ML20101F563
| ML20101F563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1991 |
| From: | ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20101F555 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9206250025 | |
| Download: ML20101F563 (30) | |
Text
_ - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l 2 . .
BYRON /BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 RHR/SI PIPING WATER HAMMER ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS
, uly 3,1991 Prepared By:
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety
- BR621888R75858334 p PDR
AIWI'l( ACT The water hammer acoustic analysis describal in this icport was corulutted to determine whether an unanalyzed safety significant condition cooki exist by implementation of the requested license ameinknent. The analysis was (otulutted using thermal hydraulic and hydrodynamic analysis (odes available at the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS). A peer review of the caily analysis was conducted by the Idaho National Engineering 1.aboratory (INEl.) ami their work is reported in 1(cference (9). The analysis shows that over a wide range of non.
(ondensible gas volumes pressure spikes are present which excec<l normal operating system pressures.
E and O
4
l
.' . . l Table of Contents
,- i 4
Pace l
1.0 Introduction 1
\
2.0 Plant Model Description 2 l 2.1 Normal Plant Transient Model 2 l
2.2 Abnormal Plant Transient Model 3 3.0 Analytical Assumptions and initial Conditions 3 4.0 Peak Pressure Sensitivity Studies 4 Results 4 5.0 5.1 Normal Plant Transients 4 5.2 Abnormal Plant Transient Response 5 6.0 Conclusions 6 7.0 References 7 Appendix A Normal Plant Transient Curves Appendix B Abnormal Plant Transient Curves Appendix C Tables & Figures
-i-
la INTRODUCTION Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) has submitted to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) an amemiment application to the Facility Operating Licenses for the liyron ami liraidwood Nudear Stations. 'Ihe proposed amendment requests a change to Technical Specification 4.5.2 modifying the existing surveillance requirements for venting of ECCS discharge piping (Reference 1). The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IDNS) was notified of this license amendment application by receipt of Reference I in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91.
A number of water hammer conditions have been reported by the USNRC.
These are documented in References 3 through 7. The cited references evaluate water hammer phenomena and provide mitigating fixes and actions including the installation of high point vent valves, installation ofinstrumentation to detect entrapment of non-condensibles in the piping, and venting surveillances. Water hammer events in RHR systems are attributed to condensation of steam bubbles in the RHR/SI system following flow startup and inadvertantly voided pump discharge lines. One water hammer event resulted from an air bubble inadvertantly collected and trapped during a maintenance operation (Reference 5). Other events occurred when a RHR flow entered a voided line, which may have been caused by an incorrect valve lineup prior to pump start, inadequate design and/or fdling and venting procedures, and poor testing procedures (Reference 3).
The IDNS began a series of studies to evaluate the cifects of the proposed license amendment on the safe operation of the Ilyron and liraidwood plants. The underlying concern is the fbrmation of high acoustic pressures resuking from compression of potential entrapped air in the high points of the piping system. The studies conducted utilized the hydrodynamic computer code AWilAM (Reference 11) and the thermalhydraulic code REIAP 5. The results from AWilAM were compared with the results from REIAP 5 analyses. The comparisons show good agreement. A
.pcer review of the analyses was performed by the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory using the code WHAM-Gil.
The pipe model previously discussed with NRC (Reference 15) fbr the water hammer analysis included only that portion of the Safety injection (SI) piping injecting into the Loop 1 Cold Leg. Due to the potential impact of the IDNS analysis on the approval of the license amendment, and the results of the 5/9/91 NRC/ CECO meeting, a refined model was developed which included the Si piping injecting into both Loop 1 and Loop 4 cold legs, and less conservative, more realistic Darcy-Weisbach friction cocilicents were used. Additionally, the RHR pump minimum recirculation flow was modeled.
1
LQ PLANT MODEL DESCRUTION ,
l The piping system analyicd for potential water hammer condition consists of l that section of the Residual Heat Removal (RilR) system piping which is connected to l the Safety injection (SI) piping for cold leg injection into the Reactor Coolant System l (RCS). The RHR/SI water source is from either the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWS'l) or the RCS hot leg. Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the analyzed ;
piping system (Reference 13). Figure 2 shows the horizontal and vertical positions of the pipe run (Reference 1).
The Advanced Water Han.mer Analysis Model (AWHAM) was utilized for the analysis. AWHAM is a water hammer code that simulates a variety of transient problems in liquid systems using the method of characteristics (Reference 11).
2d NORMAL PLANT TRANSIENT MODF1 Prior to analyzing the abnormal plant transient conditions with air pockets, a model of the piping system was developed to verify AWHAM's capability to accurately predict the steady state flows and pressures under normal plant transient conditions (e.g. pump start-up, valve opening). This analysis was benchmarked to the FSAR process flow diagram (Reference 8). The AWHAM model nodali7ation is presented in Figure 3.
The RHR pump was modeled using the radial pump characteristics found in AWHAM. The rated pump head and flow was extracted from the process flow diagram provided in the FSAR (Reference 8) and the licensee supplied pump data (Reference 14).
The model consists of twenty (20) pipe segments and twenty-one (21) nodes.
Nodes are generally represented byjunctions (JUNCT) where two or more pipes meet. The butter 0y valve RH000G is represented by MVALVE at node 7. The minimum flow recirculation valve RHROG10 is represented by a gate valve (MVALVE) at node 5. The check valves S18948A and SI8948D were represented as gate valves (RVALVE) at nodes 16 and 21. AWHAM does not directly model check valves. Other valves in the piping system were not explicitly modeled. A discussion ~
on the assumptions is presented in section 3.0.
A live second baseline run verined AWHAM reproduces the steady state
, process flmv data provided in the FSAR (Reference 8). The results from the steady j state analysis are reported in Section 5.1.
2
. 1 L2 A11N_Olt3fAllIAtf_r TRANSIENT htOplL The noiinal plant transient model described in the previous section vras converted to abnormal plant transient model by changing nodes 14 and 15 to VACllit. This allows examination of air pockets present in pipe segments 13 and 14 which are located at the high point of the piping system. The total vohnnes of pipe segments 13 and 14 are 21.67 IP aml 6.05 IP respectively. The range of air pocket sizes analyzed were from 0 IP to 26 (P. Transient results are discussed in Section 5.2; air pocket sensitivity, Sn tion 4.0 3J)
ANALYSIS ASSUMirrlONS AND INITIAL CONDFIlONS The FSAll process flow diagram (iteferente 8) was used to establish the initial pressures aint flows in the piping system. The initial conditions used in the normal plant transient analpis are listed in Table 1. The abnormal plant transient analysis with air pockets utili/cd the initial conditions listed in Table I with dilRrences specific to modeling the air pockets.
These differcutes are listed in Table 2.
The following of the analytical modchassumptions and approximations were made in the development 1.
'I he mininnun iccinulation flow through valve 11110610 is diverted to a wnstant reservoir represented by liltES. This flow is normally recirculated to the pump sottion. Since AWilAM cannot have a JUNCT as a left boundary (ondition, a simplification was made which diserts the flow to a right esenr oir (Itit ES).
- 2. _
Due to modeling limitations of AWilAM, check valves SIS 91SA and S189481) ^
are modeled as gaie valves. In the analyzed case, this valve fimctions to prohibit flow from the itCS cold leg into the Safety hijection (SI) piping.
To simulate (heck valve characteristics, several trial runs were made to determine the time at which the upstream pressure exceeds the downstream (ItCS cold leg) pressure by 0.5 psi. This differential pressure is the assumed mininnan required to open the check valve. The opening of the gate valve was set to coincide with this time step. Table 1 & 2 list the opening times.0.1 sewnds was assumed for check valve stroke time. It is further assumed that once the check valve opens it remains open during the rest of the transient.
- i.
Yalves which do not open or close during the transient are not modeled and are assmned to be in the normal operating position.
)
l
~
- 4. The transient initiator is butterfly valve R110606 failing open in one second.
- 5. AWilAM does not have the capability to model relief valves. Therelbre, the actual peak cakulated pressure wouhl be somewhat lower.
- 6. liigh point vent valves are not modeled and are assmned closed at all times.
- 7. Drain valves are not modeled and assumed closed.
- 8. Valve opening and closing characteristics are modeled by AWilAM.
M PEAK PRESSURE SENSrrIVITY STUDIES _
The study examined the sensitivity of the peak pressures to the volume of entrapped air. Air vohunes in pipes 13 and 14 were varied from the case of no air entrapment to a maximum of 26.0 fP. This sensitivity study confirmed the theory that when the amount of entrapped air is relatively small (approaching zero in the limit) the peak pressures are limited to those caused by the sudden opening of valves, pump startups, etc. Large air pockets tcad to act as kinetic energy absorber (shock absorber) tnus reducing the etrects of accelerating water sings. lletween those two bounds lies a worst case vohnne of air which produces large pressure spikes of short duration. The sensitivity study revealed that peak pres.sure occurs Ihr approximately 12 IP of entrapped air. The calculated peak pressure as a function of entrapped air vohune is presented in Figure 5.
M RESUIJFS M MORMAI, PIANT TRANSIENT The normal plant transient analyzed the condition when the RilR system is entering shutdown cooling mode, RilR pump suction aligned to the RCS hot leg and no air in the system. The RilR pump is running delivering an initial 550 gpm flow through the minimum flow valve R110610. The butterfly valve (RH 0606) opens and flow is established to the RCS cold leg. Pressure downstream is due to the static head of water (34 feet).
As the butterfly valve R110006 opens, flow is established in pipe 7. Flow oscillations me initially expected but should damp out as the flow is fully established.
The results of this transient are included in Appendix A. Figure A-1 is the speed of the RilR pump as a Ibnction of time, which was assumed to be at 100% at all times.
Figure A-2 is the fluid torque exerted on the pump. As flow is established, the fluid torque rises gradually to 100G. Figure A-3 is a plot of the head in pipe 1 (the
.4
discharge of the itHit pump). As the flow is established through the 111111 system, the pump discharge head stabilizes at approximately 1400 feet of water (541.8 psig). This matches the process flow data in Figure 4 (542 psig).
Figure A-3 is a plot of the fluid velocity in pipe 1. The initial value of 3.5 fihec corresponds to the velocity at the minimum flow of 550 gpm. Once the flow is established in the ItHR system, the velocity gradually rises to the steady state value of 19.2 ft/sec which corresponds to the 3000 gpm flow from the process now diagram (Figure 4).
Figure A-4 is the head in pipe 7 (downstream of the butterfly valve 11110606).
As the butter 0y valve is opened, head in pipe 7 builds up and gradually stabilizes to the steady state value of 1281 ft (495.7 psig). This agrees with the 496 psig from the _
process flow diagram (Figure 4).
Figure A-5 is the fluid velocity profile in pipe 7. The velocity is initially zero and as the butter 0y valve is opened, flow is established in pipe 7 and the velocity gradually builds up to the steady state value of 19.2 fthec.
These results agree well with the process How data obtained from the FSAlt.
These results also establish confidence in the use of AWilAM for fluid transient analyses in piping systems.
M 6BNORMA.L PLANT TRANSIENT The abnormal plant transient analyzed is fbr the same condition as (br the normal plant transient described in the previous section. However, it is assumed that an abnormal condition in the piping system leads to the formation of air pockets at the high points of the pipe network.
The worst case air pocket of 12113 was used for this analysis. Ten (10) second runs were made (br this transient to observe the steady state conditions in each pipe as the transient oscillations are eventually damped out. Pump speed was maintained at 100% throughout the transient.
The results are included in Appendix 11. Figure lbl is the plot of head in pipe
- 8. Figure 11-2 is the plot of head in pipe 9. These two pipes approximate the location of the relief valve S18856A.
1
1 I
DA CONCLUSIONS The transient analyzed in the study was conservatively selected 'o hound worst case plant conditions in an effort to determine the potential safety sig.uficant consequences of voids in the llHlUSl piping system. The results of the study yielded three important conclusions. First, peak pressures are void volume sensitive and, for the system analyzed, correspond to the curve in Figure 5. One of those volumes (i.e.,
12 ft8) produced higher peak pressures than those analyzed by the licensee. Second, for a void vohune of 12 ft peak 8
pressures exceed the set point of relief valve S1885GA.
Finally, the transient analyicd credibly describes a safety significant plant condition '
that was not analyzed in the license amendment application.
Industry experience confirms that piping system voids and beyond design basis j water hannner loads are credible events. The results of this study and industry experience combine to reaffirm the risk potential of piping system voids. Therefore, IDNS recommends that NitC review this analysis to determine whether climination of the high point venting requirement will reduce plant safety margins.
L 6
- - . ~, - _ . - . _ . -. ..
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. Letter S.C. Hunsader (CECO) to Dr. Thomas E. Murley (ONRR/USNRC) dated hlarch 12,1990,"llyron Station Units 1 & 2, liraidwood Station Units 1 and 2 Supplement to Application for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses."
- 2. RELAP 5/ MOD 3 analysis code.
- 3. NUREG/CR-2781, Quad-1-82 018, EGG 2203, Evaluation of Water
- Hammer Events In Light Water R-actor Plants, July 1982.
- 4. NUREG-0993, Revision 1, Regulatory Analysis (br USI A 1," Water _
Hammer", March 1984.
- 5. NUREG-0582, Water Hanuner in Nuclear Power Plants, July 1979. .
- 6. NUREG-0927, Evaluation of Water Hammer Occurrence in Nuclear Power Plants, March 1984.
- 7. NUREG 1990, Loss of Power and Water llanuner Event at San Onofre, Unit 1, on November 21,1985. Published January 1986.
- 8. liraidwood station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 2, Figure 5.4-4.
- 9. Acoustic Analysis of the liraidwood Unit 1 RHR/SI piping, INEL report dated January 30,1991.
- 10. Representation of Pump Characteiistics for Transient Analysis, Professor C.S. Martin, School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. (ASME Transaction)
- 11. Water Hammer Program AWHAM for IllM Personal Computer, C.S.
Martin, Atlanta, Georgia.
- 12. Marks' Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, Eighth Edition.
- 13. Plant Process and Instrumentation drawings M61-3 Rev. AL, M61-4, Rev. AS, MGl-6, Rev. Y, M62, Rev. IlC.
- 14. 28 Feb 91 CECO /IDNS meeting.
- 15. 09 May 91 NRC/IDNS meeting.
4 Juni
t APPENDIX A Normal Plant Transient Curves Pumn start un and flow establishment miei i
- List of Figures A-1 Pump Speed versus time A2 Pump Torque versus time A-3 Head (fect of water)in Pipe 1 versus time A-4 Velocity (fecth_cond)in Pipe 1 versus time A-5 Head (feet of water)in Pipe 7 versus time A-6 Velocity (fecthecond)in Pipe 7 versus time 18 m.. . .. . .
TEST 2004.PLI: SPED OF PUMP IN PIPE 1
' ' i i ' ' ' ! ' '
+200' .
t 1'
l 6 i
I 1
PUMP SPED : . i t
(y) . -
_ ......... ... ... .. .... ... . ..... . . .... . .. . .. ...... . . .... .i_
i i
,i i
i
- i
{.
q ...... . . .... .. ... ... .. . ... . ..... . .... . . . .
. . I
. . i j
-2M i i i i i ! i i i i i 0 5 TIME IN SECONDS 1
l Figure A-1
4 IEST200A.PLI: TORQUE OF PUMP IN PIPE 1
+150! .'
- . . . . . . .. . . , .. . .. ... . . . . . . . .. . . t.
\
~
. i.
/s6
. ; 8. . .
... . _ . .... ...i_../.. .. .... ... . . .
TORQUE !
J......._............. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . ....... .. . ._
('/.) .
.. . t, 1
i 3,
..... ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......._I ,
. . . }
. . . . l 1
-50i i i i
- i i i i i e
0 s IINE IN SECONDS l Figure A-2 l
l 1
IESI299A.PLI: HEAD IN PIPE 1 AI X : 9
' i i i ' ' ' i I '
+1599
........... ... .....:.. .s... :,........ ....
. . . . t_
................._..........J,.,.,.
t . . . . . ,
i
. . t .
1 . .
i .
HEAD j
. p: .........
...t,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
. . \ .
.4
...n,...;..........................................:..
.w
.)
...s......
. . . . s . .
. . p.
. . . . = . . . .... ..
. , . . . . , .. .. . ..,..,s ,.....>. .... ... _ _
l
+1379 I -1 i i l i i i i i
.9 5-IlME IN SECONDS Figure A-3
-i l
l
. . 1 IESI200A.PLI: VELOCITY IN PIPE 1 AI X : 0 ,
i i i i i i ; i i
+19.3i
, , . ..... - ... ~ .
i l 1
. - r.d i j.g,'
./ ,t
. . . ; .\. .,t a
. . ... . , . f.
.i
. !o- t,
. . . .. . .. .. . . . , . . . l . . i,f . .,. .,.. . ... . . .. . . .
i I . S i .Il . j j e lp .s3-gee . .. . . a. e ... . . . . s. .. . . ..e. .e.s . . . . ...p
. kj 4
- 1 4.
. j . .
w .... . .. ... ... . . ... . . . .. . . . ... . .. .... . .-. .. . .. . . . .
)' '
VELOCITY .
i . :
. . . .. . . . ... . . .. .... . .. .. . e. . .. .. . . . ... .. . . . .m G. t '
e f f
.. . ... .... ... >l. . ...... . . ... . .>.... . ../. ........ ... -
I .
es e. . . ..... . . ... ....le . . .l. ... .#. ...e.. e. ..... . ... .. . . m.
t . .
M .... .. .e .....e. .... .... ...e... . .. .. .. . e .ee. .s ee... . e e. . . . . . .. . ..e=
_ ...... ...c,... .... . ...... .... .. .. .. . ... . . .. ,. ._
e .
. t
-1. 0 i i i i i i i i i i i 0 5 IIME IN SECONDS Figure A-4
1 TEST 200A.PLI: HEAD IN PIPE 7 AI X : 9 ,
1
+1473' 1 l '
(:
i l -
ia:,4 .
- l. 1
..L I . . . \; . . i . . .T.3. . f . . .r.',fr e /._._ .
\ , <.v, 8.<.,
1 I s, t:i V i
./.... .,. ... . . . .. .. . . .,. . .
l J. . .. .-... ..... ..... .... . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..! -
. i . .
HEAD . :
_ ... .............)............
. . .. ....L i
. I.
i
_ ...... .. . .. ..... . .......s....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ... . . . . ... .. -
i
\
-127, i i i i i i ! i i 0 5 l IIME IN SEroNps Figure A-5
1.
TEST 290A.PLI: VELOCITY IN PIPE 7 AI X : 0
+19,2 ' 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' :
. /,,,v, .,... .,.
lv n . ...... ...... ....... ... ......... ..,... ..
. . i,
. . . .\
,i .
...........,.........,.................n.,..................................,.......,.........
j.. . .
. . . ,i . .
) .
. 1
.....................................................w
. .. . ,1
\,.... .....
- .......... ......... ........... i
. .} e, l
'JELOCITY : ! . .
. l s,. .
.h ... . ................. ........... ..... ....... .......... . .. ...... ...
i .
t, y.
................... ..... ...... .......... ................. ...,... .... ...... ...s..... . .. ... .
.J .
j I- .
.i . . . . . . ,
. . . . . . . . j l . . . . . ,
-1. 0 i ! 4 6 -1 i i i i i -1 0 5 IIME IN SECONDS Figure A-6
l
.4 l
1 APPENDIX B Abnormal Plant Transient Head Profiles Worse case analvsis (12 fP air nocket) l t
I l-1
\ - .,
List of Figures e
B-1 Head (fect of water)in pipe 8 11- 2 Ilead (fect of water)in pipe 9 h
M l
u 1
i
..- r IEST300A.PLI: HEAD IN PIPE 8 AI X : 0 i
m 9g i i i i i i i i i
. .......... .........s.... . ..,.........,.........................................,..........,..........-
. . ,a . . . .
-. ................. ....... l..< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
_ .........._................ +r . .............................................................
. . n , . . .
1
. . in .
iiH. hi . . . .
HEAD . . . . . . .
.................._ it . ., L . ,. . . . . . . . .
t .........._...... ........ .... ... ......
I,
,h; p$, y . ,.'I#/%M.'*?.; ^"~'"'""*. "*~"
. . ,, u . . . .
......3. . :
I I. .
. w 0 . . . .
1...,o.. .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
.p
., 1
~
1........ . ......
. \
-203 i i i i i i i i i i i o
U tn
- w IIME IN SECONDS
- Figure B-1 9
---g ,g w- - - - ..,y -- .r ,-. w,,., , -,,.,-e.,--r-
=w.et- i.-e- - -tT- - - - - - - - 4 - - ~ - *-
i
. i l
IEST300A.PLI; HEAD IN PIPE 9 AI X : 0 ,
+2852 '
. . . . .;. . ... . .,.. ..,....,...L.
r .
J)v . . . . . . . . . . . ._
{,\
. , ai s .
1 HEAD . .
M '
L.j ea.. . I ,. . . . . . . . . .. . ._
g f ') E I . :
. i i .i :. o j, . .
M; .
h u,l.o4,h...,.bf'.f*W^'.'" !
. . "-5'.
$(i ;i
. . . . . u ,
,f,
, .j l
i
,[
.. .. l .L
_ . ... .. . .. 1 . ... . .. ... .... . . , .
g.A. t 9..i u4 ,.)i g
. 4 . .
y .
i f -l
- f p
i . . .
1 . . .
_4
.J . . . .
l . . .h . . .
1 . . . .
-148 i i i i i i i i i i 0 la IIME IN SECONDS Figure B-2 i
f l
1 1
Appendix C Tables & Ficures Table 1 Initial conditions pump start up transient Table 2 Initial conditions air pocket transient Figure 1 Ilraidwood Unit I simplified P & ID Figure 2 Piping elevations Figure 3 AWHAM model Figure 4 Simplified UFSAR process flow diagram Figure 4 Peak head versus air volume i
l i
I i
A o
. TABLE 1 INITIAL CONDITIONS (Normal Plant Transient Analysis)
- 1. Water in pipe volumes 1-6 is at 350*F; all other volumes are 120*F.
- 2. Water density at 350* F is 55.55 lbm/ft); at 120* F, 61.67 lbm/ft3 .
- 3. Barometric head corrected to 120*F = 34.4 ft of water.
- 4. Conversion factor from pressure (psig) to head (ft) at 350*F is 0.387 psi / foot of water; at 120*F,0.427 psi / foot of water.
- 5. Pump suction pressure is 407 psig which is equivalent to 1051.7 feet of water.
- 6. Rated head across pump obtained from process flow diagram is 135 psig (542 psig - 407 psig). In feet of water this is equal to 348.83 feet of water.
- 7. Head downstream ofinitially closed butterfly valve (RH0606) is at 0 psig + 34 feet of water column = 34 ft.
- 8. Head downstream of SI check valves (S18948A and SI89480)is at 404 psig (1043.9 feet of water).
- 9. Rated flow from process flow diagram:
Q = 3000 gal / min = 6.684 ft 3/sec
- 10. Pump discharge head = 1,400.53 ft.
I 1. Volume of air pocket is zero.
- 12. Valve stroke times are as follows:
Initial Starts Opening / Fully Open/ Stroke time Valve Eosition Closing at (sec) Closed at (sec) Lssc)
RH0606 Closed 1.05 2.05 1.0 RH0610 Open 1.10 2.10 1.0 S18948A Closed 1.298 1.398 0.1 S18948D Closed 1.298 1.398 0.1
- 13. Pump is running at all times with initial flow equal to the minimum recirculation flow of 1.227 ft /sec (550 gpm).
8 i
4 TABLE 2 INITI AL CONDITIONS (Abnornial Plant Transient Analysis Differences)
- 1. Air pockets in vobunes 13 and 14 are at 14.7 psia (0 psig).
- 2. Approxiinate pipe elevation where air pocket is fbrmed is 68 feet vbove the pump discharge elevation.
- 3. Check valve opening times for the case of 12 ft) air pocket are as follows:
Starts Opening Fully Open Check Valve at (sec) at (se_c.)
SI8948A 2.639 9.732 S18948D 2.14') 9')42 m
t w.--, -. - - . . _ . _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . _ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ .
)
l
. =. -
+..
- 5 1
lg:i 11 t_f i
1, t
. I tt.b ,
T i
[it j qlr i 5>>>
e .
ggg i 8 >
gi i
i m
m! :-
!-W.fr m,,3 I
1
-o
-Ma s 3 Est l
Pj.d.
u 4 XIn U l .,1 !!!
,s I .. . N I- l WW k
% ,, m . - l r .
3 1 {
-3 -[
- ]d ! >I 11 .
,. i=d
!, c.... ,i 1 ,
+
g; ;
i e 1 -l =
{[l
, in
=g , . . . - .
?>--
l-y,,
l.
-- Y s l
T l , tem 4Z 3 l J
Kj li j il h
g- b e J.
I I - I.
cl l .w 1 ~j. k
~ -v_ct , m 3 ; ., .
ilU l 3 l
r ., i e .
'- It ]L tav i y T _--
- m.,n t l ip.- srin: l ti
- 1. i.I Jg' :.en I i GELucft i ,
FI,,
, --- i fn li-*l<l>
p er l .a
.g. [{lf 7 ;
11 g __ ; gil L__
, E g
i en i E z e N
~~~
1 ..
< :, 2 i,
t_
l y,; T 1 "
- - i L____________ __ j 3- -
7 g . , .y --
I -
sg 3 D' ; ---
C
-k i
M'$ 'I* win
! :1$
' f
- 0 r a a{h I j'- T k Y J
okE =
g ~-
i n:h gj as Figure t
- ^ '
RWST TO RHR PUMP A TO LOOP A 430- VALVE TYPES
- V3 C3.
CHECK VENT MOTOR DRAIN 420-C1 1 SIB 958A C2 IRH8730A V1 1RH026A V2 1SI093 MI ISIB812A M2 ISI8809A DI IS1095 V2 j g -
C3 1 SIB 818A V3 1S1092 C4 ISIB948A 410_
400_ -
"D1 M2
= C4 c 390_ __
? e -
380- _
VI 370. ,
MIC1 360-1 C2 350-PUMP p_5g AfBARRIER 340 l I I I I I I I I O 200 400 600 800 liorizontal Displacement from RWST (f t) FIGURE _2
']vi
_BRAIDWOOD UNIT 1 Ph '
WATER HAMMER Ais._ .-
AWHAM MODEL .
PIPES ,,
E G 30'
= 5
@ 6 E HX 3"
- NODES N 30' -
h MVALVE HX RRES
.3 4 .7 8 9 10
= 1 2 = I 8"
8" 8" 8" 8" 8" 1051.7' 8" 37.9 38.6' 47.6' 48.5' 11.8* 43.7' 85.8' l JUNCT JUNCT VLV.JUNCT j LPUMP VLV. JUNCT JUNCT HPV JUNCT HX MVALVE 8809 8730 ,
I e - ._ _ .. - - - - _ - - - - _ _ - - _ -_ _ - - . - _ _ - - - _ - - - .- _ - _i
$ 1 I
I I l @ 12
@ 13
@ 14 8 15
@ 16 I
8" 8" 8" 6" 10" 1043.9' 92.5' 73.6* 62.4' 30.2' 73*
HPV JUNCT JUNCT HPV VACBR VLV. VACBR VLV.RVALVE l 8818 8948 I -
- 11 8"
48.1*
= 17' = 18 = 19 20 21 8" 8" 8" 6" 10~ 1043.9' 92.5' 73.6' 62.4' 30.2' 73' JUNCT JUNCT JUNCT .luNCT RVALVE
. .. g g .
e'. .P .
9 LOC 4 DON PRESSuYE TEMPERATURE FLOW LOCAh0N rw nSURE TEMPERAnntC FLOW (P % ) (F) (CPM) (PSnG) {f) (GPM) [ y,
-=
20 404 260 1555 36 542 350 3000 21 _ _ '-37 541 350 1299 ' ; \
22
_ _ _ ' 36 . 479' 200 3110 / \
23 _. ._ 29 496 - 350 ,741 ,,,y 28 480 280 - 2890 40 _ _ _
32 496 28C 3000 41- 539 140 1259 34 400 330 3000 42 496 280~ 3000 l
35 407 350 3000 (RETERENCE 81RON/BR4DIMOD UPDATED F5sR f) CURE 5.4~4) f ACCUM ACCUM l TANK TANK i~ @ @
nj %J 2e 9
l p y~
-e a A N EX 2 34 k RCS HOf LEC
! LOOP t g
< LOC. C-3 w a vm v.iA i A i %
ii U39 g 20 (m_P2
,w -,
a L._-____ _ I
- 4 4
e .
i e
PEAK HEAD VERSUS AIR VOLUME
$000 8
O O
. O O O
O O 0 0
.)
Y -
w 3000 -
S o
LLJ .
'I' M .
w
- Q.
2000 _
A 1000
. . .....,,,,,,,,,.g . . . . .
0 10 20 CUBIC FEET OF AIR i
Figure 5 l
1
-- .-____________ ___________ - __-____ __-___