ML20138P409
| ML20138P409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1985 |
| From: | Nondahl S BURMAH TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. (FORMERLY CLOW CORP.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138P404 | List: |
| References | |
| 1020K, 7-25-85, 7-25-85-R, 7-25-85-R00, NUDOCS 8512260090 | |
| Download: ML20138P409 (130) | |
Text
p 4. , I l
l
- .
- CLOW Clow Corporation 40 Chestnut Avenue ' 312 789-8900' Engineered Products Division Westmont, IL 60559 4 I
PURGE AND VENT VALVE OPERABILITY QUALIFICATION ANALYSIS
! Report No. 7-25-85 i PREPARED FOR i.
( CO M NWEALTH EDIS0N CO.
l LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNITS #1 & #2 by Steve Nondahl ,
/t July 1985 Work performed under Commonwealth Edison Purchase Order Number 289825 Rev.A l Project No. 6854-30 Clow Job Numbers: 84-2842-01 and -02(N)
This report covers valve tag numbers:
1VQ026 1VQO34 2VQ026 2VQ034 1VQ027 IVQO36 2VQ027 2VQO36 1VQ029 1VQ040 2VQ029 2VQ040 1VQ030 1VQ042 2VQ030 2VQ042 1VQ031 IVQ043 2VQ031 2VQ043
~
8512260090 851217 PDR ADOCK 05000373 P PDR i
e
- Ab REV.- REV. REV. CHECT,ED Q.A. DESCRIPTIO1 0F CHAtlGES 11 0 . DATE~ BY BY BY Afl0 PAGES REVISED 0 7-25-85 --- --- --
Original Issue .
e e
- O-
- 1. -
y ,
5-e e-
- l.
1 e
b$
u.
}
-,' :ty i r.
CERTIFICATION -
-This is to certify that all valves (Tag Nos. IVQ026, IVQ027, 1VQ029, IVQ030, IVQO31, IVQO34, IVQO36, IVQ040, IVQ042, IVQ043, 2VQO26,2VQ027,2VQ029,2VQO30,2VQO31,2VQO34,2VQ036,2VQ040,
, 2VQ042,~2VQ043) have been evaluated for operability under the installed conditions indicated in Commonwealth Edison Co. Purchase Order 289825,.Rev. A and accompanying specifications as amended by Clow exceptions. The information contained in this report is the l
result of complete and carefully conducted analyses and to the best of l
.l.
our. Knowledge is true and correct in all respects. The information presented, in combination with the supporting documents referenced,
.b ,, represents a demonstrated qualification of the subject valves to the best of our knowledge for the required service application.
Paper written and analyses by A . A 7teve~n Nonochl
^ Design Eng. Mgr., Nuclear
-1 Clow Corp.
- \ .
Reviewed by b -
William J. Allen U o . Design Engineer, Nuclear
- o. .
Clow Corp.
+
.. 4> 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Page LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES -v
.1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Testing Performed 2 1.2 Qualification Method 4 2.0 DESIGN OF VALVE AND ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY 9 2.1 Valve Design. 9
-2.1.1 Geometry 9
( '- 2.1.2 Materials 12
-4 2.1.3 Operation 16 2.2 Ac.tuator Design (Pneumatic / Spring Return) 20 2.2.1 Geometry 20 2.2.2 Actuator Design Materials 2S 2.2.3 Actuator and Yalve Operation 26
~[-. (Pneumatic Spring Return) 2.2.3.1 Actuators and Accessnries Supplied 26 2.2.3.2 Pneumatic Actuator Output Torques 29 2.2.3.3 Operating. Time 34 3.0 VALVE OPERATING AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS 35
- , 3.1 Valve Operating Conditions 35 L, 3.2. Valve Installation Configurations 37
'4.0 VALVE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY UNDER SEISMIC AND 51 OPERATIONAL LOADINGS 4.1 Valve Frequency And Stress Analysis 51-4.2 Bettis Actuator Resonant Frequency Test 55 e4
iii
.., 4, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page f
4.3 Asco Solenoid Valve Resonant Frequency Test 55 4.4 Static Load Test During Simulated LOCA Flow 56 4.5 Bettis Actuator Seismic / Hydrodynamic 56 Operability Test
~ 5.0 VALVE AERODYNAMIC TORQUES 57 5.1 Model Tests 58 5.1.2 Tests With An Upstream Elbow 64 5.1.3. Tests With Two Valves In Series 65 5.1.4 Downstream Piping Effects 72 I.
i 5.2 Model Data Verification 73 5.3 Application of Model Aerodynamic Test to 74 Full Size Valve Operability l.
5.3.1 Valve Operating Times Expected in 74 Service 5.3.2 Aerodynamic Torques For Valves As 81 Installed I- 5.3.3 ' Conclusions Concerning Valve Operability 89 6.0 VALVE SEALING CHARACTERISTICS 91
, 6.1 Normal Sealing 91 6.2 Long Term Sealing. 93 6.3 Debris Effects on Sealing 94
-o 6.4 Sealing Under Temperature Variations 95 e6.5 Response to NRC 21 Questions 96
7.0 REFERENCES
99 APPENDIX A-CONTAINMENT PURGING DURING NORMAL PLANT A-1 Thru A-15 GPERATIONS'(NRC 21 Questions)
APPENDIX B-DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONAL TESTS OF A 12 B-1 Thru B-5 INCH CLOW TRICENTRIC VALVE FOR NUCLEAR PURGE SYSTEM SERVICE e4 h
a l
4 .
iv 6
, LIST OF TABLES s
_ TABLE TITLE' PAGE 7
1 ACTUATOR ACCESSORIES 28 2
GUARANTEED TORQUE / CALCULATED TORQUE' 29 3-VALVE.8ENCH TEST OPERATING TIMES (AIR OPERATED) 34
.4~ . SEISMIC LOADINGS FOR ALL VALVES 35 5
PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS APPLIED TO VALVES 36 6 ALL0hEDl SEAT LEAKAGE RATES
~
36
-7
.g.
VALVE IDENTIFICATION AND INSTALLATION DRAWING CROSS 38 REFERENCE FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT #1
,. PURGE-AND VENT VALVES.
8 VAL'.*C IDEMTIFit,ATION AND INSTALLATION DRAWING CROSS 39
-l. ' REFERENCE'FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT #2 P .- l i ,, , PURGE AND VENT' VALVES 9- S2
~ LOWEST VALVE RESONANT FREQUENCIES 10 CONDITION APPLIED FOR STRESS ANALYSIS 52 4 ~
e 11
.[,
SUMMARY
OF ALLOWABLE STRESSES - 26" VALVE 53 4
s 12~ 54
SUMMARY
OF ALLOWABLE STRESSES - 8" VALVE
.- 13' 62 TEST. VALVE SCALED SIZES (CRlilCAL ELEMENTS) 14 63 N ' COMPARISON OF. PRODUCTION VALVES TO. VALVE MODEL SIZES
, (CRITICAL ELEMENTS)
' A- 1' DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN TABLES B-1 THRU C-2 75 c B-1. NORMAL F.0W CALCULATIONS 8" INTAKE VALVES 76
<t- B-2 ~ NORMAL FLOW CALCULATIONS '26" INTAKE VALVES 77
,8-3 NORMAL FLOW CALCULATIONS 26" EXAUST VALVES 78 C-1. EMERGENCY FLOW CALCULATIONS ALL 8" VALVES 79
-C-2 EMERGENCY FLOW CALCULATIONS ALL 26" VALVES 80 15 z24-- MODEL DATA FOR TORQUE MODIFICATION - 84-88 25 : PNEUMATIC ACTUALTED VALVE TORQUES 90 VALVE SEALING CHARACTERISTICS 92 i
v
- ~4 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE TITLE PAGE 1 TRICENTRIC VALVE OFFSETS 10 2 8" AIR OPERATED VALVE ASSEMBLY AND MATERIALS 14 3 26" AIR OPERATED VALVE ASSEMBLY AND MATERIALS 15 4- DISC WITH CLOSING FORCES APPLIED 18 5 ACTUATOR SCOTCH YOKE DESIGN 21 6 TYPICAL TORQUE OUTPUT FOR DOUBLE ACTING SCOTCH YOKE 23
/ ACTUATOR I' 7 FAIL SAFE, SPRING RETURN ACTUATOR DESIGN 23 8 TYPICAL TORQUE OUTPUT CURVES FOR A SPRING RETURN 24 ACTUATOR 9A CALCULATED TORQUE DATA T820 SR3 30 9B- CALCULATED TORQUE PLOT T820 SR3 31 10A CALCULATED TORQUE DATA T312 SR3 32
, 10B CALCULATED TORQUE PLOT T312 SR3 33
-l 11' INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQC27 AND 40 IVQO26 12 INSTALLED PI5ING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES 2VQO27 AND 41 2VQO26 13 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQO29 AND 42 2VQO29 14 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQO30 AND 43 a- 2VQO30 r 15~ INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQO31 AND 44 2VQO31 16 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVE IVQO34 45 17 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVE 2VQO34 46
~
18 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQO36 AND 47 2VQO36 19 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQ040 AND 48 2VQ040
vi
~
cy.
6 LISTOFFIGURES(cont)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE 20 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQ042 AND 49 2VQ042 21 INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION OF VALVES IVQ043 AND 50
~2VQ043
'22 POSSIBLE' ORIENTATION OF TWO CLOW VALVES INSTALLED 66 IN SERIES.
23 WATER TABLE STUDY OF CH0KED FLOW PATTERN WITH DISC 67
' FULL OPEN (900)
'. 24 WATER TABLE STUDY OF CH0KED FI' 4 PATTERN WITH DISC 68 PARTIALLY OPEN (600)
.r WATER TABLE STUDY OF CHOKED FLOW PATTERN WITH DISC 69 25 l-PARTIALLY OPEN (400) 26a TEE WITH FLOW FROM TWO SIDES 70 lf ,
26b TEE WITH FLOW FROM ONE SIDE 70 27 VALVE ORIENTATIONS RELATIVE TO UPSTREAM ELBOW 71 I
- 1.-
4
~F t
4 .
ms
'tgi',
7 Page 1 m _
e, c r:
P
- 1. INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has, since 1979, been highly concerned about the operability of purge and~ vent. valves during
. certain postulated occurrences. Their study in this area has shown
- v. 3 : that many valves were designed only to operate under normal flow requirements. For.al postulated loss of coolant accident, su'ch valves x
may-fall to close in the time required to prevent discharge of radio-
- { - active gases'to the outside environment. Such a. failure could exceed s 10 CFR guidelines and present a significant hazard to the-health of'
...- persons _in the area. NRC Branch Technical Position CSB 6-4 gives some background or, operations'of purge and vent systems and basic-
');
. . requirementsforbeirdesign. For the valves used in such systems,
-! 3 - further guidelines are provided in " Guidelines for Demonstration of
$ Operability of Purge and Vent Valves", which wps provided to nuclear ,
1 g, '
plant operators by an NRC letter in September 1979. This set of
.x- guidelines covers, twenty-one points (less two) which are to be~
' addressed by the plant operator (see Appendix A). This paper addresses.
. those. items which may be answered by the valve manufacturer based on
~ the conditions provided by the pla aperator for the postulated loss
.f of coolant accident.
- , _ .This paper describes the design of Clow's Tricentric butterfly
' valve and the Bettis. pneumatic actuator used to operate the valve.
In addition,' descriptions of various tests performed to determine flow and torque characteristics and application of this test data to the installed condition.of the subject valves are presented.
. - Information as to the structural integrity of the valve and operator i !
, <v .,
, _r c-- , m- - - _ . - ,.m.--
Page 2 e
assembly under seismic and other inplant loadings is also presented.
This information, in combinatio'n with the supporting detailed technical reports (see 7.0 References), represents a demonstrated qualification of the subject valves to the best of our knowledge for the required service application.
1.1' Testing Performed Clow became involved with design of butterfly valves specifically ll for purge and vent containment l' solation early in 1981. A test program was initiated to determine the mass flow and aerodynamic torque characteristics of-the Tricentric butterfly valve design. Tests were q . performed for 12", 24", 48", and 96" scale model valves (scaled to 3" p.ipe size) in a straight pipe run for both unchoked and choked flow I
.j regimes. Pressure ratios for choking, flow coefficients for mass flow, and aerodynamic torque coefficients were determined in these experiments.
b The experimental setups met the ISA test reouirements for compressible
.I' flew measurement. All measurements were automatically read, digitized, I.
and recorded on magnetic tape. The obtained data was then evaluated by other computer programs. Subsequently, a computer program, CVAP f
, was developed using the measured data base to predict flow and torque
- o. values for full size valves in a straight run.
% 4 h
,. . . -.. --. - - . ~ . -
Page 3
~
In the Spring of 1981 Clow personnel met with representatives of the NRC to review the test program to that point and to obtain recommendations for additional testing. As a result, Clow and it's
. fluid dynamic consultant set up two additional programs to determine how the aerodynamic torque characteristics of, the Tricentric valve:
varied with installed piping conditions. For such effects of both
. upstream and downstream piping elements (elbows, tees, reducers, etc.)wereconsidered. From results of backpressure tests performed
~
-- l ,
in the first set of experiments and water table studies previously done by Clow, it was determined that upstream piping elements would present a worst case condition. Further, due to the numerous types 0
of upstream elements (upstream elbows (miter 5d, 90 , other angles, short radius, long radius), tees, reducers), a worst case had to be selected for evaluation. A 90 mitered elbow was selected due to the fact that this element presented the worst separated flow
- l region at the inner corner and biased a u.:for portion of the flow ,
to the outer corner. A second set of tests war developed to
~
. obtain information about the effect on each othei of two valves e m
- - e in . series -(the' common plant installed practice). Que to the fact
~
that each experiment required an increasing amount of test combin-c ations, the experiments were done in a phased approach.
The upstream elbow tests were performed first for a scale
- . model of a 12" valve in 3 orientations relative to the elbow and
- and et 3 spacings (2, 4, & 8 diameters) from the elbow. From the results a worst case was determined to occur at 2 diameters.
t-
.:q; - -
Page 4- -
, , ;V , , '
-4
' Thus the scale mo'dels of the 24" and 48" valves were tested only
, - at 2 diameters. ;U'pstream elbow effects diminished significantly
.. at 4 diameters and were barely detectable at 8 diameters.
From these results, the two valves in series tests were restricted to spi:cings of ? and 4 diameters. As in the elbow experiments, the worst case occurred at 2 diameters and at 4
- diameters the res alts approached those for the single valve experiments.
- - To substantiate the model tests 2nd show the validity of scaling the model data. to full s.!ze vabes, Clow performed a choked flow operational test of a full size 12" valve with a
~
] pneumatic spring, return actuator at Vought Corp., Dallas, Texas, in November of 1981 (see the appendix for a summary of this test).
The test showed that the valve would operate under the choked
- flow test conditions, that mass flows were as predicted,' and that l-use of the CVAP program to predict torques was a conservative ;
method.(peak measured torque was approximately 65% of that pre-
" ~
~ dicted). The test also incorporated a static 11,0 g load to the actuator simulating',a severe seismic / hydrodynamic induced loading.
It.further validated the directicnal effects of aerodynamic torque (in ~ the test all torques tended to close the valve) as measured in y .
model tests.
1.2 - .Qualification' Method Clow provides certification of operability of valves produced for purge and vent containment isolation service by a combination
, of' tests and analysis. The following items are considered and
_= s
1 y 4
Page 5-covered in this'and supplemental reports listed'in 7.0 References.
}, it is advised that the' documents listed in 7.0 be available for treference during review of this report.
- A._ .: Environmental-
' ~
.All portions of the'Clow Tricentric is of completely metallic construction other than stem packings and the asbestos seal
-laminationsi- The valve seals'by metal to' metal' contact between the seat and seal. The asbestos seal laminations used to separate the SST laminations do contain a SBR binder f -which may degrade under radiation but the asbestos is
"~
uneffected. Further, the asbestos laminations are shielded
- by the SST_laminations and disc components. Although the
'/ asbestos may become embrittled on the periphery, the valve will still perfom its sealing function (see Radiation Senitivity Analysis Report Wyle 17629-01). The packings will
^
perform their function under the required environment as long
"? as they are replaced at recommended intervals.
- l. .
s Actuators used on the valves are qualified for the.
T
~
environment by the actuator manufacturer to codes, standards, or test procedures accepted by the valve buyer.
- - B. Structural (For Seismic and Other Loadings)
- Clow provides for each valve design, a finite element m . analysis of the valve' structure and hand calculations of selected components. .These analyses show the valve to be constructed within ASME Section III requirements and that elements not covered by the code are designed with adequate-1
-* t
, Page 6 safety margin. .' Analyses can be found in this. Qualification Report, th'e' code required Design Report, and the Structural Analysis Report. The elements considered by these reports include:
- 1. Valve body
- 2. Valve disc
- 3. Valve disc shaft
- 4. Valve disc shaft connection
- a. Disc ear
~ ~~
- b. Drive keys
- c. Dowel pin (retains shaft from hydrostatic end load only)
- 5. Actuator mounting structure
- a. Adaptor flange b.' Bolting t
Actuators are qualified separately by the manufacturer by generic test results.
- 1. It should be noted that for this application one generic report has been provided for the 8" valve (PEI-TR-83-24) and one
~
for the 26" valve (PEI-TR-852200-1). In addition, a summary report for the_8" and 26". valves shows how the generic reports and the actuator and solenoid valve qualification reports ~
encompass Sargent & Lundy/ CECO spec. requirements.
C. Operability Under Flow Operability under maximum flow conditions is based on a combination of a bench test of each unit (timed test with
.no flow) and an analysis of the torque characteristics of
- - - - - , ,- , , , - - , . - , - - e -
=
- k. ... ,
Page 7
~ , .
9
' the subject valve. The bench test shows the closing cycle
' time when no aerodynamic torque is imposed. This data, com-bined with conservative (see assumptions below) calculations of the aerodynamic torque, is used to show the valve will close in the required time. Bench tests of actuators and
.. valve' assemblies include operation during worst case conditions (minimum air supply,'or maximum backpressure-for pneumatic actuators if applicable).
l- The following method is used to show operability:
- 1. Determine the no flow worst case operating time from I
-i bench tests.
- 2. Using Clow program CVAP calculate aerodynamic torques
.. for straight pipe conditions.
- 3. Determine a torque modification factor based on the
[ installed (from buyer prints)'or a worst case up-g stream piping condition using the mitered elbow or
- 3 two valves in series test data.
- 4. Determine the predicted torque values for all disc angles based on 2_and 3 above.
- l. .
5.-Provide a tabulation or-plot of actuator output torque for all actuator angles.
1 .6. Show that the actuator output provides sufficient margin to overcome aerodynamic and other torques (bearing, packing, disc wt.) to close the valve.
- 7. From the above data, actuator type, and Vought full size test valve data, project a closing rate under the conditions analyzed above.
et
g.
.g Page 8 9
In the preceding calulations, the following assumptions are employed:
- a. Containment pressure is at a maximum value and full flow is' developed before the valve starts to close.
a b. The pressure downstream of the valve is atmospheric.
In the elbow experiment it was noted that downsteam elbows may choke before the valve for certain disc angles _, producing a higher backpressure and lower l
.. c. Upstream piping components may produce a less severe torque condition than the experimental element t.
.. '('mi tere'd elbow worse than radius elbow) used'as a basis for the analysis.
- d. Torque coefficients used in the CVAP program are
'[, worse case values. In the experiments a band cf
, coefficients was observed with some dependence on
- pressure ratio. The high end of the band was used in the CVAP program.
- e. Scaling of torques to larger size valves by the D3 method may be largely conservative as was shown g- by the Vought Test.
The net result of all such calculations and tests to date, continue to show that the design and sizing of all components used in the valve or the actuator exceeds that needed to assure valve closure for the maximum aerodynamic torques which could occur under LOCA conditions.
I w g - , .--y.-y- . - - -
Page 9 7 , -
+
2.0 ' DESIGN 0F VALVE AND ACTUATOR ASSEMBLY
-2.1 Valve Design
~
2.1.1- Geometry The Tricentric valve uses a geometry that is unique not only
. to purge valves, but to butterfly valves in general. This feature
. gives the Tricentric functional characteristics which are
~
desirable in purge valve applications. Thru use of a conical '
sealing surface with, the cone axis offset from the pipe axis
~
and a rotation point selected so that it is offset from both the pipe axis and the seal plane, a metal to metal seal can be obtained. (Fig.1) The sealing is a result of normal forces
-acting between the sealing surfaces rather than sealing due to surface interference typical-of other butterfly valves with elastomeric seals.
-l One of the major advantages of the conical seal design is '
that it provide's a non-jamming action. This characteristic e results from controlling the cone angle so the angle of friction of the material.is exceeded. This-has been proven in actual tests similar to the test described here:
~
A 20 inch Tricentric wafer valve was closed by applying 20,000 in.lbs. of seating torque'. Then the Lunseating torque was measured. 'This was repeated 3 times to' determine an[ average value for the unseating 7
.e
- k
1
- 2 w
, r L
' s
/
SEAL
- - seal-q. PATH c' \
axis i / offset ,
1 "
POINT
- s. / '
.~.. ON I ;; I SEAL pipe ( - '
offset
'I (E)
I ' Note: Double flange style cone (
l /
d shown for illustration purposes only. The g f~ ROTATION same offsets apply to I POINT wafer style.
t..____. - _ _ _ _
offset m
, r, 3 L g m
FIGURE 1 _ Trit,2NTRIC VALVE OFFSETS
=. 2
_. \;
\'
', P.
Page 11 I ,
torque. The test was repeated with.the seating torque increased by 10,000 in.lbs. increments until a maximum seating torque of 100,000 in.lbs. had been' achieved.
-During the entire test, the seat seal interface was dry , ,
(highest angle of friction) and no pressure was applied
~to the valve. The smallest value of , torque that could be accurately measured was 1000 in.lbs. and at no time was more than 1000 in.lbs. required to unseat the valve t
regardless of the seating torque applied.
Since the shaft is offset.in 2 directions, one from the pipe axis and one from the seal plane, 2 performance advantages result.
The first is the sealing surface is continuous thru 360 degrees Lwith no interruptions from- the shaft penetration. This eliminates the leakage and wear associated with the shaft penetration areas.
The second advantage comes from the shaft being offset (eccentric)
- from the pipe ax'is. This eccentricity produces unequal areas about the rotation point, so when the valve is closed and pressure
.is applied to'the' shaft side of the ' disc (normal direction), a closing moment results. This will result in increased sealing
-forces between- the seat-sea interface as pressure increases.
3 This force,Lin combination with the mechanical torque produced l ' by 'the actuator, results in the tight sealing capability achieved L with the Tricentric. A definite relationship between these s
e e
Page 12 g .. .
'2 offsets is required to provide a valve that has no binding or
. interference problems as the seal is rotated out of the seat.
. This relationship is determi_ned analytically to provide the best performance without 'overdesigning the valve co:ponents, All of these features have been incorporated into the lugged. wafer body that results in h very rugged and sturdy valve design capable
'f of meeting or exceeding all the requirements set forth in the a
specification.
2.1.2 Materials-A complete list of valve component materials used on Commonwealth Edison Co. Purchase Order 289825.may be found on the General Arrange-i ment Drawings-(D-0804 and D-0805) which follow this section.
Since purge and vent valves must perform safety related functions not only during normal conditions but also during and after upset, emergency and faulted conditions, the material selections were based on a worst case event. Because the valves -
1 are required to' prevent discharge of radioactive gases to the t;
outside environment during a LOCA, the seat and seal mat.. rials are critical to the operation of the' valves. During normal operation the valves are exposed to the air in the containment r
and outside air, but during a LOCA the media may be made up of steam, air, and boric acid, all of.which may be radioactive and at elevated temperatures. The seat material selected for this application was SA479 316L SST. The 316 grade was selected due S
d
- ~- <
, . Page 13 5
-to its corrosion resistance and ability to withstand all of' th'e possible medias that may. come in contact with the seat. The L grade of 316 SST was .further specified because the seat is welded to the body (SA516 GR70) and the L grade has a lower carbon content
- that will reduce the carbide precipitation in the heat affected zone of the seat. The seal is a laminate of 316 SST and asbestos.
' The'316 SST was chosen in the " straight" grade since no welding is done on the seal. The asbestos used is made of John Manville style 60 or Klinger K-61 material . The laminated type seal was
~
selected for its ability to seal with less torque than would be required for a solid seal. The laminate allows each SSI member to act independently and ito conform Lto the contour of the machined
, seat as seating torque is applied. The asbestos member not only allows each SST member to act independently but also reduces the seal area in contact with the seal and therefore, results in i
application of higher normal stresses to the seal for any given seating torque.-
D' e
v i
. /
' ' ' - - - . .ese. Irte sistolettee v l ossa ess ae es . *. G C ,,,,,, ,... n *** -=e n e.n e ,e s eea 3I *'I
,,,, .,, 8 *'t =.sae == == e d's see Jg 8 5/16 : 15 1/2
.Y
"' +
see-to uc att.
>8 ies etacts neo sues sim.
3 t /s MI'81FF . TheE.JIO fe.spe e.e sse amuel H-10 ut Ec" "
- s- -
YsY N.To$"'d'E 5'"W 8* C4 ans -- if.--
s- h 23 A M. 19.1 38 22.1 24
.- m , *i .- '
/*' P
-- S DENOTES SAFETY RELATED NON-PR($5t>
S
/\ la .' ' ecucaev Pants.
(
_ _ . A DENOTES PRES $UeE #ET AININC PARIS.
[ 0.0. _f j_g e DENOT
/'//,p e 0tNO,E$ RECOpeqENDEO urAnts emurawSPAeE ma. PARTS.
23
. . . ' m
- l.4,10, so ey "
c
_ ;=,,, / / "#- + **e y.g '"/
[,.; d' t--3 e 3r i ,,,
.v. a vac, Rave
=.g
- n .
i
_h_.-g * <a=,
-2 3s _ , , , , , , ,,,
_s
_ _o _- . _ . . --1 _ . .
" 3 , _. .
ea '3T hth ma i g,'=l. M.
(,__ I_ _ _ ig- -P,r_ 2s 10* AT L*.3 M
i_8 28 Soc.m. CAP sCRw 4
{ :'
- we _p '
g .
a 27 PIPE RUC ? .'.8. - L',, ,
.' pgg- <
> l
%'"~. I3 ea 2s ACiuAut t ?:0 1
\\
5:
/
/,//
jr y * / \
2S_ Ao mtOR PLATE 24 ax sc.Cw sCRu 4 451, 14~ gh 1/ .=-
f'% \ -? > - 2
\ 23 L0rkNIRE UN ,,
[ g ~
is .2 JAM mi 4 7
{~ -
- l. A I'-] WI 4 ElE
- 8) C4-
, , mrr e ,y, , I .I SFCTTON A-A 4
_>g 80 A 21 Sito 20 CLA'O 4
I 3 'g iL515'M
- e. is. eacxiNG . :::q ;,
e IS PACKitC r 6 (q,
I 8 il 12 13 16 18 17 13 19 le 27 20 21,22.2 2S $
@G 18 PMR MY 2 4*( 'd d ;;@
il 004L PlN l ca T ifRTvE SHAFI I AW W.
SECJION B-O 14 LANTEIW4 RIPC 1 y*( *j
$ 13 DE AHING 2 mm
~j"";
DES 1CN INFORMATION JOB INFORMATION
- 12 Ar m AH RET l y,,'~'. *
-'~ " .ai asset ias. artE - TiW-v5i.W4TeiiJiea II SPACER I . .
CUSTOMER: COMMONNERLTH EDISON CO.
eiu ea ts T a,e-is asc .e . ,a * * -t e . 0 1. CODE
REFERENCE:
CLASS 2. SECil0N ll! 0F ASesE B0llER AND A 10 E x tc. CAP SCRW 4 E '.*~ P.f'.,a co.a= esses ea ts se sea-s3 inic .e so F1-s e. c PRESSUNE VESSEL CODE.1983 E0lil0N INCLUDING A00ENDA LASALLE PO 881 F8,82S COUNIf STATIO.N UNIT 842 8 "U I ****
O' **
. 8! .8 !'8d8 '""
moano esses mes emis 24 see-se vic m- eso re te.
- * * " *
- O THROUCH SUMMER. 1994
SPEC. NO. SARCENT CL OW JOB NO. 84-2842-02tNI
& LON0Y T-3750 A 8 COVER PLATE I ".'1 T
as C 3. DESIGN PHESSURE:
J/*We *19 #8f**e arur isecer.* G SOC. SET SC W 2 -
pcs.sance ammisas sais w. e tric soo sto e t-te.
BjiC' HSP W'e """"* S'*SS' '5' Ct oom m.E ,e, C.c. e-n>'s a 5 a = e Car SCaw t2 :Coc
- 4. HYOROSTATIC PRESSURE TESTS:
no.sse No. t$s e v z @e 4 LAMINATED SE AL 8 7.ll*s?.f .
O
. , . - SHELL 1EST: aso esrG m a.a.,,.= .,, n-awa-sam-ee a we.a , {,, J,, ),, G 3 ctg,p agng
__.y g
- si SEA! TEST r _
.yu.e_
- u-se a-eas=.-en eveo.s i i i a 2 OISC 1 ..
"O, y,,(af-Q3LQg,'i e g I.3 VALVE SEAT I P g--
3 es - d- b "", e..ana-sam-en a==e. Ie a == l.e V#l'E 00U# .**..a as;,G.
OS. VALVE lEl : 275 . (APPROK.-- M/O ACTUATORD **-8"8-'8 '"' -H 8'"*8 I .60 .00 Oa I*S I L".,M ,
,b 66. ACTUATOR HEICHis 4JO LBS. (APPROM.)
1 orsoca vrwo:JM *F num m .rn nn m an mm.m g
=
st_stLitPLt.tIJet 8 D' h 8. MINIMUN THICKNESSES: "'"'"wa g. ggg.n...;g.g
. n..al;.!:;l.;.g to ir e-
-- .bn,**~~r 800v wAtti .n ABOVE DIMENSION INCLUDES.WMIN. COR. ALLON. . , , , , , , , 'E!'! Un!Ul'd'Unn' 10
"" "'U""'I..!
" " *.f*t.!'
' " * " U.:
m i- . . .. a g
P'""G eEARINC NECK s .nse WA
. 9'. "'*= -
i-e sen . v J siHE MINIMUM MALL BETNEEN THE BOLT suma : o'e a, ,.'.us e STOP Vit.V-g HOLE AND BEARING BOREl " m.~ e '~ nssEHnn
- A .-
'd"l'k' e . . . ,o a nos.u ne a ~a-r mua,uur.mr Mrs ***("'*! W @ N ** f*** N-wg a em'" t' ~ " -,
"^** " " ' " "
D-0804' vIEH C .C. **'Ut -.
e
.u n.... **. -
et%. .
,,,,...,,,,, N :.: ,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,, Im eos.s4 ~.,,,,o.,,,
o FIGURE 2 - 8" AIR OPERATED VALVE ASSEMBLY AND MATERIALS- am N
. ._ . - . . _ s i
- *~
1' "* ' ~., t 4Est.B .
~
t ' ~9 A a e esee . Er. ... .
8 n ..
o ' O ,-,, .
'w-2 IS 8/2 c **3 .- * .r* .= *-*"
46 dat # .. se m
.re . e se ..
,,% = nm=~
- e :ty;=s g sa (Gkst1T MI.D.C.GG A Y, -
- ~n . :r. .
3B . Ps0 015
$NIaC muiCAL t. . O N ""'""" _,
N .Jg, s .
, , , , , , ,,, ,, ,t,, -
,, D* N g ww.r# A.md M wee aW F MJ (
ME DETAIL TYP.
U'N $
C4 8' N'l8'N kg L{Tg.C II".I.'20.*"g ,)\
A s48 PLACES
[-
, g NE cria:L
-4 .'.- I I
%.(.o il 12 13 1
13 19.1 20 36 22.1
. 2 3! rdI l
- 1~ \
e
+
rs ,
==='
s 0.0.
3 . . _ ,ES S.,ET. RELA,ED P.ESS.RE
-'4 souacaev PAAT5.
o 8
r, ,,
a q .. -
44 . ,,
8 J-523 -.mL
- a 0EN0f E5 PeESSURE RETAIN!.s0 PARTS.
e DENOT
,,,,, . , , , , 0 0e,e,ESue m.E.ConnEnoto fs er.,< .rspan.E -- a uPastTS. a..
/ j ,
q N/ R .F . lmp p M D-0 a 31 'P!PE PLUG f.Q O N \% \ P" *** T.T $' .
N..I 1
/ :::-ar g f.d
?.Y.Ln o s t b
'I.
a =..
A m h *- . .E"U ~ 33 '%p 2 0a 33 3s .-.-m PARALLEL KEY 3 i
.ug'. . .,,.g,g,,
<6.-. . . . .r- 'Y' lS* o* 3 a2s 50C o. CAP Scme e W3K2*"
- _L'_ "
.l
- ___ ,__ a--s a 2T PPE etuG i t.Tl' g, , n ~. --
t: 1 26 g d===
g ,9 '--3
, , e3 26 ACTuMCR 1 3.C
(
\' g '
~ * '
g gg g. H 4.8Q'* '
f CAP
=
j - -
. . 23 LOCKMIRE 4
V'N 7 -- - - --- '"'
22.2 JAM v4JT 4 ==.
N -
\
3= . ., i
,j
{ .. --
e.e / a 72.8 9417 4 3
. l a S= a'E iw I
- I
-,uY
.w"
--r
]1.1 +e 4
,,,,L s.
190fH wuovES3 a 2i 20 MO t
- 4 C4 J c. is.i PACK:NG 4 =.%=~ . .C.
- SECTION A-Ag e 19 PACKleC r ,g8%"*]
IT 16 O3 18 PARALLEL KEY 2 ' ' * ..* . " "f.3L.
IS 14 27 22.2 21 25 28 17 O M L PIN
- 23 t eEif.N. **
SECTION 0-B@
DN CN IF ORMATION ea 16 0 Hive SHAFT I .L* WTJ te LANTERN RING l ISE h'. $[E
- 3. CODE
REFERENCE:
CLASS 2. SECTION III 0F A$sEE SOILER ANO '*"## *
- 'i?@ PRESSURE vES*>EL CODE.1983 E0t tI0N INCLUDING $ 13 BEAHING 2 f -
ADDENDA THROUCH SUMMER. 1964 ,.m,. " * * * * '
. _ g;,lJ* f **
~
2, FL ANGE BOLT JNC OIMENSIONS PER AsetA C-207. CLASS g JOB IWORMATION e 12 APeALAR KEY I
,,T f I (-q ,._
NITH I/16* RaiSEO FACE tsemeargos
- 3. OESlCN PRESSURE:
e0DYs 295 PSIGO- RAIING CLASS: ISO LB. CUST0psER :
a 4, 37 10 y,gpt ,yg K X FO. CAP SCRM 4
,,7 mw.
- '.T..fC
- "" COMMONMEALTM EOlt0N CO. @$ S M TT I mr
- 4. HYD Al P SURE TESTS: Y " a a 8 g4 SHELL TESTS 450 PSIC P.0 8942 COVER PLATE I T.'7.
p %.- f-- 4 l
,,( SEAT TEST, ' WRQTJPj-;5 SPEC. NO. SAACENT & LUPCY 6 SE. SE1 SCRM 2 m.
W $ M X FO. CAP SCRM 24 57 lI ?WF**
' O it L,a eI {.
>. _Tm.w.- , - -
i 0.,,. ,.5 nCTUATORI hl fo A ATI 3 CL NG
- ' v. 1 e. niN un TwiC=NESSEs. e6 2 DISC , m 4, o e e ge $ V f D8 C-C .
,_ .~eE.
e00v: 0.ss- COR. ALLON.9 @E i*3 vs vE SEAR i .-
~. nR.w e Noa NEy.n e sNCLUDED - 0.00*
-=_ m FOR : - -MIN.E THE pm , MIN..,m WML DE TNEE.Nea THE T FLAseCE NO,L,E,,s E *C 00Dy S,E.
. ~ .is
. a__ _ -_: u - - a .
VALVE BODY l
_ __._ _ cLow == c c. openstows . g. m c.e. omEusions
. .. .... .m . . .. 3.jeny, - , 1 sE = Ct.ow _ . . ~ = - wa at sti statt esist pg.;;ggg,:g eg.g.;;;ggg gggg 1
7 . .. . ;;,.....,,.. . ;,. .;;; ;-
ggg;._ __.J gg;=gwmm.g gw 4 gg::g gg =..n.:m di.n7.-m.
34 .....3.......a- a a-a o.o m . .. e . .....
gg ;;;n.pg;g.,g,
~i;;. =nn C n Emu. -
g g.rt.;;g wa 2s~ HAFER 33
- u.. .,.... . . . . . .
y, g_ ,
,,,,,,,,,,, % "..- STOP VALVE c..~ m . .. .. ... u..,... _ ,. m , .
_._2 . . ...
, y,,
jm, ze.o. -..
. .~..
g _ _,,, ,,,,,,,,,,
_. 3%y
- s. . .. o. . ...
--4'*,,*gng l,- H 4 :F ".'2&. _rsg; r;;
'::H
- 1 ;',;d,, " *' o. ,, a ~. i , -
0-0805o e
s e- NTS ...m . .
an. IE
- m. s** - " 04-2942-ot Ni FIGURE 3 - 26" AIR OPERATED VALVE ASSEMBLY AND MATERIALS '3 o,
(Q (D
y 7 s . . .
Page 16 c - .
- v. ' ..
. 2.1. 3' Operation 1
~The operation of the'Tricentric valve is extremely simple since there are only 2 moving parts,--the disc assembly and the shaft.
The valve operates by changing the position of the disc relative to the seat. This is accomplished through the application of a torque
'on the valve shaft through the entire operating range-of 90 degrees.
u _( Zero degrees being fully closed and 90 degrees fully open). There are e . .
-seven.different torques of:importance that the valve will encounter
,,g -
depending on the disc position or the change in position required, if any.' The valve shaft must be designed to withstand the' worst case combination of these operating torques without being overstressed.
, These torques are described in a random sequence since they may occur I
. ~1n different sequences during actual valve operation.
.1. : Bearing friction torque is the result of the flow or pressure >
forces acting on~the disc which~are transmitted to the bearing through the shaft which supports the disc. The bearing friction I
torque.is proportional to these forces acting on the disc and the !
coefficient of friction between the shaft and the bearing materials.
Bearing friction torque must be ov,ercome anytime the disc is-required to change position.
'2. ' Packing or seal friction torque is the result of the forces w
, ~the packing. exerts on the shaft. These forces are a result of
'r;
.the packing gland force and the internal valve pressure.
The packing gland force is required to effect a shaft seal.
.The packing friction torque is also dependent on the coefficient ~
of friction between the packing and the shaft material. Packing friction torque must also be overcome when the disc is required to' change positions.
2.. ;
r . . , _ , _ . ,-,,, , s.. . _ . . _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , - _ , , . . . _ - - , _ . . - . _ _ , . . . _ . _ -
Page 17
.3. PAM (Pressure Area Method) torque is the. torque produced by.the differential pressure acting on the unequal areas of either side of the eccentric shaft centerline. (Figure 4) The PAM
-torque'is therefore dependent on the valve size, shaft eccentricity,
.and the differential pressure. Depending on which side of the
' disc the pressure is-applied, the PAM torque may aid seating or unseating of the valve' disc.
- 4. -Seating torque is the amount of torque required to develop the normal-forces between the seat and seal to effect a tight
{
closure. Seating torque is dependent on the sealing materials,
,- seal thickness, valve geometry, valve size, differential pressure, and leakage requirements. As seen in Figure 5, as the valve is
.. seated by applying a closing moment Tg , the normal forces RN will increase. Since the seal angle varies around the seal circumference, R also varies, thus at the point where R Nis a -
N
- i. minimum, a sufficient loading must be applied to effect a seal.
Sealing characteristics will be further discussed in the section under Valve Sealing Characteristics (Section 6.0).
]
6 f
.e {
- - , - ,-. , _ ~ . , . , . .
- Page 18
.; .. , .oISC Axis g CONE AXIS 3 '
r ECCENTR'ICITY(E) i T CLOS P Rg
/ j
, [ 'R
/ lT DISC / SEAL 1 RT -
- I RN li 1.
. 1 I
T1 = Closing torque applied by actuator P = Force equivalent to disc pressure loading RN = Normal seat reaction force due to torque application RT = Tangential seat reaction force due to disc motion (friction) r DISC WITH-CLOSING FORCES APPLIED .
FIGURE 4
.. i
4 Page 19 5., Unseating torque is the torque required to move the seal out
.of contact with th'e seat. Unseating torque is also dependent on the sealing materials, seal thickness, valve geometry, valve size, differential pressure, and also the seating torque. As described
',- in the section under Valve Design, when no pressure was applied to the valve, the unseating torque was small relative to the applied seating torque. However, when pressure is applied to the shaft side of the disc, not only does the normal force (RN )
increase but also the frictional force (R )T which resists opening.
This increase in frictional force may exceed the PAM torque.
Thus an actuator is selected to provide'an output torque greater l than PAM torque.. Typically 1.2 to 1.5 times the PAM torque is required to unseat the valve.
- 6. Weight offset torque is the result of the C.G.* of the disc being displaced from the rotation point. The weight offset torque i
is proportional to the disc weight, shaft eccentricity, disc position, and 't'he valve installation position. On small size -
, valves the weight offset torque is generally an insignificant amount since the disc' weight is 'so small .
- 7. Fluid aerodynamic torque is the torque due to interaction of the flowing media with the valve disc. This is covered in detail in Section 5.0.
- Center of Gravity
.. i
. _ . - , . - , . , - - . . , . . . . . . , , , , - , - - . , - - - - , - - _ - . . . ~ , . - - - - - - . -
Page 20 As seen in the Vought Corp. Test Report (Reference 7.0) the running torque was approximately 1000 in.lbs. This is seen in Figure.-8 Run.1 and Fig. 15 Run 8.( of the Vought Report) with no flow
.through the valve. This running torque is a combination of bearing, packing, and weight offset torque values. The unseating torque may also be seen, which was approximately 1500 in.lbs. when a seating
. torque of approximately 18,000 in.lbs. was used to close the valve with a 80 PSIG air supply.to the actuator. Torques for the 8" valve on this order would be about the same. For the 26" valves these J
tcrques are expected to be less than 10% of the actuator output i- torque.
2.2 Actuatcr Design (Pneumatic Spring Return) h ..
2.2.1 Geometry .
The basic actuator is a device by which air pressure is converted to thrust through a linear cylinder and then converted to a rotary i: (90*) motion through the use of a " Scotch-Yoke". This device has a
' :' torque output'at.the beginning and end of its stroke, commonly referred to as breaking torque, that is approximately twice the magnitude of
. [..
the torque output at the center of.Its stroke, referred to as running torque. The basic design of the scotch yoke can be seen in Figure 5.
~{
r Page 21 ,
ex 3 xxxxxxxxxxxy [ ,.<',.- .- ,. \
f -
i,
'...s. .i A ' ~'
I 3
r, ;
q l j
A.
r.
, i - ), ' ;
K s.. . ' . - (
L N
- /
/
?,
. BEARING
/ <
j 4 s$s<xsssssssss x FIGURE 5 - ACTUATOR SCOTCH YOKE DESIGN J From the above it can be seen that the moment arm varies 1
throughout the stroke. By geometric design the moment arm length I at the beginning and end of the stroke can be found by dividing
' the moment arm length at the center by the cosine of 45 0 or .707.
By performing this arithmetic it will be found that the moment arm at the beginning and ending is roughly one and one half times the moment arm at the, center.
By design the " Scotch Yoke" mechanism multiplies the force imparted by the piston thru a reaction from the bearings. As l pressure is applied to the piston the pin or roller is moved against the slot in the yoke causing the rod to act on the bearing.
'~
To keep the action in a static condition a force or resistance
.must'be applied to the yoke equal to the force from the bearing.
The total resultant force then becomes the piston area times the 0
pressure applied divided by the cosine of 45 .
_ . , , . . _ , _ _ - , - _ . . - - . - _ - . ~ . - -
Page 22 The torque output from a " Scotch-Yoke" mechanism can b'e
. calculated as :follows:
TORQUE AT CENTER OF STROKE T = P X A X MA Where:
T = Tor,que in in-lb
. P = Operating pressure in p.s.i.
MA = Moment arm in inches at center A = Area of_the piston in square inches
-l' TORQUE AT BEGINNING AND END OF STROKE I.
T=FX MA-1- ,Cos.45" .
Where:
T = Torque in in-lb l F = Resultant total force in pounds = PyA
^
Co
- 45o = Moment arm at beginning and end of stroke in inches.
h A graphic representation of the torque output as a function of disc position can be seen in Figure 6.
e4 $ e v . - - .-% , - . _ _ _, .- . . . . _ . . . , _ . , , . . , . ._ . , --- - - . -
y Page 23 break torque g .
n .
5 0
running torque -
a tr h
e q O' . 4s* 90*
i- ROTATlON FIGURE 6 - Typical torque output .for double acting scotch yoke actuator.
e Since thrust is converted to rotary motion, a spring is used opposing the air cylinder to provide a " Fail Safe" actuator. The
" Fail Safe" actuator is capable of performing its safety related function in the event of a loss of either the air supply or the control signal to the solenoid valve whicli controls the air supply to the actuator. The basic construction of the " Fail Safe" actuator -
is seen here.
r ..
ffffaf I 8PG
~g / . e _ ._ g g.$.
33
____ j=? %
FIGURE 7 - Fail safe, spring return actuator design e
F
.. i .
-i Page 24 t
Since ~the output of the unit is a function of the thrust applied, a new torque output curve must be used because the air cylinder not only moves the " Scotch Yoke" but must now also
. compress the spring. A-typical torque output graph is shown here for both the pressure stroke an'd the spring return stroke. .
A description.of actual output torque values ~ will be presented in the Operation Section. .
- !. i. : .i 28 .. ...n . 4.
w .. . . . uw . g:.w :
4..... .... .:. .... ..... !
- 9. ... .
..& ... .. ...: . ..n. g:
- i
- -
- i. : s : : ! :
. .... . ... gmm.m.o+m. ..om .o.9m.o.ono..s. o oo monoom 9.omo..
i g : : .: : i : :
i . ! !. 'I ! ! !
- l*************!
e i
....*:'*************4***************'"****"*****t***************>'****"*******I . i
- s . *
- i.
.. .. .<- . ..1...
~. .... :
2]BBB...... .. .. ! . .. . :..! ..... ..! ... .... !.. gi..... .. ..!. ... i....... .. i : ..... ! .... ..:.
...l......... .?. ... :. ..i;.... ..
- ...... . }. ..... i....... .. j.. . .1j.ggpg
175B0.. . ' . . . . . . . . . . . .i... . ..i... ..... ..,.i...........!............it............i,......__3.... i .. .!
- 2 h *
...........p.... . . . . . . .
8 ... .. l ..... . I...... . ..g.......f....
i e-- - i i : i: i,
- bli i
. - . . . . . . . .: .....n *
. . . . .p .u... .......m.... . un..a.
.. g ..u...m
..............~...t g : *
.~. ,i : i :
- .. . . . _.. .!. .m ....
,- : i
- i i i i: : l ! 8B'oS1 :
g ]B5BB e, g EX F Q -i
' ! t-
- g 7..... . ..: ............ ;
.........3..-
i ,, 7000..........i............!......:..........i ! !
..-...........m..m...m..m..m..-.........
!. i 7BP51i
- w. : !
- 7 : ! ! . :
u.... .. .g I.... ... . .. g:.. .. .n.m . .! . .. ...... .gi. ... . m* a! maauma =. ! :
== am m (* m awa...n!. uu...o... .. !
' ' l i i ! -
i i i 35BB. .. i i
............._i..........,.........:...............m........_.m..i..m......i.............,i i i
- 8
- *i .
..u.. : : .
t : *
..........g. ..... . 4....u.. ..:....... m e m t m m m m a... ..pum a uamm. .a....u..n... .
- : : : : i : :
I, : ,
- i, : i, :, : :
@ , , , , , , , , , , r , ,
s s s a s s s s e e a s s s s s s s m e em m em c=,s en es en en
- m m r- ,
u i.o r. co c:n Yoke Arm Angle FIGURE 8 - Typical torque output curves for a spring return actuator
t page 25 2.2.2D Actuator Design Materials.
Th'e Bettis act'uators used for this job are the T series' actuators. These were _further specified to be the N version Lfor nuclear service and qualified per IEEE 323-1974,
'IEEE 344-1975, and IEEE 382. These actuators incorporate use of special materials for nuclear service as listed below.
Special-Material:_ .
Grease - Molykote 44 (medium grade)
Seals - Ethylene Propylene (certified to 1.4 x 108 rads)
Internal cylinder coating - Molybdenum disulfide Yoke pin and rollers - Ryton coated
~
. . It should also'be noted that since these units are of the
=m ,
_. fail safe type, the spring is a critical safety component.
~All springs supplied on this order were 100% magnaflux inspected
- to insure the spring quality.
f 4
e 4 h e
e- -
Page 26 4
2.2.3 Actuator and Valve ~ Operation (Pneumatic / Spring Return)
I- -
2.2.3.1 Actuators and Accessories Supplied A complete list of all accessorics used on each pneumatically actuated valve can be.found in Table 1 and each is further described
-here.-
An.Asco scienoid valve is used on each actuator to control the
, air supply to the actuator and, to " dump".the air in the cylinder
' which~ allows the valve to open or.close as required. The solenoid
]_ valves are 3 way, internal piloted diaphragm valves. 'Jhe solenoid '
' valves are controlled by a 120 VAC coll. When the coil is de-energized J. by intentional or. faulted conditions, the cylinder port is allowed to discharge through the exhaust port and thereby allow the spring return
. actuator to perform its required function. When the coil is energized, the supply pressure is directed into the cylinder and rotates the valve in a, direction opposite to spring induced rotation. The solenoid valve model used is.a NPL8316E34E. This valve is designated for use in nuclear power applications which consists of providing IEEE compliance and a waterproof solenoid enclosure. It is a high flow valve which has
- 1 in. NPT ports and a 1 in. orific.e. All elastomeric materials of t- .
construction are Ethylene Propylene material.
. Limit switches are also provided, mounted on the actuator to
>- Indicate full open or closed position. One of each model no. switch is provided, one set for the open position and the other set for the closed position. The switch model nos are Namco EA 180-31302 and
..EA 180-32302 which are DPDT switches with 2 normally open and 2 normally closed contacts and are quick make-quick break type. The switches.are of the spring return type with one model being CW 4
i'
Page 27-4..-
, operation and the other CCW operation. Both switches use the same lever
.. arm which is-a Namco model EL-060-53300.
5 J
' s
.' e h4 .
,9'
' f l' e7 ..
J 4
I. .
I-
- F i.
I. _
n 2 4
. g.
F I
e J.
l l
t i
l-i l .-
( -. ;
TABLE 1 PNEUMATIC ACTUATED UNITS ACTUATOR ACCESSORIES FAIL-SAFE ASCO NAMCO LIMIT SWITCHES
~ BETTIS ROTATION FAIL-- SOLENDID AND LEVER ARM VALVE ACTUATOR (viewed SAFE VALVE MODEL NOS.
SIZE M00EL from top VALVE M00EL (2 closed position switches)
(IN) TAG NOS. CLOW JOB NO. NO. of unit) POSITION NO. (2 open position switches) 26" IVQO26 2VQO26 84-2842-01(N) NT820- Ch Close NP8316E34E EA 180-31302 L.S.
IVQ027 2VQ027 SR3 . (Qty. 1) 1VQO29 2VQO29 EA 180-32302 L.S.
IVQO30 2VQO30 1VQO31 2VQO31 EL 060-53300 L.A.-
IVQO34 2VQO34 IVQO36 2VQ036 IVQ040 2VQ040 8" 1VQ042 84-2842-02(N) NT312- CW Close NP8316E34E EA 180-31302 L.S.
IVQ043 SR3 (Qty. 1) 2VQ042 EA 180-32302 L.S.
2VQ043 EL 060-53300 L.A.
CD
Page 29 2.2.3.2 Pneumatic Actuator Output Torques The torque plots provided in this section represent the' calculated output torque of the actuators for the spring and various supply pressures shown. The guaranteed output torques that Bettis provides is for the yoke arm at 0 degrees and the spring fully extended.
The ratio of guaranteed torque to calculated torque is shown below for the two actuator sizes used.
TABLE 2 l
I Li' ACTUATOR GUARANTEED TORQUE / CALCULATED MODEL TORQUE 1 NT820-SR3 ..
'129,035/136,934 94 NT312-SR3 '13,400/13,900 96 The graphs which follow show how the torque output varies for the pressure stroke as a function of supply pressure. It can also be seen that the' spring output torque is not a function of supply pressure. The graphs also demonstrate that the output torque (pressure on spring stroke) is a f' unction of yoke position.
i The graphs provided are based on the numerical data provided from
'~
the actuator manufacturer.
r a i
Page 30
-FIGURE 9A CALCULATED TORQUE DATA -
T820-SR3 SPRING 9 80 9 90 0- 129,035 151,954 192,915 108,197 .114,149 147,255 10
- 20 96,317 92,864 121,492 30 90,326- 80,243 106,375 l 40 88,888 7.2,843 97,848 50 91,621 69,066 94,087
-* 60 98,764 68,405 .94,686 70 111,824 - 70,697 99,794
~
80 134,264 76,182 110,414 1 90 173,968 85,343 128,801 4
. er.
F 4
.. i
FIGURE 98 CALCULATED TORQUE PLOT Pcge 31 T820-SR3 288888 liffff i ffffff infff \ }
ifffff \ /
8PRINI l 15ffff I 3
I
! 14ffff
\\
138fff \ \ -
/
/ 98 PSI E 12ffff \\
\ '
/ /
e liffff \\ \ \ >
/ /
Ifffff 5 80881 x x _f
_ SPRING
//
w
$ Hfff \ _TOROUE 88 PSI 5
x um
\ y ,
y lifff f
"2 3 3 3 3 I 2 Y0KE ARM ANGLE
- \
Page 32
~
FIGURE 10A CALCULATED TORQUE DATA T312-SR3 SPRING 9 80 9 90
_. m. 0 13,400 24,169 29.085 10 11,568 18,233 22,206 20~ 10,504 14,890 .18,325
.I 30 10,002 12,912 16,048
-sl; ,
4 40 9,968 11,764 14,765 50 10,393 11,197 14,200 60 11,327 11,140 14,294
. :70 12,969" 11,577 15,069
~80 15,762 12,571 16,679 ,
'. 90 20,714 14,252 19,467 W
h
FIGURE 10B CALCULATED TORQUE PLOT Page 33 T312-SR3 afffs 29855 2ffff 27858 26000
\1 2ffff 24000 28000 22000 2,000 \ \
i 20..I \ \ ,
! iffff \ \ neS14 o
H Iffff
\ i
\
(
! uffs \ \ j -
g 18088 \ N //
= iffff \ \ / /
E D
14888 \ -
/ 80 PSI 13000 \
0- 12fff /
lifff IN _ , #
19888 Y SPRING /
TOROVE c f
" " = = = = . . , ,
N # T W e p g Y0KE ARM ANGLE ,
i i
Pagh'34
. .. u..
2.2.3.3 Operating Time Bench Test - The following-is a summary of the operating times recorded during_the operational test performed on each valve.
The tests.were performed using 80 --110 psig air supply with a maximum
~
, flow rate of approximately 70 SCFM. There was no flow through the
, -valve during this test.
TABLE 3 l VALVE BETTIS OPENING CLOSING
-TAG NO. SIZE ACTUATOR TIME
- TIME 0F VALVE (INCH) MODEL NO. SEC. SEC.
]i 1VQO26 / 2VQO26 26 NT820-SR3
_25.60/23.75 4.71/3.99 IVQ027 / 2VQO27 26 33.30/29.29 3.91/4.19 IVQ029 / 2VQO29 26 40.68/24.93 3.95/4.23 -
l' 1VQO30 / 2VQ030.. 26 34.50/27.20 3.65/3.93 IVQO31 / 2VQO31 26 25.53/24.17 4.34/4.24 1VQO34 / 2VQO34 26 34.09/23.57 4.48/4.59 1VQ036 / 2VQO36 26 27.82/24.25 3.99/4.12 1VQ040 / 2VQ040 26 30.20/23.58 4.10/4.31 1VQ042 8 NT312-SR3 3.0 1.0 IVQ043 8 3.0 1.0 2VQ042 8 3.0 1.0 2VQ043 8, 3.0 1.0
- Opening times were restricted by Clow test set up (Air hose used had approximately 3/8" 1.D.)
For comparison, a description of. operating times for a valve Serial
.. No. 80-8170-03-01 during a LOCA and Seismic Simulation Test is given e in the Vought Corp. Report (Reference 7.0). The Vaught Test demonstrated when there was flow through the valve, the aerodynamic torque aided closure thus reducing closing time.
w 4 . s :. .
.:( Page 35
.~ ..
-3.0; VALVE OPESATING AND INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS y
v .
-3.1 Valve Operating Conditions s
The normal and accident operating conditions for the subject valves are taken.from.-Sargent & Lundy Eng. Specification T-3750,' Data Tables No. DT-925 and DT-926 and Data Sheets A0-53 Rev. A and Rev. A.
Leakage requirements are per Spec. T-3750 Paragraph 305.3.
i- ,,
This data is presented in summarized form in Tables 4 thru 6.
, "I . :"
.I l TABLE 4
,, Seismic Loadings For All Valves
~
Acceleration Condition' Loading Condition Values (g) 9 Horiz. Vert.
Normal operation gravity load only 0.0 1.0 (no seismic acceleration)
Emergency All loads per Data Tables 4.5 4.5 DT-925 & DT-926 9 = Acceleration as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity.
b o
b
, Page 36
' TABLE 5 2h Pressure Differentials Applied to Valves -
! NORMAL OPER. DESIGN OPERATING TEMP. DIFFERENTIAL NORMAL
-VALVE PRESSURE RANGE PRESSURE FLOW FAILURE
. SIZE VALVE TAG NO. (PSIG) (*F) (PSIG) SCFM MODE
.26" IVQO26- 2VQO26 -2 to 2- 40-340 45
- 11,000- closed IVQ027 2VQ027 1VQ029 .2VQ029-IVQO30 2VQO30 IVQO31 2VQ031 1VQO34 2VQ034 IVQ036 2VQO36 IVQ040 2VQ040 8" 1VQ042 -2 to 2 40-340 45
- 1,100 # closed IVQ043
-l 2VQ042
, 2VQ043
.# Estimated based on flow thru 26" valve since no rate is specified in DT-926 TABLE 6 Allowed Seat Leakage Rates VALVE SIZE VALVE TAG N0. ALLOWED LEAKAGE 26" IVQO26 2VQO26 .043 SCFM at 2 IVQO27 2VQO27 and 50 PSIG (1) 1VQO29 2VQ029 for pneumatic test 1VQ030 2VQ030 ----
IVQO31 2VQO31 .867 cc/ min at IVQO34 2VQO34 66 PSIG (2) for
' IVQ036 2VQO36 hydrostatic test IVQ040 2VQ040 8" IVQ042 .013 SCFM at 2 i IVQ043 and 50 PSIG (1) 2VQ042 for pneumatic test 2VQ043 .267 Ec7 min at 66 PSIG (2) for hydrostatic test (1) 50 PSIG is 110% of design differential for air flow (2) 66 PSIG is 110% of design differential for pressure retention
- = ,
Page 37
~
. .. l
. 3.2 Valve' Installation Configurations In addition to the pressure and flow conditions specified in' ,
3.0, the valve performance is effected by the as installed orientation.
- Upstream and downstream, tees, elbows, reducers, and other valves can effect the aerodynamic torque characteristics of butterfly valves.
These effects are discussed in Section 5.0. The installed configurations for the subject valves as derived from Cygna prints are summarized
. in Figures 11 thru 21 with appropriate print references.
A summary of valve function, Cygna drawing number, flow direction, and a cross reference between the valve tag number, Clow serial number, and figure number is given in Tables 7 and 8. It should be noted that the disc orientations are not shown in plan or elevation views in a true perspective'.' The orientation approximates the true prespective, while the views A-A or B-B give the true orientation. The plan or elevation views are shown only to give an idea as to the position of the valve shaft and the direction the valve opens. The opening direction can be clearly determined by comparing Figures 11 thru 21
.6 with the valve detail drawings. Figures 2 and 3.
^l t
O
- G
h4
/. , :
, , TABLE 7 VALVE IDENTIFICATION AND INSTALLATION DRAWING CROSS REFERENCE 7 FOR E
~
LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT #1 PURGE AND VENT VALVES
- s VALVE VALVE TAG CLOW SERIAL SIZE CYGNA PIPING DRAWING FLOW DIRECTION FLOW DIRECTION FIGURE NO. NUDEER (IN) NORMAL FUNCTION
- NUMBER / REY. NORMAL LOCA NO.
l IVQ026 84-2842-01(N)-01 26 Intake ECN-ME-001-LS-14/0 Toward 027 From penetration
. M-66 IVQUZ/ 64-2842-01(N)-02 26 Intake ECN-ME-001-LS-14/0 Toward penetration From penetration-M-66 M-66 IVQO29 84-2842-01(N)-03 26 Intake ECN-ME-001-LS-15/0 Toward 030 From penetration M-?n
'; IVQO30 04-2842-01(N)-04 26 Intake ECN-ME-001-LS-15/0 Toward penetration From penetration M-20 M-20 IVQ031 84-2842-01(N)-05 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-001-LS-9/0 From penetration From penetration M-67 M-67 IVQO34 84-2842-01(N)-06 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-001-LS-12/0 From penetration From penetration M-21 M-21 j IVQO36 84-2842-01(N)-07 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-001-LS-13/0 From South to North From South to North 1VQ040 84-2842-01(N)-08 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-001-LS-11/0 From penetration From penetration M-67 M-67 IVQ042 B4-2842-02(N)-01 8 Intake ECN-ME-001-LS-14/0 From valve 042 From penetration toward valve 043 M-66 l IVQ043 84-2842-02(N)-02 8 Intake ECN-ME-001-LS-14/0 From valve 042 From penetration
.. toward valve 043 M-66
- Cygna Job No. 85007 (other drawings referenced include ECN-ME-001-LS-10 Rev. O and ECN-ME-001-LS-18 Rev. 0). ,
D
. m
TABLE 8
~
VALVE IDENTIFICATION AND INSTALLATION DRAWING CROSS REFERENCE FOR LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT #2 PURGE AND VENT VALVES VALVE VALVE TAG CLOW SERIAL SIZE CYGNA PIPING DRAWING FLOW DIRECTION FLOW DIRECTION FIGURE NO. NUISER (IN) NORMAL FUNCTION
- NUpBER/ REY. NORMAL LOCA NO.
2VQ026 84-2842-01(N)-09 26 Intake ECN-ME-002-LS-13/0 Toward 027 From penetration
~
M-66 2VQO27 84-2842-01(N)-10 26 Intake ECN-ME-002-LS-13/0 Toward penetration From penetration M-66 M-66 2VQ029 84-2842-01(N)-11 26 Intake ECN-ME-002-LS-14/0 Toward 030 From penetration M-20 2VQ030 84-2842-01(N)-12 26 Intake ECN-ME-002-LS-14/0 Toward penetration From penetration M-20 M-20 2VQO31 84-2842-01(N)-13 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-002-LS-8/0 From penetration From penetration M-67 M-67 2VQ034 84-2842-01(N)-14 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-002-LS-11/0 From penetration From penetration M-21 M-21 2VQO36 84-2842-01(N)-15 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-002-LS-12/0 From South to North From South to North 2VQ040 84-2842-01(N)-16 26 Exhaust ECN-ME-002-LS-10/0 From penetration From penetration M-67 M-67 2VQ042 84-2842-01(N)-03 .8 Intake ECN-ME-002-LS-12/0 From valve 042 From penetration toward valve 043 M-66 2VQ043 84-2842-01(N)-04 8 Intake ECN-ME-002-LS-13/0 From valve 042 From penetration
.. t<> ward valve 043 M-66
- Cygna Job No. 85007 (other drawings referenced include ECN-ME-002-LS-9 Rev. O, ECN-ME-002-LS-16 Rev. O, and Sargent & Lundy Drawing No. M-138 Sheet 1 Rev. AC.) ,
m
$m
o3" 8 g' ) .
E 4
) G 1 3f EA -
/
S A .L PF N-M" Y_
WO O O1 I0 S TT NU T0 A-
- + IO RE _
B ::
UM _
E . -
TT G- _
S - ~ ~ i _ IN y* B SS I; '
FC l,
l r
- - AE NE B -' EH O T HH CG 6 TT N
- W 2 E N OO UR GI
-- I E O Q SN NH IA r
V 4 ((
PR H V 1 / ID N 3 P 3 R _
L _
- < LT _
- " AS _
84' H
. i il 5 TA
- Z E SE 6 I NH
= 2 V IT U
4 SO
/ N AS 1 O I 6G 5 T 2N 2 OI A QK i
A+ V VO
- - E IO L L E A
- N Il I li 7E E 2I S R OV Q
- - VN
- R 7 2 E 1O I
g' W O )I D ST E Q N .S 1 EA LS AI CX IA T
R L a_H*
s N
I V
V I
>F 1C O
L A
O O 0 27ON T4T1 EM
" M (NI AN I
D IT E
R U
1 VV LE AL VE E
V L
4 6tA RT G
2N1 E/T N I
F P 13 H OC G I
E 2 V
r " 1 2AR T
m,Tm ? 6 S n 2 =
gvucn" T =
Page 41 N Q .
28 sE -e W1 ai
!'W reg fu_ _9 zo 'A w MB !8 d\ /1 n -o g g, W m _ _;.... -
,r $$ $I e
% ^s ,.
g
/ m v @$-- ge e l- [ uy8 g m !! gh c
1 N e m
es qp j c
f- -4 g
>: a s,
! hh i
1
,a : as 8~
e, , sa 8
~
- n$
fg
.. g .. . 1 j ma f am ae -
s>
g o 3 Nb "wy ?
N a
Ad 0 0 es 5~ w 2 wp sg
^! 7EE @$$
w "figi E is -s- " "i ,,
sg8-h
-l
. ~ . . _ , _ . .. , . - - , - , .-.. -,. . . . - - - - . - , - - - , . . - . - . . , - - . . . . . - . . .
3
--unrrent Axzs sN MrE se VIEN A-A NN < ESE k %
N+
/
SH n
44 - NE-c > sw O NH N
A+ (DOHN: INTO PAGE)
(UP: OUT OF PAGE)
- 16 5/32 -
E
(.62 ola.)
PLAN VIEN n FIGURE 13 VALVES 1VQO29 A 2VQO29 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
PLAN VIEN LOOKING DONN PER DRAHINGS ECN-ME-001-LS-15 AND ECN-ME-002-LS-14.
VERTICN. ,
AXIS N T y i
e })
j l vs.vE DRIVE SHRFT/ACTtMTOR eo-N< >S VIEH A-A : -
-+ 8" --
1 R4-2 '
.i g
j 26" N LOCA FLON o
A*-
24" TO = = 16" =
PEN M-20 122 13/16 (4.7 DIA.)
STRAIGHT R'JN TO INSIDE CONTAIPMENT E4 >W (SOUTH: INTO PAGE) y ELEVATION VIEH (NORTH: OUT OF PAGE) =
0 FIGURE 14 VALVES 1VQO30 A 2VQO30 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
ELEVATION VIEN LOOKING SOUTH PER DRAHING ECN-ME-001-LS-15 AND ECN-ME-002-LS-14.
u,
Page 44 H
w S N
')
~ 110'
.40gell VIEW A-A El D CAP 26" 26" TEE LOCA FLON :
INTO PAGE ,f' ,- ,, g EL. 733'-1 3/4" g
h
\ l g- N.
l.
2'71/8" 11-
.. 'A A
, V U
- o
& 8 1/2 r-- g- -
SOUTH < > NORTH h
(EST: INTO PAGE)
(EAST: OUT OF PAGE)
E 3/8" (1.38 DIA.)
2' 7 1/8"
~
e DIA. '
2=> ,
LOCA FLOW \ , m ,-6" 4
26* 90" S.R. ELBON ELEVATION VIEN FIGURE 15 VALVE 1VQO31 & 2VQO31 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
ELEVATION VIEH LOOKING HEST PER DRANING ECN-ME-001-LS-9 '
AND ECN-ME-002-LS-8. l
.4 l
-- ~
l . ., F F ..
W L W tutt u SMFT/ACTimitut De 26 3/4" n k (1.0 DIA.)
l l
- A+ VERTICAL
. AXIS ,
, y-> 0
~
, T I, LOCA FLON k A+ 210-H (UP=00T OF PACE) h (DONN=INTO PAGE) VIEN A -A S >N
! V E
2s- .--. PLAN VIEW DIA. (AT EL. 810' 4 1/2")
i N TO PEN M-21 1
) a,
! 8 FIGURE 16 VALVE IVQO34 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
PLAN VIEN LOOKING DOHN PER DRANING ECN-ME-001-LS-12.
1 %
i :; -
i i
=
ci' L2d.t i #P 90
.R. ] g+ $1 CAL i
M LOCA FLON C '
~
T.
! (_
l I
A+
190" l g (UP=0UT OF PACE)
(DONN=INTO PAGE)
S, VIEH A-A 4
N i W .y E
-+ 2s" .-- PLAN VIEH DIA. (AT EL. 802'9")
i ..
1 1
l i
1 u
FIGURE 17
) VALVE 2VQO34 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
! PLAN VIEH LOOKING DOHN PER DRAHING ECN-ME-002-LS-11.
q ,
8 PIPE DIA. OR GREATER TO NEAREST = {$I%, sertee-E 3
ELBON OR TEE A4-bd'-4Ei_26" M C
/
Da A . LOCA FLON .,
l 't I A4- 300=
SOUTH < > NORTH
- (HEST: INTO PAGE) VIEW A-A
, (EAST: OUT OF PAGE)
ELEVATION VIEW _
1 i %
FIGURE 18 e
VALVE IVQO36 & 2VQO36 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
ELEVATION VIEN LOOKING HEST PER DRAHING ECN-ME-001-LS-13 AND ECN-ME-002-LS-12.
i
- o
9
- 13' 10 1/4" a
~
(6.4 DIA.) l e---VERTICAL PXIs EL M 90" S.R. g4 ELEVATIDN I
i 733' 1 3/4*2 %
LOCA FLON C
~
T ,
l
[ !
270*
== "*
EAST < > HEST
! (SOUTH: INTO' PACE) VIEW R-A (NORTH: OUT OF PACE)
W ELEVATION VIEW 2s- ~
DIA.
FIGURE 19
'/ALVE IVQ040 & 2VQ040 AS INSTALLED PIPING. CONFIGURATION.
ELEVATION VIEH LOOKING SOUTH PER DRAHING ECN-ME-001-LS-11 AND ECN-ME-002-LS-10.
4 , , ,
VERTICAL AXIS. ,
z
+
pj1 s .
VIEN A-A
! c-
.m VALVE MIVE
!HFT/ACTURTm E< ;> H i
j = 5" =
- i e
- i
- M LOCA FLOH O
l i
i
[ g+ H a
i j
S4 =N l vC PLAN VIEW V ;g i e E =
6 38" = (DOHN: INTO PAGE) 1 M.E DIA.) (UP: OUT OF PAGE) e I
- FIGURE 20 VALVES 1VQ042 & 2VQ042 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
PLAN VIEN LOOKING DOHN PER DRAHINGS ECN-001-LS-14 i AND ECN-002-LS-13.
i
VM.VE oRIVE -
SHRFT/ACTURToR ICAL AXIS 4
C 7 .
i f. s SWIFT PARALLEL j N HITH VERTICAL A*II i
(v a
, new a-a Nc zE l
8+
l I 3-->
u ,
/ toCa rton o i
Bo. - a+ .
TURN INTO PAGE Os 1
- 12" r : 107 5/8 J (1.5 DIA.)
- E PLAN VIEW n a m
l N4 >S- ,
O (DOHN: INTO PAGE) V i
FIGURE 21 (UP: OUT OF PAGE) H
! VALVES IVQ043 A 2VQ043 AS INSTALLED PIPING CONFIGURATION.
! PLAN VIEH LOOKING DOHN PER DRAHINGS ECN-ME-001-LS-14 l AND ECN-002-LS-13.
Page 51 p .. i 4.0 VALVE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY UNDER SEISMIC AND OPERATIONAL LGADINGS Operability of the subject valves has been verified by a comb!n-ation of testing and analysis in accord with Patel Engineers Technical Proposal PEI-TR-85-22. Separate reports have been prepared and provided demonstrating suitability of valve components and the assembly for bott:
seismic and environmental requirements. A listing is provided in the references (7.0) at the end of the report. This section gives a brief summary of the results of such tests and analyses in meeting the
- l. conditions as presented in Section 3.0. For specific information the y _ referenced reports must be read.
4.1 Valve Frequency And Stress Analysis Valve frequency and stress analysis was performed by Patel Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama for each valve size. The analysis was made using i
i the ANSYS finite element computer program developed by Swanson Analysis System, Inc., Houston, Pa. This.public domain program has had a
~I sufficient history of use to justify its applicability and validity.
The analyses were made for the seismic conditions in excess of those stated in Section 3.0 and for' pressure and temperature in excess of
- those specified in Table 5 . This was done to provide a very conser-vative generic approach to showing qualification. For stress analysis,
+ all.nwable stresses were compared to ASME Section III requirements.
Tables 11 and 12 summarize the maximum stresses in the critical valve elements and how these relate to allowed values.
- i
/
Page 52 TABLE 9 I
Lowest Valve Resonant Frequencies
.(Per Analysis)
VALVE SIZE TYPE ACTUATOR FREQUENCIES (Hz) 26" Air operated 2.50 8" Air operated 2 50 NOTE: Analysis was generic and assumed a greater actuator mass than is actually used thus true resonant frequency should be higher than indicated.
TABLE 10 Condition Applied For Generic Stress Analysis
- l BODY DISC DESIGN DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL DESIGN SEATING PRESSURE PRESSURE TEMP. TORQUE
.l.
VALVE SIZE VALVE TAG NOS. (PSIG) (PSI) 'F (in-lb) 26" 1VQO26 2VQ026 285 155 340*F 164,400
'IVQO27 2VQ027 .
IVQ029 2VQO29 IVQ030 2VQd30 1VQ031 2VQ031 IVQ034 2VQO34 1VQ036 2VQO36 IVQ040 2VQ040 8" 1VQ042 285 75- 350 F 16.643
-1VQ043 2VQ042 -
2VQ043
[
- Used for Report PEI-TR-852200-1 (26")_& PEI-TR-83-24 (8")
O V
Jgg
muse asas aus man W M _ W _m W W user .. m _.mus ums , aus ass suas muni ammh 1 ...
Table jj Sunanary of Allowable Stresses 26" Valve (Loads Pet Generic Report) ,
IDCATION MATERIAL ALLOWABLE STRESS STRESS ELEMENT STRESS t (psi) VALUE RATIO (PER ASME SECTION (psi)
III, TABLES I-7.1 THROUGH I-7.3)
(for 7.0a Seismic Load i Valve Body SA 516 17500 6793 72 0.38 GR.70 ,,
Disc SA 516 17500 3540 314 0.20 GR.70 Drive Shaf t SA 564 34500 3044 331 0.87 Type o30 -
H-1100 Operator Adapter SA 516 31500** 29120 361 0.93**
Plate GR.70 34200*** 0.85***
Adapter Plate SA 193 25000 36986 n N/A 0.93 Bolts (7g) GR.B7 20736T Cover Plate SA 516 17500 5807 N/A 0.33
~~
GR.70 y Cover Plate Bolts SA 193 25000 122760 N/A 0.20
- GR.B7 172T" $
l
- Per ASME,Section III, Appendix XVII, Subsubarticle 2460.
- , Per ASME,Section III, Subsection NC, Article NC3520
- Evaluated Against .90 y
IM ;M M M M g 5 -% --% & *g 5 -M f -
M. M. ' Yg-Tchla -12 Sumary of Allowable Stresses 8" Valve (Loads Per Generic Report)
IDCATION MATERIAL ALLOWABLE STRESS' STRESS ELEMENT STRESS (psi) VALUE RAT 10 (PER ASME SECTION (psi)
III, TABLES I-7.1 g
THROUGli 1-7.3)
Valve Body SA 516 17500 7088 221 GR.70 0.41 Disc SA 516 17500 -
6767 286 GR.70 0.39 Drive Shaft SA 564 34550 27610 301 0.80 Type 630
,., 11-1100 Operator Adapter SA 516 1 (ASME "S")
Plate GR.70 27180, 344 0.16
= 17500 1.5 (ASME "S") 25313 cm+b 344 0.96
= 26250 Adapter Plate SA 193 25000 55374 N/A 0.95*
Bolts (7g) GR.87 N 10602 T Adapter Plate SA 193 94500 83937 U N/A 0.92**
Bolts (lig) GR.B7 N 15333 T y
Cover Plate SA 516 17500 6234 e
GR.70 N/A 0.35 Cover Plate Bolts SA 193 25000 4195 GR.B7 N N/A 0.07*
30 T 4
- Per ASME,Section III, Appendix XVII, Subsubarticle 2460.
- Principal Stress Evaluated Agair.st 90% Fy. '
-_ . - ~ . . - -
,eg tm .
Page 55
. 4.2 Bettis Actuator Resonant Frequency Test A' Low-Level Seismic Vibration Tsst was performed on a NT312-SR5
'and NT820-SR4 actuator to detennine resonant frequencies. The test l -
was performed at NTS*, Saugus, Ca. The test program consisted of uniaxial sine sweep testing in each of the three orthogonal axis.
-The actuator was instrumented with accelerometers to measure input and response accelerations. .The test identified the units structural resonances within the. frequency range of,1 to 100 Hz. 'This l'nformation is supplied by a report under separate cover (see References 7.0 m- : Report PEI-TR-83-29 Rev. A)..
4.3 'Asco Solenoid Valve Resonant Frequency Test LA valve actuatpr solenoid valve, Asco model 831664, was subjected
_ . ,to both a sine sweep test and sine beat test.in each of three orthogonal
. test orientations;for a previous Clow contract. In addition, the
. specimen was tested for leakage prior to and after each test segment l~
(a segment belac a test is one of the three orientations). Also, during
-the test, pressure was applied and measured, and functional operability ,
was monitorec.
The test demonstrated no majorL resonances between one and 130 Hz.
.One orientation showed a system resonance between 130 and 140 Hz which '
~
was outside of th'e required operability range. The sine beat test
- i. which cont.isted of 6260 beats lper orientation at 5 to 100 Hz and accelerations of 2.0 to 11.0 g (within test table acceleration limits) showed the solenoid valve to be operable before, during, and after the test. No detectable leakage occurred during any phase of the tests.
- NationalLTechnical System i
i
Page 56
~ 4.3 Asco Solenoid Valve Resonant Frequency Test (Con't)
Although these test were not performed for the subject contract (no report is submitted for review or approval), the report is available for review at Clow's Westmont, Illinois facility.
4.4 Static Load Test During Simulated LOCA Flow As part of th'e operability test performed at Vought (see Reference 7.0).an 11.0 g load was applied in each of two orthagonal directions through the approximate center of gravity of the actuator. With the load applied and flow through the valve greater than expected in service,
,. the valve operated within the required time period. This aspect of the test demonstrated that the actuator to valve connection was sufficiently rigid to remain -fully operable under this load. Further details are
~ -
included in the subject report.
I 4.5 Bettis Actuator Seismic / Hydrodynamic Operability Test A Dynamic Test was performed on a NT312-SR5 and NT820-SR4 actuator to demonstrate operability under anticipated loadings which may be encountered in service. The test was performed at NTS, Saugus, Ca.,
. in accord with NTS Test Procedure 528-0951. The test demonstrated the l-
- units would operate as required before, during, and after the test.
This information'is supplied by a report under separate cover (see Reference 7.0 Report No. PEI-TR-83-29 Rev. A).
4 9
e4
, . . . , . _,.- ,.c ,. .- # - . _
Page 57 5.0 VALVE AERODYNAMIC TORQUES .
Depending upon the valve design, actuator sizing, inplant installed co,nfiguration, and operating conditions, aerodynamic torque may he of major concern to valve operability. The magnitude and direction of this torque, which is produced by flow of the media over the disc, depends on several factors:
~
- 1. Disc shape -
- 2. Pivot shaft location
! 3. Magnitude'of differential pressure across the valve
- 4. As installed upstream piping elements (elbows, tees, etc.) including distance and orientation relative to these items.
~
g.
~~
. 5. As installed downstream piping elements (elbows, tees, length of pipe runs, etc.) including distance and orientation relative to these items.
- 6. Angle of- the ' disc Clow has done numerous tests of scale models of the -
.Tricentric design and a test of a full size 12 inch production
-; - valve. The data obtafned in these tests provide a substantial base for predicting aerodynamic torques in full size production valves under various operating conditions.
W$
Page 58
'5.1 Model Tests
-In 1980, Clow established a program to determine mass flow and aerodynamic torques of the Tricentric design. Exact scale models -(see Table 13 ) were designed and built of 150 lb
~ class Tricentric valves of standard desig'n. Scale models of a 12,~ 24, 48, and 96 inch valve were constructed and tested c
using University of Illinois facilities under the direction of 1 .
-A.L. Addy,-Ph. D. (Engineering Consultant in Fluid Dynamics and .
Engineering and Associate Hea'd, Department of Mechanical and j Industrial Engineering, U. of I. at Urbana, Champaign, Ill.).
I
'The tests were made with' air in accord with ISA ) standards for a straight pipe r,un' flow' test. . The tests were run at various
~' .
pressure ratios (upstream to downstream pressure) in" both the choked and non-choked pressure regimes. Very low pressure ratios were'also applied to allow correlation to incompressible (liquid). flow' in accord with ISA standards. Tests were made
!I with flow in the normal direction for Tricentrics (shaft upstream) and for reverse flow (shaft downstream). Further, several ll; pressure ratios near the choked . flow point were applied to determine the point of choking. This test pointed out that the
.# standard rule cf thu:ab (downstream pressure / upstream pressure =
.528) for determining when choking occurs is not valid at all disc angles. The tests showed choking will-occur at a ratio of .75 in the full open position and .54 in the near closed E (1) Instrument Standards Association
- 4
, ... ,- .- - .v,...w,-,r ,.+,...v... ,,- -.-w m -..,-. . . . , _ - . - - . , - - . --- ~ - - . - . . . . . . .--
Page 59 position. The test also showed, that although choking prev ~ents the fluid velocity from increasing, aerodynamic torque will rise in a linear fashion in accord with the pressure differential across the valve in the choked flow regimes.
The models used for testing were made in accord with the Tricentric standard 150 lb class double flange design. This
, is a fabricated design in which the seat'is -at a 10 dagre.e angle from a normal to the pipeline axis. Due to the seat position, this valve rotates only 800 from closed to full open.
I
- The valves supplied for the subject job uses a similar geometry 1.
except the seat is normal to the pipeline axis making this a i
900 (% turn) valve design. Therefare, at small opening angles (00to 200) there are some differences in torque. . For ar.gles i
over this amount, the aerodynamics are the same. Also, at small angles the torque approaches the value of the pressure area torque (as explained in Section 2.1.3) thus, differences between the two~ ~ designs are not significant. With reasonable similarity between the test models and th'e full size valves, the data may'be used to predict torque characteristics for produced valves.
From. the data base developed by the model tests a computer 9
program CVAP (Clow Valve Analysis Program) was written for use .-
in predicting valve operating characteristics. In this program, mass flow rates are predicted by standard equations for flow
- 4 $
x
<-,,,n, , ---- - - - - - . - - , , - . , , , -
-- , , , - - - - - - -- - - ~ ,
.- :p
- l Page 60
.l a,
~~
i through an ideal converging nozzle a'djusted with coefficients developed in the tests. Torques ~ are predicted on the basis of the equation T =-CT A P Dy 3-where T = predicted aerodynamic torque (in Ib)
, CT = torque coefficient developed in model tests.
AP = pressure differential across the valve (1b/in2 )
Dy'= nominal valve diameter (in.)
Il The test performed on a full size 12" valve showed that the
- Le
- mass flow obtained was within approximately 10% of that predicted
~l' - by the computer model while torques were much less t,han predicted.
- Torques were on the order'of 65% of that predicted which could l
be . correl'ated by changing the power of 3 to 2.84 in the above
. equation. The power of 3 used in the equation and in the
-l. '
Program CVAP~is a derived value obtained by use of the equations for conservation of momentum for a general control volume. '
Thus.the program indicates torques which would be higher than those'obtained in the actual situation.
Table 13 shows the dimension of critical (to torque 6
conditions) elements of the double flange Tricentric 12, 24,
~48, and 96 inch designs and their scaled down dimensions which .-
were used for model construction. Table 14 shows a comparison between_the provided size valves and the interpolated sizes.
- i
~
~li Page 61
- :- +.-
' Linear interpolation was used to predict torque characterist.ics in Clow Program CVAP, thus a similar interpolation of sizes is appli-cable for size comparison purposes. It can be seen'in the table that
-very good (less than 9% deviation) correlation was obtained for torque critical items for the 8" valves. For the 26" valves correlation is -
s
- ~
- good (less than 10% deviation) for all critical dimensions other than 7 [ . disc thickness and offset E, From the model test data, greater disc
' thickness would reduce the potential for torques tending to resist valve closure. The offset E used for calculation is 30% larger than the production size which would cause the calculated torques to be higher than actual in service torques, thus calculation made by this i method would be considered highly conservative.
e
)
Page 62 l
' TABLE 13 Test Valve Scaled Sizes (Critical Elements)
VALVE SIZE ELEMENT 12" 24" 48" 96"
, ' Full Model Full Model Full Model Full Model Size Size Size Size Size Size Size Size I.D. 11.94 3.07 22.62 3.07. 46.00 3.07 96.0,0 3.07 A2 11.33 2.91 21.89 2.97 45.59 3.04 96.20 3.07 K' 2 10.80 2.78 20.86 2.83 43.44 2,90 91.66 2.93 Shaft
.. Dia. 2.25 .58 3.25 .44 6.0 .40 12.0 .38
_ Shaft Q. to
,_ bl-l g LSeal q , L 2.0 .51 2.69 .36 5.06 .34 7.51 .24
- Domed Disc Shape 1
Thickness 1.5 .38 1.88 .25 3.75 .25 11.63 .37 Shaft Offset E + 1.25 .32 .81 .<11 1.31 .09 1.18 .04 l.
Shaft
-Offset LC + 1.67 .43 1.38 .19 2.31 .15 1.66 .05
'c Ear Width
- 2.25 .58 3.25 .44 6.0 .40 12.0 .38
> N . ..
~
Ear Height
- 3.38 .87 4.88 .66 9.0 .60 15.25 .49
~"
+ E is offset from disc centerline, LC is offset from body centerline
-* Ear is element welded to disc which shaft is mated to. ,
Note: Full size dimensions are for a Clow Tricentric 150 lb class double flange design.
A2 = Major axis of elliptical seal K2 = Minor axis of elliptical' seal E = Offset- between shaft axis and disc center (see Figure 2)
LC = Offset between shaft axis and pipe run centerline All dimensions in inches w %
, - . . - ..n --. .,--n_.c . . - _ , - , - - . , - - - , . . . . - , - , . - , . , . . ~ , - . . , , - - . ~ . . . .
k Page 63 TABLE 14 Comparison of Production Valve.to
-Valve Model Sizes (Critical Elements) 8" 26"-
ELEMENTS SIZE- RATIO SIZE RATIO
- l.D. 7.981 1.05 25.00 .98
- A 7.244 1.09 24.15 .99 2
- K 2
7.069 1.07 23.57 .96 Shaft Dia. 1.50 1.05 3.25 1.07 Shaft to Seal ,L 1.50 .93 2.63 1.10
.
- Disc I Thickness 1.25 .95 1.75 1.16 i
- Shaft Offset.E 1.375 1.05 .66 1.30
.- Shaft .'
Offset LC 1.410 NA .725 NA Ear Width 2.00 NA 4.00 NA Ear Height 2.25 NA 4.00 NA
- Elements considered important to torque characteristics.
interpolated model size NOTE: RATIO = production valve. size A2 = Major axis of elliptical seal
, K2 = Minor axiz of elliptical seal E = Offset between shaft axis and disc center (See Figure 4 ) .
LC = Offset between shaft axis and pipe run centerline All dimensions in inches.
i
Page 64 r
4 ..
5.1.2 Tests With An Upstream Elbow '
One element of piping system which has an effect on the aerodynamic torque of butterfly valves is a turn which may occur' with 'a elbow or 'a tee. Since numerou's types of elbows i
(short and long radius, reducing, mitered, etc.) may exist in a particular pipi J system, it was necessary to determine a worst case condition for testing." It was determined use of i-a mitered elbow would be a worst case and that this configu-
,, ration had applicability to flow through tees also.
. The mitered elbow produces the greatest separated flow region at the inside of the turn and biases the flow to the outside corner to a maximum (see photo from water table study
. Figure 23 ).1 Further, the mitered elbow produces flow patterns more severe than expected for tee flow (see Figures 26a and26bl
,j The testing performed has given added evidence in support of 3 . this assumption. (Sce report reference 7.0 C-3) Flow around the corner produces a lower local pressure around the inside of the turn and higher local pressure- to the outside. This will oppose closure for geometry 1 (see Figure 22) and aid closure 3 for geometry 2.
Based on these considerations, models of a 12", 24", and 48" valve (per Table 13) were tested for torque characteristics.
All . valve models were tested for geometries 1, 2, and 3 at 2 diameters downstream from the mitered elbow. In addition, the 1 See reference 7.0 E-3 .
M
. - -. . = __ . .~ .
Page 65 a 4
12" model'was tested at 4 and 8 diameter's downstream. The test showed the greatest' variation of torque from that obtained for straight-line flow occurred at 2 diameters downstream from the el bow. Differences due to valve orientation were small at 4 diameters downstream and were just detectable at 8 diameters
^
downstream.
For the subject job some valves are installed closer than 2 diameters from an elbow. Since the mitered elbow used in the
]'* . model tests is a worst case condition and radius type elbows are typically used for in plant installation, use of the test data for 2 diameters downstream for determining installed operability is considered reasonable. If torque operating margins are adequate, this. judgement is further justifled.
5.1.3 ~ Tests With Two Valves In Series -
9 When two valv'es are installed in series in a pipe run at a relatively close distance (less than 8 diameters) some level -
of interactioniill occur.- ' Several different orientations of ' ' ' -
-the two valves relative' to one another are possible as shown in
~
Figure 22. Model tests performed to determine aerodynamic torque characteristics, indicate that orientation ~ 2 with the upstream
- valve failed (stuck) at 60 open and the downstream valve at full open would represent a worst case condition (highest torques .
resisting downstream valve closure). These model tests are more . .
fully described in a separate report indicated in the references t
(Section 7.0). .
~ i ,
. ~ . .- - , - - - , - . . - - - - - , - - - - - , - , - - - . -- - - --- --,, . _ - _,.n., , _ _ _ . , - . , , _ , , - ,,-..w e.
Page 66 p Q-
- =.
n_ - W W/)) s
\ tOffset ,+0ffset_ !
j ,
-g------- .q.---...
Upstream Downstream '
1 Volve Volve 5 Model Model
, Orientation 1
- r
'L
'A g g ,
l
~
I --
-f0_**1-
-hg,f . . .
Upstream Downstr$om I
' Volve Valve
'... Model Model
.a -
Orient'ation 2
-\ .i v.. ,
F//) & '
{Cffset
...g..___
( -
{
. # Upstream Downstrebm Volve -
Volve r
Model Model 3 Orientation 3 J
JIGURE 22 POSSIBLE ORIENTATION OF TWO CLOW VALVES INSTALLED IN SERIES M
- 'M T c., , e'
??k.,
?.* f.i' ', L , '; ; .qs.~O^: f. 3.R.' I ::: M t} f.:*.f..
g' [ I .k . { * .,. h... :..;,.V.[~,ql'..s er;$. ..?ng.
4 4 . ,
.* M. ';,;; *.,- y i '
i%}lj :*y.& .O?$f.hb.i? I . 9 U.?hj ~.:-$hh.
l'. '
T' % . *;l. \"!b.? N.f .h. f.l.h f Y';' \ 1 1 ,
. $'s .,
y Y
.':q. $j . i :i" i.~ :. N%:% 4M f ., ' M.
- . . . . I.4 g I
k M l _
Ei
- e y l
i
_. _ __ f l
'" EN i j
l I -)..;'.* ~,N : : -
- g ,% .
I ? .N.f; .:::8. .'c *I. -y,
~ =
M % : T ! '"
.l
'gNy?.i.'. .-.O l' .'J., . ,'.1.6, ' " ', ' ~
?
..s..
o; .p t . ) 1' ? * -l,' n
- .t l
.J .;; W ..! ! . . .1, [, .
- f_'TW f.\ ,;.i I i.I,. ) ".I. );
a-
- $>?
i .
z ;;.ll?.&l f;.'; ~.' ;
$lj!n 0.Q+-'q 2 y 0 . i . 2 :.u .. . . .. .s.. _
I
@h'-8 ;.@e - ). ly..?g.R.
- f, .. ;
, ,( .
Ili::.k:;li.hll '.p & .. /. . .;.'f,g). g h.p$'hkkh h Y 0 o .e . w.. J {f hY. s: ,. $$e ,.
o ..
.c:3,.;...f " * % .g m y< u ljjh E h h '
I d d kNNN[NMND
~~~W'SMikdiiHWi _? ...z ._
,%- < - Jr-E!E!LS8 FIGURE 23 - Water Table Study of Choked Flow Pattern With Disc Full 0.o en (490 ) $<n
- y ' .kY r; ; G .:'yz $ :-:;.- - - .8 :
. M_
_ _-- g 3'g?O.p$.M;i@.9 S,4,G.~; .f.:" -..g6Q.' X M.3,';p%.':-( p ,.~.; +.? p.1. ?/ ; w.;.;$.'.:::l e :.;:y
.f.
i
' I
. :' Y . . ,.
M1li[#%hf$ @% ?;>?:[7.*..[:
{@ ;;I,(
- ' h/,'f h j h; h.
.'1h]}M[$lk'$
$~,,.. e! .g(( > ;.:-? e.NM' a . , . . . .
- A. u.
t l
f ':Y[~:
R h:M. ...; ( = _: = h )
4
)Nd g w . yii
- s. 2.?'?v :;' .z. .. y .-
- 7
$ == l l
Mf.Mh[ I".peM.[tf
. c-F-iil g .. . .$% . . .3.t . . ; ,
., 2norw _ . -- __ ;
i h.h$h. .l ..
,h$[ -
kf.,9 ,
I
. ~@' .
$ 'l ':?' %
lN [
1 fl '.ltg yj:}U1M i
l??:-?-lrfl.(':;.:n.-l? S mJ.-o l.
(N -I,thO ,
M lg
?..?.7,. . , . . , , . . .W }T}.&
~ ^i I
{l- l A -
, .n vw _ _
j i
'h Y. .
~
l w
l menus a ? __
..c m .w r . .
- g-w%.. , . .,, .;vr-;@. . .. .. .f m.
~mm.~r, m ,s; - e ; r. . . . .-.- .f. ,;n, :
4 u.;;; . ~. . ~- + . v.a :i .q . . g:- pe' <- w. l." - g f
- .p'if . 4,@,.Jj. .'l ,: g, pjg'f,{,fg,h.,f
,jg.g*;f- .
j,$ ,
m FIGIRE 24 - Water Table Study of Choked Flow Pattern With Disc Partially Open (60 ) 0 $m
.g -
7
~
hf?f? fe,bn k. 0.I-l. $ .. ? $.?.$]. l;?0:.$.Njf._. i If l q .: .'.... .
,. xea.a' v .r.x. e : w' >.u
. .e g'
^
l
'* pli..'n
- !q$%:l."._
sf ' " ;,4? fq, v= s,5.
't ky f, .fi),..N,;r.y v' . '
"' _ ': ';st' 2.' y.\
.. b. .' *?:.i.g.- ,9' f. T. 'j * ~' ,Q n;u ;r
,h-Qu._f;:,'l. ' ' ., >
' l
- . s 1 4
o g;.*spegis,>s.m.:..w.w.v.u.p.i.e w a ..., n nun w.: y.
a v.n. w \
q.q\.r
(
q m... y m wsy h 4 gp; d a. . n 5. n wtng Am.g.;;eggi,yggm e.g. m .6 ..:.3 3.t. a 4 B:. ;
q gw +p w. g.: +
M a @ g @ p f m M W A: g&.N d N;% M my g 1
( e I
, .: . . . e- ;-=_i- 2 > ,i ,
- t. . . . '
- N ,'h- bf[.5 ' d . ---5 7 " l e ^-
J .
L.h: lildNG: ,
Lg;g ;
t r
oo.y 4: 3. w - . _
i Q; 3 Eg[n,ff.r..TQQ1;;ydl . ,
W; M,.. .,j .o ..M f i)
T ... _ . .
. .3*.
FIGURE 25 - Water Table Study of Choked Flow Pattern With Disc Partially Open (400 )
S
Page 70
- = -
FLOH FLOH CT 1-l l t-I.
f
\3//
FIGURE .26a -
TEE HITH FLOW FROM THO . SIDES '
FLON FLON .
>@ 1 _
- 3:>
l v - .
\g) '
FIGURE 26b TEE WITH FLOW FROM ONE SIDE
, r.,4,... . J,... ..... . ,,,,,,. ...... .,,.._ ,.,, , , ,,,_,.,._.,r,...,,,._, _,,-,,_,._,..,,,_,_,,_.w..,,.,_,____.., . . . ~ , .
Page 71 Geometry 1
_ RE 1 _HL Offset , .
kV.-
OPl4 i
f l
l
- })j r
es' ii w Spacing a=00 Shown Flow Geometry 2
.M ll 8L '
orry )
, / /a I l
(\fr 4 Offset t)
.- m l m .
.-- Spacing a = 00 Shown A
Flow f
Geometry 3
.M l _R L
- i .
[] Offset into
~
orrN AC
- ~
~"" Page ~-[t r)
Y hl T E
-, Spacing r g , Shaft (
a = 00 Shown Flow FIGURE 27 - Valve Orientations Relative to Upstream Elbow l
-* t
Page 72 l
5.1.4 Downstream Piping Effects In various tests described in this section, it was necessary to provide downstream piping to discharge the flow. In the conduct of these tests the effects of downstream piping were noted several times. In the straight line tests, a downstream valve was installed to vary b'ack pressure. Any increase in back pressure lowered the torque values.' In the elbow tests an elbow
. was installed 20 or more diameters downstream. It showed that for the 24" and 48" models in the full open position, the down-a stream piping would choke before.the valve model. This prevented any substantial increase in pressure differential across the .
, valve model even'with large increases in upstream pressure, thus -
the torque was limited. From the piping layouts provided down-stream, piping wou.1d provide some degree of back pressure making the assumption (atmospheric pressure downstream) used for calcu-lation of torques conservative.
t w-64
, --,---..--,....,n n ----n,,, - -
n n,-- - - - ,
l Page 73 l
5.2 Model Data Verification -
A test of a full size 12" valve was run at Vought's High
)
Speed Wind Tunnel in Dallas, Texas (see reference 7.08-7) to demonstrate operability and substantiate model test data.
The tests demonstrated the valve would operate in the required 5 second period. It further showed that torque values were
.,. less than predicted from model data. The valve used for the
. test incorporated a one piece thru shaft design while. the model had a two piece shaft. To verify the torque effect due to this change, another test was made (data not put into a formal report form) in-which a 2 piece shaft was installed'in place of the
! thru shaft. The t,est was made with the disc heTd in a station-ary position by a manual worm gear type actuator. The result was that the peak torque was the same for both the one and two piece
~
shaft design. The only difference was that the two piece shaft I
design showed a peak torque closer (by 5 to 10 degrees) to the full open position. A test was also run with the one piece shaft
, design with the disc held in a stationary position. This was
'done to provide direct correlatiori with the model tests which ^
were done in this manner. It also allowed a comparison to the
~
torques measured during the dynamic test with the shaft connected to the pneumatic actuator. A summary of the operability test is included in Appendix B.
.4 g
- - - - , w. _ . , , - - - - . . , , . . -
Page 74
'5.3 Application of Model Aerodynamic Test To Full Size Valve Operability 5.3.1 Valve Operating Times Expected In Service All valves'were designed to close within 5 seconds for flow conditions produced by maximum differential pressure (see 3.0, Table 5 .). These are the maximum conditicns expected in the event of a LOCA.- The valves were designed to fully open within 5 seconds for conditions of normal flow, though most are capable of opening fully within this time for maximum pressure differential.
All air actuated valves will fall cl.osed through use of a return
- f spring in the actuator. They will open within 5 seconds if the
_ air supply to the actuator is adequate.
In the Vought Test, which used a pneumatic / spring return actuated valve, (Reference 7.0B-7) closing times were shown to improve slightly with flow through the valve. Opening times were j retarded on the order of 1/2 to 2 seconds depending on flow conditions. These changes are of a conservative nature since it was necessary to restrict both the valve opening and clositig air
, supplies to prevent pressure upstream of the valve from increasing
, to an unreasonable level during the test. The conduct of the test would suggest that opening times in actual service for similar a
valve / actuator assemblies might be retarded about .3 to .5 (since normal flows are much lower than tested flows) and closing times might be improved by the same amount under maximum differential pressure conditions relative to the Clow benct test data.
- Page 75 TABLE A-1 DEFINITION OF TERMS USED IN TABLES B-1 THRU C-2 PATM - Atmospheric pressure PSU - Upstream static pressure GAS =A - Gas analyzed assumed to have properties similar to air UF - Analysis if for unchoked flow (sub sonic gas velocity)
W80 - Flow rate with disc.in full open position DV~ - Nominal valve size ll TSU. - Static upstream temperature in degrees Rankine Gamma - Specific heat ratio for gas selected f- Option 1 - Program parameter selection made (important only to person running program)
ES English system of units used MW. - Molecular weight of gas selected
. DP80 - Pressure drop ( AP) across valve in full open position for given
, flow conditions Alpha - Angle of valvh disc off of seat for double flange style valve with seat at 10' angle relative to valve flange face CF - Mass flow coefficient from experimental data
.WR - Portion of full, open flow for selected disc angle which will pass
-thru valve for given flow conditions I
DPS - Downstream' stat!C pressure (PSIA)
POV - Upstream stagnation pressure I
. PSC - Downstream s'tatic pressure for onset of valve choking POD - Downstream stagnation pressure l TQRI - Torque coefficient based on experiments W - Mass of gas flowing thru valve TQ - Torque induced on valve disc and stem due to aerodynamic flow for conditions specified in a straight piperun at onset of choked flow
' or less than choked flow. See definition of TQA below.
TQA Torque induced on valve disc and stem due to aerodynamic flow for choked conditions specified in a straight piperun.
.e i
Page 76 TABLE B-1 NORMAL FLOW CALCULATIONS 8" INTAKE VALVES 4 .
TAG NOS. IVQ042, IVQ043, 2VQ042. 2VQ043 (STRAIGHT PIPE UPSTREAM)
CASE: COM-ED/LASALLE UNITS 1 &2
-DATE: 07-03-85 UNITS SYSTEM: ES PATM - -14.70(PSI ^' -
SHAFT-3 DS- . - - -
PSU = 16.70(PSIA)' TSU = 594.67(R)
MEDIUM:. GAS = A GAMMA = 1.40 MW = 29.0
. . FLOW- = UF------- - OPTION = 1 -
W80 = 1100.00(SCFM-)
DV =' 8.000(IN)
OUTPUT DATA
_ SOLUTION: DP80 = .05(PSIG)
~j . . _.
PSD/POU = .9957
-! . ALPHA Cc 1 WR - DPS/PSU PSU/POU PSC/POU POD /POU TORI 80.0 .55:.9 1.0000 .0030 .9987 .7532 .9417 .0404 75'.0 .5487 - 9942 .0030 .9987 .7528 .9290 .0598 70.0 .5329 .9655,. .0031 .9988 .7507 .9166 .0735
.65.0 .5063 .9174 .0032 .9999 .7464 .9045 .0827 60.0 .4709 .8531 .0034 .9990 .7396 .8928 .0882 55.0 .4285 .7763 .0035 .9992 .7298 .8813 .0910 50.0 -.3810 .6903 .0037 .9994 .7169 .8703 .0918 45.0 '.3304 .5987 - .0038 .9995 .7007 .8595 .0911
. 40.0- .2786 .5047 .0040 .9997 .6815 .8490 .0896
.i 35.0 .2273 .4119 .0041 .9998 .6600 .8389 .0875 30.0 ~.1786 . 3235 - .0042 .9999 .6370 .8292 .0851 l; ~25.0 .1341 .2430 . 0042 .9999 .6138 .8197 .0826
-20.0 .0757 .1734 .0043 1.0000 .5918 .8106
" .0000 15.0' .0650- .1178 - .0043 -4,0000 5730-- v8019- .0772 - - - -
, -10.0,._ 0438 9,793- .0043 L.0000 .5591 .7934 -A739 - -
! 5.0 .0334 .0605 .0043 1.0000 .5523 .7853 .0698 ALPHA YCV W TG (DEG) (...) (LBM/HR) (IN-LBF) 80.0 1263.45 4930.95 -1.04
'75.0 1253 12 4902,47 -1.55 7 0 0-- - -- - - - 1202.20 4761.04
-1.95 65.0 1120.68 4523.48 -2.27
-60.0 1018.83 4206.78 -2.54 55.0 --
905.19 3827.97 -2.75 -
50.0 786.64 3404.04 -2.90 45.0 668.22 2952.00 -3.00 40.0 -
553.69 -
2488.73 -3.05 35.0 445.60 2031.00 -3.07 30.0 346.46 1595.34 -3.04 25.0 258.31 -
1198.01 -3.00 20.0 183.49 854.85 -2.93 15.0- 124.44 581.10 -2.84
-10.0 83.67 391.17 -2.72 5.0 63.83 298.57 -2.58
+4
. . . . _ - . - - - , _ _ , _ _ . - - . . _ . _ . - . _ , = - _ , , , , _ _ . . - . , _ _ . . . . , - . . _ _ . . - - _ , _ . _ _ _ . . . - - _ _ _ , - . _ - - - _ . . - - _ . . . , - _ . , _ . _ , , _ . . -
~ - .- . .-. .- .
~. TABLE B-2 Page 77 NORMAL FLOW CALCULATIONS 26" INTAKE VALVES TAG NOS. IVQO26. IVQO27. IVQ029. IVQO30, 2V0026, 2VQO27. 2VQ029. 2VQO30 (STRAIGHT PIPE UPSTREAM) l CASE: COM-ED/LASALLE UNITS 1 8 2 DATE! 07-03-85 UNITS SYSTEM: ES
~
PATM8 14 70(PSIA) SHAFT! DS
~ PSU = 1U70~(V5TA T TSU,,e_ ,594. 67 ( R )
MEDIUMt- GAS = A GAMMA = 1.40 MW = 29.0
~ "-
FLOW = UF OPTION = 1 W80 = 11000.00(SCFM )
DV = 26.000(IN)
.______2_._ __
1 OUTPUT DATA Z.--- -- .__
~ - -
SOLUTION: DP80 = .03(PSIG)
PSD/POU = - .9969
?I 4.
ALPHA CF WR DPS/PSU PSU/POU PSC/POU POD /POU TOR 1 ,
~
80.0 .6148 1.0000 .0019 .9988 .7589 .9419 .0622 75.0 .6113 .9942 .0020 .9988 .7587 .9292 .0758 70.0 -.5936 .9655 .0020 .9989 .7675 .9168 .0812 ,
65.0 .5640 .9174 .0021 .9990 .7547 .9047 .0810
[ 60.0 .5245 .8531 .0023 .9991 .7494 .8929 .0771 T 55.0 .4773 .7763~ .0024 .9993 .7410 .8815 .0714 50.0- .4244 .6903 .0026 .9994 .7288 .8704 .0650
, 45.0 .3681 .5987. .0027 .9996 .7130 .8596 .0591 40.0 .3103 ~.5047 .0028 . 9997 .6935 .8492 .0541 L 35.0 .2532 .4119 .0029 .9998 .6712 .8391 .0502 30.0 .1989 .3235 .0030 -.9999 .6449 .8293 .0474
'l 25.0 .1494 .2430' .0030 .9999 .6220 .8199 .0449 li 20.0 .1066 .1734 .0031 1.0000 .5982 .8108 .0419
'15.0 .0725 .1178 .0031 1.0000 - .5776 .8020 .0371 10.0 .0488 .0793~~ 0031~ 1.0000__ .5624 .7935 .0287"- T' 50 .0372 . 0605 .0031 1.0000 .5547
.7854 .0148 ALPHA ~ ~YCV W TO (DEG) (...) (LBM/HR) (IN-LBF)
~ ~ ~
80~.0 15726;02 ~
49309.55 35.46 75.0 15581.55 49024.73 43.49
~ ' - ~
-70.0 14883.81 47610.39 48.17 65.0 13779.03 ' 45234.83 50.57 60.0 12430.50 42067.87 51.18 55.0 10959.67 38279.62 50.44 4 50.0 9454.81 34040.42 48.82 45.0 7988 19 29519.96 46.74 40.0 ~ 6586.53 ~~ 24887.33 44.73 ,
35.0 5281.94 20309.99 43.02 ~ l 30.0. 4095.19 15953.37 41.63 25.0 3048.09 11980.08 40.16
- 20.0 2163.12 8548.47 37.89 -
! 15.0 1465.87 5810.96 33.74 i
10.0 985.20 3911.69 26.23
, 5.0 751 63 2985.67 13.54 i
. .- . . . . . . . . , - - . , . , - , . . . , ~ , . - - - - . .. .- _.... -,-,-......---- . ~.- -.- ,. _ -. - .-_ _ -.- - .-- ...- -
Page 78 TABLE B-3 NORMAL FLOW CALCULATIONS 26" EXHAUST VALVES TAG NOS. IVQO31, IVQO34. IVQO36, IVQ040, 2VQO31. 2VQO34, 2VQO36. 2VQ040 (STRAIGHT PIPE UPSTREAM)
~ CASE 3 COM-ED/LASALLE UNITS 1 82 DATE: 07-03-85 UNITS SYSTEM! ES PATM: 14.70(PSIA) SHAFT! US
._...___ .PSU - 1& 70t? STAT --TSU =-~594.67(R) "' ~ -
MEDIUM! SAS = A GAMMA = 1.40 MW = 29.0 FLOW = UF' OPTION = 1 980 sii~ ~ 1100M 00(SCFM T-'
~~~- ~~ ~ ~" -~
DV = 26.000(IN)
DUTPUT DATA
- g. __ ___ ___
SOLUTION: DP80 = .03(PSIG)
PSD/POU = .9968 ~~
ALPHA CF WR DPS/PSU PSU/POU PSC/POU POD /POU TOR 1 80.0 .6033 1.0000 .0021 .9988- .7582 .9967 .0250 75.0 .5921 .9814 .0021 .9989 .7574 .9925 .0839 l
f[- -~ 70.0 -.5698 . 9444
,.65.0 .5381 .89i8
.0022
.0023
.9990
.9991
.7553
.7514
.9890
.9862
.1194
.1371
, 60.0 .4986 .8264 .0024 .9992 .7450 .9842 .1421 55.0 .4531 .7510 .0026 .9993 .7357 .9831 .1385 8
50.0 .4031- .6682 .0027 .9995 .7232 .9826 .1300 45.0 .3504 .5008 .0028 .9996 .7074 .9830 .1194 40.0 .2967 .4917 .0030- .9997 .4885 .9842 .1089 4
[. 35.0 .2435 .4036 .0030' .9998 .6671 .9862 .0997 30.0 .1926 .3193 .0031 .9999 .6439 .9890 .0926 25.0 .1457 .2414 .0032 .9999 .6200 .9926 .0875 20.0 .1043 .1729 .0032 1.0000 .5969 .9970 .0837
_ 15.0 .0702 .1164 .0032 1.0000 .5762 1.0000 .0797
~ ~
10.0 - .0450r .o747 .0032 ,1.0000
. .5599 1.0000 .0733 5.0 .0305 .0505' .0032 1.0000 .5501 1.0000 .0615 4
. ALPHA ~ ~ ~ - -- YCV ' - W TO
~
(DEG) (...) (LBM/HR) (IN-LBF) 80.0- - 15256.98 ~
49309.55 15 13 75.0. 14817 58 48391.98 51.90 I 1 70.0 13987.26 46568.84 76.72 65.0 -~
12875;'29 43976.50 92.71 60.0 11603.09 40751.25 101.55 55.0 10254.77 37029.44 104.65 50.0 8886.25 - -
32947.31 1C3.56 --
45.0 7547.25 28641.37 99.64 40.0 6267 97 24247.82 94.35 35.0~ ~5064.43' 19903.05 89 15 30.0 3960.05 15743.36 84.72 25.0 2970.49 11905.05 81.38 20.0 2115.74 8524.45 78.68 -
15.0 1419.76 5737.80 75.37 10.0 909.64 3681.40 69.49 5.0 615.24 2491.42 58.41 i
TABLE C-1 Page 79 EDERGENCY FLOW CALCULATIONS ALL 8" VALVES (STRAIGHT PJPE UPSTREAM)
CASE! COM-ED/LASALLE UNITS 1 &2 DATE! 07-03-85 UNITS SYSTEM! ES PATfli. __.14.i7EPSIal. _ _ _ . _ . ._.SHAFIf US _
i PSU = 59.70(PSIA) TSU = 799.67(R)
MEDIUMt GAS = A GAMMA = 1.40 MW = 29.0 FLOW = CF ._ OPIION =.2.. . . _ .. , . . ._ -_
DV =- 8.000(IN)
.-~-- . _ . . _ . . . . . . . _ _ ._ _ __ .
CHOKING PRESSURE RATIOS! PSC/POU = .748 DPS/PSU = .198 SOLUTION! W80 = 30.94(LBM/S)
~~ ~
~
~ ~ -
~~~ ~~~ NOTE! TGB5SEDON5I5ERE5iIALkRESSURE'AT6NSETOF'CHO'KEbkLOW ~ T~
TGA BASED ON PSU UPSTREAM AND PATM DOWNSTREAM PSD/POU = .7481 l . ALPHA .CF . .WR. EPS/PSU PSU/POU PSC/POU POD /POU TOR 1
=t.
~
~
80.0 .5162 1.0000 .1979 .9327 .7481 .8620 .0864 75.0 .5066 .981.4 .2002 .9353 .7464 .8512 .1262
.l!
,1 70.0 .4875 .9444- .2046 .9405 .7431 .8394 .1548
.65.0 .4604 .8918 .2103 .9473 .7374 .8272 .1737 60.0,,'.4266 .8264 .2168 .9552 .7294 .8149 .1842 55.0 .3877 .7510 .2235 .9633 .7188 .8030 .1879 50.0 .3449 .6682 .2298 .9712 .7056~ .7918 .1861
, 45.0 .2999....,_580.8 . 2354 .9784 .6897 .7816 .1801 . . _ . ,
40.0 .2539 .4917 .2403 .9846 .4715 .7726 .1712 l- 35.0 .2084 .4036 .2442 .9897 .6514 .7651 .1606
, 30.0 .1648' .3193 .2471 .9936 .6301' .7590 .1497 .
25.0 .1246 .2414 .2492 .9963 .6085 .7543 .1396 20.0 .0892 .1729 .2505 .9981 .5879 .7511 .1314
. 15.0. .0601._. 114A. .2513 . 9992 .5698 .7492. .1262 . . . _ . . . . . .
i 10.0 .0385 .0747 .2517 .9996 .5556 .7485 .1252 5.0 .0261 .0505 .2518 .9998' .5470 .7407 .1295 (DEG) (...) (LBM/HR) (IN-LBF) (IN-LBF) 80.0 1152.62 111393.94 522.60 1990.35
~t 75.0 1121.44 109321.09 774.60 2916.24
, 70.,0 .. 1061.79 .
105202,53 976.20 3596.82 65.0 981.71 99346.16 1134.14 4064.40 40.0 888.66 92060.06 1250.44 4347.27
. 55.0 .788.21. 83652.22 1325.59 4471.86..
50.0 686.43 74430.44 1360.77 4464.43 45.0 585.15 64703.00 1359.27 4352.11 40.0._ . 487. 29 54777.44 1326 94 4163.26 .
- . 35.0 394.75 44962.44 1272.01 3927.31 30.0 309.16 35565.42 1204.49 3674.d1 25 . 0 .. 232.16 26894.39 1135.46 3434.88.. __.
20.0 165.49 19257.37 1076.37 3238.68 15.0 111.11 12962.13 1038.46 3115.06
, 10.0 71.20 8316.55 1032.39 3092.27 4
5.0 48.14 5628.31 1068.14 3197.56
- - . - , , - - - . - , . - , . , . . . , - - . . - , - , . . , , _ .,_..._.,_n-,.,,., . . , , - , - . , _ _ - , . . _ ~ - - . . ,---, , n ,,,
. - ~ - . . . . - . _. _ - _ .
Paga 80
- TABLE C-2 EMERGENCY FLOW CALCULATIONS ALL 26" VALVES (STRAIGHT PIPE UPSTREAM)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C sii~COM-ED/LASALLE UNITS 1 82 ^~
DATE8 07-03-85 UNITS SYSTEM: ES~
PATM3 14.70(PSIA) SHAFT! US
. ._PSu.= _ 59 20(PSIA)_ TSU..= _199.67(R)
, MEDIUM: GAS = A GAMMA = 1.40 MW = 29.0 FLOW = CF OPTION = 2 DV = 26.000(IN)
_._ .. O,U T P U__T D A_T A ., . ,_ , _ , , . _ , , _ . , , . . _ _ _ _
CHOKING PRESSURE RATIOS: ~
PSC/POU = .758 DPS/PSU =
~
.162 SOLUTION! W80 =~~ 391195(LBM/S) ~ -~
, NOTE! TG BASED ON DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE AT ONSET OF CHOKED FLOW
} TGA BASED ON PSU UPSTREAM AND PATM DOWNSTREAM PSD/POU =.. _7502 ..
, g, ALPHA CF WR DPS/PSU PSU/POU PSC/POU POD /POU TOR 1 80.0 ' .6033 1.0000 .1622 .9050 .7582 .8864 .0119
, j 75.0 .5921 .9814 .1658 .9089 .7574 .8754 .0706
~
70.0 .5698 .9444' .1726 .9164 .7553 .8628 .1055 4 65.0 .5381 .8918 .1815 .9263 .7514 .8491' .1225 60.0 .4986 .8264 .1913 .9375 .7450 .8349 .1267 55.0 .4531 _.7510 .2011 .9491 .7357 .8210 .1223 50.0 .4031 .6682 .2104 .9602 .7232 .8079 .1131 4
-r 45.0 .3504 .5808' .2185 .9703 .7074 .7961 .1018
-[- 40.0 .2967 .4917 .2254 .9789 .6885 .7857 .0907 35.0~ .2435 'i4036
~
.2309-~~.9859 .6671 .7771 .0811 30.0 .1926 .3193 .2351 .9912 .6439 .7702 .0736 -
25.0 .1457 .2414 .2380 .9950 .6200 .7651 .0683 20.0 .1043' .'1729 .2398' .9974 .5969 .7617 .0644
~~
15.0 .0702 .1164 .2409 .9988 .5762 .7597 .0603 10.0 .0450 ~
.0747 .2414 .9995 .5599 .7591 .0538 5.0- .0305 '."0505' .2416-" .9998 .5501' ;7594 .0421
~
ALPHA YCV "
W TQ TGA "
(DEG)' Y. .~. ') (L5M/HR) (IN-LBF) (IN-LBF) 80 0 16198.48 1411022.50 2030.81 9438.94
- f. _,_75.0_ _, 15454747 1384745.00 ___ 12332.82 56069.08
, 70.0 14444.37 1332596.00 19349.07 84499.62 65.0 ~ 13343.54 ~
1258414.50 23873.80 99175.75 ' ~
. . 60'.0 11899.65~ 1166121.50 26332.77 ' 103783.87 55.0 10416.20 1059619.50 27070.24 101463.97
' ~ ~ ~ ^50.0 8957.32 942807.50 26483.50 94905.25 7560.31
45.0 819590.50 25036.18 86358.94 40.0 6246.52 693864.00 23205.26 77598 37 35.0 5029.92 569537.75 21401.16 69862.00 30.0 3922.28 450505.62 19894.31 63799.75 25.0 2934.64 340670.37 18762.04 59433.70
, 20.0 2089.41 243932.19 17861.29 56139.91 15.0 1401.30 164190.81 16823.91 52645.25 10.0 897.50 105345.37 15063.22 47034.77 5.0 606.99 71293.59 11781.93 36759.22 i
~*
i
Page 81
' s. .
5.3.2' Aerodynamic. Torques For Valves As Installed As described in Section '5.1, torques from straight line model tests. car, be used to predict full size valve torques by D3 scaling. Tables'Aalthru C-2 present torque and other data for the subject valves at various operating conditions. The item of concern for valve operability is TQ (for normal operating conditions, open cycle) and TQA (for maximum operating condition, closingcycle). All torque! values shown as positive, tend to close q: the valves. All torque values-shown as negative tend to open the
. valve or resist closure. The meanings of the other listings can
.l .
( +
. be found in Table A-1 and Section 7.0, References, C-1.
To obtain torque conditions for the as installed valves a
. Judgement must beam' de as to what set of test data most nearly
. represents.the actual conditions.
For Figures 11,12,14 and 18 (Sect.3.2), the configurations for i ~ 1VQO27, 2VQO27. IVQO30, 2VQO30, IVQO36 and 2VQO36 indicate upstream piping is at a sufficient distance so all the valves will respond
' as if under fully developed straight run pipe flow. Thus, for all these valves the torque modification, factor comparing straight line flow to actual flow is 1.0 as indicated in Tables 15,18 & 21.
, For Figures 11 and 12, the configurations for IVQO26 and 2VQO26 are best represented by the case of two valves in series at a seperation of two valve diameters (actual seperation is
~
approxinately 21s dia.) with an orientation similar to 3 per Figure 27 . It was assumed that the upstream valve was frozen in a position which produced a worst case torque on the down stream valve.
The corresponding torque modification factors are listed in Table 16 .
=
e
---,---,,,.-n4 --n..-nn-,--_,n ..,- - ---.,, _ ,-----,,n ,n.-.., n v _ -.,- ,_-,,_,_ _ ,,,, n.-,.,- _ ,_.. n ,,,,n.-,,,- -
Page 82 s- .
For. Figure 13 in elbow with less than 900 turn is the upstream element for valves IVQO29 and 2VQO29. Since the elbow is not a full 90 0turn elbow and the spacing to the valve is .62 diameters, a mitered 900 elbow at 2 diameters in configuration 2 ( see Fig.27) was selected for calculation basis. Since the elbow is not a full 90 turn elbow actual flow is probably closer to straightline flow.
This geometry was selected as a worst case comparison. Torque modification factors ( 9.4 at full open) are presented in Table 17 for this orientation.
For Figure 15 the configuration of valves IVQO31 and 72VQO31 best represented by a mitered elbow at 2 diameters in geometry 1 (see.
Figure 27). It should be noted that for approximately the
, first 30 to 50 the aerodynamic flow tends to hold the valve open, yet the actuator. torque is sufficiently large to overcome this resistance. .
For figures 16 and 17, the configuration of valves IVQO34 and 2VQO34 are best represented by comparison to data for a mitered elbow 2 diameters upstream per geometry 2. C'orresponding torques are presented in Table 20
, For Figures 19 and 20 the configuration of valves IVQ040, 2VQ040, IVQ042 and 2VQ042 are best represented by comparison to a mitered elbow 4 diameters upstream per geometry 2. The torque modification factors in Tables 22 and 23.show that the effects of the elbow at 4 diameters or greater is of little cor.cern.
For Figure 21 the configuration of valves IVQ043 and '
2VQ043 are best represented by comparison to data for a mitered elbow 2 diaraters upstream per geometry 3.
The tables show model test valve angle and actual valve angle l
.-- . _ . - . _ _ . . _ . _._s.---__._ . . . . _ . , _ . _ . . . . - , _ . - - . . ~ . . . _ _ _ , , _ . - _ - . _ _ _ - - . .
Page.83
- g. .,.
for. the supplied units. There is a 10 difference 0 between these
~due to the seat angle design differences explained in previous sections. It is reasonable to expect all angles over 200 to be a proper representation of the' magnitude and direction of torques.
' At 200 or below, the magnitude may differ but the direction is
- correctly indicated. Since peak torques occur in the 60 to 800 range, these low end torques are of no consequence.
t 9
. p-I .
e f
e i
r
. . - . , , _ . _ ~ , _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . , . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ , , . . . - . . _ . - _ , , . , - . - . . - . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . .
a Page 84 Table 15 ..
- j. ..,
Valve No. IVQO27 & 2VQ027 (26")
Model Data For Torque Modification: Valves under straight line All torques in In-lbs.
flow conditions Mcdel -
Test Actual Torque for Torque Torque for
~ Valve Valve Straight Flow Modi fica tion Angle anale Normal Maximum Fa ctor Installed Condition Normal Maximum 80 90 -36 9,439 1.0 -36 9,439 70 81 -48 84,500 1.0 -48 84,500 60' 70. -51 103,784 1'. 0 -
-51 103,784
, 50 60 -49 94,905 1.0 -49 94,905 40 50 -45 77,598 1.0 -45 77,598 30 40 -42 63,800. 1.0 -42 63,800 20 30 -37 56,140 1.0 -37 56,140 10 20. -26 '
47,035 1.0 -26 47,035 Table 16 -
Va've No. IVQ026 & 2VQ026 (26")
Model Data For' Torque Mo'dification:
. All torques in In-lbs. 2 valves in series at 2 dia. separation orientation 3
.. Model Test Actual Torque for Torque Torque for Valve Valve Straight Flow Modification Anale Anale Normal Installed Condition Maximum Factor Normal Maximum 80 90 -36 9,439 2.0
.-72 18,878 70 80 -48 84,500 1.28 -61 108,160 60 70 -51 103,784 1.31 -67 135,957 50 60 -49 94,905 1.38 -67 130,969 40 50 -
45 77,598 1.43 -64 110,965 30 40 -42 63,800 1.20 -50 76,560 20 30 -37 56,140 1.16 -43 65,122 10 20 -26, 47,035 1.14 -30 53,620
^ .
Page 85 Table 17 i .
-Valve No. IVQ029 & 2VQ029 (26")
Model Data For Toi aue Modification: Mitered elbow 2 diameter All' torques in In-lbs.
upstream Geometry 2 Model .
. Test Actual Torque for Torque Torque for
' Valve'. Valve Straight Flow Modification
. Angle Anole Normal Maximum Factor Installed Condition Normal Maximum 80 90 -36 9,439 9.4 -338 88,727 70 80 -48 84,500 1.54 -74 130,130
~
60 70 -51 103,784 1'.21 -62 125,579 50 60 -49 94,905 1.17 -57 111,039 40 50 -45 77,598 1.03 -46 79,926 30 40~ -42 63,80'0 1.00 -42 63,800 20 30 -37 56,140 .96 -36 53,894
-i 10 20 "
-26 47,035 .89 -23 41,861
. Table 18 -
Valve No. IVQO30 8" 2VQO30 (26")
Model Data For Torque Modification: Valves under straight line All torques in In-lbs, flow conditions -
Model Test Actual Torque for ' Torque Torque for Valve Valve Straight Flow Modification
, Angle Anale Normal Maximum Installed Condition Factor Normal Maximum
.80 -36 -9,439 r ?O 1.0 -36 9,439 70 80 -48 84,500 1.0 -48 84,500 60 70 -51 103,784 1.0 -51 103,784 50 60 -49 94,905 1.0 -49 94,905 40 50 -45 77,598 1.0 -45 77,598 30 40 63,800 1.0 -42 63,800 20 30 -37 56,140 1.0 -37 56,140 10 20 -26 47,035 1.0 -26 47,035
- s. .
i
, ._ . . . - - - . ~ - - . - - -~
7
'. Table 19 '
Page 86
. Valve No.
IVQO31'& 2VQO31 -(26")
r Model Data For-Torque Modification: Mitered elbow 2 diameters A1) torques in In-lbs.. upstream Geometry.1
~
'Model.
-Angle Anole Normal Installed Condition Maximum Factor Normal Maximum 80 90 15 9,439 -4.46 -67 - 42,098 70' 80 77- 84,500 ~ +1.56. +120 '131,820 60 70' 102 103,784 1.16 118 ~120,389 501 60 104- 94,905 1.21 125 114,835.
401 50 94 77,598 1.20 113 93,118 30 40 85 63,800 1.12 95 71,456-20 30 79 56,140 1.0 79 56,140 10 20 69 ,
47,035 .89 61 41,861
- l Table 20 Valve No. 1VQ034 & 2VQ034 (26")
Model Data For forque Modification: Mitered elbow 2 diameter All torques in In-lbs. upstream Geometry 2 Model Test Actual Torque for -Torque Torque for Valve Valve Straight Flow Modification Installed Condition ,
Angle' Anole Normal Maximum Factor Normal' Maximum
!. - 80 90' 15 , 9,439 9.4 -338 88,727 70- -80 77 84,500 1.54 -74 130,130
%~' '60 70 102 103,784- 1.21 -62 125,579 r
- 50 60 -104 94,905 1.17 -57 111,039 40 50 94 77,598 1.03 -46 79,926 30 40' 85 63,800 1.00 - -42 63,800 20 30 79 56,140 .96 -36 53,894 10 20 69 47,035 .89 -23 41,861 i
, . ~ , , .. , - . . _ . . -. - - - - - . - - . . - . - . , - . . . - , . , - , ,,..~,-.,,.n,,---.,-._-_ , . . . . , , . . , . . . - , , . . - -
Table -21 ' Page 87 !
7 ., Valve No. IVQO36 8 2VQ036 (26")
Model Data For Torque Modification: Valves under straight line All torques in In-lbs. flow conditions
~
Model Test Actual . Torque for Torque Torque for Valve Valve Straight Flow Modification Installed Condition Anale Anole Normal Maximum Ftctor Normal Maximum 80 90 15 9,439 1.0 15 9,439 70 .80 ~77 84,500 1.0 77 84,500 60 70 102 103,784 1.0 102 10J,784 50 60 104 94,905 1. 0 ' 104 94,905 -
[ 40 50 94 77,598 1.0 94 77,598 30 40 85 63,800 1.0 85 63,800 20 30 79 56,140 1.0 79 56,140 10 20 69 47,035 1.0 69 47,035
.. Table 22 Valve No. IVQ040 & 2VQ040 (26")
Model Data For Torque Modification: Mitered elbow 4 diameters
.All torques in In-lbs. upstream Geometry 2 L
Model Test Actual Torque for Torque Torque for
! Valve Valve Straight Flow Modification Installed Condition Angle Anale normal Maxim'um Factor Normal Maximum
, 80 90 15 9,439 2.0 30 18,878 I 4 70 80 77 84,500 1.36 105 114,920 60 70 102 103,784 -1.15 117 119,352
, 50 60 104 94,905 1.0 104 94,905 40 50 94 77,598 1.0 94 77,598 30 40 85 63,800 1.0 85 63,800 20 30 79 56,140 1.0 79 56,140 10 20 69 47,035 1.0 69 47,0?5 i -
TablGi 23 Page 88 2 <
. Valve No. IVQ042 & 2VQ042 (8")
Model Data For Torque Modification:
All torques in In-lbs. Mitered elbow 4 diameters upstream Geometry 2 Model '
Test Actual Torque for Torque Valve Valve -Straight Flow Torque for
_ Angle Anale- Normal Modification Installed Condition Maximum Factor Normal Maximum
'L 80 90 -1 1990 2.0
-2 3980 70 80- -2 3597 1.59 -3 5719
.60 70 -3 4347 1'.20 -4 5216 50 60 -3 4464 1.04' -
-3 4643 j; 40 50 -3 4163 1.03 -3 4288
- 40 ,- 3 3674 1.0 -3 3674 20 30 -3 3239 1.0 -3 3239 10 20 -3 3092 1.0 I ' -3 3092
,. Table 24 '
Valve No.
IVQ043 & 2VQ043 (8")
Model Data For All-torques Torque Modification: Mitered elbow 2 diameter in In-lbs.
' upstream Geometry 3 Model Test Actual Torque for Torque l Valve Valve Straight Flow Torque for Angle Anole Normal Modification Installed Condition Maximum Factor Normal Maximum 80 90 -1 l 1990 1.12 -1 2229
-70 80 -2 3597 1.26 -3 4532 60 70
-3 4347 1.12 -3 4869
-50 60 -3 4464 1.03 -3 4598 40 50 -3 4163 1.03 -3 4163 30 40 -3 3674 1.0
-3 3674 20 30 -3 1.0 3239
-3 3239 10 20 -3 3092 1.0 i -3 3092 eI *.
Page 89 s .
5.3.3 Conclusions Concerning Valve Operability
' To determine whether a given valve actuator assembly will operate -under the required flow conditions, two sets of criteria must be ipplied; one for pneumatic actuated valves and one for electric Mctuated valves. The following criteria apply for pneumatic and electric actuated valves:
- 1. Actuator _ torque output must overcome with sufficient margin the worst case torque resisting valve closure.
- 2. Peak aerodynamic induced closing torques must not l
exceed actuator or valve design torques.
For LOCA flow conditions it can be seen in Tables 15 thru 24 that all aerodynamic torques for all valves except IVQO31 and 2VQO31
,. tend to aid valve closure for all disc angles. For valves IVQO31 and 2VQO31 aerodynamic torques for the first 3 to 5 degrees from full open resist clos'ure. Pertinent torques for air operated v11ves are listed in Table 25 M
t
Page 90 TABLE 25 Pneumatic Actuated Valve Torques Torques (in-lb)
Valve i Valve. .
Design.
Size Valve No. Torque 1 2 3 4 5 26" IVQO27' 145,000 none none req'd 103,784 401,650 145,000 IVQO30 IVQO36 2VQ027 2VQO30
.2VQO36 .
26" IVQO26 145,000 none none req'd 135,957 401,650 145,000
' l ., 2VQO26
.; 26" 1VQO29 145,000 none none req'd 130,130 401,650 145,000 2VQO29 ,
26" IVQO31 145,000 42,098 129,000 131,820 401.650 145,000 2VQO31 26" 1VQO34 145,000 none none reg'd 130,130 401,650 145,000 2VQO34 26" IVQ040 145,000 none none req'd 119,352 401,650 145,000 2VQ040 -
8" IVQ042 '
16,100 none none req'd 5,719 44,919 16,100 2VQ042 8" IVQ043 16,100 none nor.e req'd 4,869 44,919 16,100 2VQ043 1
~
1 Worst case closure resisting aerodynamic torque 2 Actuator torque used to overcome aerodynamic torque 3 Maximum aerodynamic torque 4 Torque to yield actuator key 5 Actuator safe structural torque (min)
.. i
Page 91
.i .
From the preceding data it can be seen that the minimum actuator torque margin over that required to overcome worst case aerodynamic torque is'better than 3.06. The safety factor is obtained even after full containment pressure has been developed!
From the presented data and supplemental test reports, it has been shown that the valves will operate as designed under the prescribed conditions. This has been shown using the conservative
- assumption of no credit taken for pressure ramp in containment and no credit taken for back pressure due to downstream piping. Further, i
, no credit has been taken for activation of the first valve under back
- m. pressure conditions produced by closure'of the second valve or the effect of pressure drop across the first valve.or closure of the second LI .
valve. '
6.0 VALVE SEALING CHARACTERISTICS 6.1 Normal Sealing ,
The following chart shows the sealing ability of the valves as they were shop tested for record. The tests were performed side open to atmosphere. The normal recommended flow direction for these valves is i with pressure on the shaft side, so when pressure is applied to the clamp l'
ring side, it is considered to be the reverse flow derection. The test performed was an air test in which the smallest detectable
, , leakage was .006 SCFM.
Page 92 TABLE 26 31- .
-VALVE SEALING CHARACTERISTICS LEAKAGE SCFM
. VALVE. Pressurized Side
' VALVE _ SIZE TEST PRESSURE Shaft Clamp Ring MARK NO. (IN.) PSIG Side Side 0 2,50
-IvQO27 26 0/0 0/0 .
IvQO30 26 2,50 0/0 0/0 Iv0036 26 2,50- 0/0 0.0035/0 2vQO27 26 2.50 0/0 0/0 2vQo30 26 2,50 0/0 2,50 0/0.012 12vQO36 26 0/0 0/0.007 Iv0026 26 2,50 0/0 0/0.007 2v0026 26 2,50 0/0 0/0 IvQ029 26 2.50 0/0 0/0 1 -. 2vQO29 26 2.50 0/0 0/0 1- Iv0031 26 2,50 0/0 0.0008/0 2v4031 26 2,50 0/0 2,50 0/0.005 1- 1vQo34 26 0/0 0/0
- - 2vQo34 26 2,50 0/0 0/0 Iv0040 26 2,50 0/0 0/0 2vQ040 26,' 2,50 0/0 0/0 IVQ042 8 2.50 0/0 0/0.0027 RvQ042 8 -
2,50 0/0 0/0 71vQ043 8 2,50 0/0 0/0 2vQ043 8. 2,50 0/0 0/0 i
'l' a
cx.z -
e e
.et
- y. -
2 e .
~"
Page 93 s
s .
6.2 Long Term Sealing
'The conical seal / seat design of the Tricentric valve in combination with the laminated metal / asbestos seal offers good
-long term sealing characteristics. When the seal and seat are machined a certain surface finish is obtained. With this finish certain leak rates are obta'ined during a bench test (see 6.1).
On a microscopic scale these surfaces contain peaks and valleys.
When the disc is seated, these surfaces mate and high local I
(above yield)' stresses are induced at the peaks. The peaks will 1 yield and deform and form a match between the seat and seal. L As the valve is cycled throughout its life, this match tends to improve and a visual seating pattern appears. This results in -
.' improved sealing'as the valve ages.
This has been verified by experience and is documented in the Shell Internat' ion Cycling Test (reference 7.0 D3). This '
test was performed by Gebruder Adams of Bochum, West Germany.
Clow's Engineered Products Division produces the Tricentric design under license of Gebruder Adams. The test showed . -
i sealing improved continuously up to 41000 cycles, the limit of the test.
O
)
Page 94 x
.y a; y*
6.3 Debris Effects On Sealing *
, A test was performed to. determine the effect on sealing capability of.a Tricentric valve if a foreign object became trapped between the seat and seal. As with any valve, if the object 'is large enough and hard enough and happens to be caught between the sealing surface's, the valve will fail to close .
completely and the valve will leak.. Leakage will be dependent on the size and shape of the object and open gap size which I '
remains then the valve does not fully close. Since no stand-l ards as to debris size exist, the test made determined leakage due to ' object damage after the object was removed. For in plant i
' s .
l operation this would represent leakage after recycling of the
. valve if the object was blown out of the way during recycling.
The object selected was a cooling tray liner used in the ,
petrochemical industry. It's dimensions were approximately
'~ '
4 1/8" x 1" x 6" and was a filled polyvinyl chloride plastic of C$ 80 shore D hardness. The valve was closed upon this material, ",
+
opened to remove the material, then cbsed again to measure -
I' leakage. Depending on the applied seating torque, a leakage of .015 SCFM to .333 SCFM was measured. This test showed the .
valve could tolerate some large debris and still maintain a relatively lo[ leakage even with a damaged seal (See reference 7.0 0-2).
G
.. i
Page 95
-i '.
6.4 Sealing Under Temperature Variations
- The Tricentric design has been used successfully for sealing applications from cryogenic to 9000F. The Shell International Cycling Test describes saaling characteristics for a media operating temperature of 8420F when the body reached a temperature of 7160F The Tricentric conical seal / seat design lends itself well to accommodating temperature changes in the body and resultant size variation of the sealing components. Due to f* the. torque. seating design and some seal flexibility, the valve 1.
will self-adjust to the small dimensional variations which could be anticip,ated fort 'he subject valves. Of course, if e large thermal gradients (very unitkely from information provided to Clow) existed around the body circumference higher levels of leakage 'could be expected. Again no standards exist 6
to the knowledge of Clow personnel which could become a basis 7
for prediction or a test of such leakage. -
i- l t
)
i .
Page 96 i .
6.5 RESPONSE TO NRC 21 QUESTIONS 1
Clow has pur, sued an extensive program to demonstrate oper-ability of purge and vent valves in accord with NRC Guidelines.
Since every installation is unique, Clow's basic approach is to use a combination of test and analysis data. The following pages give an item by item response to the 21 point (less 2) list of considerations issued by the NRC to utilities. These responses include descriptions of such tests. A copy of the NRC questions l responded to in this paper is attached (Appendix A),
- 1. The AP across the valve is ietermined from the customer's spec and/or data sheet. Clow assumes downstream pressure is ~ atmospheric although it may, in fact be higher.
,- 2. Dynamic torque coefficients were developed based on scale models of a 12", 24", 48", and 96" valve. These were shown to be conservative by a test of a full scale 12" valve.
Further, model tests were performed for an upstream mitered
- elbow for 12", 24", and 48" models and for 2 valves in series using the 24" models. For actual production valves disc shapes are identical or only slightly different. All difference's, although small, are fully documented. (Section 5.1)
- 3. Installation effects were accounted for in all cases, but downstream piping back pressure was not, since this produces a more conservative calculation. (Section 5.3.1)
- 4. Clow does not consider containment pressure response profile.
Clow assumes sigral may be delayed until, full containment pressure is reached, then the valve will be called upon to
.. i
Page 97 s .,
flow induced loads. Since Clow's seat / seal design is ,
conical., no special considerations for low seat. temper- .
ature is required. (Section 5.3.2,2.2.1)
- 13. Clow selects operators for each unit with maximum oper-ating torque much larger than that produced by flow inter-action with the disc. (Section 5.3.2)
- 14. Since Clow's seating torque is higher than required running ~
torques, the unit torque switch settings are compatible.
(Section 5.3.2) -
- 15. Such conditions are presented to the actuator manufacturer l'
[;
by supplying a copy of the customer's spec. The reduced ,
voltage does have a smali (less than a few tenths of a second) effect on operating times. Emergency mode power source is the buyer's responsibility. (Section 2.3.3.3) t
- 16. Yes, handwheels automatically disengage upon electric t, activation.
- 17. The ~ valve, being of all metal construction except for pack'ings, seal laminations, and gaskets, will not degrade
.l under the required environmental conditions. Metal com-
~l ponents are generally accepted in the industry as suitable for the required environmental conditions. Tests at both high and low temperatures have been performed by Gebruder Adams of Bokum West Germany for the subject seal / seat design. Seismic considerations are covered by both analysis and previous static load tests. (Section 1.2, 6.0, 8.0)
is.
j Page 98
- 18. All operators and solenoid valves installed by Clow are qualifie,d to appropriate IEEE requirements by testing.
(Section 2.3.2)
- 19. All tests are summarized in the supplied qualification report and are documented by separate test reports.
(Section 7.0)
- 20. Assumptions and the basis for use of analysis combined with test data are presented in the report. (All Sections) li
- l 21. Clow provides operation and maintenance manuals describing
, required maintenance intervals (typically replacement at i' least every 5 years on all elastomers).
e 6
9 e
. W .
t:,
e.
9
Page 99 i' .
.7.0 ' REFERENCES A Seismic Analysis Reports Prepared by: Patel Engineers Huntsville, Alabama The(following include stress and frequency analysis for the subject valves:
.. -1. - Technical Report PEI-TR-852200-2 (April 8,1985) .
" Seismic Qualification Analysis of Clow 26 inch Wafer Stop Valve" '
Generic Report for Clow E6" Wafer Design Clow P.O. No.30-14110
.2. . Technical Report PEI-TR-83-24 Rev. A (July 18,1983)
" Seismic Qualification Analysis of Clow 8 inch Wafer Stop Valve" Generic Report for Clow 8" Wafer Design
.ll
- 3. Technical Proposal PEI-TP-85-22 ('Jan. 2,1985)
<f " Seismic Qualification of Valves and Actuators for use in LaSalle 1 . County Station Units 1 & 2" Site specific Qualification Plan 4.- Technical' Report PEI-TR-852202-3 (June 18, 1985)
- . " Qualification Report of Clow' 8-Inch and 26-Inch Wafer Valves Assemblies , Clow Job' Number 84-2842-(N), CECO Valve Tag Numbers 8": 1VQ042,-43,2VQ042,-43 26": IVQO26 -27. 30. -31. -34, -36, -40 2VQO26 -27, -29, -30, -31, -34. -36, -40"
. Site specific rep' ort showing qualification of 8" and 26" valves and actuators to CECO Specs. ,
B ' Seismic Qualification Test Reports Prepared by: 'Patel Engineers Huntsville Alabama
- 1. - Technical Report PEI-TR-83-29 Rev. A (Aug. 10,1983)
" Seismic Qualification of Clow Wafer Stop Valve Assemblies Job
"-. Numbers 82-2053-01(N).-02(N),-03(N),-05(N),-07(N)"
~' Seismic ~ vibration tests of Bettis Actuators and static load test of Actuator and valve assemblies
.~
- 2. Clow-Corp. Addendum I to Patel Technical Report PEI-TR-83-29(Aug.16,1983)
" Static Load Test and Seismic Qualification of Clow Wafer Stop
' Valve Assemblies, 24" HBB-BF-MO-57-115 -135, -147 18" HBB-B F-MO 112" Static load. test of 24" and 18" valves with large electric actuator p
et g
, . , . - . . . . . . . , . . . . - - _ _ . . - . . . _ _ . . , s_ ,m..,m,.-... ,. , _..%-,_. , , - . . , , , - ~ . . . - , . -
Page ,100
- . s -
J.. REFERENCES (con't) prepared by: Wyle Laboratories Huntsville, Alabama
_3. Test Procedure 541/0465/WB.(May 83)
" Static Load Test Procedure For An 18-Inch Valve Assembly'.'
- 4. = Test Proc'edure 46823-1 (June 83)
'" Static Load Test Program on an 18" Butterfly Valve Assembly
- With Limitorque Operator"
- 5. . Report No. 45832-1 " Low Level Seismic Vibration Test Program
'on a 12" Butterfly Valve Assembly" (Nov. 23,1981).
Low level biaxial sine sweep resonant search.
- 6. Report No. 45828-1 " Seismic Simulation Test Program on a
& {- -
Valve Actuator Solenoid Valve" (Nov. 22,1981). Low level
' - sine sweep resonant search'and sine beat test (to 11.0 g I
max.). for Asco solenoid valve.
( -
' prepared by: Vought Corp.
High Speed Wind Tunnel Facility Dallas, Texas
- 7. Report No. 2-59700/1R-52972 " Simultaneous Static Seismic Load of-Flow Interruption Capability Tests of a 12 Inch s, '
Valve for the Clow Corporation" (Dec. 15,1981). '
Application of 11.0 g biaxial static load to valve actuator .
's; during opera' tion with choked air flow thru the valve. '
-C.
Air Flow s, Tests prepared by: A.L. Addy, Ph.D.
Urbana, Illinois
~(Engineering Consultant in' Fluid Dynamics)
- 1. - Fina? report on the Clow Valve Analysis Program CVAP
- -(Oct.1981). Report covers methods of analysis, develop-ment of data base from model tests, and set-up of computer program to predict characteristics of full size valves.
3
\
V s
'N x
'N x
x
'N N
N
'N x ;
Page 101 s ..'
REFEREitCES (con't) 2.-
Report on " Aerodynamic Torque and !! ass Flowrate For Compressible Flow Through Three Geometrically Similar Mitered Elbow" Clow Valves Located Downstream of a 90 Scale-Model
- 3. .
- Report.on " Aerodynamic Torque and Mass Flowrate For Compressible Flow Through Geometrically Similar Scale-Model Clow Valves in Series" (October 1982)
-. 1 4.
. Report on " Water Table Investigation of a Two-Dimensional Scale-Model of a 24-Inch Clow Tricentric Butterfly Valve"
. (flovember 1982)
D. ;
0ther Reports and Information 1.
Operating Instructions for Clow Tricentric Wafer Stop Valve covers installation, ma'intenance, and operating instructions for 84-2842(N) valves.
2.
Clow Test Report Project flo.82-003 " Effects of Foreign '
Bodies on Tricentriq Sealing" by Robert Sansone.
3.
Shell International Cycling Test (2/6/72) by M. Nijenhuis (flote; Clow produces Tricentric valves under license of Gebruder Adams of Bochum, West Germany.)
- E. ~ 0ther References
. s ' #1. Specification T-3750 " Replacement High Performance
. j Butterfly. Valves (Section III), LaSalle County Station-Units i .1 and 2 Commonwealth Edison Company, Project No. 6854-30".
l
. ' 4. " Water Table Inves^1gation'of Two-Dimensional Models of
-the Clow Corporation Tricentric Valve" by Dr. Robert F.
Hurr,' Engineering Consultant, Professor of Mechanical Engineerfnw..Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois, Sept. 14,1983.
- 3. "A Parametric Study Wa Butterfly. Valve Utilizing the Hydraulic Analogy"- by Brus , Coers; Thesis for fulfillment of Master of Science in Mecha('nic6 Engineering requirements, Graduate School of Bradley Universityysria, ILL.,1983.
'4 g e
g ; .
k
- . . , , , - - , ,,,.r ., , . -.....r - - , . ~ , - . - - . - , . - - _ , , - - . ~ - - . , _ - - - , , , . . - , - - - . _ ~ . .
.j. Page A-1 i:
- BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITION CSB 6-4
- CONTAINMENT PURGING DURING NORMAL PLANT OPERATIONS A. BACKGROUND This-branch technical position pertains to system lines which can provide an open path from the containment to the environs
.during normal plant operation; e.g., the purge and vent lines of the containment purge system. It supplements the position taken J. in SRP section 6.2.4.
I While the containment purge ' system provides plant operational flexibility, its design must consider the importance of mini-mizing the release of containment atmosphere to the environs following a pos'tulated loss-of-coolant accident. Therefore, plant .
-designs.must not rely on its use on a routine basis.
4
, The need for purging has not always been
- anticipated in the design of plants, and therefore, design criteria for the contain-
~
1 ment purge system have not been fully developed. The purging experience at operating plants varies considerably from plant to t
.. plant.
I Some plants do not purge during reactor cperation, some purge intermittently for short periods and some purge continuously.
~ - The containment purge system has been used in a variety of I
p ways, for example, to alleviate certain operational problems, 8 -such as excess air leakage into the containment from pneumatic controllers, for reducing the airborne activity within the contain-ment to facilitate personnel access during reactor power operation,
- Note: This paper is retyped for legibility from paper supplied by NRC.
e M
Page A-2 i . .
and for controlling the containment pressure, temperature'and rclative humidity. However, the purge and vent lines provide an open path from the containment to the environs.. Should a LOCA occur during containment purging when the reactor is at power, the calculated accident dosts should-be within 10 CFR 100 guide-
- line values.
The sizing of the purge and vent lines in most plants has been based on the need to control the containment atmosphere during refueling operations. This need has resulted in very
!- large lines penetrating the containment (about 42 inches-in 1
diameter). Since these lines are normally the only ones provided that will permit some degree of control over the containment atmosphere to f'acilitate personnel access, some plants have used them for containment purging during norma,1 plant operation.
Under such conditions, calculated accident doses could be signif-icant. Therefore, the use of these large containment purge and
. vent lines should be restricted to cold shutdown conditions and
, refueling operations.
f I- The design and use of the purge and vent lines should be based q on the premise of achieving acceptable calculated offsite radio-
- ~
logical consequences and assuring that emergency care cooling
' (ECCS) effectiveness is not degraded by a reduction in the contain-ment pressure.
Purge system designs that are acceptable for' use on non-routine basis during normal plant operation can be achieved by
..' l
Page A-3 providing additional purge and vent lines. The size of t'hese
. lines should be Timited such that in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident, assumir.g the purge and vent valves are oper. and subsequently close, the radiological consequences calculated in accordance with Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 would not exceed the 10.CFR.100 guideline values. Also, the maximum time for valve closure should not exceed five seconds to assure that the. purge and vent valves would be closed before the onset of fuel failures .
following a LOCA.
The size of the~ purge and vent lines should be about eight
. inches in diameter for PWR plants. This line size may be overly conservative frqm a radiological viewpoint for the liark III BWR
~ '
plants and the 'HTGR plants because of containment and/or core design features. Therefore, larger line sizes may be justified.
However, for any. proposed line size, the applicant must demon-strate that the radiological consequences following a loss-of-coolant accident would be within 10 CFR 100 guideline values.
In summary, the acceptability of a specific line size is a i function of the site meteorology, containment design, and radio-logical source term for the reactor type; e.g., B11R, PilR or HTGR.
~~
B; BRA!1CH TECHilICAL POSITI0il The system used to purge the containment for the reactor operational modes of power operation, startup. hot standby and hot shutdown; i.e., the on-line purge system, should be indepen-dent of the purge systen used for the reactor operation modes.of cold shutdown and refueling.
Page A-4 1.
The on-line purge systen should be designed in accordance with the following criteria:
- a. _The performance and reliability of the purge system isolation valves should be consistent with the oper-ability assurance program outlined in MEB Branch Technical Position MEB-2, Pumn and Valve Operability Assurance Program. (Also see SRP Section 3.9.3) The design basis for the~ valves and actuators should include the buildup b
of containment pressure for the LOCA break spectrum, and the purge line and vent line flows as a function of time up to and during valve closure.
- b. =The number of purge and vent lines that may be used should be limited to one purge line and one vent line.
- c. The size of the purge and' vent lines,should not exceed
.about eight inches in diameter unless detailed justifi-cation for larger.l.ine sizes is provided. .
- d. The containment isolation provisions for the purge system lines should meet the standards appropriate to engineered
. safety features; e.e. Jquality, redundancy, reliaoility and other appropriate criteria.
- e. The ' instrumentation and control ~ systems provided to isolate the purge system lines should be-independent and actuated by diverse parameters; e.g., containment pressure, safety injection actuation. and containment radiation level.
If energy is required to ciose the valves, at least two diverse sources of energy shall be provided, either of
. wbich can affect thr. isolation function.
c a
Page A-5 s * .
. l f.
Purge system isolation valve closure times, inc'luding instrume'ntation delays, should not exceed five seconds.
g.
Provisions.should ~be made to ensure that isolation valve closure will not be prevented by debris which could potentially become entrained in the escaping air and steam.
- 2. The purge system should not be relied on for temperature and humidity control within the-containment.
- 3. ' Provisions should be made to minimize the need for purging f
of the: containment by installing containment atmosphere clea'nup systems within the containment.
- 4. Provisions, should be made for testing the availability of the isolation' function and leakage rate of the isolation valves, individually, during reactor operation.
- 5. The following analyses should be performed to justify the containment purge system.
- a. An analysis of the radiological consequences of a less-of-coolant accident. ,An analysis should be done for a i-spectrum of break sizes, and the instrumentation and setpoints that will actuate the vent and purge valves closed should be specified. The source term used 'n the radiological calculations should be based on a calcul-ation under the terms of Appendix X to determine the extent of a failure and the concomitant ' release of fission products, and the fission product activity in the primary coolant. A pre-existing iodine spike should i
-,_m. _ , _ . _ . . _ , , - _ . . - - . - _ - -
Page A-6 R .
be considered in determining primary coolant act'ivity.
The volube of containment in which fission products are mixed should be justified, and the fission products from the above sources should be assumed to be released through the open purge valves during the maximun interval required for valvc closure. The radiological conseq-
.uences should be within 10 CFR 100-guideline values.
- b. An analysis which demonstrates the acceptability of the provisions made to protect structures and safety-related 1-equipment; e.g., fans, filters and ducting located beyond
. the purge system isolation valves against loss of function to con, trol the environment created by the escaping air and st'eam,
- c. An analysis of the reduction in the c,ontainment pressure i
resulting from the partial-loss of containment atmosphere during .the accident for ECCS backpressure determination.
a d.- The allowable leak rates of the purge-and vent isolation valves should be specified for the spectrum of design basis pressures and . flows against-which the valves must close.
l
, , , - , ,- . . - - - - , - , .,-,%-,, .- --, ,y--c,,-..n-. -. m
- T .
Page A -
GUIDELINES FOR DEMONSTRATION OF OPERABILITY OF PURGE AND ENT VALVES OPERABILITYi In. order to establish operability it must be shown that the valve actuator's torque capability has sufficiint margin to over-
. come.or. resist .the torques and/or forces (i.e., fluid dynamic, l bearing, seating, friction) that resist closure when stroking from the initial open position to full seated (bubble tight) in the time limit speciff ad. This should be predicted on the pressure (s) 4 established in the containment following a design basis LOCA.
Considerations which should be addressed in assuring valve design adeqcacy include:
1.. Valve closure rate versus tine - i.e., constant rate or other.
- 2. Flow direction through valve; AP across valve.
- 3. Single valve closure (inside containment or outside containment valve)'or simultaneous closure. Establish L .
, worst case.
- 4. Containment back pressure effect on closing torque margins of air operated valve which vent pilot air inside contain-ment.
- 5. Adequacy:of accumulator (when used) sizing and initial charge .for valve cicsure . equirements.
- 6. For valve operators using torque limiting devices - are
- the settings of the devices compatible with the torques required to operate the valve during the design basis condition.
t L -
Page A-8
.. t 7
Th'e effect of the piping system (turns, branches') up-
. stream and downstream of all valve installations.
- 8. The effect of butterfly valve disc and shaft orientation to the fluid mixture egressing from containment.
DEMT STRATI 0tl Demonstration of the. various aspects of operability of purge and vent valves may be by analysis, bench testing, insitu testing _
or a combination of these means. -
Purge and vent' valve structural elements (valve / actuator
!~
'I assembly) must be evaluated to have sufficient stress margini to withstand loads imposed while valve closes during a design buis accident.. Tors,ional shear, shear, bending, tension and compression loads / stresses should be considered. Seismic loadings should be addressed.
Once valve closure and structural integrity are assured by
'l analysis, testing or a suitable combination, a d?.temirttion of l the sealing in'tegrity after closure and long term exposure to the
.o .
containment environment should be evaluated. Emphasis should be j
directed at the effect of' radiation and of the conteinment spray chemical solutions on seal material. Other aspects such as the effect'on sealing from outside ambient temperatures and debris should be considered.
The following considerations apply when testing is chosen as a means for demonstrating valve operability:
g;s-gj
Page A-9 Bench Testing A. Bench testin'g can be used to demonstrate suitability of the in-service valve by reason of its tracibility in design to a-test valve. The following factors should be considered
+-
when qualifying valves through bench testing.
- 1. Whether a valve was qualified by testing of an identical valve assembly or by extrapolation of data from a similarly designed valve.
- 2. Whether measures were taken to assure that piping up-
-,:. stream and downstream and valve orientation are simulated.
- 3. Whether the following load and environmental factors were considgred
- a. Simulation of LOCA n b. Seismic loading
- c. Temperature soak
- d. Radiation exposure *
- e. Ch'emical exposure p f. Debris
- g. B.
-l Bench testing of installed valves to demonstrate the suitability t
of the specific valve to perform its required function during i
the postulated design basis accident is acceptable.
1 '
1.
The factors listed in items A.2.and A.3 should be considered when taking this approach.
In-Situ Testino In-situ testing of purge and vent valves may be performed to confirm the suitability of the valve under actual conditions.
l I
\
l I
. l i l
r7s, - ,
( ,
, Page A-10
'd? -
. - t '
=
T r e-Uhen performing -such test, 'the conditions (loading, environment)-
to which the~ valv'e(s) will be subjected during the test should
' simulate the design basis ~ accident.
NOTE: Post test valve examination should be performed to establish structural integrity of the key valvc/ actuator components.
End CSB 6-4 i
4 9
)
9
-t .
5f O
NW '
e d
e i
, e4 h
_]
Page A-ll~
C's Lt.
CLARIFICATION OF SEPT. 27 LETTER TO LICENSEES REGARDING '*
DEMONSTRATION OF dPERABILITY OF PURGE AND VENT VALVES l' .
The aP across the valve is in part predicated on the contain-ment pressure and gas density conditions. What were the
- containment conditions used to determine the AP's across the valve at the incremental angle positions during the closure cycle?
- 2. Were the dynamic torque coefficients used for the deter-f _
mination of torques developed, based on data resulting from s
- actual' flow tests conducted on the particular disc shape /
design / size? What was the basis used to predict torques developed Jn valve sizes different .(especially larger valves) than the s'izes known to have undergone flow tests?
- 3. Were installation effects accounted for in the determination of dynamic t'orques' developed? Dynamic torques are kncwn to 1
be affected for example, by flow direction through valves
.\ .
with off' set discs, by downstream piping backpressure, by shaft orientation relative to elbows, etc. What was the basis (test data or other) used-to predict dynamic torques for the s
particular valve installation?
- 4. When comparing the containment pressure response profile against the valve position at a given instant of time, was L
the valve closure rate vs. time (i.e. contstant or other)
. taken into account? For air operated valves equipped with spring return operators, has the lag time from the time the l' .
- Note: This paper is retyped for legibility from paper supplied l[ by NRC.
m N
Page A- U -
o~
F valve receives a signal ~to the time the valve start's to s'troke.- been accounted .for?
QM: Where a butterfly valve assembly is equipped with spring to. close' air operators (cylinder, diaphragn, etc.), there typically is a lag time from the time'the isolation signal is
.recei.ved (solenoid valve usually deenergized) to the time the operator starts to move the valve. In the case of an air
., cylinder, the pilot air on the opening side of the cylinder
-(.
'is approximately 90 psig when the valve is open, and the spring force available may not start to move the piston until the air on this opening side is vented (solenoid valve de-energizes) below about 65 psig, thus the lag time.
- 5. Provide the.necessary information for the table shown below for valve positions from the initial oper) position to the U
seated position (10 increments if practical).
l-Valve Position
-l - (in degrees - 900 Predicted aP Maximum aP t .
- = full o'oen) (across valve) (capability)
- 6. What Code, standards or other criteria,'was the valve designed to? What are the stress allowables- (tension, shear, torsion, etc.) used for critical elements such as disc, pins, shaft yoke, etc. in the valve assembly? What load combinations were used?
- 9. For those valve assemblies (with air operators) inside contain-ment, has the containment pressure rise (backpressure) been considered as to its effect on torque margins available (to close and seat the valve) from the actuator? Ouring the closure period, air must be vented from the actuators opening et
-m_
b . ,
Page A-13 co- 1 ,
.1;
~
side through the solenoid valve into this backpressu.re.
Discuss the installed actuato, bleed configuration and provide basis for not considering this backpressure effect a problem
=on' torque margi'. Valve assembly using 4 way solenoid valve should especially be reviewed.
- 10. Where air operated valve assemblies use accumulators as the fail-safe feature, describe the accumulator air system config-uration and its operation. Provide necessary information to show the adequacy ofthe accumulator to stroke the valve i.e.
t t:
sizing and operation starting from lower limits of initial air pressure charge. Discuss active electrical components in.the accumulator system, and the basis used to determine their qualification for the environmental conditions exper-
'ienced. Is the accumulator system seismi,cally designe'd?
- 11. For valve assemblies requiring a seal pressurization system (inflatable main seal) describe the air pressurization g- .
system c6nfiguration and operation including means used to determine that valve closure and seal pressurization have l
'taken place. , Discuss active electrical-components in this system, and the basis used to_ determine their qualification
-for the environmental condi-ion experienced. Is this system seismically designed.
g For this ' type valve, has it been determined that the " valve travel stops" (closed position) are capable 'of withstanding g
the loads imposed at closure during the DBA-LOCA conditions.
V h
p .-- ;
l
\
page A-14 u w z 12.
Describe.the modification made tc the valve assembly to linit the' opening angle. . With this modification, is there sufficient torque margin available from the operator. to overcome any
.- : dynamic torques developed that tend to oppose valve closure, starting from the valve's. initial open position? Is there sufficient torque margin available, from the operator to fully seat the valve? Consider seating torques required with seats
. .. that have been at low ambient temperatures. -
- 13. Does.the maximum torque developed by the valv_e during closure t-exceed the maximum torque rating of the~ operators? CcC d this affect operability?
- 14. Has the ma,x.imum torque value determined in =12 been found to be compatible with' torque limiting settings .where applicable?
- 15. <Where electric motor operators are used..has the mininua avail-lable voltage to the electric operator under both normal or
.l emergency modes been. determined and specified to the operator
, , manufactu'er. r to assure the adequacy of the operator to stroke the valve.at DBA conditions with these lower limit voltages b 'available. Does this reduced voltage operation result in
' any significant change in stroke timing? Describe the i
e'mergency mode power source used.
- 16. Where electric operator units are equipped with handwheels, does_ their desigr. provide for automatic re-engagement of the motor oper!. tor following the handwheel mode of operation?
If not, what steps are taken to preclude tne possibility of i
r - -,- e,-.n ,--.-,,---,,-.-n,,,n- , , -- - --,,,n - , , , . , ...-,-c-w -,.,-..,,.-e,,- -r--- e.--
LPage A-15
- a. ,
the valve being left in the handwheel mode following some maintenance,' test etc. type operation.
,17. Describe .the tests and/or analysis performed to establish the qualification of the valve to perform its intended function under the environmental conditions exposed to during and after s the DEA following its long term exposure to the normal plant environment.
18.
What basis is used to establish the qualification of the valve, ,
bI operators, solenoids, valves? How was the valve assembly
-(valve / operators) seismically qualified (test.. analysis, etc.)?
19.. Where testing was accomplished, describe the type tests per-formed conditions used etc. Tests. (where applicable) such as' flow tests, aging simulation (thermal, radiation, wear,-
vibration endurance, seismic) LOCA-DBA environment.(radiation,
- steam, chemcials) should be pointed out.
TI-
'20. . Where analysis was used, provide the rationals used to reach
-l the decision that analysis could be used in lieu of testing.
~
Discuss conditions, assumptions, other test data, handbook
~
( ,
data, and classical problems as they may apply.
-21. Have the preventive maintenance instructions (part replace-
. ment, lubrication, periodic cycling, etc.) established by the manufacturer been reviewed, and are they being followed?
Consideration should:especially be given to elastomeric com-ponents in valve body, operators, solenoids, etc. where
-this hardware is-installed inside containers.
6 O
. , , . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . - . - . , - . , - _ . . _ . . _ - - . - _ - . - . , - _ - . , , , _ . ~ , _ . . - - . - - , . . . .
r -r e ?.
- r
) ( '. .I~
- Q (;. _ ,
- ) '
- p
' ~
APPEt; DIX B
'DESCRIPTI0il 0F OPERATI0ilAL .-TESTS ~
~
'0F A 12 INCH CLOW TRICElllRIC VALVE
-FOR
- i :-
NUCLEAR PURGE SYSTEM SER5/ ICE
- . p L:-
BY J. E.: KRUEGER NUCLEAR VALVE DESIGII EllGIllEER
~
, NOVEMBER ~30,-1981 4' .
1
- j..
4 9 ,
Mrk I
L
>N_ _
i Q .'
, II
m .
c ,
Page B-1
~J : :
2 INTRODUCTIGM -
A test was performed at Vought Corp., Dallas, Texas, on November 16, 1981, to demonstrate operability of a 12 inch Tricentric valve for flow and load conditions possible in case of a LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident) in a nuclear plant. The test was run with a valve to be used in Jersey Central Power and Light's Oyster Creek Plant. The test was performed by.
T l
Vought personnel under the direction of a Clow Engineer. .
Witnesses to the tests included representatives of GPU Nuclear of New Jersey and Bechtel of San Francisco.
OBJECTIVE -
The test 'was performed to demonstrate that the valve would -
i operate under pressure, flow, and loadings simulating operating and seismic condi.tions possible during a LOCA." It was also 3 desired that the open to close cycle be demonstrated to occur in less than 5 seconds. A secondary objective was to show aerodynamic torques produced by air flow over the disc were i equal or less than those predicted and used in designing the valve and selecting 'the actuator. (Predicted torques used in design derived from previous air flow test performed with 3 inch scale models.)
TEST SET-UP -
The valve was installed in a straight pipe run with a stagnation chamber upstream approximately 6 feet. Downstream 3 feet was a diverging nozzle to prevent downstream pressure i
~ -
, Page B-2'
- ?
[ w -
from; exceeding one atmosphere. Upstream of the stagnation chamber there were~several servo-controlled valves used to maintain aiconstant pressure in the chamber. Air to this system was supplied from Vought's 28,000 cubic fer.t air storage tanks. The tanks were pressurized to-600 psig with the servo-valves used to maintain a pressure of f65 psig at the stagnation chamber upstream of the valve. Hydraulic load cylinders were provided to produce an 11.0 g load in two perpendicular "
q , _
-directions through the valve actuator center of gravity. .
,'#M so- IHSTP.U:4ENTATION -
]s . .
Numerous measurements were made during the test with those relating directly to valve operation being printed on an ,
~
oscillographic; chart. These measurements were used to verify test parameters were met during the test and to monitor valve s c-1.% " '
performance. All data was fed through a digitizer and recorded
' _ j *'
!directly on' magnetic tape for later study. Measurements ware yp l >
~ Ni .
made at a rate:of 10 per second. The measurements taken during .
the demonstration runs were' as follows:
j 1. Total pressure. in the s.tagnation chamber.'
2.- Total temperature'in tne stagnation charber.
- 3. Total and static pressure upstream of the Clow valve.
' 4. Total and static pressure downstream of the Clow valve.
- 5. ;
Static pressure in the pneumatic actuator cylinder.
- 15. Hydraulic pressure to the static load cylinders.
- 7. - Angle of the disc in the Clow valve.
- 3. Torque on the valve drive shaft.
i )
i v - t e w ~-
r- m rT- +- +w7 s +-ec-rw
Page B-3 5L g VALVE AND ACTUATOR DESIGN PARA!!ETERS -
The valve tested was designed for a differential operating pressure of 65 psi' and combined operating and seismic loads of 2
11.0 g's. .The seal was of laminated 316 SST and asbestos.
, The body design was 150 lb. class per ANSI B16.34 The shaft used for transmitting torque to close and seal the valve was of a 17-4 PH age hardenable stainless . steel, heat treated to condi ti on - H-1100. The actuator used was.a Bettis NT-316B-SR2 pneumatic spring return actuator. The actuator was of a fail i
closed design with the spring supplying the closing and seating f} torque . (!1ote: Tricentric valves are designed for torque seating). The actuator. was qualified for nuclear service.
CONDUCT OF TEST J
[
The test consisted of applying the static loads to the actuator and establishing a 65 psig upstream pressure with the
, Clow valve closed. A signal was then initiated to open the valve.
The valve then cycled full open against flow and remained open i .
until a signal to close the valve was provided. The valve then cycled to the closed position and seated. During this period l
' data was taken automatically at 10 measurements per second at all sensors. This test was repeated 4 additional times at 65 psig
.- and once at 35 psig, tiote: These upstream pressures produced choked (flow at sonic velocity) flow through the valve during the valve open period.
5 4
N L_
.9 Page B 4 L'j. RESULTS OF TESTS -
The tests demonstrated the following: -
- 1. The Clow disc and shaft geometry provides for a _
s positive aerodynamic closing torque for all angles from full open to full closed.
- 2. The aerodynamic torque. values used for design of the Clow valve are conservative relative to measured torques. -(Design torques were based on previous 3" scale model tests.)
.l. 3. The construction of the valve is rigid in its design
- q. such that no binding resulted under an 11.0 g load applied in two directions simultaneously.
- 4. The va1ve will cycle from full open to full closed in less than 5 seconds with any amount of flow from *
.I '
none to the maximum tested (108 lb/sec of air).
1 Any value of flow above zero tended to close the valve d
faster (the valve closed in 3.6 sec. for a no flow condition).
L5. Operator sizing was sufficient to cycle the valve
{ from full closed to full open in less than 5 seconds for any tested flow rate.
CONCLUSION -
- p -
Clow has demonstrated that their duclear purge valve design can meet and exceed typical specifications for this type of service. It was further shown ti.it the valve will function as o
N +
c .. -
i Page B-5
^
h J .
required regardless of the LOCA pressure ramp curve (assumes lower pressures upstream at start of valve closure) often
.used by other valve manufacturersito show operability. In conjunction with other tests (now in progress) to show opera-n bility under many installed piping configurations, Clow valves L
.can allow full open purge function during shtitdown for refuelin-
.as opposed to the partially open position now allowed by the NRC. 'Further. it has been shown that the Tricentric can meet -
tight' leak rate requirements with a metal to metal sealing which is more reliable and less costly in maintenance than sealing with clastomers.
1 l
9
- a I