ML053010055
| ML053010055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  (DPR-029, DPR-030) |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2005 |
| From: | General Electric Co |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| DRF-0000-0043-0703 GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Rev 2 | |
| Download: ML053010055 (143) | |
Text
ATTACHMENT 4 GE Report GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, "Test and Analysis Report, Quad Cities New Design Steam Dryer, Dryer #2 Experimental Modal Analysis and Correlation with Finite Element Results," Revision 2, Non-Proprietary, dated July 2005
GE Nuclear Energy GeerlfiectlCoran 1989 UWe Oichard St., San Jbse. CoA 95125-1030 GENE-0000-0041-1656-01 Revision 2 Class I DRF-0000-0043-0703 July 2005 NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION Test and Analysis Report Quad Cities New Design Steam Dryer Dryer #2 Experimental Modal Analysis and Correlation with Finite Element Results, Revision 2
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version IMPORTANT NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of the document GENE-0000-0041-1656-01R2, which has the proprietary information removed.
Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed bracket as shown here [
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The only undertakings of the General Electric Company (GE) respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between the company receiving this document and GE. Nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the applicable contract. The use of this information by anyone other than a customer authorized by GE to have this document, or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized. With respect to any unauthorized use, GE makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy or usefulness of the information contained in this document, or that its use may not infringe privately owned rights.
i
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 9
9 Table of Contents List of Tables.........................................
2 List of Figures.........................................
2 Acronym s............................................................................................................................7 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................
8 2.0 Scope.........................................
10 3.0 Background.........................................
10 4.0 Purpose..........................................
11 5.0 Experimental Setup.........................................
13 5.1 Test Configuration.........................................
13 5.2 Data Acquisition System and Instrumentation.........................................
14 5.3 Sensor Locations.........................................
15 5.4 Frequency Response Function Measurement Settings......................................... 15 5.5 Test Documentation.........................................
16 6.0 Test Results.........................................
17 6.1 Skirt Damping Measurement Results.........................................
17 6.2 Hood Damping Measurement Results.........................................
21 6.4 Discussion of Damping Results.........................................
23 6.5 Dryer Top Experimental Results.........................................
25 6.6 00 Vertical Side Experimental Results.........................................
26 6.7 Tie Bar Experimental Results.........................................
27 7.0 Correlation.........................................
29 7.1 Procedure.........................................
29 7.2 Geometric Correlation.........................................
29 7.3 Modal Correlation.........................................
30 7.4 FRF Correlation.........................................
32 7.5 Changes to As-received model............................................................................. 34 8.0 Correlation of Test Results and FE Results..............
........................... 35 8.1 Global Comparison.........................................
35 8.2 Skirt Component Comparison.........................................
36 8.3 900 Hood Component Comparison......................................... 40 8.4 2700 Hood Component Comparison......................................... 42 9.0 Summary and Conclusions.........................................
44 10.0 References.........................................
47 Attachment A: Test Plan.........................................
96 Attachment B: Hammer Tip Study.........................................
110 Attachment C: Effect of Number of Averages...............
.......................... 114 Attachment D: Acquisition Front-end channel assignment........................................... 121 Attachment E: Test Log Sheets.........................................
128 1 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-0J, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version List of Tables Table la: Dryer #2 900 Skirt Damping Results at Low Water Level.............................. 18 Table lb: Dryer #2 2700 Skirt Damping Results at Low Water Level............................. 19 Table l c: Dryer #2 Skirt Damping Results at Low Water Level, Whole Component..... 20 Table 2a: Dryer #2 Hood Damping Results at Low Water Level.................................... 22 Table 2b: Dryer #2 Hood Damping Results at Low Water Level................................... 23 Table 3: Dryer #2 Top Experimental Frequencies........................................................... 25 Table 4: Dryer #2 0° Vertical Side Experimental Frequencies........................................ 26 Table 5: Dryer #2 Tie Bar Experimental Frequencies..................................................... 28 Table 8: Dryer #2 2700 Hood Experimental Frequencies................................................ 44 List of Figures Figure 1: Finite Element Model Representation of Dryer............................................... 49 Figure 2: Photograph of Dryer #2, 00 Side.................................................
49 Figure 3: Photograph of Dryer #2, 1800 Side.................................................................. 50 Figure 4: Tripod Support Attached to Dryer................................................................... 50 Figure 5: Tripod Support Connection to Dryer.................................................
51 Figure 6: Full view of 90 degree hood of Dryer #2 during measurements....................... 51 Figure 7: Pattern of measurement points for the 90 degree hood of Dryer #2, where light red mesh shows the 90 degree hood response locations, dark red represents the responses on top and aqua represents the responses on the ring................................ 52 Figure 8: Response locations on upper right comer of 90 degree hood of Dryer #2........ 52 Figure 9: Response locations on lower right corner of 90 degree hood of Dryer #2........ 53 Figure 10: Response location on side panel to the right of main panel of 90 degree hood of Dryer #2 (at angle with respect to. main panel)..................................................... 54 Figure 11: Response locations on upper left corner of 90 degree hood of Dryer #2........ 55 Figure 12: Response locations on lower left comer of 90 degree hood of Dryer #2 with green circle indicating one of input locations on 90 degree hood.............................. 55 Figure 13: Response locations on side panel to the right of main panel of 90 degree hood of Dryer #2 (at angle with respect to main panel)...................................................... 56 Figure 14: Full view of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2...................................................... 57 Figure 15: Pattern of measurement points for the 270 degree hood of Dryer #2 where yellow mesh is 270 hood response locations, dark red is responses on top and aqua is responses on the ring............................................................
57 Figure 16: Response locations on leftmost panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2.......... 58 Figure 17: Response locations on upper part of left middle panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2.........................................................
59 Figure 18: Response locations on upper part of right middle panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2........................................................
59 2of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Vcrsion Figure 19: Response locations on lower part of right middle panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2............................................................
60 Figure 20: Response locations on rightmost panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2........ 61 Figure 21: Response locations on side panel to the left of main panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2 (at angle with respect to main panel)...................................................... 62 Figure 22: Response locations on side panel to the right of main panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2 (at angle with respect to main panel)...................................................... 63 Figure 23: Full view of 0 degree side of Dryer #2 (before installation of temporary sensors)...........................................................
64 Figure 24: Pattern of measurement points for the 0 degree side of Dryer #2 where pink mesh is 0 degree side response locations, dark red is responses on top and aqua is responses on the ring............
64 Figure 25: Response locations on left side of 0 degree side of Dryer #2 with green circle indicating one of input locations on 0 degree side..................................................... 65 Figure 26: Response locations on middle section of 0 degree side of Dryer #2............... 65 Figure 27: Response locations on right part of 0 degree side of Dryer #2....................... 66 Figure 28: Full view of 180 degree side of Dryer #2 (before installation of temporary sensors)............................................................
66 Figure 29: Pattern of measurement points for the 180 degree side of Dryer #2 where blue mesh is 180 hood response locations, dark red is responses on top and aqua is responses on the ring............................................................
67 Figure 30: Response locations on left part of 180 degree side of Dryer #2...................... 67 Figure 31: Response locations on center section of 180 degree side of Dryer #2............ 68 Figure 32: Response locations on right section of 180 degree side of Dryer #2.............. 68 Figure 33: Pattern of measurement points for the top, tie bar and inner banks of Dryer #2 where maroon line is 00 side response locations, red is responses on top, pink is tie bar, green is inner bank/perforated panel responses and aqua is responses on the ring.
69 Figure 34: Response locations on top of Dryer #2, 0° to 900 quadrant............................ 70 Figure 35: Response locations on top of Dryer #2, 900 to 1800 quadrant........................ 70 Figure 36: Response locations on top of Dryer #2, 180° to 2700 quadrant...........
1...........
7 Figure 37 Response locations on top of Dryer #2, 2700 to 00 region............................... 71 Figure 38: Close-up of Pattern of measurement points the top, tie bar and inner banks of Dryer #2 where blue mesh is 180 hood response locations, dark red is responses on top and aqua is responses on the ring...........................................................
72 Figure 39: Response locations on tie bar of Dryer #2...................................................... 72 Figure 40: Strain Gage location on tie bar of Dryer #2 - Center gage of rosette was used 73 Figure 41: Response locations on tie bar of Dryer #2......................................................
73 Figure 42: Pattern of measurement points for the skirt and ring of Dryer #2 where purple mesh is skirt response locations, and aqua mesh is the response locations on the ring.
74 Figure 43: Response locations skirt, 900 panel............................................................
74 Figure 44: Response locations skirt, 2700 panel............................................................... 75 3 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 45: Pattern of measurement points for Dryer #2 where the red mesh is response locations on top, green is the response locations on the panels inside the dryer, aqua is'responses on the ring, blue is responses on 180 degree side and pink is responses on 0 degree side...........................................................
75 Figure 46: Comparison of Damping levels from curve-fitting individual FRFs at Dry and LWL for Skirt Panel Locations (Underwater at LWL).............................................. 76 Figure 47: Comparison of Damping levels from curve-fitting individual FRFs at Dry and LWL for Skirt Panel Locations (Underwater at LWL).............................................. 76 Figure 48: Summation FRF for Top: Red - Test............................................................. 77 Figure 49: Summation FRF for 00 Side: Red - Test........................................................ 77 Figure 50: Summation FRF for Tie Bar: Red - Test....................................................... 78 Figure 51: Summation FRF for Tie Bar - Extended Frequency Range: Red - Test....... 78 Figure 52: Driving Point FRF (Strain Response) for Tie Bar at location of permanent sensor S6-Extended Frequency Range: Red - Test.................................................. 79 Figure 53: Summation FRF for Skirt: Red - FE, Green - Test Dryer #1, Blue - Test Dryer #2.............................................................
79 Figure 54: Summation FRF for Skirt: Red - Test Containing all points.......................... 80 Figure 55: Summation FRF for 90° Panel of Skirt: Red - Test Containing all 9 points.. 80 Figure 56: FRF on 90° Skirt Panel, Upper Point: Red - FE, Green - Test Dryer #1, Blue
-Test Dryer #2...........................................................
81 Figure 57: FRF on 90° Skirt Panel, Lower Point: Red - FE, Green - Test Dryer #1, Blue
-Test Dryer #2.............................................................
81 Figure 58: FRF on 900 Skirt Panel, Upper Point: Red -Test Dryer #1, Green - Test Dryer #2 (different input point than previous 2 figures).
82 Figure 59: MAC Matrix for Skirt, ((
))................................ 82 Figure 60: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left -
1] Right - ((
))
83 Figure 61: FE Mode Shape for Skirt ((....................................................... 83 Figure 62: MAC Matrix for Skirt, ((
))................................ 84 Figure 63: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left -
)), Right - ((
11.............................................................
85 Figure 64: FE Mode Shape for Skirt ((
]
]
85 Figure 65: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left - ((
)) Right - ((
))
86 Figure 66: FE Mode Shape for Skirt ((
))....................................................... 86 Figure 67: Summation FRF for 2700 Panel of Skirt: Red - Test Containing all 9 points 87 Figure 68: FRF on 270° Skirt Panel, Upper Point: Red - FE, Green - Test Dryer #1, Blue - Test Dryer #2..............................................................
87 Figure 69: FRF on 270° Skirt Panel, Lower Point: Red - FE, Green - Test Dryer #1, Blue - Test Dryer #2.............................................................
88 Figure 70: FRF on 270° Skirt Panel, Lower Point: Red - Test Dryer #1, Green - Test Dryer #2 (different input point than previous 2 figures).
88 Figure 71: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left - ((
]J Right - ((
))
89 4of140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 72: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left - ff
)) Right -
1]...............................................................
90 Figure'73: FE Mode Shape for Skirt ((
))
90 Figure 74: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left - ((
)) Right - ((
))
91 Figure 75: Summation FRF for 90°Hood: Red - FE, Green - Test Dryer #1, Blue - Test Dryer f2.................................
91 Figure 76: Mode Shapes for 900 Hood, Local View: Left - ff
)) Right -
((
)).................................
92 Figure 77: Mode Shapes for 900 Hood, Local View: Left - ((
)) Right -
((
)).................................
92 Figure 78: MAC Matrix for 900 Hood, ((
))............
............ 93 Figure 79: Mode Shapes for 900 Hood, Local View: Left - Test, ((
)) Right -
[
))............................................................ 93 Figure 80: Summation FRF for 2700 Hood: Red - FE, Green - Test Dryer #1, Blue -
Test Dryer #2............................................................
94 Figure 81: Mode Shapes for 2700 Hood, Local View: Top - ff
)) Bottom
-((
))
94 Figure 82: MAC Matrix for 2700 Hood, ((
))
...................... 95 Figure 83: Mode Shapes for 2700 Hood, Local View: Right - ff
)) Left -
.[
]. 95 Figure B-I: Comparison of Measurements using Hammer Tips of different hardness, Radial Skirt Response to Radial Skirt Impact (Red curve is soft tip, Green curve is medium tip).112 Figure B-2: Comparison of Measurements using Hammer Tips of different hardness, Vertical Side Response to Skirt Impact (Red curve is soft tip, Green curve is medium tip).112 Figure B-3: Comparison of Measurements using Hammer Tips of different hardness, 90° Hood Response to Skirt Impact (Red curve is soft tip, Green curve is medium tip) 113 Figure C-1: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir.785 and normal response in point skir.785 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2.115 Figure C-2: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and normal response in point skir.753 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2.116 Figure C-3: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir.785 and vertical response in point skir.753 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2.116 Figure CA: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) 5 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version for normal excitation in point skir:785 and lateral response in point skir:753 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2..........................................................
117 Figure C-5: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and normal response in point skir:707 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2..........................................................
117 Figure C-6: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and vertical response in point skir:707 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2..........................................................
118 Figure C-7: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and lateral response in point skir:707 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2...........................................................
118 Figure C-8: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and normal response in point skir:722 on the 270 degree skirt panel of dryer 2..........................................................
119 Figure C-9: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and normal response in point skir:762 on the 270 degree skirt panel of dryer 2...........................................................
119 Figure C-10: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and response in strain gage channel C in point skir:796 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2....................................................... 120 6 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Acronyms BWR DAS EMA EPU FE FEA FRF GE GENE MAC MPT NPT ODS OLTP QCI QC2 RPV Boiling Water Reactor Data Acquisition System Experimental Modal Analysis Extended Power Uprate Finite Element Finite Element Analysis Frequency Response Function General Electric General Electric Nuclear Energy Modal Assurance Criterion Mode Pair Table Node Pair Table Operational Deflection Shape Original Licensed Thermal Power Quad Cities Unit 1 Quad Cities Unit 2 Reactor Pressure Vessel 7 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 1.0 Executive Summary 4
a An experimental modal analysis was performed on new design Dryer #2, the dryer intended for Quad Cities Unit #1 (QC I), and the results were compared to finite element analysis results on a frequency basis and on a mode shape basis. The finite element analysis included a modal analysis and, using those modes from the modal analysis, a mode superposition to obtain FRFs that match the input and response points of the test data. The test results were also compared to the test results of Dryer #1. The Dryer #2 test results showed many similarities to the finite element results and to the Dryer #1 test results.
In terms of frequencies, the finite element model frequencies are generally in good agreement with the test frequencies. For example, the first dominant mode of the 2700 skirt panel is at ((
)) in the finite element analysis and ((
)) in the test results, a difference of 5.1%. The 90° skirt panel, the 90° hood and the 270° hood all had frequency differences between experimental and analytical results of less than 10%
for their lowest frequency dominant modes ((
1]
In terms of FRF comparisons, the various components examined showed generally good agreement in trends and levels between summation FRFs for test and FE for that specific component. The 90° hood and the 2700 hood were similar to the Dryer #1 results. The most different results were for the 90° skirt panel and the 270° skirt panel. The FRFs on these panels showed similar shapes between Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 but differences in frequency. The 900 skirt panel for Dryer#2 had higher frequencies than that of Dryer #1, and the 2700 skirt panel had lower frequencies than Dryer #1.
8 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version In addition to determining the natural frequencies and mode shapes, the hammer test responsesare used to experimentally determine damping values on the skirt and hood at low water level. The purpose of the experimentally determined damping values was to validate the damping values used in the stress prediction analyses. The damping measurement results showed a range of damping values which validate the damping values used for structural response analyses.
Also, by comparing Dry to LWL measurements for the skirt and the drain channel, it appears that the decrease of damping as frequency increases is caused by the decrease in the effect of water as frequency increases.
From the above discussion on the good agreement of most of the frequency comparisons and the reasonable agreement of the 90° skirt panel first panel mode, it is concluded that the impact hammer test results verify that the finite element model used for dryer design calculations is sufficiently dynamically similar to the as-built dryer for engineering purposes. In addition the impact hammer test results also show that the ((
)) value for the skirt used in the stress prediction analyses are realistic, particularly when considering that the higher force levels expected in operation should produce higher damping levels than obtained in this test.
9 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 2.0 Scope This document summarizes the experimental modal analysis and correlation with finite element results performed to compare the finite element model of the new design steam dryer with the actual production Dryer #2. The experimental modal analysis and the finite element analysis were conducted during early May 2005. The following items are included in this document:
- 1. Description of the testing performed
- 2. Presentation of experimental data
- 3. Description of the finite element analysis
- 4. Comparison of experimental results with finite element results
3.0 Background
This section provides background information intended to help the reader understand the events that precipitated this program.
The original design BWR steam dryers functioned acceptably at Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) for many years. In response to some cracking of original design and modified original design BWR steam dryers when operation shifted to Extended Power Uprate (EPU), GENE has initiated a program to develop a new design of BWR steam dryer with the design intent of being able to survive loads imposed by EPU. As this design was substantially different from the original design, experimental correlation measurements were considered necessary to determine if the finite element analysis used to predict stresses at EPU with its higher loads correlated to actual hardware fabricated according to the new design. Figure 1 is a depiction of the finite element model for the 10 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version new dryer design, and Figures 2 and 3 are pictures of the actual unit, Dryer #2, undergoing final assembly.
4.0 Purpose The testing and analysis described in this document were defined to accomplish the following main objective:
- Determine if the lowest or first dominant frequencies of major components of the new design steam dryer are within 10% of the frequencies predicted by finite element analysis for the dryer configuration at low water level The specific purpose of the testing, the experimental modal analysis, is as stated in Reference 1, Steam Dryer Hammer Test Specification, GE 26A6380, Revision 1:
- To identify the as-built frequencies and mode shapes of the dryer's key components at ambient conditions.
These as-built frequencies and mode shapes are to be compared with mode shapes, frequencies and FRFs generated from the finite element model of the dryer.
The program has several side objectives as well:
- 1. To experimentally measure damping values on the skirt and hood at low water level to validate assumptions used in the stress prediction analyses
- 2. To provide some limited comparisons to Dryer #1
- 3. To recommend areas for investigation of differences between model and as-built hardware 11 of 140
GENE-0000-004 1-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
- 4. To recommend areas of improvement of the finite element model to more closely match the as-built hardware 0
The primary focus of this document is Dryer #2, the dryer intended for Quad Cities Unit
- 1 (QC 1). This dryer will be referred to as Dryer #2 throughout this document. The other dryer is the instrumented dryer intended for Quad Cities Unit #2 (QC2) and is referred to throughout this document as Dryer #1. The construction of the 2 dryers is supposed to be identical except for the modifications necessary for the transducers, conduit and wiring on Dryer #1, the instrumented dryer.
12 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 5.0 Experimental Setup This section describes the test configuration and environment, identifies the instrumentation and data acquisition equipment used, and identifies the sensor locations.
The setup and testing follows the requirements outlined in Reference 1, Steam Dryer Hammer Test Specification, GE 26A6380, Revision 1. Attachment A contains the test plan used for the test.
5.1 Test Configuration Dryer #2, the second dryer with the new design, was tested at J.T. Cullen in Fulton, Illinois, a fabrication facility that served as the location for the installation of the final modifications and for final assembly. For the experimental modal test, the steam dryer was supported in a water tank by 4 tripods with extensions that fit into its main support lug sockets. These tripods were welded to metal plates which were bolted to the concrete floor of the fabrication shop. Figure 4 is a picture of one of the support tripods, and Figure 5 is a close-in picture of the support/dryer connection. A circular tank with a liner was used to hold water for the testing with water. The tank's inner diameter replicated the inner diameter of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) at the plant to attempt to match the hydrostatic loading at the plant. Testing was performed at 2 different water levels:
- 1. Dry - no water
- 2. LWL - Low Water Level - water up to 32.5 inches above the bottom of the bottom flange of the dryer.
All testing was performed at ambient conditions at the test site, with the temperature ranging from 60° F to 750 F 13 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 5.2 Data Acquisition System and Instrumentation The following instrumentation was used to perform the experimental modal analysis and the static test:
- 1. PCB Model 333A65, 356A22, 356B08, 356B18 and 356A15 triaxial accelerometers, and Model 333830, 333A32, 333B32, 352C43 and 357BI I single-axis accelerometers
- 2. PCB Model 086D50 Impact Hammer - Based on operating experience from the Dryer # I experimental modal and review of its results, the medium hammer tip was selected. Attachment B contains some measurements performed on Drycr #1 comparing the softer hammer tip to the medium hammer tip.
- 3. PCB Model 086C20 Impact Hammer - This impact hammer was used for the additional drain channel and skirt panel measurements where an impact was performed on a skirt panel or drain channel above the tank upper edge, and a response was measured underwater on the specific skirt panel or on a drain channel. The medium tip was used.
- 4. Vishay Micro-Measurements CEA-06-125UR-350 Strain Gages
- 5. Omega LC304-5K Load Cell The following equipment formed the Data Acquisition System (DAS) and was used to record and analyze the test data:
14 of 140
GENE-0000-004 1-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version I. A 116 channel LMS SCADAS III dynamic signal analyzer (2 SCADAS III Model 316 front ends in a Master-Slave configuration) with PQA and PQFA modules was used to provide ICP power to and receive the signal from all of the ICP sensors. For the strain gage measurements, PQBA modules were used in the SCADAS 316 to provide bridge completion and signal conditioning. The system was controlled by a personal computer using LMS Test.Lab 5A software, specifically the Modal Impact, Modal Analysis and Spectral Acquisition modules of software.
5.3 Sensor Locations The following items detail the contents of Figures 6 through 45 which are pictures that identify the input and response locations used for the experimental modal analysis and that show the test wireframe.
- Figures 6 through 13 show the 90° hood
- Figures 14 through 22 are the 2700 hood
- The 00 vertical side locations are shown in Figures 23 through 27
- Thel 800 vertical side locations are shown in Figures 28 through 32
- Figures 33 through 37 contain the locations on the dryer top
- The tie bar is shown in Figures 38 through 41
- The skirt is shown in Figures 42, 43 and 44
- Figure 45 is an image of the complete test wireframe 5.4 Frequency Response Function Measurement Settings The signal processing parameters used for data acquisition were the following
- 5 to 10 averages (I average for the time domain measurements)
(Attachment C is a comparison of results from 5 averages and 20 averages for one measurement location on Dryer #2 to show that using 5 to 10 averages is adequate. Also, the GE Hammer Test Specification, Reference 2, specifies 3 or more averages) 15 of 140
GENE-0000-004 1-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
- Force window of 20% on the input (Uniform window used for time domain measurements)
I
- Exponential window of 3% on the responses (Uniform window used for time domain measurements)
- Effective Frequency bandwidth of 400 Hz (actual bandwidth setting 512 Hz, sampling frequency of 1024 Hz) (skirt panel/drain channel had effective frequency bandwidth of 800 Hz, as did time domain measurements - actual bandwidth setting of 1024 Hz, sampling frequency of 2048 Hz)
- 4096 Spectral lines (0.125 Hz resolution/8.0 second time length) (8192 spectral lines for bandwidth settings of 1024 Hz) 0.1 second pretrigger on the hammer input For the measurements, the following results were saved:
- Frequency Response Function
- Coherence
- Input Autopower
- Response Autopowers
- Time Record (for time domain measurements only) 5.5 Test Documentation Attachment D contains the channel assignment data sheets as referred to in the GE Hammer Test Specification. Attachment E contains the test log sheets.
16 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Vcrsion 4
4 6.0 Test Results This section presents a subset of the test results. It covers the damping results based on experimental measurements and other experimental results on components that are not compared to FE results on a component basis. Additional test results that are correlated to FE results are presented in Section 8.0, Correlation of Test Results and Finite Element Results.
6.1 Skirt Damping Measurement Results Measurements were performed to measure the damping on the 90° skirt panel and on the 2700 skirt panel at low water level. Acceleration and strain responses were acquired on these panels in response to impacts. Figures 43 and 44 show the impact and response locations for the 900 skirt panel and on the 270° skirt panel, respectively, for the damping measurements.
Damping was calculated in the frequency domain using modal curve-fitting methods on individual FRF measurements and on all of the FRF measurements for the specific component. Reference 2 provides a discussion of the modal curve-fitting method used for the individual FRFs and for the whole component analysis.
The damping results on the skirt are presented in Tables I a and lb. Table I a contains results for individual FRFs on the 900 skirt panel and on the 270° skirt panel while Table lb contains levels for the whole skirt component.
17 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Table in: Dryer #12 900 Skirt Damping Results at Low Water Level Il 1]
18f 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version Table Ib: Dryer #2 2700 Skirt Damping Results at Low Water Level 11
))
19 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version Table Ic: Dryer #2 Skirt Damping Results at Low Water Level, Whole Component
[1 0
(3) 20 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version The damping in terms of percent critical damping for tile individual FRFs ranged from
((
)) on the 90° skirt panel, with the higher frequencies generally showing less damping. The 2700 skirt panel showed a similar trend, with a range of ((
)) In general, the strain gages showed similar to slightly higher damping levels for the same mode than the accelerometers. The overall component damping levels showed a range of ((
)) and were generally either similar to or less than the levels derived from individual FRFs.
6.2 Hood Damping Measurement Results Measurements were performed to measure the damping on the 90° hood and on the 2700 hood at low water level. Acceleration was acquired on these panels in response to impacts, and strain was acquired on the 90° hood as well.
Damping was calculated in the frequency domain using modal curve-fitting methods on individual FRF measurements and on all of the FRF measurements for the specific component. Table 2a contains the damping values for the 900 hood, and Table 2b contains the damping values for the 270° hood.
21 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version
((
TaVlc 2a: Dzycr #2 Hood Damping Rcsults at Los} Watcr Lcvcl
))
22 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Tabic 2b: Diycr #2 Hood Damping Rcsults at Low Watcr Lcvcl As with Dryer #1, the hoods of Dryer #2 generally showed less damping than the skirt panels. Percent of critical damping values from the individual FRFs ranged from ((
)) on the 90° hood and from ((
)) on the 2700 hood. Again, damping tended to decrease as frequency increased. On the 90° hood, damping levels derived from individual strain measurements were within the range of the acceleration damping levels or slightly greater than the damping derived from acceleration.
6.4 Discussion or Damping Results The damping results for Dryer #2 generally match the damping results for Dryer # 1.
Several questions arise in review of damping results in the previous section. One 23 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version question is, "Why does the damping decrease with frequency?" Two possibilities were offered.
- 1. The input force decreased as frequency increased. Quite often, there is a relationship between input force and measured damping, with damping increasing as input force increases, so possibly in this case the decrease in force versus frequency is also affecting the decrease in damping versus frequency
- 2. The loading of the water on the lower skirt panel has a greater damping effect at low frequency than high frequency The 2nd possibility was checked and confirmed by calculating damping for individual FRFs on the some of the lower skirt panels and drain channels for both the Dry and LWL conditions. It appears that in the Dry condition, the damping stays relatively constant with frequency while in the LWL condition, damping starts at a significantly higher level at LWL than Dry and decreases to Dry levels. Figures 46 and 47 show the results for lower skirt panel locations and drain channel locations, respectively. These locations are underwater at LWL.
Another question concerned the increase in damping from accelerometer to strain results.
Two possibilities are present but no conclusive determination has been made:
I. Some of the strain gages were at the panel edges, greater than I inch from the weld but closer than 3 inches, while the accelerometers were in the middle of the panels. It is believed that the edge locations could show more damping than the accelerometer locations. For Dryer #2, some of the strain gages out on the panel among the accelerometers.
- 2. The strain gage is a displacement-based device while the accelerometer is acceleration-based. There is some belief that this difference is causing a slight increase in damping estimates from strain versus those from acceleration.
24 of 140
GENE-0000-004 1-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Review of damping from strain versus damping from acceleration is still in process as of the writing of this report.
6.5 Dryer Top Experimental Results This section contains experimental results from the dryer top as well as a limited number of the points on the inner hood and perforated plates. No specific correlation exercise was performed for the dryer top so only the experimental results from curve-fitting up to 150 Hz are presented here.
Table 3: Dryer #2 Top Expcrimental Frequencies 11
))
Table 3 contains significant frequencies for the dryer top below 150 Hz, and Figure 48 contains the summation FRF for the dryer top measurements. The summation FRF is an average of the FRFs in all 3 directions for the included points unless noted. Some of the summation FRFs presented in this report will only be the measurements perpendicular to the surface but will be noted as such.
25 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
))
6.6 00 Vertical Side Experimental Results As with the dryer top, no specific correlation to finite element results was performed for the 0° vertical side. Figure 41 is the summation FRF for the 00 vertical side, and Table 4 contains significant frequencies for this component below 150 Hz.
Table 4: Drycr #2 0° Vertical Sidc Experimental Frxqucncics II
))
Some of the same observations as those made for Dryer #1 are made:
((
11 26 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version One new observation, but somewhat similar to the last one above, is that the high modal density of the vertical side starts at ((
]I many modes of the 0° vertical side were obtained during curve-fitting.
The measurements for the 1800 vertical side were included after the poles were selected, and various modes of the O° vertical side appeared as in-phase or out-of-phase with similar shapes of the 1800 vertical side, although often the amplitude of the 180° vertical side is lower because it is assumed that the mode shapes of the sides were at slightly different frequencies, and the 0° vertical side modes were the modes being fit.
6.7 Tie Bar Experimental Results The experimental results for one section of one of the tie bars, the portion nearest the 90° hood of the tie bar nearest the 180° side, are presented in this section. On the instrumented dryer, this tie bar has strain gage S6 located along it longitudinally, near the middle of the right span in Figure 40 to the right of location 1002 and its accelerometer where the temporary strain gage is located. No correlation to finite element results was performed for the tie bar. Figure 50 is the summation FRF for the tie bar up to 150 Hz, and Figure 51 is the summation FRF of the tie bar up to 500 Hz. Table 5 contains significant frequencies for this component. Curve-fitting on this component was performed up to 500 Hz because the most significant peak appears ((
)) and the summation FRF is relatively flat (but sloping higher in amplitude as frequency increases) with many small peaks up to that frequency. It is assumed that ((
)) is the first bending mode of that span; however, there are not enough sensor locations on it to definitively make that conclusion. Figure 52 is a plot of the FRF with the response from a strain gage located where permanent sensor S6 is located on Dryer #I and the input from an impact hammer hitting this span near the strain gage.
27 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Tablc 5: Drycr #2 Tic Bar Expcrimcntal Frcqucncics II 1]
28 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 7.0 Correlation This section discusses the process of using finite element model results to correlate with experimental test results.
7.1 Procedure The goal of the correlation is to determine the differences between the FE model and the test object and to determine the sensitive spots of the FE model. Afterwards, one can improve the correlation, focusing on those hot spots, and finally obtain a model that is more realistic than the previous one.
The correlation procedure contains the following steps:
Geometric correlation: Definition of a relationship between the units, the coordinate systems and the measuring points of the TEST model on one hand, and the units, the coordinate systems and the nodes of the FE model on the other hand.
Modal correlation: Comparison of the experimental mode shapes and the FE mode shapes, based on wireframe animations and MAC (modal assurance criterion) calculations.
Correlation of the transfer functions: Comparison of the measured FRFs and the ones calculated directly or synthesized from the FE mode shapes.
The calculations of the FE mode shapes and FRFs have been done here with ANSYS 8.1.
The correlation has mainly been done in LMSALINK and Test.Lab.
7.2 Geometric Correlation This phase ensures the compatibility between the measured and the calculated data. It includes the following steps:
29 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
- 1. Definition of rational entities/groups in the model, grouping nodes that have common properties or are part of the same panel for example. Those entities are called components.
- 2. Definition of pairs between TEST measuring points and FE nodes. These pairs are stored in a node pair table (NPT). This table allows the automatic projection of the TEST geometry on the FE geometry.
- 3. Compatibility between the global and local coordinate systems. This information is also contained in the node pair table and ensures a proper projection of the TEST geometry on the FE geometry.
- 4. Transformation of the TEST data (modes, FRFs, wireframes) to the verification system (FE model), in order to make the comparison easier.
All these steps were done in LMS/LINK.
7.3 Modal Correlation The dynamic behavior of a structure, at least in the low frequency range, is best described by its normal modes. From experimental normal analysis, the modes of the structural components are known with their shapes, frequencies, and modal damping.
For the FE model, shapes and frequencies of normal modes are calculated in ANSYS 8.1 (analysis ANTYPE, 2). For the test results, the general process has been to calculate the complex modes first, review those modes, and then use the same poles to calculate the normal modes for direct comparison with FE results.
Experimental modes can be directly compared to FE modes by using the wireframe animations from both Test and FE. Using this technique, important conclusions can be drawn regarding parts that are not well modeled in the FE.
After the first mode extraction for example, four grounded springs were added to the model as boundary condition. These grounded springs (COMB IN 14) were fixed to the 30 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version dryer ring in the 4 support points. This was intended to model as simply as possible the support beams used in the test rig that support the dryer. This was necessary to be able to extract the suspension modes and model the influence that the supports have on the rest of the structure as there was concern that the support stiffness influenced some of the lower frequency flexible modes of the dryer.
Of course, FE modes can also be visualized with the entire model, and not only the wireframe geometry. This way, one can easily understand the real nature of the modes, which is not always obvious with wireframe animations.
Another tool to judge modal correlation is the Modal Assurance Criterion (MAC). It expresses the nature of the relationship between two sets of vectors. For each pair of modes compared, it is calculated from the vectors of each degree of freedom considered in the correlation model. Mathematically, the MAC is defined as T
r );r' MA C-rv Rkr
}2 FE N where (Tr,-)is a modal vector from test and (1pV)is a modal vector from the finite element solution. These modal vectors each represent a single frequency and contain the common degrees of freedom between the test and the FE, in this case on a component basis. For identical modes, the MAC is 1. For linearly independent mode shapes, the MAC is 0. As the MAC formulation includes a quadratic term, small or local deviations between Test and FE will result in considerably lowered MAC values.
Unfortunately, the FE modal density at low frequency is already very high for the dryer.
And too many local effects are already present at the very low frequencies (this is a direct result of the low stiffness of the perforated inner panels of the dryer). As a result, the global modes are mixedflost among many local modes. For example here, in the 200 first 31 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version FE modes, only 10 had global characteristics; all of the other modes were I".. 2 nd and 3Id bending modes of the inner perforated panels.
4 On the other hand, the low number of measuring points on a region makes it impossible to capture those local modes in the experimental TEST modal analysis.
As result, one TEST mode corresponds to many FE modes, global, local or mixed. A one-to-one TEST-FE mode comparison is thus very difficult, and makes it difficult to draw any conclusion of the MAC analysis.
The MAC analysis was still used, but generally only after visual inspection of the mode shapes and of the summation FRFs had narrowed down the frequency range to be examined.
7.4 FRF Correlation Normal modes are an efficient representation of the dynamic behavior of a structure, but only useful for correlation as long as the modes are not combining too many local effects.
As mentioned above, even at low frequency, there are many local modes. This quantity of local modes means that the local effects of one FE mode usually occur at multiple frequencies in the test model. As a consequence, one FE mode will partially correlate with multiple test modes. Also, a test mode will combine multiple local effects that correlate partially with multiple FE modes. This makes it very difficult to find the same combination of the same local effects in test and FE. As long as the same local effects occur at approximately the same frequency, a good dynamic correlation is obtained, even if this is not visible in a MAC matrix.
Another way thus to compare dynamic behavior of two models is looking at frequency response functions (FRFs). They can be evaluated over the whole frequency range of interest. In an FRF, the (acceleration) response of one point is plotted as function of a unit 32 of 140
GENE-0000-004 1-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version (force) input in another point. Modes can be found as peaks in an FRF, and the higher the modal damping, the lower and broader the peak will be.
0 For checking correlation, the synthesized FE FRFs are compared with the corresponding measured test FRFs. More interesting than the exact amplitude is the general shape of a FRF. A good correlation means that important peaks from the test should be found in the synthesized FRFs at a similar frequency, and the general amplitude of the FE and test FRFs are similar.
A FRF can be calculated in ANSYS with the harmonic response analysis (ANTYPE, HARMIC). The idea is to impose a unitary force in one DOF of the hitting points and calculate the frequency response (displacements or accelerations) in all the DOFs of all the other points. The obtained response functions can then effectively been seen as displacements or accelerations per unit input force.
Three methods of solution are available in ANSYS to calculate FRFs with the harmonic response analysis:
- 1. Full (HROPT, FULL)
This method solves the general equation of motion of a structural system transposed in frequency domain directly.
- 2. Reduced (HROPT, REDUC)
The reduced solution method uses reduced structure matrices to solve the equation of motion. This method runs faster than the full harmonic response by several orders of magnitudes, because the technique of matrix reduction is used so that the matrix used to represent the system is reduced to the essential DOFs required to characterize the response of the system.
33 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
- 3. Mode superposition (HROPT, MSUP)
The mode superposition method uses the natural frequencies and mode shapes from the modal analysis (ANTYPE, MODAL) to compute the dynamic response to steady harmonic excitation. It converts the equation of motion in its modal form. The advantage of this method is that the computationally expensive matrix algebra can be calculated inexpensively in modal coordinates. The individual modal responses are then superimposed to obtain the actual response.
The Full method is very memory and time-consuming and was not used in this project.
The Mode Superposition technique was preferred here. This method has as an advantage that the mode shapes only have to be calculated once and can be re-used to calculate FRFs for different input points. On the other hand, the reduced and full harmonic methods have to be repeated for each hitting point. Some FRFs were generated in LMS Link software using mode superposition as well.
7.5 Changes to As-received model Several changes were made to the model after it was received from GE to more closely replicate the test conditions.
- Elastic modulus and damping changed to ambient conditions from reactor conditions (the lower skirt super element with its loading by water was left unchanged)
- Removal of pressure loading (a pressure loading from reactor conditions)
- Addition of grounded springs instead of perfectly rigid constraints at the support locations (the dryer as tested was supported on stands that exhibited flexibility as compared to the completely rigid FE constraints. A complete iteration of these springs to match the test results was not performed.)
34 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 8.0 Correlation of Test Results and FE Results This section presents comparisons between test results and finite element analysis results on several levels:
- Global
- Skirt Component 90° Hood Component
- 270° Hood Component The comparisons are presented as comparisons of frequencies, comparison of test FRFs to FE FRFs, comparison of local mode shapes and comparison of global mode shapes.
Comparison started on a global level and moved to a component level due to the many closely spaced modes of some of the dryer components in the finite element model.
Because of the modal density, many of the test modes appear similar to numerous FE modes, making it very difficult to find a single corresponding mode. Correlation on a component basis was performed by observing significant peaks in the summation FRF and some individual FRFs of the component to narrow down the frequency range for searching the FE modes and then reviewing the mode shape animations and MAC matrices for the test and FE components. Also, for the skirt and both hoods, 2 relatively widely spaced peaks in the frequency domain were examined. After that review, the other components were added to the mode shape to observe the global mode that the component mode was related to.
8.1 Global Comparison The results from the experimental modal and the finite element analyses have not been directly compared on a global level, but similarities have arose as the component comparisons were being performed. There are similar modes under 10 Hz that are 35 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version directly controlled by the modeling of the supports and the local region of the dryer that the supports attach to. For this study, it was decided to stop the iterative adjustment of the support springs as its effect on the component modes was expected to be minimal, but this adjustment is still an area for potential improvement.
The first significant global flexible mode is found at ((
)) a mode in which the hoods appear to slide laterally out of phase with each other with what appears to be a twist or rotation of the skirt and ring. This specific global test mode for Dryer #2 is ((
)) of the same mode for Dryer #1. The finite element counterpart to this mode ended up at ((
]3 with the grounded springs used at the support locations. Possibly this frequency difference could possibly be reduced further through adjustment of the grounded spring supports or possibly other parameters; however, as mentioned above, it was decided to stop iterating the FE grounded springs to match the test.
8.2 Skirt Component Comparison The skirt was the first component to be analyzed on a component basis. Table 6 contains frequencies from the test data analysis and a limited number of frequencies from the finite element results. Figure 53 contains the skirt summation FRF, a comparison among test results for both Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 and FE results for the whole skirt. This summation FRF used only the points common between Dryer#2 and Dryer #1. Dryer #2 utilized all of the Dryer #1 points but also included additional points on the 90° skirt panel and on the 2700 skirt panel. Figure 54 is a summation FRF for all of the points measured for Dryer #2. A summation FRF for the 90° skirt panel is included as Figure
- 55. Figures 56 and 57 contain individual FRF comparisons between FE, Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 for the 900 skirt panel. Figure 58 is a comparison between test Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 for a different input point than the preceding figures for the 900 skirt panel. The shapes of the Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 summation FRFs compare wvell for both the whole component and the skirt panels, but some frequencies have shifted. For the 90° skirt 36 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version panel, the Dryer #2 frequencies are consistently higher than those for Dryer # 1. Figure 58 illustrates this increase well. The 2700 skirt panel will be discussed farther into this section.
37 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Table 6: Dryer #2 Skirt Experimental Frequencies For the 900 skirt panel, the first panel bending mode appears (( ff for the test while it is ((
1] for the FE result. Figure 59 is the MAC matrix used to find the similar modes in this frequency range. The FRFs and the animations were then reviewed as wvell to make the link between test and FE. Figure 60 is a comparison of static depictions from the animations of the test and FE modes while Figure 61 is a 38 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version representation of the complete FE model for this mode (as opposed to only the test points).
The second mode of the 900 skirt panels appears to be at approximately 10% from the finite element prediction (((
)) for Test, ((
)) for FE). Figure 62 is the MAC matrix for this frequency range, and Figure 63 is the mode shape comparison of these modes.. Note that the test mode does appear to be slightly diagonal as opposed to purely vertical. It is believed that this diagonality on Dryer #1, coupled with only measuring 2 points on the skirt panel, led to difficulty distinguishing between the 2nd vertical and 2nd lateral bending modes for the 900 skirt panel. Figure 64 is the finite element mode shape ((
))
Figure 65 is the 2nd lateral bending mode of the 90° skirt panel - at ((
)) for test and ((
)) for FE. Again, the test mode is somewhat diagonal, not purely lateral.
The finite element mode shape for ((
)) is contained in Figure 66.
Figure 67 is the summation FRF for the 270° skirt panel. Figures 68 and 69 are comparisons of the test measurements for both Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 on the 2700 skirt panel along with FE predictions, and Figure 70 compares FRFs for Dryer #1 and Dryer
- 2 for a different input point than the previous figures. It appears that the first panel mode of the 270° skirt panel is at ((
)) and it matches best with a It
)) FE mode, although the phasing with the 900 skirt panel does not match between test and FE results. Figure 61 illustrates the MAC matrix for this frequency range. Figure 71 is a static depiction of the mode shape comparison for the first panel mode of the 2700 skirt panel.
In FE the 2nd panel mode of the 2700 skirt panel is [
)) This 2d" panel mode is most clearly similar to a test frequency of ((
Jj and the shape comparison is 39 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version shown in Figure 72. Figure 62 is the MAC matrix used to help narrow down the comparison.
4 Figure 73 shows the finite element representation of the ((
)) mode shape, a similar mode shape to the ((
)) FE mode shape. The 2nd lateral panel mode for the 2700 skirt panel appears to match the 90° skirt panel frequency ((
)) for test and ((
)) for FE. In this mode shape, the 90° skirt panel and the 2700 skirt panel are out-of-phase. Also, while difficult to observe in the static depiction, the animation shows that the mode shape for the 2700 skirt panel is more purely lateral than the 90° skirt panel.
8.3 900 Hood Component Comparison The 90° hood test results were compared to finite element predictions and in a limited fashion to Dryer #1. Figure 75 is the summation FRF for this component - a comparison of FE, Test Dryer #I and Test Dryer #2. As with the other components examined, the
((
)) global mode clearly appears. The general trend of the FRFs from Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 are very similar in both shape and frequency. Table 7 contains the test mode frequencies for Dryer #2 and comparisons with several FE mode frequencies.
((I 40 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version For the 90° hood upper frequency range around ((
)) similar modes emerged in both the visual comparison and the MAC calculation for the frequency range ((
)) Figure 77 compares mode shapes at ((
)) Figure 78 is a MAC matrix of the frequency range
(( that shows a cluster of test modes being very similar to a larger cluster of FE modes. The ((
fltest mode and ff
))FE mode were chosen by viewing this MAC matrix in conjunction with review of frequency of the peaks of the summation FRFs and themodeshapeanimations. For Dryer #1, the test mode in this frequency range was ((
))
Another mode was compared for the 90° hood. Figure 79 is a static depiction of a mode shape that appears in the test results ((
)) and in the FE results ((
I].
41 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Table 7: Dryer #2 900 Hood Experimental Frequencies 11 I
1]
8.4 2700 Hood Component Comparison The 2700 hood test results were compared to finite element predictions at frequencies similar to the frequency regions used for the 90° hood. Table 8 contains the significant test modes and frequencies of similar FE modes. As with the other components evaluated the global mode ((
)) was present. For the 2700 hood, the first flexible mode, although one related to significant skirt activity, appears at ((
42 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version
)) Figure 80 compares Dryer # I and Dryer
- 2 test summation FRFs with an FE summation FRFs.
Figure 81 shows a comparison of component-level mode shapes at ((
)) This difference in frequency is ((
)) although there is a cluster of ((
)) is similar to.
As for the 90° hood, the other frequency range of interest for the 270° hood is the ((
)) region. Figure 82 contains the MAC matrix display with the FE results in the 85 Hz to 95 Hz frequency range. Again, the ((
)) It is most similar to a
)) FE mode, shown in Figure 83 on a component level. The Dryer #1 test mode was at ((
))
43 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Table 8: Dryer #2 2700 Hood Expcrincnlal Frequencies 1))
A general observation of the summation FRFs for the 2700 hood is that the level of the FRF predicted by FE is lower in the ((
)) region. This difference can be seen in Figure 80. The hood in FE may be too stiff or its connections may be too stiff as the general trend of the FE versus test comparison for the hood is that the FE levels are lower than the test levels.
9.0 Summary and Conclusions An experimental modal analysis was performed on new design Dryer #2, the dryer intended for Quad Cities Unit #1 (QC 1), and the results were compared to finite element analysis results on a frequency basis and on a mode shape basis as well as to results from the experimental modal analysis on Dryer #1. The finite element analysis included a 44 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version modal analysis and, using those modes from the modal analysis, a mode superposition to obtain FRFs that match the input and response points of the test data. The test results showed many similarities to the finite element results and to the Dryer #11 test results. In terms of frequencies, the trend is that the finite element model frequencies are generally in good agreement with the test frequencies. For example, the first dominant mode of the 2700 skirt panel is ((
)) in the finite element analysis and ((
)) in the test results, a difference of ((
)) The 90° skirt panel, the 90° hood and the 2700 hood all had frequency differences between experimental and analytical results of
((
)) for their lowest frequency dominant modes except for the 900 skirt panel first panel mode where the test frequency was ((
)) the FE frequency and higher than the similar Dryer #1 frequency as well.
In terms of FRF comparisons, the various components examined showed generally good agreement in trends and levels between summation FRFs for test and FE for that specific component. The most different results were for the 90° skirt panel and the 2700 skirt panel which showed similar shapes between Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 but differences in frequency. The 90° skirt panel for Dryer #2 had higher frequencies than that ofDryer#l, and the 2700 skirt panel had lower frequencies than Dryer #1.
The decrease in test versus finite clement agreement as frequency increases is expected because, as the mode shapes become more complex with higher frequency, the finite element model results become more sensitive to several parameters such as boundary condition details, element type and number of elements. The boundary conditions of the individual plates, the welds to other plates and beams, are not explicitly modeled in the finite element model. The wavelengths of the higher modes are shorter so more elements are needed to accurately represent the shapes; however, increasing the number of elements prohibitively increases computation time. The lower skirt super element, which includes hydrodynamic effects of the water on the skirt up to Low Water Level (LWL),
45 or 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprictary Version may have some effect on the higher mode frequencies and test versus finite element differences as well.
In addition to determining the natural frequencies and mode shapes, the hammer test responses are used to experimentally determine damping values on the skirt and hood at low water level. The purpose of the experimentally determined damping values was to validate the damping values used in the stress prediction analyses. The damping measurement results showed a range of damping values which form a technical basis for arriving at appropriate damping values to be used for structural response analyses.
Also, by comparing Dry to LWL measurements for the skirt and the drain channel, it appears that the decrease of damping as frequency increases is caused by the decrease in the effect of water as frequency increases.
From the above discussion on the good agreement of most of the frequency comparisons and the reasonable agreement of the 90° skirt panel first panel mode, it is concluded that the impact hammer test results verify that the finite element model used for dryer design calculations is sufficiently dynamically similar to the as-built dryer for engineering purposes. In addition the impact hammer test results also show that the ((
)) used in the stress prediction analyses are realistic, particularly when considering that the higher force levels expected in operation should produce higher damping levels than obtained in this test.
46 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 10.0 References
- 1. Ramani, Venkat "Steam DryerHammer Test Specification." GE 26A6380.
GENE. San Jose, CA. April 2005.
- 2. Peeters, Bart; Guillame, Patrick; Van der Auweraer, Herman; Cauberghe, Bart; Verboven, Peter; Leuridan, Jan. "Automotive and Aerospace Applications of the PolyMAX Modal Parameter Estimation Method." Proceedings of International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC) 22.
Dearborn,
MI. January, 2004.
47 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figures 48 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 1: Finite Element Model Representation of Dryer I]
49 of 140
GENE-00004M1-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 3: Photograph of Diyer #2, 180° Side 50 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propnetary Version Figure 5: Tnpod Support Connection to Diyer Fgwre 6: Full view of 90 degme hood of Dryer #2 duing measomen 51 of 140
GENE-OOOO-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Ire 7: Pattern of measurement points for the 90 degree hood of Dryer #2, where light red mesh shows the 90 degree hood response locations, daik red represents the responses on top and aqua represents the responses on the ring.
Figure 8: Response locatios on upper righ comer of 90 degre hood of Diyer #2.
52 of 140
GENE-OOO-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propietary Version se locations on lower right corner of 90 degree hI 53 of 140 COS
GENE-00O0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version c paw we o n o f
mom Pag of o wihr espct to. main pml).
54 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propietary Version Figure 11: Rsponscations on upper left comer of 90 dgree h Figure 12: Reqsome bocyiow on lower left comer of 90 degree hood of E"'ya greencincle ib one of _iput location on 90 degWe= hood 55 of 140
GENE-O000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version WA on side pall to tIhe Og of main pasel of 90 angle with respect main n
pan).
56 of 140 I Kespwse MAM C0%
GENE4000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propietary Version Full view of 270 degree hood of Diyer #2.
Oiefs for the 270 degre bood of Dryer #2 wre yew mesh is 270 dadk ed is IMGIIMS on $Dp and aqua is mesoumes onthi raig 57 of 140 renm oi nasuumm p
hood respowe bios i
coc1
GENE0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propnetary Version o4se locaos on kl ot panl of 270 degree hood ofDxy #2.
58 of 140
GENE-0o0-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propnietaxy Version Figure IS: Response ocions on upper put of ight middle panl of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2 59 of 140
GENE-OOOO0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 19: Response locations on lower part of right middle panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2 60 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version FWue 20: Response bcafions on ngbvn"t panel of 270 deree hod of Deyer #2 61 of 140
GENE-000041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version ins on side panel to dhe left of mma panel of 270 degcee bood of Dryer #2 (at angle widl qxect Io main pane).
62 of 140 Figme 2 L Response localk Cl kk
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version is on side panel to the rigt of main panel of 270 degree hood of Dryer #2 (at Figure 22: Response locaior ane wifthrspect to mainpanel).
63 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figu=e 23: Full view of 0 degree side of Dryer #2 before installation of temporary sensors).
Figure 24: Pattern of measumett ponds fAi the 0 degree side of Dayer #2 where pik mesh is O degree side response locaions, dark red is responses on top and aqua is respone on the ring, 64 of 140
Figwue 25: Response loatior GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version is on left side of 0degree side of Dryer #2 with g input locations on 0 degree side porne location s amidl eto f0fg~
65 of 140 pen ciicle indicating one of C1
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propnetary Version 66 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 29: Pattern of measurement points for the 180 degree side of Dryer #2 where blue mesh is 180 hood response locations, dark red is responses on top and aqua is responses on the ring.
67 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version FlW 68 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propnetary Version r:ueru ox uaumu
[
p 01 tor e [Up, ut Dar am iuner As o01 Lyer wnere maoon line is 0° side response locafions, red is responses on top, pink is tie bar, green is inn baipcrforated panel responses and aqua is responses on the ngu 69 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprielary Version Figure 34: Response locations on top of Dryer #2, 00 to 900 quadrant Figuwe 35: Response locations on top of Dyer #2, 90° to 18 0° quadcrnt 70 of 140
GENE-OOOO-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 36: Response locations on top of Dryer #2, 1800 to 2700 quadran Figure 37 Response ocations on top of Dryer #2, 270° o O' reIon 71 of 140
GENE-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 38: Close-up of Pattern of measurement points the top, tie bar and inner banks of Diyer #2 where blue mesh is 180 hood response locaons, daik red is responses on top and aqua is responses on the ring.
Figume 39: Response bcatns on fie bar of Dojer #2 72 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version age location on tebar of Dryer #2 - Center gage ig= 41: Respxmw locatimn on tic bar of Diyer 73 of 140 CZ-S
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 42: Pattem of measurement points for the skirt and ring of Dryer #2 where purple mesh is skirt response locations, and aqua mesh is the response locations on the ring Figure 43: Response bcaim skir, 90° pail 74 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 44: Response locations skiit 2700 pawl Fju r 45: Pat on of _points for Dryar #2 we= fIt nd mesh is nqponse locatiom an top, gleen is Mie response locations on Me panels inside Mie dyer, aqua is wTpoies on the ing, blue is responses on 180 degree side and pink is respommes on 0 dere side.
75 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version lII Figure 46: Comparison of Damping levels from curve-fitting individual FRFs at Dry and LWL for Skirt Panel Locations (Undcn-vatcr at LWL)
((
1]1 Figure 47: Comparison of Damping lcvels fm curve--fitting indihidual FRFs at Dry and LNVL for Skirt Panel Locations (Undemraterat LWL) 76 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version It 1]
Figure 48: SummationFRFforTop: Red-Test
((
1]
Figre 49: Swumation FRE forO 0Sidc: Red -Test 77 of 140
GENE-00000041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version II 1]
II Figurc 5O: Summation FRE forTic Bar Red-Tcst Figure 51: Summation FRF forlT Bar-Extended Fxquerqy Rangc: Red - Test 1]
78 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version it 4
4 1]
Figure 52: Driving Point FRF (Strain Response) for Tic Bar at location of permanent sensor S6-Extended Frcquency Rangc: Red - Tcst
[1 Figurc 53: Summation FRF for Skir: Red - FE, Green - Test Dyer #1, Blue - Test Drycr #2 79 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Vcrsion it
))
Figure 54: Summation FRF for Skin: Red - Test Containing all points It Figure 55: Summation FRF for 90° Panel orSkirt Red -Test Containing all 9 points 80 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 1]
Figure 56: FRF on900 SkirtPancL UpperPoint: Red-FE, Grecn-TcstDiycr#1, Blue-Test Dyer #2 11 5d Figure 57: FRE on 90° SkirPantLower Point:Red -FEGren-Test Dycr 1, Bluec-Test Dryer#2 81 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 1]
Figure 58: FRFon9 0° SkiniPancl,UpperPoint: Red-TcstDzycr#I, Grocn-TestDrycr#2 (diffcrcnt input point than previous 2 figures) i[
1]
Figue 59: MAC Matrix ror Skiun, 1 II 82 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version It 1]
1I Figure 60: Modc Shapcs for Skirt, Local Vicew: Lcft - If
]1 Right- ((
1[
))
Figure 61: FE Mode Shape forSkiirt 11 II 83 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version it
))
Figure 62: MAC Matrix for Skirt, 1[
11 84 of 140
GENE-000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version if Figure 63: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left - 1I
)), Right-11
))
Il 1]
Figure 64: FE Mode Shape forSkirt I[
II 85 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 1]
11 Figure 65: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left - 1 Figure 66: FEMode Shape forSkirt 11 J] Right- [I 1]
Il 86 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 1i 11 Figurc 67: Summation FRF for 2700 Pancl of Skirt: Red - Tcst Containing all 9 points II
))
Figure68: FRFon27 0 SkirtPanclUpperPoint: Red-FE Green-TestDirr#1, Blue-Test Diyer#2 87 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figure 69: FRF on 2700 Skirt Pancl, Lower Point: Red - FE, Green - Test Drycr #1, Blue - Test Drecr #2
))
Figure 70: FRF on 2700 Sirt Panel, LowerPoint: Red -Test Dryer #l, Gicen -Test Diyer#2 (different input point than previous 2 fgues) 88 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 Figure 71: Mode Shapes for Sknrt, Local View: Left -
)) Right-11 11 89 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 1]11 Figurm 72: Modc Shapcs for Skirt, Local View: Left - [I 11 Rightt-11
[I 1]
Figure 73: FE Mode Shape for Skirt II 11 90 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version IU J1 II Figure 74: Mode Shapes for Skirt, Local View: Left - [1 JJ Right- [I Il 1]
Figure 75: Sunmmtion FRF for 9O0Hood: Red -FEGreen-Test Dryer #1,Blue -Test Dryer#2 91 or 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version U1 1]
Figure 76: Mode Shapcs for 90° Hood, Local View: Left - [1
]1 Right - 1[
11 11
))
Figure 77: Mode Shapes for 90° Hood, Local View: Left - l 11 Right - 11 11 92 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 1]
Figure 78: MAC Matrix for 90° Hood, II 11 11
))
Figure 79: Mode Shapes for 90Hood, Local Vievr Lefl -Test, II 1IRight-it 11 93 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11
))
Figure 80: SummationFRF for 2700 Hood: Rcd-FE, Grecn-Tcst Drycr#1,Bluc -Tcst Dycr#2
[I 1]
Figure 81: Mode Shapes for 2700 Hood, Local View Top - [l 1]
)) Bottom-Il 94of140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 Figure 82: MAC Matrix for 2700 Hood, II It Figure 83: Modc Shape for 2700 Hood, Loc.al View: Rigit - 11 11 IlWefl-ll 11 95 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Attachment A: Test Plan 96 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version General Electric Steam Dryer Experimental Modal and Static Load Test Hammer Test Plan Procedure # GESDO0505D2 Revision 5 GE Purchase Order #431003474 Written By: Mike Neibeisel Date: 04 May 2005 Reviewed By: Tom De Brabandere Date: 04 May 2005 Approved By:_Tony Fleszar_
_Date: 05 May 2005 onvopp=&
97 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
- 1.
Geometry - node selection and preparation a.)
2 people b.)
Can be done while other work is done on dryer c.)
Marking of measurement locations for accelerometers and strain gages d.)
Cleaning of accelerometer and strain gage locations e.)
can be done while some other work is done on dryer (work that is not interfered with by cable routing or accelerometer position) f.)
Accelerometer locations will be those locations used for Dryer #I as well as additional accelerometer locations determined by PreTest, informationfrequests from Stnuctural Analysis Group, and lessons learned on first dryer g.)
GE to supply markers allowed to be used on dryer
- 2.
Equipment setup (PC, front end and cables not on dryer itself) a.)
2 people b.)
can be done while other work is done on dryer c.)
End-to-end measurement chain checks
- 3.
Equipment Setup (cables on dryer) a.)
2 people b.)
can be done while other work is done on dryer as long as other work is not interfered with by cable routing
- 4.
Attachment of initial accelerometer set and of strain gages a.)
1 person or 2 people focus on accelerometers b.)
I person focuses on strain gages (if strain gage attachment and wiring is rot finished during this specific task it will continue while accelerometers are moved later) c.)
can be done while some other work is done on dryer (work that is not interfered with by cable muting or accelerometer position) d.)
Adhesive to be used is M-Bond 200 (a super gluc aith an accelerator) as it has been approved for use on the dryer e.)
Solvent will be acetone as it is approved for use on the dryer f.)
Sandpaper is Silicon Carbide paper in strain gage kit g.)
Initial set of accelerometers focuses on skirt (additional points added to 90° and 2700 skirt panels since Dryer #I modal)
- 5.
Frequency Response Function (WRF)
Measurements/Hammer Impact Testing a.)
Re-verify that all transducers are operational b.)
Verify acceptability of excitation locations (3 global excitation locations and a minimum of 3 excitation locations for each component) c.)
Perform initial set of mcasurements dry (Current plan is to have 35 to 38 triaxial accelerometers, I impact hammer, and 1 single-axis driving point accelerometer in each set. 90° Skirt Panel will haver 3 rosette strain gages, 270° Skirt Panel will have I roscttc strain gage, 2700 hood will havc 2 rosette strain gages and tic bar will have 1 single axis strain gage at point determined by GE.
Undcnvatcracccls will be distributed as follows: 2 on drain channels tI on the SI/S2 drain channell, and 3 on skirt panels).
d.)
Add water to mach Lower Water Lcvel (LWL) e.)
Perform LWL measurement on I' set (focus on skirt) f.)
Perform special drain channel test at LWL Impact the drain channel with the hardest tip on the modal sledge or use the hand sledge to excite the drain channel modes to at least 400 Hz. Data vwill require reiew to see if it needs to be excited to 800 HzL 98 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version g.)
Move cables to next accelerometer set K)
Perform 2nd set at LWL (focus on 270
° hood) i.)
Perform additional damping measurements on 2nd set at LWL j.)
Drain tank to dry while moving 1st set of accelerometers k.)
Perform 2nd set at dry (focus on 2700 hood) 1.)
Perform 3r' set at dry (focus on 90" hood )
m.)
Add water to reach LWL while moving 2nd set of accelerometers n.)
Perform 3rd set at LWL (focus on 900 hood )
o.)
Perform additional damping measurements on 3rd set at LWL p.)
Move cables to next accelerometer set.
q.)
Perform 4h set at LWL (focus on 0° and 1800 sides, ring and supports) r.)
Drain tank to dry while moving 3rd set of accelerometers s.)
Perform 4h set at dry (focus on 0° and 180° sides, ring and supports)
- 1)
Move cables to next accelerometer set u.)
Perform Sth set at dry (focus on top, inner banks and tie bar) v.)
Add water to reach LWL while moving accelerometers to repeat points as necessary or perform additional measurements w.) Perform S set at LWL x.)
Perform additional measurements on tie bar with stmin gage at permanent sensor location (see Item 6) y.)
Perform additional damping measurements on strain gages and reduced set of accelerometers from 1" set at LWL (Included here for timing purposes - see Item 6) z.)
Perform additional damping measurements on reduced set of accelerometers from 2"' set at LWL (Included here for timing purposes - see Item 6) aa.) Perform additional damping measurements on strain gages and reduced set of accelerometers from 3"d set at LWL (Included here for timing purposes - see Item 6) bb.) Perform additional set at LWL if necessary (points whe repeat is necessary or additional points) cc.) Drain water dd.) Perform additional set at dry if necessary cc.) The following pictures show the proposed excitation locations as green circles or ovals, the accelerometer response locations as dots and the strain gage response locations as dots surrounded by orange circles. The proposed excitation locations are shown only on the zoomed in views.
99 of140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version I Skit:900 Panel and Rimj 100 of 140
GENE-00-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 101 of 140
GENE-OOOO-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Overview of Skirt and Ring - Note that lower ring points except I 737 to 741 will not be i d
l 102 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 2700 Hood 103 of 140
I GENE-0000041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 104 of 140 C
S, -
-9.
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-propnetary Version V
Side: 00 105 of 140
GENE-OOOO-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 106 of 140 C3#
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Top, Inner Hood, Perforated Panel Data checks include but are not limited to:
a)
Review of input time records for input force and acceleration response during data acquisition b.)
Review of Input Autopower c.)
Review of FRF and coherence for each location (specific review of driving point) d)
Reciprocity check e.)
Repeatability of driving point measurements among sets f)
After checks for each set are done, frequency content will be available for that set g.)
As sets are peiformed. preliminary curve-fitting will be performed to check data and to obtain damping results
- 6.
Special Strain Gage and Time Domain Testing: 2 to 3 people, no other work done on dryer a)
Apply smain gages to tMe 90° skirt panel and 2700 skirt panel, to the 90° outer hood (the same locations on the 90s oufr hood as used for the static load test), and to the fie bar.
b.) Perm both FRF measurements and time domain responses to impacts using at least some but not necessarily all of the input points all the specific component being tested 107 of 140 c35
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
- 7.
Static load testing: 3 people, no other work done on dryer a.)
3 people b.)
Apply 1000 lb. load with hydraulic jack (assistance from GEIIJSTD required for providing backstop forjack), measure strain on 90° hood using 2 rosette strain gages or I rosette strain gage and I assembly of 2 strain gages c.)
Load application location - 900 outer hood near MSL nozzle location - still being reviewed as are strain gage locations
- 8.
Final hammer impact measurements if necessary a.)
2 or 3 people b.)
Repeat any points where data was inadequate for any reason or add additional points as determined by review during data acquisition (added points on perforated panels on inner banks, on support lug, and near support locations).
c.)
Perform driving point measurements at support locations if not incorporated in earlier sets d.)
Would be determined by analysis and processing done along way and data review while static load testing is performed
- 9.
Removal of accelerometers and cables on dryer a.)
2 or 3 people b.)
can be done while some other work is done on dryer (work that is not interfered with by cable routing or accelerometer position) c.)
Discussion will occur with GE about timing. Ir it makes sense, I person %ill continue processing data while I or 2 others remove accelerometers based on need to make dryer available.
- 10.
Surface cleanup a) 2 or 3 people b.)
can be done while other work is done on dryer c.)
May be left to later depending on schedule
- 11.
Equipment breakdown (PC, front end and cables not on dryer) a.)
2 or 3 people b.)
can be done while other vork is done on dryer
- 12.
Model Solution a)
Separate from work on dryer b.)
Receive model from GE and review c.)
Solve model - rust attempt full modal analysis d)
If modal analysis not feaslble, perform modal superposition to obtain FRFs at same input and response points as used in experimntal modal analysis c.)
Also perform modal analysis in frequency bands to obtain output ilc sizes that can be handled 108 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
- 13.
Damping Calculations a.)
Perform damping calculations on skirt panels using modal curvefitting on accelerometerand strain gage data b.)
Perform damping calculations on hoods using modal curvefitting on acceerometer and strain gage data.
- 14.
Experimental Modal Analysis Processing a.)
Review data sets - generate sets of clean data b.)
Perform processing to obtain global mode shapes, frequencies and damping c.)
Perform processing on specific components to focus in on component mode shapes, frequencies and damping
- 15.
Comparison of Experimental Modal Analysis Results to Finite Element Results a.)
Compare FRF measurements between test and FE b.)
Generate summation FRFs on a component basis, and compare between test and FE c.)
Use summation FRFs to attempt to define similar peaks between test and FE d.)
Perform MAC calculations on a global basis e.)
Perform MAC calculations on a component basis f.)
Visually compare mode shape animations between test and FE based on summation FRFs and MAC results.
g.)
Compare Drycr I to Dryer 2 results 109 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Attachment B: Hammer Tip Study I10of140
GENE-00000041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Figures B-i, B-2 and B-3 are comparisons of the softest tip with the medium tip for measurements on Dryerll with no water. The softest tip provides better low frequency results than the medium tip. The low frequency portion of the FRF is cleaner as seen in the middle plot in Figures B-I, B-2 and B-3, and the low frequency portion of the coherence, the lower plot in Figure B-1, B-2 and B-3, has a higher value with the softest tip. At the start of testing on Dryer #1, it was believed that obtaining very good low frequency data was more important than extending the frequency range of the results; however, subsequent review and discussion of the results produced a decision to use the medium tip for Dryer #2.
111 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
))
Figure B-1: Comparison of Measurements using Hammer Tips of different hardness, Radial Skirt Response to Radial Skirt Impact (Red curve is soft tip, Green cuve is medium tip)
Figure B-2: Comparison of Measurements using Hammer Tips of different hardress, Vertical Side Response to Skirt Impact (Red curne is soft tip, Green curve is medium tip) 112of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
((
1]
Figure B-3: Comparison of Measurements using Hammer Tips of different hardness, 90° Hood Response to Skirt Impact (Red curve is soft tip, Green curve is medium tip) 113 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Attachment C: Effect of Number of Averages 114 of140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version This attachment illustrates how the FRF measurement and coherence are affected when a different number of hammer impacts is used. Two measurements have been taken with the same excitation and response locations, one measurement with twenty hammer impacts and one measurement with five hammer impacts. The data presented in the following figures was measured on the 90 degree and 270 degree skirt panels of Dryer #2 (the dryer without permanent sensors intended for Quad Cities Unit # 1 (QC I)).
Specific measurements show some difference between 20 averages and 5 averages, particularly near ((
)) Theses differences are attributed to inconsistency in the hammer impact. In general, the frequency, shape, and phase of the FRF are consistent between 20 averages and 5 averages. The phase of the FRF is generally "cleaner" with 20 averages as well. The coherence shows some differences between 20 averages and 5 averages, but the differences appear to be specific to individual measurements and usually at low frequency - below ((
)) The other coherence differences are near [
)) and correspond to those measurements with some difference in FRF amplitude that has been attributed to inconsistency in the hammer impact.
[I
))
Figure C-I: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir785 and normal response in point skir.785 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dyer2 115 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11 11 Figure C-2: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement
- ith 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir.785 and normal response in point skir:753 on the 90 dcg=c skirt panel of drycr 2
[I 1]
Figure C-3: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hamrrer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skdr 785 and vertical response in point ski.753 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2 116of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-41, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version U1
))
Figure C4: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (given) for normal excitation in point skir.785 and latcral response in point skir.753 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2 I[
))
Figure C-5: Comparison of th FRF amplitude, FRF phase and cohecec between a hammer inmpct incasurmem nithl 20 a~mages (wd) and one with 5 averages (grecn) for nrmanl exitation in point s1dr:785 and normal response in point ski707 on lhc 90 degree skirt panel ofdryer2 117 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 11
[I
))
Figure C-6: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence between a hammer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (gicn) for normal excitation in point skir.785 and vertical response in point skir.707 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2
))
Figure C-7: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherence bceteen a hammer impact mcasurcment with 20 as rages (red) and one with 5 averages (geen) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and lateral response in point skir.707 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dyecr 2 118of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version it
))
Figure C-8: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phasc and coherence between a lammer impact measurement with 20 averages (led) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir785 and normal response in point skir:722 on the 270 degree skirt panel of dryer 2 11
))
Figure C-9: Comparison of tbe FRF amplitude, FRF phasc and coherenoc bctvecn a hammer inmact measurement with 20 a uages (red) and one with S averages (green) for normal excilation in point skir785 and wrmal response in point skir762 on the 270 degree skid panel of diyer 2 ll9of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Vcrsion 11 1]
Figure C-10: Comparison of the FRF amplitude, FRF phase and coherenoc between a hamnmer impact measurement with 20 averages (red) and one with 5 averages (green) for normal excitation in point skir:785 and response in strain gage channel C in point skir:796 on the 90 degree skirt panel of dryer 2 120 of 140
GENE-OO
-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Attachment D: Acquisition Front-end channel assignment 121 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version AJD CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT SET Al & A2 DRY AID CHASSIS:
2 LMS Scadas IlIl frontends in master-slave setup-AID AID AID AD CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID 1
21233 33 31425 65 8389 97 21869 2
NA 34 31425 66 16224 98 22143 3
36614 35 31425 67 16224 99 18026 4
I 36614 36 5604 68 16224 100 11156 5
36614 37 5604 69 17102 101 18381 6
37124 38 5604 70 17102 102 18003 7
37124 39 20246 71 17102 103 18025 8
37124 40 20246 72 14386 104 18027 9
37126 41 20246 73 14386 105 8766 10 37126 42 27796 74 14386 106 8767 11 37126 43 27796 75 6682 107 8768 12 37130 44 27796 76 6682 108 21871 13 37130
- 45.
17333 77 6682 109 21852 14 37130 46 17333 78 11750 110 21855 15 37277 47 17333 79 11750 16 37277 48 5688 80 11750.-
17 37277 49 5688 81 16955 18 37132 50 5688 82 16955 19 37132 51 5683 83 16955 20 37132 52 5683 84 15314 21 37279 53 5683 85 15314 22 37279 54 31426 86 15314 23 37279 55 31426 87 16954 24 37281 56 31426 88 16954 25 37281 57 15625 89 16954 26 37281 58 15625 g0 220 27 31423 59 15625 91 264 28 31423 60 4701 92 8751 29 31423 61 4701 93 8778 30 15590 62 4701 94 21857 31 15590 63 8389 95 21836 32 15590 64 8389 96 21860 Data Collected By:
Signature:
Verified By:
Signature:
Date Performed:
Test Equip, Serial No. & Calibration Due Date:
LMS Scadas III frontend (master)
IMS Scadas IlIl frontend (slave) 41011904 41001503 094Mar-06 15-Feb-06 122 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version AID CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT I
SET Al &A2 LWL AID CHASSIS:
2 LMS Scadas III frontends in master-slave setup -
AID AID AID AID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID 1
21233 33 31425 65 8389 97 21870 2
NA 34 31425 66 16224 98 22143 3
36614 35 31425 67 16224 99 18026 4
36614 36 5604 68 16224 100 11156 5
36614 37 5604 69 17102 101 18381 6
37124 38 5604 70 17102 102 18003 7
37124 39 20246 71 17102 103 18025 8
37124 40 20246 72 14386 104 18027 9
37126 41 20246 73 14386 105 8766 10 37126 42 27796 74 14386 106 8767 11 37126 43 27796 75 6682 107 8768 12 37130 44 27796 76 6682 108 21871 13 37130 45 17333 77 6682 109 21852 14 37130 46 17333 78 11750 110 21855 15 37277 47 17333 79 11750 16 37277 48 5688 80 11750 17 37277 49 5688 81 16955 18 37132 50 5688 82 16955 19 37132 51 5683 83 16955 20 37132 52 5683 84 15314 21 37279 53 5683 85 15314 22 37279 54 31426 86 15314 23 37279 55 31426 87 16954 24 37281 56 31426 88 16954 X
25 37281 57 15625 89 16954 26 37281 58 15625 90 220 27 31423 59 15625 91 264 28 31423 60 4701 92 8751 29 31423 61 4701 93 8778 l
30 15590 62 4701 94 21857 31 15590 63 8389 95 21836 32 15590 64 8389 96 21860 Data Collected By:
Signature:
Verified By:
Signature:
Date Performed:
Test Equip, Serial No. & Calibration Due Date:
LMS Scadas III frontend (master)
LMS Scadas III ountend (slave) 41011904 41001503 09-Mar-06 15-Feb-06 123 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version AID CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT-SETB LWL& DRY SET D LWL & DRY lA/D CHASSIS:
2 LMS Scadas IlIl frontends in master-slave setup -
AID A/D AID AID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID 1
21233 33 21468 65 20248 97 21870 2
NA 34 21468 66 17051 98 22143 3
36616 35 21468 67 17051 99 18026 4
36616 36 6686 68 17051 100 11156 5
36616 37 6686 69 20250 101 18381 6
37125 38 6686 70 20250 102 18003 7
37125 39 8388 71 20250 103 18025 8
37125 40 8388 72 15287 104 18027 9
37129 41 8388 73 15287 105 8766 10 37129 42 28390 74 15287 106 8767 11 37129 43 28390 75 6683 107 8768 12 37131 44 28390 76 6683 108 21871 13 37131 45 15591 77 6683 109 21852 14 37131 46 15591 78 6685 110 21855 15 37278 47 15591 79 6685 16 37278 48 4702 80 6685 17 37278 49 4702 81 17106 18 37275 50 4702 82 17106 19 37275 51 5683 83 17106 20 37275 52 5683 84 31042 21 37280 53 5683 85 31042 22 37280 54 31426 86 31042 23 37280 55 31426 87 15333 24 37282 56 31426 88 15333 25 37282 57 15625 89 15333 26 37282 58 15625 90 220 27 28384 59 15625 91 264 28 28384 60 4701 92 8751 29 28384 61 4701 93 8778 30 27802 62 4701 94 21857 31 27802 63 20248 95 21836 32 27802 64 20248 96 21860 Data Collected By:
Signature:
Verified By:
Signature:
Date Performed:
Test Equip, Serial No. & Calibration Due Date:
LMS Scadas il frontend (master)
LMS Scadas IlIl frontend (slave) 41011904 41001503 09-Mar-06 15-Feb-06 124 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Vcrsion
[ADCHANNELASSIGNMENT SETCDRY&LWL JA0 CHASSIS:
2 LMS Scadas IlIl frontends in master-slave setup AID AID AD AID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID 1
21233 33 31425 65 8389 97 21870 2
NA 34 31425 66 16224 98 22143 3
36614 35 31425 67 16224 99 18026 4
36614 36 5604 68 16224 100 11156 5
36614 37 5604 69 17102 101 18381 6
37124 38 5604 70 17102 102 18003 7
37124 39 20246 71 17102 103 18025 8
37124 40 20246 72 14386 104 18027 9
37126 41 20246 73 14386 105 8766 10 37126 42 27796 74 14386 106 8767 11 37126 43 27796 75 6682 107 8768 12 37130 44 27796 76 6682 108 21871 13 37130 45 17333 77 6682 109 21852 14 37130 46 17333 78 11750 110 21855 15 37277 47 17333 79 11750 16 37277 48 5688 80 11750 17 37277 49 5688 81 16955 18 37132 50 5688 82 16955 19 37132 51 5683 83 16955 20 37132 52 5683 84 15314 21 37279 53 5683 85 15314 22 37279 54 31426 86 15314 23 37279 55 31426 87 16954 24 37281 56 31426 88 16954 25 37281 57 15625 89 16954 26 37281 58 15625 90 220 27 31423 59 15625 91 264 28 31423 60 4701 92 8751 29 31423 61 4701 93 8778 30 15590 62 4701 94 21857 D
31 15590 63 8389 95 21836 32 15590 64 8389 96 21860 1
Data Collected By.
Signature:
Verified By:
Signature:
Date Performed:
Test Equip, Serial No. & Calibration Due Date:
LMS Scadas III frontend (master)
LMS Scadas III frontend (slave) 41011904 41001503 09-Mar-06 15-Feb-06 125 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version AID CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT I
SET E LWL & DRY NAD CHASSIS:
2 LMS Scadas III frontends in master-slave setup AID AID AND A/D CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID 1
21233 33 31425 65 8389 97 21870 2
NA 34 31425 66 16224 98 22143 3
37278 35 31425 67 16224 99 18026 4
37278 36 5604 68 16224 100 11156 5
37278 37 5604 69 17102 101 18381 6
37124 38 5604 70 17102 102 18003 7
37124 39 20246 71 17102 103 18025 8
37124 40 20246 72 14386 104 18027 9
37126 41 20246 73 14386 105 8766 10 37126 42 27796 74 14386 106 8767 11 37126 43 27796 75 6682 107 8768 12 37130 44 27796 76 6682 108 21871 13 37130 45 17333 77 6682 109 21852 14 37130 46 17333 78 11750 110 21855 15 37277 47 17333 79 11750 16 37277 48 5688 80 11750 17 37277 49 5688 81 16955 18 37132 50 5688 82 16955 19 37132 51 5683 83 16955 20 37132 52 5683 84 15314 21 37279 53 5683 85 15314 22 37279 54 31426 86 15314 23 37279 55 31426 87 16954 24 37281 56 31426 88 16954 25 37281 57 15625 89 16954 26 37281 58 15625 90 220 27 31423 59 15625 91 264 28 31423 60 4701 92 8751 29 31423 61 4701 93 8778 30 15590 62 4701 94 21857 31 15590 63 8389 95 21836 32 15590 64 8389 96 21860 Data Collected By:
Signature:
Verified By:
Signature:
Date Performed:
Test Equip., Serial No. & Calibration Due Date:
LMS Scadas Ill frontend (master)
LMS Scadas IlIl frontend (slave) 41011904 41001503 09-Mar.06 15-Feb-06 126of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version AD CHANNEL ASSIGNMENT Static load test
[AIDCHASSMS:
2 LMS Scadas III frontends in master-slave setup AD AD ND AD CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSOR ID CHANNEL SENSORID 1
21233 33 65 97 2
34 66 98 3
35 67 99 4
1 36 68 100 I
5 37 69 20250 101 strain 6
38 70 20250 102 strain 7
39 71 20250 103 strain 8
40 72 15287 104 strain 9
37129 41 73 15287 105 strain 10 37129 42 74 15287 106 strain 11 37129 43 75 107 strain 12 37131 44 76 108 strain 13 37131 45 77 109 strain 14 37131 46 78 110 strain 15 47 79 111 strain 16 48 80 112 strain 17 1
49 81 18 50 82 19 51 5683 83 20 52 5683 84 21 53 5683 85 22 54 31426 86 23
_55 31426 87 24 56 31426 88 25 57 89 26 58 90 27 28384 59 91 28 28384 60 92 29 28384 61 93 30 27802 62 94
=
31 27802 63 95 32 27802 64 96 Data Collected By:
Signature:
Verified By:
Signature:
Date Performed:
Test Equip, Serial No. & Calibration Due Date:
LMS Scadas Ill frontend (master)
IMS Scadas Ill frontend (slave) 41011904 41001503 09-Mar-06 15-Feb-06 127of 140
GENE-OOOO-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Attachment E: Test Log Sheets 128 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
__s
'I og I
4.Y.
A 4
X 1
1
' If~
tF*
~
d A'f F - XI A
5 A
4 VA
~I dS,
_I i
l 1O t
)X C=
".3MT:
IW D a~otmdy sliIlt Veife
.y
.'.L
.It S lgnX
- tS TO" --- k.M e
Itd & a Mm t
ti at E4.. Seia ;No x.& Cled. De ' at.
129 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
/
I rifgX
[mu u R~
I.,S°I:
, Cc,
,A4c kVAIA -,,C IV 10 v.
I I
1I 6z
, 5
- ifrt,
- 4.
TliJ of Tes Ilyac Hnwner Locain -DIata Fdu IDaf and Tlm of Acquisiio
-Gain Seft M;
QX 1t r;
04 5tc~
A; 4
s q
4 I+
/
LI, U&
- -1 r-It Cw< AZ X
.'s*
nal t
3
'3~
VVI&V lA Qk-;
~
~
~
~
~~~A dk.syx.rot
=.-JA.Q ita s 1v.
CL%^
Sv4>
CYg "le-/Ic D
8r:
eSD v /^1, '
-. r t_
4_1 Vedlady AI Skmar Daft fti f
Tt Equip, Sell! No. £& Calbillon Du Oats:
130 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Ddta Log A-I 1_ / WL 05¢ c_5A e,.. A I Wme of Tea n
amfstasFew at wTmo 2!L anSfv V
IX. -
724z 4./
nA IS7 e
Vre-levv 10PwC h
_t I-e Sl6
.735 X'l w
__'7_8 6tcacca Dectect Ved~ed Br 41 qf
- signamn,
-es
.bgegto metm 00 0
Tet C
ton
.um S
.rcj.e^
I-.
-W fca 7~~
-f 7
.W~
By-Skm DaePd.m:
.5050 5s6-Ted ~
~
~
~
~
~e Eqip Sa-atd u
ot 131 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-O1, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version 1
44
/
_&ft.
"IN
';DaftCa~ectd
-&Vt EQUIP.
Maie 132 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Data~ag J
TM7*"
r~ d PAVLOS~
DmFNUMDt anSO 4 S1d Tm fAqilj;Gi at
-fi tfdfIA/Nk Tes Eq*. SaalMot I 1rafoe ims ate gf-YI TO SD Is*1
- 3.
.1 4
.M.
.,.I I.........
.iJ 133of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version
. at L.
fW T^wfLVL-oVc 5-c 2 aL - SefC 4.
I' IRmninimLocation ID*UFUmmm jDauwWTbmofAcqWsWm jGWnSeftkVu W
EA, I I
I
-4g-gy, I.I
M.% I tw
- VI-I its 4 40
-I r.
L, :
4 I
4 I
I I&
lk,&.
os Y
2j--.4 JLI
- 4.
I 4
I I @J*' -vOf --
L J A _
tM C IA At 1lr o~'NJ
--/
I Deft CallecladDr~ lgs~evy Ai-g Sigature:
- I.> 27-7.
Vetrald By.
We A:-LI/
Sianature-Tedt Equip, SrwW No. L Cagbratio Dwo Date:
t I
134 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Vcrsion Data Log AdW r,-
LA'lf- 0'o5G0'$'r Twoof estt~ea HnmwLOM~d ataFgewm Da and Tkne of Acquisiton Gain 89VnEp D I 1 b -11I7.1
-1 I,
Ue r-21 Dataal c
. le
.y, I~h gt S-dFW ON_ I..
_o
.aasfrs Uk/ 6aL'..
Tet
,u
.a N.
& C De
'Jd 6 0-/
.it 4ea-
-0
.ate f-
-d2 Ss
.A-A
.a
-efm&
4e C-_
2<SsS3 F
/
To
- ~p 7o Cap,,mftn
.w Da e';,
/
135 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version tWe of TOMkeHsMwctla Data FOM Dab zn Tlm of Acqu-M-Gain Ion
.^
e t eft 6j "ear
.]
or
.^t
$,,:[t,_w1.
r,
_Ae 4h-ke _4 f
tr, 1142 4
-W r,
I----
I I Data conected Dr lr'.1e Signattw-IX-.
I.d.
I y~d Br.
N C;lts-c ISb:
?A4/
f 7 De Pedoimme 00£o3 Test EquWP., S8a Nd & Calhwzan Due D:
-.Ct
.F"-
MIN.
-1 136 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version I
bro LwL_
{i t_
- Tit of Test k
Hon Data FU~nn Dat On Thim ofd; GainS*Um
-C 1 *t !4r K A Vi La 2s d
MYie a-CA
.9ipT m
- -M)A TX~ Bit S6-gg
)-
qq 4q I
VSt
-2 lp I
Ift ILI Igb a
I6ftkO IS I2
-II.,
- I I.
Al q5\\.
.6
. I ;~.,~f3~
l I
.nf
- - w b
>~~
XIn\\
q-(.
38
'I O~
' 4-DAa Vets^7_d,,
sa~n.......
Mt Pmf m IV od M U A I 7.O ttI fi js
.4
~
al, VA OV-\\"S Vffle AIAep.
tbz~,.r-
._f 8
bed
-I Ji 137 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version rsao gA o0660~3 p~4,
&I h Io dk o TOM Ig Fa Hmer Locaton Date Fl onen IDef and Tk of !2!!io Gain ieb 44 oi L
t; Wn :-s tco A.
)1 vs CY rp su1L oS Ea
.z-!2z
-~
I OtA
^;>~aof4 hi r
l.,
,,i 0
J A'I I Wn IPJ~-
A..-
4 I
.:%.i4;tA-
-r 1
T 1
64
-DatarPufoclldft O3M 4
ftrra~
Test Eqtdp., SaW No. & Cu Duelo bat.
,f4 -x /be rltk 6*64&t Awsel
- 7
.01 1
-
138 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version Vi?
d Ta hwDt Ho Log Acquil o
Gai
&tw Vi S 4:
_k
_i 4
f k-8 q
~,.- _ Di..
_ f3 I I
Tea C
lna
.a.
~~~
piW_
ago X~~M d
S}
I\\
%L4 t; OF 4
sk Daft
-ooa Dr T
e rSgnt VwW~o
-y X Dat ftfnd 7
Te
.jlp
.ed
- L
.obao No 4I0 139 of 140
GENE-0000-0041-1656-01, Revision 2 Non-proprietary Version D~og 51.11c'
.r Pu~xuast 4Cy 1
t O
Tet q~p7 5fW o & C wao ofe LA. 1 k
I
'.
. t w L -, A
. i 140 of 140