ML20113D634

Rev 0 to Reduced Voltage Analysis for 23MOV-19

ML20113D634
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	06/12/1995
From:	Jamnes Cameron, Mulcahy F, Swinburne P POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20113D609	List: ML20113D617 ML20113D625 ML20113D634
References
[[::JAF-CALC-HPCI|JAF-CALC-HPCI]], JAF-CALC-HPCI-0, JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094, JAF-CALC-HPCI-2094, NUDOCS 9607030242
Download: ML20113D634 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

CALCULATION CONTROL SHEET Calculation No. JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094 Revision 0 IP3 O JAF E Mod./ Task No. N/A QA Category of Calculation: I Calculation Type:

Preliminary Final X Project / Task:

Generic Letter 89-10 MOV Analysis - Available Voltaae/ Motor Toroue System No/Name:

23/ Hiah Pressure Coolant inlection

Title:

Reduced Voltaae Analysis for 23MOV-19 Name Si ature Date Design Eng.:

Paul Swinburne 6/9/95 Preparer:

Paul Swinburne 6/9/95

[-i-Y Checker:

F.A. Mulcahv d

Verified:N/A O F.A. Mulcahv A-T Approved:

J. Cameron i

M4 1

b-/2 I PROBLEM / OBJECTIVE / METHOD U

See Page 1 DESIGN BASIS / ASSUMPTIONS See Page 1

SUMMARY

/ CONCLUSION Minimum motor terminal voltage = 81.036 volts. However, with the Umitorque Maintenace Update 88-1 technique, available motor torque at minimum voltage was calculated as greater than or equal to the rated start torque, therefore the reduced voltage factor (RVF) may be considered as equal to 1.0 (no credit for more than rated start torque). See page 4 for additional discussion.

REFERENCES See Page 1 AFFECTED SYSTEMS / COMPONENTS / DOCUMENTS MOV analysis performed in accordance with MES-6; the attemate reduced voltage factor may be used to assess MOV capabElity.

_ VotDED OR FOR REFERENCE ONLY

~ SUPERSEDED BY:

(Calc. No.)

Distribution:

NED (WPO); Technical Services: _lP3, _JAF; Site Engineering: _lP3_JAF; CM&EP/DBD (WPO); Other NYPA FORM DCM 2, ATTACHMENT 4.1 (REVISION 4)

Page 1 of 1 9607030242 960627 PDR ADOCK 05000333 l

P PDR

NewYtrkPower Cciculation Ns. JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094 Revision 0 Pag)1 cf 4 Authority Subject Reduced Voltage Analysis for 23MOV-19 Prepared by: Paul Swinbume h Date: June 9,1995 J.A.FRzPatnck Nuclear Power Plant

. Checked by F.A.Mulcahy M Date: d-9-95 OBJECTIVE:

Determine motor terminal voltage and available motor torque under design basis degraded voltage conditions.

METHOD:

Determine minimum motor terminal voltage with the simple voltage divider analysis of the circuit model shown in the F1 ere 1 one line diagram. If the calculated motor terminal voltage is less than 0

90% of rated voltage then determine the reduced voltage factor (RVF). Calculate available motor torque from motor performance curve as described in Umitorque Maintenance Update 88-1 (ref.13).

This technique may be used to justify a higher RVF.

ASSUMPTIONS:

1. Assume cable temperature outside containment is 75'C (this assumption was used for the General Physics Generic Letter 89-10 analyses).

2. Assume EQ qualified BMCC temperatures for the thermal overload relay heaters (for BMCC-6:

131 *F or 55'C).

3. Assume cable resistance from the National Electric Code (NEC).

4. Assume locked rotor current at rated voltage from motor nameplate or motor actuator data sheet.

5. Assume bus or BMCC source voltages from the battery duty cycle calculations (ref. 6) for MOVs in the battery duty cycle. Assume end of duty cycle battery voltage for MOVs which do not operate as part of the battery duty cycle (ref. 7).

6. Assume negligible effect from parallel current flow through high resistance shunt field winding.

7. /asume 10 ft length for unnumbered cable from junction box to MOV.

REFERENCES:

1. JAF Electrical Catie and Raceway Information System, Cable Schedule Report, Feb.1,1994.

2. Wiring Diagram Drawing SE-10AJ.

3. PEDB for Motor Controller, Equipment Name Plate Inquiry (overload heater number).

4. Earley, M.W. et al, Ed., NMions/ Electric Code 1990 Haneook, Chapter 9, Tables 8 and 9, National Fire Protection Aseochtion.

5. Marks, L.S., Standard Han&Mk lbr Mechanical Engineers, eighth edition,1979.

6. Calculations JAF-CALC-ELEC-00426, Rev.1 and JAF-CALC-ELEC-00427, Battery "A" and "B" 125 VDC. Voltage Drop Analyses, approved 10/16/92 and 6/4/92.

7. NYPA Memorandum to P. Swinburne from T. Klein, NED-E-TK-92-162, DC MOV Degraded Voltage, dated August 25,1992.

8. Limitorque Technical Update #92-02, Recommended Spring Pack Replacement Procedures for Umitorque SMB Actuators, issued October 9,1992.

9. Fax Transmittal, C. Shirley (GE) to P. Swinbume (NYPA), CR123C,F,K,L size 1,2,3&4 Heater Resistances, March 22,1993.

10. Umitorque Data Sheets for O/N 110119.01 (M1-87-026).

11. Peerless-Winsmeth DC Motor Performance curves provided under P.O. S-91-12145.

12. JAF EQ Program, Envirnomental Parameters after Postulated LOCA and HELB Accidents, Rev.

3, October 1992 EQ Ref. #349.

13. Umitorque Maintenance Update 88-1," Notes from the Field", DC Motors, dated Aug.17,1988.

T NewYrrkPower Cricul tion No. JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094 Revision 0 Page 2 of 4 Authority Subject Reduced Voltage Ana for 23MOV-19 4

J.A.FitzPatrick Prepared by Paul Swinbum 4)

Date: June 9,1995 Nuclear Power Plant Checked by: F.A. MulcahyM Date: 6 -9'D-l Motor l i

R V

R R

Vmt m

s oh c

l Figure 1 - DC Motor Circuit One-Line Diagram Motor Data (references 10 and 11):

Rated Voltage:

V.= 125 volt Frame: D225 RPM: 1900 r

Locked Rotor Amps: Ilr := 810 amp Rated run amps: I

= 80 amp i

Rated Start Torque: T st.= 150 ft Ibf Curve: K-11216A Cable Data (references 1,2 and 4):

Lenoth DC Resistance at 75'C 1HPIBBK042 (NFF-51,1 cond. 750 MCM Al)

L 3 := 110 ft-SR 3 := 0.0282-3 l

ft 10 1

1HPIBBK041 (NFE-25,3 cond. 500 MCM AI)

L2 := 120 ft SR2 := 0.0424-3 fi10 JB to MOV (2 NFE-08,4 cond. 8 AWG Cu)

L3 := 10 ft SR3 := 0.7%

3 l

ft 10 Outside Containment Cable Temperature:

Temp e := 75 l

BMCC Minimum Voltage:

V, := 107.44 volt Calculation JAF-CALC-ELEC-00427 determined the above BMCC voltage for 23MOV-19 based on operation at the 19* second of the two hour duty cycle.

l Overload Heater Data (references 3,5,9 and 12):

Number: F104C Resistance:

R25 := 9.4910 ohm (at 25'C)

Temperature Coefficient TC oh := 0.17 10(from Marks' for nichrome)

Ambient Temperature ('C): Temp oh := 55 (EQ temperature for BMCC4)

NewYcrkPrrr C:lculation No. JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094 R; vision 0 Paga 3 cf 4 Authority Subject Reduced Voltage Ana for 23MOV-19 JAFitzPatrick Prepared by: Paul Swinbume 743 Date: June 9,1995 Nuclear Power Plant

. Checked by: FA Mulcahy b Date: 8-I T Total cable resistance (for four runs for armature and series field):

R =0.0498 ohm Re := SR L 3 + 3 SR 'L2 + 4.SR L3 e

g 2

3 Overload heater resistance (two heaters in parallel) corrected for temperature:

Roh = 4.76910' ohm oh-(Temp ch-25)]

Roh :=

1 + TC Motor equivalent resistance:

y r R = 0.154 ohm R m:=I m

lr V

Maximum current:

I I

=525.1 amp max max Rm+R +Roh c

R V

= 81.036 volt Minimum motor terminal voltage:

Vmt Imax m mt Percent rated voltage available:

Percent _ rated :=

Percent _ rated = 64.829 %

Because percent rated voltage is less than 90%, we need calculate a reduced voltage factor (RVF).

For DC motors the RVF is simply the percent of rated voltage expressed as a fraction (ref. 8).

Reduced voltage factor:

RVF := Percent _ rated RVF = 0.648 I ***

Per LMU 88-1 maximum current as

= 6.564 Cable size does meet Limitorque's I

multiples of rated FLA:

nm recommendation to provide 5 times rated current (FLA)

Evaluate torque available based on motor curva K-11216A. Apply conservative +15% to currentvs.

torque curve.

Motor curve K-11216A for 150 ft-Ibf motor, as 3rd order polynomial:

Data points from recorded data files:

i := 0. 20 (21 data points)

X :=READPRN(tql50)

Y := READPRN(amps 150)

O

NewYorkPower Cdculation No. JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094 Revision 0 Pago 4 cf 4 Authority

Subject:

Reduced Voltage Ana for 23MOV-19 J.A.FRzPatrick Prepared by: Paul Swinbume Date: June 9,1995

. Checked by F.A.MulcahyN Date: 6O 3

1.408 10 '

x x

3rd order fit

-0.001 Vector for curve fit:

F(x) :=

3 =g;,f;,(y,y,p) 3, i

function:

x 2.033

,1 18.278 Current from curve fit polynomial:

I(t) := F(t) S t := 0,25. 475 Curve K-11216A showing +15%/-10% limits:

!000 i

i i

i Current (amps) f' Y;

y-e y...-

500

1. 'I.,

Id5-R O

.R '1 A'$', '

O.tuo

,g:'C.

5,_

y. - '

r.

0-0 100 200 300 400 500 X;.t Motor torque (ft-Ibf)

I,,x = 525.1 amp guess value; t := 100 Available torque at 6 avsl:: root (1.15 I(t) amp-I,x,t)41bf 5,ygi = 240.166 ft lbf-S (with +15% allowance)is:

The above torque is greater than the rated torque for this motor (150 ft-Ibf). We should not take credit for more than rated torque capability but we need not apply an RVF.

CONCLUSION:

This analysis shows that 23MOV-19 has less than 90% of rated voltage available under degraded voltage conditions. If we consider the guidelines for motor torque capability provided in LMU 88-1 (ref.13) and motor curve K-11216A (ref.11) we.can show more than rated torque capability at reduced voltage conditions. Therefore we can use RVF = 1.0.

l i

IP3 C INDEPENDENT DESl2N VERIFICATICN JAF C CONTROL 8HEET VERIFICATION OF: JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094, Rev. O Document Title / Number

SUBJECT:

Reduced Voltage Analysis for 23MOV-19 (Voltage)

MOD / TASK NUMBER (If Applicable): N/A QA CATEGORY:

1 FIRE OTHERS DISCIPLINE:

ELEC MECH C/S I&C PROTECT (SPECIFY)

Check as required:

E C

U C

U U

U" METHOD USED (1):

VERIFIER'S NAME:

F. A. %

VERIFIER'S INITIALS / DATE:

3'* 8~9-T

[0 [/

9F APPROVED BY:

t s

DATE:

REMARKS / SCOPE OF VIERI CATION:

l l

l l

(1)

Method of Verification: Design Review (DR), Attemate Calculations (AC),

Qualification Test (OT) i NYPA FORM DCM-4, ATTACHMENT 4.1 (NOVEMBER 1992)

PAGE 1 OF 1 l

l

l e

o l

lP3 O DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKUST A E DESIGN REVIEW METHOD 1

VERIFICATION OF: JAF-CALC-HPCI-02094, Rev. O Document Title / Number

SUBJECT:

Reduced Voltage Analysis for 23MOV-19 (Voltage)

MOD / TASK NUMBER (if Applicable): N/A l

DESIGN VERIFIER: F. A. Mulcahy,h M hg/Mgh dI-k- [

Signature / Titie / Date l

FIRE OTHERS l

DISCIPLINE:

ELEC MECH C/S I&C PROTECT (SPECIFY) l Check as required:

E C

U C

U C

Yes NA

1. Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into the design ?

E C

2. Are the physical and functional characteristics of the proposed design within K

C the approved design basis of the system (s) structure (s) or component (s) ?

3. Does the proposed design incorporate license commitments ?

E C

4. Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately described R

D and reasonable: Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsquent reverification when the detailed design activities are completed ?

5. Are the appropdate quality and quality assurance requirements specified ?

E C

e.g., safety classification.

6. Are the applicable codes, standards and regulatory requirements including issue C

E and agenda property identified and are their requirements for design met ?

7. Have applicable construction and operating experience been considered ?

U E

NYPA FORM DCM-4, ATTACHMENT 4.2 (NOVEMBER 1992)

PAGE 1 OF 3

DESl8N VERIFICATION CHECKLIST DESIGN REVIEW METHOD Yes NA

8. Have the design interface redluirements been satisfied ?

O M

9. Was an appropriate design method used ?

R C

10. Is the output reasonable compared to inputs ?

E C

11. Are the specified parts, equipment and processes suitable for the required C

E application ?

12. Are the specified materials compatible with each other and the design environmental C

E conditions to which the materials will be exposed ?

13. Have adequate maintenance features and requirements been satisfied ?

C E

14. Are accessibility and other design provisions adequate for performance of needed C

E maintenance and repair ?

15. Has adequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection

.C E

expected to be required during the plant life ?

16. Has the design properly considered radiation exposure to the public and plant C

E personnel ? (ALARA / Cobalt Reduction)

17. Are the acceptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow K

C verification that design requirements have satisfactorily accomplished ?

18. Have adequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements been C

E appropriately specified ?

19. Are adequate handling, storage, cleaning and shipping requirements specified ?

C E

NYPA FORM DCM-4, ATTACHMENT 4.2 (NOVEMBER 1992)

PAGE 2 OF 3

t' l.I l

DESIGN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST DESIGN REVIEW METHOD Yes NA

20. Are adequate identification requirements specified ?

C E

l

21. Are conclusions drawn in the Safety Evaluation fully supported by adequate C

E discussion in the test or Safety Evaluation itself 7 I

22. Are necessary procedural changes specified, and are responsibilities for such C

E I

changes clearly delinated ?

l

23. Are requirements for records preparatica, review, approval, retention, etc., adequately C E

specified ?

24. Have supplemental reviews by other engineering disciplines (seismic, electrical, C

R etc.) been performed on the integrated design package.

i

25. Have the drawings, sketches, calculations, etc. Included in the intergrated design K

C package been reviewed ?

26. Have review been performed to identify any effect on the Check Valve Maintenance C

E Program ?

27. Does the design for check valves meet the intents of INPO SOER 86-03 7 C

E

28. Is the plant reference simulator physical and functional fidelity affected and it's C

E design change been factored into the cost 7

29. References used as part of the design review which are not listed as part of the C

E design calculation / analysis ?

l l

i NYPA FORM DCM-4, ATTACHMENT 4.2 (NOVEMBER 1992)

PAGE 3 OF 3 1

l l