ML13092A352

Enclosure 13 to L-MT-13-029 - WCAP-17549-NP, Revision 1, Monticello Replacement Steam Dryer Structural Evaluation for High-Cycle Acoustic Loads Using Ace.

ML13092A352
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	03/29/2013
From:	Longoni G, Munsi Y, Plonczak G, Rajakumar C, Salehzadeh A, Suddaby D A, Theuret R, Wellstein L Westinghouse
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-MT-13-029, TAC MD9990 WCAP-17549-NP, Rev 1
Download: ML13092A352 (80)

Text

L-MT-1 3-029 ENCLOSURE 13 WESTINGHOUSE WCAP-17549-NP (NONPROPRIETARY), REVISION I MONTICELLO REPLACEMENT STEAM DRYER STRUCTURAL EVALUATION FOR HIGH-CYCLE ACOUSTIC LOADS USING ACE 79 pages follow Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 WCAP-17549-NP March 201 Revision 1 Monticello Replacement Steam Dryer Structural Evaluation for High-Cycle Acoustic Loads Using ACE Westinghouse 3

WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 ii WCAP-17549-NP Revision 1 Monticello Replacement Steam Dryer Structural Evaluation for High-Cycle Acoustic Loads Using ACE Gianluca Longoni Younus Munsi Gary Plonczak Charles Rajakumar Amir Salehzadeh David Suddaby Robert Theuret Leslie Wellstein Edited by: Leslie Wellstein*

Acoustic and Structural Analysis March 2013 Approved: David Forsyth*, Manager Acoustic and Structural Analysis*Electronically approved records are authenticated in the electronic document management system.Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 1000 Westinghouse Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066© 2013 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC All Rights Reserved iii TABLE OF CONTENTS I IN TRODUCTION

........................................................................................................................

1-1 2 M ETHODOLOGY

.......................................................................................................................

2-1 2.1 ACOUSTIC LOAD ANALYSIS .....................................................................................

2-1 2.1.1 Overview .............................................................................................................

2-1 2.1.2 Design Requirem ents ..........................................................................................

2-1 2.1.3 Dryer Geom etry ..................................................................................................

2-2 2.2 [ ]a' ...............

..................

2-2 3 FIN ITE ELEM ENT M ODEL DESCRIPTION

.......................................................................

3-I 3.1 STEA M DRYER GEOM ETRY .......................................................................................

3-1 3.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL MESH AND CONNECTIVITY

......................................

3-2 3.2.1 M esh Density Study ............................................................................................

3-2 3.2.2 Shell-Solid Connections in the FEM ..................................................................

3-2 3.2.3 Vane Bank Representation

..................................................................................

3-3 3.2.4 Lifting Rod Representation

.................................................................................

3-3 3.2.5 Beam -Solid Connections in the FEM ...........................................................

3-4 3.2.6 Dryer Skirt Subm erged in W ater .........................................................................

3-4 4 M ATERIAL PROPERTIES

..........................................................................................................

4-1 4.1 STRUCTURA L DAM PIN G ............................................................................................

4-1 5 M ODAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................

5-1 6 LOAD APPLICATION

.................................................................................................................

6-1 7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................

7-1 7.1 HARM ONIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................

7-1 7.1.1 [ ]a,c ...................................................................

7-1 7.1.2 Overview -Tim e-History Solution ...............................................................

7-1 7.1.3 Inverse Fourier Transform

..................................................................................

7-2 7.1.4 Frequency Scaling (Shifting)

..............................................................................

7-3 7.2 POST-PROCESSING

......................................................................................................

7-4 7.2.1 Primary Stress Evaluation

...................................................................................

7-4 7.2.2 Alternating Stress ................................................................................................

7-4 7.3 CALCULATION AND EVALUATION OF WELD STRESSES ....................................

7-5 7.4 SUBM ODELIN G TECHN IQUES ..................................................................................

7-8 7.5 [ ...................

7-8 8 AN ALYSIS RESULTS .................................................................................................................

8-1 8.1 GLOBAL M ODEL ..........................................................................................................

8-1 8.2 SUBM ODELING ............................................................................................................

8-1 WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 iv 8.2.1 ....................................................................................

8-1 8.3 [ ]2,C ............................................................................

8-1 8.3.1 [ .C ..........................................

8-1 9 SUM M A RY OF RESULTS AN D CON CLUSION S ....................................................................

9-1 10 RE FERE NCES ...........................................................................................................................

10-1 WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I V LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Vane Passing Frequency

[ ]F ....................................

2-3 Table 4-1 Summ ary of M aterial Properties

.................................................................................

4-2 Table 4-2 Summary of Vane Bank [ ]abc .....................................

4-2 Table 8-1 Summary of Results at EPU: Components Above the Support Ring .............................

8-3 Table 8-2 Summary of Results at EPU: Components Below the Support Ring...............................

8-4 WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Schematic of M onticello Replacem ent Steam Dryer ..............................................................

1-2 Figure 2-1 Geometry Plot: [ Ia.c. .......................................................................................

2-4 Figure 2-2 Geometry Plot: [ ]a,c ............................................................................................

2-5 Figure 2-3 Geometry Plot: [ ]a,c ............................................................................

2-6 Figure 2-4 Geometry Plot: [ ]ac ...................................................................................

2-7 Figure 2-5 Geometry Plot: [ ]a. ...................................................................

2-8 Figure 2-6 Geom etry Plot: [ ]a.c ................

...............................

2-9 Figure 2-7 Geom etry Plot: [ ]a,c .......................................................

2-10 Figure 3-1 M onticello Replacem ent Steam Dryer Finite Element M odel ................................................

3-5 Figure 3-2 Lower [ ].. .......................................................................................................

3-6 Figure 3-3 Lower [ ]a"c ............................................................................................

3-7 Figure 3-4 Vane Bank Structural Com ponents ..........................................................................................

3-8 Figure 3-5 Vane Bank Geometry ..............................................................................................................

3-9 Figure 3-6 Dryer Hood Geom etry ...........................................................................................................

3-10 Figure 3-7 Skirt Geom etry ......................................................................................................................

3-11 Figure 3-8 [ ]a,c ...............

.....................

3-12 Figure 3-9 [ ]a, c ........................................................................

3-13 Figure 3-10 [ ]a ................................................................

3-14 Figure 3-11 Lifting Rod Geometry .........................................................................................................

3-15 Figure 3-12 [ ]a, ............................................................................................

3-16 Yigure 3-13 [ ]a,c ................................................................................................

3-17 Figure 3-14 [ Y, c ..............................

3-18 Figure 3-15 [ ]a-c ..............................................

3-19 Figure 3-16 [ ]a,c .........................................................

3-20 Figure 3-17 Structural Com ponents of Vane Bank .................................................................................

3-21 Figure 3-18 Structural and Non-Structural Components of Vane Bank ..................................................

3-22 Figure 3-19 Vane Bank M ass Blocks ......................................................................................................

3-23 Figure 3-20 [ ]ac .........................................

3-24 Figure 5-1 M odal Analysis:

[ ].. ...........................................................................................

5-2 Figure 5-2 M odal Analysis:

[ ]a1C ...........................................................................

5-3 Figure 5-3 M odal Analysis:

[ ]ac .......................................................................

5-4 WCAP-1 7549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 vii Figure 5-4 N Figure 6-1 [Figure 6-'2 [Figure 6-3 [Figure 6-4 [Figure 8-1 [Figure 8-2 [Figure 8-3 [Figure 8-4 [Figure 8-5 [Figure 8-6 [Figure 8-7 [lodal Analysis:

[]O..C.....................................................................

.5-5]a'c ........................................................................

6 -3]L-c ................................................................................

6 -4]ac ..........................................

6-5]a-c ........................................

6-6]a'c .........................................................................................

8 -5]ax ..................................................................................

8 -6]ac ...................................................................

8-7]ac ........................................................................................

8 -8]ac .................................................................

8 -9]c ................

8-10]a c .......................................................

8 -11 WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I viii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

A high-cycle fatigue evaluation of the Westinghouse replacement steam dryer for the Monticello plant has been completed with loads generated using the Acoustic Circuit Enhanced (ACE) Revision 2.0 methodology.

Acoustic loads and stresses for extended power uprate (EPU) conditions have been evaluated for high-cycle fatigue and have been determined to meet the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code Section III, Subsection NG criteria.The results from these analyses indicate that for the Monticello replacement steam dryer at EPU operation, the smallest high-cycle fatigue stress ratio anywhere on the steam dryer is [ ]apc and occurs on the [ ]'. These results account for all the end-to-end biases and uncertainties in the acoustic loads model and finite element analysis.

To account for uncertainties in the modal frequency predictions of the finite element model (FEM), the stresses are also computed for loads that are shifted in the frequency domain by [ ]'. These results also include a conservative estimate of the high cycle fatigue stress caused by vane passing frequency (VPF) of the recirculation pumps.WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation ACE ASME B&PV BWR CLTP EPU FEM FSRF IFT MPC MSL MWt SCF VB VPF 2-D 3-D Description acoustic circuit enhanced American Society of Mechanical Engineers boiler and pressure vessel boiling water reactor current licensed thermal power extended power uprate finite element model fatigue strength reduction factor inverse Fourier transform multi-point constraint main steam line megawatts thermal stress concentration factor vane bank vane passing frequency two-dimensional three-dimensional Trademark Note: ANSYS, ANSYS Workbench, CFX, AUTODYN, and any and all ANSYS, Inc. product and service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries located in the United States or other countries.

WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION In 2002, after increasing power to 117% of the original licensed thermal power, the steam dryer in a boiling water reactor (BWR) had a significant reduction in its structural integrity.

After extensive evaluation by various industry experts, the root cause of the dryer degradation was determined to be acoustic fluctuating pressure loads on the dryer, resulting from resonances produced by steam flow in the main steam lines (MSLs) across safety and relief valve inlets. The degradation experienced in the steam dryer of a BWR led to changes to Regulatory Guide 1.20, requiring plants to evaluate their steam dryer before any planned increase in power level.The Monticello power plant has contracted Westinghouse for a replacement steam dryer, and is also planning a power uprate. In conjunction with the component replacement by Monticello and the planned power uprate, an analysis has been performed to qualify the replacement steam dryer, shown in Figure 1-1, for acoustic pressure loads and vibratory loads caused by vane passing frequency of the recirculation pumps. The process used to perform the analysis involves []aC Structural qualification of the replacement dryer for the remaining duty cycle of events applicable to the Monticello operating system is documented in Reference

1. Acoustic loads applicable to EPU conditions are evaluated.

A dynamic analysis is performed using]3C This revision of the report contains multiple changes to text, tables, and figures. No revision bars are used.WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 1-2 ac Figure 1-1 Schematic of Monticello Replacement Steam Dryer WCAP-1 7549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 2-1 2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 ACOUSTIC

LOAD ANALYSIS 2.1.1 Overview An analysis has been performed to assess the structural integrity of the replacement dryer for the Monticello plant subject to acoustic loads. [2.1.2 Design Requirements 2.1.2.1 1 Ia,c The replacement dryer is analyzed according to the 2004 Edition of the ASME B&PV Code, Subsection NG (Reference 2). This report documents the suitability of the replacement dryer for high-cycle fatigue loads resulting from acoustic loads. The governing criterion for the analysis is in terms of the allowable component fatigue usage. The objective of this analysis is to show that the maximum alternating stress intensity anywhere in the dryer is less than the material endurance strength at 10" cycles. The applicable fatigue curve for stainless steel (the dryer is manufactured from SS316L), is shown in Figure 1-9.2.2 in Appendix I of the ASME Code. The evaluation of the replacement steam dryer for non-acoustic loads is documented in Reference 1.II]a,c 2.1.2.2 Young's Modulus Correction Before comparing the maximum alternating stress intensity to the ASME Code endurance strength, it is necessary to account for the Young's modulus correction.

The analysis uses a Young's modulus of 25.425 x 106 psi, compared to the value to construct the fatigue curves of 28.3 x 106 psi. The ratio that is applied to the calculated alternating stress intensities is 1.113 (28.3 / 25.425).2.1.2.3 1 Ia,C II WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 2-2 a]c 2.1.3 Dryer Geometry Plots showing various aspects of the dryer configuration are provided in Figures 2-1 through 2-7.2.2 a 'c[WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 2-3 a,b,c Table 2-1 Vane Passing Frequency j_ abc aIbI t I.WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 2-4 ac Figure 2-1 Geometry Plot: I I a,c WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 2-5 a,c Figure 2-2 Geometry Plot: [ ]2,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 2-6 a,c Figure 2-3 Geometry Plot: [ ]ac WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 2-7 a,c Figure 2-4 Geometry Plot: [ ]ac WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 2-8 a,c Figure 2-5 Geometry Plot: [ ]a,c WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 2-9 ac I Figure 2-6 Geometry Plot: I] ,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 2-10 a,c Figure 2-7 Geometry Plot: I I 3,c WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-1 3 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL DESCRIPTION

3.1 STEAM

DRYER GEOMETRY The Monticello replacement steam dryer FEM, generated using the ANSYS computer code', is shown in Figure 3-1. The model consists primarily of [a,c I aýc The dryer structure includes []a..The [I a~c The analysis qualification of the Monticello replacement steam dryer was performed using the []aC WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-2 Figure 3-11 shows the []a-c 3.2 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL MESH AND CONNECTIVITY The dryer plates are all modeled [The vane bank [] a,c.II I ax are shown in Figure 3-16.3.2.1 Mesh Density Study A mesh density study was performed using] ac 3.2.2 Shell-Solid Connections in the FEM A study was performed to investigate the load transfer between shells and solids using WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-3 Iac 3.2.3 Vane Bank Representation The vane bank modules are box-like structures with many internal hanging chevrons.aC and are shown in more detail in Figure 3-17.The perforated plates []ac are shown in Figure 3-18.Also shown in Figure 3-18 are the []asc The vane bank [pc are shown in Figure 3-14.3.2.4 Lifting Rod Representation The lifting rod is modeled [P are shown in Figure 3-16.WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-4 3.2.5 Beam -Solid Connections in the FEM A study was performed to evaluate the moment transfer and adequacy of the] 8C 3.2.6 Dryer Skirt Submerged in Water The dryer skirt is partially submerged in water.IaxC WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-5 a,c I Figure 3-1 Monticello Replacement Steam Dryer Finite Element Model WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-6 a,c Figure 3-2 Lower VIC WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-7 a,c Figure 3-3 Lower I I 8,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-8 a,c Figure 3-4 Vane Bank Structural Components WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-9 a,c Figure 3-5 Vane Bank Geometry WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-10 ac Figure 3-6 Dryer Hood Geometry WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-11 a,c Figure 3-7 Skirt Geometry WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-12 a,c Figure 3-8 1 I HC WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-13 a,c Figure 3-9 1 1a, c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-14 a,c Figure 3-10 I Ija, WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-15 ac Figure 3-11 Lifting Rod Geometry WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-16 ac Figure 3-12 [Ia, WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-17 ac Figure 3-13 1 JaC WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-18 ac Figure 3-14 1]a, C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-19 a,c Figure 3-15 1 la,c WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-20 a,c Figure 3-16 1 Ja,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-21 a,c Figure 3-17 Structural Components of Vane Bank WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-22 a,c Figure 3-18 Structural and Non-Structural Components of Vane Bank WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 3-23 a2,c Figure 3-19 Vane Bank Mass Blocks WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 3-24 a,c Figure 3-20 1 Jaxc WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 4-1 4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES The material properties used in the structural analysis are summarized in Table 4-1. Material properties are taken from the ASME Code, Reference 3, for [Ia'c are summarized in Table 4-2.4.1 STRUCTURAL DAMPING Structural damping is defined as 1% of critical damping for all frequencies.

This damping is consistent with guidance given on page 10 of NRC RG-1.20 (Reference 4). Using the harmonic analysis approach, a consistent damping level is used across the frequency domain.WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 4-2-Table 4-1 Summary of Material Properties ab,c Table 4-2 Summary of Vane Bank [ ]a.b.c ab,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 5-1 5 MODAL ANALYSIS As a precursor to performing the transient analysis, a modal analysis of the dryer was performed.

The modal analysis was performed for modes between 0 Hz and 140 Hz. Some modes for the hood and skirt are shown in Figure 5-1 through Figure 5-4. The fundamental modes for therespectively.

The acoustic fatigue evaluation includes loads in the range from 0 Hz to 250 Hz. This modal analysis is not intended to be complete but only a check of the finite element model.WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 5-2 a,c Figure 5-1 Modal Analysis:

I ax WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 5-3 ac Figure 5-2 Modal Analysis:

I I a,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 5-4 ac I Figure 5-3 Modal Analysis:

I I 3,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 5-5 a,c Figure 5-4 Modal Analysis:

[]B,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 6-1 6 LOAD APPLICATION The frequency-dependent acoustic loads were developed using a three-dimensional (3-D) acoustic model representation of the dryer assembly.

The acoustic pressure (P) loads on the steam dryer structure were calculated by [WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 6-2]a,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 6-3 a,c Figure 6-1 1 ]a,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 6-4 ac Figure 6-2 1 ac WCAP-1 7549-NP March 2013 Revision I 6-5 a,c Figure 6-3 1 Ia,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 6-6 a,c Figure 6-4 1] a,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 7-1 7 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS 7.1 HARMONIC ANALYSIS 7.1.1 [ I a Harmonic solutions are obtained using the ANSYS Monticello replacement FEM for the following sets of conditions:

Model Support (Boundary)

Conditions The model is supported

[aC Operating Conditions EPU operating conditions are evaluated.

Frequency Shifts I]ac.7.1.2 Overview -Time-History Solution The harmonic analysis begins with the [I". As discussed above, separate solutions are obtained for [WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 7-2]a~c II]a~c II It was found to be inefficient to process the results a,c II]ýc.II a,cx 7.1.3 Inverse Fourier Transform I WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 7-3 ac 7.1.4 Frequency Scaling (Shifting)

As a result of approximations of the structural interactions used in developing the FEM, small errors can result in the prediction of the component natural frequencies.

Varying degrees of mesh discretization can also introduce small errors in the FEM results. To account for these effects, frequency scaling is applied to the applied load history.If frequency scaling is applied,]a~c WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 7-4 7.2 POST-PROCESSING

7.2.1 Primary

Stress Evaluation Once the time-history has been calculated

[ , an evaluation is performed to calculate the maximum alternating stress intensity.

The stress intensities for the aCx For a two-dimensional stress field, the principal stresses are calculated as follows (the X-Y plane is used as an example. The same algorithms are also applicable to other planes.)(71,2 2 -Y X + GY + Y G )2" + xy2+ +22 013 0.0 Stress Intensity

= Maximum 102 -31 1 C3 -(,1 For a general 3-D state of stress, the resulting principal stresses correspond to the roots of the following cubic equation as: 3 2 Ga_ -a 2 + al(a -ao = 0 where, a 2 = ax + ("y + 3"z a, = ayxcyy + OY Cz + alzax -aTxy -_"yz2 -_azX2 a0 = ayx(Tya Tz + 2cTxyCTyz(Tzx

-0"x 0"yz -_ayaz) 2 -0"z0Gxy 2 7.2.2 Alternating Stress The calculation of the alternating stress intensity, following the ASME Code process, is performed as follows: 1. Apply the stress concentration factors (geometric or FSRF), as applicable, to the component stresses.2. Calculate the range of stress for each component of stress for two time points.3. Calculate the stress intensity of the component ranges.[WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 7-5]aC 7.3 CALCULATION AND EVALUATION OF WELD STRESSES Due to the nature of the dynamic analysis, detailed modeling of the welds is not practical in the global dryer FEM. Calculation of weld stresses requires a different approach.

For the Monticello replacement steam dryer, [a,c As discussed above, detailed weld stresses are not directly available from the finite element analysis.a,C[WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 7-6 WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 7-7 WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 7-8]aC 7.4 SUBMODELING TECHNIQUES Due to the nature of the acoustic analysis and the large number of unit solutions that are required, it is not practical to use a fine mesh for the acoustic structural analysis.

Rather a mesh density that can accurately predict the dynamic characteristics of the structure is used, but may require some additional analysis for localized regions of high stress. For areas where additional analysis is necessary using a more refined element mesh, a technique known as submodeling is used. The submodeling method a,c 7.5 2'C a,c WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 8-1 8 ANALYSIS RESULTS 8.1 GLOBAL MODEL As discussed previously, [ac A summary []ac 8.2 SUBMODELING Based on the results for the global model,]a,c.8.2.1[I I a,c I a~c 8.3 8.3.1[1I I2,C Ia,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 8-2 ax WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 8-3 Table 8-1 Summary of Results at EPU: Components Above the Support Ring a,c q r I 4- 4 4 1- 1 4 4- 4 4 4- 4 4 4- i i.4 4 I~ I 4 I- 'I i 4 i. 4 i 4 4- 4.4 4 V 4 4 4 4- 4 4 i 4- i WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 8-4 Table 8-2 Summarv of Results at EPU: ComDonents Below the SUnDort Ring axc WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 8-5 a,c Figure 8-1 [ ]8,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 8-6 a,c Figure 8-2 [ ]ac WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 8-7 a,c Figure 8-3 j I2,C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 8-8 a,c Figure 8-4 8 Ia,c WCAP-17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 8-9 a,c Figure 8-5 1 ]a,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 8-10 a,c Figure 8-6 a j 3 ,c WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I 8-11 a,_c Figure 8-7 1 121C WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 9-1 9

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

[WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision 1 10-1 10 REFERENCES

1. []ac 2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2004 Edition,Section III, Division 1.3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2004 Edition,Section II, Part D.4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.20, Rev. 3, "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing," March 2007.5. [pc, 6. [7.[I a~c pac 8. BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Guidance for Demonstration of Steam Dryer Integrity for Power Uprate. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA: May 2010. BWR-182-A.

WCAP- 17549-NP March 2013 Revision I