ML062130343
| ML062130343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2006 |
| From: | Bilanin A Continuum Dynamics |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 00053137, TAC MC3743, TAC MC3744, TAC MC3812, TVA-BFN-TS-418, TVA-BFN-TS-431 C.D.I. Report No. 06-11, Rev 2 | |
| Download: ML062130343 (50) | |
Text
This Document Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information C.D.I. Report No. 06-11 Hydrodynamic Loads on Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer to 200 Hz Revision 2 Prepared by Continuum Dynamics, Inc.
34 Lexington Avenue Ewing, NJ 08618 Prepared under Purchase Order No. 00053157 for TVA / Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Nuclear Plant Road, P. 0. Box 2000 PAB-2M Decatur, AL 35609 Approved by (6,24A Alan J. Bilanin July 2006
Executive Summary Measured pressure time-history data in the four main steam lines of an SMT model of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 (BFN1) are processed by a dynamic model of the steam delivery system to predict loads on the full-scale steam dryer. These measured data are first positioned on the four main steam lines, and then used to extract acoustic sources in the system. A validated acoustic circuit methodology is used to predict the fluctuating pressures anticipated across components of the steam dryer in the reactor vessel. This pressure loading was then provided for structural analysis to assess the structural adequacy of the steam dryer in BFNI.
This effort provides BFNI with a dryer dynamic load definition that comes directly from measured BFNI SMT data and the application of a validated acoustic circuit methodology, at power levels where the pressure data were acquired.
Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary..................................................................
i Table of Contents.....................................................................
ii
- 1. Introduction............................................................................
1
- 2. Modeling Considerations............................................................
2 2.1 Helmholtz Analysis...........................................................
2 2.2 Acoustic Circuit Analysis...................................................
3
- 3. Input Pressure Data..................................................................
5
- 4. R esults.................................................................................
14
- 5. Uncertainty Analysis...............................................................
2
- 6. C onclusions...........................................................................
27
- 7. R eferences.............................................................................
28 Appendix A: SMT Dryer Comparisons...........................................
29
- 1. Introduction In Spring 2005 Exelon installed new stream dryers into Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2) and Quad Cities Unit 1. This replacement design, developed by General Electric, sought to improve dryer performance and overcome structural inadequacies identified on the original dryers, which had been in place for the last 30 years. As a means for confirming the adequacy of the steam dryer, the QC2 replacement dryer was instrumented with pressure sensors at 27 locations. These pressures formed the set of data used to validate the predictions of an acoustic circuit methodology under development by Continuum Dynamics, Inc. for several years [1]. One of the results of this benchmark exercise [2] confirmed the predictive ability of the acoustic circuit methodology for pressure loading across the dryer. This methodology, validated against the Exelon full scale data and identified as the Bounding Pressure model, is used in this effort.
This report applies this validated acoustic circuit methodology to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 (BFN1) steam dryer and main steam line geometry. SMT data obtained from the four main steam lines and the instrumented subscale dryer were used to predict pressure levels on the SMT dryer and to generate predictions of the pressure loading on the BFNI full-scale dryer at two power levels, Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) and Extended Power Uprate (EPU).
- 2. Modeling Considerations The acoustic circuit analysis of the BFNI steam supply system is broken into two distinct analyses: a Helmholtz solution within the steam dome and an acoustic circuit analysis in the main steam lines. This section of the report highlights the two approaches taken here. These analyses are then coupled for an integrated solution.
2.1 Helmholtz Analysis A cross-section of the steam dome (and steam dryer) is shown below in Figure 2.1, with BFN1 dimensions as shown [3]. The complex three-dimensional geometry is rendered onto a uniformly-spaced rectangular grid (with mesh spacing of approximately 1.5 inches to accommodate frequency from 0 to 200 Hz in full scale), and a solution, over the frequency range of interest, is obtained for the Helmholtz equation alp a 2p a 2 p (02 2*CO2 2 N*X2
'r 2
where P is the pressure at a grid point, co is frequency, and a is acoustic speed in steam.
I 9
Figure2.1.
Cross-sectional description of the steam dome and dryer, with the BFNI dimensions of a' = 16.0 in, b = 16.0 in, c' = 24.0 in, c = 14.5 in, d = 17.5 in, e =
15.5 in, f= 74.0 in, g = 163.0 in, i = 97.5 in, j = 189.0 in, k = 121.0 in, and R =
125.7 in (dimensions deduced from [3] to within 1.5 inches).
2
This equation is solved for incremental frequencies from 0 to 200 Hz (full scale), subject to the boundary conditions dP
-*=-0 dn normal to all solid surfaces (the steam dome wall and interior and exterior surfaces of the dryer),
dPO io) p dn a
normal to the nominal water level surface, and unit pressure applied to one inlet to a main steam line and zero applied to the other three.
2.2 Acoustic Circuit Analysis The Helmholtz solution within the steam dome is coupled to an acoustic circuit solution in the main steam lines. Pulsation in a single-phase compressible medium, where acoustic wavelengths are long compared to transverse dimensions (directions perpendicular to the primary flow directions), lend themselves to application of the acoustic circuit methodology. If the analysis is restricted to frequencies below 200 Hz, acoustic wavelengths are approximately 8 feet in length and wavelengths are therefore long compared to most components of interest, such as branch junctions.
Acoustic circuit analysis divides the main steam lines into elements characterized, as sketched in Figure 2.2, by a length L, a cross-sectional area density p, a fluid mean flow velocity U, and a fluid mean acoustic speed a.
which are each A, a fluid mean I A - element cross-sectional area U, P, 3 Q)
I Xn Figure 2.2. Schematic of an element in the acoustic circuit analysis, with length L and cross-sectional area A.
3
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information Application of acoustic circuit methodology generates solutions for the fluctuating pressure Pn and velocity un in the nth element of the form Pn =[Ane ikilxn
+Bneik2nXn Jeit U =-
l"[(°+Unkin)AneiklnXn +
]Uk2n)Bneik~nXn eiwt where harmonic time dependence of the form eiot has been assumed. The wave numbers kin and k2n are the two complex roots of the equation n~
-2 0fnIn An
=
Dna a
where fn is the pipe friction factor for element n, Dn is the hydrodynamic diameter for element n, and i =.,rFl". An and Bn are complex constants which are a function of frequency and are determined by satisfying continuity of pressure and mass conservation at element junctions.
The solution for pressure and velocity in the main steam lines is coupled to the Helmholtz solution for the steam dome, to predict the pressure loading on the steam dryer.
The main steam line piping geometry is summarized in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Main steam line lengths at BFN1, scaled from SMT lengths [4]. The main steam lines are 26 inch (ID = 24.0 in).
(3)))
4
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
- 3. Input Pressure Data Microphones were mounted on the four main steam lines of the SMT, and at 18 locations on the surface of the SMT dryer. Two data sets, at Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) and at Extended Power Uprate (EPU), were examined.
The main steam line pressure signals may be represented in two ways, by their minimum and maximum pressure levels, and by their PSDs as a function of frequency. Table 3.1 provides the pressure level information, while Figures 3.1 to 3.8 compare the OLTP and EPU frequency content at the eight measurement locations.
Table 3.1. Main steam line (MSL) pressure levels in the SMT for BFNl [5].
(3)))
5
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
[r (3)))
Figure 3.1.
PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line A at the upper microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
6
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((
Figure 3.2. PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line A at the lower microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
(3)))
7
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information 11 (3)1]
Figure 3.3.
PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line B at the upper microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
8
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information I'll]
Figure 3.4. PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line B at the lower microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
9
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
Figure 3.5. PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line C at the upper microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
10
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((
(3)jj Figure 3.6. PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line C at the lower microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
11
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure 3.7. PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line D at the upper microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
12
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
Figure 3.8. PSD comparison of pressure measurements on the SMT main steam line D at the lower microphone: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
13
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
- 4. Results The measured SMT main steam line pressure data were used to drive the validated acoustic circuit methodology for the BFN1 steam dome coupled to the main steam lines. Two calculations were undertaken at each power level provided.
- 1. A comparison was made between measured data on the subscale SMT dryer and predictions with the Bounded Pressure model [2] at subscale.
These results are summarized in Figure 4.1, which illustrates the comparison between data and predictions for minimum and maximum pressures at the 18 microphone locations (identified in [6]
and [7]). Note that several of the microphones are located inside the dryer (Ml, M5, M8, Ml, M13, and M15) and several are on the 0'-180' centerline (M6, M7, M14, and M 15). Note also that the model predictions tend to match all SMT microphone data, with the exception of the 0'-180' centerline data; it appears to be least effective in comparing against SMT data here, as the main steam line sources (located at 720, 1080, 2520, and 2880) are farthest removed from these locations. However, it should be further noted that full-scale model comparisons on the QC2 steam dryer, at the pressure sensor closest to the 0'-180' centerline (P17), shows no such under prediction [2].
It is suggested, therefore, that the SMT data may have overestimated the pressures in this region of the steam dryer, due in part to the use of a rigid steam-water boundary in SMT, and that the acoustic circuit analysis is more reasonable. Thus, no adjustment of predicted pressure at the 0'-1800 region is necessary. Appendix A contains the PSD comparisons at the 18 microphones, in addition to a tabulation of the RMS comparison between predictions and measurements.
- 2. A prediction was made at full scale on the BFN1 dryer based on the scaling factors identified by GE [4, 5] and summarized in Table 4.1. A low resolution load, developed at the nodal locations identified in Figures 4.2 to 4.5, produces the maximum differential and RMS pressure levels across the dryer as shown in Figure 4.6. Since the highest loads are predicted on the surfaces of the outer bank hoods (and not on their edges), two sets of additional plots are shown in Figures 4.7 and 4.8 for the peak loads.
Table 4.1. Scaling factors used in converting SMT data to full scale.
(3)))
14
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information II (3)))
Figure 4.1. Maximum pressures measured and predicted at the 18 microphones on the SMT of the BFN1 dryer. Note the close agreement at microphones M2 and M3, and M9 and M10, on the outside of the outer bank hoods opposite the main steam lines.
The closed circles denote microphones positioned on the inside of the dryer, while the open circles denote microphones positioned along the 0°-180° dryer centerline.
15
I I
4 4 56 66 72 82 88)
/14 8
3 7
6 55 13[ 23 291 39_ _ 45 651 _71 81_187 96 95
)94 101 12 22 86J L_ 31 L44 l50 54 64 7
80 Figure 4.2. Bottom plates pressure node locations (low resolution), with pressures acting downward in the notation defined here.
16
., 3 3 '43 48 75
'- 85 321_42 68174 841 90 999 98 97 Figue 43
.op lats pessre nde ocaion (lw rsoltio),
wth resure acingdowwar
"-31 83 89 41
_4 57 6_ 73 Figure 4.3.Top plates pressure node locations (low resolution), with pressures acting downward in the notation defined here.
17
Figure 4.4. Vertical plates: Pressures acting left to right on panels 6-11, 22-27, 38-43, and 50-54; acting right to left on panels 64-69, 80-85, and 94-99 (low resolution).
18
C 18 34 Figure 4.5. Skirt plates: Pressure acting outward on the outer dryer 0/I 80° surfaces and the skirt (low resolution).
19
2 1.5 EPU 0.5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Node Number 0.5 OLTP 0.4 EPU I -
I.
0.3 S0.2 0.1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Node Number Figure 4.6. Predicted loads on the low resolution grid identified in Figures 4.2 to 4.5, as developed by the Bounding Pressure model, to 200 Hz. Low-numbered nodes are on the C-D side of the dryer, while high-numbered nodes are on the A-B side of the dryer.
20
4 3
rJ,
'-4 2
1 0
-1
-2
-3 100(
10(
I 0
0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5 Time (sec) 3 3.5
)
)
N (NI
~J) 10 1
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 10-5 0
50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 4.7. Time history and PSD of the maximum high-resolution pressure loads predicted on the A-B side of the BFN1 steam dryer at full scale. The behavior of the PSDs shown here, specifically below 125 Hz, is dependent on the conversion factors summarized in Table 4.1.
21
4 3
rj, 2
1 0
-1
-2
-3
-4
(
1000 100 10 1
0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5 3
3.5 Time (sec) 0 50 100 150 Frequency (Hz) 200 Figure 4.8. Time history and PSD of the maximum high-resolution pressure loads predicted on the C-D side of the BFN1 steam dryer at full scale. The behavior of the PSDs shown here, specifically below 125 Hz, is dependent on the conversion factors summarized in Table 4.1.
22
- 5. Uncertainty Analysis The analysis of potential uncertainty occurring at BFNl consists of several contributions, including the following: the uncertainty from using SMT data, the uncertainty from collecting data on the main steam lines at locations other than the locations on Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2),
and the uncertainty in the Bounding Pressure model.
- 1. An uncertainty analysis of the SMT facility should be provided by GE.
- 2. Quad Cities Unit 2 dryer data at OLTP conditions were used to generate an uncertainty analysis of the Acoustic Circuit Methodology (ACM) [2] for BFN1.
The analysis follows the analysis previously undertaken for Vermont Yankee [8]. Typically, three to five PSD maximums are present between 148.9 Hz and 156.1 Hz, depending on the pressure sensor examined. Each peak is integrated from trough to trough and combined with the other peaks. The RMS pressure is found by taking the square root of this sum.
The fifteen pressure sensor locations on the outer bank hood (P1 to P12 opposite main steam lines A and D, and P18, P20, and P21 opposite main steam lines C and D) are compared in this analysis. Table 5.1 summarizes the RMS pressures.
Table 5.1. Measured and predicted RMS pressures at the specified pressure sensor locations on the Quad Cities Unit 2 dryer.
Location Measured Predicted PRMS PRMS (psid)
(psid)
P1 0.1243 0.1232 P2 0.1453 0.1694 P3 0.1444 0.2227 P4 0.0846 0.0638 P5 0.0881 0.0588 P6 0.1170 0.1254 P7 0.1069 0.1093 P8 0.1507 0.1517 P9 0.1567 0.1613 P1O 0.1051 0.1060 Pll 0.1249 0.1134 P12 0.2064 0.1844 P18 0.1715 0.2627 P20 0.1827 0.3627 P21 0.3354 0.3509 Rev 2 The predicted and uncertainty.
measured data can be compared to characterize bias as well as a nominal 23
The bias is computed by taking the difference between the measured and predicted values at each point and dividing the mean of the differences by the mean of the measured data.
The ACM individual point uncertainty is defined in this analysis as the fraction computed by the expression (Pmeas/Ppred) - 1.0 where Pm.s is the measured pressure and Ppred is the predicted pressure. Negative numbers imply that the predictions are conservative. The standard deviation of the ACM individual point uncertainties can be computed to provide an average ACM uncertainty. This uncertainty can be combined with other random uncertainties, typically by SRSS methods, to determine an overall uncertainty. The overall uncertainty is then combined algebraically with any bias terms that exist to determine a total uncertainty factor to be applied.
With the data found in Table 5.1, the ACM bias and uncertainty standard deviation (in percentage) can be computed, and are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Uncertainty when comparing PRMS values from Table 5.1.
ACM Bias (%)
-14.3 (conservative)
Standard Deviation of Point 24.5 ACM Uncertainty (%)
Rev 2 These results can then be combined with statistics obtained from data collection at the plant.
Tables 5.3 and 5.4 summarize the various uncertainties that should be considered, following the guidelines suggested for the Quad Cities Unit 2 plant [9], for the plant and the SMT data, respectively.
24
Table 5.3. Bias and uncertainty contributions to total uncertainty for BFN1 plant data.
Uncertainty Term Absolute Effect (%)
Effect on Bias Effect on Uncertainty Pressure Measurement 5.38%
+/-5.38%
Pressure Sensor Location Placement identical to 0%
Uncertainty QC2 strain gages ACM Low Frequency 3% bias on peak-Limitations to-peak pressure for 0 to 20 Hz [9]
Pressure Sensor 3.9% Absolute **
+/-2.9% **
Measurement 2.9% Relative **
Pressure Sensor N/A
-3% to -8% bias on Phenomenological sensor reading **
Structural FEA Bounding values selected based on
+/-10% time step sensitivity cases ACM Bias and
-14.3%
24.5%
Uncertainty NET EFFECT
-14.3% net bias 25.3% SRSS of measurement errors:
TOTAL = 11.0%
Rev 2
- denotes QC2 values 25
Table 5.4. Bias and uncertainty contributions to total uncertainty for BFNI SMT data.
Uncertainty Term Absolute Effect (%)
Effect on Bias Effect on Uncertainty Microphone Measurement Microphone Location 6.7%
Uncertainty ACM Low Frequency 3% bias on peak-to-Limitations peak pressure for 0 to 20 Hz [9]
Pressure Sensor 3.9% Absolute **
+/-2.9% **
Measurement 2.9% Relative **
Pressure Sensor N/A
-3% to -8% bias on Phenomenological sensor reading **
Structural FEA Bounding values selected based on
+/-10% time step sensitivity cases ACM Bias and
-14.3%
24.5%
Uncertainty NET EFFECT
-14.3% net bias 25.6% SRSS of measurement errors:
TOTAL = 11.3%
Rev 2
- denotes QC2 values
- denotes values to be included in SMT uncertainty 26
- 6. Conclusions The C.D.I. acoustic circuit analysis, using SMT measured data for BFNI:
a) Determines that steam dryer maximum differential pressure loads, based on the validated Bounding Pressure model, are about 2.2 psid (OLTP) and 3.6 psid (EPU), after converting subscale predictions to full scale.
b) Predicts that the loads on dryer components are largest for components nearest the main steam line inlets and decrease inward into the reactor vessel.
c) Determines that the validated Bounding Pressure model predicted pressures agree well with SMT data on the subscale dryer, with the exception being along the 0*-1800 centerline, where the SMT data are believed to be conservative. This discrepancy is greatest on the skirt along the 0*-180 centerline and results from the fact that the acoustic circuit methodology incorporates acoustic radiation into the water between the skirt and the vessel.
The acoustic circuit methodology predicts the QC2 skirt data conservatively and therefore it is believed that the SMT data is conservative on the skirt.
The following additional work is suggested:
It is highly recommended that strain gages or pressure transducers be positioned at distances similar to those in Quad Cities Unit 2 (9.5 and 41.0 feet from the inside of the steam dome [2]), and that full scale data be collected and analyzed.
27
- 7. References
- 1. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Methodology to Determine Unsteady Pressure Loading on Components in Reactor Steam Domes (Rev. 6). C.D.I. Report No. 04-09 (C.D.I. Proprietary).
- 2. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Bounding Methodology to Predict Full Scall Steam Dryer Loads from In-Plant Measurements (Rev. 2). C.D.I. Report No. 05-28 (C.D.I. Proprietary).
- 3. Browns Ferry Unit 1 Drawings. 2006. Files: 729E229-1.tif, 729E229-2.tif, and 729E229-3.tif. BFNI Email from G. Nelson dated 07 March 10:31:00 2006.
- 4. General Electric Energy, Nuclear. 2006. Transmittal of Updated Correction Factors for GE SMT BFNI Load Data. GE Letter No. GE-ER1-AEP-06-309.
- 5. General Electric Energy, Nuclear. 2006. Transmittal of GE Scale Model Testing Browns Ferry 1 Testing Data for CDI. GE Letter No. GE-ERI -AEP-06-304.
- 6. General Electric Energy, Nuclear. 2006. Revised BFNl Steam Dryer Sensor Locations and Steam Line Identification. GE Email from M. O'Connor dated 03 April 19:56:35 2006.
- 7. General Electric Energy, Nuclear. 2006. RE: Questions regarding Browns Ferry SMT Data.
GE Email from M. O'Connor dated 04 April 10:24:34 2006.
- 8. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Vermont Yankee Instrument Position Uncertainty. Letter Report Dated 01 August 2005.
- 9. Exelon Nuclear Generating LLC. 2005. An Assessment of the Effects of Uncertainty in the Application of Acoustic Circuit Model Predictions to the Calculation of Stresses in the Replacement Quad Cities Units 1 and 2 Steam Dryers (Revision 0). Document No. AM-21005-008.
28
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information Appendix A: SMT Dryer Comparisons This appendix contains the comparisons between model predictions and pressure measurements on the SMT dryer, for both OLTP and EPU conditions. A comparison of RMS levels is given in Table A. 1.
Table A. 1. Summary of RMS pressures at the two power levels examined.
((3 (3)))
29
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((I (3)))
Figure A.l. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone MI on the inside of the outer bank hood opposite main steam line C: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
30
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure A.2. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M2 on the outside of the outer bank hood opposite main steam line C: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
31
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure A.3. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M3 on the outside of the outer bank hood opposite main steam line D: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
32
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((I (3)))
Figure A.4. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M4 on the outside of the skirt between main steam lines C and D: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
33
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure A.5. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M5 on the inside of the skirt between main steam lines C and D: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
34
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information Er (3)))
Figure A.6. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M6 on the outside of the hood wall between main steam lines B and C: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
35
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure A.7. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M7 on the outside of the skirt wall between main steam lines B and C: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
36
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((I (3)))
Figure A.8. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M8 on the inside of the skirt wall between main steam lines B and C: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
37
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information Er (3)]1 Figure A.9. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M9 on the outside of the outer bank hood opposite main steam line B: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
38
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
Figure A.10. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M10 on the outside of the outer bank hood opposite main steam line A: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
39
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((
Figure A. 11. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M Il on the inside of the outer bank hood opposite main steam line A: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
40
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((I (3)jj Figure A.12. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M12 on the outside of the skirt between main steam lines A and B: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
41
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((I (3)))
Figure A.13. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M13 on the inside of the skirt between main steam lines A and B: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
42
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure A.14. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M14 on the outside of the hood between main steam lines A and D: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
43
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information
((I (3)))
Figure A. 15. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M15 on the outside of the skirt between main steam lines A and D: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
44
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information Figure A.16. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M16 on the inside of the skirt between main steam lines A and D: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
45
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure A. 17. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M17 on the outside of the second bank hood opposite main steam line B: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
46
This Page Does Not Contain General Electric Proprietary Information r[
Figure A. 18. PSD comparisons between SMT data for Browns Ferry and ACM predictions, for microphone M18 on the outside of the third bank hood opposite main steam line B: OLTP (top) and EPU (bottom).
47