ML20010C782

Nonproprietary Version of Cpc/Ceac Sys Phase I,Software Verification Test Rept.

ML20010C782
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	08/05/1981
From:	ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY
To:
Shared Package
ML13308B934	List: ML13308B933 ML20010C770 ML20010C772 ML20010C774 ML20010C778 ML20010C782
References
CEN-176(S)-NP, NUDOCS 8108200414
Download: ML20010C782 (17)

Text

. _ _ _

SAN ONOFRE UNIT 2 ,

DOCKET 50-361'AND 50-362 CEN-176(S)-NP REVISION 00 CPC/CEAC SYSTEM i PllASE I SOFTWARE VERIFICATION TEST REPORT i

L 1

AUGUST 5, 1981 t

i Combustion Engineering, Inc.

. Nuclear Power Systems Power Systems Group I Windsor, Connecticut i

> 4 8108dOO414 810013" PDR ADOCK 05

?

LEGAL NOTICE

[o This response was prepared as an account of work sponsored by Combustion Engineering, Inc. Neither Combustion Engineering nor any person acting on its b'ehal f:

a. Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied including the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this response, or that the use of any information, appccatus, method, or process disclosed in this response may not infringe privately owned rights; or

b. Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damager resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this response.

e Page 1 of 16

ABSTRACT O

Phase I Design Qualification Testing is performed on the DNBR/LPD Calculator System to verify that the CPC and CEAC sof tware modifications have been properly implemented This report presents the Phase I Test results for the Southern California Edison Company SONGS 2 plant CPC/CEAC Revision 00 sof tware.

The Phase I Testing was performed according to previously issued procedures (Reference 2). The test results indicate that the CPC and CEAC sof tware modifications have been properly implemented.

t

~ Page E of 16 c

O TABLE C. CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

5 1.1 Objective of Phase I Testing 5 1.2 Results 5 1.3 Conclusions 5 1.4 Prerequisites 5 ,

2.0 APPLICATION PROGRAM TESTING 6 2.1 Test Configuration 6 2.2 Test Cases 6 2.3 Test Execution and Results 7 3.0 EXECUTIVE TESTING 12 ,

l 3.1 Test Configuration 12 l 3.2 Test Cases 12 3.3 Test Execution and Results 12 4.0 PHASE I TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

15

5.0 REFERENCES

16 4

m Page 3 of 16

P. LIST OF TABLES TITLE PAGE NO.

TABLE Hardware Configuration for Phase I B 2-1 Application Program Testing 9

2-2 Application Programs Tested with the Automated Phase I Testing Program Hardware Configuration for Phase I 13 3-1 Executive Program Testing LIST OF FIGURES Memory Map for Phase I CPC Application 10 2-1 Program Testing Memory Map for Phase I CEAC Application 11 2-2 Program Testing Memory Map for CPC/CEAC Executive Phase I 14 3-1 Testing Page 4 of 16 m

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

This document summarizes the results of the Phase I Design

. Qualification Testing of the changes to the CPC and CEAC sof tware for SONGS 2 Cycle 1. The programs affected by these changes, which are described in Reference 1, were required to undergo Phase I Testing in accordance with Reference 2. The changes reficct the implementation of Sof tware Change Requests 195 through 240. These changes were made in accordance with Reference 2.

The tests reported herein were conducted on the CPC/CEAC design. A discussion of the test configuration, test methodology, and test results are presented in this docur.e..t.

1.1 OBJECTIVE OF PHASE I TESTING The objective of Phase I Design Qualification Testing is to verify the irglementation of the Core Protection Calculation System (i.e., both CPC and CEAC) sof tware.

l 1.2 RESULTo Analysis of the Phase I Design Qualification Tests demonstrated that the sof tware changes had been correctly implemented to meet the system functional requirements.

1.3 CONCLUSION

S

. CPC System Phase I Testing was perforned in the prescribed nanner as l described by Phase I Test Procedures. The comprehensive Phase I Testing was adequate to meet all of the test objectives. The success of the Phase I Testing demonstrates the adequacy of the CPC/CEAC sof tware implementation.

1.4 PREREQUISITES Before formal Phase I Testing was initiated, the following prerequisites were satisfied:

1. Programmer debug testing was performed on the module changes to remove all obvious errors.

2. The modules and programs that changed were integrated into complete sof tware systems and absolute core images were generated on the CPC permanent mass storage medium (floppy disks).

Page 5 of 16

'. 2.0 APPLICATION PROGRAM TESTING The CPC and CEAC application programs were tested in accordance with the CPC/CEAC Phase I Test Procedure. This section discusses the actual test configuration, test cases, and test execution and results.

Phase I Test runs used Disk #S88 as the A-B Reference Disk.

2.1 TEST CONFIGURATION Phase I festing of the CPC and CEAC application programs was performed on the CEAC Single Channel Unit. For the purpose of this testing, the single channel was configured wita the hardware complement listed in Table 2-1. The sof tware configuration for the application programs Phase I Testing is shown in Figure 2-1 (CPC) and Figure 2-2 (CEAC).

Memory was loaded with this configuration by the following procedure:

1. The integrated CPC or CEAC system was loaded from the SONGS Reference Disk (Disk #S88 for CPCs and CEAC #1, Disk #S89 for CEAC #2).

~

2. The Automated Phase I Testing Software was loaded from magnetic tape, overlaying the CPC/CEAC Executive and unused portions of memory.

3. The Interdata Hexadecinal Debug Program, CLUB, was loaded from magnetic tape, overlaying any unused portion of memory.

The Automated Phase I Testing software was then used, with CLUB, to test the programs listed in Table 2.2. ,

2.2 TEST CASES 2.2.1 Inputs Phase I Test case inputs for the CPC/CEAC application programs were generated in accordance with the CPC/CEAC Phase I Test Procedure.

Sufficient test cases were chosen to exercise each functional branch in the application programs. However, several branches were not exercised because assigned constant values made it impossible to branch on certain conditions. All coding that cannot be executed, because of constant assignments, was verified by inspection to assure correct implementation.

Page 6 of 16

. 2.2.2 Expected Results Expected results for the CPC and CEAC application programs Phase I Lt Test cases were generated by two methods. The preferred method for generation of expected results utilized the CPC FORTRAN Simulation Code. Test case inputs were punched onto' cards and entered into the Simulation Code. The FORTRAN Code calculated the expected results and punched then onto cards in a format acceptable to the automated Phase I Testing Program. In some instances, such as input / output handling, the FORTRAN Code does not simulate the CPC code. In these cases, the expected results were hand calculated by the test. engineer based on the system functional requirements, the programmer's flowcharts, and the system data base document. Tic results were then manually punched onto cards in a format acceptable te the Automated Phase I Testing Program.

2.3 TEST EXECUTION AND RESULTS When test case inputs had been selected and expected results had been generated, the test engineer prepared the test deck to be read by the Automated Phase I Testing Program. The test case inputs overlayed the portions of memory where data is accessed by the sof tware module under test. After each set of inputs overlayed appropriate memory locations, the sof tware modu 19 under test was executed and the actual CPC results were compared to the expected results by the Autonated Phase I Testing Program. Whenever the actual value differed from the expected value by more than 0.1 percent, an analysis of the error was performed by the test engineer to assure that the deviation was not caused by a coding error.

Documentation generated by the Automated Phase I Testing Program consisted of listings which contain input and output differences. For several of the modules tested, it was not obvious which branches in the code were taken when observing the outputs. When tracing through a portion of code, the location of each instruction was printed when that instruction was executed, which enabled the test engineer to verify that each functional branch was taken. A Phase I Test Log was used to maintain a daily account of testing activities.

Phase I Testing was perforred on the CPC application programs on July 24 and July 25, 1981. While the application program test results were being analyzed, Phase I Testing of the Executive System was performed between July 25 and July 30, 1981.

Tests in the Penalty Factor program were run on July 25, 1981. No problems were found. Tests on the Display program for both CEAC1 and CEAC2 were also run on July 25, 1981. No problems were found.

It was concluded that there were no coding errors in the CPC and CEAC application programs.

Page 7 of 16

s 4

l TABi.E 2-1

~

jlARD'1ARE C0t1 FIGURATION FOR Pl!ASE I

. . APPL.ICATI0ff PROGPR4 TESTit!G t

(

a

\

J i

Page 8 of 16 ,

t

s 2

n

• TABLE 2-2 APPL.lCATI0ff PROGRAMS TESTED tIITil Tile AUTOMATED PifASE I TESTIt!G PROGPJJ4 T

I I

i 1

u .

I Page 9 of 16 y -- , w- - y - , -4%-- m

FIGURE ?-1 14El10RY IMI' FOR Pl!ASE PJC Al'l>LICATIO l PROGRMi TESTIrlG Page 10 of If,

-1a t

. I I -

FIGURE 2 2-HD10RY MAP FOR PilASE J CEAC APPLICATI0ft PROGRN4 TESTIllG >

e. l I

t 1

t i

i i

b l

i .

i t

r l

i i

l f

I h

a

. t i

i Page 11 of 16 N' rw -

y- -

w- -, a- N ----y -' ---

9

3.0 EXECUTIVE TESTING The CPC/CEAC Executive sof tware was tested in accordance with the I CPC/CEAC Executive Phase I Test Procedure. This section discusses the actual test configuration, test cases, and test execution and results.

3.1 TEST CONFIGURATION Phase I testing of the CPC/CEAC Executive was performed on the CPC Single Channel System. For the purpose of this testing, the single channel was configured with the hardware complement listed in Table 3-

- 1. This hardware configuration is functionally identical to the as-built CPC/CEAC design.

The sof tware configuration for the Executive Phase I Testing is shown in Figure 3-1. Memory was loaded with this configuration by the following procedure:

1. An integrated CPC/CEAC system was loaded from SONGS 2 Reference Disk #S88 (the entire image was loaded although only the Executive system is tested).

2. ' The Interdata Hexadecical Debug Program, CLUB, was loaded from magnetic tape overlaying an unused area in nomcry.

The prescribed test cases were then set up and executed using the CLUB program to test the Executive sof tware.

3.2 TEST CASES The CPC/CEAC Executive Phase I Test Cases are described in the Executive Phase I Test Procedure. Sufficient test cases were chosen to exercise each functional branch in the Executive.

3.3 TEST EXECUTION AND RESULTS For tes' ting of the CPC/CEAC Executive, the debug program, CLUB. was used to insert test case inputs itzt.o nemory; to insert breakpoints to trace and intercept code executicas; and to examine results.

Documentation produced as a result of Executive Phase I Testing consists of the CLUB teletype printouts, initialed and dated by the test engineer.

The CPC/CEAC Executive was tested on July 25 through July 30, 1981.

No errors were detected.

Page 12 of 16

,- TABLE 3-1

, HAR[ MARE C0flFIGURATI0fl FOR PHASE I EXECUTIVE PROGRAM TESTIfiG

~

t M

r

-h a

[

9 1

i

[

P J

1 r .

t t

i s

t

. i

- - t Page 13 of 16 p--,-w-m --,. -ya3 ,

.g,

~.

. FIGURE 3-1 .

HEMORY MAP FOR CPC/CEAC EXECUTIVE PliASE I TESTIllG 4

b i

4 i

4 Page 14 of 16

^

4.0 PHASE I TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

- Phase I testing of the CPC and CEAC software for SONGS 2 Cycle 1 was performed in accordance with Reference 2. Test results conclude that all software modifications outlined in Reference 1 were correctly implemented.

4 4

Page 15 of 16

l

5.0 REFERENCES

".- 1. CPC/CEAC Sof tware Modifications for San Onofre Unit 2, CEN-135(S)P, Revi! ion 00, August 1980.

2. CPC Protection Algorithm Software Change Procedure CEN-39( A)-P, Revision 02, December 21, 1978.

Page 16 of 16 L