ML20099C277

Nonproprietary Rev 3 to Core Protection Calculator/Control Element Assembly Calculator Sys Phase I Software Verification Test Rept

ML20099C277
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	11/30/1984
From:	ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY
To:
Shared Package
ML13309B474	List: ML20099C232 ML20099C258 ML20099C277 ML20099C285
References
CEN-176(S)-NP, CEN-176(S)-NP-R03, CEN-176(S)-NP-R3, NUDOCS 8411190455
Download: ML20099C277 (27)

Text

-

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 2 (SONGS ?)

DOCKET 50-361 CEN-176(S)-NP REVISION 03-NP

~

CPC/CEAC SYSTEM PHASE I SOFTWARE VERIFICATION TEST REPORT November, 1984 Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Nuclear Power Systems Power Systems Group Windsor, Connecticut lhk P

0 g

-- o

LEGAL NOTICE This response was prepared as an account of work sponsored by Combustion Engineering, Inc. Neither Combustion Engineering nor any person acting on its behalf:

~

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

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

e e

' ABSTRACT Phase I Design Qualification Testing is perfonied on the DNBR/LPD Calculator System to verify that CPC/CEAC system software modifications have been properly implemented.

. This report presents the Phase I Test results for the Southern California Edison Company SONGS-2, Cycle 2 CPC/CEAC Revision 03 software.

l The Phase I Testing was perfonned according to previously issued procedures (Reference 2). The test results indicate that the CPC/CEAC system software e modifications have been properly implemented.

4 l

'e e

e

. _ - . _ . . . = . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS i

SECTION TITLE PAGE NUMBER l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

6 1.1 Objective of Phase I Testing 6

. 1.2 Results 6 1.3 Conclusions 6 1.4 Prerequisites 6 2.0 APPLICATION PROGRAM TESTING 7 2.1 Test Configuration 7 2.2 Test Cases 7 2.3 Test Executica and Results 8 3.0 EXECUTIVE TESTING 20 3.1 Test Configuration 20 3.2 Test Cases 20 3.3 Test Execution and Results 20

. 4.0 PHASE I TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

26

5.0 REFERENCES

27

'e .

I i

I i

i

LISTS OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE NO.

2-1 CEAC Single Channel Hardware Configuration for Phase I Executive / Application Program Testing 10 I 2-2 Application Programs Tested with the II Automated Phase I Testing Program l

. 3-1 CPC Single Channel Hardware Configuration for Phase I' Executive Program Testing 21 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE NO.

2-1 CEAC Single Channel Memory Map for CPC System Software Phase I Testing 12 2-2 CEAC Single Channel Memory Map for i CEAC System Software Phase I Testing 17 I

3-1 Memory Map for CPC/CEAC Executive Phase I Testing 22 e

~

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

This document sumarizes the results of the Phase I Design Qualification Testing of the changes to the CPC and CEAC software for SONGS-2 Cycle 2 (Rev. 03). The programs affected by these l changes, which are listed in Section 2.3 were required to undergo Phase I Testing in accordance with Reference 2. These changes reflect the implementation of Software Change Requests 257, 258,

., 267, 622, 624-626 and 629-631. These changes were made in

,accordance with Reference 2.

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

1.1 OBJECTIVE OF PHASE I TESTING The objective of Phase I Design Qualification Testing is to verify the implementation of the Core Protection Calculation System (i.e.,

bothCPCandCEAC) software.

1.2 RESULTS Analysis of the Phase I Design Qualification Tests demonstrated that the software changes have been correctly implemented to meet the system functional requirements.

1.3 CONCLUSION

S CPC System Phase I Testing was performed in the prescribed manner as described by Phase I Test Procedures. The Phase I Testing was adequate to meet all of the test objectives. The success of the Phase I Testing demonstrates the adequacy of the CPC/CEAC software implementation.

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

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

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

i

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

Phase I Test runs used Disk #S358 as the A-B Reference Disk. l

. 2.1 TEST CONFIGURATION Phase I Testing of the CPC application programs was performed on the CEAC Single Channel Unit. For the purpose of this testing, the single channel was configured with the hardware complement listed in Table 2-1. The software configuration for the application programs Phase I Testing is shown in Figure 2-1 (CEAC). Memory was loaded with this configuration by the following procedure:

1. The integrated CPC system was loaded from the SONGS-2,3 Reference Disk (Disk #S358 for CPCs). I

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

3. The Interdata Hexadecinal Debug Program, CLUB, was loaded from magnetic tape, overlaying an unused portion of memory. l The Automated Phase I Testing software was then used, with CLUB, to test programs 1-4 and 9-11 (CPC) and 1 and 2 (CEAC) of Table 2-2.

2.2 TEST CASES 2.2.1 Inputs 1

Phase I Test case inputs for the CPC/CEAC application programs were generated in accordance with the CPC/CEAC Phase I Test Procedure.

Sufficient test cases were chosen to exercise each functional branch in the application programs. However, several branches were not exercised because assigned constant values made it impossible to

. branch on certain conditions. All coding that cannot be executed',

because of constant assignments, was verified by inspection to assure correct implementation. l 2.2.2 Expected Results Expected results for the CPC application programs Phase I Test cases were generated by two methods. The preferred method for generation of expected results utilized the CPC FORTRAN Simulation Code. Test 2

case inputs were stored on magnetic tape and entered into the Simulation Code. The FORTRAN Code calculated the expected results and stored then on magnetic tape in a format acceptable to the automated Phase I Testing Program. In some instances, such as 7

I input / output handling, the FORTRAN Code does not simulate the CPC code. In these cases, the expected results were hand calculated by the test engineer based on the system functional requirements, the programmer's flowcharts, and the system data base document. The results were then manually entered on magnetic tape in a format

, acceptable to the Automated Phase I Testing Program.

2.3 TEST EXECUTION AND RESULTS

~

When test case inputs had been selected and expected results had been generated, the test engineer prepared the test tape to be read by the Automated Phase I Testing Program. The test case inputs overlayed the portions of memory where data is accessed by the software module under test. After each set of inputs overlayed appropriate memory locations, the software module under test was executed and the actual CPC results were compared to the expected .

results by the Automated Phase I Testing Program. Whenever the i' actual value differed from the expected value by more than 0.1 percent, an analysis of the error was performed by the test engineer l to assure that the deviation was not caused by a coding error.

Documentation generated by the Automated Phase I Testing Program consisted of listings which contain input and output differences.

For several of the modules tested, it was not obvious which branches in the code were taken when observing the outputs. When tracing

through a portion of code, the location of each critical instruction was printed when that instruction was executed, which enabled the test engineer to verify that each functional branch was taken. A Phase I Test Log was used to maintain a daily account of testing activities. ,

Phase I Testin as performed on the CPC application programs on b Phase I testing of the Executive System was

[per formed on[,

errors were found. ]and[ ]. No software

] Test on Penalty Factor program were run on [ . No i

software errors were found.

4 Test on the Display Program were run on [

softwa e errors were found. h. No

- On[hanges to c required in the STATIC DNBR Afterprogram.]the updating the referen

reference disk (#S358) a comparison was made to its backup disk

(#S359) and indicated differences only in the tracks assigned to the STATIC DNBR program. All other tracks remained unchanged, therefore Phase I testing previously performed on these unchanged ~

,,y al.i d . Phase I testing of the STATIC DNBR i

L _, was successful and its backup (#S359) program, was regenerated. - o i

After updating the On(

to a c hnage made in the CEAC Point ID Table.)thereferen reference disk (*S358) a comparison All other tracks remained unchanged.

was made to its The CEAC CEAC Point ID table.

PC, int ID table is tested only as a part of the Phase II testing procedure.

- valid.

~

, during the generation of the " aster Test disk, On(

a discrepency was f6und during comparison of the Channel A,8 Reference disk (#S358) and the Channel A, B Master test disk It was determined by visual comparison of the listings (dS363).

that a single byte, residing in an unused portion of memory, was the cause of the discrepency. The Reference disk (dS358) was

] A comparison was made between regenerated on[ Reference disk (*S358) and its backup (dS359), this the Channel A,8 in combination with a retest of the comparison between the Channel A,8 Reference disk (=S358) and the Master Test disk (*S363),

demonstraced a successful compare.

This combination of comparisons verified that only the single byte in question was modified.

It was concluded that Phase I testing revealed no coding errors in the CPC and CEAC application programs.

O l

i l

l l

l l

i l

l TABLE 2-1 CEAC SINGLE CHANNEL HnRDWARE CONFIGURATION FOR PHASE I EXECUTIVE /

APPLICATION PROGRAM TESTING b p 9

O l

l e

j~

t .

i i

l __ _ _

l l

TABLE 2-2 APPLICATION PROGRAMS TESTED WITH THE AUTOMATED PHASE I TE5 TING PROGRAM e

e e

4 i

O I

e O l

1

a >

" -h4 -m=- - - - .% -.

FIGURE 2-1 CEAC SINGLE CHANNEL MEMORY MAP FOR CPC SYSTEM SOFTWARE PHASE I TESTING e

e i

• 1 d

'1 M

G 6

- - __ - - o

Figure 2-1 (Cont.)

e e

G

'M

=

O 9

m

Figure 2.1 (Cont.)

I e

3 e

e O

e l

Figure 2-1 (Cont.)

e O

G e

e e

9 e

e e.

5 l

1

c

Figure 2-1 (Cont.)

l f 1 J 1 1

i l

l I t

i e

b e

e t

f i

I e

e 4

i i

• O e *

+

h e

J W

l 16-I

- , ___, y.-

-- --- - -n._.___ .-

FIGURE 2-2 CEAC SINGLE CHANNEL MEMORY MAP FOR CEAC SYSTEM SOFTWARE PHASE I TESTING 4

"l 4

1 Figure 2-2 (Cont.)

D e

L J

i J

e I e D l

l l

. _ . . __ __ _ ._- . . - . . _ . . , _ _ .. _ ,_. ._ _ . .._..._1

,a Figure 2-2 (Cont.)

O e

O $

I 4

0 4

1 I

____m

. _ . . _ . + - - - - -

l l

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

1 3.1 TEST CONFIGURATION Phase I testing of the CPC/CEAC Executive was perfonned on the CPC Single Channel System. For the purpose of this testing, the single

- channel was configured with the hardware complement listed in Table 2-1(CEAC)and3-1(CPC). This hardware configuration is functionally identical to the as-built CPC/CEAC design.

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

1

1. An integrated CPC/CEAC system was loaded from SONGS-2,3 Reference Disk #S358 (the entire image was loaded although only l j the Executive system is tested).

2. The Interdata Hexadecimal Debug Program, CLUB, was loaded from magnetic tape overlaying an unused area in memory.

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

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

3.3 TEST EXECUTION AND RESULTS For testing of the CPC/CEAC Executive, the debug program, CLUB, was l

' used to insert test case inputs into memory; to insert breakpoints _

to trace and intercept code executions; and to examine results.

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

test engineer.

Ibe CPC/CEAC Executive was tested on[ 'and'

_ ] No software errors were detected. ~

I o

l._. _ , _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . . - _ . . . . _ _ , - . _ . . . . . . .

e M*NNm+te%.,_ ,, ,

TABLE 3-1 CPC SINGLE CHANNEL HARDWARE CONFIGURATION FOR PHASE I EXECUTIVE PROGRAM TESTING l

e e

9 e

O

me , e>

• we emw .,-w e e-FIGURE 3-1 MEMORY MAP FOR CPC/CEAC EXECUTIVE PHASE I TESTING 9

e 9

h e

e S

4 l

1 l l

1 Figure 3-1 (Cont.)

1 i

l l

l m

E 8

e m

su I

~

l 1

l 1

l l l 1

1 Figure 3-1 (Cont.)

l l

e 0

I i

l G e Figure 3-1(Cont.)

4 e

t 4

i e

e i

f l -

1 4.0 PHASE I TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY

Phase I testing of the CPC and CEAC software for SONGS-2 Cycle 2 (Rev. 03) was performed in accordance with Reference 2. Test results detected no errors in the implementation of the software modifications outlined in Reference 1.

O e

a e

5.0 REFERENCES

1. CPC/CEAC Software Modifications for San Onofre Nuclear Generatin Station Units No. 2 and 3, November 1984, CEN-281(S -P, Rev. 01.

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

e Y

1 e

I I

i f

l

4 G

C .

d e

s COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. .

c i

I I

(

).

l I

I

. . . _-. .. _. ._ - . __ __ .. . . _ __ . _ _ _ .