ML20054M492
| ML20054M492 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1982 |
| From: | Grayson R, Kelly R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054M488 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.D.1, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8207130505 | |
| Download: ML20054M492 (31) | |
Text
.,
e ATTACHMENT I i
PWR SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE ADEQUACY REPORT FOR ALABAMA POWER C0dPANY JOSEPH H. FARLEY UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 JUNE 25, 1982 i
Prepared By '
R'. M. Gray n
/
Approved By:
i R. E.IKelly', Mander Pump and Valve Engineering i
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Nuclear Energy Systems P.O. Box 355 l
Pittsburgh, PA 15230 l
r 1
l i
B207130505 020701 PDR ADOCK 05000 P
,~.
t 1.0 INTR 000CTI0i1 In accordance with the initial recocuendation of 11UREG 0578, Section 2.1.2 as later clarified by NUREG 0737, item II.D.1 and revised September 29, 1981, each Pressurizer Water Reactor (PWR) Utility on or oefore July 1,1982, was to submit information relative to the pressurizer safety and relief valves in use at their plant.
Specifically, this submittal should include an evaluation supported by test results which demonstrate the capa' ility of the relief and safety valves to operate under expected o
i operating and accident conditions.
The primary objective of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) test program was to provide full scale test data confirming the functionability of the primary system power operated relief valves and i
safety valves for expected operating and accident conditions.
The second objective of the program was to obtain sufficient piping toeraal j
hydraulic load data to permit confirmation of models which may be utilized for plant specific analysis of safety and relief valve discharge piping systems.
Relief valve tests were completed in August 1981 and safety valve tests were completed in January 1982.
Reports have oeen prepared by EPRI which document the results of the test program.
Additional reports were written to provide necessary justification for i
test valve selection and valve inlet fluid test conditions. These l
reports were transmitted to the US!JRC by David Hoffman of the Ct:nsumers Power Company on behalf of the participating PWR Utilities and are referenced herein.
This report provides the final evaluation of these and other submittals and reports prepared during the review of the test data as they apply to the valves used at Joseph it. Farley Units 1 and Unit 2.
l l
l 0609E:1 I
t 2.0 VALVE AND PIPING PARAMETERS Table 2-1 provides a list of pertinent valve and piping parameters for the Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 Safety and Power-Operated Relief Valves. The safety valve design installed at Joseph i4. Farley was not specifically tested by EPRI; however, valves of a simialar design and operation sere tested in a configuration similar to that of the actual system configuration at the plant. The power-operated relief valves installed at Joseph 14. Farley were tested oy EPRI. Justification that the valves tested envelope those valves at Joseph I4. Farley is provided in the Valve Justification report.III The justification was developed based on evaluation performed by the valve manufacturers and considered effects of differences in~ operating characteristics, materials, orifice sizes and manufacturing processes on valve operability.
Typical inlet piping configurations for Joseph 14. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 are provided in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 compare the Joseph M. Farley inlet loop seal piping configuration with that of the EPRI test piping arrangement for the Crosby 3K6 and 6M6 Safety Valves and compares the actual plant-specific pressure drop with the test pressure drop for the two (2) test valve arrangements.
As can be seen by these comparisons, the EPRI test piping arrangement envelops the actual piping arrangement for the Joseph M. Farley units.
l l
0609E:1
4 TABLE 2-1 VALVE AND PIPING INFORMATION 1.
SAFETY VALVE INFORMATION dumber of valves 3
Manufacturer Crosby Valve and Gage Type Self Actuated Size 6M16-Steam Flow Capacity, lbs/hr 344,972 Design Pressure, psig 2485 Design Temperature, F=
650 Set Pressure, psig 2485 Accumulation 3 percent of set pressure Blowdown 5 percent of set pressure Original Valve Procurement Spec.
E-678838 2.
RELIEF VALVE INFORMATION Number of Valves 2
Manufacturer Copes-Vulcan-Type Pressurizer Power Relief Size 3"-NPS Steamflow Capacity, lbs/hr 210,000 max Design Pressure, psi 1500 (USAS)
Design Temperature, OF 680 Opening Pressure, psig 2335 Closing Pressure, psig 2315 0609E:1
4 TABLE 2.1 Continued...
3.
SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE Ii4LET PIPItJG INFORMATI0!J Design Pressure, psig 2485 Design Temperature, OF 680 Configuration of Piping U-258103 U-258104 Pressurizer Nozzle Configuration U-258103 U-258104 Loop Seal Volume, ft Volume
.56 0
Loop Seal Temperature, F Approximately 200 F I
Steady State Flow Pressure Drop See Appendix 1 Acoustic Wave Pressure Ampli tude See Appendix 1 l
4.
SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE DISCHARGE PIPING INFORMATION Design Pressure, psig
-2500 Design Temperature, F 600 Configuration U-25d103 U-258104 Pressurizer Relief Tank Design Pressure, psig 100 Backpressure, Nonaal, psig 3
Backpressure, Developed, psig 500 i
i 0609E:1
D J
s M.:-
n g
W..
~
~.,.
p
'v.
ch 0
.. =.
s
- e.
4 4
s
}
/'Nl N v
bh
,.c
- v. -
i' f
p
,4
+4 -
ec~
e'
/
4v a
-[gh*'
)
b s
/
/
/
w"
- nv.
\\=
Y 9', $,
fQ g
()\\
(.-
a
,:ta' ~
a d:d 1
[:
4 O
b d
L,5l 4
v 3
./
or
[
', T,l
~.. _
{
- f kh b
g f,
S k)
I'f G ? F i o ;}
i FIGURE 2-1 TYPICAL PORV INLET PIPING ARRANGEMENT
s2
~.
\\
5
,v.
y D
..'x N
l 1
i i
t
-~Y 4
i to
'N I
N D
'ss Nw 7%_
l
= ax g
N 'Mbj.
x,A e
s
'b
~
' xi,
\\
gO (-.,
i v
h*
/
p.
s
'x 4
%y
~
N M
N
'[
h
/
N g'. v N
s x4
/
g
. Ns
/
g.
'q -
+
'6
/
~
N v
t I,
si x,l s
-o
/.
ax i N
N
/
I, x
3
~
v pacss o9i e & R 9,,
q" v
s' FIGURE 2-2 TYPICAL SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPIf4G ARRAi4GEMEtlT
~
TABLE 2-2 SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPING C0;4 PARIS 0N i
Typical Joseph li. Farley 3K6 Inlet 6it6 Inlet Inlet Piping Piping
- Piping
- Length'of 90 60 61 straight pipe, in.
Number of 900 4
4 elbows 2
Number of 1800 1
bends 78 71 141 sc.
Loop seal water
.56 0.27 1.02 Volume, Ft3 i
- Source: Reference (7) i l,
i l
l 5
0609E:1
_ - _ = - _
4 TAldE 2-3 COMPARIS0il 0F TEST PRESSURE DROP WITH PLATJT SPECIFIC PRESSURE DROP Plant Specific
- 616 Test **
3K6 Test **
Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Pressure Drop Joseph M. Farley 205.8 251 psi 321 psi Appendix I
- Source:
Reference (8) 0609E:1
3.0 VALVE INLET FLUID CONDITIONS Justification for inlet fluid conditions used in the EPRI Safety and Relief Valve tests are summarized in References 2 and 3.
These conditions were determined based on consideration of FSAR, extended High Pressure Injection, and Cold Overpressurization events, where applicable.
For plants of which Westinghouse is the NSSS supplier, a methodology was used such that a reference plant was selected for each grouping of plant considered.(3)
Valve fluid conditions resulting froa limiting FSAR events, which result in steam discharge and an Extended High Pressure Injection event which may result in liquid discharge, are presented for each reference plant. Use of reference plants results in fluid conditions enveloping those expected for Joseph d. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Table 3-1 presents the results of loss of load and locked rotor analysis for three loop plants in which Joseph d. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 were included.
The inlet fluid conditions expected at the safety valve and PORV inlets are identified. As can be seen, the Locked Rotor event is considered as the limiting overpressure transient for three loop plants.
The fluid conditions at the inlet to the safety valves for feedline rupture accidents are sumaarized in Table 3-2 and a discussion of the feedline break analysis is provided in Reference 2.
Maximum pressur-i ization rates are taken when the valves open on water (the safety valves initially open on steam, however, the pressurization rate is enveloped by those presented for the locked rotor and loss of load events).
I l
The limiting Extended High Pressure Injection event was the spurious activation of the safety injection system at power. A condition II event, this will result, at worst, in a reactor shutdown with the plant capble of returning to operation.
The analysis results for three-loop l
plants are provided in Table 3-3.
l The only transients for PORY and Safety Valves identified for Joseph M.
Farley are the FSAR, Feedline break and High Pressure Injection.
Ho transients have been identified for cold overpressurization as they apply to the PORV's.
TALBE 3-1 VALVE INLET CONDITI0ris FOR FSAR EVENTS RESULTING I:1 STEAM OISCHARGE 1
Maxirium Maximum Yalve Pressurizer Pressure Rate Reference Opening Pressure (psia)/
(psia /sec)/
Plant Pressure (psia)
Limiting Event Limiting Event -
Safety Valves Only 3-Loop 2500 2592/ Locked Rotor 216/ Locked Rotor Safety and Relief Valves 3-Loop 2350 2555/ Locked Rotor 200/ Locked Rotor Source:
Reference (2) 0609E:1
-s i
TA3LE 3-2 SAFETY VALVE Ii4LET CONDITIONS FOR FSAR EVEt4T RESULTING Ill LIQul0 DISCHARGE (MAIN FEEDLINE BREAX) i Safety Valve Maximum Maximum 11aximum Liquid Range of Liquid
-Opening Pressurizer Pressurization Surge Rate Temperature at Setpoint Pressure Rate Into Pressurizer Valve Inlet (psia)
(psia)
(psia /sec)
(gpm)
- F
~
2575 2575 5.2 2989.2 646 - 672
- l i
- i
.k k
4 l
t i
0609E:1
TABLE 3-3 SAFETY AND RELIEF VALVE INLET CONDITIONS RESULTING FR0!4 SPORIOUS Il41TIATI0il 0F HIGH PRESSURE IlJJECTI0il AT POWER WHEN VALVES ARE DISCHARGING LIQUID Range of Range of Surge Rates
. Liquid Range of When Valve Temperature Reference Valve Opening Fluid State on Maximum Pressurizer Pressurization Is Passing At Valve Plant Setpoints(psia) Valve Opening (a)
Pressure (psia)
Rates ( psi /sec) Li quid (GPi4)
Inl et( *F )
Safety Valves 3-Loop rio Discharge Relief Valves 3-Loop 2350 Steam / Liquid 2352 0-12 0.0-781 493-502 O.
First/ subsequent openings.
s f
i
' 6.'0 -COMPARISJil C.: EPRI TEST JATA WITd PLAAT-SPECIFIC REQUIREMEllTS The Electric Power and Rescarch Institute (EPRI) conducted full scale flow tests on pressurizer safety and relief valves.I4I Tests were conducted at three sites over a period of 1-1/2 years.
PORVs were tested at Marsnall Steam Station (5) and Wyle Lacoratories,IO' } while safety valves were tested at the Comoustion Engineering Test Site in Connecticut.I7I 4.1 Relief Valve Testing Test results applicable to the PORVs installed in Joseph it. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 are contained in Section 4.6 of Reference 7, Copes-Vulcan Relief Valve.
(316 Stellite Plug and 17-4PH cage).
This valve fully opened and closed on demand for each of the eleven eval' ation tests at the Marshall Test Facility.
Nine additional tests were J
conducted at the Wyle Test Facilitiy; during all of these tests the valve fully opened and closed on demand.
Subsequent disassembly and inspection revealed no damage that would affect future valve performance.
A comparison of the "As-Tested" inlet fluid conditions for the Marshall and Wyle tests is provided in Table 4-1.
This table indicates the Joseph M.
Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 fluid conditions summarized in Section 3.0 of this report were tested.
The results of this testing indicates the valves functioned satisfactorily, opening and closing in the required time and discharging the required flow rate.
4.2 Safety Valve Testing Test results applicable to the safety valves installed at Joseph 11. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 are contained in Section 3.4 and 3.5 of Reference 7.
Although the Crosby 6r116 safety valves used in Joseph ii. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 was not specifically tested by EPRI, justification for extension of
.the EPRI test results to this valve was provided oy the valve vendor.III 0609E:1
4.2.1 Crosby 3K6 Safety Valve Tests The Crosby 3X6 test valve underwent a series of tests at the EPRI/CE Test Facility.
The "As-Tested" fluid inlet conditions for the 3X6 test valve are compared to the Joseph 11. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 fluid inlet conditions in Table 4-3 of this report.
This comparison shows the EPRI "As-Tested" fluid conditions envelope those for Joseph H. Farley.
The Crosby 3K6 test valve was tested using various inlet piping configurations and with the loop seal filled and drained.
Results of tests conducted on the long inlet piping configuration with loop seal internals installed are summarized herein.
Seven tests were performed with the 3K6 valve mounted on a long inlet piping configuration and with loop seal internals installed.
Ring settings used during these tests were established during earlier tests on this valve (with steam internals installed).
Steam tests were conducted both with the loop seal drained and filled.
For the test with a drained loop seal the valve opened within the EPRI criteria and had stable behavior. When the pressure accumulated to 6 percent above det pressure, rated lif t was achieved.
Valve blowdown was reported to be 15.7 to 20 percent for these tests.
j Four loop seal-steam tests were run at ramp rates of 3-220 psi /sec.
Initial valve lift was reported at pressures from 2356-2630 psi. The j
valve fluttered at partial lift positions while discharging the loop seal l
water and then popped open at steam pressures from 2556-2707 psi.
This behavior is typical of loop seal safety valve performance.
Valve behavior was reported to be stable on steam and the valve achieved rated lift when the pressure was 6 percent above the valve design set pressure.
The valve closed with 17-20 percent blowdown.
The test valve was subjected to a steam to water transition test.
The valve was observed to undergo a typical loop seal discharge at partial lif t, popped open on steaa within +3 percent criteria, was stable on steam flow, and began to flutter and subsequently chatter during the water flow portion of the test.
0609E:1
4.2.2 Crosby St6 Safety Valve Tests i
The Crosby 6:46 test valve underwent a series of tests at the EPRI/CE Test Facil i ty.
The "As Tested" Fluid Inlet Conditions for the 6i46 are compared to the Joseph 14. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 Fluid inlet conditions in Table 4-3.
1 This comparison shows the EPRI "As Tested" Fluid Conditions envelope those for Joseph li. Farley.
Two groups of tests were conducted on the Crosby 646 (Loop Seal Internals) Test Valve, one group with "As Installed" ring settings and one group with " lowered" ring setting's.
For the "As-Installed" ring settings four loop-seal steam tests were conducted, all at pressurization rates far aDove that expected for the Joseph it. Farley units.
Two tests were conducted with a cold loop seal, representative of the Joseph 14. Farley configuration, while the other two tests were conducted with 350 F loop seals.
For the four tests conducted, the test valve popped open on steam at i
pressures ranging from 2675-2757 psia following a typical loop seal (water) discharge and for the first actuation cycle, the valve stem stabilized and closed with 5.1-9.6 percent blowdown.
l For the last test, the valve reopened and the test was ter.ninated after i
the' valve was manually opened to stop chattaring.
This was a 350 F loop seal test and is not representative of the Joseph 14. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 inlet conditions.
A transition test with 650 F water was successfully conducted.
Subsequently a 550 F water test was tried with the test terminated when the valve started to chatter. Note the water temperature at the safety i
valves is expeted to be 646-672 F at Farley.
l 0609E:1
Seven additional loop seal tests were conducted with " lowered" ring settings as well as two additional transition tests.
The results of those tests are detailed in Section 3.5 of Reference 7.
Five cold :oop seal steam tests were perfomed at raiap rates frora 3-375 psi /sec.
The valve exhibited typical. loop seal openings with the full opening pressures varying from 2580-2732 psia depending on ramp rate.
The valve closed in a range of 7.4 to 8.2 percent blowdown.
Two hot loop seal tests were conducted with full opening pressures of 2655-2692 psia after the typical loop seal opening, and closed with 8.2-9.0 percent blowdown.
In the second test the valve reopened and c ha ttered. Again this was a 350 F loop seal test at a high ramp rate and-is not considered representative of the Joseph H. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 inlet conditions.
4.2.3 Discussion of Observed Safety Valve Performance In addressing observed valve performance, one must differentiate between the valves and fluid conditions tested and the actual valves and actual fluid conditions for the specific plant.
The EPRI inlet piping arrangement, flow and acoustic pressure drops, and inlet fluid conditions bound the saae plant-specific parameters for the Joseph H. Farley units.
Valve performance observed during the EPRI tests, therefore, reflects i
worst case performance as compared to results that would be observed had the testing been conducted using actual plant-specific piping arrangements and fluid conditions.
I A review of Table 4-3 shows'both Crosby safety valves tested exhibited stable operation on a loop seal piping configuration at pressurization f
rates of 1.1-375 psi /sec with initial opening pressures of 2455-2630 psi and pop pressures of 2455-2757 psi.
0609E:1
l The EPRI data also indicates that steam flow rates in excess of rated flows are attainable.
However, data also shows these flow rates are delayed some period of time following the assumed valve opening point resulting in the high pop pressures.
Safety valve perfonaance observed in the EPRI tests is addressed in Reference 9 for Westinghouse Plants and the results and conclusions of this report can be extended to Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2.
4.2.3.1 Loop Seal Opening Response To assess the affect on reactor coolant system pressure due to valve opening response on loop seal discharge, a series of overpressure transients were run with various time delays inserted for the valve opening. Results of the analysis are presented in deference 9.
For the limiting Condition II events, safety valve functioning is not required if the reactor trips on high pressurizer pressure.
If the reactor does not trip until the second protection grade trip, a valve opening delay time of two seconds would still provide acceptable overpressure protection.
Evaluation of the limiting condition IV event shows all components of the reactor coolant system would re.aain within 120 percent of the system design pressure even in the event of no safety valve opening.
4.2.3.2 Inlet Piping Pressure Oscillations As observed during the loop seal discharge tests, oscillations occur upstream of a spring loaded Safety valve while water is flowing through the valve. An analysis of this phenomenon was conducted and the results are documented in Reference 9.
Table 4-4 provides the maximum penaissible pressure for pressurizer Safety valve inlet piping sizes and schedules representative of Westinghouse plants.
These pressures are shown for upset (level B) and emergency (level C) conditions.
Based on tests and analytical work to date, all acoustic pressures observed or calculated prior to and during safety valve discharge are below the maximum permissiole pressure.
0609E:1
4.2.3.3 Valve Chatter on Steam Since the EPRI testing was conducted at enveloping fluid and piping conditions, adjustments were made to the safety valve ring positions i i
order to obtain stable valve perfonaance on steam discharge for the test arrangement.
These adjustaents resulted in longer blowdowns for tne test valves.
The ring positions determined during the test represent the adjustment required for a particular valve wnen exposed to the particular test piping arrange:aent, fluid conditions, backpressure and pressurization rate.
An investigation was conducted to determine those parameters which are critical to tne onset of valve chatter under steam discharge conditions.
The results of this study are detailed in Reference 9.
l l
l l
I 0609E:1 j
TALBE 4-1 COMPARISON OF PORY INLET FLUID CONDITIONS WITH "AS-TESTED" CONDITIONS Steam Conditions PORV Wyle Test Inlet Fluid 71-CV-316-1S ilarshall Test Conditions (No. 1 - No. 11)
Set Point 2350 2715 (2435-2475)
Pressure (psia)
Temperature 650 682 (sat.)
(OF)
Fluid Type steam steam steam Flow Rate 210,000 255,600 (232,000-236,000)
(lbs/hr)
Water Conditions PORY Wyle Tests Inlet Fluid 77-CV Conditions S16-7S/W Set Point 2350 2532 Pressure (psia)
Temperature 498-502 670 (OF)
Fluid Type Steam / Water Steam /Wa ter F1ow Ra7.e 216,000 540,000 (lbs/ar) 0609E:1
l TABLE 4-2 TABULATION OF OPENING / CLOSING TDIES FOR PORY Opening Time Closing Time Test (Sec.)
(Sec.)
Marshall
- 1 1.700 1.G00 2
1.700 1.500 3
1.750 1.500 4
1.650 1.550 5
1.850 1.600 6
1.800 1.500 I
7 1.400 1.600 8
1.400 1.550 9
1.400 1.600 10 1.700 1.650 11 1.450 1.500 Wyle**
I 71-CV-316-1S 0.60 1.43 72-CV-316-3W 0.65 1.31 73-CV-316-4W 1.01 0.60 74-CV-316-5W 0.98 0.66 75-CV-316-6W 0.64 1.44 76-CV-316-2W 0.72 1.38 77-DV-316-7S/W 0.70 1.37 i
78-CV-316-8W/W 0.61 1.44 79-CV-316-9N/W 0.78 0.83 l
dote: Required Opening Time
- 2.0 Sec.
Required Closing Time
- 2.0 Sec.
t
- Source: Reference (5)
- Source: Reference (7) 0609E:1 l
L---
F TABLE 4-3 COMPARIS0:4 0F SAFETY VALVE INLET FLUID C0rJDITIONS WITH "AS-TESTE0" CONDITIONS Tests 646 Safety Valve No. 906-913,.
Inlet Fluid Tests 3X6 917-923, 925 1406, Conditions 525-532 and 536 1415 and 1419 Set Point 2500 2500 2500 Pressure (psia)
' Temperature 6 50 650 650 (OF)
Fluid Type Steam loop seal / steam loop seal / steam Flow Rate 212,000 (lbs/hr)
Pressurization 200-216 3.4-200 1.1-375 Rate (psi /sec)
Stabili ty Stabl e**
Stable **
Initial opening 2536-2630 2455-2600 Pressure (psia)
Pop Pressure, 2532-2707 2455-2757 (psia)
Rated flow achieved but not reported in EPRI Tables, reference (7).
As reported by EPRI in Performance data tables of Reference (7).
l l
l i
i 0609E:1
TA3LE 4-4 HAXIdVA PERMISSISLE PRESSURE FOR PRESSURIZER SAFETY VALVE INLET PIPING
- Outside Diameter flominal Permissible Pipe Size (in)
Thickness (in)
Pressure (psi)
Level B Level C 6-inch Sch.160 6.625 0.719 5229 7131 6-inch Sch.120 6.625 0.562 4004 5460 4-inch Sch.160 4.500 0.531 5733 7818 4-inch Sch.120 4.500 0.438 4644 6333 3-inch Sch.160 3.500 0.438 6119 8344 Source: Reference (9)
- Applicable for temperatures below 3000F.
0609E:1 J
5.0 C0t1CLUSIO!1S The preceeding sections of this report and the reports referenced herein indicate the valves, piping arrangements, and fluid inlet conditions for Joseph it. Farley Units 1 and Unit 2 are indeed bounded by those valves and test paraiaeters of the EPRI Safety and Relief Valve Test Program.
The EPRI tests confim the ability of the Safety and Relief Valves to open and close under the expected operating fluid conditions.
l l
l t
I l
l 0609E:1 l
J
4 s
i l
l t
l APPENDIX
(
a l
l l
1 l
l l
l I
0609E:1 i
k
/
~
APPE!1 DIX I INLET PIPlilG PRESSURE EFFECTS (3) 1.
Inlet Piping Flow Pressure Drop ( AP )
p The flow pressure drop is given by, 2
(k+1 + fL) M I
apF=
2g pA c
- where, expansion or contraction loss coefficient (dimensionless) k
=
friction factor (dimensionless) f
=
L_
piping equivalent length / diameter considering effects of
=
D fittings and friction (dimensionless) maximum valve flowrate for steam (as established by the safety H
=
valve manufacturer) (lb/sec) 2 g
gravitational constant (32.2 lb-f t/10-sec )
=
c o
steam density at nominal valve set pressure (lb/f t )
=
2 inlet piping flow area (ft )
A
=
2.
Acoustic Wave Amplitude (aP I
AW The acoustic wave amplitude is calculated as follows. (8) There are two situations to consider:
- If Top 5 2 L/a, aM 3p
=
AW g^
c 0609E:1
/
k
- If Top > 2L/a, 2LM APAW " guI c
op
- where, steam sonic velocity at nominal valve sat pressure (ft/sec) a
=
inlet piping length (ft)
L.
=
T valve opening time for steaia inlet conditions as established
=
gp from the EPRI testing effort is 10 msec for the Crosby safety valves and 15 msec for the Dresser safety valves.
These valves are typical of the fastest opening times measured during the tests.
The other variables are the same as defined in the previous section.
3.
Plant-Specific Pressure Drop The plant-specific pressure drop associated with valve opening is equal to the sum of the friction pressure drop (aP ) and the p
acoustic wave amplitude (aPAW) as determined above.
l 4.
Calculation of Inlet Piping Flow Pressure Drop for Joseph N. Farley 1 and 2 Joseph li. Farley 2
(K+1+fh)d APF*
2g P^2 c
l l
l 0609E:1
- where, k = 0.5 (sudden contraction at Pressurizer Hozzle) f =.015 (Reference 10)
L=
7.5 + 4x30+1x16 = 153.4 (Reference 10)
D
.432 a = 7.65 lb/ft (saturated steam at 2500 psia) 2 A = 0.147 ft H = 344,972 lb/hr = 95.8 lb/sec 2600 sec/ar Tne Flow Pressure Drop for Joseph M. Farley is, 2
, (0.5 + 1 +.015 x 153.4) x 95.8 = 22.8 psi
,p 64.4 x 7.65 x.147 x 144 l
1 l
l 0609E:1 t
~
TABLE A-1 Joseph 54. Farley 1 and 2 Inlet Piping Configuration *
- Pipe Length
= 7.5 ft
- Pipe Diameter
= 6" sch 160
- Fittings
= 4 - 90 elbows-0
- Total Loop Seal length
= 1 - 45 eloow
- 10.25 ft
- Crosby 6A16 Safety Valve 344,972 lb/hr rated capacity
.010 sec opening time
- NOTE:
Typical Piping configuration for Joseph it. Farley 0609E:1
P 5.4 Acoustic Wave A.apli tude Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 and 2 For the configuration describe. in Table A-1, the Parameters are, T
.010 sec.
=
op A = 2 x 10.25 =.015 sec a
1300 tt/sec
< h, Since Tgp afi 3p
=
AW J A 1300 x 95.8 3p AW J2.2 x.147 x 144 AP
= 183 psi AW aP = A p = aPy P
Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 and 2 AP = 22.8 + 183 aP = 205.8 0609E:1 J
REFERENCES 1.
EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Test Program, Valve Selection /
Justification Report, "Interiin Report, August 1981".
2.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation Report, " Valve Inlet Fluid Conditions for Pressurizer Safety and Relief Valves in Westinghouse
- Design Plants (Phase C)", Interim Report, December 1981.
3.
EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, " Test Condition Justification Report", Interim Report, April 1982.
t 4.
"EPRI PAR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, Description and i
Status", April 1982.
5.
"EPRI - Marshall Power-0perated Relief Valve Interim Test Data Report:
EPRI NO-1244-20, Interim Report, Feordary 1982.
6.
"EPRI/Wyle Power-0perated Relief Valve Test Report, Phase I and II",
EPRI NP-2147, LD, Interim Report, December 1981.
7.
"EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program, Safety and Relief l
l Valve Test Report", Interim Report, April 1982.
8.
"EPRI PWR Safety and Relief Valve Test Program Guide for Application of Valve Test Program Results to Plant-Specific Evaluations",
Interim Report, March 1932.
9.
" Review of Pressurizer Safety Valve Performance as Observed in the EPRI Safety and Relief Valve Test Program", June 1982.
10.
Crane Technical Paper No. 410, " Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe",1976.
l l
l 0609E:1 I