ML20113D617

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Rev 2 to Pressure Locking Analysis for 13MOV-21
ML20113D617
Person / Time
Site: FitzPatrick Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/24/1996
From: Martsen F, Swinburne P
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20113D609 List:
References
[[::JAF-CALC-RCIC|JAF-CALC-RCIC]], JAF-CALC-RCIC-0, JAF-CALC-RCIC-02190, JAF-CALC-RCIC-2190, NUDOCS 9607030236
Download: ML20113D617 (14)
v • d • e


Text

[

l * -

CALCULATION CONTROL SHEET J Calculation No. JAF-CALC-RCIC-02190 Revision 2 IP3 O JAF W l Calculation Type: Preliminary __. Final X Name Sianature Date Preparer: Paul Swinburne "* - 6/20/96 Checker: F. Martsen di M////f[

(Design) Verified /NA F. Martsen /[

Approved: I / biWV5 A 44 /' f6 V

Systam No./Name: 13/ Reactor Core Isolation Coolina

Title:

Pressure Lockina Analysis for 13MOV-21 l l QA Category of Calculation:1 Discipline: Mech. Structure: Power-coerated aate valves Modificationfrask No. N/A DBD Ref. No. N/A l PROBLEM / OBJECTIVE / METHOD See Page 1 DESIGN BASIS / ASSUMPTIONS See Page 1

SUMMARY

/ CONCLUSION The required open stem thrust for pressure locking F., the available thrust capability MTH and the margin are given by the followi.19. See Page 6 for additional discussion.

MTH = 10086 lbf Margin = 6.095 %

F total = 9506 lbf THIS CALC SUPERSEDES OR VOIDS CALC NO.: JAF-CALC-RCIC-02190, Rev.1 DISTRIBUTION: C= CONTROLLED i= INFO NAME DEPT LOC C I F. Martsen WPO-11C X T. Moskalyk Des.Eng. JAF X R. Plasse Lic. JAF X 1

i i

l NYPA FORM DCM 2, ATTACHMENT 4.1 (REVISION 5) Page 1 of 2 9607030236 960624 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P PDR

CALCULATION CONTROL SHEET COMPONENTS MAJOR PIPE NO. VALVE NO. SUPT.NO. INST. NO. PENE.NO.

EQUIPMENT 13MOV-21 RELATED DOCUMENTS Calculation No. JAF-CALC-MULTI-02216, Rev.1, Pressure Locking Thermal Binding Screen Evaluation for Power-Operated Gate Valves,1/25/96.

RELATED DRAWINGS None

SECURITY
(Y/N) N COMPUTER PRINTOUT: (Y/N) N NYPA FORM DCM 2, ATTACHMENT 4.1 (REVISION 5) Page 2 of 2
_ t.- a - ,Amm_.a..m -a_.. - .2ms.,2 s_.. .a

( , .

NewYorkPower Calc. No. JAF CALC RCIC-02190. Rev. 2 Computed by: P. Swinburne Authorny Pressure Locking Analysts for 13MOV 21 Checked by: F. Martsen OBJECTIVE:

Determine the force required to open 13MOV-21 under postulated pressure locking conditions. Compare stern force required to actuator capablility.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS:

The force required to open a flexible wedge gate valve with bonnet pressurized consists of several components. From the static condition closing thrust there is a residual seat force which together with the seat angle and friction coefficient determines the unwedging force. This residual force remains if the wedge is " locking" (that is the friction coefficient is greater than the tangent of the wedge half angle). An additional force consists of a bending component. a shear component and a hub stretching component.

Because the wedge halves are not parallel a third force component results from the vertical component of the differential pressure load acting on the seat area. The stem end load or " piston effect" results from the internal pressure action on the stem end area. This force helps to open the valve. And finally, the packing drag load resists stem motion.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1. Reaction loads and the friction coefficient at the seat surfaces are equal both upstream and downstream and for opening (unwedging) and closing (wedging).
2. RCIC pump discharge pressure is O psig while opening valve. That is, upstream pressure is conservatively estimated to be O psig. Downstream pressure is assumed to be at minimum operating pressure of 150 psig.
3. Young's modulus of elasticity (E) and Poisson's Ratio (v) for the A-351 CF8 steel wedge are 28 x 106 psi and 0.3, respectively.
4. Valve stem-to-stem nut friction coefficient equals 0.17 (based on tested average plus approximately l 2o).
5. Bonnet pressure assumed and based on highest reactor pressure for RCIC operation and elevation head correction.

REFERENCES:

1. Young, Warren C., Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain,6th Edition, McGraw-Hill,1989.
2. Calculation No. JAF-CALC-RCIC-01730, Rev. 3, Thrust and Torque Limits Calculation for 13MOV-21.
3. Operating Conditions Evaluation 13MOV-21, Rev. NYPA 1.
4. Altran Calculation No. 93179-C-37, Valve Thrust Assessment 4" Velan Gate Valve,13MOV-20 and 21, Rev.1, August 1995.
5. VOTES Test #7 performed on 5/1/92 with re-analysis per Liberty fax of 1/10/96 (Attachment 1). l
6. Metals Handbook, Ninth Edition, Volume 3, Properties and Selection: Stainless Steels, Tool Materials and Special-Purpose Metds.
7. NMAC NP-6660-D, Application Gu,de for Motor-Operated Valves in Nuclear Power Plants, March 1990.
8. Generic Letter 89-10 Motor-Operated Valve Program Plan, JAF-RPT-MULTI-00746, Rev.11,10/31/95.
9. Documentation of Telephone Discussion, P. Swinburne (NYPA) and B. Bunte (Comed), Clarification of Comed Analysis Method for Pressure Locking Thrust,10/20/95.
10. Calculation No. JAF-CALC-RCIC-02365, Rev. O, Wedge Evaluation (Opening) for 13MOV-21,6/20/96. l From fue RC2190R2 MCo Page 1 of 6 6/20/96

I l

. NewYorkPower Calc. No. JAF CALC RCIC42190. Rev. 2 Computed by: P. swinburne j Authonty Pressure Locking Analysis for 13MOV-21 Checked by: F. Martsen i

This Mathcad Program is designed to calculate the estimated opening force under pressure locking scenarios for flex-wedge gate valves using a calculational methodology that accounts for wedge stiffness resisting pressure locking forces.

From Reference 3 the maximum reactor pressure for RCIC operation is: P n : 1120 psi Also from Ref. 3, feedwater nozzle and valve elevations: z gy : 325 8 11 z y:259.6 11 3

With conservative water weight density; p : 62.4 lbf tr Bonnet pressure from maximum downstream pt ?ssure is: Pbonnet : P n r p (z gy - zy) Pbonnet"I149'P8i The remainder of the data inputs:

l l lNPUTS:

Bonnet Pressure bonnet " l * *Pd Reference 3 Upstream Pressure P up

= 0 psi Reference 3 l Downstream Pressure Reference 3 Pdown = 150 iwi Disk Thickness t = 0.75 in Reference 4  ;

Seat Radius a :2.15625 in Reference 4 l l Hub Radius b =0.96875 in Reference 4 )

! Hub Length L = 0.5625 in Reference 4  ;

! Seat Angle 0 =5 deg Reference 4 l Poisson's Ratio (disk) v =0 3 Typical of Stainless Steel Mod. of Elast. (disk) Reference 6 E = 28104psi

! Static Pullout Force F po = 2276 lbf Reference 5 Uest 7) F Packing Force packing :405 lbf Reference 5 Open Valve Factor VF = 0.5 Reference 2 Stem Diameter D stem .: 1.375 in Reference 2 Re-evaluation based on Liberty analysis (fax dated 1/10/96, included with ref. 5) total of packing and pull-out equal to max. 09 value

= 2681 lbf. (includes worst case error)

PRESSURE FORCE CALCULATIONS l l

Coefficient of friction between disk and seat: (Reference 7) i C ) mu = 0.521 mu'=VF.

1 - VF. sin (0)

Average DP across disks:

"P * "

DPavg = Pbonnet DPavg = 1074 psi 2

Page 2 of 6 6/20/96 Frorn file RC2190R2.MCD

l

. NewYorkPower Calc. No. JAF-CALC RCIC 02190, Rev 2 Computed by. P. Svnnburne Authorny Pressure Locking Analysis for 13MOV 21 Checked by: F. Martsen, Disk Stiffness Constants (Reference 1, Table 24)

D= (t)3 D = 1.08173 10' lbfin l 3

12 (1 - v )

7 G= G =1.07692 10 psi l 2-(1 + v)  ;

I Geometry Factors: (Reference 1, Table 24) .

.~2= 1- 1 + 2 in C 2 = 0. l ix8 C -

+1 -1 C 3 = 0.0184 3=4a a In h) + ,a! 3 C g := . C g = 0.7206

. 1 + v + (1J - v)-('I a C 9.: I-a I + " in 2

+

I-"

4 lI a C 9 = 0.2964 L~ ~ -I L3 "U 3 4a a +I'I",a +,a L9 :: a n,

1+v in* +I-# l3 L9=0 2 a 4 a L g i .=1- 1+4fI -SfI

\a;

-4fI 2+Ial Inf *- L j i = 2.832210

~3 l 64 \a> \al e \b L g7 : - 1 I- -

1 + ( I + v) In L g7 =0.105082 Moment (Reference 1, Table 24, Case 2L)

M tb * ~ -- -(a - 2b ) 2- L g 7 M tb =-1095.9 lbf l C g 2ab l Q b :=

3-(a2 ,3 2) Q = 2056.5 h 2b in From fWe RC2190R2.MCD Page 3 of 6 6/20/96

. NewYorkPower Calc. No. JAF-CALC RCIC 02190. Rev. 2 Computed by. P. Swinburne /

Authorty Pressure Locking Analysis for 13MOV 21 Checked by: F. Martseg Deflection due to pressure and bending: (Reference 1, Table 24, Case 2L)

=M 8 ~

y C L 1I Y bq = -2.704 10 ' in rb D 2 + 9 'Db-C 3- D Deflection due to pressure and shear stress: (Reference 1, Table 25, Case 2L) s2 K sa -: 0.3- 2 -In -I+ K sa

= -0 2406 DPavg a 2 K sa

-l.487 10 , in

=

y 3q "q tG Deflection due to hub stretch (from center of hub to disk):

2 2 4 P force :s(a - b ) DPavg Pforce = 1.251731 10 ibf Y stretch b

2 6 y streteli = 4 26454 10 in Total Deflection due to pressure forces:

~

Y q

  • Y bq
  • Y sq - Y stretch Yq- -4 61741 10 ' in Deflection due to seat contact force and shear stress (per Ibf/in.): (Reference 1. Table 25, Case 1L) 1.2 In a

~7 I" y sw ' - Y sw = -2.563 10 tG lbf, (per Ibf/in) \ in ,

Deflection due to seat contact force and bending (per Ibf/in.): (Reference 1, Table 24, Case 1L)

!,M .IC 2 \ . !a C9 \ 'ta 3 bw ^ ~7 "

h) b i Y bw = --6.291 10 (per Ibflin)

Deflection due to hub compression (per Ibf/in), (from center of hub to disk):

Ycompr 2 5 y compr = 4 61573 10

~8 -

(per Ibf/in)

Total deflection due to seat contact force (per Ibf/in.):

~7 -

Y w

  • Y bw + Y sw - Y compr Y w = -9.316 10 (per Ibf/in)

From flie RC2190R2.MCD Page 4 of 6 6/20/96 l

i NewY~68 - "* * "*' " *"'C-02190. Rev 2 Computed b',. P. Swinburne Auths s for 13MCiV 21 Checked by F. Martsen

]

Seat Contact Force for which deflection is equal previously calculated deflection l from pressure forces:

l j F3:= 2 n ab F 3=6715 lbf yw I UNSEATING FORCES Fpacking =405 lbf I F piston : D stem P bonnet F piston = 1706 lbf

- 2 F g.ert = n.a sin (0) (2 Pbonnet up - P- P aiwn) F s.en = 2734 lbf F preslock = 2 F3-(mu cos(0)- sin (0)) Fpreslock = 5797 lbf l

Ftotal .= - Fpiston + F g.en + Fpreslock + F pg .F packing F pg = 2276 lbf Ftotal = 9506 lbf j MOTOR I GEARING CAPABILITY INPUTS (Reference 2):

Motor Torque: MTQ = 10 n Ibf Overall Ratio: OAR = 47.5 Motor Derate Factor: MDF = 0.979 Pullout Efficiency: Etf pg = 35 %

Stem diameter: D stem = 1.375 in Pitch: p = 0.25 in Lead: L = 0 5 in Stem friction coeff.: p3 = 0.17 Pitch diameter for GP Acme: d p =D stem - 0.5-p (Based on average from testing plus 2a. From Appendix 6.3 Part 1 of Ref. 8, rounded up from 0.16722) cos(14.5 deg) I' +d.g3 p Stem factor.. . SF = SF = 0 016138 il I p3 L) 2s cos( l 4.5 deg ) -

ad p

(

MOTOR CAPABILITY (References 2 and 7):

1 "p

hfTH := MTH = 10086 lbf .. actuator motor thrust available.

SF Capability margin (% above required): Margin = MTil -1 Margin = 6 095 %

Flotal From file RC2190R2 MCD Page 5 of 6 6/20/96

NewYorkPower Calc. No JAF CALC-RCIC-02190. Rev 2 Computed by: P. Swmburne Authorny Pressure Locking Analysis for 13MOV-21 Checked by: F. Martseng'l Note: Per telecon of 10/20/95 (Ref. 9) with Brian Bunte at Commonwealth Edison (Comed) the application factor does not need to be included in the above calculation for motor capability. Tests performed by Comed have shown that pull-out efficiency alone provides sufficiently conservative results for the transient loading associated with pressure locking unwedging.

WEAK LINK LIMITS :

From References 4 and 10 the most limiting component for open stem loads is the wedge disc with a normal operation limit of 11832 lbs and a one-time test limit of 15776 lbs. For overcoming pressure locking, the force on the wedge does not include piston effect or packing load. Therefore:

Fwedge :Fyen + Fpresi d + Fp , Fwedge = 10807 lbf The above is less than the Reference 10 re-calculated weak link limits for the wedge.

CONCLUSION:

The above analysis shows that 13MOV-21 has sufficient capability to overcome postulated pressure locking stem force requirements. This analysis is conservative because the unwedging force includes maximum error for tensile load extrapolation beyond calibration range. The previous revision of this calculation used incorrect VOTES data and did not properly evaluate required thrust against weak link limits.

From file RC2190R2.MCD Page 6 of 6 6/20/96

l t .

l = '

y FAX Memo Page1of1 Phone (315)349-6563 e

+ FAX Cil 5) 349-6244

" TECHNOLOGIES,1NC.

Amcwtwr f 7o January 10.1996 7F- CALC - RC. /C - 02f M Rev. Z P%L .1 bf 1 New York Power Authority Fiu. Patrick Station PO Box 41 Lycoming, NY 13093 Attention. Mr. Paul Swinburne

Reference:

FAX received on December 15,1995 regarding 13MOV-21.

Tc>t data for valve 13MOV-21. test #7, acquired on $/1<92 was fonvarded to Liberty for evaluation of disk pullout force. Test data was evaluated using the conventiormi method. nurking the zero at the C3 platcau on both the cahbration and the test. However, the C3 plateau for the test shows and sligh: increase then decrease in force making the user estimate a proper zero The force at 04 was then ccmr: red to C3, showing a diiTercace of approximately 275 lbs. The vahe scated with roughly 10.000 lbs.. con pared to the difference of 275 :bs would indicate that the difference in plateaus is negliptle and the placement of C3 is for the mest ran correct The indicated 09 force value was 2133 lbs with a calculated crror of 25.7%

The test data was also analyzed using the guidelines in CSB-032. The calibration and the teor were eereed at C11 and the C3 and 04 markers removed from the trace. Following CSB 032, the 09 force value was 3550 Ibs. with a calculated error of M31%

Liberty feels that the C3 placement on the test is a valid zeto, and that CSB 032 does not need to be empicy:d in this case.

Prepared by: Venfted by: ,,,

n .i

_M b=

Glenn Weiss P ock Applications Engineer . uge pits 'ons Engineering s

"' f tC oseOsOMi. .mG E*d 53IM10NH.331 Alb3EI1 Wtt-2:80 96, 21 NOf

NYPA/0PS-MAINT. ID:914-681-6536 JUN 26'96 14:23 No.006 P.02

'h O' g JAF DESIGN VERIFICATION COVERSHEET page 1 of 1 Verification of:

DocumentTitie: l'AffJMs AOCA/e6 A/JtX/// Fe/ ROV-2/

Document Number: JAf-CMC-AS/C -02/90 .

Subiect: mWM of AMc) A'CDw/fP 70 Vfd VM5// ujwk'/ o3/o457//) A'essiter /Whird C ONP/7tM Modification / Task Number (if applicable):

/

GA Category: 1  !

Regured I of swe ELECTRICAL

' - ~- -

ME M M INSTRUMENT &

CONTROL CML/

STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION StMULATOR 88Y DESIGb VERIFCATioN ATTACHMENT 4.1 DCM 4 page ,g,_,of _21.

Rev, No. 3 r-

NYPA/0PS-MAZNT. ID:914-681-6536 JUN 26'96 14:24 No.006 P.03 5

  1. gp WikPbwer D IP3 DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKUST IN poDe i of 4 IDENTIFICATION: DISCIPUNE: l OocumentTitle: Extssext toeAwr- Assi,ysisisa s/>em

- () El.EC [] l&C .

> =1

[] MECH () FirsPruect 2- *"

Doc. Number. SN S/M/ES/6'C2/88 Doc. Revision:

I )( Other"fl0V GA cetegory METHOD OFVERIFICATION:

K . Design Review [] Afternate Celculations [] Qualification Test Selected Verifier. Arts.m/krs/W pen e,.acpwvnent_pnon. -fif-

n. W/D6789
  1. Design Verification Queadonnaire All quescions shall be explained in the space provided.
1. Were the inputs cormet and incorporated into the design? /EJ Explanation: CAtc. /ideurs To ceprirrW /ggV/Nd /AINTof /V/4GVf SRC6
2. Are the physical and functional characteristics of the proposed design within the approved design basis of the system (s) structure (s) or component (s)? pd/' jp.

Explanatio,t J e; Jfc f C M G S vat- V A h AJ D/J7M/F AdJ/G#

3. Does the proposed design incorporate license Commements? ,A/jj/p Explanation: C4LC /J R.t dy/f7/N4 ff1//W /vofhV0Sf*$ Ed'1/6N
4. Ars assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately described and reasonable: Where necessary. are the assumptions identfied for subsequent tvverifications when the detailed design activities are completed? yf t'.,f Exptenation: A / /, A J J&v W f/C N J //Jff*O /H CA /C- ,

1 l

l

5. Ars the appropriate quatrty and quality assurance rvquirements specified? e g.. safety classHicaton? fg/

Explanation: C A 7" J l

S. Are the applicable codes. standards and rigulatory requirements including issue and addenda property identified and ere their requirements for design met? A/fy /

Explanation:

DCM.4 DESIGN VERIFICATION ATTACHMENT 4.2 Rev. No. 3 Page _9_,of 21

Phlfur DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKUST page 2 of 4

  1. Design Venficauon Queshonnaire All questions shall be explained in the space provded
7. Have applicable construction and operedng expenence been considered? ///f- /

Explanacon:

1 8.

Have the design satisfied? // - inp[rface requirements for mechanical, electncal/l&C, and civi Explanation:

9. Was the appropriate design method used? k/ ~

Explanatson: CA /( y.5sp [/2 41744jf .Lgpt;ffj/ ffg7fty?tr4pff

/ <

~

10. Is the output reasonable compared to inputs? /f'/

Explanacon:

11. Are the specified parts, equipment and processes property suited for the fire protection Appendix R, GA, and EQ classificauons required for the application? AA Explanation:
12. Are the specified materials compatble mth each other and the design environmental conditions to which the material mil be exposed? Nf' /4-Explanation:
13. Have personnel requirements and limitations for maintenance, tesung, and inspection been satisfied? AV//i-Explanation:
14. Ars accessabilty, mantenance, repair, and inservce inspecuon requiremyits for the plant including the plant condcons under which these mil be performed been considered? g/g Explanacon i
15. bility been provided to perform the irmervce inspection expected to be required dunng l

Hasplant the adequate trfe? /V j accj/r I

Explanation:

l l DCM-4 DESIGN VERIFICATION ATTACHMENT 4.2 Rev. No. 3 Page _10_of _21.

l

AlD Ptmur DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKUST page 3 of 4 1

l

  1. Design Verificecon Quesmonnere All questions shall be explained in the space prtuded
16. Has the design proper 1y considered radiation exposure to the public and plant personnel? (ALARA/ cobalt reduccor..' jV//f-Explanacon: '
17. Are the acceptance entena incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow venficaDon that design requirements have satisfactonly accomplished? J'8 /

l Explanacon: Arc /r./ 4t w Cir/rfici > t'794/rff L //Yi7/WG A ur CAM /3/t/rY

^~

125fBAs^//4/# SF J7A-A'PAA'y /AWJIl2'// /Yd7//CP

18. l Have adequate pre-opersoonal and subsequent penodic test requirements been appropriately specified? f V/f4 l

Explanacon: #

l l

19. l Are adequate handling storage. cleaning and shipping requirements specsfied? /V/A Explanacon: /
20. l Are adequate idenuficacon requirements specified? /V/Af-Explanacon: /

l

' 21. Are the conclusions drawg in the Safety Evaluauon fully supported by adequate discussion in the test or Safety i Evaluauon itself? g/jf Explanaton: /

l l

22. l Are necessary procedural changes specrfied, and are responsibilities for such changes clear 1y delineated? /V/A Explanation:

l

23. l Are requirements for record preparation rimew. approval, retention etc., adequately specified? J'/f Explanation: //45 /d/Y'S l
24. Have supplemental timews by other engineenng disciplines (seismic, electncal, etc.) been performed on the integrated design package? /Vjdf-Explanacon
25. l Have the drawings sketches. calculations etc., included in the integrated design package been rimewed? /V/,9 Explanacon:

i l

DCM-4 DESIGN VERIFICATION ATTACHMENT 4.2 Rev. No. 3 Page 11 of1L

. f* . . DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKUST

- page 4 of 4 i Design Verificaties Seestionnaire All questions shd be explained in the space provided

26. Have renews been performed to identify any effect on the Check Velve Maintenance Program? /V//c l Explanation: l
27. Does the design for check valves meet the intents of INP0 SOER 86 037 #[g

' l Explanation:

28. ls the plant reference simulator physical and functional fidelity affected and it's design change been f actored into the co Explanation:
29. Are d references hted (includmg design calculationlanalysis) that were used as part of the design review? g J

Explanation:

REMARKSICOMMENTS:

ompge e fMr/Yx.rn. .. Y Y 2 e - W2,W96 DESIGN VERiflCATION ATTACHMENT 4.2 DCM . 4 Page 12_of 21_

Rev.No.3

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20113D617&oldid=2811068"