ML20100J180
| ML20100J180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1985 |
| From: | ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19269B331 | List: |
| References | |
| CEN-298(A)-NP, CEN-298(A)-NP-R, CEN-298(A)-NP-R00, NUDOCS 8504100389 | |
| Download: ML20100J180 (28) | |
Text
_
7 .
[
iii m ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE - UNIT 2 CORE PROTECTION CALCULATOR SYSTEM i: j PHASE I
-; 1 DESIGN QUALIFICATION
__ TEST REPORT
.- k.
?_
$ DOCKET NO. 50-368
$ CEN-298(A)-NP, REV. 00 MARCH, 1985 1
2
- G e
3 w
i R
2 4
5
=
=
3 --
}
--2
?-
- =
, Nuclear Power Systems
- .a COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
a Windsor, Connecticut 2
5 h y
=
E ;.Ei p -
p
- g. .,
7 -
k '
? 5 0 -
-- 8504100389 850329
- 5 C
LEGAL NOTICE-This response was prepared as an account of work sponsored by Comubstion 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 information, 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 disclosed in this response.
l-e Page 2 1 s " % , ,
,.4 g ,
ABSTRACT Phase I Design Qualification Testing is performed on the DNBR/LPD Calculator System to verify that CPC/CEAC system software modifications have been properly implemented.
! This report presetts the Phase I Test results for the Arkansas Nuclear l One-Unit 2 plant CPC/CEAC Revision 05 software.
l l
The Phase ~I Testing was performed according to previously issued procedures (Reference 2). The test results indicate that the CPC/CEAC system software modifications have been properly implemented.
t 5
1 a
w Page 3
~
i
}
e
- g. _
TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE NUMBER
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND
SUMMARY
6 1.1 Objective of Phase I Test.ina 6 1.2 Results 6 1.3 Conclusions 6 1.4 Test Methods Overview 6 1.5 Prerequisites 6 2.0 APPLICATION PROGRAM TESTING 7 2.1 Test Configuration 7 2.2 Test Cases 8 2.3 Test Execution and Results 8 3.0 EXECUTIVE TESTING 21 3'.1 ' Test Configuration 21 3.2 Test Cases 21 3.3 Test Execution and Results 21 4.0 PHASE I TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY
. 27
5.0 REFERENCES
28 i
l l
l o
Page 4 l l
l
s LIST OF TABLES ,
TABLE TITLE PAGE NO.
l 2-1 CEAC Single Channel Hardware Configuration for Phase I Executive / Application Program Testing 10 2-2 - Application Programs Tested with the Automatic Phase I Testing Program 11 3-1 CPC Single Channel Hardware Configuration for Phase I Executive Program Testing 22 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 CEAC System Software Phase I Testing 17 3 Memory Map for CPC/CEAC Executive Phase I. Testing 23 l
Page 5
, . - _ _ _ ._=.-_. ___._
. ,_ * . - ss ._ ~. .
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 ANO-2 Cycle 5, Rev. 05. The programs and methodology affected by these changes, discussed in Section 2.3 and in Reference 1, were required to undergo Phase I Testing in accordance with Reference 2. These changes reflect the implementation of Software Change Requests 625, 632, 633,634 and 635. These changes were made in accordance with Reference 2. l 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.,
both CPC and CEAC) software.
1.2 RESULTS Analyris of the Phase I Design Qualification Tests demonstrated that the scftware changes have been correctly implemented to meet the system functional requirements.
1.3 CONCLUSION
S CPC System Phase I Testing wcs performed in the prescribed manner as described by Phase I Tesi Drocedures. The Phase I Testing was adequate to meet all of the tent objectives. The success of the Phase I Testing demonstrates the adequacy of the CPC/CEAC software implementation.
1.4 TEST METHODS OVERVIEW Reference 6 describes the procedure used for CPC/CEAQ application programs module testing. Reference 7 describes the procedure used for CPC/CEAC executive system module testing.
1.5 PREREQUISITES l
Before formal Phase I Testing was initiated, the following '
prerequisites were satisfied:
- 1. Programmer debug testing was performed on the module changes to remove all obvious errors.
j 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).
l^ . Page 6
,* ,O ,
- g 'W - @
E i
2.0 APPLICATION PROGRAM TESTING j The CPC application programs.were tested in accordance with the i CPC/CEAC Phase I Test Procedure. This section discusses the actual l test configuration, test cases, and test execution and results. -
Phase I. Test runs used Disk #S388 as the A-R Reference Disk.
I 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:
- 2. The automated Phase I Testing Software was loaded from magnetic tape, overlaying the CPC/CEAC Executive and unused portions of memory.
4
'l 3. .The Interdata Hexadecinal Debug Program, CLUB, was loaded from l magnetic tape, overlaying an unused portion of memory.
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.
5 k
Page 7 I
,,a w-. - . - . . ..,+%...m.- - --=.v~- - - * * -
^"
- l
_ _ . , . . - _ . er, [, e4 ..a , 'a. --
6
- j. ..
, 2.2 TEST CASES
- 2.2.1 Inputs Phase I Test case inputs for the CPC/CEAC application programs were j generated in accordante 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 4 -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 assured correct implementation.
2.2.2 Expected Results Expected results for the CPC application programs Phase I Test cases i were generated by two methods. The preferred method for generation of expected results utilized the CPC FORTRAN Simulation Code. Test case inputs were stored on magnetic. tape and entered into the Simulation Code. The FORTRAN Code calculated the expected results
, and stored them on magnetic tape in a format acceptable to the automated Phase I Testing Program. In some instances, such as input / output handling, the FORTRAN Code does not simulate the CPC code. In these cases, the expected results were hand calculated by the test engineer based on the system functional requirements, the programmer's flowcharts, and the system data base document. 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 actual value differed from the expected value by more than 0.1 percent, an analysis of the error was perfonned by the test engineer to assure that the deviation was not caused by.a coding error.
Documentation generated by the Automated Phase I Testing Program
- consisted of listings which contain input and output differences.
i For several of the modules tested, it was not obvious which branches i
in the code were taken when observing the outputs. In these cases, a trace is used. 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.
Page 8
- _ _ 2 2._ _ ._._.-_
,* ~,s-~ .,l- -,L-
Pha
[ se I Testing gas .1. performed on the Phase 1 testing of the CPC application Executive programs System was on performed on errors were ound.
]. No software Test on the Penalty Factor program were run on{
software errors were found.
]. No On[ an addressing discrepancy was found in the FLOW constants program. ]hedisktrackcontainingtheFLOWconstantson T
theA,BReferencedisk(#S388)wasregeneratedonC AcomparisonbetweentheA,BReferencedisk(#S388)anditsbacku]. p
(#S390) indicated a difference only in the track assigned to the FLOW constants program. All other tracks remained unchanged. The A, B Reference disk backup (#S390) was then regenerated. The FLOW program wassuccessfullyretestedon{ ].
At this time the TRIP subroutine, which resides on the same track as FLOW constants, was also successfully tested.
TestontheCommonSubroutineprogramwererunon{ ].
No software errors were found.
3 discrepency was found with a constant in the CPC On[
Execut ive Data } Base Overlay program. The constant was corrected agi he] AChannel comparison A, Bbetween Reference thedisk A, B(#S388)
Reference was regenerated disk (#S388) anon [ d itT acTup (#S390) indicated a difference only in the track containing the CPC Executive Data Base Overlay constant. The portion of executive testing that exercises this constant was then successfully retestedon{ ].
It was concluded that Phase I testing revealed no coding errors on the CPC and CEAC application programs.
I l
Page 9 4 ,,.
- O , _O
TABLE 2-1 CEAC SINGLE CHANNEL HARDWARE CONFIGURATION FOR PHASE I EXECUTIVE /
APPLICATION PROGRAM TESTING T
i l
l l
l I
l l
1 I '
l Page 10
- , ,- e e b-- - , - , ,
TABLE 2-2 1
l APPLICATION PROGRAMS TESTED WITH THE AUTOMATED l PHASE I TESTING PROGRAM l
i e
l Page 11 e
g _
FIGURE 2-1 CEAC SINGLE CHANNEL MEMORY MAP FOR CPC SYSTEM SOFTWARE PHASE I TESTING 1
l Page'12
Figure 2-1 (Cont.)
1 4
l Page 13 menprs 0
S 1
I i
Figure 2-1 (Cont.)
I l
1 1
l I
l l
I l
l l
l I
Page 14 O g "' - - _ - * +--. ,,
- _ _g, , _
Figure 2-1 (Cont.)
1 I
l l
Page 15
__ a me-1 . .
l Figure 2-1 (Cont.)
1 I
f i
l 1
1 l
l l
Page 16 l 1
l . l
Figure 2-2 CEAC SINGLE CHANNEL MEMORY MAP FOR CEAC SYSTEM SOFTWARE PHASE I TESTING 1
l
\
l l
l l
i Page 17 g- g $g ,. p $ .. 4. --, e,e p.
FIGURE 2-2 (Cont.)
l a
t I
- l Page 18 e .e'-, -.- ,-.w-. , , - - , - t,_. __a-_ _' 1 ___ _
l l
FIGURE 2-2(Cont.)
l l
I o
I 1
i Page 19
- - -- - . - . . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ @-Ww
- 9'
FIGURE 2-2 (Cont.)
i Page 20
, + -
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.
3.1 TEST CONFIGURATION Phase I testing of the CPC/CEAC Executive was performed on the CPC Single Channel System. For the purpose of this testing, the single channel was configured with the hardware complement listed in Table 2-1 (CEAC) and 3-1 (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. An integrated CPC/CEAC system was loaded from ANO-2 Reference Disk #S388 (the entire imag'e was loaded although only 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.
3.3 TEST EXECUTION AND RESULTS For testing of the Executive, the debug program, CLUB was 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.
TheCP[/CEACExecutivewastestedon'["[ted.
(( ,,. No software errors were deuec
- )
i
\
I Page 21 l
- . - . - - - - ., ~ -..-. . - --
-c- , * , ,_. s . -,. ,e * -
TABLE 3-1 CPC SINGLE CHANNEL HARDWARE CONFIGURATION FOR PHASE I EXECUTIVE PROGRAM TESTING l
l Page 22
.r
- l l l i ,
j FIGURE 3-1 l l
l MEMORY MAP FOR CPC/CEAC EXECUTIVE PHASE I TESTING i
Page 23 i
- - . - - - ~ - - - --
- i.
- i l
/ l Figure 3-1 (Cont.)
4
- 1 1
l I
I Page 24
. - - . ~ _ - . .
, , - . - . .. . , , . - . , . _ -- _ - - . . . -~ , _
l Figure 3-1 (Cont.)
i I
i t
-f Page 25 m
' y- 4 -. .g . gg, 9 _ _
i FIGURE 3-1 (Cont.)
l l
l Page 26 l
l 9 ee ,
O - ~ _ _ _
4.0 PHASE I TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY
Phase I testing of the CPC and CEAC software for ANO-2 Cycle 5 (Rev. 05) was performed in accordance with Reference 2. Test results detected no errors in the implementation of the software modifications outline in Reference 1.
Page 27
-J)
5.0 REFERENCES
- 2. CPC Protection Algorithm Software Change Procedure, CEN-39(A)-NP,
, Rev. 02, December 21, 1978. ;
t w
.a Page 28' -
- di .V ' ',s .' . -
- J..4g .# .,' .
2,. - .-
p . .:..
.. y
- ,A,-
. *y 4, ' 4. #.*
,' '. 'y
, . ,=*.,
_ , . . _, ,. e _n
- g. . , - g -
Q. ' g ' g*.. . .- ..s' s .
.. - ~~ tl
- c -
, .., 7a y. , n..
.. K. . . 9 .. ng4.
. 4k <, * *v. . . .s. gw v .v. ,..s i
1,. <
't[h
. . ' ,+ , . .. x -
, p ,,\. +,..,,.~. - . .o v go' a,p;- % %:.
i ? +.%.
- .. - ~ s , K t, . .
-c '
., , < :.); ..
- e. ...
- ? . , , . .+
"',.9*
-_.n. , .ah ;..
.Di s9 - :
- v. .
y-
...t+34- .
- - r
~..- ,--
- .v s.s ;
J. .a . . ,
' -4.f *W :-
- p m'e P t c' J. ' " . - . -^ - ' A. "3 p ,
W.
e, , .:
..,g. .. .
.y.- '
- n. t JV- .
- s n .. : ,*
. ;s'.,.'
- .T;. 1
.'s
.,,?
- * .. . - + .
h% - " .. #."$ .
- mi "J'
n 4ES . ,,-. . .
<. 5 a
4
.. . s
, . n.V _ .# . .,
nw . ..,
- . . .. ... c. .=, ..
c.
-4 d
. *s' .<..
- ,i i
-y
,,.,',..S,".,,
,. ,-. ,' . . .\.
, .;4, . 4
' ?
j'/ .. .,- . ,. . .
. g e,,
0
'.t.
7.y , ' , . " .9
' ' et j , u,,, " . ..
6-
.. :3 '^. g v.. '
y.'. ,'
.%f--
- v gy
+
'--g f.',. - , ,,.:
.; . ,g- .. -.
- g. . . ~, .
.,1: COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. x(.p 7 .!'. s
- .g w -,-
ry ~ ,.a+
/";.s- . . , . ;
+.. th , . :,
3' 9 ,.,.
.T V - f. , - s . ,,y .
- w. ~, - ... . ..e g k.,
. p'e.-..r.'.T.,,. 3,..
- .- .'y* .' -
- ,- *;. ..i-t .; - .,
t,. ,;o-N ', . .:r ..- .,
- r. =.- . v. - . . . ,.
y -
, .m' ~.+., . . .
.e a,+n
- 3. .
- -u..
o ,-
4 7 _
,.!} '. ,, , ,
. '.~.
...,.e, 4,. -- V,1 -
4 ,
.j. Q:l$ %.'; .
e.m ;, ,3 i -
\? .:..v' ,a Se_
- s. ~~.
? ", -
e a' '*
a f ."k _ :,
e
.,_...g
+-
. asn ; .~,a ',
. .. . ;+
T :,-,. .- . ,*,...e8 'l ,; .
e
..p_- .
v.
.. _,e S,.-
.c
'y r.. .; .
.> g -.3 . r> .
9 ,,;
- y. .t.. ,y ,h. . . 9 y3 .s .s,
..w . ,~ R' y
-; .:, . ,_ "Y..,$ U J' *_ ,*. . p $
~
. 3 $. 's 5M.- 8,,.'.e.D. .,c
.y I.*,'.*J ' 8ee
.. e L. s }
- Fu. _
..x
, g]',.y,9 .. ,
- q g. ' . - -
f3 .
,2 , 'P. ,~.- fe.: *.-t;.:2.,.. .
4
'd,.., - -
3- ,
,.'i'...._g, ' - .. qh.
r ..
,i' I* i A ; A'
.E .,bs; . ' , . . Y * ,
] I-gVg .I
/, p
- 9,h g , , l. .' &I
. G
..3.,T_.. 4
,I,.
f g b .". g ' _"," W ..,. s....g.
h.,'..,..,i.f %i , ),r-. . ) Q- ,1 -g+
y.s--,.
.. . . , , s j. (
5..r-. '. ., ;..g3 ',., *. _ .. yc7 , qa... . .~.... .
s - .:.
. ? .- - . '.*'.; -<. + . . - . f.:M.,,gl , .. _ , .u_ ,'
.. ..' ',. ' _y,.,,- * *V', ;
' . . .Y; . '. , . 4
-e,-_.. ;.
- u. .. . .
. .~- ,-
. . , - , , - < . ;>