ML060030146

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Non-Proprietary LMS Report Quad Cities New Design Steam Dryer Methodology for Stress Scaling Factors Based on Extrapolation from 2885 Mwt to 2957 Mwt of Unit #2/Dryer #1 Data, Revision 2
ML060030146
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 12/31/2005
From: Knechten T, Melitz B, Neiheisel M
LMS Engineering Innovation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
GENE-0000-0046-8129-02, Rev 1
Download: ML060030146 (65)
v • d • e


Text

Non Prpiietary Version GENE-0000-0046-8129-02 Revision I December 2005 Class I LMS Report Quad Cities New Design Steam Dryer Methodology for Stress Scaling Factors Based on Extrapolation from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt of Unit

  1. 2/Dryer #1 Data, Revision 2

NonProprietary Version ,

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully NON-PROPRIETARY NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of the document GENE-0000-0046-8129-02-P, Revision I 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 [1 Ii.

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The only undertakings of the General Electric Company (GENE) with respect to the information in this document are contained in the contract between EXELON and GENE, and nothing contained in this document shall be construed as changing the contract. The use of this information by anyone other than EXELON or for any purpose other than that for which it is intended, is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, GENE makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefidness of the information contained in this document, or that its use may not infringe upon privately owned rights.

Pai

GENE-0048129-02, Rev. I 01,Lr1e GENE DRF Section 0000-0046-8129, rev.2 DRF 0000-0046-5358 Quad Cities New Design Steam Dryer Methodology for Stress Scaling Factors Based on Extrapolation from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt of Unit

  1. 2/Dryer #1 Data, Revision 2 November 29, 2005 Report GESDO51129Extrapolation Plindyal Contributors Tom Knechten - LMS Ben Melitz - LMS Mike Neiheisel - LMS 29 November 2005 I of 63 GESDO51 l29Extraplation Non-Ihoprietaiy Versian

0 0rX L.Ms*

Q93h GENE-O-0046-8129-02, Rev. I Table of Contents List of Tables .....................................

List of Figur.s ...................................... 3 3

Acronyms .......................................

1.0 Executive Summary .....................................

2.0 Scope ...................................... 6 3.0 Background ...................................... 7 4.0Purpose .................................. 7 5.O Experimental Operating Data from Dryer #1...................................... 7 5.1 Time DomainData ..................................... 8 5.2 Frequency Domain Data ..................................... 8 5.3 Tansducer Locations ..................................... 8 5.4 Data Included in Analysis ..................................... 9 6.0 Fitting of Experimental Data....................................... 12 6.1 Time Domain Approaches ...................................... 13 6.2 Frequency Domain Discussion ...................................... 13 15 6.3 Data Variability 7.0 Calculation ..................................... 2 of Scaling Factors ......................................

7.1 DryerUpper Components..................................... 32 7.2 D yer Lower Components ..................................... 32

. Summary and Conclusions ..................................... 32 9.0 Referensces .. . .................................... 34 Appendix A: Discussion of Frequency Domain Scaling ..................................... 35 Appendix B: Additional Pressure Plots ...................................... 36 43 29 November 2005 2 of 63 GESDO5 l29Exbtapolation Nof-Proprietasy Version

GENE-00 18129-02, Rev. 1 US List of Tables Table 1: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Range and Peak ........................... ................. 15 Table 2: Thermal Power Levels for Autopower Spectra Included in Colonmaps in Figures 5 tirugh 8 (y-axis numbers - Stain Thermal Power Level for Figures S. 6, 9 and 10; Pressure Thermal Power Level for Figures7,8,11,12) ...................................................................... 21 Table 3: Results of ff 1] Power Fit for Strain gages Related to the Hood and Upper Components.. 24 Table 4: Results of (( J] Power Fit for Pressure Transducers Related to the Hood and Upper Components..................................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 5: Strain Content by Frequency Range ................. ........................................................ 26 Table 6: Results of (f J] Power Fit for Strain gages Related to the Skirt and Lower Components ......................................................................... 26 Table 7: Results of(( 11 Power Fit for Pressure Transducers Related to the Skirt and Lower Components ........................................... 27 Table 8: Results of Time Domain Strain Range and Strain Peak Power Exponents ............................................. 32 Table A-i: Strain Content by Frequency Range .......................................................................... 36 Table A-2: Results of [f )) Power Fit for Strain gages Related to the Skirt a Lowernd Components ............................... ...................................................................................... 36 Table A-3 Compound Scaling Factor D evelopmentt . .................................. ,..40 Table A-4: Comparison of Frequency Weighting Metbod (Compound Scaling Factor) and Frequency-Specific Scaling M ethod............................................................................................................................................... 41 Table B-1: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on the 90 Hood .50 Table B-2: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on the 270° Hood.SO Table B-3: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on Other Upper Components ..................... 50 Table B4: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on the Outer Hoods and Upper Dryer Components................................................................................................................................................. 51 Table B-5: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to I( )) Frequency for Pressure Sensors for 900 Hood .61 Table B-6: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to (( II Frequency Section for Pressure Sensors for 270°Hood ................................... 62 Table B-7: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to [l )) Frequency Section I for Pressure Sensors for Other Upper Components....................................................................................... 62 Table B-S: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to If 11 Frequency Section for all Outer Hood and Upper Dryer Pressure Sensors .. 62 List of Figures Figure 1: Dryer Sensor Locations, 900 Side . . . .10 Figure 2: Dryer Sensor Locations, 270 Side ..................................... . . . II Figure 3: Range of Strain Amplitude during Time History..................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Peak Amplitude of Strain during Time History..................................................................................... 14 Figure S: Color Map of Strain gage S7 for Power Ascension, May 2005 . . . .17 Figure 6: Color Map of Strain gage S7 for Power Ascension, May 2005 . . . .17 Figure 7: Color Map ofPressure Transducer PI for Power Ascension, May 2005 . ....................... 18 1......................

Figure 8: Color Map of Pressure Transduoer PI for Power Ascension, May 2005 ........ ... s18 Figure 9: Color Map of Pressure Transducer 88 for Power Ascension, May 2005 ............ . ..................................

19 Figure 10: Color Map of Pressure Transducer S8 for Power Ascension, May 2005 ..................................... . ...... 19 Figure 11: Color Map of Pressure Transducer P24 for Power Ascension, May 2005...................... 20 2....................

Figure 12: Color Map of PressureTransducer P24 for Power Ascension, May 2005 ................................... . ...... 20 Figure 13: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S5 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation ............... ........ 22 Figure 14: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S7 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation .. 23 Figure 15: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S9 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Smmer 2005 Operation .. 23 29 November2005 3 of 63 GESDO5 1129Extrapolation Nan-ProprietiryVersion

GENE00 01 8129-02, Rev. I O N Figure 16: Autopower Spectra for Strain gages SS, S7, S8 and S9 for 2885 MWt at end ofPower Ascension May 2005 . . 25 Figure 17: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage 88 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation .26 Figure 18: Autopower Spectra for Strain gage SS, Pressure Transducers P22, P24 and P25 and Operation during Sum~mer 2005.277 Figure 19: Frequency Bands containing (( J] Strain Gage S7, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005 .29 Figure 20: Frequency Bands containing (( ]1 Pressure Transducer P1, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005 .29 Figure 21: Autopower Spectra for Strain gage S9, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005 ... 30 Figure 22: Autopower Spectra for Strain gage S9, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005, Narrower Frequency Range .......................................................................... 30 Figure 23: Autopower Spectra for Pressure Transducer PI, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005 .......................................................................... 31 Figure 24: Autopower Spectra for Pressure Transducer PI, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005, Narrower Frequency Range ...................... .................................................... 31 Figure A-1: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage 88 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation .......................................................................... 37 Figure A-2: Range of Strain Amplitude during Time History .......................................................................... 37 Figure A-3: Peak Amplitude of Strain during Time History .......................................................................... 38 Figure A4: Filter Shape for frequency-specific scaling method (Note: Amplitude is based on multiplying the whole time record by the madmum scaling factor to begin wi)t. .................................................................. 42 Figure 1: Dryer Sensor Locations, 90° Side ................... ....................................................... 45 Figure -2: Dyer Sensor Locations, 2700 Side ..... ..................................................................... 46 Figure B-3: Range of Pressure Amplitude at some Hood Locations ...................................................................... 48 Figure B4: Peak Amplitude of Pressure at some Hood Locations ......................................................................... 48 Figure B-5: Range of Pressure Amplitude at additional Hood Locations ............................................................... 49 Figure B-6: Peak Amplitude of Pressure at additional Hood Locations ................................................................. 49 Figure B-7: Pressure Sensor P-I - (( ] Time Record versus Thermal Power Level ........... ........ 52 Figure B-8: Pressure Sensor P-2 -[1 11 Time Record versus Thermal Power Level .......... .......... 52 Figure B-9: PresureSensor P f[ f1 Time Record versus Thermal Power Level ................ 53 Figure B-10: Pressure Sensor P4 - LI )) Time Record versus Thermal Power Level Note -

Sensor P4 failed in mid-July .......................................................................... 53 Figure B-li: Pressure Sensor P (( ]j Time Record versus Thermal Power Level ........... ........ 54 Figure B-12: Pressure Sensor P (( 11Time Record versus Thennal Power Level. Sensor P-6 failed in mid-July ....................................................................... 54 Figure B-13: Pressure Sensor P (( )) Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 55 Figure B-14: Pressure Sensor P f] Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 55 Figure B-15: Pressure Sensor P ff Time Recorld versus Thermal Power Level . 56 Figure B-16: Pressr Sensor P ff D Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 56 Figure B-17: Prese Sensor P-li - ff 11 Time Record versus Therma Power Level . 57 Figu B-18: Pressu Sensor P [1 1]Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 57 Figure B-19: PressureSensor P-15 -[ ] Time Record versus Thenal Power Level 58 Figure B-20: Pressure Sensor P ii Time Record versus Thermal Power Level . 58 Figure B-21: Pressure Sensor P-1B - [I J] Time Record versus Thermal Power Level. 59 Figure B-22: Pressure Sensor P i ] ] Time Record versus Thermal Power Level . 59

[1 60 FigureB-23: Pressure Sensor P ff Time Recordversus Thermal PowerLevel . 60 29 November 2005 4 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-ProprietaryVersion

GENE-0000-0046-8129-02, Rev. 1 3 Acronyms FE ....................................... Finite Element FEA .................................... Finite Element Analysis GE ....................................... General Electric GENE ....................................... General Electric Nuclear Energy Megawatts Thermal - Plant MWt .......................................

Thermal Output Power QC-1 ....................................... Quad Cities Unit I QC-2 ....................................... Quad Cities Unit 2 rms ... I..... ... ...... .. I.................... Root mean square 29 November 2005 5 of63 GESDO51 I29Extrapolation Non-Propriefaiy Version

GENE-000 1129-02, Rev. 1 081o 1.0 Executive Summary During the power ascension in May 2005 and operation during the summer of 2005, the Quad Cities 2 unit (QC-2) recorded pressure and strain data up to a thermal power of 2900 Megawatts thermal (MWt). In the future, it is intended that QC-2 will operate at 2957 MWt.

in order to evaluate operating stresses at this higher power level, scaling factors are necessary to scale stress analysis results from the actual power attained to the anticipated power level.

In order to determine these scaling factors, data from the power ascension and from operation during the summer of 2005 were used to develop scaling factors to scale stress analysis results from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt Because stress is to be scaled, the primary data used were strain; however, dynamic pressure on the dryer was also reviewed.

The analysis and curvefitting of the experimental data described in this document produced the following scale factors for the increase from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt:

  • Hood and dryer components - 11

)). This increase is higher than the highest power exponent seen for either the frequency or time domain strain range and peak results if

))-

  • Skirt - Initial work with strain gage S8 produced 1[

JJ; however, further work with the time domain strain range and peak strain indicates that this scaling factor may be conservative.

Strain gage S8 showed (( 11 for the values of strain range and peak strain examined, but the curve fit quality indicator has a very low value. Strain gages SI and S2, on the skirt and drain channel respectively, were excluded because of their location, but SI (( ],

and S2 decreases slightly in strain range and amplitude over the power range of interest 29 November2005 6 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-ProprietawyVersion

GENE 001612, Rev. 1 af 2.0 Scope This document summarizes the development of an extrapolation methodology and scaling factors from that extrapolation methodology to use operating measurements at and near EPU to predict strains/stresses at slightly higher power levels. Specifically, data 1[

1] are used to predict strains at 2957 MWt, the highest anticipated power for QC-2. The contents of this document are:

1. Description of the experimental data used
2. Statistical fitting of the experimental data
3. Development of scaling factors

3.0 Background

This section provides background information intended to help the reader understand the events that precipitated this report There is a long term goal of operating QC-2 at 2957 MWt During the power ascension in May 2005 and regular operation in the summer of 2005, the unit recorded pressure and strain data up to a power level of 2900 MWt In order to gain confidence in the dryer durability performance at 2957 MWt, stress analyses will be carried out by scaling strain and stress levels from lower power to the higher power of 2957 MWt. The lower power basis or starting point for the scaling is considered to be 2885 MWt. Initial GENE estimates are that the scaling factor should follow scaling based on velocity (( ]1. Once operating data were obtained on the QC-2 replacement dryer during power ascension and extended operation at a high power level, a request was made to investigate this data to determine if the data supported the fourth power scaling factor or if adjustments to the scaling factor are necessary.

4.0 Puroose The purpose of this work was to confirm previous work by GENE that foimd ff 11 could not be confirmed using the supplied experimental data, to develop new scaling factors. The latest work by GENE 29 November2005 7 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-Proprietwy Version

GE E00000046-8129-02, Rev. 1 Uhl regarding f 3] is Reference 1, Additional Justification for Power Law Scaling of Stresses in Quad Cities Unit 2 Steam Dxyer to Final EPU Level of 2957 MWL 5.0 Experimental Overatine Data from Dryer #1 This section describes the experimental operating data from Dryer #1 that was used to develop the load extrapolation methodology and the scaling factors. GENE previously supplied data from the Power Ascension during May 2005. Reference 2 is a report from the Power Ascension. References 3 and 4 are the test logs from the power ascension data acquisition and a worksheet describing the test conditions from the power ascension. Exelon supplied data from operation during the summer of 2005. References 5 and 6 document the transmittal of the summer 2005 data and identify the health of specific strain transducers/strain transducer channels for both the summer operation and the power ascension. The next two sections discuss the two formats of data that were provided.

5.1 Time Domain Data The time domain signals provided ((

]iThe software used to acquire and process the data was LMS TestLab Release SA, specifically the Signature Testing and Throughput Validation and Processing Host Modules. The data acquisition front end was a Scadas III 316. Reference 2 contains further details about the transducers and their signal conditioning.

5.2 Frequency Domain Data The supplied frequency domain data was the product of online data processing (almost simultaneous processing of the data in the frequency domain while the time domain data was being acquired). The data processing produced autopower spectra using the following parameters:

  • 800 Hz effective frequency bandwidth (2048 Hz sampling rate)
  • 0.25 Hz frequency resolution
  • Hanning window 29 November 2005 8 of 63 GESDO51 129Extaolation Non-PoprietcayVersion

GM~'E 000006 129-02, Rev. I M" L.MS" 043, 2061"121144 IMMOVA'TION UE~U~O

  • Linear averaging
  • Linear units
  • Peak unit scaling
  • One average per second (resultant spectra vary between 110 and 200 averages)
  • AC Coupling (static strain, pressure and acceleration were not measured) 5.3 Transducer Locations For this study, the strain gages and dryer exterior pressure transducers were the primary sensors of interest. Figures I and 2 are drawings supplied by GENE that show the locations of the transducers on the dryer. Strain gage S7 (not shown in Figure 1) is on the curve where the 900 outer hood transitions to the dryer top, above pressure transducer PI. Reference 2 contains additional information about the transducer locations and the plant power ascension in May, 2005.

29 November 2005 9 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Mmn-ProprietaryVersion

GENE-0001 129-02, Rev. 1 Eda eLms" s~sl "lvnl 11 Figure 1: Dxyer Sensor Locations, 900 Side 29 November 2005 10 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-ProprietyVersion

GENE00008129-02, Rev. 1 L.M"llas" fi-qrDOh~lem I.'

11 Figue 2: Dryer Sens Locations, 270° Side 29 November 2005 11 of 63 GESDO51 129Extapolation Nan-ProprietaryVersion

GENE-000-004&8129-02, Rev. 1 "MgUh L.MS" altlA vn 5.4 Data Included In Analysis This section discusses the data included in the analysis and provides reasoning for exclusion of some of the data Strain gage insulation resistance was monitored over time as an indication of strain gage health. Strain gages S3 and S6 failed before the power ascension started. Strain gage S4 failed on May 21, 2005. Strain gages SS and S7 failed on June 27, 2005 so no data from those gages is presented after this date. Strain gages Si, S2, S8, and S9 are considered to be functioning throughout the whole period of the power ascension and the summer data.

All of the data for Test Conditions 41_5 (June 24, 2005), 41_6 (June 27, 2005), and 41_7 (June 29, 2005) has been excluded because of high ambient temperatures at the location conaining the data acquisition computer, data acquisition front end, and strain gage bridge completion hardware. Reference 6 contains information about the strain gage health and when the gages are considered to be fuinctioning.

Pressure transducer P19 was considered to be non-finctional for the whole power ascension and for the summer data so it was not included at all. Pressure transducers P4 and P6 are considered to have failed after July 20.

Strain gages SI and S2 are included on some of the plots but excluded from any detailed analysis or discussion because oftheir location. SI is on a curved panel ofthe skirt and S2 is below the water line on a drain channel.

29 November 2005 12 of 63 GESDO511 29ExfWpolation Non-PropraelaiyVersion

GENE 0100008129-02. Rev. I 03o 6.0 Fitting of Experimental Data This section describes the statistical curve-fitting used on the experimental data Data from other nuclear units and previous analysis of the power ascension had produced estimates ((

]1 in strain from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt as noted in Reference 1.

In order to confirm this estimate, the data from the power ascension during May 2005 and operation over the summer of 2005 were consolidated and reviewed. The data were analyzed with both time domain and frequency domain approaches. The time domain approach is closer to the manner in which the finite element (FE) stress analysis results are being reviewed because the FE stress analysis is looking at peak stress intensity. The frequency domain approaches are used as a check on the time domain approaches and because the curve-fits of some of the time domain data were of lower quality than is acceptable. Because stress is the factor that is to be extrapolated, measured strain is the primary factor to be evaluated in determining the scaling factor. Pressure is evaluated to some extent as well, but strain will determine the scaling factor. An assumption used throughout the curve-fitting is that the thermal power is directly related to the average steam velocity.

6.1 Time Domain Approaches The time domain approach to analyzing the experimental data was to observe the range of the strain in the time domain and to observe the peak amplitude (the highest amplitude of the absolute value of either the minimum or maximum in the time record) in the time domain and plot the range and the peak versus power level. Figures 3 and 4 show the range and peak of the strain gage time histories above 2480 MWt In Figures 3 and 4, all of the curve fits, even those with coefficients of determination or R-squared values lower than generally deemed acceptable, were left on these plots to show the effect of this variability on the fit In obtaining the values that populate Figures 3 and 4, the individual time records were reviewed, and no obviously anomalous data was found that may help to explain te variability.

29 November2005 13 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-ProprietawyVersion

GENE-000 6129-02, Rev. I 01 11IIaIING iNNOVAnoON tI 1]

Figure 3: Range of Strain Amplitude during Tine History 1]

Figure 4: Peak Amplitude of Strain during Time History 29 November 2005 14 of 63 GESDOS 1 29Extrapolation Non-PrprietsyVersion

GENE00000129602, O2. Rev. 103 1 Table I contains power fit exponents for the time domain strain range. As mentioned previously, some of the coefficients of determination are lower than generally acceptable so other methods were used to assist this method of evaluation.

Table 1: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Range and Peak

((I Both for the range of strain and peak strain, there is amplitude variability in this power range that is discussed further in Section 6.3. For several of the strain gages, strain does not simply increase with power. An example is Strain gage S8, which also had a very low coefficient of determination. Another conclusion was that, when all of the power ascension data was included, curve-fits seemed to fit either the lower power data or the higher power data well, but not both This conclusion led to a decision to exclude the data below approximately 2480 MWt.

6.2 Frequency Domain Discussion

1. Although for this evaluation, the range and peak amplitudes of strain from the strain time histories are the primary factor for evaluation, there is some value in reviewing the data in the frequency domain for trends of frequency and amplitude. Previous analysis of the power ascension data had shown strong, discrete frequency signals in the strain, pressure and acceleration data from the dryer and strain/pressure data from the main steam lines. Color maps of the power ascension showing amplitude versus frequency versus test condition were reviewed, and fiequency sections or bands that encompassed the significant frequency peaks were selected. Figures 5 through 12 are color maps of pressure and strain, where Figures 6, 8, 10 and 11 are a narrow frequency range of the data shown in Figures 5, 7, 9 and 12, respectively. The numbers on the y-axis refer to test conditions from the power ascension. The spectra in the color map are not evenly spaced with respect to thermal power. Table 2 lists the spectra shown for the strain and pressure respectively. The color maps for strain gage 29 November 2005 15 of 63 GESDO511 29Exrapolation Non-PrprietaiyVersion

GENE00068129-02, Rev. I MrL.M Uhl i~ax l"^se S7 in Figures 5 and 6 and strain gage S8 in Figures 9 and 10 contain no repeated power levels and so have fewer spectra than the color maps for pressure transducers PI and P24. The summer 2005 data was reviewed as well to verify that the same peaks were present. The difference between hood strain and skirt strain is shown by contrasting Figures 5 and 6 for S7 and Figures 9 and 10 for SS. The pressure on those surfaces is still similar, though, as the color maps for PI and P24 show.

With the intent of verifying the scaling factors discussed in Reference 1, a decision was made to cut the data into 4 broader frequency sections in which the data behaved similarly to determine scaling factors for those broader sections. The frequency sections are:

1]

29 November 2005 16 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-PrpietayVersion

GENE-0000-0046-8129-02, Rev. I I L.MS 4

[l 11 Figure 5: Color Map of Strain gage S7 for Power Ascension, May 2005

((

11 Figure 6: Color Map of Strain gage S7 for Power Ascension, May 2005 29 November 2005 17 of 63 GESDO5I1l29Extrapolation Non-PrOprietapy Version

GENE-0000,0046-8129-02, Rev. I U

_",LM S toII 1IMIUUO IBMUeATIO"

((

11 Figure 7: Color Map of Pressure Transducer PI for Power Ascension, May 2005

((

l]

Figure 8: Color Map of Pressure Transducer PI for Power Ascension, May 2005 29 November 2005 18 of63 GESDO5 1129Extrapolation Non-Proprietay Version

GENE-000 1 129-02, Rev. 1

&"IL-MS4 tue [Voals INNOVATION

((

11 Figure 9: Color Map of Pressure Transducer S8 for Power Ascension, May 2005 1]

Figure 10: Color Map of Pressr Transducer S8 for Power Ascension, May 2005 29 November 2005 19 of 63 GESDOS1 129Exrapolation Non-ProprietaryVersion

tarnL. SI GBNE 000006-8129-02, Rev. I II

))

Figure 11: Color Map of Pressure Transducer P24 for Power Ascension, May 2005 rI 1]

Figure 12: Color Map of Pressure Transducer P24 for Power Ascension, May 2005 29 November 2005 20 of 63 GESDO51 129Exthaolation Nan piefvy Version

GENE000001129-02,Rev. 1 I -,IL.M 01, S I' li lovnl Table 2: Thermal Power Levels for Autopower Spectra Included In Colormaps In Figures 5 through 8 (y-axis numbers - Strain Thermal Power Level for Figures 5,6,9 and 10; Pressure Thermal Power Level for Figures 7,8, 11, 12) 11 1]

29 November 2005 21 of 63 GESDO51 l29Extrapolation NMon-PropietaryVersion

GENE-OOO004-129-02, Rev. I L'Mr, Offil L.Ms" Figures 13 through 15 show the frequency cuts for these frequency sections and the overall frequency section of 0 Hz to 800 Hz for several of the strain gages. In Figures 13 through 15, all of the curve fits, even those with lower coefficients of determination or R-squared values than generally considered acceptable, were left on these plots to show the effect of the variability discussed in Section 6.3. Another observation to make from these figures is the dominance of the (( 1] frequency band in determining the overall level of the strain or the 0 Hz to 800 Hz level of the strain. These strain gages are on the outer hood and upper portion of the dryer.

((:

Figure 13: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S5 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation 29 November 2005 22 of 63 GESDO5 1129Extrapolation Non-ProprietyVenion

GENEM00-0048129-02, Rev. I 0I- 11 L.MS"

))

Figure 14: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S7 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation 1]

Figure 15: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S9 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation 29 November 2005 23 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-Pkopretazy Version

GENE,000000468129-02, Rev. I d11, Table 3: Results of l[ ]J Power Fit for Strain gages Related to the Hood and Upper Components 11 11 Table 4: Results of U l] Power Fit for Pressure Transducers Related to the Hood and Upper Components 11 11 The results of curve-fiting the (( )) band in Figures 13 through 15 are tabulated in Table 3. Table 3 has changed since the original issuance of the report due to the data exclusion discussed in Section 5.4 as well. The average of the pressure power fits in Table 4 supports the power fit [1 J1 as well. (Note: Table 4 has changed since the original issuance (Revision 1) as sensor P6 originally had data from after it was considered to have failed). Generally, it is desired that fits have a higher coefficient of determination than 0.90; however, those fits with a lower coefficient of determination than 29 November 2005 24 of 63 GESDO51l 29Extrapolation Non-ProprietyVersion

GENE4=000008129-02, Rev. I MAUh L.Ms,*

t~lil "lvni 0.90 are shown so that Strain gages S8 and S9 can be included. Microsoft Excel 2003 SPI was used to perform the curve-fitting.

For transducers more closely associated with the skirt, the ([ 11 band is not so dominant. Figure 16 contains the autopower spectra at 2885 MWt for strain gages SS, S7, S8 and S9.

((

1]

Figure 16: Autopower Spectra for Strain gages S5, S7, S8 and S9 for 2885 MWt at end of Power Ascension May 2005 Strain gage S8 displays amplitude as high as the discrete peaks m the (( 1I range in its [I 1] range, reinforcing an observation made from color maps in Figures 9 and 10. Table 5 shows the frequency domain distribution of strain for several strain gages. Tables 6 and 7 show the power fit exponents for the [1 1] frequency band and the (( I] frequency band for strain gages and pressure trarsducers related to the skirt. The (( 11 frequency range produced curve-fits of poor quality due to data variability which can be seen in Figures 13 to IS and in Figure 17, which shows strain gage SB frequency bands. In Figure 17 as in Figures 13 through 15, all of the curve fits, even those with lower coefficients of determination or R-squared values than considered acceptable, were left on these plots to show the effect of the variability discussed in Section 6.3. In Figure 17, the (( )) band is dominant, but, in all 4 figures, 29 November 2005 25 of 63 GESDO51 I29Extrapolation Non-PrcprietaiyVersion

GENE000 68129-02, Rev. I MI-'31oL-Ms" this band is fairly flat in the 2500 MWt to 2900 MWt region. It does not show much increase in amplitude as thermal power increases. Figure 18 compares Strain gage S8 to Pressure Transducers P22, P24 and P25, the pressure transducers near S8.

Table 5: Strain Content by Frequency Range 1[

11 Figure 17: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S8 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation Table 6: Results of f[ )) Power Fit for Strain gages Related to the Skirt and Lower Components 1[

))

29 November 2005 26 of 63 GESDO51 129Extapolation NonP rietay Version

GENE00 00001 29-02, Rev. I 03o Table 7: Resultsof[1 11 Power bit for Pressure Transducers Related to the Skirt and Lower Components 11 For the (( )) frequency band, similar exponents are observed as were seen for the strain gages on the upper portions of the dryer, however, the (( ))

band is much less of the power of the whole frequency range studied, ((

1] band. In reviewing Figure 18, the strain response of SS is quite different in frequency content than the nearby dynamic pressure, maldng any assumptions about the trends of S8 difficult to attempt to predict by using the nearby pressure transducers.

1[1 Figure 18: Autopowr Spectra for Stain gage 8S, Pressure Tramsuers P22, P24 and P25 and Operation during Summer 2005 29 November2005 27 of 63 GESDO5 1129Extrapolation NAn-Propraetawy Version

GENENO-00 129-02, Rev. I V I 6.3 Data Variability The data exhibits greater variability than anticipated, particularly in the [

11. Figures 19 through 24 show the variability of these peaks in amplitude of the peak versus thermal power and autopower measurements of strain and pressure from the summer data compared to one measurement at the end of the power ascension. The trends of the power ascension data from May are relatively clear, but the addition of the summer 2005 data produces a large amount of scatter in the 2800 MWt to 2900 MWt region, particularly for the ((

)). Both the frequency domain and time domain results exhibit this variability. In Figures 3 and 4, 13 through 15 and 17, all of the curve fits, even those with coefficients of determination less than 0.70, were left on these plots to show the effect of this variability on the fit.

This amplitude variability introduces uncertainty into conclusions as to whether the amplitude of a specific peak is decreasing, increasing or remaining constant From the data available, it appears that the (( 1] has reached its highest amplitude and is declining and that the (( )) is possibly still climbing or is maintaining constant amplitude.

Figures 19 and 20 demonstrate some evidence of this amplitude change versus thermal power level. The only way to conclusively determine the state of either peak would be to have data at still higher power levels. Both the (( JJ exhibit constant frequency versus flow, unlike some other peaks such as the (( 1] in Figures 5 and 7 that increases in frequency as flow increases around the power of 2000 MWt.

29 November 2005 28 of 63 GESDO5 1129Exwolation Non-ProprietaiyVersion

GENE 0000 0016 I29-02, Rev. I ~gUIIIMIMVT. ON

"-,War L.Ms*

1314191121116 INNOVATION 11 Figure 19: Frequency Bands containing (( 11 Stain Gage S7, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005

[l 11 Figure 20: Frequency Bands containing f[ 1l Pressure Transducer PI, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005 29 November 2005 29 of 63 GESDO51 l29Extrapolation Non-Proprefaiy Version

GENE 00 18129-02, Rev. I MM03 -MS"

,,1 , lllvnt Fi Figure 21: Autopower Spectra for Strain gage S9, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005 11 Figure 22: Autopower Specta for Strain gage S9, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005, Narrower Frequency Range 29 November 2005 30 of 63 GESD051 129Extrapolation Non-Phrietay Version

GENE-0000-0046-8129-02, Rev. 1 093, L.M S-

~W- lzll"loio 11 11 Figure 23: Aulopower Spectra for Pressure Transducer PI, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005

[I 11 Figure 24: Autopower Spectra for Pressure Transducer PI, Power Ascension May 2005 and Operation during Summer 2005, Narrower Frequency Range 29 November 2005 31 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation NMon-Proprietwy Version

GENE-OO 0 129-02, Rev. I O l 7.0 Calculation of Scaline Factors This section describes the calculation of scaling factors to be used to scale stress results at 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt. Two different scaling factors are discussed because the frequency distribution of the dryer response differed among various components; however the frequency distribution could be separated into 2 main categories:

1. Components such as the hood and dryer components (upper components)
2. Components such as the skirt (lower components) 7.1 Dryer Upper Components For components such as the outer hoods, a scale factor was determined using strain gages relevant to these components, specifically S5, S7 and S9 while S8 is included for comparison purposes. Table 8 contains results from Figures 3 and 4 for the power fit exponents for the time domain strain data.

Table 8: Results of Time Domain Strain Range and Strain Peak Power Exponents

[It The increase from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt is a 2.5% increase in power. [

1))

7.2 Dryer Lower Components Strain gage S8 is considered representative of the skirt. A review of Figures 3 and 4 and of Table 8 show that, for the power range of interest, the strain range and peak amplitude are relatively flat or increasing slightly with thermal power but also demonstrate large variability.

The frequency characteristics of the S8 signal do not match the frequency characteristics of nearby pressure transducers well as shown in Figures 10, 12 and 18 so use of those signals to 29 November 2005 32 of 63 GESDOS 129Extrapolation Nan-Propnietwy Version

GENE-00 08129-02, Rev. 1 0I1 approximate the change of S8 with thermnal power is considered inappropriate. Appendix A contains a discussion of efforts to develop a scaling factor based on different scaling factors for different frequency bands that LMS was asked to perform ((

11 29 November 2005 33 of 63 GESDO51129Exwolation Non-Phwrieftay Version

GENE-0000-00468129-02, Rev. I ON 8.0 Summary and Conclusions Time domain and frequency domain strain data and pressure data were reviewed to confirm previous scaling factors proposed by GENE or to develop new scaling factors. The analysis and curve-fitting of the experimental data described in the previous sections and in Appendix B produced the following scale factors for the increase from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt:

  • Hood and dryer components -

1]. Use of these results assumes that the extrapolation of the FE results will directly relate to the trending of the experimental structural results versus power level.

  • Hood and dryer components -

11, presented in Appendix B, Table B-S.

  • The global average for the hood and dryer components that should be used for stress extrapolation is (( J] based on the strain gage data which is greater than the global pressure range data average.
  • The highest power law exponent for the pressure range data (based on data taken at power levels above 2780 MWt) was determined to be 10.07. This value can be used to evaluate the local load uncertainty.
  • Skirt - Initial work with strain gage S8 produced [

11; however, further work with the time domain strain range and peak strain indicates that this scaling factor may be conservative.

Strain gage S8 showed if ]I for the values of strain range and peak strain examined, but the curve fit quality indicator has a very low value. Strain gages SI and S2, on the skirt and drain channel respectively, were excluded because of their location, but SI has (( I and S2 decreases slightly in strain range and amplitude over the power range of interest. Also, the frequency domain results from strain gage S8 are fairly different from results from nearby pressure transducers, indicating that simply using the pressure scaling for this region is not representative of the strain.

29 November 2005 34 of63 GESD05 1129Extrapolation Non4ietway Version

GENE 000 1 29-02, Rev. I ,21 9.0 References

1. Hom, Ron "Technical Assessment Additional Justification for Power Law Scaling of Stresses in Quad Cities Unit 2 Steam Dryer to Final EPU Level of 2957 MWt."

GENE-0000-0041-9352. GENE San Jose, CA. July 2005.

2. "Quad Cities Unit 2 New Steam Dryer Outage Startup Report" Report Number AM20-05-14, Rev. 0, July 20,2005.
3. Sommerville, Daniel, et al. "Quad Cities 2 - Unit 2 Steam Dryer Power Ascension Test Log." GENE, San Jose, CA. May 2005 (filename: TestLogQC2Ascensionrpdf).
4. "Quad Cities Unit 2 Power Ascension Dryer Trending." Exelon Quad Cities Generating Station, Cordova, IL. May 2005 (filename: An 9-3 Dryer Instr Trending Data File.xls).
5. Strub, Brian R. "Exelon Transmittal of Design Information No. QDC-05-045, rev. 0",

Exelon Quad Cities Generating Station, Cordova, IL, September, 2005 (filename:

TODI 05-045 LMS Data.PDF).

6. Strub, Brian R. "Exelon Transmittal of Design Information No. QDC-05-047, rev. 0",

Exelon Quad Cities Generating Station, Cordova, IL, October, 2005 (filename: TODI 05-047 Strain gage Status.PDF).

7. Anthoine, J., and Olivari, D., "Cold Flow Simulation of Vortex Induced Oscillations in Model of Solid Propellant Boosters", AIAA Paper, AIAA-99-1826.
8. Sano, Masashi, "Self-Excited Vibration of a Perforated Plate Installed in a Pipe",

ASME Paper, PVP-Vol 389, Flow Induced Vibration - 1999.

29 November 2005 35 of 63 GESD051 129Extaolation Ncn-ProprietayVersion

GENE00018129-02, Rev. I M 014 L.MSsil"loo Appendix A: Discussion of Frequency Domain Scaling As part of the effort to develop scaling factors for stress and strain on the dryer, LMS was asked to propose a netiodology to produce a compound scaling factor based on different scaling factors by frequency band. This appendix contains the results of that methodology development As can be seen in Table A-1 and also in Figure A-1 for strain gage S8, the strain gage that is representative of the skirt, f[

11e Table A-i: Strain Content iby Frequency Range

((

1]

Table A-2: Results of [I 11 Power Fit for Strain gages Related to the Skirt and Lower Components 1[

1]

29 November 2005 36 of 63 GESDOS1 129Extrapolation Non-ProprietaryVersion

uMIL.Ms*

GENE-00 48129-02, Rev. 1 Ohluisie ttW"t 11 Figure A-I: Frequency Sections and Power Law Curve-fits for Strain gage S8 for Power Ascension May 2005 and Summer 2005 Operation a[

11 Figure A-2: Range of Strain Amplitude during Time History 29 November 2005 37 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-Propietwy Version

GENE-000 4129-02, Rev. I LMS4 WI'Call 2081INGIG

,,, NOM"O

[I 11 Figure A-3: Peak Amplitude of Strain during Time History In order to account for this exponent for much of the strain content while still having the ((

)), a method of frequency-weighted scaling was developed and implemented. The power exponent [I 1] was retained from the hood and other dryer upper components. The frequency-weighted scaling method uses the bands discussed previously:

[t 11 The frequency-weighted scaling method uses the following actions:

1. Determine power exponents for each fiequency range
2. Determine frequency range specific scaling factors from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt for using those power exponents
3. Determine proportion of strain for each frequency range 29 November 2005 38 of 63 GESDO511 29Extrapolation Non-ProprietaryVersion

GEN 016129-02, Rev. I MI L.M 02, NG1814 n se NNV" 0v0ol

4. Weight scaling factor for each frequency range by proportion of strain
5. Determine compound scaling factor as a summation of the frequency-weighted scaling factors
6. Multiply strain time history by compound scaling factor The frequency-weighted method produced a compound scaling factor of (( )) from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt. This factor was determined using the frequency range scaling factors and the strain proportions from S8 for test conditions above 2480 MWt. The average compound scaling factor for these test conditions was found to be (( 1], and the maximum from these test conditions was calculated and found to be (( ))- Table A-3 shows the calculation for the average and maximum cases.

29 November 2005 39 of 63 GESDOS1129Exapolation Non-ProprietayVersion

GENE-000 48129-02, Rev. I ML.MS*

0131tN6IuuNG INNOVATION Table A-3 Compound Scaling Factor Development 1[1 The frequency-weighting method was checked by a frequency-specific scaling method with the following steps:

1. Determine power exponents for each frequency range (use same as frequency weighting).
2. Determine frequency range specific scaling factors from 2885 MWt to 2957 MWt for using those power exponents (use same as frequency weighting)
3. Multiply strain time history by highest scaling factor.
4. Develop a filter to apply to multiplied strain time history that will reduce other frequency sections (other than that section that requires the highest scaling factor) to the appropriate scaling factor for that section.
5. Apply zero-phase filter to multiplied strain time history.

The frequency-specific scaling method was implemented using LMS Cada-X software Four different test conditions of strain gage S8 were evaluated in both the time and frequency domains using the frequency-weighting method and the frequency-specific scaling method.

29 November 2005 40 of 63 GESDOS I 129Extraplation Non-Proprietay Version

GENE-0048129-02, Rev. I AW-013 LMS" INIIIIN lil NOVAIONl The test conditions chosen were the EPU condition at the end of the power ascension in May 2005 and 3 high thermal power conditions from the summer data that were separated in time.

Table A-4 shows the results of that comparison. Both methods produce similar results, within 2% of each other for the time domain metrics of range and peak amplitude, for the four test conditions evaluated. For the frequency domain evaluation, the frequency-weighting method using the compound scaling factor tends to underpredict the [l 1] band compared to simply multiplying the amplitude in that band by that band's scale factor; however, the stress analysis is based on a time domain evaluation, and the time domain evaluation using the results from the frequency-weighted compound scaling factor are equivalent to the time domain results using the frequency-specific scaling method. Figure A-4 contains the filter shape used for the frequency-specific scaling method.

Table A-4: Comparison of Frequency Weighting Method (Compound Scaling Factor) and Frequency-Specific Scaling Method

((I I]

29 November 2005 41 of 63 GESDO5 1129Extrolation Non-PropietayVersion

MIAL.MS-GENE-0048129-02, Rev. 1 093, tmt tttlvnt 1[

Figuse A-4: Filter Shape for frequency-specific scaln method (Note: Amplitude is based on multiplying the whole time record by the maximum scaling factor to begin with) 29 November 2005 42 of 63 GESDO5 1129Exhapolation Non-Proprietmy Version

GENE-OOO-00468129-02, Rev. I VA L.MS" MWI 114418112ING INNOVATION Aunendix B: Additional Pressure Plots 29 November 2005 43 of 63 OESDO511I29Extraplation fnm-ftopietasy Version

GE 0C0016 8129-02< Rev. I FA LM3 B- 1.0 Background This appendix provides additional pressure data requested after review of the strain and pressure data in the original report. Also, the data above f1 11 megawatts thermal (MWt) is evaluated in greater detail.

B- 2.0 Experimental Operating Data from Dryer #l/Ouad Cities Unit #2 The experimental operating data from Dryer #1 that was used to develop the load extrapolation methodology and the scaling factors is discussed in Section 5.0 of the main body of the report GENE previously supplied data from the Power Ascension during May 2005. Reference 2 of the main body of the report is a report from the Power Ascension.

References 3 and 4 are the test logs from the power ascension data acquisition and a worksheet describing the test conditions from the power ascension. Exelon supplied data from operation during the sumnmer of 2005. References 5 and 6 document the transmittal of the summer 2005 data and identify the health of specific strain transducers/strain transducer channels for both the summer operation and the power ascension. Pressure sensor P19 was considered non-functioning for the whole period. Pressure sensors P4 and P6 started behaving erratically in mid-July. The next section repeats Section 5.3 for reader convenience.

B- 2i1 Transducer Locations For this study, the strain gages and dryer exterior pressure transducers were the primary sensors of interest Figures B-1 and B-2 are drawings supplied by GENE that show the locations of the transducers on the dryer. Strain gage S7 (not shown in Figue B-IlI) is on the curve where the 90' outer hood transitions to the dryer top, above pressure transducer P1.

Reference 2 contains additional information about the transducer locations and the plant power ascension in May, 2005.

29 November 2005 44 of 63 GESDOS1 129Extrapolation Non-PropriekavyVersion

GENE-0000-0046-8129-02, Rev. I

"-,W L MS" 041l,c " A 1]

Figure B-I: Dryer Sensor Locations, 90° Side 29 November 2005 45 of 63 GESDOSI 129Extrapolation Non-rorietayVersion

,,-WA L. Ms" GENE-0O0046-129-02, Rev. 1 011, Fr I]

Figure B-2: Dryer Sensor Locations, 270° Side 29 November 2005 46 of 63 GESDO511l29Exhrapolation Noti-rorctayVersion

GENE-0000-00468129-02, Rev. 1 ON B- 3.0 Fitting of Experimental Data This section describes the statistical curve-fitting used on the experimental data - in this case, the additional pressure data requested after review of the initial data supplied. As noted in the main body of the report, the time domain approach is similar to the manner in which the finite element (FE) stress analysis results are being reviewed because the FE stress analysis is looking at peak stress intensity from stress time histories. An assumption used throughout the curve-fitting is that the thermal power is directly related to the average steam velocity.

B- 3.1 Additional Pressure Data - Complete Frequency Range The time domain approach to analyzing the experimental data was to observe the range of the pressure in the time domain and to observe the peak amplitude (the highest amplitude of the absolute value of either the minimum or maximum in the time record) in the time domain and plot the range and the peak versus power level. Figures B-3 through B-6 show the range and peak amplitude of various pressure sensor time histories above (( JJ. The data was curve-fit both for all of the data above [I 1]. The pressure sensors included are those at the corners of the outer hoods and those near strain gages. In Figures B-3 through B-6, all of the curve fits, even those with coefficients of determination or R-squared values lower than generally deemed acceptable, were left on the plots to show the effect of this variability on the fit In obtaining the values that populate Figures B-3 through B-6, the individual time records were reviewed, and no obviously anomalous data was found.

29 November 2005 47 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapoation NonProprietaryVersion

F, *MS-3NGlIMSIG GEXNE00081 29-02, Rev. I MKOevA"ol It 1]

Figure B-3: Range of Pressure Amplitude at some Hood Locations It 11 Figure B-4: Peak Amplitude ofPressure at some Hood Locations 29 November 2005 48 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-Preprietawy Version

GENE-O-0046-8129-02, Rev. I CAN IL.MS" EUIhtIOIUVfN 11 Figure B-5: Range of Pressure Amplitude at additional Hood Locations

[i

))

Figure B-6: Peak Amplitude of Pressure at additional Hood Locations 29 November 2005 49 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-Proprietsy Version

GENE-00000046-8129-02, Rev. 1 03U c v Tables B-I through B4 contain power fit exponents for the time domain pressure range.

Table B4 is a summation of the data in Tables B-i through B-3. The values for peak amplitude follow the same trends. As mentioned previously, some of the coefficients of determination are lower than generally acceptable. Also, as mentioned previously, the pressure sensors included in these tables are those at the corners of each outer hood and those near strain gages. Table B-2 contains an additional curve-fit for P21 using only data from greater than (( 1] to show how sensitive the curve-fitting becomes to inclusion and exclusion of data.

Figures B-3 through B-6 and Tables B-1 through BA indicate that the use of [

1.

Table B-1: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on the 900 Hood 11 11 Table B-2: Power ilt Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on the 2700 Hood 1]

Table B-3: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on Other Upper Components

[1 II 29 November 2005 50 of 63 GESDO51 l29Extnaolation Ntn-PropielamyVersion

GENBE0000 0016-8129-02, Rev. I M-1 L.Ms" Uhl Table B-4: Power Fit Exponents for Time Domain Pressure Range on the Outer Hoods and Upper Dryer Components

((

I]

There is amplitude variability in this power range that is discussed further in Section 6.3 of the main body of the report B- 3.2 Additional Pressure Data, Filtered to (( 11 As mentioned previously, more detailed analysis and presentation of the pressure signals than found in the main body of the report was requested. Part of this request was a focus on the af 1]frequency range. Figures B-7 through B-23 present the range and peak amplitude from the time domain filtered to contain only the (( 11 content versus thermal power level. Curve-fits of the data ((

J] are included on the plots regardless of fit quality. Tables B- through and B-8, which follow the plots, contain the power exponent and coefficient of determination or R-squared value from the curve-fits of the range. The results from the peak pressure amplitude are equivalent to the results from the pressure range, with only the range data used for the rest of the evaluations.

29 November 2005 51 of 63 GESDOSI 129Extrapolation on4Prepriekaoy Version

'102 L-MS GENE90000 00U129-02, Rev. I 11 11 Figure B-7: Pressure Sensor P ff 1] Time Record versus Thennal Power Level

[I Figure B-8: Pressure Sensor P )) Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 29 November 2005 52 of 63 GESDOS1 129Extrapolation Non-PropretawyVersion

GENE-00006129-02, Rev. 1 isOh~~lTI L.M""TO S 1[

1]

Figure B-9: Pressure Sensor P ff 11 Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 11 Figure B-10: Pressure Sensor PA- - 1J Time Record versus Thermal Power Level Note -

Sensor PA failed in mid-July.

29 November 2005 53 of 63 GESDO5 1 29Extrapolation Non-ProprietatyVersion

G0N400 01 129-02, Rev. 1 WI' ON L.MS" 1[

11 Figure B-1 1: Pressure Sensor P [l 11 Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 1[

I1 Figure B-12: Pressure Sensor P (( 1] Time Record versus Thelrmal Power Level. Sensor P-6 failed in mid-July.

29 November 2005 54 of63 GIESDO5 1129Extrapolation on-ProprietayVersion

GENE-000 1 129-02, Rev. 1 LM WI~'

031, se ilelzlvao 1[

11 Figure B-13: Pressure Sensor P [I )) Time Record vaesu Thermal Power Level 1[

11 Figure B-14: Pressure Sensor P (( 11 Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 29 November 2005 55 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Non-ProprietaryVersion

WI L-MS6 GME00018129-02, Rev. 1 064

((

II Figure B-1 5: Pressure Sensor P (( 1] Time Record versus Thenmal Power Level

((

11 Figure B-16: Pressure Sensor P 1[ ]I Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 29 November 2005 56 of 63 GESDOSI l29Extraoltion Non-Poretaiy Version

MA L.MS" GENE-0084129-02, Rev. 1 031, "019112INS 18HOVATION

[I

))

Figure B-17: Pressure Sensor P-11 -(( 1] Time Record versus Themmal Power Level I]

Figure B-18: Pressure Sensor P (( 11 Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 29 November 2005 57 of 63 GESDO511 29Extrapolation Non-PrrietatyVersion

GENE040000129602, Rev. I L.

LMs" fi-W03,ll§*""o

((

I]

FigureB19: Pressure Sensor P [t 11 Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 1[

1]

Figure B-20: Pressure Sensor P l )) Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 29 November 2005 58 of 63 GESDO5 1129Extrapolation MAo-Proprletavy Version

OWA L.MSO GENE 00 68129-02, Rev. I 011

((

11 Figure B-21: Pressure Sensor P (( )) Time Record versus Thermal Power Level Figure B-22: Presue Sensor P (( 1] Time Record versus Thermal Power Level 29 November 2005 59 of 63 GESDO5I l29Extraplation tMn-Proqpriefivy Version

GENE-OOOO0046-8129-02, Rev. I mIet!, 2em 1]

Figure B-23: Pressure Sensor P f[ 11 Time Record versus Thnmpal Power Level 29 November 2005 60 of 63 GESDO51 129Extrapolation Ntn-PrWprietaty Version

ILWII L. Ms I GENE0400129602, Rev. 1 013.,

Tables B-5 through B-8 below contain the power fit exponents and R-squared or coefficient of determination values for the pressure sensor curve fits of the time domain data filtered to contain only content between (( 11. Tables B-5 through B-7 break the data into each outer hood and other upper dryer pressure sensors, while Table B-8 combines all of the outer hood and upper dryer pressure sensors. The fits are consistent for all of the functioning pressure sensors using the entire data above (( 11, with coefficients of determination values of 0.95 or above. This provides justification for the use of these data as the basis for the extrapolation exponent. The fits that use only the data f[

11 have lower coefficients of determination than those that use the data ((

)) due to the data variability at high power levels. The use of only the data ((

11 decreases the quality of the curve fit as noted by the coefficient of determination significantly for at least half of the pressure sensors.

Table B-5: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to i[ )) Frequency for Pressure Sensors for 900 Hood 1[

11 29 November 2005 61 of 63 GESDO511l291xtrapolation Non-PropriefasyVersion

G04E00 129-02, Rev. I OLN1 S Table B-6: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to (( 1J Frequency Section for Pressure Sensors for 2700 Hood 11 Table B-7: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to l[ 11 Frequency Section for Pressure Sensors for OtherUpper Components

((

11 Table B-8: Power Fit Exponents for Range of Time History Filtered to (( 11 Frequency Section for al1 Outer Hood and Upper Dryer Pressure Sensors

[I 11 29 November 2005 62 of 63 GESDOS1 I29Extrapolation Non-Proprietwy Version

GIE00068129-02, Rev. 1 a1o B- 4.0 Discussion and Conclusions This section presents some discussion of the pressure curve-fits. As mentioned in the main body of the report, the goal is to scale strain and stress, specifically stress intensity in the time domain, so the primary factors to be used for scaling are time domain strain range and time domain peak strain amplitude. These factors support the use of (( I1 for the hood and upper dryer components.

  • Time domain pressure range and peak pressure amplitude also support the use of ((

)) as reasonable for the hood and upper dryer components.

For the full frequency time domain range of the pressure data on the hoods and upper dryer components [1 )) shown in Table B4, ((

1].

  • For time domain data filtered to include ((

)).

  • There is significant variability at high thermal power levels that leads to low coefficients of determination in the curve-fitting, reducing the confidence in the power exponents derived from only data (( 1]. For the time domain data

[I 1], the coefficients of determination drop by at least 0.05 and generally by more than 0.10. In contrast, all of the data fits for thermal power levels ([ )) had coefficients of determination between 0.95 and 0.99 for the time domain data (( 11 and above 0.92 for the time domain data containing the whole frequency range. This supports the use of the full data set along with the strain gage data in the extrapolation efforts.

29 November 2005 63 of 63 GESDO5 1129Extrapolation Non-ProprietaiyVersion

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML060030146&oldid=2667042"