ML052490199

Enclosure 2, Attachment 8 - C.D.I. Technical Note No. 05-34, Test Condition TC15a Load Comparison for Quad Cities Unit 1, Revision 0, Dated August 2005

ML052490199
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	08/31/2005
From:	Bilanin A Continuum Dynamics
To:	Exelon Generation Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML052490199 (21)

Text

ENCLOSURE 2 Attachment 8 C.D.I. Technical Note No. 05-34,"Test Condition TC15a Load Comparison for Quad Cities Unit 1," Revision 0, dated August 2005

C.D.I. Technical Note No. 05-34 Test Condition TC I5a Load Comparison for Quad Cities Unit I Revision 0 Prepared by Continuum Dynamics, Inc.

34 Lexington Avenue Ewing, NJ 08618 Prepared under Purchase Order No. 85758 for Exelon Generation LLC 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Approved by 014 Alan J. Bilanin R

August 2005

SUMMAR Y To date, two high resolution loads have been developed for Quad Cities Unit I (QCI) at Test Condition TCI5a, as shown below.

Test Condition Strain Gage (SG) Correction Acoustic Circuit Model Identifier Technique Used TC15a Reduced 80 Hz on C main Minimum Error Model steam line, averaged single SG S32/S34 with SG pair S3 1/S33 on C main steam line only TC15a-2 Reduced 80 Hz on A and C Modified Benchmark main steam lines, averaged Model single SG with SG pairs for all failed strain gage locations Justification for reducing the 80 Hz frequency peak (+/- 4 Hz on either side) may be found in [1],

while justification for averaging a single strain gage with a corresponding strain gage pair may be found in [2]. A description of the Modified Benchmark and the Minimum Error models may be found in [3].

C.D.I. has been asked by Exelon to develop the QCI high resolution load Test Condition Strain Gage (SG) Correction Acoustic Circuit Model Identifier Technique Used TC15a-3 Reduced 80 Hz on A and C Minimum Error Model main steam lines, averaged single SG with SG pairs for all failed strain gage locations and compare its predictions against TC15a, the other Minimum Error model. This report summarizes the low resolution results for TC15a_3 compared against TC I5a, in preparation for delivery of a high resolution load for structural analysis.

MODELING RESULTS Table I compares the minimum, maximum, and RMS pressure levels for TC15a_3 and TCl5a at 27 locations on the QCI dryer. Also included in this table is the comparison for two sensor differences from the outside to the inside of the outer bank hoods at the same location: P3 - P13 (the A-B side of the dryer) and P20 - P14 (the C-D side of the dryer). Figure I plots the values presented in Table 1.

A comparison of these values at the 27 locations shows that the differences between the two load cases translate into an average reduction of the minimum pressure by 0.066 psid (the average minimum pressure in TCI5a_3 is less minimum than the average minimum pressure in TCI5a),

2

an average reduction of the maximum pressure by 0.027 psid (the average maximum pressure in TCl5a_3 is less maximum than the average maximum pressure in TC15a), and an average increase of the RMS pressure of 0.002 psid (the RMS pressure in TC15a_3 is slightly larger than the RMS pressure in TCI5a).

Correspondingly, for the pressure difference P3 - P13, the minimum pressure in TC15a_3 is less minimum than the minimum pressure in TC15a (by 0.056 psid), the maximum pressure in TC15a_3 is larger than the maximum pressure in TCI5a (by 0.021 psid), and the RMS pressure in TC15a_3 is smaller than the RMS pressure in TC15a (by 0.042 psid). For the pressure difference P20 - P14, the minimum pressure in TC15a_3 is more minimum than the minimum pressure in TCI5a (by 0.161 psid), the maximum pressure in TC15a_3 is larger than the maximum pressure in TC15a (by 0.219 psid), and the RMS pressure in TC15a_3 is larger than the RMS pressure in TCI5a (by 0.056 psid).

Figures 2 to 28 show the PSD comparisons for locations P1 to P27. Figures 29 and 30 show the PSD comparisons for P3 - P13 and P20 - P14, respectively. It is seen that the two load cases are very similar, with a noticeable, yet slight, 80 Hz signal in TC15a (possibly resulting from the fact that no adjustment was made to the A main steam line strain gage data).

REFERENCES

1. Exelon Generation Company. 2005. QCI Evaluation to Remove 80 Hz from Strain Gage Data. White Paper.

2. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. 2005. Quad Cities Unit 1 Main Steam Line Strain Gage Reductions. Letter Report No. SIR-05-208 Revision 2 (draft), KKF-05-034.

3. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Evaluation of Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Steam Dryer Load Methodology Against Quad Cities Unit 2 In-Plant Data. C.D.I. Report No. 05-10.

3

Table 1. Summary of pressure predictions at 27 sensors on the QCI dryer, based on the first 65 seconds of data collected.

Pressure TC15a TC15a TCISa TC15a_3 TC15a_3 TC15a_3 Sensor Minimum Maximum RMS Minimum Maximum RMS Number (psid) (psid) (psid) (psid) (psid) (psid)

P1 -1.342 1.341 0.438 -1.355 1.440 0.464 P2 -1.028 1.010 0.224 -1.121 1.140 0.270 P3 -1.938 1.830 0.504 -1.776 1.688 0.467 P4 -0.723 0.755 0.177 -0.777 0.728 0.182 P5 -1.038 0.813 0.199 -0.766 0.799 0.194 P6 -1.301 1.267 0.347 -1.164 1.171 0.312 P7 -1.054 1.038 0.338 -1.125 1.179 0.386 P8 -0.837 0.809 0.182 -0.678 0.713 0.161 P9 -1.674 1.695 0.510 -1.550 1.562 0.518 P1O -1.322 1.364 0.436 -1.361 1.393 0.458 Pl1 -0.946 0.866 0.209 -0.789 0.848 0.193 P12 -2.335 2.231 0.678 -2.069 2.116 0.741 P13 -0.549 0.403 0.106 -0.355 0.343 0.087 P14 -0.461 0.512 0.114 -0.452 0.489 0.106 P15 -2.027 1.896 0.569 -2.012 1.882 0.572 P16 -0.366 0.289 0.078 -0.304 0.262 0.063 P17 -1.160 1.135 0.275 -1.112 1.014 0.287 P18 -1.691 1.696 0.501 -1.617 1.701 0.517 P19 -1.986 1.894 0.589 -2.031 1.941 0.613 P20 -3.342 3.621 1.075 -3.503 3.781 1.124 P21 -1.641 1.461 0.407 -1.503 1.462 0.395 P22 -1.439 1.527 0.435 -1.407 1.351 0.445 P23 -0.332 0.257 0.073 -0.251 0.204 0.056 P24 -1.138 1.193 0.280 -1.029 1.125 0.257 P25 -1.342 1.348 0.328 -1.260 1.258 0.295 P26 -0.294 0.280 0.077 -0.238 0.245 0.064 P27 -0.335 0.285 0.074 -0.242 0.231 0.059 Average -1.246 1.215 0.342 -1.180 1.188 0.344 P3-P13 -1.984 1.952 0.553 -1.928 1.973 0.511 P20 - P14 -3.660 3.877 1.148 -3.821 4.096 1.204 4

0

.7:1..q cn -0.5 15 (1)

$--4

-1 rn -1.5 cn (1)

-2 9Lq

-2.5 9

E -3

.-O -3.5 I -4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Sensor Number Figure la. Comparison between TC15a and TC 15a_3 (minimum pressure). Pressure sensor number P28 = P3 - P13, while pressure sensor number P29 = P20 - P14.

• _4 5

4 co a.)

3

.4

X

2 Gn 1

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Sensor Number Figure lb. Comparison between TC15a and TC15a_3 (maximum pressure). Pressure sensor number P28 = P3 - P13, while pressure sensor number P29 = P20 - P14.

5 cof

1.4 1.2 c)O 1 0.8 en 0.6  :;

0.4 0.2 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pressure Sensor Number Figure ic. Comparison between TC15a and TC15a_3 (RMS pressure). Pressure sensor number P28 = P3 - P13, while pressure sensor number P29 = P20 - P14.

0.1 0.01 N

-o 0.001

• 44 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 2. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number PI.

6

0.1 0.01 N

t1 C14 7.-

0.001 4

Cn I-0.0001 V)

P--

10 5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 3. PSD comparison between TCI5a (black curve) and TCI5a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P2.

0.1 0.01 N

0.001

• _1 ma 0.0001 V:

10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 4. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCl5a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P3.

7 CO)

0.01 N 0.001

-o 0.0001 crA 10-5 10-6 1 QI . . . i 0 51 200 Figure 5. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCl5a 3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P4.

0.01 N 0.001

.1 0.0001 car V) 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 6. PSD comparison between TCl5a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P5.

8 CO'f

I 0.1 0.01 N

0.001 C,'

0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 7. PSD comparison between TC 15a (black curve) and TCI 5a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P6.

0.1 0.01 N

0.001 C,4 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 8. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCl5a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P7.

9 c o5>

0.01 N 0.001 rA 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 9. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC 15a3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P8.

0.1 0.01 N

VC 0.001 P-o 0.0001 10 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 10. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCI'5a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P9.

10 COO(

0.1 0.01

• - 0.00 1 v: 0.0001 10-5 10-6 1 V . . I ._I 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency( 'Hz)

Figure 11. PSD comparison between TC 15a (black curve) and TC 15a3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number PIO.

0.01 I I I I I I I I I I I N 0.001 t-

".r co--

0.0001 o

10 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 12. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P11.

11 co(

1 0.1 N

-11 0.01 0.001 P-4 0.0001 10-5 10-6 t , I . . . . . .

0 50 100 150 200 Frequency((Hz)

Figure 13. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P12.

0.001 7 I l 1 i I I I I I I N 0.0001 u-L: 10o 0-6 10-7 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 14. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P13.

12 co%

0.01 0.001 N

-o,7: 0.0001 ci: 10-5 10-6 0-7 1 , - I I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency( (Hz)

Figure 15. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC 15a3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P14.

0.1 0.01 N

0.001 ma 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 16. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P1 5.

13 COQ

0.001 N 0.0001 C-4

• n 10-5 10-6 10-7 0 50 1100 150 200 Freque ncy (Hz)

Figure 17. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC 15a3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P 16.

0.1 0.01 N

0.001 t-.

0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 18. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P17.

14 CIO

0.1 0.01 N

0.001 1=4 0.0001 U)

A- 10-5 10-6 10-7 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 19. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC 15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P18.

0.1 0.01 N

0.001 7:$

0.0001 10-5 V:

10-6 10-7 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 20. PSD comparison between TC 15a (black curve) and TC I a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P19.

15 C11

1 0.1 N

0.01

"-C

.1-Cnt 0.001 1: 0.0001 10 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 21. PSD comparison between TC 15a (black curve) and TC 15a 3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P20.

0.1 0.01 N

.-e 0.00 1 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 22. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P2 1.

16

0.1 0.01 N

0.001 C4 0.0001 v:

10-5 1 0 -6 1 . . . . I . ' I . . . . I I I I I I 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 23. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P22.

0.001 0.0001 N

10-5 co~

10-6 10-7 10-8 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 24. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC 15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P23.

17

0.1 0.01 N

0.001

• -o/

C"4 0.0001 v:

10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 25. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P24.

0.01 N 0.001 0.0001 ca V:O 10 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 26. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCl5a-3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P25.

18

0.001 N 0.0001 is

• C 10o AL4 10-6 10-7 1 Y I I I I 1 V I I I I I 0 50 100 200 Frequency (Hz' Figure 27. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC 15a3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P26.

0.001 I ' I I 0.0001 N

10-5 Cl4 P-e 10-6 10-7 10-8 0 100 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 28. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P27.

19

I 0.1 0.01 N

0.001 coi 0.0001 v::

10o 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 29. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a 3 (blue curve) for the difference between pressure sensor number P3 and pressure sensor number PI3.

1 0.1 N

".O 0.01

.- 4 Qn 0.001 CO aCn 0.0001 0-4 10-5 10-6 0 50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 30. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a 3 (blue curve) for the difference between pressure sensor number P20 and pressure sensor number P14.

20