ML17194B658

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 00 to Dresden 2 Main Steam Sys Monitoring:Review of 62-Day Outage Data
ML17194B658
Person / Time
Site: Dresden Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 07/13/1983
From: Bhatti M, Mcfarland D, Olson D
SARGENT & LUNDY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML17194B657 List:
References
EMD-044320, EMD-44320, NUDOCS 8307260024
Download: ML17194B658 (49)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:., 41.j \\(,I I f,.\\ J..J 1.g 3

)'~* ~

. ; *t *:*

  • l;~_.

. *I

  • i

'.Yi'<. ~.,. .. *-*J*-... '""'1 \\. *. *,.* j \\ i '. SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO fie \\i j_ 1:; ~:.... ~. :*~~./ *.: __ :Z~\\:~f:J> *::' *;.. ___ *'.-~~--- ~-~~fi:~.tJ~{ffl_..,. 62:~~..,:'*;. ~;. .'\\- DRESDE,N-2 * .~ *-. MAIN STEAM SYSTEM MONITORING: ~... "\\ ., REVIEW OF SIXTY~TWO-DAY-bUTAGE DATA I ~

  • *' '1 *.

i Project No.: 548~-24 . Acc. No.: EMD-044320 Cale. No.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83(:-.* Page 1 of~ 10 \\~ () \\. ~\\)\\. ". L

REV. DATE/ ., ACC. NO. PAGES REV*'D ISSUE $UM.MARY P.ect No.: 5486-24 Acc. No.: EMD-044320 Cale. no.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83 Page 2 of 10 . *~ y SIG1*71\\TUP..B.

  • .1

_.: *::.**;o:;~.:-._.;~..1** //j;~*~***--4.

  • pr**

a ed dj;l.

      • ~;**:1&*.

"/~* .-///je

... *.* ** ~ **.--,*.e. n***:*** r...

__,///.

  • ': -~.*. '

1.1/vv\\.'~ ~/""**--*---.-~*71_...-- / ~- - l D *. M. McFarland ~ J -:-t "i_ 'I.! I~) k-.~*1*..,

i

~*

~* 0i.A

~- "'*". ::::~.*.. l u j_*_ I~--*. !r>_ "i. -

  • - 'Y.1..

l>.3 --~- -_*::'.~.-... ~1._.'_*.~.\\.: _. Re .. _*_~....... ~,_*.e.*.. T ** _,k_i*-*.*a*_**... *....... I;.'. ' i*~:: ** . ; \\ \\ i**..

- " L

.<7,,,., l \\.\\ i ry,.' v* _:::.,, -..~ _c "": -'f*cv_-:-..:.vv_<;;.. _ "'.~

J"\\";..

-~..;.. /~~:(li;;;>"'-.L.l'- _ _:!_f.. _::.* . h_i Btii;:i1tqo 7/13/83 <. -.! d12t-i"C.i i l 'I

  1. 044320
i.
  • i 1. ')

} 1 .. j 'A'r . i 1 j t i

I

.. -~~-.J

, __,-f,.

<i I ". -A~proved: M.* H.: Bnatti ~ j.

I \\ I j \\ I 1.0 2.0 Title_P.age Issue SUmmary Purpose Calcu_lation

  • 3.0 *.. C~nclusions
4. 0

.,Re.ferences .* '........... ~,J, TABLE.OF CONTEIJTS / P:r:6ect No.: 5486-24 A<!fi'- No.: EMD-044320 Cale. No.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83 Page 3 of 10 PAGE. 1 2 4 5 EB.

-1~- i -:-~.:

. 10

  • ,._j*!_C-

-..1;*. ',-,,_. ~ _*, ~ :

I. .f !1,, ,. I ~.

~....

.... \\,. .. * \\ P~ct No.: 5486-24 Acc. No.: EMD-044320 Cale. No.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83--- Page 4 of 10

1. 0 Purpose :
.~::...:~'*The behavior of the LVDT' s installed* on the Dresden

'.Main Steam piping is evaluated using the LVDT and the visual walkdown piping displacement dat~ collected I ~* -:~::.. "~-=*,~r-.'i- ~ :>0 Urrder"Dresdeh-'2' ?pecial** _Procedures-=* !:?P

  • 8 3-.5.. -6 6 and 1::::.::overec aur1ng*... the:t:we.en.:.tLVDT.*.and: w:alkd0ymc;d.ata. discovered during,~the2 r::a. aTscoverec q
-..-:**---*----'~"~-*--*-"-'

.i.*.*

.-**c&
h.

d*' ".-I**--,, _ _:_..:;-""------ +'- ~'-'*'12t:1;!',t-:.t*tfil.:>::! 0:11,..:1.10t9Jr.l :p:t:t-ev1ous,-,*.a:sse*s sme.nts,.0:;.1;.t;_,_. t. ese

r: sc.repanc::Uie:S\\.*'=' Si&L. L.. n.c::.e u...... ~*.; tl.!t:Jf.Jofl.q

-'"*** -.*-- *.r*ii~~:., *.,.,~*c." _.,,:,"'fX>=po'....-t*s*: *EMD*--o* 4**3-4-49-. *and *E~-1*1D*"-*0-11 3* 84 6 )*:,. ;*t* *has" been-- demo*n*.... *, -* ~,., -=-- ' ~-,., "

  • r*

-~-~.-~-..--

""'f'
  • .....,..._......1.-.~*'"-4.._.~'.[:\\,..~
  • "':.I...~.

~- .l"

  • ~;...
  • H

~. .::............. ~,,, '~-1 1~):J.i:a.Cer\\¥nts 1 *.aire;:'Es:tn:>aitred i that"' 'the** 1LVDT-mea:s.ured. displacements;Yare2.eensa<s-di si:) l ace:nen i'

i;,F_,.,< *
*:r-i ~i*~:, :1',1 -;-,.Q*mo;T,-.i-,...,-~,y**,i-~.-a** *rg*er" :t*ha*n*i the-n:-cco"';r*e;Sp' 0. nd;*:*ng-:-... Tl' *s* *u* ai'ly* '=rne*a* *SU,.....,::i,;v*,',...,-"' nr"< -.*-.;i.;:h:::, :T,
      • ~( **-.

..*..,. -* ~CVJ..t:l.:;:i.;. .J.:

L'

.I:.: _y ~-- .J.. ti.. ~

. ;...,._..., c.~-,
;-,.;? * ~...,,.., 1 -ard],.;c::ni'=,,,.:ements *
  • also*'*' the* *il:i*s*ua* 11y.,..meas 11rea-d; sr..., *acem* ents1 --- -*~=-* ~ -::-- *-*.-*,::! *
  • -:*-'-----*-.... t~...... --............. -r_.:-..

-r ~- . -1*-** ~ ~* t"'*.J_ ...:... j __..._......... _,_...t_ -----

  • .";' "',,;i,~~--::,

_,_;_.s1..... iacsb:0.w:i;good.correlation.,,:with:::.design/ana.lysis'--disp-lacement~ :~.., -,,,-,;.-,_.,.-::,J_,::; pre.dictions~ - This calculation analyzes the new LVDT *and visual *dis-placement data along with the original procedure data. - The.hew visual data taken under. SY:83-6-6B is-the yard~ 1_;~.),_ ~\\.!.~:: st:ii..ck by which.. all. other data is evaluated; this.. "",.- .:..*~-i -'Nisual data.:was chosen because of.thekf.care, used -to... "'"'- ~ " ~~ :-:;..::<:.i*:.n::::

o~-:.ta+/-ried: by the simplest.. procedure, f6r*measuring*p;.iping~.---:.>c i-:r :J*:0:-5..:(

displacements.

  • o.*...

P<r~ct No.: 54 8'6-24 Acc. No.: EMD-044320 Cale.. No.:.EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83 Pa,ge 5.of 10 '***...,.. This. calculation demonstrates a good agreement between ' the old and the.new visual displacemen:t data; the S&L* report::EMD-043846 had previously demonstrated the old visual data's good correlation with design predictions~ -:1... ~ *-

  • ~'1-,n '!.'.'.Ii:o.. i'S:thus concluded* that th~*original and the new set;s~:~.'r:;-, 1:1!
  • '"!~1n*
      • '.,.1.of visual data provide* accurate and re-liable piping *' **..,

.. - * ** '!.;.c=;1-. [ j c..J.:1.c.l :..!:U~.C... u12-t:.d:Ls.pl.a.cem~ntc:measures ~ ::. ~It_.is *also.. cons:;luded::tha t.:.. the ::_.LVDTo c.:..;11:::iuut.: -1..:.>.. -... ~. ~* : ' ;: ,::;,C:<~,3;-,.;:;frh:::. :.. ; 2:.;:'-..~T:the>.Ugh:.. thl:S trend *is *:less.pronounced 01'.f.*the. lates't set:;e:u*:*1r.:.::::'... ::::J;: t::h<:. of data.

2. 0' : * 'Calculation:

'* - \\) L.. .;t~......,........... Tchree,tables are presented <to assess th~ accuracy.o:and*' 'i.c,,,,...:.;.,,.c,

  • ._.:.:..~_.reliability.. of the following< data ~sets£
1)
  • Original Visual. vs.. New Visi.:!.al
2)

New Visual.vs. New Hardw:i,red

3).. Original Hardwired. vs. New Hardwired

~, :. .:.... - -.. :*.. ;ii*~*~., ._:-:~:LL...:. l

._.jl..

.1i<.(-;n "-'-t.. t d*.,.The new walkdown and LVDT data was:*-:takenwith a.cold-"',_,s .:J.K8fl

  • \\1.!

,pipe.temperature of 202 deg,.,.f; and a hot pipe temperature-**-~.. _,:..;~. :'* .:.,.. :.. '~'~:....

  • ~.,*;
  • of,.437.deg-f; this means that the*.. tempe1rature.. -diffehential
    .:=:~:1::.*. ~:::..* :.

was 235 deg".""f. The old visual and LVDT data had a"-->. -~ c.:... ; ; :.. :i *. ~. 1'!

    • -,
      ..,_-..,,.,..,.-temperature *differential of 345 deg-f. *Therefore, *for>*
  • 1,.,... "<

. P.ct No~: 5486-24 Acc. No.: EMD-044320 Cale. No.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83 Page 6 of 10 ,.... -:i,p.µrpo.?es.of conipad;son*; the old*. da:ta -sha'1.l be* scaled, ~ *' ':i down *by a factor of 235/345, or**0.68, in order to meaningfully compare it to the new data. Table 1: Original Vi~ual.ys~ Ne~Visual

  • -*~ *. :.., Note:. :"t-hat the,origina*l visual displacement readings* were * :n * *.~ ***.r.,, c *
  • -read off of the snubbers*, with an approximate accuracy

-.c:. !t(;~ .: t.0, i;aKe.:*P.f.,0_,._.25.. inche_s.;.the ne.vr...:vis.ual readings. were taken 1

  • ~*.. *.;

L:ciu.:: 1tt.;:.

  • '*' J:*

. li,:t~ t.:0.i r. -={1G~i~ka:c;;yfr"-otai<J:l1..~ :*Ii.VDT~ -~~-l1em$~e-~i¥-e;s::}1s.in9 mill.i!netefr":aC!:'cura:tt:yus :i:n*::i -~ B~ l lir.!e t.et'-:'~ ,fnri=:

  • ttY~ i te1}4f'?.!~~p:pr:oX'.~ 1/32,,.u:1ch;) i:r.u!ili,e:rs*.-- Therefore, t:he) to'l.eYa:nce *TJ10,-<,~0:tE?
  • t.;:;*Y;:*

'!)r*....,'<<*i_.-.,;:11--i:> 11~:. '!tf:M§* a'1.*il?ovied \\in *compa*ring,..'the:, tw:0' is appr0xiMate1ly titire Oi*~,25.! s * -'i.ppro~.:,.i "Fit'~ JL-,;-:-~... :;<.0fo Ls-:.¢:*.~0*.;i::qtrr.qh: ::a:c-:el.rracy. o:f.",:th:e: o:r:d:ginal.readings -scarG?d dow.niib:yi:'.tih-e::dir.:;:s

~*=**"' t

~ (),.,68.:temperature factor, or about o.. 17 inch.es, plus the.*..:' r_, ~.: :: ,.;*"'.:: **".-.. :*;'2'.il/:3~2::.:'i:nc,P:.or approx. *O. 0.3 inch accuracy_ of the new re-4di=n.g.s./:.:.:; :;:,. . ~. 'f.o.r:'~a :'.total tolerance of 0.20 inches. -'r::r*t:.""'" .. SENSOR NEW ORI,GINAL NEW -:*ORIG WITHIN 0.2 .';:;"'wi*,!f' h- ,';{4':, rpr'fi'f.*tNU'MBER) ' TYf ~v:rSUA:IJ; ~ VI'S'UA;L"*'-:-* DTFFER:ENCE '1'b11EiR!ANCE? n,. "'"'FR f.~i-.J C'>:*

j/j
~ ~.

.. -~W../46 .Jl.*.!lO .J..*,0:2:' ~-) .o. 08; .L ***YES I.I.vd -*: _'JlV.? 0 _l.14

1. o_i_:_

.0*.12 YES

  • .,,C:f>c/51 J..JO 1.19.* "

0.11 YES

:.:C.6/ 44'

,,0 *. 7:9 o.. :6~8' o.*._ll - *-:YES .~** *-

  • ,::.'!.;_ ** *-~*'-

'.1}'3-/53 il :8*1 'O. 68 0.19 " YES . :,Note. i.bhat all readings,fall 0wi thin the derived tolerance. \\ (

\\ i2 r8 \\ ~,£,,.,' \\

J

, /

  • . -.i~}.

~ :_ ~ *J. ),'-~. ~.,C' ,.*i.

  • ,I.*

\\ Table 2: P.ct r~ci.: 5486-24 Acc. No.: EMD-044320 Cale. No.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83 Page 7 of 10 New Visual.vs. New. Hardwired I The accuracy allowance for both the new visual and the... : new hardwired data is estimated at 0.03 inches, thus yielding a combined tolerance of 0.06 inches.

  • SEN.SOR

'NEW NEW NEW - ORf G ,,..*!'NUMBER. i'>TVI'SUAL. H* HARDWIRED.. *** DIFFERENCE WITHIN 0. 0 6",., TOLERA'NCE? f>TFF"*'P17r.'""'P B3/46 0'4/50 .. l~~/51 C6/44 C-7:/.-:-- CB/-- C9/-- D.3/53 04/-- D5/-- "'*D6f--- 1.10

1. 11

-0.01 YES 1.1.4 1. 116~.. -0.02 =.:YES -0 02 -11!. 30

1. 48/l'

-0.18 I_ * *!~0 -0" 18 0.79

0. 6:']..:--
0. 12

-* NO 0

1. *ii

-0 *.28 -0.31--.c.* 0.03 ' 3 'YES i.: 03 0.91 0 ~ 95-.. -0.04 '"YES (:1, r. 0.04 0.* 07 -0.03 .. YES

  • J......

0.:.87" L0-9-.::-.: .;..,.:o*. 2 ~ NO 2-~. -0.19 -0 ~ 76:**:* "'."0. 03 YES -*0 o~ -0.08 0.25 -0.33 NO ") *; ~~* -..J 0.08

o. O~F.,

0:04

  • -*YEs:*'..

...... 0. ". Note -*:that seven of* eleven readings fall within.. the. --~~-- *-~~ estimated tolerance range, but four of the LVDT

  • 10
  • ./.

.. : r.eadings_.vary from the_visual.by more. than:..one..-ten:th::..i. ui.....,*.!...::::. L~:~::... inch. ** -Tnese differences* are less ---than those of--the original visual.vs. LVDT data, but are still considered significant. i i

'1 '-i

  • ~ '

. ~**..... }*i ;-:,~-.. J* '...-;~ I ~. \\ .. ~* I. i '* \\

e.

Pr~ct No.: 5486-24 Acc. No.: EMD-044320 Cale. Ho.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83 Page. 8 of 10 Table 3: Original Hardwired.vs. New Hardwired A reasonable estimate of the tolerance of the old and new.difference is considered to be approximately one- . eighth* inch. The four smallest displacements are not considered. f' <SEN:S'OOi

ORIGINAL**
NEW'
  • ORIG -

NElv WITHIN 0. 13n1< -'.~

  • 1'7T*J NUMBER.*.

HARDWIRED HARDWIRED DIFFERENCE TOLERANCE?

  • B3/46_,_,,
1. 29 1.11 ff'~ 18 NO
C4/5.fit.rES 1.29)1 1.16:: ~.

o.* 13

¥ES
i i 3 C5/5JF **

~ wJ

1. 84
1. 4 8;'.,

. 0'.36 -NO C6/ 44i*iC

0. 82.

0.67 Q'*.15

  • NO c8/~-'\\'1F:--

0.84 0.95

  • -0.11

-YES _p D3/5 3-,-' '0. 98 1.09 -:-0.11 YES

    • !i-D4/--:ri.

-0.80 -0.76 -o *. 0..4 YES

,*. ' ;~>
  • ~'_,,,..,,,1,r-.-r_-:N0te -.that *four of seven readings;~are within* tolerance~",,

i.. : ~ ' ~ ' 3.0

== Conclusions:== .. :..:':r.his calculation demonstrates... a good agreement between J .. 'the *visual inspection data of the original procedure *and*.:

  • that of the sixty-two-day outage procedure.

It has been shown.in Reference 3 that the original visual .:data co.rrelates well with design. di'splacement predictions._, -. ,,,; ;~.;,.,I.t 1 is therefore concluded that the* visual data *from.

  • both :.. original a,nd new procedures is accurate and reliable.

-~... -*~'

  • It has been demonstrated that the LVDT data differs

. r,.., -, * ~ -~;, ,_,\\_, _.::. ._.,_1_ *. :;... d.J.~..,a.i~gn.if.icantly. from the _vi~4'_ua1-*. data in b6th *old.and.-.. new ._.-~~--.ci .L;.l ?..)\\ *.'--*l

  • .c.... :'l;'i~-..\\_, procedure.

It is again shown that the INDT:data ;... * .. ::*, '.>t::t

  • ~*~e L..rt.-~.'f

\\ /

11, ~I \\ Pr~ct No.: 5486-24 Ace.. No.: EMD-044320 Cale.. No.: EMD-044320 Rev.: 00 Date: 7/13/83 Page 9 of 10

  • general],y yields larger, more conservative displacement magnitudes than were found visually.

In surilmary, this calcu,~ation agrees with the* assumptions

  • .and conclusions of S&L report EMD-043846 regarding the
  • . accuracy and reliability of the piping displacement""

data.*

\\ I \\ \\ ~1,. I ,j \\ \\ .) P:iAect no.: 5486-24 Ac~ No.: EHD-044320 Cale. No.i EMD-044320

    • Rev.:

o*o Date: 7/13/83 Page 10 of 10 4.0.

References:

1)

"Dresden-2 I:itstrumentation Requirements for.Ma1n Steam Lines,"* S&L Report No. EMD-043070, Rev~ 01, 4/.1/83. ~.;.2.). "Dresden-2 Main Steam Monitoring Procedure-Seven. Day Evaluation," S&L 13:eport No. EMD-043449, Rev. 00, 5/9/83.

3)

"Dr~sden-2 Main Steam Monitoring Procedure Test~ ~ Analysis Correlation," S&L Report No. EMD-043846, Rev. 00, 6/18/83.

4)

Dresden Special Procedure SP 83-4-52~

5)

Dresden Specia*l Procedure SF 83-5-66.

6)

Dresden Special Procedure SP 83~6-68.

    • l I.

~:

.1. I I 8307260028 830719 l SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO DRESDEN - 2 MAIN STEAM MONITORING PROCEDURE TEST-ANALYSIS CORRELATION. CECo., 5486-23 Report No.: EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page l of 39. \\~ ~\\l\\. 2 1 PJ?R.. ADOCK 05000237..,\\ 1 P. ;_J ~~. *. ....._. P.D,~ .::__J~' L _.! ~-" - ~ --

1~ ~\\ J I I, SARGENT Be LUNDY I ~* Dresden-2 CECo, 5486.,..23 Rev. Date 00 6/18/83 .... ~ -- ENGINEERS CHICAGO Issue Summary EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev.-: 00 Page 2 of 39 Report No.: EMD-043846, Rev. 00 File No.: EMD-043846 Signatures Prepared: ~. f. ~ Date: {-. J".. fj )_

s. E. Azzazy J/!tllf/YJ Dilte, ~

D. M. McFarland ~ate'~~ D. E. Olson. Rev.iewed: ~J_j\\. ~*Da,te: (,t._U, {i..3 I M. H. Bhatti 4: MdL Date'# . Mahendranathan* Approved,~'# 0 T Kitz . Date, ~p.1fr.J

  • Reviewed only Section 3.1 portions concerned with finite element analysis,

SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev.:00 Page 3 of 39 Table of Contents

1. 0 Introduction 4

2.0 Piping Thermal Expansion Response 5 2.1 Field-Measured Responses............... *........ 5

2. 2 Design-Predicted Responses....... *..............

9 2.3 Field-Measurements vs. Design-Predictions....... 13

3. 0 SRV Discharge Loads..................................

16 3.1 MeaSured Loadings............................ -... 17

3. 2 Test-Analysis Correlation.......... *........ *...

21 4.0 Conclusions............... -~.......................... 23 5.0 References....................... *.................... 26

SARGENT & LUNDY e CHICAGO 'oresd~n -2 ENGINEERS EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev.. 00 Page 4 of 39 CECo, 5486-23 1.0 Introduction The purpose of the Dresden-2 main steam monitoring procedure SP 83-4-SQ (Reference 1) was to determine the cause of five main steam line snubber failures. The procedure specified visual and instrumented monitoring of the inside-containment main steam system. Thermal expansion and dynamic transient events were monitored.. A summary of the acquired data is provided in R:eference 2. Analysis of the data revealed no measured response sufficient to cause snubber failure. The availability of thermal ~xpansion and SRV disch::irge dynamic transient data prompted interest in two additional issues. The first of these concerned proving the measured piping responses to be within Code allowables; the second involved demonstrating the correlation between the measured responses and the analytically-. predicted values. The analyses of Reference 4 and 8 conservatively demonstrated that the measured system responses are within Code allowables for both thermal.expansion and dynamic transient events. The purpose of this document is to demonstrate the correlation between the field-measured systen responses and the analytically~ predicted responses. The correlation is illustrated for both piping thermal expansion and SRV discharge dynamic tr~nsient events. Section 2.0 and 3.0 of this docum~ht demonstrate the test-analysis correlations for thermal expansion and SRV dynamic transient, respectively. Section 4.0 provides a summary of the methods and conclusions of this report.

I Dr~sden-2 CECo, 5486-23 2.0 Piping Thermal Expansion Response e EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. :00 Page 5 of 39 There is good agreement between the analytically-predicted and the field-measured main steam piping thermal expansion responses. This agreement is demonstrated in the three following subsections. A side-by-side comparison of field vs. design displacements is shown in Table 3. In subsection 2.1, the field data acquisition methods of Reference l are reviewed, and that subset of data most accurately*and completely describing the piping thermal expansion response is determined. An estimate of data acquisition error is also developed. Subsection 2.2 addresses the piping thermal expansion analytical design calculations. Conservative and simplifying ~ssumptions affecting design calculation accuracy are evaluated, and quantitative estimates are derived. Finally, in 2.3, the design-predicted and field-measured piping displacements are compared; their differences are analyzed in light of the design assumptions and error estimates addressed in the previous sections. 2.1 Field-Measured Responses The main steam piping displacements were measured by a walk-down visual inspection of support settings, and by hardwired instruments mounted on the piping ~nd supports. These two

I \\- l Dresden-1 CECo, 5486-23 SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 6 of 39 data acquisition methods are described below. It is concluded that the walkdown visual inspection method provides the most reliably accurate thermal displacement data. 2.1.l Walkdown Data Description. The walkdown visual inspection method is a simple, accurate way to measure piping thermal expansion response at many points throughout a piping system. The data is obtained by recording the cold and the hot support position settings of a number of supports on a piping system (Figure 1 illustrates typical load/position scales on the main steam supports). The piping thermal response to the cold-to-hot transition is determined by taking the difference of the recorded cold and hot support position settings. During the Dresden walkdown, the cold walkdown was done with the piping at 105°F; the hot.walkdown was done when the piping was at 450°F. The difference between the cold and hot settings is equal to the thermal expansion displacement of the piping at the location and in the direction of the inspected support. Accuracy. - The accuracy of the visual inspection method is estimated by analyzing the support position scales of the Dresden main steam lines. The two types

'I 'Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23

  • SARGENT 8c LUNDY e EMD-043846 ENGINEERS CHICAGO June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 7 Of 39 are shown in Figure l; the first of these is the PSA-10 snubber position scale which has gradations every half inch; the s~cond is a typical spring hanger scale which has gradations every quarter inch.

The snubber scales were read to quarter-inch accuracies during the walkdown; the hanger scales were read to quarter-gradation accuracies, corresponding to sixteenth-inch accuracies.

  • since each scale had to be read twice to derive the resultant thermal displacement at the support, the reading accuracies are multiplied by two to derive the displacement accuracies.

There-fore, the snubb~r displacement accuracy is one-half inch; the spring hanger accuracy is one-eighth inch. Summary. The visual inspection method provides the thermal expansion response of the main steam headers at each support location. For the Dresden main steam headers~ there are seven to nine supports for each of the four lines. The data accuracy of this method is approximately +/- ~inch for snubbers, +/- 1/8 inch for hangers. 2.1.2 LVDT Data Description. - Linear variable differential transformers (LVDT) were placed at various points on the main steam

'I Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 8 of 39 system to allow remote monitoring of piping thermal expansion displacements. The LVDT in its two typical mounting.configurations is shown in Figure 2.. Eleven LVDT's were used: five of the eleven were mounted along the five previously-failed snubbers. At these five locations there is a direct comparison between LVDT and walkdown thermal expansion dat~. Conservatism. - Analysis of the LVDT ~ata showed it ~o be consistently and significantly conservative, in terms of recording larger magnitude displacements, relative to the walkdown data. Table 1 shows the comparison of walkdown and LVDT results for the five measured snubber displacements. The reason for this conservatism is currently being investigated. Summary. - The LVDT harqwired instrumentation recorded conservative results. The results were used in Reference 4 calculations *which conservatively demon-strated that th~ piping thermal expansion responses were within Code allowables. However, for the purposes of accurate system response description, the LVDT results are considered to be inferior to the walkdown data. 2.1.3 Summary The piping thermal expansion responses of the main steam headers were monitored by hardwired instruments

'I SARGENT Be LUNDY e

  • Diesden-2 CECo, 5486-23 ENGINEERS CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 9 of 39 and by the walkdown and visual inspection of piping support settings.

The hardwired LVDT displacement data is conservative relative to the walkdown data. It was used to conservatively prove Code allowable behavior of the piping system, but it does not provide the most reliably accurate description of the piping thermal expansion response. The reasons for this consistently conservative deviation from the walkdown results is currently being investigated. The hard-wired data has the further disadvantage of having only eleven monitored displacements rather than the more than thirty recorded walkdown displacements. The walkdown visual inspection data is therefore used for the purposes of this report to represent the piping thermal expansion response. The accuracy of the data is estimated to be +/- ~ inch for snubbers and +/- 1/8 inch for hanger support data. The agreement between the walkdown and the analytical predictions that is addressed in Section 2.3 serves to further validate the use of the walkdown data. 2.2 Design Predicted Responses Reference 3 contains the design calculations for the inside-containment main steam system piping. The calculations

'I Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 SARGENT Be LUNDY E N"G IN EE RS CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 10 of 39 incorporate simplifying, conservative assumptions to avoid unnecessary analysis complexity and cost. Two important examples of these assumptions are analyzed to estimate their eff~ct on thermal expansion design accuracies. The first assumption concerns the use of conservatively high RPV nozzle thermal expansion movements. The second assumption concerns support variability. The effects of these assumptions on design calculation accuracy are addressed in the following subsections. 2.2.1 RPV Nozzle Movements The thermal expansion movements of the RPV at the main steam line nozzles largely determines the behavior of the piping system. For Dresden-2, the RPV nozzle move-ments are very_close to those calculated* using an equation supplied by General Electric. GE states that their equation (Reference 7). overpredicts nozzle movements. Using overpredicted vertical nozzle movements causes the design calculati~n to predict displaqements too large in the positive vertical direction. The effect is particularly pronounced on the piping closest to the RPV nozzle connection. The overpredicted vertical 'stretching' of the system causes*a corresponding design under-prediction of horizontal displacements.* This "stretching" also results in a conservative design overprediction of piping stresses.

  • See Reference 5

'I SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 11* Of 39 An analysis using RPV.rnovements chosen to simulate walk-down sprin~ hanger displacements is in Reference 5. The results or the analysis are contrasted with design move-ments in Table 2; the-walkdown data for* the system is also included. 2.2.2 Support Variability The force exerted on piping by a spring hanger is a function of the hanger spring constant, its current displacement from equilibrium, and internal friction. A parameter called variability is used to quantify the effects of these hanger qualities. It is defined as the ratio of the required applied force (to displace the hanger spring a standard distance) to the designed weight load. An ideal, constant-applied force hanger has zero variability; a rigid restraint has a near 'infinite variability. Design calculations conservatively assume that spring hangers have zero variability; i.e., that they are ide~l constant-force hangers. This idealization is based on the assumption that the effect of variability is negligible if it does not exceed ten percent; maintaining less than 10% variability is thus a major consideration in the selection of spring hangers. ~*:.

  • ./.-'

' *-1, ' \\ SARGENT & LUNDY I t ENGINEERS Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 12 of 39 By neglecting the variability effect the thermal analysis is conservative. This is because hanger variability tends to oppose movement; hence, the simplifying design assumption of zero variability causes the design to overpredict thermal expansion displacements, and therefore to overpredict forces, moments and stresses. To assess the variability effect on the main steam piping system, a sensitivity analysis (Reference 5) was performed on main st~am line C. The effects of 10% variability wer~ simulated by applying forces at the spring hanger locations. The study demonstrated that "actual" piping thermal movements are less than design (zero variability) values. Simulation of 10% variability changed the predicted displacements by as much as 3/16". 2.2.3 Summary The thermal expansion design analyses incorporate two conservative assumptions that adversely affect the displacement prediction accuracy. The effect of these two assumptions will be used to explain the difference between field-measured and design-predicted piping displacements in Section 2.3.

' / bresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 SARGENT 8c LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO e EMD-043846 June 18,.1983, ;Rey. 00 Page 13 of 39 The design RPV nozzle movements are.conservatively large, resulting in design displacement predictions too large in the **up' direction. A further result of this overpredicted vertical "stretching" of the piping is a corresponding design underprediction of horizontal displacements. These effects are demonstrated in Table 2. The design prediction error is particularly evident close to the RPV nozzle. The assumption of zero variability spring hangers ignores the hangers' general resistance to displace-ment. Thus, design calculations tend to overpredict displacements. This effect is most pronounced for the piping furthest from the RPV enforced nozzle displacement. 2.3 Field-Measurements.vs. Design-Predictions A side-.by..,..side comparison of field-measured and design-predicted thermal displacements is provided in Table 3. The field measured displacements are derived from the Reference 1 walkdown visual inspection data. The walkdown cold-to-hot temperature differential was 345°F. The data accuracies are estimated at + l/2 inch for the snubber displacements, and + l/8 inch for the hanger displacements.

&n-043486 .Drescfen-2 SARGENT Be LUNDY CHICAGO June 18, 1983, Rev. 00

  • : CECo, 5486-23 ENGINEERS Page 14 of 39 The design-predicted displacements are derived from the Reference 3 piping stress analyses.

The displacements in the analyses correspond to a 480°F temperature differential; they were linearly scaled down to the walkdown 345°F differ-ential before being entered into the table. Most of the main steam header support displacements are included in the comparison table. The displacements are listed in groups of four, with each group indentified by its conunon support location on the four header lines. The first group corresponds to the spring hangers closest to the RPV nozzle connections; the last group corresponds to the spring hangers closest to th~ containment penetrations. Thus, the first listed displacement groups-are the most affected by the RPV nozzle movements; the final displacement groups are more affected by support variability. The RPV riser spring hanger field data, shown in Part 1 of Table 3, consistantly underpredicts design displacements by approximately one-quarter inch (in the vertical direction). Note that the field data variance within each of the two displacement groups is less than the estimated data accuracy of the spring hangers. Thus the "test-analysis" correlation for Part 1 of the table is shown to be strong. The Part 2 horizontal snubber displacement comparisons show that the design-predicted displacements are consistantly less than the field-measured displacements. This design-underprediction of horizontal displacements is another

'*1 Dresden-2 SARGENT Be LUNDY &-043486 CHICAGO June 18, 1983, Rev. 00

  • : CECo, 5486-23 ENGINEERS Page 15 of 39 symptom of the design overprediction of RPV nozzle movements, as addressed in Section 2.2.1 and Table 2 of this report.

Note that the difference between field data and design pre-dieted snubber displacements is in every case less than the estimated snubber data accuracy of one~half inch. The Part 3 containment riser spring hangers demonstrate the effects of spring hanger variability. The measured movements are consitantly less in magnitude than their corresponding design predictions. The effects of RPV nozzle movement overprediction are not evident for these displacements, just as the effects of spring hanger variability are not apparent in the RPV riser displacements. Thus. it has been demonstrated that there is a strong correl-ation between the design-predicted and field-measured displace-ments when the design-conservative assumptions are considered.

14,,

  • e I.:

Pi"esden-2 CECo, 5486-23 EMD--846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 16 of 39 3.0 SRV Discharge Loads Loads in the Main Steam Safety Relief Valve (SRV) discharge piping are experienced immediately after the opening of the SRV valve. These loads result from the rapid pressure transient in the piping. The loads act primarily on the SRV discharge piping. Secondary effects are also experienced by the main steam header piping. Loads on the main steam header piping mainly result from the deflection of the dis-charge piping during the valve opening pressure transient. The deflection of the discharge piping will cause a reaction force in the header piping. These secondary forces are typically small and do not affect the design basis of the header piping. The Dresden-2 design basis analyses also predicted small loads in the MS header piping. The instrumentation located on the header piping for the main steam moni taring procedure was intended to detect a'nd quantify loading of the magnitude that would be capable of damaging the installed snubbers. A monitoring program cap-able of verifying the accuracy of the design basis SRV dis-charge load analysis would require additional transducers with different calibration ranges than those used, different types of transducers would be required, and different loca-tions would be monitored. However, the information obtained

1_,* ,D;resden-2 CECo, 5486-23 EMD-,846 June 18, 1983, Rev.:00 Page 17 of 39 3.0 SRV Discharge Loads (Cont'd) during the monitoring program can be used to make an approx;... irnate assessment of the secondary loading effects on the MS header piping. The responses measured during the monitoring program confirm that the header piping does not experience significant loadings as a result of SRV discharge. 3.1 Measured SRV Discharge Loadings Strain gauges were located on the cylinder end plugs of seven snubbers located on the main steam header piping. The gauge output was correlated to snubber tension and compression loadings by means of static calibrations that were performed for each of the snubbers. These instrumented snubbers allowed both tension and compression loadings, resulting from movement of the main steam header piping, to be monitored. However, for purposes of correlating the test data and analysis results, only the tension loadings are used. The tension loads are considered to be most representative of the actual system response.

'6tesden-2 'c:Eco, 5486-23 EMD--846 June 18, 1983, Rev.:00 Page 18 of 39 3.1 Measured SRV Discharge Loadings (Cont'd) The compressive loads, as determined from the cali-bration curves, are considered to be overpredictions of the actual snubber force. (Note that for confirm-ing that the piping remained within Code limits, the larger of the tension and compression loads were used.) The detailed logic for considering the tension loads to be most representative of the actual system response is included in a separate report, Reference 6. The major points made in Reference 6 are: the stress distribution in the cylinder end plug makesit a less reliable force transducer for compres~ sion than for tension; the analytically predicted relationship between piping tension and compression loads disagrees with the relationship determined using the calibration curves; and the measured piping dis-placements indicate that the calibration curves over-predict the actual loading. These points are summarized below. Cylinder End Plug Stress Distribution - A finite ele-ment model was made of the cylinder end plug to deter-mine the stress distribution in the vicinity of the strain gauges under tension and compression loadings. Figures 3, 4 and 5 illustrate the geometry of the cylinder end plug and its corresponding finite ele-ment model~ Figure 6 illustrates the stress -intensity

'*b.resden-2 'CECo, 54 8 6-2 3 EMD-846 June 18, 1983, Rev.:00 Page 19 of 39 Cylinder End Plug Stress Distribution (Cont'd) distribution in the end plug under tension loading. Figure 7 illustrates the stress intensity distribution in the end plug under compression loading. Under tension loadings, the stress distribution in the vicinity of the strain gauges is uniform with a relatively constant stress magnitude. However, under compression loading the stress distribution has a high stress grqdient. As discussed in Refe~ence 6, the stress distributions under tension and compression loadings are responsible for the variance experienced in the tension and com-pression calibration curves of the various snubbers. The non-uniform rapidly changing stress distribution under a compression load suggests that this type of instrumented arrangement would not be very reliable as a compression force transducer. The uniform stress distribution under a tension load indicates that the arrangement would be a reliable tension force trans-ducer. Analytical Predictions - The analytically predicted SRV discharge loadings indicate that the tension and compression loadings should be of equal magnitudes. Using the calibration curves, the larger of the measured compressive loadings are indicated as being over twice the magnitude of the corresponding tension

~-* '* I I Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-- SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO Analytical Predictions (Cont'd) EMD-43846

  • une 18, l~

Wage 20 of loadings. Therefore, the analytical predictions also suggest that the compression calibration curves are not reliable. Measured Piping Displacement - The measured piping dis-placements are the most convincing evidence that the compression calibration curves overpredict the actual compressive loadings. The measured piping displace-ments.are of equal magnitude! in the positive and negative directions. Since the snubber loadings result directly from the pipe motion, the relationship between the positive and negative displacements must be reflected iri the snubber loadings. In other words, for the com-pressive loading~ to be larger than the tension loadings the negative piping displacements would have to be larger than the positive displacements. Since the dis-placements were equal in both directions, the compres-sion loadings as indicated by the calibration curves are considered to be unreliable. In summary, tension loads in the cylinder end plug. re-sult in a uniform stress pattern which will result in a .reliable calibration curve. The stress pattern for the compression load, in the vicinity of the strairi gauge, is not uniform and the resulting calibration curves are not considered to be reliable. Therefore, for the pur-poses of correlating test and analysis results, only the tension calibration curves are used. The conservatism of LVDT's should not affect the ratio of their measµred plus and minus transient displacement magnitudes;

~, 'Oresden-2

  • cE:co, 5486-23 EMD--846 June 18, 1983, Rev.:00 Page 21 of 39 3.2 SRV Discharge Test - Analysis Correlation The SRV discharge design loads are compared to the measured loads in Table
4.

The design loads at 940 psig are less ~han the design basis loads. The design loads at 940 psig represent values that were reduced from design basis loads to facilitate direct compari-son with the measured load. The design loads typically bound or approximate the measured tension loads. The design load is slightly exceeded at two snubber locations~ corresponding to snubber number 50 and 52. The maximum exceedance is 1100 lbs. Note that snubber number 50 and 51 are paired-at the same location on the piping, as are snubber numbers 53 and 52. At snubber pair locations a resultant load is divided amoung the two snubbers. The resultant design load at the location of snubbers 50 and 51 is larger than the resultant measured load. The resultant design load at ~he location of snubbers 53 and 52 is exceeded by approximately 500 lbs. This is not considered to be significant. The design basis analysis of the main steam header piping predicted that piping predicted that SRV opening wbuld result in relatively small lbads on the *main steam header pipirig. The results of the monitoring program indicate that small loads were-in fact experienced during the SRV discharge.- Both the design and measured load

IDresden-2 CECo, 5486,...23 SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO e EMD-43846 June 18, 1983, Re~. 00 Page 22 of 39 are small and they have no significant effect on the design basis of the header piping. The snubbers were installed on the header piping to accommodate the postulated seismic loadings. Both the design basis and measured SRV discharge loads are too small in magnitude to affect the design basis of the MS header piping. In summary, the design basis analysis predicted that the SRV discharge loadings on the MS header piping would be small. The measured tension loads resulting from SRV discharge were generally smaller than the predicted loads. There was only one exceedance 0£ predicted loads, and this exceedance was not signifi-cant. The measured SRV discharge loadings confirmed the analytically predicted small loadings.

l*(f'\\ 'I I tj I I I Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 4.0 Conclusion SARGENT 8c LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 23 of 39 The purpose of this report is to demonstrate the correlation between the field measurements of SP 83-4-52 and the analytical predictions of Dresden-2 main steam system response to thermal expansion and SRV discharge dynamic transient events. Thermal expansion. -Good agreement is demonstrated between th~ thermal expansion field data and the analysis predic-tions. The walkdown visual inspection data of support displacement is shown to provide the most comprehensive and reliably accurate description of system thermal expansion response. The design basis calculations are shown to include two simplifying and conservative assumptions which adversely affect displacement prediction accuracy. The first conservatism is the use of GE's conservative reactor pressure vessel thermal expansion equation; GE states that the equation yields thermal expansion predic-tions in excess of expected values. Thus, design.analyses conservatively over-predict vertical movement of the piping near its RPV nozzle connection. Likewise, this vertical "stretching" 6f the piping causes the design calculations to underpredict horizontal displacement. The second con-servatism regards hanger variability; design thermal ex-pansiqn calculations disregard the effects of spring hangers. This simplification is shown to result in design calculations that conservatively overpredict piping thermal expansion displacement.

SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 CHICAGO EMD- 043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 24 of 39 The comparison of field-measured and design-predicted thermal expansion displacements is provided in Table 3. The effects of the too-high RPV thermal movements and the support variability on the design predictions consistently explain the variance between the two sets of displacements. In this manner, the strong correlation existing between empirical and design displacements is established. SRV Discharge Hydraulic Transient - A correlation between design-predicted main steam header response and field measured response is demonstrated. The correlation centers upon the forces experienced by seven instrumented snubbers restraining the main steam header piping. Design-predictions and field measurements agree that the forces experienced by the main steam header snubbers are small, their maximums not exceeding two thousand pounds. The field-measured snubber forces are reviewed. It is deter-mined that, of the measured tension and compression loads, the latter are not reliably accurate. This is demonstrated in Reference 6. A summary of the Reference 6 analyses is as follows: the stress distribution in the snubber cylinder end plug (Figure 3) upon which the fore~ strain gauges are mounted make it a less reliable force transducer for compression than for tension; secondly, the analytically predicted relationship

I~~ '

  • I..

I I SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS Dresden-1 CECO, 5486-23 CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 .Page 25 of 39 between piping tension and compression loads disagree with the relationship derived using the calibration curves; finally, the measured piping displacements indicate that the calibration curves overpredict the compression-side loadings.* It is thus demonstrated that the tension loads provide the most accurate representation of piping response to the SRV discharg~ events. The design basis analyses of the main steam header piping predicted that SRV discharge would result in relatively small loads on the header piping. The field data demonstrates that small loads were expeiienced during the SRV discharge. The measured tension loads are compared to their equivalent design loads (940 psig) in Table 4. The design loads typically bound or approximate the measured tension loads. The maximum exceedance of design load is 1100 pounds. Both the design basis and measured SRV loads are too small to affect the MS header design basis, hence the exceedance is not considered to be signifiea~t. In summary,. the correlation between empirical *data and design predictions has been demonstrated. The agreement between them has been shown to be within reasonable limits.

1.. ~ *: SARGENT 8: LUNDY ENGINEERS Dresden-2 CECO I 5 4 8 6-2 3 CHICAGO EMD-043486 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 26 of 39 5.0 References

1)

Dresden Special Procedure SP 83-4-52, "Dresden-2 Main Steam Piping System Monitoring - Phase I," Rev. 0.

2)

"Dresden-2 Main Steam Monitoring Procedure: Seven-Day Data Evaluation," S&L Report No. EMD-043449, Rev.00, 5/9/83.

3)

Sargent & Lundy Piping Stress Analysis for Dresden-2 Inside-Containment Main Steam Lines A, B, C and D; S&L Accession No. 1 s EMD-040825, EMD-041326, EMD-041341, EMD-041333.

4)

"Thermal Analysis Assessment with LVDT's Recorded Movements for Subsystems MS-C and MS-D," S&L Calculation EMD-043388, Rev. 00, 5/9/83.

5)

"Thermal Sensitivity Analyses to Simulate In-Plant Test_ Data for Subsystem MS-C," S&L Calculation EMD-043692, Rev. 00, 5/19/83.

6)

"Dresden-2 Main Steam Monitoring Test: Snubber Calibration and Test Analysis Evaluation," S&L Calculation EMD-044006, Rev. 00, 6/16/83.

7)

GE RPV Expansion Formulae, Spec. 22A3828, Rev. 01, MPL No. A42-3670.

8)

S&L Cale. EMD-043399, 5/9/83, Rev. 00.

-1 l"'f*:.;I., If SARGENT Be LUNDY e t 1 I Dresden-2 ENGINEERS CECo, 5486-23 Snubber

  1. 44
  2. 46
  3. 50
  4. 51
  5. 53 CHICAGO TABLE 1 EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 27 of 39 COMPARISON OF LVDT AND WALKDOWN THERMAL EXPANSION DISPLACEMENTS Walkdown*

LVDT* Ratio

1. 00
1. 33
1. 33
1. 50 2.11 1.41
1. 50 2.14
1. 43
1. 75 3.02 1.. 7 3
1. 00
1. 64
1. 64 average 1.50 flisplacements taken *at approximately 450°F, from baseline temperature of approximately 105°F.

1-f. :'I I I SARGENT Be LUNDY e ENGINEERS Dresden-2 CECo, 5486-23 CHICAGO EMD-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Support Number B2-3001 B2-3002 B2-3004 B2-3005

  1. 50
  2. 51
  3. 44 Page 28 of 39 TABLE 2 EFFECTS OF RPV VERTICAL NOZZLE MOVEMENTS ON MS LINE C THERMAL DISPLACEMENTS Thermal Displacements Desi9n Modified Measured 0.88 0.56
0. 56) 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.16 D.203

-0.19 -0.29 0.06 1.18 1.48 1.50 ~ 1.63

1. 94
1. 75 0.32 0.44 1.00)

Comments Y-direction, close to RPV nozzle Y-direction, far from RPV nozzle Horizontal Notes: All displacements given in inches; All analyses correspond roughly to 345°F temperature differential; Modified analysis used RPV movements about ~" less than design; Measured data from visual walkdown of Line C supports.

.... :"' '*

  • Dresden-2

' : CECO, 5486-23 SARGENT 8c LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO TABLE 3_ L-043846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 29 of 39 FIELD-MEASURED VS. DESIGN-PREDICTED THERMAL EXPANSION DISPLACEMENTS* PART 1: RPV RISER SPRING HANGERS Support type: v.ertical spring.hanger Location: on RPV riser, about 20 feet below RPV nozzle MS Line A Design Prediction** 0.88 B . 0.88 c

0. 88 D
0. 86 average 0.88 Field Measured 0.63 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.58 Difference 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.30 Support type:

vertical spring hanger Location: near bottom of RPV riser MS Line A B c Design Prediction 0.37 0.41 0.36 D average 0.33 0.37 Field Measured Difference 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.00 0.36 0.13 0.20 0.13 0.24 All displacements are stated in inches. Probable Reason For Difference Design RPV movements are conservatively high, by approximately one-quarter inch Probable Reason For Difference - as above - Design predictions are scaled to the cold (105°F}/hot(450°F) support field walkdown temperature differential of 345°F.

1... 'I. 1 -~* ores.den-2 SARGENT & LUNDY E*-043846 CHICAGO June 18, 1983, Rev. 00

CECo-5486-23 ENGINEERS Page 30 of 39 TABLE 3

PART 2 : HORIZONTAL SNUBBERS Support type: horizontal snubbers Location: near bottom of RPV riser MS Snubber Design Field Probable Reason Line Location Prediction Measured Difference For Difference A

  1. 48 0.74 0.75

-0.01 Conservatively high design A

  1. 4 7 0.87
1. 25

-0.38 RPV movements predict too-B

  1. 45 0.49 0.50

-0.01 small horizontal movement; in B

  1. 46 1.19
1. 50

-0.31 effect, stretching system in the c

  1. 50 1.18
1. 50

-0.32 vertical e direction c

  1. 51
1. 63
1. 75

-0.12 D

  1. 53 0.78
1. 0

-0.22 D

  1. 52
1. 00 1.0

-0.00 Support type: horizontal snubber Location: near top of riser nearest cont. wall MS Line A B c D Snubber Location

  1. 42
  2. 41
  3. 44
  4. 43 Design Prediction 0.82 0.31 0.32 0.83 Field Measured 0.25
1. 0
1. 0 Difference

-0.43 0.06 -0.68 -0.17 Probable Reason For Difference as above -

l..:~} Dres'den-2 CECo, 5486-23 *---------------* SARGENT 8c LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO TABLE 3 EMD---04 3846 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 31 of 39 PART 3: CONTAINMENT RISER SPRING HANGERS Support type: vertical spring hanger Location: near top of containment riser MS Line Prediction Measured Difference A 0.14 0.10 0.04 B 0.23 0.25 -0.02 c 0.24 0.20 0.04 D 0.08 0.00 0.08 Support type: vertical spring hanger Probably Reason For Difference Differences.are well within accuracy estimates Location: on horizontal pipe near bottom of cont. riser MS Design Field Probable Reason Line Prediction Measured Difference For Difference A -0.26 0.19 -0.45 These hang~:t's are the most remote f rorn B -0.18 -0.13 -0.05 RPV nozzle movement effects;. these hanger c -0.19 0.06 -0.25 movements are therefore the.most affected by D -0.27 o.oo -0.27 hanger variability - see text.

~* , *. Dresden-2 t;:Eco, 5486-23 Snubber MS Number Header 45 B 46 B 45 B 46 B 50 c 51 c 44 c 53 D 52 D Design TABLE 4 SRV DISOIARGE IDAD COMPARISON Measured ~-043846 June 18, 1983, Page 32 of 39 Rev. 00 wads (lbs) at Tension Loads (lbs) Rerrarks 940 psig

  • at 940 psig 708 80

~ Electronatic Valve B 736 400 ) Actuation 1382 80 Electronatic Valve E 1529 1500 ) Actuation 1361 1700 1453 550 1491 l-00 1283 550 900 2000

  • Design loads at 940 psig represent values that were reduced from design basis loads to facilitate direct comparison with the rreasured loads.

'"*'.*.. *,., Dresden-2 , * : CECo, 5486-23 position indicator SARGENT 8c LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO eEMD-043864 June ~8, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 30 of 39 Figure 1. Support Position Scales ~ Position ~indication 1/2 inch gradations PSA SNUBBER 1/4 inch gradations TYPICAL SPRING HANGER

    • -*... 1
      • .Dresden-2 1CEC0, 5486-23 Steel pad and bracket LVDT*.

support clamp Figure 2. SARGENT 8c LUNDY &MD-043864 ENGINEERS CHICAGO LVDT Mounting Brass rod LVDT core June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 34 of 39 Configurations LVDT transformer body Main Stearn header support PIPE-MOUNTED LVDT LVDT transf orrner body Brass rod & LVDT core LVDT support clamp ~Snubber housing ~~elescoping & sup~ort cylinder cylinder SNUBBER-MOUNTED.LVDT

,, *:;, <. * *.*qr*esden-2 ,

  • G:ECo, 5 4 8 6-2 3 SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO e.m-043864 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 35 of 39 encl cc.p f'a.t:.e..*

/.SS t ~. g" L Strcdn Rosette. be.a..rit'\\j a..sscmbly . s-.. .e.l"lcl cc.p bas c.

1. '- ~ s" *--~

.. ~i-i1---- /. (,, ;. s... __ Figure 3. Snubber End Cap Assembly

... ~O:r;)esden-2

    • CE Co, 5 4 8 6-2 3 SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO MD-043864 une 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 36 of 39 Figure 4. *Three-D View of End Cap Assembly

.,,. D.resden-2

  • ;c.Eco, 5486-23

(, SARGENT 8c LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO ~MD-043864 June 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 37 of 39 Figure 5. Finite Element Model of Snubber End Cap

Dresden...,2 ,,..-*\\., "~ C-.t:Co, 5486-23

  • ,\\I f1I,*

/

  • I

.. i Stress A B c D E SARGENT 8c LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO Figure 6 Snubber End Plug AEMD-043864 ~une 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 38 of 39 Stress Intensity Distribution: --- TENSION LOADING --- levels: = 2000 F = 12000 = 4000 G = 14000 6000 H = 16000 = 8000 I = 18000 = 10000 J = 20000 K = 22000

Dresden-2 . '~'"' *,..,,{!£.co 1 5486-23

  • 1 Stress A

B c D E F G Stress SARGENT Be LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO Fi sure 7 Snubber End Plug -MD-043864 ~une 18, 1983, Rev. 00 Page 39 of 39 Intensity Distribution --- COMPRESSION LOADING --- Levels: = 1000 H = 8000 = 2000 I = 9000 = 3000 J = 10000 = 4000 K = 11000 = 5000 L = 12000 = 6000 M = 13000 = 7000 N = 14000}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17194B658&oldid=5130069"