ML052490199
| 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 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 I 5a 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 R
Alan J. Bilanin 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 Identifier TC15a-3 Strain Gage (SG) Correction Technique Reduced 80 Hz on A and C main steam lines, averaged single SG with SG pairs for all failed strain gage locations Acoustic Circuit Model Used Minimum Error Model and compare its predictions against TC15a, the other Minimum Error model.
This report summarizes the low resolution results for TC15a_3 compared against TC I 5a, 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 Sensor Number P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P1O Pl1 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 TC15a Minimum (psid)
-1.342
-1.028
-1.938
-0.723
-1.038
-1.301
-1.054
-0.837
-1.674
-1.322
-0.946
-2.335
-0.549
-0.461
-2.027
-0.366
-1.160
-1.691
-1.986
-3.342
-1.641
-1.439
-0.332
-1.138
-1.342
-0.294
-0.335 TC15a Maximum (psid) 1.341 1.010 1.830 0.755 0.813 1.267 1.038 0.809 1.695 1.364 0.866 2.231 0.403 0.512 1.896 0.289 1.135 1.696 1.894 3.621 1.461 1.527 0.257 1.193 1.348 0.280 0.285 1.215 1.952 3.877 TCISa RMS (psid) 0.438 0.224 0.504 0.177 0.199 0.347 0.338 0.182 0.510 0.436 0.209 0.678 0.106 0.114 0.569 0.078 0.275 0.501 0.589 1.075 0.407 0.435 0.073 0.280 0.328 0.077 0.074 0.342 0.553 1.148 TC15a_3 Minimum (psid)
-1.355
-1.121
-1.776
-0.777
-0.766
-1.164
-1.125
-0.678
-1.550
-1.361
-0.789
-2.069
-0.355
-0.452
-2.012
-0.304
-1.112
-1.617
-2.031
-3.503
-1.503
-1.407
-0.251
-1.029
-1.260
-0.238
-0.242
-1.180
-1.928
-3.821 TC15a_3 Maximum (psid) 1.440 1.140 1.688 0.728 0.799 1.171 1.179 0.713 1.562 1.393 0.848 2.116 0.343 0.489 1.882 0.262 1.014 1.701 1.941 3.781 1.462 1.351 0.204 1.125 1.258 0.245 0.231 1.188 1.973 4.096 TC15a_3 RMS (psid) 0.464 0.270 0.467 0.182 0.194 0.312 0.386 0.161 0.518 0.458 0.193 0.741 0.087 0.106 0.572 0.063 0.287 0.517 0.613 1.124 0.395 0.445 0.056 0.257 0.295 0.064 0.059 0.344 0.511 1.204 Average
-1.246 P3-P13
-1.984 P20 - P14 -3.660 4
0 7:1
...q cn15 (1)
$--4 rn cn (1) 9Lq 9E
.-O I
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
-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 co a.)
- .4
- X
Gn 5
4 3
2 1
0 0 5
10 15 20 25 Pressure Sensor Number 30 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 c)O en 1.2 1
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
0 5
10 15 20 25 Pressure Sensor Number 30 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 N
-o
- 44 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 2. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 pressure sensor number PI.
(blue curve) for 6
0.1 N
t1
C14 7
4 Cn I-V)
P--
0.01 0.001 0.0001 10 5 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 3. PSD comparison between TCI5a (black curve) and TCI5a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P2.
0.1 N
- _1 ma V:
0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 4. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCl5a_3 pressure sensor number P3.
(blue curve) for 7
CO)
0.01 N
-o crA 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 1 QI i
0 51 Figure 5. PSD comparison between pressure sensor number P4.
200 TC15a (black curve) and TCl5a 3 (blue curve) for 0.01 N
.1 carV) 0.001 0.0001 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 N
C,'
0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 (blue curve) for Figure 7. PSD comparison between TC 1 5a (black curve) and TC I 5a_3 pressure sensor number P6.
0.1 N
C,4 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 (blue curve) for Figure 8. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCl5a_3 pressure sensor number P7.
9 c o5>
0.01 N
rA 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0
50 100 150 200 Frequency (Hz)
Figure 9. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) pressure sensor number P8.
and TC 1 5a3 (blue curve) for 0.1 N
VC P-o 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 10. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TCI'5a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P9.
10 COO(
0.1 v:
0.01 0.00 1 0.0001 10-5 10-6 1 V I
._I 0
50 100 Frequency(
Figure 11. PSD comparison between TC 1 5a (black curve) pressure sensor number PIO.
0.01 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
150 200
'Hz) and TC 1 5a3 (blue curve) for N
t-
".r co--
0.001 0.0001 10 o
10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 12. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P11.
11 co (
1
-11 N
P-4 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 t I
0 50 100 Frequency(
Figure 13. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) pressure sensor number P12.
0.001 7
I l
1 i
I I
I I
I I
150 200 (Hz) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for N
u-L:
0.0001 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 N
-o,7:
ci:
0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0 -7 1 I
I I
I I
I I
0 50 100 Frequency(
Figure 15. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) pressure sensor number P14.
150 200 (Hz) and TC 1 5a3 (blue curve) for 0.1 N
ma 0.01 0.001 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
C-4
- n 0.0001 10-5 10-6 10-7 0
50 1
Freque 100 150 200 ncy (Hz) curve) and TC 1 5a3 (blue curve) for Figure 17. PSD comparison between TC15a (black pressure sensor number P 16.
0.1 N
t-0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 18. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 pressure sensor number P17.
(blue curve) for 14 CIO
0.1 N
1=4 U)
A-0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 10-7 0
50 100 Frequency (
150 200 Hz) and TC 1 5a_3 (blue curve) for Figure 19. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) pressure sensor number P18.
0.1 N
7:$
V:
0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 10-7 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 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
"-C
.1-Cnt 1:
0.01 0.001 0.0001 10 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 21. PSD comparison between TC 1 5a (black curve) and TC 1 5a 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 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 22. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P2 1.
16
0.1 N
C4 v:
0.01 0.001 0.0001 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 N
co~
0.0001 10-5 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 N
C"4
- -o/
v:
0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 25. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 (blue curve) for pressure sensor number P24.
0.01 N
ca V:O 0.001 0.0001 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
is
- C AL4 0.0001 10 o 10-6 10-7 1 Y 1
I I
I I
V I
I I
I I
0 50 100 Frequency (Hz' Figure 27. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and pressure sensor number P26.
0.001 I I
I 200 TC 1 5a3 (blue curve) for N
Cl4 P-e 0.0001 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 0
100 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 28. PSD comparison between TC15a (black curve) and TC15a_3 pressure sensor number P27.
(blue curve) for 19
I 0.1 N
coi v::
0.01 0.001 0.0001 10 o 10-6 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 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 N
".O 4
Qn CO a
Cn 0-4 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 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