ML17187A801

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 0 to Dresden Lpci/Core Spray NPSH Analysis Post DBA LOCA: Short Term Design Basis
ML17187A801
Person / Time
Site: Dresden  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 02/13/1997
From:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17187A798 List:
References
DRE97-0012, DRE97-0012-R00, DRE97-12, DRE97-12-R, NUDOCS 9702240121
Download: ML17187A801 (33)
v • d • e


Text

..;,

.-. ~ : :

.,: -~ *.",-*:;.

  • .. ~;~.. *;.... -~ ;-.*.
  • . *.:;:-.~.;' '.

-... ~ ~.

.~:

.i.

-~ ' '.

i

, r

  • ~....
  • ' 'j

.Reference*2

-.f

.: l '..

~

  • ~

. ;, DRE97~P01?.*:';Dresdeq LP~UCpre *:spfay* NPSH Analysis*

. P.os~*DBj\\:.LoCA:** Shoft Term' --D~sign Basis/GE SIL

  • I:5J; R.ey_p~;. * -<.**.

-~.!;/._~_f_:._

... ;;;;J?'~Jf /~::. ~~i~:,.

_.\\;..

.. ' -~.

  • ~.

. '. ',.. _. -~; ::. ~'.

~...

  • -~ _; :.:.

. Calculation Title Page Calculation No.: DRE97-0012 Page 1 of 15

~ Safety Related D Regulatory Related D Non-Safety Related Calculation

Title:

Dresden LPCl/Core Spray NPSH Analysis Post-OBA LOCA: Short-Term Design Basis Station/Unit: Dresden Units 2 and 3 System Abbreviation: LPCl/CS Equipment No.: 2(3 }-1 '502A/B/C/D Project No.:

2(3}-1401A/B Rev: 0 Status:

QASerial.# or CHRON #.

NA Date:

Prep~red by:

~at_

f.JARfJlf f~LllS Date: 2/;3/9Z 7

v Revision Summary:

Electronic Calculation Data Files Revised:

RING.PLL 4L512C58.PLU 2L581 C58.PLU 3L2CSIL 1.PLU 4L512C51.PLU 3L2CSIL2.PLU Do any assumptions in this calculation require later verification?

DYes

~No

/

Reviewed by: }ttr W. P~

Date: 2/.J3L2z I

I Review Method: DETAILED-REVIEW Comments (C, NC or Cl): NC-

/

~~.&~-~L.L-I Approved by:L Date:_:; /;-:i, / 1}

I I

\\*t

Calculation Revision Page Calculation No.: DRE97-0012 Page 2 of 15 Rev:

Status:

QA Serial #or CHRON #

NA Date:

Prepared by:

Date:

Revision SL!mmary:

Electronic Calculation Data Files Revised:

Do any assumptions in this calculation require later verification?

OYes DNo..

Reviewed by:

Date:

Review Method:

Comments (C, NC or Cl):

Approved by:

Date:

/

Table of Contents Calculation No.: DRE97-0012 Description Title Page Revision Summary Table of Contents Purpose/Objective Methodology and Acceptance Criteria.

Assumptions Design Inputs References Calculations Summary and Conclusion's Tables Figures Attachment A: LPCl/Core Spray Suction Friction Losses

. FLO-SER.IES Model (17 pages)

Rev. 0 Page 3 of 15 Page No.

Sub-Page No.

1 2

3 4

4 6

7 9

10 11 12 14 A1

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012

.REV. O PAGE 4 1.0 PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE The purpose of this calculation is to determine if sufficient Net Positive Suction Head (NPSH) is available to the Dresden LPCI and Core Spray (CS) pumps following a DBA~LOCA. This will be accomplished by developing a time-dependent set of curves comparing the available containment pressure versus the pressure required to satisfy LPCl/CS pump NPSH requirements. The most limiting single failure (SF) scenarios will be evaluated, encompassing the various LP(:l/CS pump combinations that are possible post-LOCA. This calculation is limited in scope to the first 600 seconds following the accident, during which no credit is taken for operator action. The results of this calculation will be used to support a Dresden License Amendment request. Upon approval of this request, this calculation will represent a Design Basis Document.

2.0 METHODOLOGY AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA The most limiting single failures with respect to Peak Clad Temperature (PCT) are (Ref. l ):

l) SF-LPCI: Failure of a LPCI Injection Valve.

, This case results in two (2) *Core Spray pumps 'injecting at maximum flow with four (4) LPC.I pumps.running on minimum flow only.

2) SF-DG: Loss of a Diesel Generator This case results in two (2) LPCI pumps and one ( 1) Core Spray pump

~njectlng at maximum flow (Design Input l).

The most limiting ~ingle failure.with regards to LPCl/CS pump NPSH, however, is failure of the LPCI Loop Select Logic *(SF-LSL). This scenario_ involves the LPCI pumps injecting into a broken reactor recirculation loop and is discussed in detail in GE SI~ 151. From a PCT perspective, this case is identical to the SF-LPCI case since the net result of each sc~11ario is two Core Spray pumps injecting into the core with no contribution from the LPCI pumps. SF-LSL is the NPSH limiting scenario due to the LPCl/CS pumps operating at th.e highest achievable flow rates, resulting in the maximum pump suction losses and NPSH requirements. Both the SF-LSL anq Sf.,DG single failure cases will be evaluated in this calculation. The SF-LPCI case is bounded*

by the SF-LSL case and is not in.eluded.

The minimum suppression pool pressure required to meet LPCl/CS pump NPSH requirements will be.determined for both the SF-LSL and SF-DG single failure cases. The minimum pool pressure required will be compared fo the minimum pool pressure available post-LOCA for both cases (Refs. 2, 4). if the 'pressure available is greater than the pressure required, then adequate NPSH exists. If the available pressure is less t~an the pressure required, then the potential exists for the pumps to cavitate, resulting in reduced flows. Cavitation tests performed by the vendor indicate the LPCl/CS pumps can run at least one hour in full cavitation without incurring damage to the pump internals or resulting in any pump performance degradation (Ref. 23). Therefore, LPCI/CS pump cavitation for a period up to one hour is acceptable.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 REV. 0 PAGE 5 LP~I/CS pump flow requirements are as follows:

SF-LSL For the SF-LSL (SF-LPCI) case, a two-pump CS flow of ~11,300 gpm results in a PCT of

~2030°F, which occurs -170 seconds post-accident (Refs. 6, 22). For the *purposes of this calculation, a two-pump CS flow of~ 11,300 gpm for the first 200 seconds is required.

After PCT has been achieved, a two-pump CS flow of ~9000 gpm (nominal flow) is required for reflooding purposes (Ref 7, Section 9.0).

SF-DG For the SF-DG case, a two-pump LPCI flow of ~9000 gpm and a single Core Spray pump

    • .flow. of ~5650 gpm are required for the first 200 seconds post:-LOCA (Ref 7, table 4.4).

. * *After PCT has been achieved, the flow entering the core is needed only for reflood.(level) purposes. Therefore, the SF-DG case has the same total ECCS.flow requirement as the SF-LSL case above, which: is a combined LPCI/C~ flow of ~9000 gBm (Ref. 7, Section. 9.0).

  • This calcula~ion is conservative due to use of the following in pt.its:.

..

  • Maximum suppression. pool temperature response-* !leferences 2 and 4 determine maximum suppression pool temperatures post-LOCA, thus maximizing the vapor pressure and

-m.intmizing NPSH margin.

  • *' Minimum suppressi.on pool pr~ssure response - References i and 4 utilize inputs that mini~iie

'suppression. pool pressures, thus miriirnizing overpressure credit and minimizing NPSJ-l 'margin:

  • Technical Specifications minimum suppression pqol level including maximum drawdown, minimizing elevation head and minimizing NPSH margin
  • Maximum LPCI and Core Spray pump flow conditions (unthrottled system, reactor pressure at 0 psid), maximizing suction piping friction losses and.NP.SHRequired (NPSHR).
  • Increased clean, commercial s.teel suction piping friction losses by l 5% to account for potential aging effects, thus maximizing suction losses.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 REV. 0 PAGE 6 3.0 ASSUMPTIONS

1. LPCl/CS pump suction piping friction losses (excluding strainer losses) were developed for a single flow case using* a FLO-SERIES model of the. Dresden ECCS ring header and pump suction piping (Ref. 8). This piping model was then run at the various LPCl/CS pump combinations and flows as required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation (Attachment A). The model that was developed uses clean, commercial steel pipe. In order to compensat~ for the increased loss due to the potential effects of aging, the resulting friction losses from the model were increased by 15%. This is consistent with discussions provided in References 9 and l 0.
2. To account for strainer plugging, one of the four torus strainers is assumed 100% blocked, while the remaining three strainers are assumed clean. While the torus strainers are not included in the FLO-SERIES model discussed in Assumption 1, blocking a strainer translates to blocking a torus-to-ring header entrance leg. This is accomplished in the model by closing one of the torus legs (Torus 1-4). Based on previou*s sensitivity analyses, Torus-4 was chosen for-maximum effect on,both LPCI and Core Spray sucti!)n losses for all pump combinations.
3. Reference
  • 11 developed LPCI system resistance curves and expected maximum operating flows for Unit 2. It is assumed that the Unit 3 results are similar based on identical pumps and elevations, and similar discharge piping layouts.
4. Reference 12 developed Core Spray *system resistance curves and expected maximum operating flows utilizing actual Core Spray pump performance. For the Core Spray loop with the.least system resistance, the original vendor pump curve (Ref. 13) was plotted with the system curve developed. in Reference 12. The operating point was determined to be the same as thar developed in the calculation. Therefore, the maximum Core Spray system flow of 5800 gpm used in Design Input l is appropriate.
5. GE SIL 151 includes a case of all 4 LPCI pumps injecting into both reactor recirculation loops simultaneously, with one loop broken. While it is expected that this case may result in slightly higher LPCI pump flow rates than the case being evaluated, a significant amount of water will..

be* injected into the reactor through the intact loop. Therefore, any reduction in Core Spray system flow due to.cavitation below the minimum required flow will be made up by the LPCI flow injecting into the reactor. Therefore, it is expected that the PCT will not be challenged in this case and it,will n*ot be explored in this calculation.

6. The calculations in References 2 and 4 have been performed to minimize the extent of overpressure that would exist post-LOCA, and are more appropriate with respect to the prediction of minim.um containment pressure than are the original design basis calculations.

While different decay heat standards are applied in these calculations, the peak* containment temperatures being predicted are consistent with the original design basis temperature predictions. The pressure response is not a function of decay heat models, but is primarily only affected by the pool temperature. The new calculations incorporate.analysis* assumptions to minimize overpressure that are consistent with NRC Information Notice 96-55. The use of this data is thus conservative with respect to overpressure and minimizes NPSH margin.

!CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 REV. 0 4.0 DESIGN INPUTS

1. a. Maximum LPCI and Core Spray pump flows used are as follows:

CASE SF-LSL LPCI 3-pump flows lit LPCI 4-pump Maximum Flow m

5800 16, 750 5610/11, 140 20,600 Ref. 12 Ref. 11 Att. T Ref. l l Att. S CASE SF-DG Maximum Flow m

5800 11,600 PAGE 7 Ref. 12 Ref. l l Att.R

2. Initial suppression pool temperature is 95°F, the maximum allowable pool temperature under normai operating conditions (Ref. 15). This value is used as the initial pool temperature in Refererices 2 and 4 to maximize pool peak temperature, and is used as a minimum temperature during the LOCA in Reference 8 to maximize pipin~ friction losses (maximum viscosity).
3. Numerous short-term suppression pool temperature and* pressure responses were generated in Reference 2 based on a containm~nt model developed by General Electric. These cases consis.ted of 2 LPCI pumps and 1 Core Spray pump operating under maximum flow conditions, which defines the SF-DG case.* The int~nt of these cases was to determine not-only the maximum pool temperatures expected post-LOCA, but to vary the inputs in such a way as to produce a coupled minimum pool pressure response. 1n this manner, the temperature-pressure combination that. is bounding for NPSH was determined to be Case 2A I - I 00% mixing. A tabular representation of the suppression pool temperature and pressure responses is provided
  • in Reference 3 and is included in Table 3 of this.calculation.
4. An additional suppression pool response case was generated in Reference 4 consisting of 4 LPCI pumps and 2 Core Spray pumps operating under maximum flow conditions. To simulate the SF-LSL case, the LPCI pump,,flow out of *the broken reactor recirculation loop was modelled.similar to a containment* spray, thus reducing containment and suppression pool pressure below that determined in previous cases. This bounding case is Case 6A2 - 60%

mixing, and is included in Table 2 of this calculation..

5. LPCI/CS.pump suction piping friction losses were developed for a single flow case using a FLO-SERIES Version 4.11 model of the Dresden ECCS ring header and LPCI/CS pump suction piping (Ref 8). This piping model was then utilized for the various LPCI/CS pump combinations and flows as. required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation (Attachment A).
6. The minimum suppression pool level elev'ation using a maximum drawdown of 2. I ft. is 491' 5", or 491.4 ft. (Ref. 16).

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-00l2 REV. O PAGE 8

7. The suppression pool strainers have a 100% clean head loss of 5.8 ft. @10,000 gpm (Ref. 17).
8. LPCI a!ld Core Spray pump centerline elevation is 478. l ft. (Refs. 18, 19).
9. NPSH Available (NPSHA) is calculated using the following equation:

NPSHA = 144 V (Pt - Pv) + Z - hL - hstrain (based on Ref. 20, p. 2.216) where:

Pt

= suppression pool pressure.in psia Pv

= saforation pressure in psia v

= specific volume in ft3 /lb hL

= suction friction losses in feet hstrain, = head loss across strainer in feet

.z

= static head of water above pump inlet in feet

10. NPSHR values at various LPCUCS pump flows are taken from the published NPSHR curves developed by the original equipment manufacturer and provided in References 13 and 14..

These values are summarized in the table below:

  • Pump Flow NPSHR (gpm)

(ft.)

5100 31.0 5150 3 l.5 5570 35.8 5800 38.5 6100 42.0*

  • extrapolated l l. Saturation pressures and specific volumes at various temperatures are taken from Reference 21 and are included in Tables 1 and 2.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 REV. 0 PAGE 9

5.0 REFERENCES

1. "Impact of Reduced LPCS Runout Flow on the Limiting Dresden LOCA Analysis", Siemens Power Corp. letter JHR.:96:446 from J. H. Riddle to R. J. Chin dated November 5, 1996.
2. "Dresden Units 2 and 3 *Containment Analyses of the DBA-LOCA Based on Long-Term LPCVContainment Cooling System Configuration of One LPCVContainment Cooling System Pump and 2 CCSW Pumps", GE report GE-NE-T2300740-2, December 1996
3. "Transmittal of Digitized Suppression Pool Temperature and Suppression Chamber Pressure

. Time Histories", GE letter from S. Mintz to J. Nash dated February 5, 1997

4. "Ores.den Containment Analyses for Limiting Short-Term LOCA Event", GE letter from S.

Mintz lo J. Nash dated January 28, 1997

5. "Transmittal of Digitized Suppression Pool Temperature and Suppression Chamber Pressure
  • Time Histories", GE letter from S. Mintz to J. Nash dated January 28, 1997
6. "Dresden LOCA PCT Impact ofNPSH Limiting ECCS rlow", letter NFS:BSA:96-165 from R.. Tsai to R. Freeman dated December 20, 1996
7. EMF-95-140(P) Re\\:'.. 1, "LOCA Break Spectrum* Analysis for Dresden Units 2 and 3",

Siemens Power Corporation (Proprietary), September 1996.

8. "E~CS Suction, Hydraulic Analysis without the Strainers", Duke Engineering & Services talculation Number DRE96'."024 l dated December 20, 1996
9. Hydraulic Institute Engineering Data Book, Second Edition, 1990
10. Cameron Hydraulic Data, _17th Edition, Ingersoll-Rand Company,. 1988 *
  • 11. "LPCI System Derivation of System Resistance Curves, Pump Curves, and Comparison to LOCA Analysis - Unit 2", Dresden Calculation No. DRE96-021 I, Rev. 2, January 29,_.1997
12. "Evaluation of Core Spray Capabilities and Surveillance Basis", Dresden Calcu.lation No.

DRE96-0207,*dated December 17, 1996

.. 13.. Bingham Pump Curve Nos. 25213 (2A), 25243 (2B}, 25231 (3A) and 25242 (3B)' for Model 12xi6xl4.5 CVDS, Dresden Station Core Spray pumps

14. Bingham Pump Curve Nos. 25355-7, 27367-8, 27383, 25384-5 for Model 12xl4x14.5.

CVDS, Dresden Station.LPCI pumps

15. Dresden Unit 2 Technical Specifications, DP~-19, Section 3.7.A. l.c. I
16. "Submergence of LPCI Discharge Line Post LOCA - Dresden Units 2 & 3", letter from S.

Eldridge to C. Schroeder dated September 29, 1992, CHRON# O 115532

17. "Supporting Calculations for the ECCS Suction Strainer Modification", Nutech *File No.

64.313.3119 Rev. 1, dated June 22, 1983

18. Sargent & Lundy Drawing M-547, LPCI pump __ suction
19. Sargent & Lundy Drawing M-549, Core Spray pump suction
20. "Pump Handbook, 2nd Edition, Karassik, Igor et. al., 1986
21. ASME Steam Tables;* 1967
22. "Dresden Units 2.and 3 LOCA-ECCS Analysis MAPLHGR Results for ANF 9x9 Fuel",

ANF-88-191, Supplement 4, Siemens Power Corporation, dated November_ 1996.

23. Cavitation Test Report - 12xl4xl4-1/2 CVDS Pump", Bingham Pump Co., May 22. 1969

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 REV. O PAGE 10 6.0 CALCULATIONS The equation presented in Design Input 9 can be rewritten to solve for the minimum suppression pool pressure required to meet pump NPSH requirements by setting the NPSHA equal to the NPSHR as follows:

where Pt, min = (NPSHR-z + htotat.l + Pv 144 xv h101a1 = friction (hL) + strainer (hs1rain) lo~s (Attachment A) hstrain = 5.8 ft. @ 10,000 gpm clean

  • (Design Input 7)

Z

= 491.4 ft. -478.l ft.= 13.3 ft.

(Design Inputs 6, 8)

NPSHR = various (Design Input 10)

(1)

Solving Equation 1, the minimum suppression pool pressure required to meet LPCI and. Core Spray pump NPSH requirements for the SF-LSL case is calculated (Table 1). Similarly, the minimum pool pressure required to meet LPCI and Core Spray pump NPSH requirements for the SF-DG case is calculated (Table 2). These results are plotted in Figure 1 and 2, along with the available suppression.. pool pressure (Refs. 2, 4).

  • It can be seen that for the SF-DG case (Table 2, Figure 2), adequate suppression pool pressure is available to satisfy LPCl/CS pump NPSH requirements for the entire 10 minute period. That is, no LPCl/CS pump cavitation will occur, nor will any flow reduction take place.

For the SF-LS.L case (Table 1, Figt1re 1), no cavitation is expected to occur for the first 290.

seconds post-LOCA. During this time, the LPCI and CS pumps will deliver maximum flow (Design Input I}: Since PCT occurs at < 200 seconds, the cs* pumps will deliver adequate flow to ensure no impact on PCT. After 290 seconds; the LPCI and CS pumps may cavitate, resulting in reduced flows. The.CS pump NPSH deficit reaches a maximum of 10.0 feet at 533 seconds,

  • and is 9.8 feet at the 600 second mark. In order to estimate the reduced flow at which the CS pumps will operate under these conditions, a flow estimate of 5100 gpm per CS pump is used in conjunction with Equation l:

cs Total CS LPCI Flow Suction Flow cs Required Available cs Per Pool Loss Per Static Vapor Specific Pump Torus torus NPSH Time *Pump Temp htotal Pump Head Pressure Volume NPSHR Pressure Pressure Margin (sec)

(gpm)

(oF)

(ft)

(gpm)

(fl)

(psi a)

(ft3/lb)

(ft)

(psi a)

(psia)

(ft) 533 5800 1-!7.8 17.90 5150 13.3 3.52 0.01633 38.5 21.85 17.61

-10.0 533 5100 147.8 15.57 5150 13.3 3.52 0.01633 31.0 17.68 17.67

-0. I 600 5800 148.7 17.90 5150 13.3 3.60 0.01634 38.5 21.92 17.76

-9.8 600 5100 1-!8.7 15.57 5150 13.3 3.60 0.01634 31.0

17. 7-t 17.76.

0.0

l.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 REV. o PAGE 11 Since the NPSH margin at 5100 gpm is essentially 0 feet, it is at this flow that the NP SHA equals

. the vendor published NPSHR. Under this NPSH condition, the pump exhibits incipient cavitation but is not yet in the full cavitation stage. As full cavitation and total head collapse have not yet been achieved, pump flow will continue to increase, i.e. the pump is expected to operate above

  • 5100 gpm. It is therefore conservative to use the flow at which NPSHA equals NPSHR to bound the minimum flow rate at which the CS pump will operate. Thus, under the most limiting scenario for NPSH, Core Spray pump flow will reduce from a flow of 5800 gpm at ~ 290 seconds to a minimum flow of about 5100 gpm at~ 533 seconds post-LOCA.

7.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS An NPSH analysis was performed for the LPCI/CS pumps under short-term post-accident

  • conditions as outlined in References 2 and 4. Specifically, the limiting single failure scenarios of
  • SF-L.SL and SF.-DG were examined. Selecting inp,uts to minimize NPSH margiri, it was determined that no pump cavitation will occur in the SF-DG case. Therefore, all flow
requirements described in Section 2.0 are met.

For the SF-LSL case, no CS pump cavitation is predicted for the first 290 seconds post-LOCA, thus ensuring adequate flow for PCT considerations. After 290 seconds, the CS pumps may cavitate; ho~ever, a minimum flow of 5100 gpm.per CS pump is expected in the 290-600 second time period, greater than the require,d flows _as described in Sectio_n 2.0. The total time the CS

.* pumps may cavitate is approximately 5 minutes, significantly less than the one hour allowed in

  • Section 2.0.

Therefore, it is concluded t.hat adequate NPSH exists to ensure _the LPCI/CS pumps can perform their safety function under all accident scenarios.

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97_~0012 REV. 0 PAGE 12 Table 1 - SF-LSL Case 6A2 - 60% Mixing SF Loop Select Logic - 4/2 SF Loop Select Logic - 3/2 5150 gpm/LPCI - 5800 gpm/CS 5570 gpm/LPCI (5610 gpm for single LPCI) 5800 gpm/CS Time Pool Pool Specific Pv Static LPCI LPCI LPCI LPCI cs cs cs cs LPCI LPCI LPCI LPCI cs cs cs cs (sec) Press Temp Vo fume (psia) Head NPSHR Total Preqd NPSH NPSHR Total Preqd NPSH NPSHR Total Preqd NPSH NPSHR Total Preqd NPSH (psig)

(°F)

(ft3/lb).

(feet)

(feet)

Loss (psig) Margin (feet)

Loss (psig) Margin (feet)

Loss.. (psig) Margin (feet)

Loss (psig) Margin (feet)

(feet)

(feet)

(feet)

(feet)

(feet)

(feet)

(feet) 16 21.67 105.8 0.01615 1.13 13.3 31 23.14 116.6 0.01619 1.54 13.3 44 24.00 123.7 0.01622 1.87 13.3 31.5 18.68 2.96 49.1 3*a.5 17.90 5.63 42.9 35.8 17.21 4.18 46.3 38.5 15.31 4.52 45.5 51 24.25 126.7 0.01623 2.03 13.3 31.5 18.68 3.11 49.4 38.5 17.90 5.77 43.2 35.8 17.21 4.32 46.6 38.5 15.31 4.66 45.8 59 24.36 128:7 0.01624 2.15 13.3 31.5 18.68 3.21 49.5 38.5 17.90 5.88 43.2 35:8 17.21 4.43 46.6 38.5 15.31 4.77 45.8 79 24.48 131.2 0.01625 2.30 13.3 31.5 18.68 3.35 49.4 38.5 17.90 6.01 43.2 35.8 17.21 4.56 46.6 38.5 15.31 4.90 45.8 105 24.50 132.3 0.01626 2.36 13.3 31.5 18.68 3.42 49.4 38.5 17.90 6.07 43.1 35.8 17.21 4.63 46.5 38.5 15.31 4.97 45.7 134 23.30 133.7 0.01626 2.45 13.3 31.5 18.68 3:50 46.4 38.5 17.90 6.16 "40.2 35.8 17.21 4.71 43.5 38.5 15.31 5.05 42.7 161 20.64 135.7 0.01627 2.58 13.3 31.5. 18.68 3.62, 39.9 38.5. 17.90 6.28 33.7 35.8 17.21 4.83 37.0 38.5 15.31 5.17 36.2 188 16.29 137.6 0.01628 2.72 13.3 31.5 18.68 3.74 29.4 38.5 17.90 6.40 2~.2 35.8 17.21 4.95 26.6

. 38.5 15.31 5.29 25.8 223 11.68 139.4 0.01629 2.84 13.3 31.5 18.68 3.87 18.3 38.5 17.90 6.52. 12.1 35.8 17.21 5.07 15.5 38.5 15.31 5.41 14.7 254 8.93 140.7 0.01630 2.94 13.3 31.5 18.68 3.96 11.7 38.5 17.90 6.61 5.4 35.8 17.21 5.16 8.8 38.5 15.31 5.50 8.0 290 6.70 142.1 0.01630. 3.05 13.3 31.5 18.68 4.06 6.2 38.5 17.90 6.71 0.0

. 35.8 17.21 5.26 3.4 38.5 15.31 5.60 2.6 337 5.14 143.6 0.01631 3.17 13.3 31.5 18.68 4.17 2.3 38.5. 17.90 6.82

-3.9 35.8 17.21 5.37

-0.5 38.5 15.31 5.71

-1.3 385 4.34 144.9 0.01632 3.27 13.3 31.5 18.68 4.27 0.2 38.5 17.90 6.92

-6.1 35.8 17.21 5.47

-2.7

. 38.5 15.31 5.81

-3.5 442 3.83 146.3 0.01632 3.39 13.3 31.5 18.68 4.38

-1.3 38.5. 17.90 7.03

-7.5 35.8 17.21 5.58

-4.1 38.5 15.31 5.92

-4.9 497 3.13 147.3 0.01633 3.48 13.3 31.5 18.68 4.46

-3.1 38.5 17.90 7.11

-9.4 35.8

  • 17.21 5.66

-6.0 38.5 15.31 6.00

-6.8 533 2.91 147.8 0.01633 3.52 13.3 31.5 18.68 4:50

-3.7 38.5 17.90 7.15

-10.0 35.8 17.21 5.71

-6.6 38.5 15.31 6.05

-7.4 600. 3.06 148.7 0.01634 3.60 13.3. 31.5 18.68 4.58

-3.6 38.5 17.90 7.22: -9;8 35.8 17.21 5.78

-6.4 38.5 15.31 6.12

-7.2

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97~0012 REV. 0 PAGE 13 Table 2 - SF-DG Case 2A1 -100% Mixing SF Diesel Generator - 2/1 5800 gpm/LPCI - 5800 gpm/CS Time Pool Pool Specific Pv Static LPCI LPCI LPCI LPCI cs cs cs cs (sec) Press Temp Volume (psia) Head NPSHR Total Preqd NPSH NPSHR Total Preqd NPSH (psig)

(oF)

(ft3/lb)

(feet)

(feet)

Loss (psig) Margin (feet)

Loss (psig)

Margin (feet)

(feet)

(feet)

. (feet) 19 23.84 121.3 0.01621 1.75 13.3 34 24.47 130.5 0.01625 2.25 13.3 50 24.28 132.5 0.01626 2.38 13.3

  • 38.5 12.28. 3.69 48.2 38.5. 9.31 2.42 51.2 70 24.05 133.0 0.01626 2.41 13.3 38.5 12.28 3.71 47.6 38.5 9.31 2.44 50.6 101 24.06 134.5 0:01627 2.50 13.3
  • 38.5 12.28 3.81 47.4 38.5 9.31 2.54 50.4

. 155 23.90 136.7 0.01628 *2.65 13.3 38.5 12.28 3.94 46.8 38.5 9.31 2.67 49.8 182 22.87 137.9 0.01628 2.74 13.3 38.5 12.28 4.02 44.2 38.5 9.31 2.75 47.2 254 19.17 139.6 0.01629 2.86 13.3 38.5 12.28 4.14 35.3 38.5 9.31 2.87 38.2 304 15.69 140.9 0.01630 2.96 13.3 38.5 12.28 4.23 26.9 38.5 9.31 2.96 29.9 367 11.86 142.7 0.01631 3.10 13.3 38.5 12.28 4.3f,3 17.6 38.5 9.31 3.09 20.6 402 10.17 143.7 0.01631 3.18 13.3 38.5 12.28 4.43 13.5 38.5 9.31 3.17 16.4 438 8.81 144.8 0.01632 3.27 13:3. 38.5 12.28 4.52 10.1 38.5 9.31 3.25 13.1 506 6.96 146.6 0.01633 3.42 13.3 38.5. 12.28 4.66 5.4 38.5 9.31 3.40 8.4 551 6.18 147.6 0.01633 3:50 13.3 38.5 12.28 4.74 3.4 38.5 9.31 3.48

  • 6.4 597 5.55 148.6 0.01634 3.59 13.3 38.5 12.28 4.83 1.7 38.'5 9.31 3.56 4.7

25 20 ii

'iii B:

41.. 15

I Ill Ill 41..

Cl. c 41 E c 10

  • c 0 u 5

0 10 I CALCULATION NO. DRE9'7-0012 REV. o*

__ L----

Pool Pressure - Case 6A2 60%

6 LPCI Required Pressure - SIL 412 a

CS Required Pressure - SIL 412 M

LPCI Required Pressure - SIL 312 0

CS Required Pressure - SIL 312 Pool Temperature

/

/

v

/,,,

I....;

/

Li

/

~

/

.. *.~

-~--

~

100 Time (sec)

>\\

~

~

Figure 1 - SF-LSL *

.,.../

\\ _\\

PAGE 14 rk I\\. -

.~

-............ i---

150 140 130 120 110 100 1000

-I ID 3

'tJ ID..

Al -

c..

ID -

0

25 20 ii

'iii

.8:

15 Ql :;

Ill Ill Ql Q. c Ql E

i::

10.
  • c 0 u 5

0 I CALCULATION NO. DRE97"'.0012 REV. 0 I

I Pool Pressure - Case 2A 1 100%

,_ -*-- LPCI Required Pressure~ SFDG CS Required Pressure - SFDG Pool Temperature

_/,..

I'

  • /

/

/

I' I'

/

I I..... 1-I 10 I

l I

T I

I i..-- -

-l I I 100 Time (sec)

"\\

~

~

Figure 2 - SF-DG

--\\

~ -

PAGE 15 (FINAL) I

~,,,,,,,.

//

\\ \\

I\\

~

~

150 140 130 -I 3 "1::1 Ill a i:: ;..

120 ~

110 100 1000

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 REV. O ATTACHMENT A LPCI/Core Spray Suction Friction. Losses FLO-SERIES.Model PAGE Al LPCI/Core Spray pump suction piping friction *losses were developed using a FLO-SERIES model of the Dresden ECCS ring header and pump suction piping (Ref 8). The nodal diagram of the piping model is*included as Figure Al. The model was run at the various LPCI and Core Spray pump combinations and flows listed below as required to support the cases evaluated in this calculation. The input and output of the FLO-SERIES runs are included in this Attachment.

Total Total Flow Flow LPCI LPCI cs cs Per Per Strainer 'LPCI Loss* Suction cs Loss Suction LPCI cs Loss#

Friction +15% Loss* Friction +15% Loss*

. FLO-SERIES LPCI Pump cs Pump h1traln Loss hL htotal'

  • Loss hL htotal Linc-up*

Case Pumps (!IDm) Pumps (IIDm)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

(ft)

Filename 211 2

5800 l

5800 l.95 8.98 10.33 12.28 6.40 7.36 9.31. 2L58 l C58.PLU 4/2SIL 4

5150 2

5800 6.68 10_4j I l.99 18.68 9.76 I l.22 17.90 4L512C58.PLU '

3/2SIL 3

5610 2

5800 5.18 9.10 10.46 15.64 8.81 10.1~

15.31 3L2CSILl.PLU I-pp 3/2SIL 3

5570 2

5800

'5.18 10.46 12.03 17.21 8.57 9.85 15.03 3L2CSIL2.PLU 2-pp 4/2SIL 4

5150

  • 2 5100

. 6.11 10.07 11.58 17.68 8.22 9.46 15.57 4L5 l 2C5 l.PLU

=

Stramer Loss (l<low per strainer/I 0,000 2pm) 1 5.8 ft.

    • Total Loss = (Loss +15%) + Strainer Loss Table A-1

<-'I

I CALCULATION NO. DRE97-0012 u~~~~~~~--.

OORE SPRAY SUCT10N l8 TO lPCl SUCTION JC/D p

TO LPCI SUCTION lA.

a l

REV. 0 RINGHEAceR a

F TO CORE SPRAY SUCTION JA N

s LPCl SUCTION lB PAGEA2 Figu~e /1 l: ECCS Suction Nodal Diagram i~cluding the Ring Header **

Company: corned Project:

by: palas LINELIST: RING dated: 12/18/96 LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/02/97 2L5Blc~~

02/03/97 DEVIATION: 1.15 %.

after: 4 iterations 2 LPCI @5800 and 1 CS @5800 Injecting. One blocked strainer Volumetric flow Fluid NODE*

R u

PIPELINE Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3

?IPE-FLO rev 4.11 rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines..

properties in the DEMAND gprn 5800 5800 FLOW gprn 5611 5686 6103 first specification were used.

NODE s

NET NET DEMAND gprn 5800 FLOWS IN.: 0 gprn FLOWS OUT: 17400 gprn FLOWS OUT: 17400 gprn PRESSURE SET SOURCE psig A

0 B

0 c

0 FLOWS IN: 17400 gprn FLOWS OUT:.o gprn FLOWS IN: 17400 gpm Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision 0 PageA3 pq.

LINEUP NODES NODE ELEVATION DEMAND ft gprn A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

0 I

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

. o-Q 0

R 0

> 5800 s

0

> 5800 T

0 u

0

> 5800

?1:?:=:-::-:...J ::ev -l. ~l 2L581C58 02/03/97 PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

p 0

0 p

0 0

  • -0.497

-1.153

  • -0.510

-1.184

  • -0.588

-1. 364

  • -0.599

-1. 389

  • -0.508

-1.17.9

  • -0.642

-1.491

  • -0.622

-1. 44 4

  • -0.592

-1.374

  • -0.601

-1.396

  • -1. 4 65

-3.399

  • "-2.194

-5. 094.

  • -3.87

-8.983

  • -1.025

-2.38

  • -2.756

-6.397 Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision 0 Page A'-f

~Cl

LINEUP PIPELINE FROM TO

  • S-3A I

N CS3B-16 T

u CS3B-18 M

T HPCI K

0 LPCI3A Q

R LPCI3A/B J

Q LPCI3B Q

s LPCI3C/D.

L p

Ring-1*

E I

Ring-2 I*

<-> F

_Ring-3 F

J Ring-4 K

J Ring-5 G

K Ring-6 G

L Ring~7 L

<-> H Ring-8 H

M Ring-9 E.

M Torus-1 A

E Torus-2 B

F Torus-3

~c G'

Torus..,-4 D

H PIPE-~LC rev 4.11 PIPELINES 2L581C58 FLOW gpm closed 5800 5800 closed 5800 11600 5800 closed 1327 1327 7014 4586 4586 1516 1516 1516 4284 5611 5686 6103 closed 02/03/97 VEL dP Hl ft/sec psi g ft 0

0 0

10.2

1. 73 4.016 8.086 0.424 0.984 0

0 0

13.51 0.730

1. 694 8.773 0.822
1. 909 13.51 2.405 5.583 0

0 0

1.004 0.011 0.026 1.004 0.002 0.005 5.304 0.132 0.307 3.469 0.020 0.046 3.469 0.035 0.080 1.147 0.004 0.010 L 147 0.007 0.015 1.147 0.003 0.007 3.24 0.105 0.243 6.793 0.497 1.153 6.884 0.510 1.184 7.388 0.588

1. 364 0

0 0

Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision O Page A 5 pg 3

Company: corned Project:

by: palas LINELIST: RING dated: 01/08/97 LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/28/97 4L512C58 02/03/97 DEVIATION: 0.00898 %

after: 5 iterations 4 LPCI @5150 and 2 CS @5800 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND NODE gprn N

5800 0

p 10300 R

s 5150 u

NET PIPELINE FLOW gprn Torus-1

<<<* 10501 Torus-2 10632 Torus-3 11068 NET DEMAND gpm 0.0001 5150 5800 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 32200 gprn*

FLOWS OUT: 32200 gpm PRESSURE SET SOURCE psig A

0 B

0 c

0 FLOWS IN: 32201 gpm

FLOWS OUT
0 gpm FLOWS IN: 32201 gpm Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision 0 Page AG

LINEUP NODES NODE ELEVATION DEMAND ft gpm A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0

.H 0

I 0

J 0

K

  • o L

0 M

0 N

0

,> 5800 0

0

> 0.0001 p

0

> 10300 Q

  • o R

0

> 5150 s

0

> 5150 T

0 u

0

> 5800

?IPE-~LO ~ev 4.11 4L512C58 02/03/97 PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

p 0

0 p

0 0

  • -1.739

-4.037

  • -1.783

-4.138

  • -1. 932

-4.484

  • -2.052

-4.763'

  • -1.792

-4.16

  • -1. 948

-4.521

  • -1.942

-4.507

  • -2.06

-4.782

  • -2.049

-4.755

  • -2.209

-5.127

  • . -1.942

""'4.507

  • -2.341

.-5.433

  • -2.596

-6.026*

  • -3.172

-7.. 362

  • -4.493

-10.43

  • -2.473

-5.74

  • -4.203
..9.756 Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision O Page A 7 pa -

LINEUP PIPELINES

. 4L512C58 02/03/97 PIPELINE FROM TO FLOW VEL dP Hl

  • S-3A gprn ft/sec psi g ft I

N 5800 8.086 0.417

o. 967 CS3B-16 T

u 5800 10.2

1. 73 4.016 CS3B-18 M

T 5800 8.086 o.~24 0.984 HPCI K

0 0

0 0

0 LPCI3A Q

R 5150

11. 99 0.576

. 1. 336 LPCI3A/B J

Q 10300 7.79 0.649

1. 506 LPCI3B Q

s 5150

11. 99
1. 897 4.404 LPCI3C/D L

p 10300 7.79 0.281

0. 651 Ring-1 E

I 3020 2.284 0.053 0.124 Ring-2 F

I 2780 2.103 0.010 0.022 Ring-3 F

J 7852 5.938 0.165 0.383 Ring-4 K

J 2448 1.852 0.006

0. 013 Ring-5 G

K 2448

1. 852 0.010
0. 023 Ring-6 G

L 8619 6.519 0.128 0.298 Ring-7 H

L 1681

1. 271 0.008 0.01-9 Ring-8 M

<-> H 1681

1. 271 0.004 0.008 Ring...,.9 E

M 7481 5.658 0.310 0.719 Torus-1 A

E 10501 12.71 1.739 4.037

'.forus-2 B

  • F 10632
  • 12. 87 1.783 4.138 Torus-3 c

G 11068 13.4

1. 932
4. 484.

Torus-4 D

H closed 0

0 0

. Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision O Page Ag*

?I?E-~~2 rev

~.11 po

Company: corned Project:

by: palas LINELIST: RING dated: 01/08/97 LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/29/97 3L2CSIL1 02/03/97 DEVIATION: 0.0161 %.

after: 6 iterations 2 LPCI @5570, 1 LPCI @5610, 2 CS @5800. One Blocked strainer.

Single pp loss Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE N

p u

PIPELINE Torus-1 Torus-2 Torus-3

?!FE-fL~ =ev 4.11 DEMAND gprn 5800 11140 5800 FLOW gpm

. 9309.

9365 9675 NODE 0

s DEMAND gprn 0.0001 5610 FLOWS IN: 0 gprn FLOWS OUT: 28350 gprn NET FLOWS OUT: 28350 gprn NET PRESSURE SET SOURCE psig A

0 B

0 c

0 FLOWS IN: 28349 gprn FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm FLOWS IN: 28349 gprn Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision 0 Page A Cf,

pq -

LINEUP NODES NODE ELEVATION DEMAND ft gpm A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

0 I

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

o.

N 0

> 5800 0

0

> 0.0001 p

0

> 11140 Q

0 s

0

> 5610 T

0 u

0.,

> 5800 P!FE-~Lo rev 4.11 3L2CSIL1 02/03/97 PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

p 0

0 p

0 0

  • -1. 367

-3.173

  • -1.383

-3. 211

  • -1.476

-3.427

  • -1.642

-3.811

  • -1.398

-3.246

  • -1.476

-3.427

  • -1.476

-3.427

  • -1. 64 6

-3.821

  • -1. 64

-3.807

  • -1.815

-4.213

  • -1.476

-3.427

  • -1.974

-4.583

  • -1.669

-3.875

  • -3.92

-9.099

  • -2.064

-4.791

  • :..3. 794

-8.808 Calculation No. DRE97-0012-Revision O Page A/ 6 P<l

LINEUP PIPELINE FROM TO I

N CS3B-16 T

u CS3B-18 M

'T HPCI K

0 LPCI3A Q

R LPCI3A/B J

Q LPCI3B Q

s LPCI3C/D L

p Ring-1 E

I Ring-2 F

I Ring-3 F

J Ring-4 J

<-> K Ring..,5 K

<-> G Ring-6 G.

L Ring-7 H

L Ring-8 M

<-> H Ring-9 E

M Torus-1 A

E Torus-2 B

F Torus-3 c

G Torus-4 D

H

?IPE-fLO rev 4. 11 PIPELINES 3L2CSIL1 FLOW gpm 5800 5800 5800 0

closed 5610 5610 11140 2295 3505 5860 250.1 250.1 9925 1215 1215 7015 9309 9365

  • 9675 closed 02/03/97 VEL dP Hl ft/sec psi g ft 8.086 0.417 0.967 10.2
1. 73 4.016 8.086 0.424 0.984 0

0 0

0 0

0 4.243 0.193 0.449 13.06 2.251 5.224 8.425 0.328 0.762 1.736 0.031 0.073

2. 651 0.015 0.035 4.432 0.093 0.216 0.189 0

0 0.189 0

0 7.506 0.170 0.394 0.919 0.004 0.010 0.919 0.002.

0.004 5.305 0.273 0.634 11.27

1. 367 3.173
11. 34
1. 383
3. 211
11. 71 1.476 3.427 0

0 0

Calculation No. DRE97 -0012 Revision O Page ~ 11 pq 3

Company: corned Project:

by: palas LINELIST: RING dated: 01/08/97 LINEUP REPORT rev: 01/29/97 3L2CSIL2 02/03/97 DEVIATION: 0.771 %

after: 3 iterations 2 LPCI.@5570, 1 LPCI @5610, 2 CS @5800. One Blocked strainer.

2-pp loss Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties.in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND NODE DEMAND gprn gpm N

58.00 0

0.0001 p

5610 R

5570 s

5570 u

5800 FLOWS IN: o gpm FLOWS OUT: 28350 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 28359 gpm PIPELINE FLOW PRESSURE

.SET.

gpm SOURCE psig Tor.us-1 9227 A

0 Torus-2 9418 B

0 Torus-3 9705 c

0 FLOWS IN: 28350 gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gpm NET FLOWS IN: 28350 gpm Calculation No~ DRE97-0012 Revision O Page A Id...

PIPE-fLO rev 4.11 po

LINEUP NODES NODE ELEVATION DEMAND ft gpm A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

0 I

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

0 N

0

> 5800 0

0

> 0.0001

.P 0

> 5610 Q

0 R

0

> 5570

s.

0

> 5570 T

0 u

0

> 5800 P!FE-FLO rev 4. 11 3L2CSIL2 02/03/97 PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

p 0

0 p

0 0

  • -1. 343

-3.117

  • -1. 399

-3.247

  • -1.486

-3.448

  • -1. 537

-3.568

  • --1.407

-3.266

  • .-1. 529

-3.549

  • -1.514

-3.515

  • -1_. 539

-3.572

  • -1. 537

-3.568

  • -1. 824

-4.234

  • -1.514

-3.515

  • -1. 622

-3.765

  • -2.287

-5.309

  • -2.96
  • -6. 872
  • -4.506

-10.46

  • :...i. 961

-4.553

  • -3.692

-8.569 Calculation No. DRE97-0012*-

Revision 0

. Page At3 P9 -

LINEUP PIPELINE FROM TO S-3A I

N CS3B-16 T

u CS3B-18 M

T HPCI K

0 LPCI3A Q

R LPCI3A/B J

Q LPCI3B Q

s LPCI3C/D L

p Ring-1 E

I Ring-2 F

I Ring-3 F

J Ring-4 K

J Ring-5'

.G K

Ring-6 G

L Ring-7 H

L Ring-8 M

<-> H Ring-9 E

M Torus-1 A

.E Torus-2 B

F Torus-3 c

G Torus-4 D

H PIPE-fLO rev 4.11 PIPELINES 3L2CSIL~

FLOW gpm 5800 5800 5800 0

5570 11140 5570 5610 3333 2467 6951 4189 4189 5516 94.28 94.28 5894 9227

. 9418 9705 closed 0'2/03/97 VEL dP Hl ft/sec psi g ft 8.086 0.417 0.967 10.2

1. 73 4.016 8.086 0.424 0.984 0

0 0

12.97 0.673

1. 563 8.425 0.758
1. 761 12.97 2.219 5.15 4.243 0.083 0.193 2.52 0.064 o*.150
1. 866 0.008 0.017 5.257 0.130 0.301
  • 3.168
0. 017 0.039 3.168 0.029
0. 0.67 4.172 0.053 0.124 0.071 0

0

0. 071 0

0 4;458 0.195

0. 4.52 11.17
1. 343.
3. 117
11. 4 L 399 3.247
11. 75 1.486

.3. 448 0

0 0

Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revisi_on o Page A1i.f pn...

Company: corned Project:

by: palas LINELIST: RING dated: 01/08/97 LINEUP REPORT rev: 02/03/97 4L51ZC~1 02/03/97 DEVIATION: 0.0117 %

after: 5 iterations 4 LPCI @5150 and 2 CS @5100 Injecting. Nearest torus leg blocked Volumetric flow rates require constant fluid properties in all pipelines.

Fluid properties in the first specification were used.

NODE DEMAND gpm N

5100 p

10300 s

5150 PIPELINE FLOW gpm Torus-1 10030 Torus-2 10156 Torus-3 10615 PIPE-FLO rev 4.11 NODE DEMAND gpm 0

0.0001 R

5150 u

5100 FLOWS IN: 0 gpm FLOWS OUT: 30800 gpm NET FLOWS OUT: 30800

  • gpm NET PRESSURE SET SOURCE psig A

0 B

0 c

0 FLOWS IN: 30801 gpm FLOWS OUT: 0 gprn FLOWS IN: 30801 gprn Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision O P.age At S pq l

LINEUP NODE ELEVATION DEMAND ft gpm A

0 B

0 c

0 E

0 F

0 G

0 H

0 I

0 J

0 K

0 L

0 M

0 N

0

> 5100 0

0

> 0.0001 p

0

> 10300 Q

0 R

0

> 5150 s

0

> 5,150

.T 0

u 0

> 5100 PIPE-fLO rev 4.11 NODES 4L512C~

02/03/97 PRESSURE H GRADE psi g ft p

0 0

p 0

0 p

0 0

  • -1.587

-3.683

  • -L 627

-3.776

  • -1.777

-4.125

  • -1. 88

-4.365

  • -1. 633

-3. 79.1

  • -1.792

.-4. 161

  • -1. 787

-4.148

  • -1. 893

-4.394

  • -1.875

-4.352

  • -1.955

-4.539

"* -1.787

-4.148

  • -2.174

-5.045

  • -2.441

-5.666

  • -3. 017

-7.002

  • -4.338

-10.07

  • -2.203

-5.113

  • -3.542

..:.0. 222 Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision O Page Ar 6 pg -

LINEUP PIPELINES 4L51ZC~

02/03/97 PIPELINE FROM TO FLOW VEL dP Hl

  • S-3A gpm ft/sec psi g ft I

N 5100 7.11 0.322 0.748 CS3B-16 T

u 5100 8.965 1.339 3.109 CS3B-18 M

T 5100 7.11 0.328

0. 761 HPCI K

0 0

o*

0 0

LPCI3A Q

R 5150

11. 99 0.576
1. 336 LPCI3A/B J

Q 10300 7.79 0.649

1. 506 LPCI3B Q

s 5150

11. 99
1. 897 4.404 LPCI3C/D L

p 10300 7.79 0.281 0.651 Ring-1 E

I 2817 2.131 0.047 0.108 Ring-2 F

I 2283

1. 726 0.006 0.015 Ring~3 F

J 7873 5.954 0.166 0.385 Ring-4 K

J 2427

1. 835 0.006
0. 013 Ring-.,5 G

K 2427

1. 83,5 0.010 0.023 Ring-6 G

L 8188 6.192 0.116 0.269 Ring-7 H

L 2112

l. 598 0.013 0.029 Ring-8 M

<-> H 2112

1. 598 0.006

. 0.013 Ring-9

  • E M

7212 5.455. o. 288 0.669 Torus-1 A. '

E' 10030 12.14

1. 587 3.683 Torus-2 B

F 10156 12.3 1.627

3. 776 "rorus.,.3 c

G 10615 12.85

1. 7'77 4.125 Torus-4.

o*

H closed 0-0 0

Calculation No. DRE97-0012 Revision O Page A 17 *

?IPE-FLO rev 4.11 pq 3'

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17187A801&oldid=5131759"