ML20094L870
| ML20094L870 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/14/1984 |
| From: | Sunny Chen, Johnson P, Mccarthy R, Montgomery E LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094L822 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8408150485 | |
| Download: ML20094L870 (62) | |
Text
I RELATED CORRESPONDENCE v
DOCKETED USNRC
~84 AGO 15 A9:52 LILCE,I5Ih'g~ustM4,i
~ 1984 b$ilck"'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power )
Station, Unit 1) )
TESTIMONY OF ROGER L. McCARTHY, PAUL R. JOHNSTON, EUGENE F. MONTGOMERY AND SIMON K. CHEN ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY'S CONTENTION REGARDING REPLACEMENT CRANKSHAPTS ON DIESEL GENERATORS AT SHOREHAM i
i i
8408150485 840814 PDR ADOCK 05000322 T PDR
i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES........................... 1 II. BACKGROUND.......................................... 7 III. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS................................ 10 A. The Crankshafts Must-Comply With Dema.......... 10 B. The Crankshafts Do Not Have To Comply with ABS, Lloyd's, IACS or the Criteria Used By FEV. . . . . . 12 I IV. THE CRANKSHAFTS COMPLY WITH DEMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 V. THE FATIGUE ANALYSIS AND FIELD TESTING OF THE I CRANKSHAPTS SHOW THAT THE CRANKSHAFTS WILL NOT FAIL DURING OPERATIOd................................... 31 VI. CONCLUSION......................................... 42 1
I. INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES
- 1. Please state your names, business affiliations and ad- j dresses, i A.. (McCarthy) My name-is Dr. Roger L. McCarthy and.I am employed by Failure Analysis Associates as president and chief executive officer. My business address is 2225' East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, California, 94303.
(Johnston) My name is Dr. Paul R. Johnston. I am em-ployed by Failure Analysis Associates as manager of the struc-tural analysis group. My business address is 2225 Ea'st Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, California, 94303.
(Montgomery) My name is Eugene F. Montgomery. I am em-ployed by Long Island Lighting Company as a stress analyst. My business address is Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Long Island Lighting Company, Wading River, New York.
(Chen) My name is Dr. Simon K. Chen. I am a professional engineer registered in the State of Wisconsin and the owner and president of Power and Energy International, Inc., a private consulting firm. My business address is 555 Lawton Ave.,
l Beloit, Wisconsin, 53511.
- 2. Please summarize your professional qualifications and your role in evaluating the replacement crankshafts at l Shoreham.
t A. (McCarthy) I am principal design engineer for FaAA l
i
, w- y w --- - * -M w---yp --y- -
M *
- and' hold five degrees,-including a Ph.D. in mechanical enci-l neering from M.I.T. My specielty is mechanical design.- My resume is Attachment 1.
My role in evaluating the replacement crankshafts at Shoreham has-been to personally inspect the broken crankshafts and the replacement crankshafts, to perform the final review of the FaAA reports and to oversee the corporate performance of FaAA's evaluation of the crankshafts.
(Johnston) I obtained my undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering (B.A.I.) in 1976 from Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Thereafter, I attended Stanford University where I received a M.S. in Structural Engineering in 1977 and a Ph.D.
in Civil Engineering in 1981. I have worked for FaAA since 1978, principally in the analysis of failures in structures and machinery. From 1981 to 1983, I also served as a Consulting Assistant Professor at Stanford University, where I taught graduate courses in finite elements and structural dynamics. I am co-author of the book Finite Elements for Structural Analysis. My resume is Attachment 2.
My role in evaluating the replacement crankshafts at Shoreham has been to evaluate the adequacy of the crankshafts by analysis and by using the results of dynamic tests on the l original and replacement crankshafts.
~
l i
l l
l t
E -
W1 k
e 5
( Montgomery) I received my undergraduate degrees in Me-chanical Engineering (B.A., B.S.) in 1973 under a combined 3/2-year program at Queens College in the City University of
_E New York and Columbia University. Thereafter, I attended E
E Columbia University where I received an M.S. in Mechanical En-F gineering in 1974 and an M.E. (Professional Degree) in Mechani-I cal Engineering in 1981. I have worked for LILCO since 1981, E principally in the area of engineering mechanics for b
safety-related piping, equipment and support structures. From b 1980 to 1981, I was a senior engineer in the Piping Stress a
h Analysis Department of Burns & Roe, Inc., Woodbury, N.Y. Prior
[.
to that time, I was employed as a senior engineer in the Stress Analysis Department of Ebasco Services, Inc., Jericho, N.Y.
w-from 1978 to 1980. My resume is Attachment 3.
F j[ My role in evaluating the replacement crankshafts at f Shoreham has been to serve as LILCO's engineering specialist providing technical review and direction to the work performed
((
25 by LILCO's consultants: Failure Analysis Associates, Stone and n
h Webster Engineering Corporation, and Power and Energy Interna-
![
y tional, Ek (Chen) I received my undergraduate degree in mechanical
!!!=
EF r engineering (B.S.M.E.) in 1947 from National Chiao Tung Univer-If sity. In 1949 I received a masters degree in mechanical engi-7 l{
=
neering (M.S.M.E.) from the University of Michigan, and in 1952 E
$[
~
b b
I received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Universi- _
. tar of -Wisconsin. I also received;an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago in 1964. For the past four and one-half years I
-have been the owner and president of Power and Energy Interna-tional,.Inc. (PEI), a private consulting firm. Prior to forming PEI, I was' president and chief technical officer of the Beloit Power System Division of Louis Allis Litton Industries from 1973 until 1979. From 1971 until.1973 I was vice-president of engineering and applications of the entire Fairbank Morse Power System Divisiori. From 1969 until 1971, I was vice-president and general manager of the large engine di-vision of the Fairbank Morse Power Systems Division of Colt In-dustry. From 1952 until 1969 I was employed by International Harvester. My first job was project. engineer in charge of com-bustion development. My last job at International Harvester ;
was divisional chief engineer in charge of all engine research and development. My resume is Attachment 4.
My role in evaluating the replacement crankshafts at Shoreham has been to perform a critical review of all analyses and testing of the crankshafts and to conduct an independent analysis of the adequacy of the crankshafts.
- 3. What issues have you been asked to address in your testimony?
A. (All) We have been asked to address Emergency Diesel l
Generator Contention;1(a), admitted by the Board'in its July l 17, 1984 Memorandum and Order, which is whether:
The replacement crankshafts at Shoreham are-not' adequately designed for' operating at full
' load (3500 KW) or overload (3900 KW), as're- 1 quired by'FSAR Section 8.3.1.1.5, because they do not meet the standards of.the American: Bureau of Shipping, Lloyd's Registry of Shipping, or the International Association of Classification Societies. .In addition, the replacement crank-~
shafts are not adequately designed for operating at ovarload, and their design is marginal for operating at full load, under the German criteria used by FEV.
In summary, this testimony demonstrates that the replace-ment crankshafts are suitable.for unlimited. operation in the emergency diesel generators at Shoreham. The structural integ-rity of the replacement crankshafts has been extensively evalu-ated by testing, analysis and inspections. There is no re-quirement that the crankshaf ts comply with the design standards of the American Bureau of Shipping, Lloyd's Registry of Ship-
, ping, the International Association of Classification Societies or FEV's criteria. Therefore, compliance with the design criteria of one or more of the above organizations is not nec-essary to demonstrate the crankshafts are adequate for their
- intended service at Shoreham. Furthermore, ABS has approved l
l the torsional critical speed arrangement of the crankshaft.
The crankshafts are required to comply only with the rec-ommendations of the Diesel Engine Manufacturers Association (DSMA). Conventional analytical techniques typically cilized
- . . . . - - . - . - _ - - . . _ - . . . - - . , - . = . _ . - . . - . . . _ -
by the diesel engine industry show that the 13-inch by 12-inch
-replacement. crankshafts comply with DEMA recommendations. An-gular displacements of the free end of the crankshaft, stress ranges in the most highly stressed crankpin fillets, and the range of output torque at the flywheel were measured at and-above full-rated load. The torsiograph_ measurements of twist confirm the analyses and show that the crankshafts meet the DEMA recommendations.
In addition, strain gage measurements of maximum bending and torsional stress and calculations of maximum stress by a modal superposition analysis show that the crankshafts have a factor of safety in fatigue of 1.48, without taking into ac-count any benefit of shot peening the crankpin fillets. This factor of safety is more than adequate to assure that the I
crankshafts will not fail in fatigue during operation. The fac-tor of safety was determined from the measured endurance limit of the original 13-inch by 11-inch crankshafts that cracked in high cycle fatigue. The measured crankshaft response was in close agreement with that predicted by the modal superposition analysis. There is, therefore, more than adequate assurance i
that the crankshafts are suitable for their intende . service. l 1
3.
II. BACKGROUND 4.- Please briefly describe'the. function of the crankshaft' ~
s in the diesel generators at Shoreham.. ,
A. _( All) The crankshaft converts the reciprocating (up; and down) motion of.the pistons and connectingfrods into rotary motion. In'this process, the crankshaft converts the' inertial and gas pressure firing forces into torque, i.e., twisting force. The output torque from the: crankshaft drives the--elec-trical generator to provide emergency power, l .
- 5. Please'briefly describe the failure of the original 13-inch by 11-inch crankshafts at Shoreham.
A. (Montgomery) On August 12, 1983, the original 13-inch by 11-inch crankshaft on EDG 102 fractured through the crankpin and rear (generator end) web under cylinder No. 7. Subsequent investigation revealed that the crankshaft on EDG 101 was sig-
! nificantly cracked at the No. 5 and No. 7 crankpins and the crankshaft on EDG 103 was cracked at the No. 6 crankpin.
- 6. What was the cause of the crankshaft failure?
A. (Johnston, McCarthy) Based upon extensive metallurgi-cal examinations of the fracture surfaces, the cause of the crankshaft failure was determined to be high cycle vibratory fatigue.
- 7. What caused the crankshafts to fail in high cycle fa-tigue?
I L
n- .
^
- I p
.A. (Johnston, McCarthy) The. crankshafts failed in high cycle fatigue due to the, torsional-(or twisting) stresses im-posed upon them.during operation. Testing and analysis re-vealed that the crankshafts experienced torsionallexcursions beyond their fc.tigue endurance limit, which ultimately led to their failure.
- 8. What action did LILCO take after the failure of the original crankshafts?
A. (Montgomery) LILCO did a number of things. First, Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA) was hired to determine the cause of the original crankshaft failurc FaAA's evaluation'of the original crankshafts included: (1) a metallurgical failure analysis; (2) dynamic tests performed on the crankshaft from EDG 101; (3) a review of Transamerica DeLaval Inc.'s (TDI) tor-sional analysis of the Shoreham crankshafts; (4) a modal - su-perposition analysis of the torsional system; and, (5) the de-velopment of a model employing finite element analysis to predict stresses imposed on the crankshaf ts during operation.
Second, after consulting with FaAA and TDI, LILCO ordered replacement crankshaf ts from TDI of a different design than the original crankshafts. The original crankshafts had a 13-inch main journal and an ll-inch crankpin. The replacement crank-shafts have a 13-inch main journal and an 12-inch crankpin.
The crankpin-to-web fillet radii of the replacement crankshafts t .
have a larger radius _of" curvature than the fillet-radii of the original' crankshafts. Typical structural dimensions of one
-throw and fillet-details are shown in Exhibit C-1. In addi-
' tion, the fillet regions of the replacement crankshafts have been shot peened.. The' average ultimate tensile strength of-the ,
original crankshafts was approximately 93,500 psi. The minimum ultimate tensile strength of the new crankshaf ts is over 100,000 psi. The replacement crankshafts have greatercsection properties, greater material strength and a more enhanced sur-face treatment (shot peening) than the original crankshaf ts.
Third, LILCO embarked on an unprecedented program to test and analyze the replacement crankshafts. This program was de-signed to ensure that the replacement crankshafts are adequate-ly designed to withstand the stresses they will experience dur-ing operation in the Shoreham EDGs. This program included:
(1) a detailed multi-modal, multi-frequency torsional dynamic analysis of the crankshaft; (2) finite element structural mod-eling and stress analysis of a single quarter crank throw geom-etry; (3) field tests on the EDG 103 replacement crankshaft at various power levels to measure the principal stresses in the fillet region of the crankshafts, torsional vibrations
( torsiograph tests), cylinder pressure time diagrams, electri-cal generator output, and transient conditions due to engine start-up and generator load changes; (4) non-destructive
_9_
l
)
- examination (eddy current tests) of the crankpin fillets on all three crankshafts at cylinder Nos. 5 - 8 after 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of op-eration at 100% load or greater; and (5) review of the TDI tor- .
sional analysis using conventional Holzer and equivalent static equilibrium amplitude techniques.
III. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS A. The Crankshafts Must Comply with DEMA
- 9. What were the design requirements for the replacement crankshafts?
A. (Montgomery) The replacement crankshafts were re-quired to meet the recommendations of the Diesel Engine Manu-f acturers Association (DEMA) . Stone & Webster's Specification for Diesel Generator Sets, Spec. No. SH1-89, Revision 2, i
January 26, 1983 (Spec. SHl-89) required that:
{
The diesel engines and auxiliaries shall be de-signed, engineered, manufactured, and tested in accordance with the latest published applicable sections of the Standards of the Diesel Engine Manufacturers Association (DEMA), at least, but not limited to DEMA " Standard Practices for Low and Medium Speed Stationary Diesel Engines."
The relevant portion of Spec. SH1-89 is attached as Exhibit C-2.
- 10. Do the replacement crankshafts meet the DEMA recommen-dations?
A. (All) Yes. As will be discussed in detail later, the-crankshafts meet the recommendations of DEMA, both for operation at full load (3500 KW) and at overload (3900 KW).
- 11.- The County contendsLthe replacement crankshafts are inadequately-designed for operation at full load (3500 KW) :or overload (3900 KW) because they do not meet the requirements. of
. .the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Lloyd's Registry of Shipping (Lloyd's), or the International Association of Classi-
'ficationLSocieties (IACS). In addition, under the German criteria used by FEV, the crankstafts are marginal at. full load and inadequate at overload. Is thsre any basis for this con-tention?.
A. (Montgomery) No. There is no licensing requirement, either in the Shoreham FSAR or in any applicable Nuclear Regu-latory Commission regulation er guideline,.that the replacement crankshafts meet any of.these criteria. In fcct, the only atandby diesel generator design criteria currently referred to in an NRC Regulatory Guide is DEMA.
- 12. Please explain.
- A. (Montgomery) NRC Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 2 (December 1979) (Exhibit C-3), addresses the design of standby diesel generator units at nuclear power plants. The Regulatory 4
Guide provides:
I -
, Conformance with the requirements of IEEE Std 387-1977, "IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied as Standby Power
- Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations,"
dated June 17, 1977, is acceptable for meeting the requirements of the principal design criteria and qualification testing of diesel-generator units used as onsite electric power systems for nuclear power plants. . . .
IEEE Std 387-1977 (Exhibit C-4), provides:
4.1 Standards. The equipment and accessories of the diesel-generator unit shall conform to the applicable portion of the following standards and the latest revisions thereof, as of the date of appreval of this document.
l
1-
'[5] DEMA, Star.dard Practices for Low and Medium Speed Stationary Diesel and Gas Engines.
~
Nowhere is-there any requirement that the crankshafts meet the criteria established by ABS, Lloyd's, IACS or FEV. As Dr. Carl Berlinger, NRC Lead Engineer for the Assessment of Diesel En-gine Reliability / Operability, stated at the July 11, 1984 meet-ing of the TDI Owners Group:
- i. NRC does not require the use of Lloyd's and spe-cifically references DEMA, and we would not pro-pose to require that this design be compared to Lloyd's. I don' t know whether we really need any additional-discussion relative to what stan-dard to use as a basis for licensing or approval.
- of these crankshafts.
The relevant portion of the transcript is attached as Exhibit
- C-5.
Furthermore, the determination of the fatigue endurance 4
limit of the crankshafts, independent of any code or design re-
! quirements, establishes that the replacement crankshafts are adequate for their intended service.
B. The Crankshafts Do Not Have to Comply with ABS, Lloyd's,.
IACS or the Criteria Used by F.E.V.
- 13. Notwithstanding that there is no licensing requirement that the crankshaf ts meet any of these design criteria, is it necessary for the crankshafts to meet the standards of ABS, Lloyd's, IACS or the criteria used by FEV to be considered ade-quate and reliable for their intended use in the Shoreham EDGs?
12-l l
r
-p+-y- - ,
g-y,yywy-w-.+----e= ~
yuy p , ev mer,"--'myTy-- tee' 'T-eqgwM e- -W=+"**--eee 31iv Pm eeT-**g-"?-TTP*W-e*+We-ww-=ri--ve*u=41'--*-e--- * **'-'**-we4e*m"D'" * " * "
I' r l A. ( Montgomery, Chen) No. The-replacement crankshafts have been demonstrated to be adequate and reliable by an exten-
.sive program of testing and analysis. This program clearly es-tablishes, apart from any code, that the crankshafts will per-
' form their intended function.
In addition, there is extensive experience with 13-inch by 12-inch crankshafts in DSR-48 engines that establishes the crankshafts are reliable. A table showing the operating histo-ry of DSR-48 engines with 13-inch by 12-inch crankshafts is at-tached as Exhibit C-6. An additional table showing the op-erating history of each of the Shoreham engines is attached as Exhibit C-7. The crankshafts were all inspected after 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of operation at full load or greater by eddy current in-spection. This inspection revealed no relevant indications or crack formations on the crankshafts after more than one million torsional peak stress reversals. The results of the eddy cut-rent inspection are' attached as Exhibit C-8. Finally, the crankshafts comply with the DEMA recommendations for torsional vibratory stresses.
- 14. The County contends DEMA is not a design code and that it should not be used.to determine the adequacy of the crank-shafts. Do you agree?
A. (Chen) I agree that DEMA is not a design code. That is to say, DEMA does not tell an engine manufacturer how to de-sign a crankshaft. However, I do not agree that DEMA does not i -- -
.w . I
~; i _;
provide standards to measure the adequacy of a crankshaft.
DEMA provides specific stress limits for crankshafts: 5,000 )
psi for a single order of vibration and 7,000 psi for the sum -
mation of the major orders. Engine manufacturers have used DEMA for years on stationary diesel generator installations to determine whether a crankshaft is adequate for its intended .
service. In addition, in over thirty (30) years of experience with diesel engines, I have never seen a crankshaft that com-plied with DEMA fail primarily from torsional fatigue.
- 15. The County states at page 114 of its testimony that "at a minimum, the crankshafts should be compatible with the rules of all the major classification societies." Do you agree with this statement?
i
- A. (Chen) No. In fact, this statement is absurd. No reasonable person would say that a crankshaft had to comply i
with the rules of all major societies toibe considered ade-quate. The rules, standards and design methodologies of design societies vary widely and, in fact, provide differing accep-tance criteria for the same crankshaf t design parameters (e.g.,
journal / pin sizing, allowable horsepower, allowable torsional stress levels, etc.). A crankshaft may not meet the criteria of certain codes and be perfectly adequate under other codes.
Furthermore, certain of the codes explicitly recognize that special consideration should be given to detailed strass analy-ses and test data if a crankshaft does not comply with literal l
l t i
t l
\
- code requirements. For example, Section 37.17.1'of'the 1983
, l
- ABS rules on the diameter of pins and journals (Exhibit C-9) .
provides:
Where critical dimensions are proposed which are less than those determined by the above equation, complete supporting data, including detailed stress analysis, are to be submitted for special consideration.
In addition, note 3 to Table 34.3 of the 1983 ABS rules concerning Allowable Stress Values for Crankshafts and Tail Shaf ts Due to a Single Harmonic (Grade 2 Steel) (Exhibit C-10) provides:
If torsional critical speed arrangements are similar.to previous installations proven by ser-vice experience, consideration will be given to higher stresses upon submittal of full details.
In sum, the best way to evaluate a crankshaf t is through engineering analysis. The County's suggestion that the crank-shafts should comply with selected aspects of various codes (i.e., the most conservative part of each code) has no founda-tion.
- 16. Is a crankshaft inadequate if it does not comply with ABS, Lloyd's, IACS or the criteria used by FEV?
A. (Chen) No. A crankshaft may be structurally adequate for its intended service and not comply with ABS, Lloyd's, IACS or the FEV criteria. While compliance with one of the codes generally provides assurance that a crankshaft is adequate, noncompliance does not necessarily mean a crankshaft is a
y
~ inadequate. Rather, noncompliance merely means a crankshaft l' does not meet the design requirements of a particular code. If a crankshaft is not required to meet that code by' specification or:other requirement (e.g., insurance purposes, licensing re-1 quirements, etc.), and there is assurance from other sources
' (such as testing or detailed enginee, ring analysis) that the I crankshaft'is. adequate, noncompliance is not significant.
- Furthermore, the critical surface temperature and various stress levels of an operating marine engine vary considerably 1
s depending upon ship hull design, swells, wind and other sea-ship interactions, as well as the type of fuel used. That is why the marine engine classification rules are more strin-gent than the rules for stationary land-based engines. A sta-
- tionary engine, which is perfectly.adequata might or might not pass one or more of the marine codes.
. 17. What is the most accurate way to assess the adequacy of a crankshaft?
(A) (All) The most accurate way to assess crankshaft ad-equacy is not to rely upon the design criteria of any code.
Rather, the most accurate way to assess crankshaft reliabilty is to perform the type of tests and analyses that were per-l formed on the Shoreham crankshafts. This information permits l the calculation of actual operating stress states, separate and apart from compliance with the standards of any code.
- 18. You have just described the most accurate way to ,
-1
- . . - , . , . --...-....-_m.-_- m_-.-,_--,- me , - - - - - - ...,.,,.gr,.-__r. . - ~ ~ - ,~~._,-.__-.,_,e~.,.,- ,, ~,o
b assess the adequacy of a crankshaft. Why are not.all: crank-shafts assessed in this manner?
A. .(All) Most crankshafts are_not assessed in this manner because the design review normally occurs before the crankshaf t is ' manufactured. This is where design-codes are used. It is normally impossible to measure the actual stresses from tests-on the ' crankshaft because the crankshaft does not exist when it is being designed. Because of the uncertainty in predicted loads and response, these design codes are very conservative.
Unfortunately, LILCO had the luxury of having data avail-able from a smaller crankshaft that failed in the same engines.
This allowed calculation of the fatigue endurance limit for the replacement crankshafts. This type of data is extremely use-ful, but it is normally unavailable. In the absence of this detailed information, design codes are relied upon to ' provide assurance of crankshaft adequacy.
- 19. Notwithstanding that the crankshaft is not required to meet any of these codes, has the crankshaft been approved by any of these ship classification societies?
A. (Montgomery) Yes. ABS has approved the crankshaft dimensional sizing for diameter of pins and journals and pro- l portions of the crankshaft webs. A copy of the crankshaft drawing certified by ABS is Exhibit C-ll. ABS has certified that the material properties of the replacment crankshafts con-form to the requirements of ABS grade 4 specifications. A copy l.
lof the material properties certification is Exhibit C-12. Fi-nally, ABS has stated that it would approve the torsional crit-ical speed arrangement of the crankshaft, flywheel and genera-tor at Shoreham for use on an ocean going vessel. A copy of ABS's letter of approval is Exhibit C-13.
- 20. The County contends ABS's approval is suspect because the information submitted to ABS was deficient in four specific areas: (1) shot peening; (2) maximum firing pressures; (3) strain gage. measurement; and (4) operating experience. Please respond to each of these areas.
A. (Montgomery) The County claims the information on shot peening was inaccurate because TDI took credit for a 20%
increase in the fatigue limit and there was no discussion of the first shot peening by TDI. As the separate testimony of Messrs. Wells, D. Johnson, Wachob, Seaman, Cimino and Burrell clearly demonstrates, the shot peening does increase the fa-tigue limit by up to 20%.
- 21. The County contends that maximum firing pressures as high as 1750 psi have been measured at full load. ABS was in-formed that the maximum firing pressure at full load was 1700 psi. Please discuss.
A. (Montgomery) The County is simply wrong. The docu-ments relied upon by the County to show that peak firing pres-sures of 1750 psi have been measured at full load (TDI test logs attached to Suffolk County Exhibit 46) clearly show that the pressures above 1700 psi were measured at 110% of full load. The maximum firing pressure of 1700 psi relied upon by
( i-ABS is correct. A fuller-discussion ofLthe inaccuracy of the County's contention'concerning maximum firing pressure is
-contain5d in the testimony of Messrs. Harris, et al., on pis-
.l tons.
- 22. The County contends TDI did not inform ABS that the strain gage test results were only accurate to within i 5%. Is this significant?
A. (All) l'here is no significance to the f act that ABS was not informed that the strain gage test results were only accurate to within-i 5%. This is the expected degree of accu-racy for field test results of this type.
- 23. Finally, the County contends TDI did not submit accurate information on the operating experience of the DSR-48 engines. Please discuss.
A. (Montgomery) The operating history submitted for the i
Shoreha.3 engines was complete and accurate. The information submitted is attached as Exhibit C-6. This clearly shows the number of hours the Shoreham engines have operated at and above 3500 KW. In addition, there was no reason to submit informa-tion concerning block cracking since block data is not used in ABS's design rules for crankshaf ts. ABS was only asked to re-view the torsional critical speed arrangement. ABS was provid-ed complete and accurate information for the Shoreham engines and approved the crankshafts on that basis.
IV. THE CRANKSHAPTS COMPLY WITH DEMA
- 24. Do the replacement crankshafts meet the recommenda-tions of DEMA?
A. (Johnston, Chen) Yes, conventional analytical tech-niques typically utilized by the diesel engine industry show that the replacement crankshafts comply with the recommenda-tions of DEMA.
- 25. What are the DEMA recommendations for crankshafts?
A. (Johnston, Chen) The DEMA recommendations for allow-able crankshaft vibratory stress (Exhibit C-14) state:
In the case of constant speed units, such as -
generator sets, the objective is to insure that no harmful torsional vibratory stresses occur within five percent above and below rated speed.
For crankshafts, connecting shafts, flange or coupling components, etc., made of conventional materials, torsional vibratory conditions shall generally be considered safe when they induce a superimposed stress of less than 5000 psi, cre-ated by a single order of vibration, or a super-imposed stress of less than 7000 psi, created by the summation of the major orders of vibration which might come into phase periodically.
- 26. How did you determine that the crankshafts complied with DEMA?
A. (Johnston) In August, 1983, TDI performed a torsional critical speed analysis of the replacement crankshafts.
(Exhibit C-15). FaAA reviewed this analysis for compliance with the DEMA allowable stresses. In addition, in January, 1984, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, conducted torsiograph tests on a replacement crankshaft at Shoreham.
(Exhibit C-16). FaAA compared the test results with the DEMA allowable stresses. Based upon the review of TDI's torsional analysis and Stone & Webster's torsiograph tests, FaAA conclud-ed the crankshaf ts complied with DEMA at full load (3500 KW) and overload (3900 KW). FaAA's conclusions are contained in the TDI Owners Group Crankshaft Report. (Exhibit C-17).
(Chen) In addition, I performed independent calculations (Exhibit C-18) to determine whether the crankshafts met the recommendations of DEMA. These calculations employed an inter-nationally known computer program (TORVAP), which is widely used by the diesel engine manufacturers industry to measure nominal crankshaft torsional stresses. On the basis of these independent calculations, I determined that the replacement crankshafts complied with DEMA at full load (3500 KW) and over-load (3900 KW).
- 27. What is a torsional critical speed analysis?
A. (Johnston, Chen) A torsional critical speed analysis is a method of calculating the torque being transmitted through a crankshaft in a diesel engine at a particular speed and power level. When operating at a particular speed and power level, the torque being transmitted through a crankshaft in a diesel engine varies with time and location. For a four-stroke en-gine, the torsional stress relationship over time repeats itself-every two revolutions of the crankshaft. The maximum torque on the crankshaft at any instant may be much larger than the mean torque required to run the engine at a given speed and power level. This additional torque is caused by a number of-f actors, including the cylinder firing order (excitation) and the presence of natural torsional modes of vibration of the crankshaft. To determine the maximum torque applied to the crankshaft, it is necessary to conduct a torsional critical speed analysis. Once the maximum torque has been calculated, it is simple to calculate the nominal torsional stresses for comparison to DEMA allowable stresses.
- 28. How was TDI's torsional critical speed analysis con-ducted?
A. (Johnston, Chen) TDI calculated the response of the crankshaft at 100% of rated load (3500 KW). The torsional analysis conducted by TDI was of two parts. First, TDI used an analytical technique, known as the Holzer method, to compute the natural frequencies and modes of vibration of the crank-shaft system. If you strike a tuning fork, it will tend to vi-brate at a particular frequency that is called its natural fre-quency. Similarly, a twisting force exerted on a crankshaft will induce the shaft to vibrate at certain iiscrete natural frequencies. The shape or angle of twist as a function of po-sition along the shaft is unique for each natural frequency,
and this is often referred to as a mode shape. The Holzer method' permits the manufacturer to calculate the predicted nat-tural frequencies of the various modes of vibration that will result from torsional forces exerted on the crankshaft.during operation.
TDI used the Holzer method to calculate the system's first three natural frequencies, which are shown in Exhibit C-19. In a four stroke engine such as the Shoreham diesel gen-erators, operation at the fcurth order critical speed produces the-maximum stresses. The fourth order critical speed calcu-lated by TDI is 581 rpm. The Shoreham engines operate at 450 rpm, which is significantly below the fourth order critical speed.
- 29. What is the second step of the analysis?
A. (Johnston, Chen) The second step in a torsional crit-ical speed analysis is to determine the dynamic torsional re-sponse of the crankshaft due to gas pressure and reciprocating inertia loading for each order. The first order is a harmonic which repeats once per revolution of the crankshaft. For a four-stroke engine, harmonics of the order 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5. . . exist. TDI performs this calculation separately for each order of vibration up to 12. For each order, the applied torque and nominal torsional stress at a cylinder due to gas pressure and reciprocating inertia is calculated.
- 30. What was the result of TDI's analysis and how did the result compare to DEMA allowables?
A. (Johnston) TDI calculated the response for the first three modes and plotted the results for only the first mode, since higher modes produce much smaller stresses. The nominal shear stresses for the significant orders are shown in Exhibit C-20. The largest single order stress at rated load and speed is for the fourth order. This stress, 2980 psi, is well below the 5000 psi allowed by DEMA. Due to the analytical technique TDI employed, TDI did not calculate the torsional stresses cre-ated by the summation of the major orders of vibration for pur-poses of comparison with the DEMA allowable of 7000 psi.
- 31. Given that TDI only calculated single order stresses, what further action was taken to assure that the crankshafts complied with DEMA?
A. (Johnston) Stone & Webster performed torsiograph tests on the replacement crankshaft in EDG 103 in January, 1984 at various power levels. (Exhibit C-16). The torsiograph tests measured the total torsional vibrations resulting from all orders. These torsional vibrations were converted into stresses for comparison with DEMA.
- 32. How is a torsiograph test performed?
A. (Johnston, Chen) A torsiograph test is performed by placing a seismic instrument (a device for measuring angular displacement due to vibration) on the end of a crankshaft and recording the angular displacement due to vibration under dif-ferent engine operating conditions.
1,7 l
l.
I 1
I I
The test is usually per formed ' in - two . stages. The l first stage is without load and is'used to determine the loca-i L 'c.. tion of critical speeds, or natural f requencies, of the crank-i l shaft. This is done by varying the speed of the engine and re-cording the vibratory response. As the frequency of vib. ration for any order approaches a natural frequency of the shaft, the i- amplitude of vibrations will increase and reach a peak at the l ~ natural frequency. If-you know the engine speed where this peak vibration occurs, it is simple to calculate the natural frequency. Critical speeds may also be determined while op-erating at a fixed speed and observing the frequency content of the response.
- 33. How did the natural frequency measured by Stone &
Webster compare to the natural frequency computed by TDI?
i A. (Johnston) The frequency content of the torsional vi-e.
bration signal at 450 rpm showed a resonance at 38.6 Hz. This value is in excellent agreement with TDI's computed value of 38.7 Hz. This comparison demonstrates that the mass elastic properties used in TDI's analysis for representation of the crankshaft are correct.
- 34. What is the second stage of the torsiograph test?
{ A. (Johnston, Chen) The second stage is to determine .
l nominal stresses in the crankshaft under various load condi- l tions. This test is performed at rated speed of 450 rpm with i
l l
,.___,_,_.-,-_,.-.,-,..._..._._,,,,.---,_,.,-,.,_r., - _ . , _ _ . _, , - ,
. - - , . _ . - , _. -,,_.,-_m.
1 variable load. The -purpose of this test is to confirm the l
forced vibration calculations. ;
i The torsiograph provides the angular displacement re-sponse' ( the angle of twist) of the free end of the crankshaft as a function of time. This displacement may be decomposed into components corresponding to each order. The torsiograph also provides the peak-to-peak response. These responses are e
used to calculate-the nominal stresses.
- 35. How were the nominal stresses determined from the tor-sional vibrations measured by Stone & Webster?
. A. (Johnston) Stone & Webster tabulated the single order and peak-to-peak torsional vibration response cfor both 3500 KW (100% of rated load) and for 3800 KW (109% of rated load).
FaAA factored these values to.obtain nominal shear stresses, which are shown in Exhibit C-21. The results at 100% load show that the -largest single order ( the fourth order) has a stress of 3108 psi, wisich is well below the DEMA allowable of 5000 psi. The total stress of 6626 psi is also below the DEMA al-
! lowable of 7000 psi.
At 3800 KW the stresses of 3242 psi for a single order and 6875 psi for combined response are also lower than 5000 psi and 7000 psi respectively. At 3900 KW the corresponding stresses are 3287 psi and 6958 psi, by linear extrapolation.
l The measured response at 3500 KW is in close agreement with )
L that calculated by TDI.
's-
! .36. Did FaAA calculate-the stresses at 95% and.105% of
, rated speed?
l A .- (Johnston) Yes, we calculated the' fourth order and-
[ total stresses at 95% and 105% of rated speed. On the basis of our calculations, we conclude that the stresses at those speeds satisfy the DEMA allowables.
- 37. What conclusions did FaAA draw from the stresses-cal-culated from the torsiograph test data and the stresses calcu-lated analytically by TDI?
A.- (McCarthy, Johnston) The design' calculations on the 13-inch by 12-inch crankshaf ts performed by TDI are appropriate and show that the crankshaft stresses are below DEMA recommen-dations for a single order. Combined stress was not. calculated by this method, but was determined by torsiograph testing. The Stone & Webster torsiograph test results show that the 13-inch by 12-inch crankshaft stresses are below the DEMA recomm, ended i levels for both single order and combined orders for both 3500' KW (100% rated load) and 3800 KW. A linear extrapolation to 3900 KW also shows compliance. In addition, no harmful tor-i sional vibratory stresses occur within 5% above and 5% below rated speed.
- 38. Dr. Chen, do your calculations also show that the re-placement crankshafts comply with DEMA?
A. (Chen) Yes.
t t i 4
n-- n ,---n _ . - , - ,,w,,----,----+,.--,.-,.,--,-,----,-,,,-a-,e.,,..---, , - - ,,,- -..w--e .,n,,,,,--- - - - --.,,c a-, -,,-ny,-,--n
i l l V l l
l 39. Please describe your calculations.
L.
A. (Chen) I calculated the natural frequencies, as well as the torsional stresses of the engine generator system using l
the TORVAP R and TORVAP.C computer programs. I calculated the response for single orders and combined orders. I also calcu-lated the torsional vibration at the free end of the crank-l shaft. The calculations I performed are typical of the calcu-lations performed by the diesel engine industry to-check the ,
adequacy of a crankshaft to withstand torsional stress.
- 40. What were the results of your natural frequency calcu-lations?
A. (Chen) The natural frequency calculations are essen-tially identical to the natural frequency _ calculations of TDI
[ and FaAA. The results are shown-in the following table:
- Mode TDI FaAA PEI 1st 2323.2 2323.8 2323.3 4
l' 2nd 5575.5 5576.4 5575.2 3rd 7000.3 7002.0 7000.4 i 41. What were the results of your free end amplitude cal-
- culations?
A. (Chen) The results of the free end amplitude calcula-tions are in close agreement to-the values calculated by FaAA
! and measured by Stone & Webster. The results for the fourth order and the combined response are shown in Exhibit C-22.
l l
'4.
- 42. What were the results of your -single order nominal stress calculations?
.A. (Chen) The maximum torsional-stresses are caused by the fourth order. .I calculated the fourth order stresses for
- all modes. This contrasts to TDI's calculation, which only al-lows the calculation of fourth order-stresses for single modes.
I calculated these stresses at full load, overload, 95% of rated load and 103% of rated load.' -The fourth order stresses are as follows:
Fourth Order Stresses 4
, 450 3500 3455 450 3900 ,
3740 427.5 3500 3071 472.5 3500 4010
- 43. What was the result of your sum of orders response and nominal stress calculation?
! .. (Chen) The sum of orders stresses at full load, over-l l
load, 95% and 105% of rated load are as follows:
Sum of Orders Stresses RPM M PSI 450 3500 5101 450 3900 5401 427.5 3500 6232 1
_ . - . . _ , - . _ . . , . . , . , - . . - _ , , . . _ . . - - . . . . - . _ , , , . . , _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . - - - - . . . , _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ , - , . _ _ - . . ~ . . -
.5 472.5 3500 5673
- 44. Do the crankshafts comply with DEMA at overload condi-l . tions?
l A. (Chen) Yes. . At 3900 Kd the fourth order stress -is -
l 3740 psi and the' sum of orders stress is 5401 psi. These fig-ure are well within the DEMA allowables.- It should be noted that DEMA does not require stress calculations at overload con-ditions. Nonetheless, the replacement. crankshafts are within the DEMA stress limits at overload.
4 5 .- Dr. Chen, have you ever seen crankshafts that have failed from torsional stress?
A. (Chen) Yes. I have seen quite a few crankshafts that i
have failed from torsional stress.
- 46. Are you aware of-any crankshafts that comply with DEMA that have failed primarily due to torsional. stress.
A. (Chen) No. In more than thirty (30) years of experi-i ence in the diesel engine industry, I do not know of any situa-i tions in which a crankshaft that met DEMA recommendations has failed primarily from torsional fatigue. I was chairman of the DEMA Technical Committee from 1971 through 1973 and I can state i with confidence that a crankshaft that' complies with DEMA is
!- reliable for its intended service.
4 4
7 1
- r. - - . _ , , m_. . ~ , . . . - - . . , _ , , , _ , - . . . . . _ . , , , . _ . . , - - _ _ ,,._.,..,,.__.,,._..,,..,_-,_,,-,.,m-,_,.-. _,.,,,_,,,,-..c...,_,..,,
i V. THE FATIGUE ANALYSIS AND FIELD TESTING OF THE CRANKSHAFTS SHOW THAT THE CRANKSHAFTS WILL NOT FAIL DURING OPERATION
- 47. What is the purpose of a fatigue' analysis?
?
A. (McCarthy, Johnston) The purpose of a fatigue analy-sis is to determine the useful life of a given compone,nt (in this case a crankshaft) for its specified service loads. FaAA performed a fatigue analysis which enabled us to conclude that the crankshafts have unlimited life for their-intended service.
- 48. Why did FaAA perform a f atigue analysis of the crank-shafts?
A. (McCarthy, Johnston) Although the crankshaf ts meet the nominal stress recommendations of DEMA for operation at 3500 KW and 3900 KW, the stresses for combined orders calculat-ed from the torsiograph measurements are close to the recom-mended allowable of 7000 psi. (The stresses for single orders are considerably lower than the recommended allowable of 5000 psi.) While the DEMA limits are believed to contain an intrin-sic safety margin, a fatigue analysis was performed to deter-mine the true safety margin of the crankshafts and to provide an additional measure of assurance, independent of design criteria specified by any code, that the crankshafts are ade-quately designed to perform their intended function in the Shoreham EDGs.
i l
i ,
! I 1
l l
l
. --,,- - . . . . . - _ . , - . . ~ . - - . , . , . . - ,
- - - - _ . , . .. . l
w l
-1
'49. .How was the. fatigue' analysis conducted?
A. (Johnston, McCarthy) To' conduct a fatigue analysis l
FaAA had to determine the maximum stresses the crankshafts I s
would see in service, as well as the endurance limit for the crankshaft material. FaAA performed'a two part analysis to de-
.termine the maximum stresses. First, a dynamic torsional anal-l ysis of the crankshaft was performed to determine the true
~
range of' torque at each crank throw.- Second, using the results
- of the dynamic torsional analysis, a finite element model of a i one quarter crank throw was used to compute the magnitude and i location of peak stresses in the fillet region. Torsional and gas pressure loading cases were considered in the finite ele-ment model to evaluate the effects of twisting and bending >
i loads. These analyses permitted FaAA to determine the maximum
! stresses. These stresses were also obtained from a dynamic strain gage test on the replacement crankshaft.
- The fatigue endurance limit was established for the i
i replacement crankshaft by first obtaining the endurance limit I
~
for the failed crankshafts, and then increasing that limit to i
reflect the difference in ultimate tensile strength between the failed and replacement crankshafts. The endurance limit was compared with values provided in the literature and found to be acceptable. The factor of safety against fatigue failure was computed from the test data gathered from the original and
- , _w.w -i-, . _ , , ,. w.. ,.,---.,,m,, .,,,e..-.,-c.,__,,__- ,,,-y,,..,w,mmr,m-%.-mm,,.n -,w.,,%.,._.,-+ ,---w.-w%r-,-
i replacement crankshafts. The factor of safety is large enough to provide confidence in the reliability of the crankshafts.
- 50. Let us discuss separately each part of the fatique analysis. What is the purpose of a dynamic torsional analysis?
A. (Johnston) FaAA developed a dynamic torsional model of the crankshaft to determine the total torque at each crank throw. The total torque is calculated by a summation of the torque produced by each order and mode. The analytical method used by FaAA computes the phase relationship between the vari-ous orders and modes, which permits this summation. The dynam-ic torsional analysis represents a more accurate calculation of the stresses actually experienced by the crankshaft during op-eration than conventional analytical techniques. (Technical details of the dynamic torsional model are contained in Section 3.1 of Exhibit C-17).
- 51. What did you do with 'the total torque calculated f rom the dynamic torsional analysis?
A. (Johnston) The total torque was used as input data to the finite element aodel to determine the actual maximum state of stress in the crankshaf t.
- 52. What was the purpose of constructing a finite element model of a one quarter crank throw?
A. (Johnston) The nominal crankshaft stress values cal-culated from the dynamic model (i.e. total torque) are l
l l
considerably less than the actual maximum stresses in the crankshaft. Those nominal values would prevail'if.the crank-1 shaft were a long circular cylinder. Stresses in-the real i crankshaf t are greatly influenced by its complex geometry and
- by stress concentrations, especially at the fillet radii be-tween the main journal- and web and the crankpin and web. In addition, a crankshaft throw is subjected to loads of two basic ,
types: (1) torque transmitted through the throw, which is in-i fluenced by the output power level and by the torsional vibra-l tion response of the crankshaft; and, (2) connecting rod forces 1
t- applied to the crankpin and reacted'at bearing supports. A fi-l nite element model of a one quarter crank throw, considering i
i stresses due to torsional loading and stresses due to gas pres-sure loading, was used to compute the actual maximum value and ,
j location of stresses in the crankpin fillet area. The strain i
gages used during dynamic testing were placed at the location l-of maximum stress calculated by the finite element model.
{
i (Technical details concerning the finite element model are 5
contained in Section 3.2 of Exhibit C-17).
- 53. Please describe the dynamic testing.
A. (Johnston) Stone & Webster conducted dynamic' tests on the replacement crankshaft on EDG 103 in January, 1984. 'In-strumentation for the measurement and recording of significant
{
!l dynamic data included the following:
4 l F i
_ _ _ .~ - . _ . - _ . , . . . , _ _ _ . _ . . , - . _ _ , _ _ _ _ . . . . - _ , - . _ _ _ . . . _ _ , . . . _ , ,
- l. Cylinder firing pressure of cylinder Nos. 5 and 7 was measured;
- 2. Dynamic torque in the crankshaft between the engine casing and the flywheel was measured
. by a strain gage torque bridge;
- 3. Crankpins Nos. 5 and 7 were instrumented with three element strain rosettes to measure l crankpin fillet dynamic strains.
These tests were performed under a variety of loads and tran-r sient conditions to investigate the dynamic response of the crankshaft.
- 54. How were the results of these tests used in FaAA's analysis?
A. (Johnston) First, the cylinder firing pressure mea-suced by Stone & Webster was utilized to obtain the gas pres-sure loading for input to the dynamic torsional analysis. The total torque produced by this loading was calculated and corre-
! sponds closely to the torque measured by Stone & Webster near the flywheel. (Exhibit C-23). Second, the dynamic strains measured oy Stone & Webster in the crankpin fillets of crankpin Nos. 5 and 7 were used to ccmpute the maximum stresses, which were used to calculate the factor of safety. These stresses j
are within the range predicted by FaAA's finite element analy-ses. (Exhibit C-24).
- 55. Are the results of Stone & Webster's dynamic torsional testing confirmed by the analytical models used by Fr.AA?
A. (Johnston, McCarthy) Yes. The results of FaAA's
i analytical models agree with the dynamic strain gage tests.
Dynamic testing of the crankshaft, in this regard, is consid-ered to be an essential element of the design review program because it is only through carefully conducted measurement that the actual engine dynamics and local component stresses are confirmed. -
- 56. After measuring the maximum stresses in the fillet area, what was the next step in your analysis.
A. (Johnston) The next step in the analysis was to com-pare the measured stresses with the fatigue endurance limit of the replacement crankshafts. The results of the finite element analysis were used to determine the maximum principal stress range in the fillet area, which was then compared to the fa-tigue endurance limit of the replacement crankshaft.
- 57. How was the fatigue endurance limit of the replacement crankshaft established?
A. (Johnston) The fatigue endurance limit of the re-placement crankshaft was established by first obtaining the en-durance limit of the failed crankshaft. Since the endurance.
limit scalec linearly with ultimate tensile strength, the en-durance limit of the replacement crankshaft was increased to reflect the difference in ultimate tensile strength between the failed and replacement crankshaft.
- 58. How was the endurance limit established for the origi-nal crankshafts?
b A. (Johnstoa) The original 13-inch by ll-inch crankshaft on EDG 101 was !.nstrumented with strain gages in the fillet lo-r cation of Crankpin No. 5. This fillet had previously experi-enced a fatigue crack during performance testing. After the 1
test, the three-dimensiondl finite element model of a quarter i
section of a crank throw showed that the strain gages were pla'ced close to the location of maximum stress. The measured stress range was used to establish the endurance limit in this analysis as a conservative assumption, although the actual max-imum stress range was revealei by the finite element model to be about 15% higher at a nearby location. The original crank-shaft on EDG 102 had experienced 273 hours0.00316 days <br />0.0758 hours <br />4.513889e-4 weeks <br />1.038765e-4 months <br /> at equal to or greater than 100% load, or about 4,000,000 cycles. By using linear cumulative damage techniques, it was determined that the endurance limit for the original crankshaf ts was 36.5 ksi.
- 59. What is the fatigue endurance limit for the replace-ment crankshafts?
A. (Johnston) The fatigue endurance limit for the re-placement crankshafts is 39.2 ksi. This is higher than the fa-tigue endurance limit for the original crankshaf ts because the ultimate tensile strength of the replacement crankshaf ts ex-ceeds the ultimate tensile strength of the original crank-chafts.
- 60. Having obtained the fatigue endurance limit for the replacement crankshafts, were you able to calculate the factor of safety against fatigue failure?
A. (Johnston) Yes. The factor of safety against fatigue failure was calculated by plotting the maximum principal stress range measured in the crankpin fillet area on a Goodman dia-( gram, constructed using the f atigue endurance limit and the ul-timate tensile strength values for the replacement crankshafts.
i (Exhibit C-25). The factor of safety against fatigue failure is 1.48, without taking into account any beneficial effect of j shot peening the fillet regions.
- 61. Does a factor of safety of 1.48 provide sufficient as- '
surance that the replacement crankshafts are adequate for their intended service in the Shoreham EDGa?
A. (McCarthy) Yes.
i
- 62. What is the basis for your opinion that a factor of safety of 1.48 is sufficient for the replacement crankshafts?
A. (McCarthy) To explain that I must first explain what a factor of safety is. With that understanding, the accept-ability of a f actor of 1.48 will become apparent.
- 63. What is a factor of safety?
i A. (McCarthy) A factor of safety is an additional margin of strength, in either the fatigue strength (endurance limit),
yield strength, or ultimate strength, that is added to a me-chanical design to compensate for uncertainties, i.e. ef fects or things we don' t know. There is significant confusion of ten
, - + - . - ~ - - ---------.-w --g,g e,-.-,,-nm - , , - - , - - - , , - , - - - - - - - , , -, ,,n , , -, , , - , w - - - --
1 j
i generated by a failure to identify whether a stated factor of 1 safety is with regard to fatigue or endurance limit, yield, or ultimate strength. The factor of safety with regard to these three dif ferent f ailure modes will generally be dif ferent for the same design or part.
- 64. What is the difference between a factor of safety in endurance limit, yield strength, and in ultimate strength?
A. (McCarthy) A factor of saf ty in endurance limit is the faccor of strength the part or design has over that re-quired for the part to be expected to exhibit infinite life, or a life of some specified number of cycles in repeated or cyclic loading. A factor of safety in yield is the factor the yield strength of the part is greater than the expected service load.
Similarly the factor of safety in ultimate strength or overload failure is the factor the breaking strength of the part is greater than the expected service load. In older design refer-ences it is not uncommon to see a very large factor of safety in overload recommended, and no mention of a factor of safety in endurance limit or fatigue strength, for parts that were cyclically loaded and could fail in fatigue. This was before 1
fatigue and stress concentration effects were as well under-stood as they are now.
- 65. What types of uncertainties is the factor an allowance or compensation for?
A. (McCarthy) Uncertainties as to service load, material properties, stress concentration f actors, lifetime, etc. , which obviously are directly related.to the amount of testing, analy-sis, and understanding a designer has of a particular part and its service environment.
- 66. What is an acceptable allowance for this uncertainity, or, in other words, what is an acceptable factor of safety?
A. (McCarthy) This is totally determined by the degree of uncertainity and the dif ficulty or penalties of adding addi-tional strength to the design. Where the design envelope and the nature of the fabricated part are reasonably understood, a factor of safety in fatigue or cyclic loading of 1.3 to 2.0 is generally recommended. When the uncertainty of design factors is greater, higher values will be recommended. Some design texts will recommend that, if the designer is seriously consid-ering a factor of safety of greater than two, he should devote additional time to analyzing the design, rather than accepting the ignorance which is causing him to select a higher factor of safety. Portions from several of the most widely used Mechani-cal Engineering design references are attached as Exhibit C-26.
l A factor of safety of 1.48 in fatigue or endurance limit will produce a much higher factor of safety with regard to yielding or overload failure.
- 67. How well is the design of the replacement crankshaf ts understood?
A. (McCarthy) To put it simply, extremely well. We have the benefit of the information gained from the failure of the
[ original crankshaf ts, full scale instrumented tests of the ac-tual service loading, raterial strength tests for the individu- L al parts, torslograph testing, and extensive three dimensional analytical modeling of the structure. The crankshaft is being run in a temperature controlled, oil filled environment. It is completely guarded from accidental and unanticipated impact by
!- foreign objects by the engine block. Usually a designer has far, far less information to work with when assessing a design. !
This results in uncertainities in the design being reduced sub-j 'stantially. ;
- 68. What does this understanding of the crankshaf t design j mean in terms of an acceptable factor of safety.
T A. (McCarthy) For well understood designs operating in i
i
- environments that are not severe, a factor of safety in fatigue or endurance limit of 1.3 to 1.5 is generally accepted. For ba this particular part, it would3 my opinion that our degree of l understanding would certainly permit the use of a safety factor at the lower end of this range, when in fact the actual safety 1
factor is at the high end. Therefore the factor of 1.48 is !
. l j quite acceptable.
i 4
4 i
l ;
b 1
I l
VI. CONCLUSION
- 69. Please summarize your conclusions.
A. (All) Our conclusions are as follows:
- 1) The maximum stresses that will be exerted on the crankshaft during operation, both for a single order and for combined orders, are below the DEKA allowables. These stresses were calculated using analytical techniques commonly used by the diesel engine industry, and by the use of torslograph test data.
- 2) There is no requirement that the crankshafts comply i with the design criteria of ABS, Lloyd's, IACS or FEV.
Noncompliance with the design criteria of any of these organi-2 zations does not mean the replacement crankshafts are inade-quately designed for their intended service at Shoreham. Not-withstanding the fact that compliance is not required, ABS has
- approved the replacement crankshafts.
- 3) FaAA performed a fatigue analysis of the replacement 3
crankshafts. This analysis establishes that the crankshafts have a factor of safety in fatigue of 1.48, without benefit of shot peening. This is more than adequate to provide reasonable assurance the crankshafts will not fail in fatigue during op- l 1 l eration. I
- 4) There is no basis for the County's contention that the replacement crankshafts are inadequately designed for operation at full load (3500 KW) or overload (3900 KW). Both convention-al and highly sophisticated analyses, as well as extensive testing, establish that the crankshaf ts are adequately designed for the service they will see in the Shoreham emergency diesel generators.
a 1
I l
i
- i Attachment 1 w_________________-___
Fallwe W
Assmates i ROGER L McCARTHY Speciellaed ProfessionalCe.TC w Mechanical, machine, and mechanism design. Dynamic mechanical system design, analysis modeling, control (including dedicated computer control), and failure analysis. Custom product design. Human factors engineering and testing; design analysis of men / machine interface. Design ana'ysis research.
Risk analysis; quantification of hazards posed by design and construction of mechanical components, products, or system failure in the industrial and transportation environments. Design analysis through large scale accident data analysis and evaluation, including vehicle design and collision performance.
Evaluation of mechanical / electrical design related explosion hazard; heat transfer design. Reinforced polymer composite design analysis, including tires. Patent analysis relating to mechanical design.
Background and Professional Honors A.B. (Philosophy), University of Michigan, with High Distinction B.S.E. (Mechanical Engineering), University of Michigan, summa cum laude S.M. (Mechanical Engineering), Massachusetts institute of Technology Mech.E.(Mechanical Engineering) Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering), Massachusetts Institute of Technology Preesdent, Failure Analysis Associates Principal Design Engineer Failure Analysis Associates Program Managet Special Machinery Group, Foster Miller Assocastes,Inc.
Project Engmeet; Machine Design and Development E. A Engmoenng Development Division, Proctor & Gamble Company,Inc.
Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer, California,4M20040 Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer. Arizona, #13684 Phi Beta Kappa. Sigma Xi, James B. Angell Scholar l NationalScience Foundation Fellow Outstanding Undergraduate in Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan Member, American Society of Metals, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Society of Automotive Engineers. Amencan Welding Society, National Safety Council, American Society for Testing and Materials Member, American Society of Safety Engineers Member, Human Factors Society. System Safety Society, National Society of Professional Engineers Member, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Member, National Fire Prevention Association j Selected Publications
" School Bus Wheel Rim Safety-Multiciece vs. Single Piece;' National School Bus Report, Springfield, Virginia (December 1982)(with G. E. McCarthy).
" Warnings on Consumer Products: Objective Criteria For Their Use;' 26th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Seattle, Washmgton (October 25 29,1982)(with J. N. Robinson, J. R Finnegan and R. K. Taylor).
" Average Operator inaction Characteristics with Lever Controls-Study of the Column Mounted Gear Selector Lever,'26th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Seattle, Washington (October 25 29,1982)(with J. R Finnegan, G. E Fowler and S. D. Brown).
" Catastrophic Events: Actual Risk versus Societal Impact? 1982 Proceedings. Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Los Angeles, California (January 26 28,1982)(with J. R Finnegan and R. K. Taylor).
1
" Product Recall Decision Making: Velid Product Safety Indicators," Proceedings of the Fourth Inter-national System Safety Conference, San Francisco, Califomia (July 9-13,1979). Published by Profesemnel Engineer Magazine (March 1981).
"Large Vehecle Wheel Servicing: Reduction of Risk Through implementation of An CSHA Standard Govermng Multipiece and Single Piece Rims: Phase IV" Published by the National Wheel and Rim j Association (March 1981)(with J. R Finnegan).
" Program to Imsrove Down Hole Drilling Motors: Task 2. Lip Seal Dessen." Failure Analysis Associates Report FAA-81 7-6 to Sandia National Laboratories (October 1980)(with V. Pedotto).
"A Safety and Fracture Mechanics Analysis of the Pneumate Tire: A Perspective on the Firestone 500 Radial Tire;' Presented at the Intemational Conference on Reliability, Strees Analyssa and Failure Preventen, of the Amencen Society of Mechancal Engineers, San Francisco, Califomia (August 18-21,1980) (with W. G. Knauss).
"Multipiece and Single Piece Rime: The Risk Associated with Their Unique Design Charactenstics.
Phase lil" Published by the National Wheel and Rim Association (June 1980)(with J. R Finnegan).
"An Engineering Safety Analysis of the Steel Belted Radial Tire," Society of Automotive Engineers Paper #000840(June 9-13,1980).
"A Simple Technique to improve the Allocation of Safety inspection Resources" Proceedings of the .
Fourth intomational System Safety Conference, San Francisco, Califomia (July 9-13,1979)
(with R M. Beauner).
"An Engineering Analysis of the Risk Associated with Multipeece Wheels" National Highway Waffic Safety Administration, ANPR Docket No. 71-19, Number 7 (June 1979)(with J. R Finnegan).
" Planar Thermic Elements for Thermal Control Systems," Joumal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Vol. 99, Series G. No.1 (March 1977)(with B. S. Buckley).
l
i <
l
! l i
i r
I i
J 6
Attachment 2 .
t 1
?
A I
a 5
i t
? -ty--- m 7 t.y,ts- - - r-* -
-irM-r* Mw-,me-+-9-r %u-- * --y-wee- p 17
- wse--- ++ w -
-+w *T' +-wg-- em- -i?-r- -
"'7 't ue'" -- *f-^
Failure Analysis Associates PAUL F1.JOHNSTON Specialized Professional Competence Static and dynamic analysis of structures; response spectrum and time history analysis of structures; earthquake engineering; probabilistic methods in structural analysis, decision analysis; the finito element method non linear stress analysis; analysis of PWR steam generator tube denting phenomena; soil-structure interaction; geotechnical engineering, elasto plastic constitutive relations for soils, consolidation, tunnelling in soil or rock; design of steel and reinforced concrete structures, automated design.
Background and Professional Honors B. A., B.A.I. (Civil Engineering), Trinity College, Dublin University, Ireland (First Class Honours.
Foundation Scholar)
M.S. (Structural Engineering) Stanford University Ph.D. (Geotechnical Engineoa ig), Stanford University (John A. Blume Fellowship)
Structural Engineer.
Failure Analysis Associates Consulting Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering. Stanford University Researcher. GeotechnicalGroup, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University Geotechnical Engineer, Jo Crosby and Associatcs Member, American Society of Civil Engineers Member, Institute of Engineers of Ireland Selected Publications "Probabilistic Environmental Model for Solid Rocket Motor Life Prediction," NWC TP 6305 (August 1981)(with G. Derbalian. J. Thomas and G. Brooks).
" Northeast Utilities Tube Plugging Criteria,' FAA-81 8 12 (August 1981)(with J. Thomas, G. Derbalian, H. Wachob and S. Rau).
" Finite Element Consolidation Analysis of Tunnel Behavior in Clay,' Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (June 1981).
" Structural Analysis of PWR Steam Generator Egg Crates," FAA 80 7 3 (June 1980)(with J. Thomas, S. Rau and G. Derbalian).
" Structural Analysis of Millstone Unit No. 2. Steam Generator Tubes and Support Plate" FAA 79 06-03 (June 1979)(with J. Thomas, G. V RanJan and G. Brooks).
" Steam Generator Support Plate Analysis for Indian Point Unit 2" FAA 70 01 3 (January 1979)(with J. Thomas. G. Derbalian. G. V RanJan and R. Cipolla).
" Quasi Material Prope rties for Millstone Unit 2 Steam Generator Support Plato Analysis, FAA 7812-3 (December 1978)(with J. Thomas and G. V Ranjan).
p -= -. . . . - . ~ . . , - ~ .--...--..-~~....-~~..u- ...---- - - - - -- -., . ,.n . -- .~- -.-- ---...,,~c~..--
O i
I 1
i
?
i l ?
i I
[
' I 4'
1 i :
I P
l i
1 1
t t.
l
(
i
- Attachment 3 ,
i l,
3 4
4
[
1 t
b k
1" ,
N i
r L
i I
a e
i, r
r t
i L
t b
EUCENE F. MONTCOM0tY Telephone - Home: 516/921-0666 18 Fourth Place -
~
- "ffice: 516/929-8300, Syosset, New York 11791 Ext. 3637 EXPERIENCE SUHHARY:
Over eight years of progressively increasing responsibility in the performance and management of engineering mechanics activities on nuclear power plant pipin0 sys-tems and equipment for electric utility and consulting engineering firms.
EDUCATION:
Columbia University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, New York, New York Bachelor of Science, Hechanical Engineering - May 1973 Master of Science, Hechanical Engineering - October 1974 Hochanical Engineer (Professional Degree) - January 1981 Queens College, City University of New York, Queens, New York Bachelor of Arts, Physics - May 1973 EXPERIDICE: (See Attachnent for Details) 1981 to Present Stress Analyst, Nuclear Engineering Department Long Island Lighting Cogany 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801
! Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit Ib.1 Mark II OnH/4 Capacity 819 Hw tiot Responsible Owner's representative for the engineering, coordination, review and approval of stress related activities performed in support of Shoreham licensing,
- start-up and system turnover.
1980 to 1981 Senior Engineer, Stress Anlaysis EnginecrJng Department Durns and Hoe, Incorporated j ,,, 185 Crossways Park Drivo Woodbury,ilY 11797 Washington Nuclear Project (Itinford) Unit No. 2 Hark 11 UM /5 Capacity 1100 Hw Not Lead Engineer for various engircering evaluations related to fatigue analysis and high frrquency 'offects of Hark II Suppression l'ool loads on contdintrent piping, equipment and support structures.
4
EUCD C F. HONTCCE RY Page Two EXPERIENCE (Cont'd.)
1978 to 1980 Senior Engineer, Stress Analysis Engineering Department Ebasco Services, Incorporated 2 World Trade Center Now York, NY 10048 Laguna Verde Units No.1 and 2 Hark II BnR/6 Capacity 600 Hw Not Stress Engineer responsible for the design, analysis and checking of major A5ilE III Code Class 2, .) and USAS D31.1 nuclear power piping systems.
1977 to 1978 Engineer 'A', Stress Analysis Engineering Department Burns and Roe, Incorporated 185 Crossways Park Drive Woodbury, NY 11797 Washington Huc1 car Project (Hanford) Unit No. 2 Hark 11 UnR/5 Capacity 1100 Hw Het
, Stress Engineer responsible for the combined application of finite element methods (ANSYS), piping flexibility analysis (ADLPIPE) and fortran IV computer programming to achieve the optimum desi their supports (gn of nuclear power piping systems andnormel/ pipe specifications.
PROFESSI0llAL Associate Member - American Society of Hechanical Engineers SOCIETY ffEllBERSHIP:
Associate Member - New York State Society of Professional En01 ncers Hes ber - Tau Beta Pi (Hattonal Engineering Honor Society)
RErfRfHCES: Will be furnished on request.
t M
1
l l
' ATTACHENT DETAILS OF EXPERIENCE LISTINC .
l From Stress Analyst, Nuclear Engineering Department ,
3/81 Long Island Lighting Company !
to 175 East Old Country Road ,'
Present Hicksville, NY 11S01 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 Mark II 84R/4 Capacity 819 Hw Net Rcsponsible Owner's representative for the engineering, coordination, review and approval of stress-related activities performed in support c f Shoreham licensing, start up and system turnover. Major assign-ments included the followings o In responsible charge of engineering review and approval of calculations performed by project consultants (Stone & Webster, Inc., Ceneral Electric) for seismic qualification and hydro-dynamic re-evaluation of all safety-related equipment subject to IEEE-3%,1975 and the latest NRC criteria. Represented client interests at NRC Equipment Qualification Branch tech- t
, nical audits of detailed dynamics analyses and test reports. '
Interfaced and coordinated tetween HRC and consultants to ob-tain acceptable resolutions on outstanding technical concerns.
o Hember of Hotor Operator Test Group addressing issues on vibra-i tion aging and mechanical fatigue of Limitorque motor operators.
Participated in formulation of procedures and test specifica-tions used to qualify tie equipment to lor.g duration, high frequency loads.
o Initiated and coordinated stress engineering software develop-ment for the Huclear Engineering Department. Conducted evalua-tions to assemble an applications packago consistlag of essential structural and piping codes, o Lead Engineer for the Independent Design Review of the safety-related portions of the ECCS Core Spray System piping, supports, equipment and structures. Developed program plan and description, reviewed technical proposals. Coordinated audit open items / findings reso-lutions bebeen Independent Doslyn Reviewer (Telodyne Engineer 1*ng Services) and project consultants.
o Project Engineer for the As Built piping Reconcillation Program
, responsible for monitoring and minimliing the impact of field modifications due to calculation close out and re" lows.
o LILCO Engincoring Specialist for the Transamorica Delaval (701)
Recovery program. Reviewed diagnostic entculations on failure of engine Crankshatt and analysos of replacement crankshof t do-sign. Developed " tracking System" for nuclear /non nuclear diosol engine fa!!ure experience for use in the TD1 Owner's Design Hoview/QualityReva11dationeffort.
A1
Special Training-LILCO sponsored departmental training lectures. Covered topics 1
-included: .
o - 10 CFR 50 Appendix B' Quality Assurance Requirements .,
,- )
[, o BWR Systems Familiarization Course i- o Ceneral Employee Training (CET) (for access to vital plant areas) o Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Training o English Language Institute Study Course o Technical Specialist QA Auditor Training From Senior Engineer, Stress Analysis Engineering Department 4/80 Burns and Roe, Incorporated to 185 Crossways Park Drive 3/81 Woodbury, N.Y. 11797
. Washington Public Power Supp1v Sistem Washington Nuclear Project (Hanford) Unit No. 2 Mark II BnR/5 Capacity _1100 Hw Net In responsible charge of engineering evaluations in the following areas:
o Lead Engineer for the fatigue analysis of MSRV lines and down-comers subjected to extended duration LOCA-related hydrodynamic loads. Supervised engineering personnel in lower classifications.
o Hember of Mark II SRSS/LCAC (Square-Root-Sum-Square and Load Combination Acceptance Criteria) Subcommittee addressing issues on MSRV and downcomer fatigue analysis, essential piping functional capability, SRSS Newmark-Kennedy Criteria and high frequency content of Mark II loads.
o Lead Engineer for analysis of drywell ECCS (Emergency Core Cooling Systems) for Annulus Pressurization faulted loading conditions. Assisted and trained other stress analysts'in performing calculations on conformance with project design specifications and ASFE code.
Conceptual Engineering o Developed an analytical approach for determining the optimum sup-port configuration restraining 1crge, eccentric motor-operator-valves. Guidelines in the form of simplified computational pro-j 'cedures and' tables were prepared. (Published paper titled,
" Optimum Rigid Support Spacing for Eccentric Operator Valves,"
June 1981.)
A-2
i s
'From
.Senio Engineer, StressLAnalysis Engineering Department '
Ebasco Services Incorporated
'5/78 to 12 World. Trade Center l4/80 New York, N.Y. -10048 Stress Engineer responsible for the design, analysis, and checking of . major ASME Code Class 2, 3 and USAS B31.1 nuclear power piping systems.
Comision Federal de Electricidad Laguna Verde Units No. 1 and 2 Mark II BWR/6 Capacity 600 Mw Net o Responsible for thermal, pressure, deadweight and seismic design, analysis and checking of safety-related systems according to ASME Boller and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III.and USAS B31.1 using.
the proprietary pipe flexibility code PIPESTRESS 2010.'
o Developed initial . support location, selection and sizing (or modi-fled line routing, when neesssary) on the following BWR systems:
reactor water cleanup (RWCU), reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC),
high pressure core spray (HPCS), low pressure core spray (LPCS),' re-sidual heat removal (RHR), standby liquid control (SLC), and numerous other Reactor and Control Building systems.
o Prepared, checked and reviewed system stress analysis' reports. In- '
terfaced equipment allowable nozzle loads, pipe support loads, and postulated pipe stress break locations with other disciplines.
Houston Lighting and Power Company ) .
Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station Mark III BWR Capacity 1200 Hw Net o Performed investigative study to determine the structural response of proposed Main Steam and Reactor Feedwater seismic interface / -
pipe rupture restraint system outside primary containment. An in-house dynamic-plastic finite element code, PLAST 2267, used for analysis.
'Conceptural Engineering o Responsible for deriving maximum scismic support spans *uased upon a frequency design criteria. Hondimensional charts and tables
_ developed for supports around right angle elbows, large radius bends, and parallel offset configurations. Prepared summary re-port for inclusion in project-Pipe Stress Analysis Guidelines.
9 A-3
w Special Training Ebasco Services, Inc. sponsored departmental training lecture series.
Covered topics included:
o Code Stress Basis o Quality Assurance
- o Stress Analysis of Fossil Plant Piping l 0 Pipe Rupture Interface with Stress Analysis 1
o Thermal Stress Analysis According to B31.1 l
o Seismic Charts Analysis o Vibration Theory.and Problems in Piping From Engineer 'A', Stress Analysis Engineering Department 2/77 Burns and Roe, Incorporated to 185 Crossways Park Drive 4/78 Woodbury, N.Y. 11797 Stress Engineer responsible for the combined application of finite element, methods (ANSYS), piping flexibility analysis (ADLPIPE) and Fortran computer programming to achieve the optimum design of nuclear power piping systems and their component supports according to the applicable portions of ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III.
i Washington Public Power Supply System Washington Nuclear Project (hanford) Unit No. 2 Mark II BWR/S Capacity 1100 Mw Net o Responsible for the pipe rupture analysis of Main Steam high energy line breaks outside primary containment. Hor.-linear, elasto-plastic, dynamic finite element analysis (ANSYS) used to determine whip restraint gap size, maximum support member forces / moments, plastic piping response, penetration nozzle reactions, MSIV end loads and deformations. Prepared and reviewed final stress analysis report.
- o Respansible for the engineering, design and analysis of major wetwell piping and components subjected to direct hydrodynamic Mark II submerged structure loads. Time history and response spectra techniques (ADLPIPE) used to locate supports and evalu-ate piping response on MSRV lines, downcomers and miscellaneous wetwell penetrations under normal /epset/cmcrgency/ faulted hydro-dynamic loading conditions.
1 1
A-4
o Coordinated application of DFFR. (CE Dynamic Forcing Function Report) and DAR .(Desinn Assessment Report) for developing force
, - vs. time curves due to SRV discharge, Chugging, Condensation ,
1 Oscillation, Pool Swell and Fallback input to pipe stress analy-sis. Developed Fortran programs for data file manipulation.
o Performed detailed analysis of MSRV X-Quencher device and its associated support structure under direct and indirect struct-ural loads. Verified member sizes and anchor bolt-down adequacy.
Prepared final stress report.
3ersey Central Power and Light Three Mile Island Unit No. 2 PWR Capacity 880 Hw Net o Responsible for verifying the design adequacy of Reactor Pressure Vessel and Main Steam Generator base plate shear. pin bolt design under longitudinal and circumferential hot / cold leg coolant line
, breaks. The dynamic finite element codes STARDYNE and ANSYS were used in conjunction with an empirically developed collapse moment equation. Prepared final stress report. )
Conceptual Engineering l
Prepared Fortran software necessary to interface company developed j piping graphics package with ADLPIPE, a conventional pipe flexi-bility code. Linkage permitted free thermal . execution of designers' proposed routing while simultaneously plotting'the layout on orthographic or isometric view.
Special Training o " Practical Seismic Design of Structures" administed by Structures Group, Metropolitan Section ASCE.
o " Advanced Topics and New Developments in Finite Element Methods" administered by MARC Analysis Research Corporation.
9 9 g 8
M A . _ _ _ ._ -_--___.
f Attachment 4 J
1 l
l
E I sto9raPhicai oeta oa Dr. Simon K. Chen, PE sa,c3 i , i9,3 I
CONSULTANTS Position President Home! 325 Racine Street, Delavan, WI r;3115 Home Phone: 414-728-6994 Education -
B.S., M.E. 1947 National Chiao-Tung University V
M.S., M.E. 1959 University of Michigan Ph.D., M.E. 1952 University of Wisconsin ,
M.B.A. . 1964 University of Chicago, ,,, J Executive Program Work Experience President, Power and Energy International, Inc. 1979 - present Technical consulting and product development President, Beloit Power Systems. Inc. 1973 - 1979 Manufacturers of engine and turbine driven alternators, up to 15,000KW, rotary positive screw gas compressor, power plant controls, and gen-sets.
V.P., Engineering and Application, Fairbanks-Morse Power Systems 1969 - 1973 Colt Industries Developer of 0.P. Blower series line with increased rating. -
O.P. sparked gas engine, manufacturer of SENT-PC-2 for marines, stationary and nuclear standby applications, developer of 38A-20 engine, producer of large irrigation pump.
rotary compressor, alternators and motors.
Divisional Chief Engineer Diesel Engine R&D, International 1965 - 1969 i Harvester Company ,
Developer and nunufacturers of vehicular diesels and spark- '
gas engines for construction equipment, fann equipment. - '
medium-duty truck, and industrial applications, .j Chief Project Research Engineer, Engineering Research, IH 1956 - 1965 !
Corporate research on alternate power plant, engine combus-tion, advanced power train concept, advanced vehicle l l
analysis, and corporate product planning. -
Project Engineer, IH, Melrose Park 1952 - 1956 In charge of combustion research on diesel and stratified.
charge engine.
Technical Society Membership List and Honors SAE, ASME, SNAME, EGSHA, CIE, Who's Who in the World Who's Who in Finance and Industry, Engineers of Distinction by Engineers Joint Council in 1973, SAE Arch T. Colwell Merit Award in 1966, University of Wisconsin Alumni Distinguished Service Award,1973, Chinese Institute of Engineer's Achievement Award in 1976, Director ar.d Technical Chairman of Diesel Engine Manufacturing Association, 1971-73, Member Compresse.d Air and Gas Institute, 1973-79, SAE Fellow-1983 Registered Professional Engineer - State of Wisconsin.
power and Energy mesenetsonal Inc. P.O.1064 555 Lawton Ave. Mt. WI 53511 608/382-7071
" ~
i' p E I Pubiications Ja,ua ,y i6, i,84 l CONSULTANTS Dr. Simon K. Chen
" Compression and End Gas Temperatures from Iodine Absorption Spectra,"
. Co-author, SAE,1954.
'" Development of a Single Cylinder Conpression Ignition Research Engine,"
Co-author, SAE 650733, 1965.
" Development Engine and SAE
" Co-author, Evaluation of the Simulation of the Compression-Ignition
- 650451, 1965.
i " Engine Development Criteria and Techniques," flodern Engineering and Technology Seminar Taiwan, Republic of China, July 1974.
" Engine Cycle Analysis and Combustion Problems," Modern Engineering and Technology Seminar. Taiwan, Republic of China, July 1974.
" Diesel Application," Modern Engineering and Technology Seminar. Taiwan, Republic of China, July 1974.
i " Highlights January 1975.of the Energy Session," Energy Quarterly, Republic of China, 4
"A Collection of Abridged !!anagement Papers," Modern Engineering and Technology Seminar. Taiwan, Republic of China, July 1976.
l
" Marketing in a Competitive Market," Modern Engineering and Technology Seminar, l Taiwan, Republic of China, July 1976.
" Management Philosophy and High Technology Development," Energy Quarterly, Taiwan, Republic of China, January 1978.
" Vibration Analysis for a Sound Generator-Set Design," Electrical Generating Systems Marketing Association., Chicago, IL, September 26-27, 1978.
" Waste Heat Recovery Cycle Analysis and Systems for Diesel and Gas Turbine Engines," 13th CIMAC Conference, Vienna, Austria, May 7-10, 1979.
j -
' "Small Industrial Diesel Planning," September 16, 1980.
"An International Perspective of Taiwan's Automotive Industry," Society of
. Automotive November Engineers, 23-25, 1981. SAE-ROC Technical Meeting. Tawian, Republic of China, i
"The Development of ROC Machine Tool Industry and the Impact of Automation,"
Industrial Technology Research Institute, Taiwan, Republic of China, September 1981.
" Japan's Robot and Robotics Development," March 11, 1982.
- )Techno-Economic Shock," May 5, 1982. Recommendations to Fight Recession Accelerated by Energy "US Robots and Robotics," August 1983.
"A Review of Engine Advanced Cycle and Rankine Bottoming Cycle and Their Loss Evaluations," Co-authored, SAE 830124, 1983.
" Flexible Manufacturing Systems Applications," Modern Engineering and Tech-l nology Seminar, Singapore, November 1983. .
I ll "The Impact of Automation on Hewly Industrialized Countries," Modern Engineer- !
ing and Technology Seminar, Singapore, November 1983.
powerandEr wintemationalInc. P.O.1064 555 Lawton Ave. Beloit. WI S3511 000/362-7071
- -. - - - - -- - '- ~ ~ ~