ML083250116

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
CDI Report No. 08-20NP, Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 2 Steam Dryer with Outer Hood and Tie-Bar Reinforcements Revision 0, Page 39 - End
ML083250116
Person / Time
Site: Browns Ferry Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 11/30/2008
From: Teske M
Continuum Dynamics
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Purchase Order 00053157, TS-418, TS-431 CDI 08-20NP
Download: ML083250116 (91)
v • d • e


Text

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

5. Results at CLTP The stress intensities and associated stress ratios resulting from the Rev. 4 acoustic/hydrodynamic loads [3] with associated biases and uncertainties factored in, are presented below. The bias due to finite frequency discretization and uncertainty associated with the finite element model itself, are also factored in. In the following sections the highest maximum and alternating stress intensities are presented to indicate which points on the dryer experience significant stress concentration and/or modal response (Section 5.1). The lowest stress ratios obtained by comparing the stresses against allowable values, accounting for stress type (maximum and alternating) and location (on or away from a weld), are also reported (Section 5.2). Finally the frequency dependence of the stresses at nodes experiencing the lowest stress ratios is depicted in the form of accumulative PSDs (Section 5.3).

In each section results are presented both at nominal conditions (no frequency shift) and with frequency shift included. Unless specified otherwise, frequency shifts are generally performed at 2.5% increments. The tabulated stresses and stress ratios are obtained using a 'blanking' procedure that is designed to prevent reporting a large number of high stress nodes from essentially the same location on the structure. In the case of stress intensities this procedure is as follows. The relevant stress intensities are first computed at every node and then nodes sorted according to stress level. The highest stress node is noted and all neighboring nodes within 10 inches of the highest stress node and its symmetric images (i.e., reflections across the x=0 and y=0 planes) are "blanked" (i.e., excluded from the search for subsequent high stress locations).

Of the remaining nodes, the next highest stress node is identified and its neighbors (closer than 10 inches) blanked. The third highest stress node is similarly located and the search continued in this fashion until all nodes are either blanked or have stresses less than half the highest value on the structure. For stress ratios, an analogous blanking procedure is applied. Thus the lowest stress ratio of a particular type in a 10" neighborhood and its symmetric images is identified and all other nodes in these regions excluded from listing in the table. Of the remaining nodes, the one with the lowest stress ratio is reported and its neighboring points similarly excluded, and so on until all nodes are either blanked or have a stress ratio higher than 4.

The measured CLTP strain gage signals contain significant contributions from non-acoustic sources such as sensor noise, MSL turbulence and pipe bending vibration that contribute to the hoop strain measurements. The ACM analysis does not distinguish between the acoustic and non-acoustic fluctuations in the MSL signals that could lead to sizeable, but fictitious acoustic loads and resulting stresses on the dryer. One way to remove these fictitious loads is to collect data with the system maintained at operating pressure (1000 psi) and temperature, but low (less than 20% of CLTP) flow. By operating the recirculation pumps at this condition, the background plant noise and vibrations remain present. At these conditions the acoustic loads are known to. be negligible so that collected data, referred to as the 1000# data, originate entirely from non-acoustic sources such as sensor noise and mechanical vibrations. This information is valuable since it allows one to now distinguish between the acoustic and non-acoustic content in the CLTP signal and therefore modify the CLTP loads sothat only the acoustic component is retained. For consistency, the 1000# strain gage signals are filtered in the same manner as the CLTP data and are fed into the ACM model to obtain the monopole and dipole signals at the MSL inlets. Since there is negligible flow; these signals are fictitious, i.e., the hoop strains 39

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information measured by the strain gages are not due to pressure fluctuations, but rather due to noise.

However, under the supposition that these signals are acoustic in origin the hypothetical stresses due to these signals can nevertheless be computed.

The contribution of background noise in the Browns Ferry Unit 2 steam dryer was quantified by taking strain gage measurements at 5% power. Measurements taken for the BFN2 unit at increasing power levels indicate that the 5% signal measurements provide a conservative estimate of the noise at zero power [24]. At this level there are no significant acoustic sources.

To compensate for the non-acoustic noise source represented in the 1000# data, the CLTP MSL inlet pressure signals are modified according to [24]:

P(f)=P0 (f)*max 0.5,1- (f) (8)

P0 (f) I where f is the frequency (in Hz), P0 (f) is the MSL inlet pressure (monopole or dipole) at CLTP conditions before correction, P(f) is the corresponding post-correction pressure and N(f) and P0(f) are averaged pressure amplitudes associated with the 1000# data and CLTP data respectively. Specifically, f+1 P0 (f)=2"f

- IP°(f) Idf (9) f-i where IPo(f)I denotes the absolute value of the complex quantity. Hence P0 (f) is the average amplitude of the CLTP pressure in the +/-1 Hz interval about frequency, f. The same definition, but using the 1000# pressure signal, is used for N(f). Note that this modification leaves the phase information in the original CLTP signal unchanged.

The applied load includes all biases and uncertainties for both the ACM (summarized in [3])

and the FEM. For the latter there are three main contributors to the bias and uncertainty. The first is an uncertainty (25.26%) that accounts for modeling idealizations (e.g., vane bank mass model), geometrical approximations and other discrepancies between the modeled and actual dryer such as neglecting of weld mass and stiffness in the FEA. The second contributor is a bias (9.53% - note that this has been increased from the 5.72% value previously used in [5])

accounting for discretization errors associated with using a finite size mesh, upon computed stresses. The third contributor is also a bias and compensates for the use of a finite discretization schedule in the construction of the unit solutions. The frequencies are spaced such that at 1%

damping the maximum (worst case) error in a resonance peak is 5%. The average error for this frequency schedule is 1.72%.

5.1 General Stress Distribution and High Stress Locations The maximum stress intensities obtained by post-processing the ANSYS stress. histories for CLTP at nominal frequency and with frequency shift operating conditions are listed in Table 7.

Contour plots of the stress intensities over the steam dryer structure are shown on Figure 11 (nominal frequency) and Figure 12 (maximum stress over all nine frequency shifts including 40

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information nominal). The figures are oriented to emphasize the high stress regions. Note that these stress intensities do not account for weld factors but include end-to-end bias and uncertainty and incorporate results from submodeling (see Section 4.5). Further, it should be noted that since the allowable stresses vary with location, stress intensities do not necessarily correspond to regions of primary structural concern. Instead, structural evaluation is more accurately made in terms of the stress ratios which compare the computed stresses to allowable levels with due account made for stress type and weld factors and also account for stress corrections obtained using high-detail solid element submodels. Comparisons on the basis of stress ratios are made in Section 5.2.

The maximum stress intensities in most areas are low (less than 500 psi, or 5% of the most conservative critical stress). For the membrane stresses (Pm) the high stress regions tend to occur at: (i) the restraint locations for the upper support ring and (ii) the upper edges of the closure plates. The first location is a very localized stress location and is believed to be significantly overestimated as a 'hot-spot' in the FEA. It experiences high stresses since the entire weight of the structure is transmitted through relatively small pads to the external structure. This stress is dominated by the static component. The closure plates experience high stresses since they restrain any motion of the adjacent vane banks. Another location with Pm>3000 psi is the junction between the bottom edge of the inner hood, hood support and middle base plate. Frequency shifting does not significantly alter the high Pm stress locations, again due to the dominance of the static (deadweight) load.

The membrane + bending stress (Pm+Pb) distributions evidence a stronger modal response.

Stress concentrations are observed at several locations coinciding with welds. The first pair of highest stress locations is the same as where for the highest membrane stresses and lies near the dryer supports. Note that these stresses occur in solid elements where no distinction is made between the membrane and bending stresses (this distinction is only appropriate for thin members such as shell and beam elements). The next set of locations (exemplified by the 3rd and 4th entries in Table 7a) involves the closure plate connections to the hoods or vane bank end plates. These stresses also appear to be dominated by the static component since alternating stresses are comparatively low. The drain channel/skirt weld shows up as the 5th entry in Table 7a and the 4th entry in Table 7b. These stresses contain a strong alternating stress contribution as discussed below. Other locations where Pm+Pb stresses exceed the 4000 psi level include the bottom corners of the outer hood (involving a weld) and the middle plate which has a dominant unsteady stress component.

The alternating stress distributions in Figure 11 and Figure 12 indicate that these stresses are below 500 psi over most of the dryer. The submerged skirt, though not exposed to direct acoustic forcing, evidences a modal response due to coupling with the upper steam dryer structure subjected to acoustic loads. The highest alternating stress intensities occur on the large middle plate spanning the dryer at its center section where it is restrained by the tie bars. The restraint consists of groove that slips over the plate surface, but does not involve a weld. Other nodes appearing in the Table 7b include: (i) the tie bar connecting the outer and middle hoods where it lands on the outer hood top cover plate and; (ii) the top of the weld joining the steam dam and the gusset. The latter location becomes limiting at EPU and reflects the fact that the entire steam dam exhibits a strong response as seen in the plots. Although bending stresses are relatively high, the stresses transmitted through the weld are much smaller. This is because the 41

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information gusset carries a comparatively small moment and thus essentially rides along steam dam but does not transmit a significant bending stress to it. This is confirmed with 3D modeling (Appendix A) where the stress lines in the steam dam remain parallel to the steam dam surface rather than flowing through the weld. Other locations with alternating stress intensities above 1500 psi when all frequency shifts are considered include: the USR/seismic block connection, the front edge of the new gusset base where it meets the outer hood, the bottoms of the skirt/drain channel welds and tops of the closure plates where they join to the hoods or vane banks.

Finally, for reference the highest stress intensities at any frequency shift for the locations in Table 7b are recomputed using the CLTP loads without noise removal and reported in Table 7c.

For these entries, the alternating stress changes obtained with noise retained are less than 12.4%.

42

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 7a. Locations with highest predicted stress intensities at CLTP conditions at zero frequency shift. Signal noise has been removed using 5% power data.

Stress Location Weld Location (in)(a) node(b) Stress Intensities (psi)

Category x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt Pm Upper Support Ring (USR)/Seismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7399 7399 1521

" USR part/Support/Support Part No 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6274 6274 1141 Top Cover Inner Hood/Middle Closure Plate/Inner Hood Yes 31.5 108.4 88.9 100230 5536 6121 751 Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure Plate/Middle Hood Yes -62.5 85 88.9 100958 3804 4236 1392 Splice Bar/USR Part Yes -2.2 -119 0 123237 3746 3746 275 Pm+Pb USR/Seismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7399 7399 1521 if USR part/Support/Support Part No 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6274 6274 1141

" Top Cover Inner Hood/Middle Closure Plate/Inner Hood Yes -31.5 -108.4 88.9 101498 5381 6206 693 Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure Plate/Middle Hood Yes -62.5 85 88.9 100958 3804 4236 1392 Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt Yes 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 271 4093 678 Salt Mid Plate/Tie Bar No 0 -3 88.9 102956 411 2939 2250 Mid Plate/Tie Bar No 0 -56.8 88.9 99311 734 3089 2246 Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) Yes 77 31.4 104.4 92392 242 1849 1652 Dam Plate/New Gusset Yes 77 58.2 101.4 104386 125 1665 1625 Old Hood Overlap/Gusset Pad Thin Yes 93.5 58 88.9 92981 184 2205 1625 Notes for Table 7 and Table 8.

(a) Spatial coordinates are in a reference frame whose origin is located at the intersection of the steam dryer centerline and the plane containing the base plates (this plane also contains the top of the upper support ring and the bottom edges of the hoods). The y-axis is parallel to the hoods, the x-axis is normal to the hoods pointing from MSL C/D to MSL A/B, and the z-axis is vertical, positive up.

(b) Node numbers are retained for further reference.

(c) In accordance with [23], the nominal stress intensities at the drain channel/skirt junction are multiplied by 0.58.

(d) In accordance with [23], the nominal stress intensities at the inner hood/hood support/middle base plate junction are multiplied by 0.79.

(e) In accordance with Appendix A, the nominal stress intensities at the top of the steam dam/new gusset weld are multiplied by 0.82.

43

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 7b. Locations with highest predicted stress intensities taken over all frequency shifts at CLTP conditions. Signal noise has been removed using 5% power data.

Stress Location Weld Location (in)(a) node(b) Stress Intensities (psi) % Freq.

Category x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt Shift Pm USRiSeismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7520 7520 1850 5 USR part/Support/Support Part No 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6522 6522 1390 -2.5 Top Cover Inner Hood/Middle Closure Yes 31.5 108.4 88.9 100230 5826 6458 1026 5 Plate/Inner Hood Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure Yes 62.5 -85 88.9 106443 3876 4189 1628 2.5 Plate/Middle Hood Splice Bar/IJSR Part Yes -2.2 -119 0 123237 3861 3861 383 7.5 Pm+Pb USR/Seismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7520 7520 1850 5

" USR part/Support/Support Part No 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6522 6522 1390 -2.5 Top Cover Inner Hood/Middle Closure Yes 31.5 108.4 88.9 100230 5826 6458 1026 5 Plate/Inner Hood Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt Yes 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 309 4683 1359 -7.5 Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) Yes 91 -76.7 -100.5 98197 871 4267 1261 10 Salt Mid Plate/Tie Bar No 0 -3 88.9 102956 673 3937 3254 2.5

" Mid Plate/Tie Bar No 0 -56.8 88.9 99311 807 3294 2393 10

" Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle Hood/Tie Bar Yes -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 1007 2165 2029 -7.5

" USR/Seismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7520 7520 1850 5

" Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) Yes 77 31.4 104.4 92392 262 1986 1836 2.5 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

44

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 7c. Highest stress intensities at any frequency shift for the nodes listed in Table 7b computed using the unfiltered CLTP loads (i.e., signal noise has not been removed).

Stress Location Weld Location (in)(a) node(b) Stress Intensities (psi) % Freq.

Category x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt Shift Pm USR/Seismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7587 7587 1956 10 USR part/Support/Support Part No 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6550 6550 1447 -2.5 Top Cover Inner Hood/Middle Closure Yes 31.5 108.4 88.9 100230 5960 6620 1193 10 Plate/Inner Hood Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure Yes 62.5 -85 88.9 106443 4217 4495 1964 2.5 Plate/Middle Hood Splice Bar/USR Part Yes -2.2 -119 0 123237 3878 3878 401 7.5 Pm+Pb USR'Seismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7587 7587 1956 10 USR part/Support/Support Part No 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6550 6550 1447 -2.5 Top Cover Inner Hood/Middle Closure Yes 31.5 108.4 88.9 100230 5960 6620 1193 10 Plate/Inner Hood Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt Yes 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 328 4853 1507 -7.5 Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) Yes 91 -76.7 -100.5 98197 936 4344 1369 10 Salt Mid Plate/Tie Bar No 0 -3 88.9 102956 764 4442 3655 -10

"_ Mid Plate/Tie Bar No 0 -56.8 88.9 99311 858 3561 2670 10

" Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle Hood/Tie Bar Yes -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 1037 2383 2259 -7.5 USR/Seismic Block/Support Part No 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7587 7587 1956 5 Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) Yes 77 31.4 104.4 92392 239 1778 1659 2.5 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

45

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

Pm [psi]

7500 6750 6000 5250 4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0

Figure I1a. Contour plot of maximum membrane stress intensity, Pm, for CLTP load. The maximum stress intensity is 7399 psi. First view.

46

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 1lb. Contour plot of maximum membrane stress intensity, Pm, for CLTP load. Second view from below.

47

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

x Pm+Pb [psi]

7500 6750 6000 5250 4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0

Figure 1Ic. Contour plot of maximum membrane+bending stress intensity, Pm+Pb, for CLTP load. The maximum stress intensity is 7399 psi. First view.

48

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Y

i Pm+Pb [psi]

7500 6750 6000 5250 4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0

Figure lId. Contour plot of maximum membrane+bending stress intensity, Pm+Pb, for CLTP load. Second view from below.

49

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

Y 1!1 x

Figure lIe. Contour plot of alternating stress intensity, Salt, for CLTP load. The maximum alternating stress intensity is 2250 psi.

50

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Y

Salt [psi]

2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0

Figure 1 If. Contour plot of alternating stress intensity, Salt, for CLTP load. Second view from below.

51

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

X Pm [psi]

7500 6750 6000 5250 4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0

Figure 12a. Contour plot of maximum membrane stress intensity, Pm, for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress at a node is the maximum value taken over all frequency shifts. The maximum stress intensity is 7520 psi.

52

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Y

Pm [psi]

7500 6750 6000 5250 4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0

Figure 12b. Contour plot of maximum membrane stress intensity, Pm, for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress at a node is the maximum value taken over all frequency shifts. Second view from below.

53

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

Kx Pm+Pb [psi]

7500 6750 6000 5250 4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0

Figure 12c. Contour plot of maximum membrane+bending stress intensity, Pm+Pb, for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress at a node is the maximum value taken over all frequency shifts. The maximum stress intensity is 7520 psi.

First view.

54

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

¥ xi Pm+Pb [psi]

7500 6750 6000 5250 4500 3750 3000 2250 1500 750 0

Figure 12d. Contour plot of maximum membrane+bending stress intensity, Pm+Pb, for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. This second view from beneath reveals high stress and modal response of interior hood supports.

55

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

KýX Salt [psi]

3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0

Figure 12e. Contour plot of alternating stress intensity, Salt, for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress at a node is the maximum value taken over all frequency shifts. The maximum alternating stress intensity is 3254 psi.

56

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Y

Salt [psi]

3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0

Figure 12f. Contour plot of alternating stress intensity, Salt, for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress at a node is the maximum value taken over all frequency shifts. Second view from top.

57

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Y

xi Salt [psi]

3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0

Figure 12g. Contour plot of alternating stress intensity, Salt, for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress at a node is the maximum value taken over all frequency shifts. Third view from below.

58

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 5.2 Load Combinations and Allowable Stress Intensities The stress ratios computed for CLTP at nominal frequency and with frequency shifting are listed in Table 8. The stress ratios are grouped according to type (SR-P for maximum membrane and membrane+bending stress, SR-a for alternating stress) and location (away from welds or on a weld). The tabulated nodes are also depicted in Figure 13 (no frequency shift) and Figure 14 (all frequency shifts included). The plots corresponding to maximum stress intensities depict all nodes with stress ratios SR-P_<4, whereas the plots of alternating stress ratios display all nodes with SR-a*<4 or, in some cases, SR-a*<5 as indicated.

For CLTP operation at nominal frequency the minimum alternating stress ratio is SR-a=4.16, and occurs on the weld joining the top of the steam dam/gusset weld. When all frequency shifts are included the minimum alternating stress reduces by 23% to SR-a=3.39 and occurs where the tie bar connecting the outer and middle vane banks lands on the middle hood. The leading alternating stress locations in Table 8b generally occur on: (i) the weld connecting the steam dam to one of its support gussets; (ii) the bottom of the weld joining the drain channel to the skirt; (iii) the end of a tie bar connecting the middle and outer vane banks; (iv) the top of a closure plate.

The 4th and 6th nodes in the table correspond to nodes whose computed stresses have been revised to reflect the results from detailed submodeling analysis in [23] and Appendix A. The minimum stress ratio due to maximum stress intensity at no frequency shift is SR-P=1.68 and occurs on the middle closure plate connecting to the inner hood; it reduces to 1.60 when all frequency shifts are included. All of these locations lie on welds.

Compared to previous stress analysis of the BFN2 steam dryer [5], the addition of the modified tie bars with widened and tapered ends has eliminated virtually all of the high stress areas previously associated with old tie bar bases resulting in stress ratios SR-a>3.39 for the welds on the ends of these tie bars. Moreover replacing the existing outer hood with one that is 1 in thick and supported by outer channels rather than interior supports results in substantially lower stresses overall.

Finally, the highest stress intensities (and lowest stress ratios) at any frequency shift for the locations in Table 8b are recomputed using the CLTP loads without noise removal and reported in Table 8c. For alternating stresses at welds, the alternating stress intensities change by less than 13.1% at all locations except the last one (location 8, node 106443) which increases by 20.6%. All alternating stress ratios at these locations remain above SR-a=3 when noise is retained and all frequency shifts are considered.

In summary, the lowest alternating stress ratio occurs where the tie bar connecting the outer and middle vane banks lands on the middle hood. Its value, SR-a=3.39 at the -7.5% frequency shift indicates that stresses are well below allowable levels. The lowest stress ratio associated with a maximum stress is SR-P=1.60. This value is dominated by the static component and is only weakly altered by acoustic loads. Since acoustic loads scale roughly with the square of the steam flow, it is reasonable to anticipate that under EPU conditions where the square of the steam flow increases by 35% the limiting stress ratio would reduce from 3.39 to 3.39/1.35=2.51, which given that the applied loads already account for all end-to-end biases and uncertainties, still contains ample margin for sustained EPU operation.

59

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 8a. Locations with minimum stress ratios for CLTP conditions with no frequency shift. Signal noise is removed using 5%

power data. Stress ratios are- grouped according to stress type (maximum - SR-P; or alternating - SR-a) and location (away from a weld or at a weld). Bold text indicates minimum stress ratio of any type on the structure. Locations are depicted in Figure 13.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a SR-P No 1. USR/Seismic Block/Support Part 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7399 7399 1521 2.28 8.13

" " 2. USR part/Support/Support Part 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6274 6274 1141 2.69 10.83

3. Middle Closure Plate 33.9 108.4 88.9 7238 4936 5206 631 3.42 19.6 SR-a No NONE SR-a > 5 at all non weld nodes SR-P `Y6s 1. Top',oveir Inber food/Middle Clo~ure, 31.5' 7168.45 88.9~ '1'0'02-30 p5 536. .6121 7 151 1.6 .8' >9 .14.

Plate/Innerl-Hood >~~

2. USR part/Support/Support Part 8.5 122.2 -9.5 123072 3884 3884 520 2.39 13.2
3. Upper Support Ring/Seismic Block -122.1 10.3 -9.5 122767 3807 3807 766 2.44 8.96
4. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure -62.5 85 88.9 100958 3804 4236 1392 2.44 4.94 Plate/Middle Hood
5. Splice Bar/USR Part -2.2 -119 0 123237 3746 3746 275 2.48 25
6. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Inner Hood(d) 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 3390 3398 1279 2.74 5.37
7. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 271 4093 678 3.41 10.13 SR-a Yes 1. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 31.4 104.4 92392 242 1849 1652 7.54 4.16
2. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 58.2 101.4 104386 125 1665 1625 8.37 4.23
3. Old Hood Overlap/Gusset Pad Thin 93.5 58 88.9 92981 184 2205 1625 6.32 4.23
4. Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) 77 58.2 104.4 104715 154 1640 1593 8.5 4.31
5. Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle Hood/Tie Bar -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 894 1482 1437 9.41 4.78 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

60

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 8b. Locations with minimum stress ratios at CLTP conditions with frequency shifts. Signal noise is removed using 5% power data. Stress ratios at every node are recorded as the lowest stress ratio identified during the frequency shifts. Stress ratios are grouped according to stress type (maximum - SR-P; or alternating - SR-a) and location (away from a weld or at a weld). Bold text indicates minimum stress ratio of any type on the structure. Locations are depicted in Figure 14.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio  % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-P No- 1. USR/Seismic Block/Support Part 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7520 7520 1850 2.25 6.68 5 of. i. 2. USR part/Support/Support Part 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6522 6522 1390 2.59 8.9 -2.5 it_ of_3. Middle Closure Plate 33.9 108.4 88.9 7238 5194 5458 871 3.25 14.2 5 SR-a No 1. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -3 88.9 102956 673 3937 3254 6.44 3.8 2.5 SRI-P* ,Yes: inner Hoo&ildleMdde CtTovtover iO8.41

  • 88.91 31:55'268 8.

.. 65826 1.26. .ý6 6... 5.

______ ~Closure Pla~t/Inneir Hood~ 7"

2. USR part/Support/Support Part 8.5 122.2 -9.5 123072 4044 4044 644 2.3 10.67 7.5
3. USR/Seismic Block -122.1 10.3 -9.5 122767 3906 3906 876 2.38 7.84 -7.5
4. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer 62.5 -85 88.9 106443 3876 4189 1628 2.4 4.22 2.5 Closure Plate/Middle Hood
5. Splice Bar/USR Part -2.2 -119 0 123237 3861 3861 383 2.41 17.95 7.5
6. Middle Base Plate/Hood 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 3553 3601 1476 2.62 4.65 -10 Support/Inner Hood(d)
7. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 309 4683 1359 2.98 5.05 -7.5

.. .. 8. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) 91 -76.7 -100.5 98197 871 4267 1261 3.27 5.45 10 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

61

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 8b (cont.). Locations with minimum stress ratios at CLTP conditions with frequency shifts. Signal noise is removed using 5%

power data. Stress ratios at every node are recorded as the lowest stress ratio identified during the frequency shifts. Stress ratios are grouped according to stress type (maximum - SR-P; or alternating - SR-a) and location (away from a weld or at a weld). Bold text indicates minimum stress ratio of any type on the structure. Locations are depicted in Figure 14.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-a Yes 1. Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 1007 2165 2029 6.44 3.39 -7.5 Hood/Tie Bar

2. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 31.4 104.4 92392 262 1986 1836 7.02 3.74 2.5
3. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 58.2 101.4 104386 129 1813 1770 7.69 3.88 2.5
4. Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) 77 58.2 104.4 104715 157 1799 1741 7.75 3.95 2.5
5. Old Hood Overlap/Top Cover 93.5 57.5 88.9 92842 241 2343 1739 5.95 3.95 5 Outer Hood/Thin Gusset Pad
6. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) -11.5 118.4 -100.5 104136 631 3151 1690 4.42 4.06 -10
7. Top Thick Plate/Dam Plate/Tie 77 -23.2 88.9 93568 1360 2043 1637 6.82 4.20 -10 Bar/Top Cover Outer Bank _____ __i_
8. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer 62.5 -85 88.9 106443 3876 4189 1628 2.4 4.22 2.5 Closure Plate/Middle Hood II See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

62

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 8c. Minimum stress ratios at any frequency shift for the nodes listed in Table 8b computed using the unfiltered CLTP loads (i.e., signal noise has not been removed). Locations are depicted in Figure 14.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio  % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-P No 1. USR/Seismic Block/Support Part 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7587 7587 1956 2.23 6.32 10

2. USR part/Support/Support Part 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6550 6550 1447 2.58 8.55 -2.5
3. Middle Closure Plate 33.9 108.4 88.9 7238 5310 5573 989 3.18 12.50 5 SR-a No 1. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -3 88.9 102956 5960 4442 3655 5.71 3.38 -10 SR- P Nes 1.T~ Cover Inner Hood/Middle 31.5j 108.4: 988.#9 i1OO!30 '63/490 '646O 1193~ 1~.56 5.7 6- 10io Closure Platelinner Hood;&."Y___ ____
2. USR part/Support/Support Part 8.5 122.2 -9.5 123072 4060 4060 676 2.29 10.16 7.5
3. USR/Seismic Block -122.1 10.3 -9.5 122767 3954 3954 948 2.35 7.24 -7.5
4. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer 62.5 -85 88.9 106443 4217 4495 1964 2.20 3.50 2.5 Closure Plate/Middle Hood

. . 5. Splice Bar/USR Part -2.2 -119 0 123237 3878 3878 401 2.40 17.15 7.5

. 6. Middle Base Plate/Hood 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 3605 3786 1782 2.58 3.85 7.5 Support/Inner Hood(d)

7. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 328 4853 1507 2.87 4.56 -7.5

.. .. 8. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) 91 -76.7 -100.5 98197 936 4344 1369 3.21 5.02 10 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

63

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 8c (cont.). Minimum stress ratios at any frequency shift for the nodes listed in Table 8b computed using the unfiltered CLTP loads (i.e., signal noise has not been removed). Locations are depicted in Figure 14.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-a Yes 1. Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 1037 2383 2259 5.85 3.04 -7.5 Hood/Shell Tie Bar

2. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 31.4 104.4 92392 291 2168 2024 6.43 3.39 2.5
3. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 58.2 101.4 104386 147 1974 1943 7.06 3.54 2.5
4. Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) 77 58.2 104.4 104715 169 1964 1915 7.10 3.59 2.5
5. Old Hood Overlap/Top Cover 93.5 57.5 88.9 92842 251 2501 1912 5.58 3.59 5 Outer Hood/Thin Gusset Pad
6. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) -11.5 118.4 -100.5 104136 716 3332 1910 4.18 3.60 -10
7. Top Thick Plate/Dam Plate/Tie 77 -23.2 88.9 93568 1427 2210 1788 6.31 3.84 -10 Bar/Top Cover Outer Bank
8. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer 62.5 -85 88.9 106443 4217 4495 1964 2.20 3.50 2.5 Closure Plate/Middle Hood See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

64

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

x ý.Y SR-P (no weld) 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 Figure 13a. Locations of smallest maximum stress ratios, SR-P<4, at non-welds for nominal CLTP operation. Numbers refers to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at non-welds in Table 8a.

65

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

Y SR-P (weld) 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2

1.8 1.6 Figure 13b. Locations of smallest maximum stress ratios, SR-P<4, at welds for nominal CLTP operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 8a.

Second view showing locations 1, 4, 5 and 7.

66

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Z

X SR-P (weld) 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2

1.8 1.6 Figure 13c. Locations of smallest maximum stress ratios, SR-P<4, at welds for nominal CLTP operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 8a.

Second view showing locations 2, 3, 6 and 7.

67

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

x-k Y SR-a (weld) 5 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 Figure 13d. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a_<5, at welds for nominal CLTP operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 8a.

68

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 14a. Locations of minimum stress ratios, SR-P<4, associated with maximum stress intensities at non-welds for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. The numbers refers to the enumerated location for SR-P values at non-welds in Table 8b.

69

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 14b. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a<5, at non-welds for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 8b.

70

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information SR-P (weld) 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2

1.8 1.6 Figure 14c. Locations of minimum stress ratios, SR-P<4, associated with maximum stress intensities at welds for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 8b. This view shows locations 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8.

71

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

x SR-P (weld) 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2

1.8 1.6 Figure 14d. Locations of minimum stress ratios, SR-P<4, associated with maximum stress intensities at welds for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 8b. This view shows locations 2, 3 and 6-8.

72

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

Y SR-a (weld) 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4

3.8 6 3.6 3.4 Figure 14e. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a<5, at welds for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 8b. This view shows locations 1- 8.

73

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information SR-a (weld) z 5

4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4

3.8 3.6 3.4 Figure 14f. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a_<5, at welds for CLTP operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 8b. Second view showing locations 2-4 and 7-8.

74

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 5.3 Frequency Content The frequency contribution to the stresses can be investigated by examining the power spectral density (PSD) curves and accumulative PSDs for selected nodes having low alternating stress ratios. The accumulative PSDs are computed directly from the Fourier coefficients as (On) k=l k where &(O0k) is the complex stress harmonic at frequency, wok. Accumulative PSD plots are useful for determining the frequency components and frequency ranges that make the largest contributions to the. fluctuating stress. Unlike PSD plots, no "binning" or smoothing of frequency components is needed to obtain smooth curves. Steep step-like rises in X(w) indicate the presence of a strong component at a discrete frequency whereas gradual increases in the curve imply significant content over a broader frequency range. From Parsival's theorem, equality between Y(wN) (where N is the total number of frequency components) and the RMS of the stress signal in the time domain is established.

The selected nodes are the first three and the sixth locations having the lowest alternating stress ratios (at a weld) in Table 8b. These are:

Node 101376 - this node has the lowest alternating stress ratio and is located on the weld where the tie bar connecting the middle and outer vane banks lands on the middle hood. The associated PSDs are shown in Figure 15a.

Node 92392 - located at the top of the weld connecting the steam dam to the support gusset.

The associated PSDs are shown in Figure 15b.

Node 104386 - also located on the weld connecting a support gusset to the steam dam. The 4th and 51h entries having the lowest alternating stress ratios in Table 8b are similar.

The associated PSDs are shown in Figure 15c.

Node 104136 -located at bottom of the skirt/drain channel weld. The associated PSDs are shown in Figure 15d.

In each case, since there are six stress components and up to three different section locations for shells (the top, mid and bottom surfaces), there is a total of 18 stress histories per component.

Moreover, at junctions there are at least two components that meet at the junction. The particular stress component that is plotted is chosen as follows. First, the component and section location (top/mid/bottom) is taken as the one that has the highest alternating stress. This narrows the selection to six components. Of these, the component having the highest Root Mean Square (RMS) is selected.

For the limiting stress location, the dominant frequency peak is centered at 79.6 Hz. Since it occurs'at the -7.5% shift, the corresponding frequency in the non-shifted signal is 85.6 Hz.

Comparing the shifted and non-shifted stress PSDs (and accumulative PSDs) it is clear that peaks (or step increases) are shifted and amplified. This is indicative of a strong peak in the load signal being applied to the structure. This is in contrast to the case when stress peaks increase but do 75

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information not shift which is indicative of a broad spectrum load with less pronounced peaks being imposed upon the structure. The next two locations both involve the steam dam and have a pronounced peak at 112 Hz which corresponds to 109.3 Hz in the non-shifted signal. This is in the range where the onset of SRV resonance is anticipated so one expects the steam dam to be an important component in the EPU response as is confirmed in Section 6. The last node has two peaks at 57.9 Hz and 49.3 Hz (64.3 Hz and 54.8 Hz respectively in the non-shifted signal). In all cases the accumulative stress PSDs are flat above 150 Hz suggesting that the signals at high frequencies are not significant stresses contributors.

76

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 101376, a 350 300 250 Cc) 200 E 150 E NsIft 100 50 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz]

Node 101376, a 10 4

10 f No shift 1000 100 0-C')

10 1

0.1 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 15a. Accumulative PSD and PSD curves of the Yzz stress response at node 101376.

77

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 92392, a YY 350 TV 300 CL 250 (I) 200 E 150 E

M. ~5shift No 100 50 0 ..50. 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz]I Node 92392, ar yy 105 10 M

Cný 1000 100 10 1

0.1  :-

0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 15b. Accumulative PSD and PSD of the cyy stress response at node 92392.

78

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 104386, aYY 350 f T 300 250 200 E 150 Q No shift 100 50 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Node 104386, a YY 5

10 104 1000 100 C',

02 10 Cn 0.1 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 15c. Accumulative PSD and PSD of the cyy stress response at node 104386.

79

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 104136, c 400 350 CL 300 C/) 250 200 E

E 150 U

10 shift 100 50 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz]

Node 104136, a YY 105 4

10 1000 100 0-U) 10 a) 0.1 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 15d. Accumulative PSD and PSD of the cyy stress response at node 104136.

80

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

6. Results at Predicted EPU Using Bump Up Factors (3)))

81

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 6.1 Load Combinations and Allowable Stress Intensities at EPU

((3 (3)))

82

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)))

83

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 9a. Locations with minimum stress ratios for estimated EPU conditions with no frequency shift. Signal noise is removed using 5%

power data. Stress ratios are grouped according to stress type (maximum - SR-P; or alternating - SR-a) and location (away from a weld or at a weld). Bold text indicates minimum stress ratio of any type on the structure. Locations are depicted in Figure 16.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a SR-P No 1. USR/Seismic Block/Support Part 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 7925 7925 2061 2.13 6.00

. 2. USR part/Support/Support Part 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6630 6630 1532 2.55 8.07

" 3. Middle Closure Plate 33.9 108.4 88.9 7238 5183 5463 894 3.26 13.82 SR-a No 1. Mid PlateTie Bar 0 -3 88.9 102956 555 3740 3053 6.78 4.05

. . 2. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -56.8 88.9 99311 856 3922 3029 6.46 4.08 to 3. Dam Plate -77 -46 104.4 81218 204 2640 2498 9.60 4.95

SR-P !Ye*s" 1;Top -0over nii& 0od/Mid lClosur , 31.5 108.4 ;88.9 100230 5823:Jý 6408 ?055 160" 6.51 Plaie/lnner Hood
2. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure -62.5 85 88.9 100958 4412 4954 2106 2.11 3.26 Plate/Middle Hood
3. USR/Seismic Block -122.1 10.3 -9.5 122767 4061 4061 1031 2.29 6.67

" _" 4. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Inner Hood(d) 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 4027 4043 1932 2.31 3.55

.. . 5. USR part/Support/Support Part 8.5 122.2 -9.5 123072 3996 3996 700 2.33 9.81

6. Splice Bar/USR Part -2.2 -119 0 123237 3856 3856 378 2.41 18.17

.. .. 7. Submerged Drain Channel /Skirt 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 330 4419 978 3.16 7.02

.. .. 8. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Middle Hood 70.8 -54.6 0 104413 2923 3024 1691 3.18 4.06

" 9. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) -91 76.7 -100.5 104054 934 4169 1329 3.34 5.17 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

84

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 9a (cont.). Locations with minimum stress ratios for estimated EPU conditions with no frequency shift. Signal noise is removed using 5% power data. Stress ratios are grouped according to stress type (maximum - SR-P; or alternating - SR-a) and location (away from a weld or at a weld). Bold text indicates minimum stress ratio of any type on the structure. Locations are depicted in Figure 16.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a SR-a Yes 1. Dam Plate/New Gusset -77 -31.4 102.9 91887 278 2928 2753 4.76 2.50

. 2. Dam Plate/New Gusset -77 -58.2 101.4 99698 161 2806 2751 4.97 2.50 It 3. Old Hood Overlap/Gusset Pad Thin -93.5 58.5 88.9 110292 267 3731 2727 3.74 2.52

. . 4. Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) -77 58.2 104.4 94763 192 2796 2697 4.99 2.55

5. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure Plate/Middle Hood -62.5 -85 88.9 100498 2620 2844 2203 3.55 3.12
6. Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle Hood/Tie Bar -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 1081 2008 1964 6.94 3.50
7. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Middle Hood 70.8 54.6 0 105680 1882 2105 1949 4.94 3.52
8. Top Thick Plate/Dam Plate/Tie Bar/Top -77 23.2 88.9 102630 1487 2265 1938 6.16 3.54 Cover Outer Hood
9. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Inner Hood(d) 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 4027 4043 1932 2.31 3.55

. . 10. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 0 104.4 91724 302 2090 1932 6.67 3.56

11. Mid Bottom Perf Exit/Mid Top Perf Exit/Tie Bar -77 9.6 62.9 108386 474 1845 1822 7.56 3.77
12. Submerged Drain Channel /Skirt(c) -11.5 118.4 -100.5 104136 793 3142 1638 4.44 4.19 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

85

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 9b. Locations with minimum stress ratios at estimated EPU conditions with frequency shifts. Signal noise is removed using 5% power data. Stress ratios at every node are recorded as the lowest stress ratio identified during the frequency shifts. Stress ratios are grouped according to stress type (maximum - SR-P; or alternating - SR-a) and location (away from a weld or at a weld). Bold text indicates minimum stress ratio of any type on the structure. Locations are depicted in Figure 17.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio  % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-P No 1. USR/Seismic Block/Support Part 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 8116 8116 2493 2.08 4.96 7.5

2. USR part/Support/Support Part 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 6986 6986 1878 2.42 6.58 -2.5
3. Middle Closure Plate 33.9 108.4 88.9 7238 5524 5799 1235 3.06 10.01 5 SR-a No 1. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -3 88.9 102956 876 5180 4463 4.89 2.77 2.5

. . 2. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -56.8 88.9 99311 950 4362 3401 5.81 3.64 10 it 3. Dam Plate 77 46 104.4 81791 228 2686 2573 9.44 4.81 2.5 SR-P Yes 1.',To'- Cover hinner Hood/Mid,die~ r<( 31.5 0"8.4~ '88.9 '"OO0230~ ~6197 ~6812- ~1443§ 1i.50. 4.76 5 Closure Plate/inner Hood j K . >  : <

2. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer -62.5 85 88.9 100958 4617 5049 2249 2.01 3.05 5 Closure Plate/Middle Hood
3. USR/Seismic Block -122.1 10.3 -9.5 122767 4224 4224 1188 2.20 5.78 -7.5
4. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Inner Hood(d) 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 4222 4348 2262 2.20 3.04 2.5
5. USR part/Support/Support Part 8.5 122.2 -9.5 123072 4217 4217 870 2.20 7.89 7.5

.. .. 6. Splice Bar/USR Part -2.2 -119 0 123237 4003 4003 519 2.32 13.23 7.5

.. .. 7. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 363 5151 1797 2.71 3.82 -7.5

8. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) 91 -76.7 -100.5 98197 1063 4819 1778 2.89 3.86 10
9. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Middle Hood 70.8 -54.6 0 104413 3159 3384 2161 2.94 3.18 2.5
10. Inner Side Panel Overlap/Vane Bank/Inner -15 -118.9 0 101458 2673 4351 667 3.20 10.29 10 Closure Plate/Inner Cover Plate See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

86

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 9b (cont.). Locations with minimum stress ratios at estimated EPU conditions with frequency shifts. Signal noise is removed using 5%

power data. Stress ratios at every node are recorded as the lowest stress ratio identified during the frequency shifts. Stress ratios are grouped according to stress type (maximum - SR-P; or alternating - SR-a) and location (away from a weld or at a weld). Bold text indicates minimum stress ratio of any type on the structure. Locations are depicted in Figure 17.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio  % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-a Yes 1. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 31.4 104.4 92392 323 3327 3174 4.19 2.16 2.5

2. Old Hood Overlap/Gusset Pad Thin 93.5 58 88.9 92981 345 3765 3140 3.7 2.19 5
3. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 58.2 101.4 104386 193 3172 3128 4.39 2.2 5

.. .. 4. Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) 77 58.2 104.4 104715 221 3124 3075 4.46 2.23 5

5. Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle Hood/Tie Bar -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 1212 2949 2802 4.73 2.45 -7.5
6. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure 62.5 85 88.9 102706 3015 3284 2475 3.08 2.78 7.5 Plate/Middle Hood II__

7.Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) -11.5 118.4 -100.5 104136 894 3778 2286 3.69 3 -10

8. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Middle Hood 70.8 54.6 0 105680 2171 2315 2271 4.28 3.02. 2.5
9. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Inner Hood(") 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 4222 4348 2262 2.2 3.04 5
10. Top Thick Plate/Dam Plate/Tie Bar/Top Cover 77 -23.2 88.9 93568 1586 2679 2239 5.2 3.07 -10 Outer Bank
11. Middle Closure Plate/Inner Hood 35.8 108.4 38 109095 761 2176 1998 6.41 3.44 10

.. .. 12. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 0 104.4 91724 327 2090 1932 6.67 3.56 0 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

87

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 9c. Minimum stress ratios at any frequency shift for the nodes listed in Table 8b computed using the unfiltered EPU loads (i.e., signal noise has not been removed). Locations are depicted in Figure 17.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio  % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-P No 1. USR/Seismic Block/Support Part 122.1 -10 -9.5 122998 8209 8209 2645 2.06 4.67 7.5

2. USR part/Support/Support Part 7 122.3 -9.5 123070 7015 7015 1951 2.41 6.34 -2.5
3. Middle Closure Plate 33.9 108.4 88.9 7238 5684 5987 1397 2.97 8.85 5
4. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -3 88.9 102956 1020 5798 4944 4.37 2.50 -10 SR-a No 1. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -3 88.9 102956 1020 5798 4944 4.37 2.50 -10

. . 2. Mid Plate/Tie Bar 0 -56.8 88.9 99311 1019 4656 3706 5.44 3.34 10

3. Dam Plate 77 46 104.4 81791 262 2942 2816 8.62 4.39 2.5 SR-P :Yes'- A.Top Cover Inner Hood/Middle " `'31.5. 108.4, 88.9' '100230, '6376'* 7040- -1648 1,46-'I 4.17 5
2. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer -62.5 85 88.9 100958 4847 5246 2506 1.92 2.74 5 Closure Plate/Middle Hood
3. USR/Seismic Block -122.1 10.3 -9.5 122767 4282 4282 1275 2.17 5.39 -7.5
4. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Inner Hood(d) 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 4380 4521 2506 2.12 2.74 2.5
5. USR part/Support/Support Part 8.5 122.2 -9.5 123072 4235 4235 911 2.19 7.54 7.5

.. .. 6. Splice Bar/JSR Part -2.2 -119 0 123237 4017 4017 541 2.31 12.70 7.5

.. .. 7. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt 91 -76.7 -98.5 97969 386 5394 2028 2.58 3.39 -7.5

.. .. 8. Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) 91 -76.7 -100.5 98197 1151 4919 1915 2.83 3.59 7.5

.. .. 9. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Middle Hood 70.8 -54.6 0 104413 3440 4359 3112 2.70 2.21 5

10. Inner Side Panel Overlap/Vane Bank/Inner -15 -118.9 0 101458 2685 4374 686 3.19 10.01 10 Closure Plate/Inner Cover Plate I See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

88

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 9c (cont.). Minimum stress ratios at any frequency shift for the nodes listed in Table 8b computed using the unfiltered EPU loads (i.e.,

signal noise has not been removed). Locations are depicted in Figure 17.

Stress Weld Location Location (in.) (a) node(b) Stress Intensity (psi) Stress Ratio % Freq.

Ratio x y z Pm Pm+Pb Salt SR-P SR-a Shift SR-a Yes 1. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 31.4 104.4 92392 370 3629 3480 3.84 1.97 2.5

2. Old Hood Overlap/Gusset Pad Thin 93.5 58 88.9 92981 360 3978 3425 3.50 2.01 5
3. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 58.2 101.4 104386 208 3383 3379 4.12 2.03 5
4. Dam Plate/New Gusset(e) 77 58.2 104.4 104715 242 3332 3331 4.18 2.06 5
5. Top Cover Middle Hood/Middle Hood/Tie Bar -62.5 -25.2 88.9 101376 1256 3225 3097 4.32 2.22 -7.5
6. Top Cover Middle Hood/Outer Closure 62.5 85 88.9 102706 3198 3508 2681 2.91 2.56 7.5 Plate/Middle Hood 7.Submerged Drain Channel/Skirt(c) -11.5 118.4 -100.5 104136 926 3980 2561 3.50 2.68 -10
8. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Middle Hood 70.8 54.6 0 105680 2492 3027 2993 3.73 2.29 10
9. Middle Base Plate/Hood Support/Inner Hoodld) 39.8 -59.8 0 96024 4380 4521 2506 2.12 2.74 7.5
10. Top Thick Plate/Dam Plate/Tie Bar/Top Cover 77 -23.2 88.9 93568 1653 2813 2399 4.96 2.86 -10 Outer Bank
11. Middle Closure Plate/Inner Hood 35.8 108.4 38 109095 773 2271 2086 6.14 3.29 10
12. Dam Plate/New Gusset 77 0 104.4 91724 353 2272 2075 6.14 3.31 5 See Table 7a for notes (a)-(e).

89

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

x SR-P (no weld) 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3

2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 Figure 16a. Locations of smallest maximum stress ratios, SR-P<4, at non-welds for nominal EPU operation. Numbers refers to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at non-welds in Table 9a.

90

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 16b. Locations of smallest alternating stress ratios, SR-a<5, at non-welds for nominal EPU operation. Numbers refers to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at non-welds in Table 9a.

91

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

SR-P (weld) 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2

1.8 1.6 Figure 16c. Locations of smallest maximum stress ratios, SR-P<4, at welds for nominal EPU operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 9a.

First view showing locations 1, 2, 6 and 7.

92

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 2 z SR-P (weld) 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2

1.8 1.6 Figure 16d. Locations of smallest maximum stress ratios, SR-P<4, at welds for nominal EPU operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 9a.

Second view showing locations 2-5 and 7-9..

93

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 16e. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a<5, at welds for nominal EPU operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 9a. First view showing locations 1-5, 8 and 10.

94

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z Y SR-a (weld) 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 Figure 16f. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a<5, at welds for nominal EPU operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 9a.

Second view showing locations 1-6, 8 and 11.

95

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information X SR-a (weld) 4.9 4.7

-Y 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.5 Figure 16g. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a_<_5, at welds for nominal EPU operation. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 9a.

Third view showing locations 7, 9 and 12.

96

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 17a. Locations of minimum stress ratios, SR-P_4, associated with maximum stress intensities at non-welds for EPU operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. The numbers refers to the enumerated location for SR-P values at non-welds in Table 9b.

97

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 17b. Locations of smallest alternating stress ratios, SR-a_<5, at non-welds for EPU operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. The numbers refers to the enumerated location for SR-a values at non-welds in Table 9b.

98

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 17c. Locations of minimum stress ratios, SR-P<4, associated with maximum stress intensities at welds for EPU operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 9b. This view shows locations 1, 2, 6 and 10.

99

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 17d. Locations of minimum stress ratios, SR-P<4, associated with maximum stress intensities at welds for EPU operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-P values at welds in Table 9b. This view shows locations 3-5 and 7-9.

100

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information z

Figure 17e. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a_4, at welds for EPU operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 9b. This view shows locations 1-6 and 10-12.

101

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 17f. Locations of minimum alternating stress ratios, SR-a<4, at welds for EPU operation with frequency shifts. The recorded stress ratio at a node is the minimum value taken over all frequency shifts. Numbers refer to the enumerated locations for SR-a values at welds in Table 9b. This view shows locations 7-9.

102

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 6.2 Frequency Content at EPU The same nodes whose frequency content was examined in Section 5.3 are considered here.

At EPU these nodes reappear in Table 9b as the first or limiting (node 92392), third (node 104386), fifth (node 101376) and seventh (node 104136) entries in the list of lowest alternating stress ratio locations. The stress PSDs and accumulative stress PSDs are reported in Figure 18 in the same order as in Section 5.3 to facilitate comparison between the plots at CLTP and EPU.

After one accounts for the overall velocity ratio-based scaling of 1.35 (which corresponds to 2

a factor of 1.35 =1.82 scaling in PSDs) the stress PSDs and accumulative PSDs at CLTP and EPU conditions are very similar. This is clearly the case for the first node 101376 which was limiting at CLTP. Moreover, its alternating stress ratio at EPU is SR-a=2.45 which is close to the value expected from scaling the CLTP value, SR-a=3.39/1.35=2.51. For the second node 92392 which is limiting at EPU, the curves at CLTP and EPU are still similar, but the increase over the 109-113 Hz range is higher than the velocity ratio scaling, 1.35. Hence the increase in the peak in the stress PSD is also higher. This is ultimately reflected in the change in stress ratio from SR-a=3.74 at CLTP to SR-a=2.16 at EPU which corresponds to an increase in alternating stress intensity of 73% rather than the 35% increase resulting from a pure velocity-based scaling.

Similar observations apply to the third node 104386 which also involves the steam dam. Finally, for the last node considered, node 104136 on the skirt/drain channel junction, the dominant peak lies outside the 109-113 Hz range. The alternating stress intensity at this node increases by 35%

when proceeding from CLTP to EPU which is consistent with the velocity-based scaling. The PSD curve also scales by this amount except in the 109-113 Hz range where the PSD scaling are different, but, as it turns out, inconsequential with regard to the overall stress ratio.

I Overall it appears that the steam dam is the component that is responsive to the 109-113 Hz signal and hence becomes the alternating stress leader at the EPU condition. The skirt and tie bars continue to be dominated by lower frequency contributions.

103

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 101376, cr 500 I.

CL 400 E 300 0~

C',

200 No shi H-- -7.5% shift]

100 0 --------------------------

0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Node 101376, a 10 5 4

10 1000 100 ci) 0~

10 1

0.1 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 18a. Accumulative PSD and PSD of the czz stress response at node 101376 at EPU.

104

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 92392, a YY 600 -f J

CL 500 =

n .. . . . . .......... ... . .. .. . .. .

400 U,

a-300 E

E No shift 200 +2.5% s1hift 100 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Node 92392, a yy 10 6 5

10 N

4 10 1000 U) 100 U-CO CO 10 1

0.1 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 18b. Accumulative PSD and PSD of the cyy stress response at node 92392 at EPU.

105

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 104386, a YY 600 -T. TF 500 400 U) 300 E

E shift 200 .-- *--No H +5% shi C.)

100 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz]

Node 104386, ayy 4 (5 Iu -

104 No shift NL 1000 100 (n

10 1

0.1 i-0.01 n 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 18c. Accumulative PSD and PSD of the ayy stress response at node 104386 at EPU.

106

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Node 104136, a YY 600 500 CL 400 CO 300 E

E No shift 200 -10% s1hift 100 0

0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz]

Node 104136, a YY 10 5 104 1000 W

100 Cl) 10 1

0.1 0.01 0 50 100 150 200 250 Frequency [ Hz ]

Figure 18d. Accumulative PSD and PSD of the cyy stress response at node 104136 at EPU.

107

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

7. Conclusions A frequency-based steam dryer stress analysis has been used to calculate high stress locations and calculated / allowable stress ratios for the Browns Ferry Unit 2 steam dryer at CLTP load conditions using plant measurement data. A detailed description of the frequency-based methodology and the finite element model for the BFN2 steam dryer is presented. The CLTP loads obtained in a separate acoustic circuit model [2,3,7], including end-to-end bias and uncertainty for both the ACM and FEA, were applied to a finite element model of the steam dryer consisting mainly of the ANSYS Shell 63 elements, brick continuum elements, and beam elements. The resulting stress histories were analyzed to obtain maximum and alternating stresses at all nodes for comparison against allowable levels.

The CLTP loads are applied with compensation for background noise based on 1000# data taken at 5% power. These results are tabulated in Table 8 of this report. The minimum alternating stress ratio at nominal operation is SR-a=4.16 and the minimum alternating stress ratio taken over all frequency shifts is SR-a=3.39. The stress ratios corresponding to maximum stresses are SR-P=l.68 at nominal operation and 1.60 when all frequency shifts are considered.

The results show that the new tie-bars with widened and tapered ends, and the thicker 1 in hood with external channel reinforcements replacing the interior hood supports result in significantly lower stresses.

On the basis of these CLTP plant loads, the dynamic analysis of the steam dryer shows that the combined acoustic, hydrodynamic, and gravity loads produces the following minimum stress ratios.

Frequency Shift Minimum Stress Ratio at CLTP Max. Stress, Alternating Stress, SR-P SR-a 0% (nominal) 1.68 4.16

-10% 1.67 3.77

-7.5% 1.67 3.39

-5% 1.66 3.69

-2.5% 1.66 4.00

+2.5% 1.62 3.74

+5% 1.60 3.95

+7.5% 1.64 4.27

+10% 1.61 4.35 All shifts 1.60- 1.68 3.39-4.35 Limiting 1.60 3.39 EPU stresses are estimated using two methods. The first scales the CLTP stresses by the square of the steam flow velocity ratio, (UEPU/UCLTP)2=l .35. The second method utilizes the bump up factors developed in [4] over the 100-120 Hz frequency interval and the velocity scaling (1.35) at all other frequencies. The limiting stress ratios using these methods are 108

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information summarized for each frequency shift in the table below. The limiting alternating stress ratios at any frequency shift are: 2.51 with velocity scaling (Method 1) and 2.16 when bump up factors are used over the 100-120 Hz range (Method 2). In all cases the alternating stress ratio remains above 2.0, thus qualifying the steam dryer for EPU operation with regard to stress evaluation.

Frequency Method 1 Method 2 Shift Alt. Stress, Max. Stress, Alt. Stress, SR-a SR-P SR-a 0%

(nominal) 3.08 1.60 2.50

-10% 2.80 1.59 2.78

-7.5% 2.51 1.59 2.45

-5% 2.73 1.59 2.67

-2.5% 2.97 1.57 2.88

+2.5% 2.77 1.52 2.16

+5% 2.93 1.50 2.19

+7.5% 3.16 1.55 2.69

+10% 3.22 1.53 3.01 All shifts 2.51-3.22 1.50- 1.60 2.16-3.01 Limiting 2.51 1.50 2.16 109

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

8. References
1. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2008). "Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer with Tie-Bar Modifications, Rev. 2" C.D.I. Report No.08-15P (Proprietary).
2. 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 (Proprietary).
3. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2008). "Acoustic and Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Loads at CLTP Power Level on Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 2 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz with Noise Removed, Rev. 1" C.D.I. Report No.08-05P (Proprietary).
4. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2008). "Flow-Induced Vibration in the Main Steam Lines at Browns Ferry Nuclear Units 1 and 2, With and Without Acoustic Side Branches, and Resulting Steam Dryer Loads," C.D.I. Report No.08-14P (Proprietary).
5. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2008). "Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 2 Steam Dryer, Rev. 1," C.D.I. Report No.08-07P (Proprietary).
6. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2008). "Stress Assessments of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 2 Steam Dryer with Tie Bar and Hood Modifications, Rev. 0" C.D.I. Report No.08-16P (Proprietary).
7. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2007). "Methodology to Predict Full Scale Steam Dryer Loads from In-Plant Measurements, with the Inclusion of a Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Contribution," C.D.I. Report No.07-09P (Proprietary).
8. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (2006). "Main Steam Line 100% CLTP Strain Data Transmission." SIA Letter Report No. GSZ-06-017
9. ANSYS Release 10.0. URL http://www.ansys.com. Documentation: ANSYS 10.0 Complete User's Manual Set.
10. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2007). Response to NRC Request for Additional Information on the Hope Creek Generating Station, Extended Power Uprate, RAI No. 14.110
11. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2008). "Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer, Rev. 0," C.D.I. Report No.08-06P (Proprietary).
12. Press, W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, et al. (1992). Numerical Recipes, Cambridge University Press.
13. O'Donnell W.J. (1973). "Effective Elastic Constants For the Bending of Thin Perforated Plates With Triangular and Square Penetration Patterns," ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 95, pp. 121-128.

110

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

14. Idel'chik, I E. and Fried, E. (1989). Flow Resistance, a Design Guide for Engineers, Taylor

& Francis, Washington D.C., p 260.

15. DeSanto, D.F. (1981). "Added Mass and Hydrodynamic Damping of Perforated Plates Vibrating in Water," Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. 103, p. 176-182.
16. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (2007). "Dynamics of BWR Steam Dryer Components," C.D.I.

Report No.07-11P

17. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (2007). Regulatory Guide 1.20 "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing," March 2007.
18. WRC Bulletin 432 (1998). "Fatigue Strength Reduction and Stress Concentration Factors For Welds In Pressure Vessels and Piping," WRC, NY, p.32
19. Pilkey W.D. (1997). Peterson's Stress ConcentrationFactors, 2nd ed., John Wiley, NY, p.139.
20. Lawrence F.V., Ho N.-J., Mazumdar P.K. (1981). "Predicting the Fatigue Resistance of Welds," Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci., vol. 11, pp. 401-425.
21. General Electric (GE) Nuclear Energy (2003). Supplement 1 to Service Information Letter (SIL) 644, "BWR/3 Steam Dryer Failure," September 5, 2003.
22. Tecplot 10 (2004). URL: http://www.tecplot.com. Documentation: Tecplot User's Manual Version 10 Tecplot, Inc. Bellevue, Washington October.
23. Structural Integrity Associates Calculation Package, 0006982.301, "Shell and Solid Sub-Model Finite Element Stress Comparison, Rev. 2" Oct. 17, 2008.
24. Continuum Dynamics, Inc., Response to NRC RAI EMCB 172, June 2008.

111

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Appendix A. Submodel Analysis of Steam Dam / Gusset Junction Weld (3) 112

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)))

113

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

[1 (3)))

114

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)))

115

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 1[

(3)))

116

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 11 (3)))

117

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 11 (3)))1 118

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 11 119

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)))

120

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

'I'l (3)))

121

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)))

122

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)))

11 (3)))1 123

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information 11 (3)))

124

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

[1 (3)))

125

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

((

3)))

(*

126

ENCLOSURE 5 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)

UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGES TS-431 AND TS-418 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU)

CDI AFFIDAVIT Attached is the CDI affidavit for the proprietary information contained in Enclosures 1 and 2.

<Continuum Dynamics, Inc.

(609) 538-0444 (609) 538-0464 fax 34 Lexington Avenue Ewing, NJ 08618-2302 AFFIDAVIT Re: BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN) - UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 -

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGES TS-418 AND TS-431 -

EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU) - SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ROUNDS 19 AND 22 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI)

REGARDING STEAM DRYERS (TAC NOS. MD5262, MD5263, AND MD5264); AND C.D.1. REPORT 08-20P "STRESS ASSESSMENT OF BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR UNIT 2 STEAM DRYER WITH OUTER HOOD AND TIE-BAR REINFORCEMENTS," REVISION 0.

1,Alan J. Bilanin, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

1 1 hold the position of President and Senior Associate of Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (hereinafter referred to-as C.D.I.),, and I am authorized to make the request for-withholding from Public Record the Information contained in the documents described in Paragraph 2. This Affidavit is submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(a)(4) based on the fact that the attached information consists of trade: secret(s) of C.DJI. and that the NRC will receive the information from C.D.I. under privilege and in confidence.

2. The Information sought to be withheld, as transmitted to TVA Browns Ferry as attachment to C.D.I. Letter No. 08207 dated 14 November 2008, BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN) - UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGES TS-418 AND TS-431 - EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU) - SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO ROUNDS. 19 AND 22 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (RAI) REGARDING STEAM DRYERS (TAC NOS. MD5262, MD5263, AND MD5264); AND C.D.I.

REPORT 08-20P "STRESS ASSESSMENT OF BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR UNIT 2 STEAM DRYER WITH OUTER HOOD AND TIE-BAR REINFORCEMENTS," REVISION 0

3. The Information summarizes:

(a) a process or method, including supporting data and analysis, where prevention of its use by C.D.I.'s competitors without license from C.D.f. constitutes a competitive advantage over other companies;

(b) Information which, if used by a competitor, would reduce his expenditure of resources or improve his competitive position in the design, manufacture, shipment, installation, assurance of quality, or licensing of a similar product; (c) Information, which discloses patentable subject matter for which it may be desirable to obtain patent protection.

The information sought to be withheld is considered to be proprietary for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c),above.

4. The Information has been held in confidence by C.D.I., its owner. The Information has, consistently been held in confidence by C.D.i. and no public disclosure has been. made and it is not available to the public. All disclosures to third parties, which have been limited, have been made pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in C.D.I.'s Nondisclosure Secrecy Agreement which must. be fully executed prior to disclosure.
5. The Information is a type customarily held in confidence by C.DI.1 and there is a rational basis therefore.. The Information is a type, which C.D.L considers trade secret and is held in confidence by C.D.I. because it constitutes a source of competitive advantage in the competition and performance of such work in the industry. Public disclosure of the Information is likely to cause substantial harm to C.D.I.'s competitive position and foreclose or reduce the availability of profit-making opportunities.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing affidavit and the matters stated therein are true and correct to be the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Executed on this Jj day of N-)6O\)

  • rttf67--2O008.

Alan 1i1" in Continuum Dynamics, Inc.

Subscribed and sworn before me this day: _____---____ ,__ ,_._____'_

ieeiP urmn A 4rty te Public EILEEN P. BURMEISTER NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY MY COMM. EXPIRES MAY 6, 2012

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML083250116&oldid=2655066"