ML20012G662

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
LPCI Pumps Npsha Evaluation - Post DBA-LOCA.
ML20012G662
Person / Time
Site: Dresden  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/30/1992
From:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17179A771 List:
References
NED-M-MSD-43, NED-M-MSD-43-R, NED-M-MSD-43-R00, NUDOCS 9303110233
Download: ML20012G662 (24)
v • d • e


Text

C Jeuttion No. NED-M-MSD-43 Drcsd:n LPCI Pumps NPSHA Ev:Justion Post DBA-LOCA 70taj Single Torus Specific Vapor Suction ,

Flow Pump Torus Pressure Static Volume Pressure Piping NPSHA NPSHR Margin Case (gom) Flow (gpm) Temp (F) (psia) - Head (tt) (ft3/lb) (psia) Losses (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) ,

3 10000 5000 168 18.7 13.32 0.01644 5.7223 4.72 39.32 30.00 9.32 3A 8916 4458 171 19.1 13.32 0.016457 6.1318 3.75 40.30 26.90 13.40 4 5000 5000 180 19.9 13.32 0.01651 7.511 3.77 39.00 30.00 9.00 >

4A 3881 3881 186 20.6 13.32 0.016547 8.568 2.27 39.72 25.70 14.02 7-A8 LE /

P t

I l

9303110233 930305 PDR ADOCK 05000237 O PDR

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ,

TITLE PAGE CALCULATION NO. PJED- M - MSD - 43 PAGE 1- OF ~/ l

~

% SAFETY RELATED D NEN-SAFETYRELATED CALCULATION TITLE ,

Dreshen LPct Pumps NPSHA &aludien fos Y DSA -LOG EQUIP NUMBER (S) STATION / UNIT SYSTEM M3) - 150g A/$/c/D Dasden 3 S3 L Pc1 REV. CHRON # PREPARER DATE REVIEWER DATE APPROVER DATE httffvN ' '

Ah/hg fh If3l1L f 4

i l

l I

)

i l

I l

1

"'J m .

.~> _

l i

i

-Calculation No. NED-M-MSD-43 Drcoden LPCI Pumps NPSEA Evaluation - Pact DBA-LOCA Purpose /Obiectiver Calculate the Net Positive Suction Head Available (NPSHA) for the LPCI pumps at Dresden Station under post-accident conditions as outlined in Reference 2, and compare with NPSH required (NPSHR) to ensure pump protection.

Assumptions / Inputs:

The NPSHA is calculated for each of the four cases analyzed by General Electric in Reference 2. Inputs to this calculation were taken from Tables 3, 4 and B.2 of Reference 2 and are summarized in Table 1 below:

Reduced LPCI Total Maximum Suppression Pumps Flow Suppression Chamber Case / Loop (gpm) Pool Temp (F) Pressure (psia) 3 2 10000 168 18.7 3A 2 8916 171 19.1 4 1 5000 180 19.9 4A 1 3881 186 20.6 Table 1 These calculations include the following assumptions:

1) An even split of flow is assumed between two pumps operating in parallel.
2) Suction piping losses based on calculations in References 1 and 5.
3) NPSHR values taken from Reference 1 (Table 2 - no For cases 3A and 4A, NPSHR temperature correction).

values were obtained through linear interpolation.

References:

1) R. Kolflat letter report titled " Alternate Shutdown Cooling Core Spray and LPCI pumps", Chron #841425 dated April 23, 1984
2) General Electric Report No. GENE-770-26-1092 "Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 2 & 3 LPCI/ Containment Cooling System Evaluation," November, 1992
3) S. Eldridge letter to C. Schroeder titled " Submergence of LPCI Discharge Line Post LOCA Dresden Units 2 and 3" dated September 29, 1992, chron# 0115532
4) ASME Steam Tables, 1967
5) Alternate Shutdown Cooling Core Spray and LPCI pump notes and back-up calculations for Reference 1, R. Kolflat, circa 4/89

calculaticn ND. NED-N-KSD-43

  • Drorden LPCI Pumpo NPIEA Evaluaticn - PDat DBA-LOCA gguations:

Net Positive Suction Head Available (NPSHA) is determined

~

using the following equation (Reference 1):

NPSHA = Torus Static Vapor Suction (1)

(ft) Pressure + Head -

Pressure -

Losses where: Torus Pressure = given in Table 1 (psia); converted to feet using specific volume Static Head = the minimum water elevation expected above the LPCI pump suction as calculated below:

Hinimum Torus water level elevation 491.5' (including maximum post-LOCA draw down as discussed in Reference 3)

LPCI pump suction elevation -

478.13 Static Head 13.32' Vapor Pressure = from Reference 4, in psia; converted to feet using specific volume Suction Losses=K*Q = piping' Klosses in feetat calculated Q = 5000 gpm using suction losses from References 1 and 5. (Tables 2 and 3)

LPCI NPSRA Calculations:

Using Equation 1 and the inputs provided above, the NPSKA is calculated for each of the four cases (Table 4). The required NPSH is also provided and the difference between the two is calculated.

Summarv/

Conclusions:

Post DBA-LOCA torus conditions were determined in Reference 2 and were used to calculate the available NPSH for the LPCI pumps at Dresden Station. The results in Table 4 indicate that the available NPSH is greater than the NPSH required (with margin) for all four cases, and therefore adequate to protect the pump under these conditions.

y -

A .d Sar/: ara.moA.0"' ~12nz.M -

SM R . .

& Hps N.g. ws4 -Q c.2 7 .

t

24. O z, 35oo 2.S* f.8.9 3500 .25.5* .;f. 2 / 24.84 AC* o 24. 2.44 27.57 450 C .34. .C 2.3 / 3.44 46*O 77.o 3. o1 .79. L .

- 4hoO 2 7.' f.e 3.2./ 2 3. p 4 47a* 28.L 3.5 $~ Z o. L .a 4 Son 25.S 7.4.29 21.4 7_ -'

3.2. / G 4*o o 23.4 3.G.3 -

2. 7~7 az. 3 Sco o 3a.o -- -

5/

  • o .1).a Ls z. f4.of ' - - - - -

4.o7 ES z, 3:c0 3 2. -

4~3Da 35 4. 2 s 34.3 4.

~~

3400 34 4.53 576 ' '

- ~ ~ ~ '

3 B. 4,8

.C6aC 35 , 4.66" _.

4.7/ E7.p 4

'Af.o a 34./ ~

4. S */ 41. L 4va a 37.1 .

~~~

  • Sbao 3s.4 C.04 .

4 2. C ~7 **

Cao sg.g S..zt 45.s4 -' ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~

, G eoc i Ma.4 f.'s 9  ; 45./1 91*:.h

  • PmseTVAm C*nd FM*H ...
  • W ._

~7"ff Bk G 2 . . . _ _ . . .

/

- * (RGi=GR G N C.dE' . .

~

T 0

NM7 l

.SlNGJf" MMf M i

Q H p s k ' h,g >T5HA & a.B 7 W k ' 5dC*tN. .f7 ' M

24. O z. o  : . 54, E?.40 35oo 2.5~ f.8.9 .?)
o. s 2. 2.77 G7.4

.26.s* .2.1/ 2 4. a +

390o 2C.l 9 /.7 27.57 }. 6 6 3.0 4 ACDo 2 /* . 2.44

.2.41 3.52. 2 9./5 2.66 430 0 .3 4. 5 2.3 / 2 3. +4

3. /C 2.BG 3 9. 9 8 3. +P 4 Soc 27.o 3. o v .79. 1 3.92. +o1 3 75 4.16 46oo 274 3..: /  : 3. > <

so. L a 44h 4 /9 3 5.1. So3 47aa 2a.1 3.25 S.4 4.36 32.29 S. S

+eao 28.8 7. 4.9 31.4 2.

4.14- 4.54 5 s.o? 6.58 49ao 23.4 3.L3 3.2. /G 35.s S 724 Soo a 3o. o t Ay ar.3 4. 8 S ,

4.91 35. c4 B.SS 1.s 2. pr4.os 8. o3 Sto o 21. e 15.z- 1. ] S. S.Io St.13 9.74 p S oc 3z 4. o7 Ib. % 4. *LS 37.42 10.? 3 33 4'. 2 s 24.3 4 C3co

11. 5 f49 38.l2. l.2/3 S4cc 34 4.53 57SL J K.3 3 4 SC 32.48 12.6 0 S$9 37.52.

ssoo 35 4/.12 I A*.0 3

f. 7/ E9. 94 13.?2 6.S *.)

34' . / IC9+

.S'4 a o

41. L /C.IB t-.lo 42.+5 37.1 4.97 S vo o

/4.55 $*II S. I Y' Il'IS Spoo 38.4 S.04 4 2. 5 ~7 46./6 ' g. C,.4 45.s 4 ) 7. B 2. 0.S 2 C300 33. C S.2/

45. / 2, /9. ] , 474 , 46.47 19.9 6 Gocb 4a. 4 S'.B 9
  • W BC - No me,--sod fe<. memns

-7 4 B A G 3 (RGYG A.G g C. G $

Calculation No. NED-M-MSD 43 '

Dresden LPCI Pumps NPSHA EvaluaSon- Post DBA-LOCA

. Total Sing!4 Torus SpeciSc Vapor Suction FK:w Pump Torus Pressure Static Volume Pressure Piping NPSHA NPSHR Margin Case (gpm) Flow (gpm) Temo (F) (psia) Head (ft) (ft3Ab) (psia) Losses (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 3 10000 5000 168 18.7 13.32 0.01644 5.7223 4.72 39.32 30.00 9.32 3A 8916 4458 171 19.1 13.32 0.016457 6.1318 3.75 40.30 26.90 13.40 4 5000 5000 180 19.9 13.32 0.01651 7.511 3.77 39.00 30.00 9.00 4A 3881 3881 186 20.6 13.32 0.016547 8.568 2.27 39.72 25.70 14.02 ff-

REVIEW CHECKLIST fv) ,,, m y0-93 RE7. O PAGE 7 OF 7 l CALCULATION NO: A/CD DATE: //[.ge[pg REVIE5iED BY: My $~ M gym M !!2 C 1. IS NE 05.ECTNE OF THE ANALYSE CLEARLY STATED 7 b C L ARE AESUMPTIONS AND DeGNEERNG .luDGEMENT5 VALD ANO DOCUMENTED 7 C Y 1. ARE WERE At*UurTIONS TMAT NEED VERFCATON7 s .

C 4. AM mE RErtracxs ctE. oRAwhaa. CooEs. stucuesi usRD W REVECN EDmON. DATE. ETC.?

d C 6. Is THE DESGN METHOO CofmECT AND ArmOPmAR FOR TMS ANALYS$7 I O 6. t5 THE CALCULATON 54 COMPUANCE WITH DEEON CRfTIMA.

CODES. STANOuCE. AND MS. GUOEST dO 7. ARE THE UNffE CLEARLY DDfrFED. 'ND EQUATIONS PROPDtLY OERfVED AND APPLEDP hC L AM THE DESIGN NPUTS AND THER SOURCES DDdTIFED AhD N COMPuANCE WITH UPSAA & TECH SPEC 57 K O s. AM THE RESULT 5 COMPATELK WITH THE NPUT5 AND MCOMMDd3AT10NS MADEF I

l _.

,"Y $$ W Y4 0'- YMWh)lV!) 4 M1 (adAfw swS42L'd J. //vcAeA/dAi/ 4 Aia/x& AM3 OF MVEW'

10. NOICATE OF CALCULATCH MA>O.P9EPARED AM: WOR )

QHAND PREPARED DESIGN CALCULATION THE MYIEW OF TFE MAN >NEPANED DEE10N CALELFLATON WAS ACCOmtE FOLLOWHO LAS DECKIIn:

N A DETA12D REVEW OF THE ORONAL CALCULATON  :

C A REVE'W EY AN ALTERPLATE. SAMLFED OR APPPCKEAATE METHO3 OF CALCULATON i O A PEVEW OF A PErREhENTATNE SAMPLI OF SEPETTTNE CALDAATENE

7. A MVEW OF THE CALQJLATAN AcLANET A tamLAA CALCULATDpt PREVOUSLY PERFORME D COMPUTER AfDED DESIGN CALCULATION i MU l M $ 1 Q Q 15. APE NE PEEULTD CONtsTENT Wrm THE '

C C 11. 85 THE PROOPAM AFP ram r TO NS m0SLKMF ASSUMPTONS AND THE NPUT CATAT C C 12. Is THE COMPUTER P9cGPAM VALDATED Ptn cP S447 0 0 18. IS A UET OF THE PYO3 RAMS USED AND DATE OF EACH COMPUTER sun ROVENCED N THE C C 13. s THE COuPUTUL PeoGPWLM VALcATED sY OTHER AE's i CALCULATCN7 OPCANtZATONS AM2 MAS IT MEN PNVOUSLY APPLED TO N

NUCLEAR PMO.ECT87 0 0 17, 5 THE PROGRAM VEREON ANO TPS MVt10 DENTIMED ON THE COuPUTER PUN 7 I C C 14. ts THE NPUT DATA N CONFORMAHct WrfH THE DESCP; MPUTET CHta tweertp Rev. 3

COMMOMWEALTH EDISON COMPANY TITLE PAGE ,

1 NED-M-MSD-43 PAGE 1 OF 13 CALCULATION NO.

l X SAFETY RELATED NON-SAFETY RELATED C %CULATION TITLE Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSHA Evaluation Post DBA-LOCA STATION / UNIT SYSTDi ,

EQUIP NUMBER (S)

Dresden 2 &3 LPCI/ Core Spray l 2(3) - 1502A/B/C/D 2(3) - 1401A/B DATE REVIEWER DATE APPROVER DATE REV. CHRON # PREPARER 1

O 194745 H. Palas iysofq R. Kolflat tys'./.x P.

Dietz 4%Qz 2

198391 hw k of,,gy fdG z/nh5

/4.V 84_J/A3 1

1 1

1 l

l 1

l QE 51.D EXHiEIT B REV.3

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY TABLE OF CONTENTS CAL'CULATION NO: NED-N-MSD-43 REV 1 PAGE 2 OF 13 t SECTIONS DESCRIPTION PAGES ,

1 TITLE PAGE 1 ,

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 REVISION

SUMMARY

3 4 CALCULATION SHEET (S) 4-12 5 REVIEW CHECKLIST 13 Attachments APPENDIX A A.1-A.3 APPENDIX B B.1 i

F f

1 t

b 1

QE51.D EKHIE!T C REV.3

COMMONiEALTH EDISON COMPANY REVISION

SUMMARY

NED-M-MSD-43 REV 1 PAGE 3 OF 13 CAL'CULATION NO:

DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS / REASON FOR CHANGE Calculation revised to eliminate non-QA references and inputs  !

and to incorporate the calculation of these inputs into this document. In addition, Core Spray added to scope and a sensitivity analysis on NPSH is included.

I AFFECTED PAGES PAGES REV. DESCRIPTION 1 1 Changed Title and Equipment Nos./ System to include Core Spray 2 1 Added Table of Contents 4 1 Changed Purpose / Objective to include Core Spray l 4,5 1 Added assumptions regarding hydraulic loss calculations and addition of Core Spray pps to scope 5 1 Re=oved two R. Kolflat references; added references ,

for hydraulic loss calculations and Core Spray 6 i Added equation for hydraulic loss calculations Added calculations for hydraulic losses l 7-9 1 9 1 Included discussion of NPSHR reduction due to increased temperature 10 1 Added sensitivity analysis to NPSHA calculations 10 1 Added Core Spray to Summary / Conclusions 11 1 Added Table 2 - NPSHR values Updated Table 3 for new suction loss values 12 1 Added Figure 1 - HPSHR reduction vs. temperature A.1-A.3 1 New NPSH sensitivity analysis B.1 1 New calculation of resistance coefficient for a 24 x 14 reducer QE-51.D EXHERD REV.3

1)

Calculation No. NED-M-KSD-43 RGY 1 Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSHA Evalustien - Post DBA-LOCA Purpos e /Ob-iective:

Calculate the Net Positive Suction-Head Available (NPSHA)-

for the LPCI and Core Spray pumps at Dresden Station under post- r accident conditions as outlined in Reference 2, and compare with NPSH required (NPSHR) to ensure pump protection.

Assumptions / Inputs:

The NPSHA is calculated for each of the four cases analyzed by General Electric in Reference 2. Inputs to4 this calculation for the LPCI pumps were taken from Tables 3, and B.2 of

~

Reference 2 and are summarized in Table 1 below: ,

LPCI Total Maximum Reduced Pumps Flow Suppression Torus ,

Case / Loop (gpm) Pool Temp (F) Pressure (psia) ,

3 2 10000 168 18.7 3A 2 8916 171 19.1  ;

4 1 000 180 19.9 4A 1 iB81 186 20.6 i

Table 1 In addition to the assumptions made in Reference 2, the l following assumptions are also made in this calculation:

1) An even split of flow is assumed between two pumps operating in parallel; frictional losses to each pump assumed similar.
2) Suction piping losses determined at 90 deg F, 5000 gpm (one pump) and 10000 gpm (two pumps). Assumed lower temperature than Table 1 for higher kinematic viscosity and conservatively higher suction losses.

. 3) Strainer losses assumed to be 0.8 ft 0 5000 gpm and entrance losses assumed 0.6 ft @ 5000 gpm, 1.8 ft

@ 10000 gpm (Used Reference 11 as basis; extrapolated values provided for 5750 and 11620 gpm to 5000 and 10000 gpm respectively using quadratic relationship between flow and friction losses).

4) NPSHR values (Table 2) are developed based on the NPSER l curves for the LPCI and Core Spray pumps (References 5 and 6). NPSHR not reduced for higher temperatures.  !
5) Minimum torus level (including maximum drawdown) assumed i as provided in Reference 3. l l

1

. - _ _ ~ - . _ _

7:3 Calculation No. NED-H-MSD-43 Rov 1 Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSEA Evaluation - Post DBA-LOCA

6) Assumed roughness factor, e, for clean commercial steel pipe (e = 0.00015). i
7) Assumed turbulent flow through fittings.  ;

Also,

8) Core Spray and LPCI pump suction losses similar.

s Unit 3 LPCI/ Core Spray suction losses assumed similar.  ;

9) Core Spray case bounded by LPCI case due to similar suction losses, similar NPSER curves, and identical pump centerline elevations; also, Core Spray runs at a lower flow than LPCI, therefore operating at a lower NPSHR condition than LPCI. l
10) Assumed all gate valves to be fully open. i

References:

1) " Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, .and Pipe",

Crane Technical Paper No. 410, 24th Printing, 1988

2) General Electric Report No. GENE-770-26-1092 "Dresden
  • Nuclear Power Station Units 2 & 3 LPCI/ Containment 1 Cooling System Evaluation," November, 1992 i j
3) S. Eldridge letter to C. Schroeder titled " Submergence of LPCI Discharge Line Post LOCA Dresden Units 2 and 3" dated September 29, 1992, chron/ 0115532
4) ASME Steam Tables, 1967 ,
5) Bingham Pump Curve No. 25355 for 12x14x14.5 CVDS, Dresden Station LPCI Pump l l
6) Bingham Pump Curve No. 25231 for 12x16x14.5 CVDS, Dresden '

Station Core Spray Pump

7) Sargent & Lundy drawing M-547, LPCI pump suction
8) Sargent & Lundy drawing M-549, Core Spray pump suction i 9) " Cameron Hydraulic Data," Ingersoll-Rand Co., 16th Edition, 2nd Printing, 1984
10) "Dresden LPCI/ Containment Cooling System," GE Nuclear Chapman dated Energy letter from S. Mintz to T. L.

i January 27, 1993

11) "Dresden Station Units 2 and 3, Quad-Cities Station Units 1 and 2, NRC Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, and 50-265," letter from G. J. Pliml to D. L. Ziemann dated September 27, 1976
12) " Centrifugal Pump Clinic," Karassik, Igor J., second edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1989

b

/G Cniculation N3. NED-H-MSD-43 Rav 1 Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSHA Evaluation - Post DBA-LOCA Ecuationst .

Suction Losses Straight piping and fitting losses are determined using the following equation (Reference 1, page 3-4): r 0.00259 *K*Q 2 (1) .

hL = 4 l

d .

where: hL = frictional losses (ft)

K = resistance coefficient Q = flow (gpm) d = inner diameter of pipe (in)

The resistance coefficient, K, is the sum of the resistance coefficient for the fittings, Kf, andbe Kf can theobtained resistance coefficient directly from ,

for the straight pipe, Kp. For straight pipe, Kp is applicable tables (Reference 9).

defined as:

L Kp = f (2)

D where: f = friction factor L = length of pipe (ft)

D = inner diameter of pipe (ft)

The friction factor, f, is dependent upon the pipe diameter, Reynold's number, and pipe roughness, and can be determined is using the Moody diagram (Reference 1). Reynold's number, Re, determined using the following equation (Reference 1, page 3-2):

Re = (3) i d

  • JA l

3 where: JS = density, 1b/ft

= dynamic viscosity (centipoise)

J4 I

Y!1 1 calculation No. NED-N-MSD-43 RSV 1 _

Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSKA Evaluation - Post DBA-LOCA .;

Net Positive Suction Head Net Positive Suction Head Available (NPSHA) is determined using the following equation. -

NPSHA = 144 * (Pt - Pv) + Z - hL (4)

J' '

where: Pt = Torus Pressure given in Table 1 (psia)  :

j PV = Vapor Pressure from Reference 4 (psia) a Z = Static Head, the minimum water elevation expected above the LPCI/ Core Spray pump suction as calculated below:

491.42' l Minimum Torus water level elevation '

(including maximum post-LOCA draw j down as discussed in Reference 3) i LPCI/CS pump suction elevation - 478.138 i i

~13.29'  ;

Static Head hL = suction losses in feet ,

t calculations:  ;

Suction Losses - One Pumo i t

The suction piping for LPCI pump 2A is shown in Reference 7 and is made up of the following components:  !

i Line Component No. Kf 8 L/D Loss (ft) 0.6 2-1502-24" Entrance loss - ---- t 90 deg elbow (LR)b 1 0.19 l 45 deg elbow 1 0.19 ID= 23.25" 0.10 1

gate valve 0.24 l reducing tee (thrg) 1 8.26 16' straight pipe -

l 0.72 8.26 0.6 Total l i

0.07 C 2-1502A-14" reducer, 24x14 1 90 deg elbow 2 0.78 [

ID= 13.25" 45 deg elbow 1 0.21 '

gate valve 1 0.10 0.8 i 1 ----

strainer 4' straight pipe d - 3.62 -!

Total 1.16 3.62 0.8 f i

a from Reference 9 d Total straight pipe length determined i b from Reference 11 as the sum of all straight p pe lengths C see Appendix B minus the length of all fitt ngs .,

f

b Cniculation No. NED-M-MSD-43 Rov 1 Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSEA Evaluation - Post DBA-LOCA The Reynold's number for each piping run is determined using Equation 3 (@ 90 deg F):

50.6 * (5000) * (62.116)

Re24 - = 9.0 x 10 5 (23.25) * (0.75) 50.6 * (5000) * (62.116)

Rel4 = = 1.6 x 10 6 (13.25) * (0.75)

The friction factor for each piping run can then be determined using the Moody diagram for clean commercial steel pipe (Reference 1: A-25):

f24 = 0.0132 f14 = 0.0134 The resistance coefficient, K, is now be determined for each piping run utilizing Equation 2 for the straight pipe portion:

K24 = Kf + Kp

= 0.72 + (0.0132)*(8.26)

= 0.83 K14 == 1.21 1.16 + (0.0134)*(3.62)

Using Equation 1, the friction loss for each piping run and total suction friction losses can be determined as follows:

0.00259 x 0.83 x (5000)2 hL 24 = 0.6' +

(23.25)4

= 0.78 feet 0.00259 x 1.21 x (5000)2 hL 14 = 0.8' +

(13.25)4

= 3.34 feet hL 0.78 + 3.34 tot == 4.12 feet @ 5000 gpm To determine frictional losses at any flow, the quadratic relationship between hL and Q establishes the following:

hL2 = hL1 x (Q2/Q1)2 (5)

Calcuintien ND. NED-M-MSD-43 Rov'1 Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSEA Evaluation -Post'DBA-LOCA i

i Suction Losses - Two Pumos For two pump operation, most of the 24" line (assume all) l' sees full flow (10000 gpm), while each of the 14" lines that branch off of it see one-half full flow (5000 gpm). Since the 14" line was previously analyzed at 5000 gpm, only the 24" line- 3 at 10000 gpm needs to be nnalyzed. l b

The Reynold's number and friction factor for the 24" line at-10000 gpm are:

l 50.6 x 10000 x 62.116

-Re24 = = 1.8 x 10 6 j 23.25 x 0.75  !

f24 = 0.0125 j The resistance coefficient and frictional losses for the 24"  !

pipe at 10000 gpm are then calculated as K24 = Kf + Kp -

= 0.72 + (0.0125)*(8.26)

= 0.82 l i

0.00259 x 0.82 x (10000)2 l hL 24 = 1.8' +

(23.25)4 )

= 2.53 feet  !

l The suction friction losses for each pump with two pumps .!

running is ,

i hLtot = 2.53 + 3.34

= 5.87 feet 9 10000 gpm total flow l NPSHA Calculations:

Using Equation 4 and the inputs provided in Table 1 and l Equation 5, the NPSHA is calculated for each of the four cases -

(Table 3). The required NPSH is also provided and the difference )

between the two is calculated. -The NPSHR provided is for cold  ;

water and is not adjusted for the increased temperatures expected  !

in the torus. This adjustment would have taken the form of a  !

NPSHR reduction and resulted in a greater margin for NPSHA over j NPSHR. From Figure 1 (Ref. 12), the reduction at 170 deg F i (Cases 3 and 3A) would be about 0.3 feet, and at 180 deg F (Cases 1 4 and 4A) would be about 0.4 feet.

l

)

1

[ C>]I )

Calculation No. NED-M-MSD-43 Rov 1 Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSHA Evaluation - Post DBA-LOCA The margin between available and required NPSH in Table 3 is given in feet. In order to better understand the significance of this margin, a sensitivity analysis was performed (Appendix A) g based on each of the following:

A1) torus temperature increase (Cases 3 and 4)

A2) torus pressure decrease (Cases 3 and 4)

A3) CCSW initiation time increase (All cases)

In preparing this sensitivity analysis, the following conservative assumptions were made:

A1) As torus temperature increases, torus pressure remains constant.

A2) Torus temperature remains unchanged for lower torus pressures.

A3) Higher temperatures produced by delaying the initiation of CCSW will not be accompanied by higher pressures.

Summary /

Conclusions:

Post DBA-LOCA torus conditions were determined in Reference 2 and were used to calculate the available NPSH for the LPCI and Core Spray pumps at Dresden Station. The results in Table 3 indicate that the available NPSH is greater than the required NPSH (with margin) for all four cases, and therefore adequate to protect the pumps under these conditions. While the calculations performed were for the LPCI 2A pump, the results bound the remaining LPCI pumps as well as the Core Spray pumps for both Units based on similar suction losses, required NPSH and pump elevations.

9

Cr.lculation No. Nt.u-M-MSD-43 Itav 1 Dresden LPCl/ Core Spray Pumns NPSHA Evaluation - Post D8A LOCA Flow NPSHR Flow NPSHR (gpm) (ft) (gpm) (f()

3500 25.0 5500 35.0 3800 25.5 5600 36.1 4000 26.0 5700 37.2 4500 27.0 5800 38.4 5000 30.0 5900 39.5 5300 33.0 6000 40.6 Table 2 Total Single Torus Torus Specific Vapor Suction Pump Temp Pressure Static Volume Pressure Losses NPSHA NPSHR Margin Flow Case (apm) Flow (opm) (F) (psia) Head (f t) (ft3/lb) (psia) (It) (ft) (ft) (ft) 3 10000 5000 168 18.7 13.29 0.01644 5.722 5.87 38.14 30.00 8.14 3A 8916 4458 171 19.1 13.29 0.016457 6.132 4.67 39.35 26.90 12.45 4 5000 5000 180 19.9 13.29 0.01651 7.511 4.12 38.62 30.00 8.62 4A 3881 3881 186 20.6 13.29 0.016547 8.568 2.48 39.48 25.70 13.78 Table 3

G C. Ido. tJE D-M - m S O- 43 pe, ; VGof

  • d Dresden OC t/ Core Spray P ~ps tae,suA atux+;cn f'g> g acm 1000 * ,

e , , ,,i  ; s / .,,y s e i 4 J~ l 'd 7 i I/ sr /

i l /l' 1

, o i , l

\

\p ' #

500 1 1 i \

ll 7,, l l

/f d'l ll l '

  • 1  : s / l t 400 '

g ,

j a r 300 l ' #

p.

/

4, '

a r i s

~~

200 6 '

~

9 i , / -+- s R L- r 8 150 '[ /~ y ,,,,, - "-"""";,,,--y-~, g,

- - T ri

"" ,4 ,

,a

.- * -r #m e

-- y- --

4 ,.-

,h -~-- 6

_j - "a- ~~~

3(--C.-,, - "

, , , -m

,, n g

- - .- r

.p -

h --- ? 5 E p- s s

L-- sv

-r- ,r-m -

R r --

  • 4 m

1 .

/L-- r s _-r- z

_ -~ _s- s-- w~< s-- 6 -.e-- J t

.3 o

= ;

$ ,, -F ,

s#/ ,,,,,,.e- K L,.a*~~- ) J,, , , , -- ~'-~

y f WD& ~ -*** ,,,-- " j /s ""*'"*~ # l

)- * * ""

l g

y Df- T- .-- ,". -

7 l / -- -- ~'~

l 3 - -- --

"~ ~

u g 40 -

,f p,,,.-- f p -- , -- r 1.5 J-k

'"""' .f , .,

m / -

3 _ ' -- --*,,,. m

,--- ""~~" -

I -- ~ ~ 1.0 $

p --- ,,,,.-

m 20 Ct .

._,. s ,' _ - -

g p ;_g .Nj, , , , - -- ,e . ,,,, - --

5 15

' ~~~

Y' ~~~

l' Q f' j ~ ~~~ "-

/ / ,,,,---- 0.5

/ - - , i , - --

10 / .

, < O~s ' -,- ##~

< s$s y ,

s-'--

r

/ i s -- '"'- (,f f ' ,

I 5 ,\ , a y (/ l / l j

4 /

/ '

Rff 3

/ / . _ . _.

/ vl A,.

/

~ , .M si

/ 7f 1.': r .

)  !

)

1'0

/ r O 50 100 150 200 250 300 400 TEMPERATURE (*F)

Figure 1.29 NPSH reductions for pumps handling hydrocarbon liquids and high-temperature water (Courtesy Hydraulic Institute Standards of 1975.)

f~1 cure i ( Ref. II , p.50

g eL%eoNWDJ Th ED150b ash 6 Rw.u.w GECKLIST CALCULATION No: A/E D- m- M5 0 'f 3 l REV. [ PAGE [3 OF 13 REVIEWED BY: [A /(

DATE: 3[e[q3 mtuapr5 mg C 1.15 *HE C5 JECT 7VE OF THE ANALYSIS CLEARLY STATED 7 C 2. ARE ASSUMPTIONS AND ENGWEERNG JUDGEMENTS VALD AND DOCUMENTED 7 C 2. ARE THERE ASSUMPTIONS THAT NEED VERF1 CAT 10Ny C 4. ARE THE REFEREN25 (LL DRAWWGS. CODES. STANDARDS)

USTED BY REVLSION EDTTION. DATE, ETC.7 C 5. !$ THE DESIGN METHOD CORRECT AND APPROPRLATE FOR THIS ANALYS157

~

J w C 6. IS THE CALCULATION N COM7UANCE WffH DESIGN CRTTERIA.

CODES. STANDARDS. AND REG. GUCES7 d C 7. ARE THE UNIT 3 CEARLY DENTInED, AND EQUATIONS PROPERLY DERIVED AND APPUED7 C 8. ARE THE DESIGN WPUTS AND THEIR SOURCES DENT 1MED AND N COMPUAN2 WITH UFSAR & TECH SPECS 7 C S. ARE THE RESULTS COMPATIBM WITH THE NPUTS AND RECCMMENDAT1DNS MADET

10. NDICATE TYPE OF CALCULATION (MAND-PREPARED AND/OR COVJUTEFb ACEDI AND METHOD OF REVIEW:

HAND PREPARED DESIGN CALCULATION THE REVIEW OF THE HAND +REPARED DESIGN CALCULATION WAS ACCOMPUSHED BY ONE OR A COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWWG LAS CHECKEDL DETAILED REVIEW OF THE ORIGN CALCULATION C A REVIEW CY AN ALTERNATE. $18APLIMED OR APPRCX1 MATE METHOD OF CALCULATION O AJtEVIEW OF A REPRESENTAT7VE SAMPE OF REPETTTT/E CALCULATIONS A REVIEW OF THE CALCULATION AGAINST A SIMILAR CALCULATION PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED D COMPUTER AIDED DEEIGN CALCULATION m '12 m !!2 C C it.15 mE PRocRAu ArruCABLE TO WIS PROBLEM 7 C C 15. ARE WE RESULTS CONSISTENT WIN NE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE INPUT DATA 7 C C 12.15 THE CDMPUTER PROGRAM VALCATED PER QP 3 547 C C 18.15 A UST OF THE PROGRAMS USED AND OATE C C 12. :S THE CDunsTER PnOcRAM VAUDATED BY OTHER AE*S / OF EACH COMPUTER RUN REFERENCED IN THE ORGAN 2ATIONS AND MAS IT EEIN PREVIOUSLY APfuED TO CALCULATION 7 NUC3AR PROJECTS 7 C C 17. IS THE PROGRAM VERSION AND IT'S REVISION C C 14. 15 THE INPUT DATA IN CONFORMANCE WITH OENTIFIED ON THE COMPUTTR RUN7 THE DESIGN INPUTS 7 Of 41.0 taeustT 8 RW 3

}'q c 4* ot ri.y Calculation No. NLu M-MSD 43 Ilev 1 Dresden LPCIICore Spray Pumps NPSilA Evaluation - Post DBA LOCA l

Appendix A ,

NPSH Margin CCSW Initiation Time Sensitivity increase from 600 to 1800 Seconds Total Single Torus

  • Torus Specific Vapor Suction 1800 s 600 s flow Pump Temp Pressure Static Volume Pressure losses NPSilA NPSHR Margin Margin Caso topm) Flow (ppm) (F) losia) Head If t) (ft3/ib) (psia) (ft) (ft) Ift) (ft) (fti 3' 10000 5000 172 18.7 13.29 0.016463 6.274 5.87 36.68 30.00 6.88 8.14 8916 4458 174 19.1 13.29 0.016474 6.566 4.67 38.35 26.90 11.45 12.45 3 A' 4' 5000 5000 182 19.9 13.29 0.016522 7.851 4.12 37.84 30.00 7.84 8.62 4 A' 3881 3881 188 20.6 13.29 0.016559 8.947 2.48 38.60 25.70 12.90 13.78 Tablo A-1
  • Increased Values of Torus Temperature from Reference 10 6:

r s ,-

M b

  • 3-

_ , i

h e. E.2 c f A. 3 ^

D- ,

Calculation No. NED-M-MSD-43 Rev i j Dresden LPC1/Cors Spray Pumps NPSHA Evatushon- Post DBA-LOCA t

Appendix A-  ;

l NPSH Margin Temperature Sensitivity  ;

l 1 i r

! L l

Case 3: Two Pumps - 10,000 gpm - 18.7 PSIA j 9.00 -- / W*

8.00-7.00 - f l j

E 6.00 -

~

'I s 5.00 -

E 4.00 -

E 3.00 -

5 I 2.00 -

l $ 1.00 -

0.00

-1 .0 0165 170 175' 180 185 1 195 j

-2.00 J Torus Peak Temperature (F) -

Case 4: One Pump - 5000 gpm - 19.9 PSIA l p, . Tabic. 3 1 9.00 -

1 8.00 - 'l 7.00 l 5 6.00 l 59 5.00 i j 4.00 -

l

= 3.00 3 rn

$ 2.00  ;

1.00 l 0.00 1.00180 185 190 195 250 Torus Peak Temperature (R Figure A-1 j 1

i l .

l

P=g 4.3 .r r 3 CalminHan No. NED444tSD 43 Rev 1 Dresden LPCt/ Core Spray Pumps NPSHA Evaluatior>. Post DBA-LOCA -

-1 Appendix A l i

NPSH Margin Pressure Sensitivity . ]

Case 3: Two Pumps - 10,000 gpm - 186 F -

f T.Wt.a  ;

I 9.00 < / '

8.00 - ,

7.00 -

/ l E 6.00 -

~

  • l s 5.00 "

[ 4.00 - '

2 3.00 -  !

5 2.00 -

$ 1.00 - ~  !

0.00 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 f

-1.00 4.0

-2.00 l  :

Torus Pressure (psia) l Case 4: One Pump - 5000 gpm - 180 F bee. 3 10.00 - g 8.00 -

2

~

J 6.00 -  :

5

- P l j 4.00-i

= .l E 2.00 -

z 0.00 y, 3 l

g .20.0 18.0 19.0 1E.0 f 6.0 17.0 Torus Pressure (psial Figure A-2

e. 6,I of e I Calculation No. NED-N-MSD-43 Rev 1 Dresden LPCI/ Core Spray Pumps NPSE1 Evaluation - Post DBA-LOCA APPENDIZ B Calculation of Resistance Coefficient of 24 x 14 Reducer From Reference 1 (A-26), the equation for the resistance coefficient of a reducer is given by:

2 K 0.8 sin (a/2) (1 - b ) (B-1)

- (d2 - di) -

where a = 2 tan-1 '

1 2L -

b = d1/d2 dl = small diameter of reducer (in) d2 = large diameter of reducer (in)

L = length of reducer (in) l i

For a 24 x 14 reducer, the above parameters are defined as:

dl = 13.25 in L = assume dl + d2 d2 = 23.25 in = 36.5 in l Therefore, b = 0.57 and a = 15.6 deg Substituting into Equation A-1, the resistance coefficient for the reducer 1s:

K = 0.07 i

)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ - . . . _ . . - _ _ - _ . _ . - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - . - - _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20012G662&oldid=2471314"