table 5.

7. Conclusion The calculated alternating stresses meet the design fatigue limits supporting the dryer design for the specified ACA loads.
8. Reference
1. Steam Dryer Design Specification, 26A6266. Revision 0.
2. Recommended Weld Quality and Stress Concentration Factors For use in the Structural Analysis of Exelon Replacement Steam Dryer, GENE Report DRF # 0000-0034-6079, Revision 0, February 2005
3. Dryer, GE Drawing 105E3886.
4. Acoustic Pressure Histories, February 1, 2005.

18

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Table 3 Maximum stresses in the different dryer components Max alternating Component Time, seconds stress intensity, psi Hoods Outer hoods 9.564 2844 Outer hood transition (1/2-inch) 9.328 1618 Outer tee - webs 8.540 1469 Outer gussets 8.492 2101 Inner hoods 9.904 3500 Inner tee - webs 9.570 3512 Inner gussets 9.608 1523 Support structure Frame beams 9.104 5115 Cross beams 9.394 6418 Tie beams 8.552 2090 Trough sides 9.348 2070 Trough bottom 9.328 2109 Trough ends 9.348 2826 Trough support top 9.612 1262 Trough support base 9.612 1064 Tie beam support side-thin 8.552 2884 Tie beam support side-thick 8.552 2189 Tie beam support base-thin 9.640 2886 Tie beam support base-thick 8.552 1276 Floor plate 9.640 2605 19

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Table 3 ... continued ... Maximum stresses in the different dryer components l l Max alternating Component Time, seconds # stress intensity, psi Skirt assembly Support ring 9.716 6073 Skirt 8.866 7683 Drain channels 8.904 5844 Drain channel sides 9.688 6446 Bottom ring 9.660 313 Mounting support 9.322 3376 Middle trough support block 9.522 1322 Center trough support block 9.334 939 Bank cover plate assembly 9.348 2885 Dryer banks Vane cap 9.904 4603 Vane top rail 9.434 2374 Vane bottom rail 9.394 1500 Vane inner endplate 9.640 4054 Vane outer endplate 9.784 2120 Dryer modifications Vane cap doubler plate 8.53 1126 Support beam doubler plates 9.674 4164 Frame center post shoe - sides 9.586 377 Frame center post shoe - top 9.57 153 Trough bridge extension 9.586 4275 Center trough bridge extension 9.586 2029 Center extension stiffeners 9.334 972 Trough beam extension end 8.54 2448 Center reinforcement plate 9.092 3117 Bank to bank plate 9.42 1520 20

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Table 4 Stress Comparison Away from Welds

[l Max alternating stress Component intensity, psi Design limit, psi *Design margin Hoods Outer hoods 2844 10800 2.80 Outer hood transition (1/2-inch) 1618 10800 5.67 Outer tee - webs 1469 10800 6.35 Outer gussets 2101 10800 4.14 Inner hoods 3500 13600 2.89 Inner tee - webs 3512 13600 2.87 Inner gussets 1523 13600 7.93 Support structure Frame beams 5115 13600 1.66 Cross beams 6418 13600 1.12 Tie beams 2090 13600 5.51 Trough sides 2070 13600 5.57 Trough bottom 2109 13600 5.45 Trough ends 2826 13600 3.81 Trough support top 1262 13600 9.78 Trough support base 1064 13600 11.8 Tie beam support side-thin 2884 13600 3.72 Tie beam support side-thick 2189 13600 5.21 Tie beam support base-thin 2886 13600 3.71 Tie beam support base-thick 1276 13600 9.66 Floor plate 2605 13600 4.22

  • Design margin = (allowable stress / calculated stress) - 1 21

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Table 4 ... continued .. Stress Comparis n Away from Welds Max alternating stress Component intensity, psi Design limit, psi *Design margin skint assembly Support ring 6073 13600 1.24 Skirt 7683 13600 0.77 Drain channels 5844 13600 1.33 Drain channel sides 6446 13600 1.11 Bottom ring 313 13600 42.4 Mounting block 3376 13600 3.03 Middle trough support block 1322 13600 9.29 Center trough support block 939 13600 13.5 Bank cover plat assembly 2885 13600 3.71 Dryer banks Vane cap 4603 13600 1.95 Vane top rail 2374 13600 4.73 Vane bottom rail 1500 13600 8.07 Vane inner endplate 4054 13600 2.35 Vane outer endplate 2120 13600 5.42 Dryer modifications Vane cap doubler plate 1126 13600 11.1 Support beam doubler plates 4164 13600 2.27 Frame center post shoe - sides 377 13600 35.1 Frame center post shoe - top 153 13600 87.9 Trough bridge extension 4275 13600 2.18 Center trough bridge extension 2029 13600 5.70 Center extension stiffeners 972 13600 13.0 Trough beam extension end 2448 13600 4.56 Center reinforcement plate 3117 13600 3.36 Bank to bank plate 1520 13600 7.95

  • Design margin = (allowable stress / calculated stress) - 1 22

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Table 5 Stress Comparison at Welds Max alternating stress Component intensity, psi Design limit, psi *Design margin Hoods Outer hoods 3982 10800 1.71 Outer hood transition (1/2-inch) 2265 10800 3.77 Outer tee - webs 2057 10800 4.25 Outer gussets 2941 10800 2.67 Inner hoods 6300 13600 1.16 Inner tee - webs 4917 13600 1.77 Inner gussets 2741 13600 3.96 Support structure Frame beams 9207 13600 0.48 Cross beams 11552 13600 0.18 Tie beams 2926 13600 3.65 Trough sides 3726 13600 1.84 Trough bottom 3796 13600 2.58 Trough ends 5087 13600 1.67 Trough support top 2272 13600 4.99 Trough support base 1915 13600 6.10 Tie beam support side-thin 5191 13600 1.62 Tie beam support side-thick 3940 13600 2.45 Tie beam support base-thin 5195 13600 1.62 Tie beam support base-thick 2297 13600 4.92 Floor plate 4689 13600 1.90

  • Design margin = (allowable stress / calculated stress) - 1 23

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Table 5 ... continued ... Stress Comparison at Welds Max alternating stress Component intensity, psi Design limit, psi *Design margin Skirt assembly s Support ring 10931 13600 0.24 Skirt 10756 13600 0.26 Drain channels 8182 13600 0.66 Drain channel sides 9024 13600 0.51 Bottom ring 438 13600 30.0 Mounting block 6077 13600 1.24 Middle trough support block 2380 13600 4.72 Center trough support block 1690 13600 7.05 Bank cover plat assembly 5193 13600 1.62 Dryer banks Vane cap 8285 13600 0.64 Vane top rail 4273 13600 2.18 Vane bottom rail 2700 13600 4.04 Vane inner endplate 7297 13600 0.86 Vane outer endplate 3816 13600 2.56 Dryer modifications Vane cap doubler plate 2027 13600 5.71 Support beam doubler plates 5830 13600 1.33 Frame center post shoe - sides 679 13600 19.0 Frame center post shoe - top 275 13600 48.4 Trough bridge extension 7695 13600 0.77 Center trough bridge extension 3652 13600 2.72 Center extension stiffeners 1750 13600 6.77 Trough beam extension end 4406 13600 2.09 Center reinforcement plate 5611 13600 1.42 Bank to bank plate 2736 13600 3.97

  • Design margin = (allowable stress / calculated stress) - 1 24

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer

  • SCF at the end of a parallel fillet weld= 2.7 (based on nominal stress)

Figure 1 Weld Fatigue Factor Flow Diagram [Reference 2]

25

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Figure 2 Analysis Model: Whole Dryer 26 co f

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 IFatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement DryerII Guide rod block Trough support blocks Mounting block Cross beams Support ring Skirt support beam Drain channels Bottom ring Figure 3 Analysis Model: Dryer Support Plane Components and Skirt 27

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 20051 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Tie beam supports ---

c Trough supports Frame beams Trough e Trough bridge 0

Trough end plate Figure 4 Analysis Model: Dryer Bank Vertical Support System 28

U XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer a

Vane cross beams Bottom rails Vane cap Perforated plate End plate Gusset Trough sides\ Tee brace Trough bottom \

Bottom rail Cross beam,.

Trough support Note: The chevron weight was assumed to be carried by the top two tie bars.

Figure 5 Analysis Model: Dryer Bank Modeling Details 29

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Figure 6 Analysis Model: Dryer Banks 30 Co7

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer RevisioI No. 2 Center reinforcing plates Bank to bank plates Vane cap doubler plates R

,,woo "%la t t Frame center post foot 4w Cer iter trough bridge extension Stiffener fcor center trough bridge extension Trough bridge extension Trough bridge extension end Skirt support beam doubler Figure 7 Analysis Model: Design Mods (Reinforcements in the Horizontal Load Path) 31

Y XGENe nginering Report XGEN 20051 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Figure 8 Analysis Model Including the Design Modifications 32 Co7

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 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 I I 0.

Q.

X E

CDI model node number Note: While the pressure magnitudes varied, the pressure variation across the dryer for different pressure histories developed in the load development analyses was similar to that shown in the figure.

Figure 9 Maximum Pressures (Trend) across the Dryer 33

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement DryerI AISs 8.0 DEC 3 2004 03:04:56

-Ilk ELEPWMS PowerGraphics EFACET=1 XV =-.955732 YV =. 096525 ZV = .277956 t

DIST=114. 652

  • _XF -- 88.521 tZF =14.164 A-ZS=92.057 Z-BUFFER PRES-NOPM

_* -3.271

_-2.537

-1.803

_ _-1.069

__ -.334956

.399056 1.867 2.601

- 3.335 fine mesh epu loads ge dryer outer hood heavy vanes Note: The figure shows maximum pressure that each location reached during the time history for a pressure history which was different from the pressure history used in the current analysis. While the pressure magnitudes varied, the pressure variation for different pressure histories developed in the load development analyses was similar to that shown in the figure.

Figure 10 Maximum Pressure Distribution (Typical) on the Outer hood 34 Ccog

XGEN/ engineering Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryerl Report XGEN 200-Revision No. 2 J outer hood prepares 0 2 4 a 8 10 12 14 16 18 time, secords

-4 -8 9 11 13 -14 -15 16 17 18 20 -- 21 22 24 -- 26 26 -- 27 29 _

Note: The figure shows pressure variation with time for a pressure history which was different from the pressure history used in the current analysis. While the pressure magnitudes varied, the pressure variation with time for different pressure histories developed in the load development analyses were similar to that shown in the figure. This particular pressure history was used to select the 2-second time interval for analysis.

Figure 11 Outer Hood Pressure History Used to Select 2-Second Analysis Time Interval 35

U XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 6000 5000 i1 IM c 4000 X

U' i-3000 E

E E 2000 1000 0

8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 1t time, second

-inner hoods -outer hoods hood transition - inner tee -outer tee

-inner gusset -outer gusset -vane top - vame top rail -vane botttom rail APRIL ANALYSIS RESULTS - SET 3 9000 -

8000 -

7000 I

2' 6000 _ I c

E 5000 e

U 4000 E

>i E 3000 2000 1000 0

8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10 time, second l-tbeamsupbasek -crosbeams tiebeams -frame -suuport ring -skirt

-drainchannels -drains ides -bottom ring -outer sup bloc kl Figure 12(a) Stresses in Different Dryer Components as a Function of Time 36 C//

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 3000 2500 -

'11 . 11.11 I .1 1.1 alAiII,. 11 1I.i.

iR

.E 2000

'S E 1500 EI 1000 500 U

8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10 time, second E-middle sup block -center sup block H-upper -H-web -H-lower -centerplate -perfplate 4500 4000 3500 -

13000 50 c 2500 e

e 2000 -

T E 1500-1000-500-8 8.2 8.4 8.6 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10 time, second

-mod-1 -mod-2 mod-3a -mod-3b -mod-4 -mod- -mod-6 -mpd-7 -mod-8 mod-9 Figure 12(b) Stresses in Different Dryer Components as a Function of Time 37

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Bevel groove full pen to vane cap Tee intersections (no welds)

Partial pen fillet (3/4-inch) to support ring (Partial pen best effort flare bevel aroove weld on back side)

Note: The hood plates are welded to tee-flanges, the 1/2-inch transition plate at the top, and the curved cover plate at the bottom using full penetration butt welds. In particular the highs stress locations are not at the weld but at the intersection of the tee flanges and webs.

43. 41 354.'

665.f !_ Weld line 976. E 2320 psi 1288 1599 1910 3.23.

2221 318..

2533 634..

2844 I -

950.

1266 1581 1897 2212 2528 2844 Figure 13 Maximum Stress Intensity: Outer Hood 38

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 20-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 70.70 DC 242.6 414.5

_ 586.4 758.3 VANE CAP 930.2 1102 E7 1274

J 1446 1618 I

Bevel B

groove gp full pen to hood Figure 14 Maximum Stress Intensity: /2 inch Transitions Between Outer Hood and Dryer Vane Cap 39

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 950.'

M 1008 M 1066 M 1124 111111111 1181 11111111 1239 03 1296 1354 M 1412 11111111 k

1469 Double bevel groove full pen to vane plate

63. 8S 1i ME 220. c 11111111 376.;

532. '

688.'

844.

E13 1001 1157 1313 1469

~t Double V full pen to gusset Tee intersection - not a weld Figure 15 Maximum Stress Intensity: Outer Tee Web 40

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 27.3!

257.'

EM 488..

718..

m 948.!

1179 l oDouble bevel grooves full pen to vane plates 1410 1640 F- 1870 2101 Double v full pen to tee

27. 3S 169.4 311. '

~ Partial pen fillet (3/8-in) to trough bridge extension end 453. E 595..

737.,;

879. E Partial pen fillet (3/8-in) to trough bridge extension end 1022 1164 1306 _________Bevel groove and fillet (3/8) all around to foot to cross beam' 27.3' 257. '

11111111 488.

1111110 718.'

NX 11111111 948.'

111111111 1179 M 1410 1640 11111111 1870 11111111 2101 Figure 16 Maximum Stress Intensity: Outer Hood Gusset 41 Y1C-(

XGEN engineering Rept XGEN 201 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Double bevel full pen weld with reinforcing tee at the top

-- Inner hood

- End cover

16. 758 403.759 790.761 1178 1565 EJ 1952 2339 2726 3113 3500 Welds with vane bank bottom rail hook:

Partial pen double fillet (1/2-inch) overlapping plates Or fillet/groove welds as necessary to accommodate misalignments All other welds similar to the welds for the outer hood Figure 17(a) Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hoods 42 Cl)

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 1Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement DryerII Removed the peak stress elements from the stress Dlot reaion 16.7 190. .

363.'

537..

710.'

884. .

Maximum stress at the weld to EM 1058 the dryer bank bottom rail hook 1231 1405 1578 Figure 17(b) Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hoods 43

XIGE engineering Repr XGEN 2001 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Ir 4

.891]

M 111111111 1111111 391.C 781.3 111111111 1171 4 1111111 1561 1952 E3 2342 2732

.4 I4 111111111 3122 11111111 3512 L

Note: Welds are similar to the welds for the outer hood tees.

Figure 18 Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hood Tee Webs 44

ZGEM engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 13.7.

-181.'-

349.-

516.5 684. '

- 852.'

M 1020

= 1188

- 1356

- 1523 Note: Welds are similar to the welds for the outer hood gussets.

Figure 19 Maximum Stress Intensity: Inner Hood Gussets 45 Cocn

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Weld to gusset foot Weld to trough extension end foot Partial pen fillet (3/8-in) to support ring

-618 Z 6.94 719. ~

2144 2856 3569 M 4281

- 5706

'40 - 6418 Figure 20 Maximum Stress Intensity: Cross Beams 46

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 4.084

- 299.

_ 594.E 889. S

- 1185

_ 1481 EJ 1776 F- 2071

- 2366

- 2662 tpm Partial pen bevel groove (3/8-in) to cover piate Fillet weld not modeled for this length Fillet to dryer bank bottom rail (1/4-inch)

Double v groove full pen to trough bottom Figure 21 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Side Plates 47 c-i--i--

XGEN engineering ep XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 18.7 251.1 483.:

715..

947.

1180 EDJ 1412 1645 1877 2109 Partial penetration fillet weld (1/2-inch) all around with the trough support block)

Figure 22 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Bottom (Drain Pipe) 48

XGEN enginering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Weld to the trough:

Bevel full pen on outside with filet on inside en 0 19.3' NM 331.:

11111111 642.

954. f 1267 111101578 EM 1890

.A ,

9 111110 2202 2514 2826 l

Figure 23 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough End Cap 49 (27

XGEN engineering Repot XGEN 20051 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 1.01'.

233.1 465. .

697.'

929. E 1162 1394 1626 1858 2090 IFillet (3/8-in) partial penetration to tie beam supports Figure 25 Maximum Stress Intensity: Tie Beams 50 Cozb

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement DryerI 19.7; 157.;

295.'

434.'

  • db, = 572.'

710..

848.

ED 986.:

1124 1262 Fillet all around (3/8-in) to trough bottom aw_

- Fillet all around (3/8-in) to trough bottom 18.94 135.0 251.2 111111367.3 00l 483.4 001 _ 599.6 715.7 001 831.9 948.0 1064 001

'I Figure 25 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Supports 51 C (p9

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 20051 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement DryerI Flare bevel partial pen (3/8-in) to tie beam 4 -Partial pen fillet 3 sides (3/8-in) to tie beam I

0l 7.565 40 327.1 04 4 - 646. E 966.2 40 4 1286 00 1605 1925 E- 2244 40 2564 04 2884 7.14' 41 04 281. c AP 555. d

,. 829. '

or 40 40 4 - 1104 IJ1378 l 1652 0~ 1926 2200 40 2474 4

'N Figure 26(a) Maximum Stress Intensity: Tie Beam Supports 52 C 271

XGEN engineering Report XGEN2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer I Partial pen fillet all around (3/8-in) to vane cap h.i 4P 4 4 .0 PI 401 40.4 4P 4P 4w4P 356.

-672.

PI4w A*'

m 989.

-4

.&r MM -4 1305 1621 4- 4 4& . M 1938 4-A 4W 4- A _J 2254 4, 4 M 2570 M 2886 4-,4 -M 4111

  • V4P-APAl 9.74 4r 4-0 A4w 279.9 4V 40, 550. 1 AP 820.3

& 1w4-. 4r-4 - 1091 AV 1P 4-

-1361

  • 4- W 4 1631

= 1901 m 2171 4w 4 4- - 2441 Figure 26(b) Maximum Stress Intensity: Tie Beam Supports 53 C(_2L

zGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer All the joints between the straight and Y-frame connectors and the beams they connect (frame vertical, angle, and horizontal members and the tie beams use with 3/8-inch all around fillet welds)

All frame beams to the floor plate:

Fillet all around (3/8-in) above and below floor plate (Two slant beams to guide rod blocks):

Fillet all around (3/8-in) on 3 sides and V Center vertical beam groove on back side to tee foot:

Partial pen fillet (3/8- Four vertical beams in) all around (except the center beam) to cross beams:

Partial pen fillet (3/8-in) and flare bevel (3/8-in) 1.48S 569.

1706 2274

-2842 33410

-4547 5115 Figure 27 Maximum Stress Intensity: Frame Beams 54

-Frame beams Fillet all around (3/8-in) above

- and below the floor plate 18.2 305.

592.

880.

U368 1455 1743 2030 2317 2605 Double fillet (3/8-in outside,hin inside) to vane bank lower hook Note: The floor plate has internal double bevel full pen welds Figure 28 Maximum Stress IntensitY: Floor Plate 55

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 9.12' 519.1 1030 1541 2051 2562 EJ 3072 3582 4093 4603 Inner Double bevel full pen weld with reinforcing tee at the top End i Figure 29 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Vane Caps 56 C31

ReotXEN20-XGEN enginowringReport XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer

15. 2!

277.:

539.:

801.'

[=

Ip3 1064 M 1326 1588 1850 2112 2374 Figure 30 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Upper Rails 57

XGEMengineering Report XGEN 2005-1 i ARevision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer______________

9.53:

669..

1329 1988 2648 3308 EJ 3967 4627 5286 5946 F

Fillet (1/4-inch) between bottom rails and trough sides Figure 31 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bottom Rails 58

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 11.78 1066 2121 3176 F- 4230 5285 ED

_11*11_

6340 7394 8449 9503 l

/

1 II b Load transfer across line

  • Aintersection because of l crude model for the I\Trough Bridge Figure 32 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bank Outer End Plates 59

XGENengineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer EN 20.4 M 202.;

385.:

111110 567.'

1111110750.;

Partial pen fillet all 1111110932. '

around (3/8-in) to EU 1115 M 1298 vane plate 111111111 1480 11111111 1662 NX JIX I 4 28.52 143. 6 I 258.8 374.0 I _ 489.1 EM 604.3 4 11111 719.5 11111834.6 949.8 1065 I

I I

20.4' 338.'

Partial pen bevel groove low lo& 140 1111110657.1 all around (3/8-in) to 1111111975.:

trough sides and end cap 111110 1294 1612 M 1930 2249 2567 11111111 2885

_=W

_ A_,

Figure 33 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bank Cover Plate Assemblies 60

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer I

I I _

1.892

-452.1.

902.4' 1353 1803

-1 2253 M 2703 m-3154 I1 m 3604

_ 4054 Figure 34 Maximum Stress Intensity: Dryer Bank Inner End Plates 61 C-3(p

Y XGEM engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 2.06 855.4

-1709

- 2562 3416

- 4269 5122

= 5976

- 6829

- 7683 Tee intersection Fle ed not ai weld t Fillet welds Partial pen fillet (3/8-in)>

Partial pen flare bevel and fillet (3/8-in) cap tee Butt weld Full pen double V groove Figure 35 Maximum Stress Intensity: Skirt 62 C37

XGENengineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 3.011 M 652.0 1301 M 1950 M 2599 3248 II M 3897 4546 I 5195 5844 I

Tee Tee intersection Not a weld V groove full pen weld Figure 36 Maximum Stress Intensity: Drain Channels and Skirt Beam Support 63 C3~

intersection

5.72 590.9 1176 ME 1761 2347 2932 3517 4102 4687 5273 TV groove full pen weld Tee intersections Not welds I',

Figure 37 Maximum Stress Intensity: Drain Channel and Beam Support Side Plates 64

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 2.364 676. 8S 1351 2026 2700 3375 4050 4724 5399 6073

-Underside of support ring u- Support beam

'-Support beam Figure 38 Maximum Stress Intensity: Support Ring 65

XGEN engineering Rep XGEN 200 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer l 15-C 117.

2Z0.

323.

426.

528.

CEm 631.

734.

1111 837.

939.

Center trough support block Partial pen fillet (0.5-in) all around

/ 37.8.

180. .

323.:

46S5.:

608..

751.;

EM 893.:

1037 1179 1322 Middle trough support block Figure 39 Maximum Stress Intensity: Center and Middle Trough Support Blocks 66 c47t

XGENengineering Report XGEN2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer V groove full pen

  • - to support ring Partial pen fillet (1/2-in) all around to troughs Partial pen fillet (3/8-in) all around to cross beams V groove full pen to support ring N

60.9' 429. s 797..

1166 153S 1903 2271 Z640 r-- 3008 3376 Figure 40 Maximum Stress Intensity: Mounting Block 67 C4-2-.

XGE engineering Repor XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 52.5 162.

272.

383.

11111493.

603.

713.

823.

934.

1044

/-,,Fillet

-/- all around (1/2-in) _

U- I to hood and vane cap Figure 41 Maximum Stress Intensity: Vane Cap Doubler Plate 68

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 13.9 29.4 44.8 60.2 75.7 91.1 106.

121.

DC 137.

152.

Fillet all around (3/8-in)

Fillet all around (3/8-in)

V-groove full pen 106.

E1 136.

166.

11111196.

226.

256.

287.

M 317.

347.

377.

Figure 42 Maximum Stress Intensity: Frame Center Post Foot 69 cz-LA

XGEIA engineering Report XGEN 20051 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Single bevel full pen to trough bridge

< Single / double bevel full pen to trough bridqe extension 22.1 245.

468.

691.

914.

1137 EJ 1360 1583 1806 2029 Figure 43 Maximum Stress Intensity: Center Trough Bridge Extension 70 C4+5

XGEN/engineering Report XGEN2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Singe bevel full pen to trough bridge Single / double bevel full pen to trough bridge extension Flare groove fillet weld

23. 1 128.

233.

339.

444.

550.

EJ 655.

760.

866.

NX 971.

Figure 44 Maximum Stress Intensity: Stiffener for Center Trough Bridge Extension 71

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer N

Single/double bevel full pen to trough bridge Partial pen fillet (3/8-in) to gusset 000*00 900*0 24. 9i 497.,

969.i 100OW 10000, -O0 aw ME 1442 1914 2386 MOOOO dOW00

[111 2858 3331 3803 4275 Figure 45 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Bridge Extension 72 cq-7

XGEN engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 2.72 98.2

_ 193.

- 289.

_ 384.

-480.

N F1 671

- 766 N - 862.

II Bevel groove and fillet (3/8) all around to foot to cross beam Partial pen fillet (3/8-inch) to gusset Singe bevel full pen to trough bridge Figure 46 Maximum Stress Intensity: Trough Bridge Extension End 73 CI4L~

XGEN/engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer Double bevel full pen perforated plate seem weld Partial penetration fillet (0.25-in) all around to frame beam Double groove full pen 5.821

^  ! am 179.2 526.'

-700.'

874.:

1048 F11222 1396

-1569 Note: The plates include internal double groove full pen butt welds between the plate and transition tees at the top ends on the bank sides. The tees were not modeled explicitly but were included as part of the plate Figure 47 Maximum Stress Intensity: Center Reinforcing Plate 74

XGENI engineering Report XGEN 2005-1 Revision No. 2 Fatigue Analysis of the Quad Cities Replacement Dryer 10.0(

M 123.1 M 236.2 M 349.4 M 462. '

M 575. .

EZ1 688. E F-1 802. C M 915.1 M 1028 I

Double bevel full pen to perforated plate seem Double bevel full pen with single pass cover fillet to hood Note: The reinforcing plates include internal double groove full pen butt welds between the plate and transition tees at the top ends on both sides. The tees were not modeled explicitly but were included as part of the plate Figure 48 Maximum Stress Intensity: Bank to Bank Reinforcing Plate 75 C O

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML051230028&oldid=2593672"