ML061150463

C.D.I. Technical Note No. 05-04, Quad Cities 2 New Dryer Smt Loads, Revision 5, Dated April 2005, Non-Proprietary

ML061150463
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden, Quad Cities
Issue date:	04/30/2005
From:	Bilanin A Continuum Dynamics
To:	Exelon Generation Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
05-04, Rev 5
Download: ML061150463 (13)

Text

ATTACHMENT 2 C.D.I. Technical Note No. 05-04, "Quad Cities 2 New Dryer SMT Loads," Revision 5, dated April 2005, Non-Proprietary

Non-Prop rictary C.D.I. Technical Note No 05-04 Quad Cities 2 New Dryer SMT Loads Revision 5 Prepared by Continuum Dynamics, Inc.

34 Lexington Avenue Ewing, NJ 08618 Prepared under Purchase Order No. 00077969 for Exclon Gcneration LLC 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 Approved by 0L4.u Alan J. Bilanin April 2005

Non-Proprietary Rev 5 2

Non-Proprietary SUMMAR Y The development of a replacement steam dryer by General Electric included measurern2nts of t(ie anticipated loads on the design in the Subsealc Model Test (SMT) facility. These mcasured loads, at 32 locations on the new dryer and in the four main steam lines, arc not of sufficient resolution to be used on a finite element structural model of the dryer. Using C.D.1. methodology documented in [1] and GE data, dryer loads wcre computed to a threc-inch resolution This technical note summarizes the approach taken to obtain the dryer loads from test data.

NE ' DRYE R DESIGN AAD APPROACH General Electric has developed a new dryer design (Figure 1)to replace the existing stream dryer at Quad Cities I and 2. This design, at subscalc, was tested in the SMT facility (along with a subscalc model of the existing dryer), and sevcral sets of loads were obtained. These tests included:

1. A "blind" test with the existing steam dryer design, wherein the C.D.I. loads transfer methodology [I] was found by Exelon to give acceptable comparisons to p ressure measurements not provided to C.D.I.;

2. Several tests on the existing steam dryer design, at various power levels, for comparison with full-scale measurements;

3. Several tests on the new steam dryer design, at various power levels, for comparison with the existing steam dryer design and a new dryer vulnerability test [2]; and

4. Re-examination of new dryer loads as a result of air flow re-calibration of the SMT.

LOADS TRANSFER APPROACH In the absence of full-scale data on the new dryer, Continuum Dynamics, Inc. applied the current C.D.I. loads transfer methodology to the new dryer data [3] at simulated EPU conditions, based on the pressure time-histories at four locations on the subscale dryer, and then predicted the pressure loads across the entire dryer at this power setting. A comparison of the pressure levels at the provided pressure instrument locations on the new dryer is shown in Table I All of the nodal pressures are conservatively predicted, with the exception of the nodes on the top of the dryer. Nodal pressures are summarized in Figure 2 (converted to psid for comparison with previous full-scale predictions by a factor of 0.009425 psid full scale / pa subscale as provided by GE), and were supplied to Exelon in a high-resolution grid mesh result as schematically shown in Figure 3.

3

Non-Proprietary The loads predicted on thc new dryer design (Figure 2) from SMI data arc seen to be lowvcr than the loads predicted on the original dryer design (Figure 4, from [4]) that were developed firom in plant data.

REFERENCES

1. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Mtchiodology to Detcrinine Unsteady Pressure Loading on Components in Reactor Steam Domnes (Rev. 6). C.D.I. Report No. 04-09 (Proprietary).

2. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Quad Cities 2 Vulnerability Loads. C.D.I. Technical Note No. 05-03.

3. Compact disc containing data delivered to C.D.I. on 15 February 2005 by Federal Express.

4. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Revised Hydrodynamic Loads on Quad Cities Unit 2 Steam Dryer to 200 lIz, with Comparison to Dresden Unit 2 and Dresden Unit 3 Loads.

C.DJT. Report No. 05-01.

4

Non-Proprictar my IRev 5 IRev 5 5

Non-Proprietary IRcv 5 lRcv 5 6

Non-Propricta ry I Itcv 5 lRcv 5 7

Non-Proprietary 98,

\E~

11I

/32 19 10 118 134 141 4 17 31 43 49 59 651 751 X1 911 971 107J 115 13 144 16 132 /140 9

Is '3'

'3 0 42 I1 106 96 /x

__I-790 9' Figure 3a. Bottom plates pressure node locations, with pressures acting downward in the notation defined here.

8

Non-Proprietary fi.

I

'28 S I

I0 Ia 4

II 28 II II I 120 'I I8 II _ I..

I 2' I II II A e71 II I

II II,¢#8 II II I 26 W

0 P

I 25 77 Figure 3b. Top plates pressure node locations, with pressures acting downward in the notation defined here.

9

Noni-Proprietary 121 17 20 16 . . ,. - - --

Figure 3c. Slanted plates: Pressures acting left to right on panels 15-29, 42-47, and 58-63; acting right to left on panels 83-85/90-92, 99-101/106-108, and 117-126/131-135. Note that the three panels on the left arc actually slanted inward bottom left to top right, while the three panels on the right arc slanted inward bottom right to top left.

10

Non-Proprietary 19 141 X 0 13 20 61 ( t ~ =5 4 99 4

100 6 2407048 Figure 3d. Skirt plates: Pressure acting on the outer dryer 0/1 80 surfaces and the skirt. Note that the three panels on the left (above the plane of the cover plate) are actually slantedi inward bottom left to top rigt, while the three panels on the right are slanted inward bottom right to top left.

11

Non-Proprietary 4 I-I - - - T - T---' --r -I .. f- '-Il- --

.. T -T -T T -- I t I '-'- T- r CId 4--*

3.5 Pre.-1' 2(D 3 -yEPU I ' -

. _. - -- J-1-1 I

'0 2.5 C 2 P. a.)

3 1.5 a)

-9 1 X

M 0.5 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Node Number 1.6 r----l---r-- r-- l---r--

r _--r---

1.4 . . _, . .. . . . . . , . _

i IPreii.I~l 1.2 . . . . . .. . . . ... . .

-EPU .

I . . ..

0.8 .... t 0.6 .. l- -# -,

0.4 0.2 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Node Number Figure 4. Pre-EPU and EPU loads on the original dryer as developed by C.D.I. methodology [4].

12 CO- '