ML051650449
| ML051650449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/2005 |
| From: | Roddey T Exelon Generation Co |
| To: | Dick G, Thomas Scarbrough, Suh G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML051650449 (10) | |
Text
Geoge ic-Acoustic Circuit Model Load Calculations
-Pg From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Thomas Roddey" <tgrl 007@ hotmail.com>
<gfd @nrc.gov>, <gys @nrc.gov>, <tgs @nrc.gov>
6/5/05 2:31 AM Acoustic Circuit Model Load Calculations
I George Dick - TEXT.htm
-P a ae'- 1I F ereDc EX1t ae ~
Attached are two documents. The first, titled "QCI_1," compares QCI predictions with QC2 predictions (5 strain gauges removed) and QC2 data. The second, titled "SGsubtraction,"
compares QC2 predictions with strain gauges removed. Exelon is currently evaluating the information contained in the attached documents to determine the need for revising the acceptance criteria outlined in the QC1 startup test plan. Following a review by the Plant Operations Review Committee, Exelon would like to discuss this information and the decisions related to plant operation above the original licensed thermal power level with the NRC technical staff. I will contact you with logisitical information to support these communications.
Respectfully, Thomas G. Roddey Nuclear Licensing Engineer Exelon Generation Company
tc:\\ternP\\GWIOO01.TMP
~-
..... Pge.
Mail Envelope Properties (42A29C2C.130: 7: 61744)
Subject:
Acoustic Circuit Model Load Calculations Creation Date:
6/5/05 2:30AM From:
"Thomas Roddey" <tgr1OO7@hotmnail.com>
Created By:
tgr]007@hotmai1.com Recipients nrc.gov owf2-po.OWFN_-DO TGS (Thomas Scarbrough) nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFN_DO GYS (Gene Suh)
GFD (George Dick)
Post Office Route owf2-po.OWVFNDO nrc.gov owf4_po.OWFN_-DO nrc.gov Files Size Date & Time TEXT.htm 982 QC1JI.pdf 106911 SGsubtraction.pdf 45281 Mirne.822 212232 Options Expiration Date:
None Priority:
Standard Reply Requested:
No Return Notification:
None Concealed
Subject:
No Security:
Standard
Comparison Between QC1 at OLTP and QC2 at EPU with Five Strain Gages Inoperative Continuum Dynamics, Inc.
04 June 2005 The C.D.I. acoustic circuit model was used to make predictions on the Quad Cities Unit I dryer at the locations of pressure sensors P3, P12, P20, P21, P24, and P26 on Quad Cities Unit 2. The PSD comparisons are given on the following figures for each pressure sensor, with the three curves on each plot representing the following:
RED is the prediction for QC1 at OLTP (with five strain gages inoperative)
BLUE is the prediction for QC2 at EPU (with the same five strain gages rendered inoperative)
BLACK is the data for QC2 at EPU In addition, the time histories at these six pressure sensors can be quizzed to recover the root mean squares (in psid), as summarized in the following table:
QC1 at OLTP QC2 at EPU QC2 at EPU Data P3 0.473 0.610 0.626 P12 0.412 0.657 0.684 P20 1.556 1.085 0.493 P21 0.257 0.824 0.878 P24 0.309 0.303 0.217 P26 0.055 0.057 0.101
P3: QC1 (787 MWe) QC2 (930 MWe) SG-5 0.1 N
.P-C:
CL4 ri-1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 1
0 50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 P12: QC1 (787 MWe) QC2 (930 MWe) SG-5 N
/-)
.r-Cf)
I&w r:
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10 o
10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200
P20: QC1 (787 MWe) QC2 (930 MWe) SG-5 N
P-(N4 Cn N5 1
0.1 0.01_
0.001 0.0001 A
10-6 0
1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 105 0-6 QC1 OLTP QC2 EPU QC2 EPU Data I
I i
I I
I i I
I 50 100 Frequency (Hz) 150 200 P21: QC1 (787 MWe) QC2 (930 MWe) SG-5 CQr-U 50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200
P24: QC1 (787 MWe) QC2 (930 MWe) SG-5 0.1 I-MA 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0.01 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 P26: QCI (787 MWe) QC2 (930 MWe) SG-5 N
(N4 Un 15 C) 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 10-7 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200
Pressure Level Predictions at Quad Cities Unit 2 Sensors at 930 MWe if Selected MSL Strain Gages are Removed Continuum Dynamics, Inc.
04 June 2005 Strain gage failures at Quad Cities Unit 1 suggest that use of the signals recorded at the other pairs may result in a more conservative load prediction on the dryer than would be indicated had all of the strain gages remained operational. To test this hypothesis, C.D.I. removed the input of the same failed strain gages from its Quad Cities Unit 2 analysis (where all strain gages remained operational), in an attempt to determine the effect of the failed strain gage pairs.
Initially, four strain gage pairs were removed: S6/S6A, S11/SI IA, S31/S33, and S36/S36A. An additional strain gage pair was added later: S1/S3.
The plotted results give the change in minimum pressure, maximum pressure, and RMS pressure by forming the ratios of pressure with either four or five strain gages removed to pressure with all strain gages operational, for 930 MWe. Analysis of the ratios (for all 27 sensors or for the 16 sensors on the outer bank hoods: P1 to P12 and P18 to P21) suggests the following:
Average ratio values with removing four strain gages:
All 27 Sensors Outer Bank Hoods Only (16)
Ratio of Minimums 1.138 1.105 Ratio of Maximums 1.163 1.101 Ratio of Root Mean Squares 1.149 1.103 Average ratio values when removing five strain gages:
All 27 Sensors Outer Bank Hoods Only (16)
Ratio of Minimums 1.127 1.130 Ratio of Maximums 1.204 1.131 Ratio of Root Mean Squares 1.195 1.129
930 MWe 2
18 RMS Ratio SG-4 / All SG 1.8 RMS Ratio SG-5 / All SG 1 ------------
--- :--A----
I 0
1.2 P4 0.6 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Sensor Number
1 Minimum Ratio SG-4 / All SG 1.8 Minimum Ratio SG-5 / All SG I.........
1.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --- --- ----
I.
1.4-1.2 X
X--.
E 08 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Sensor Number Maximum Ratio SG-4 / All SG 1.8 -
Maximum Ratio SG-5 / All SGllllll g:1.6 6-----A-tj14----------- ---
I--------
>6i sa pi14 --------
0 5
10 1 5 2 0 2 5 30)
Pressure Sensor Number