ML20195E355
| ML20195E355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1997 |
| From: | Lubin B ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138L675 | List: |
| References | |
| MISC-PENG-CALC, MISC-PENG-CALC-062, MISC-PENG-CALC-62, NUDOCS 9811180321 | |
| Download: ML20195E355 (158) | |
Text
. . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . .
MISC PENG-CALC G62. AEV 01
- 1ge 1 of 62 Desegn Anotysas Title Page i
~
~.._.
Me EVALUATION OF PREDICTIONS AND DATA FOR PROTOTYPE STRAINER Document Number: Revieson Numoer:
MISC PENG-CALC-062 01 Queety C!sse:
@ QC 1 (Safety-Related>O QC 2 (Not Safety Related>O QC 3 (Nnt Safety Relateel i
- 1. Apswovel of Completed Analvese This Design Anaives is complete and venfied. Management authorses the use of its resulte.
Printed Name Signature Does Cognssent Engrieerts) Barry T. Lubin ~ [ -] g ;) y ;
"] 4
..J l Monier e None l
heependent Reviewer D.L Sitage j -
y/g7 r7 .
T. Approwel C.J. Gimerone l -
.f :;:-
Q4 $_ O v
a
- t/a/t7 l
I i
j 2. Package Contems (this seccon may be completed after Management soprovel): l I
Total onge count, including boey, acconeces, attachments, etc. I5)
List assocated CD-ROM diet Volume Numoors and path names:
None l Note: CD ROM era stored as asserete Quality Recorde l Total riumber of sheets of merofiche: @ None Number of sheets: xxx Other attachments (specsfy):
l l 3. 01outbuelon:QA (2) l l
l
! NON-PROPRIETARY 4
~
9811180321 981111 PDR ADOCK 050002 7 P
Q-
l MISC FENG CALC 063. REV 01 I l
Page 2 of 62 i RECORD OF REVISIONS Rev Date Paces involved Precared by Reeson Acoroved by 00 9/26/97 Original B.T. Lubn Original issue C.J. Gimbrone 01 11/28/97 4,5,7,16 17,G 1 - B.T. Lubn Final data C.J. Gimbrone G14 l
l l
1 l
INDEPENDENT REVIEWERS Rev Sections Appendices Independent reviewer l 00 1,2,3,4,5,7,8 0, E, F R.E. Schneider 00 6 A, S. C D.L. Sibiga 01 1.3.6.5.6 G D.L. Sibiga l i
l an.
I i
l
MISC-P3NG-CALC C62. REV 01 Page 3 of 62 l TABLE OF CONTENTS .
SECTION PAGE 1.0
SUMMARY
.....................................................................................5 l
2.0 SCOPE............................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES
...................................................................................7 l 4.0 N O M E N C LAT U R E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 l
l 5.0 B A C l; G R O U N O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 l
6.0 TESTS..........................................................................................12 7.0 EVALUATION OF SCALING PARAMETER ......................................... 18
8.0 CONCLUSION
S.............................................................................23 j TABLES NUMBER PAGE l :.
1 PARAMETERS FOR PLEATED SURFACES ............................................. 24 -
- 2 EPRI 3
- TEST MATRIX W PREDICTIONS ............................................... 23 3 EPRI 3: TEST MATRIX W PREDICTIONS & DATA ................................ 26 l
4 EPRI 3: RESULTS IN TERMS OF SCALING FACTOR .............................. 27 5- EPRI 3: PREDICTIO NS VERSUS D ATA .................................................. 29 6 EPRI 3: PREDICTIONS, W/ FORM LOSS CORRECTIONS VERSUS DATA. 29 i
i i
j
4 MISC.PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page 4 of 62 FIGURES NUMBER PAGE
- 1. PLEATED S U RF AC E "T" STRAIN E R . . . . ..... . . . . .. ... . . . .. .. . . . . ........... ..... ... 3 0 ,
1
. 2. O E B RI S R ET E NTI O N . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 l
- 3. CORRELATION FOR SCALING PARAMETER VERSUS MS/MF............. 32
- 4. T E ST M O D E L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3
- 5. T E ST S U R F A C E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4
- 6. HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR CLEAN SURFACE .................................. 35
- 7. HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR FIBER O NLY ......................................... 38
- 8. HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf ................................ 42
- 9. SCALING PARAMETER BASED ON EPRl3 TEST DATA ...................... 52
- 10. SCALING PARAMETER FOR DEPOSITION INSIDE STRAINER ............. 53
- 11. SCALING PARAMETER FOR DEPOSITION IN OUTER BED .................. 56
- 12. PREDICTIO NS VERSUS D ATA ........................................................ 5 8
- 13. N O N-U N I FO R M B E D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9
- 14. EDG E EFF ECTS WITH OUTER BED .................................................. 60 '
- 15. PREDICTIONS FOR OUTER BED WITH & WITHOUT EDGE EFFECTS ... 61
- 16. PREDICTIONS, WITHOUT EDGE EFFECTS, VS DATA ........................ 62 APPENDICES SECTION PAGE A PREDICTIO NS FO R TEST M ATRIX ..... . .... ..... .. ...... ... .. .................... .. . A 1 B D ATA F O R E PRI TE STS 3 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1 C HEAD LO SS FO R CLEAN STRAIN ER ....... ....... .......... . ... .. .................. C 1 0 EVALUATION OF SCAUNG PARAMETER........................................ 01 E NO N-UNIFO RM BED EFFECT . ... . ..... . . .... . ... . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . ... . . ... . . . . . .. . .... .. .. . E 1 F HEAD LO SS DUE TO END EFFECTS.................................................. F 1 G COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DATA ......................... G1 H QU ALITV ASSURANCE FO RMS ...................................................... H 1 P
i MISC PENG CALC C62. REV 01 Ngo 5 of 62 1.0
SUMMARY
A thiro senes of tests were run at the EPRI strainer test f acility in Charlotte, NC. The test model consisted of one full size prototype module. The purpose of the tests was to validate the method. documented in MISC-PENG CALC 059, Revision 00, "Mooet for Sizing and Evaluaang Performance of BWR Replacemer.t Strainers with Pleateo Surfaces,"
A88 CENO, July 25,1997, developed for predicung strainer performance based on the one-quarter section tests. The strainer surface was of a high surface area and surface volume design, selected based on the results of the second series of EPRI tests.
Test conditions of flow rate, fiber and sludge masses and ratios, were selected to be representenve of conditions for the PECO Peachbottom 3 & 4 strainers.
Predictons for the test conditions were based on an iterative method that correlanons between dimensionless head loss and sludge to fiber ratio based on the first and second .
series of EPRI tests. The method is based on deposition of the fiber and sludge eithw in the strainer volume,in an outer bed, and a transition volume between the two. ,
Results, based on both preliminary and final data, show agreement to within about + 20%-
with the predictions, based on the correlation for the same surface in the second set of EPRI tests, for cases in which the fiber and sludge were deposited in either the strainer volume or strainer and transition volumes. In the four cases in which an outer bed was formed, predictons were also about 20% conservanve when compared to the data. l The two cases in which the prediccons were above this range, one with fiber only and the second with both fiber and sludge, involved formanon of an non-uniform bed. In the fiber only case a large outer bed was formed, whereas, for the fiber and sludge resulted in a small outer bed on top of the strainer and a thin bed, all within the strainer, at the bottom.
An approximate analysis showed that the effect of the non-uniformity is to reduce the head loss.
In the other two cases, with higher amounts of fiber and sludge, the bed appeared to be more uniform. Predictions were based the one-quarter secton results from the EPRl2 tests.
These predictions included an empirical f actor for the outer bed. As shown herein, this factor maybe related form losses that arise due to a turning of the radial flow through the edge of the bed, which are not present for the full strainer.
MISC PENG-CALC C62. REV 01 Page 6 of 62 2.0 SCDPE The correlations derived in this report are applicable to strainers with the same design pleated surface designs tested, sludge to fiber ranos between zero and thirteen, for Nukon fiberglass insulation. However, the majority of the data are for sludge to fiber ranos below two. Thus extension of the analysis above this value must be used with cauton.
Head losses related to the deposited bed ark due primarily to viscous shear with form losses assumed to be negligible. Influence of the bed on fricton or form losses internal to the strainer, are assumed to be negligible.
The analysis is limited by the assumptions that fiber and sludge deposition forms a j homogeneous bed of uniform thickness. The compression modelis based on the relatonship between change in volume and pressure gradient across the bed, and assumes, no hystensis in the compression and expansion of the bed. Bed thickness is based on the assumpton of an volume average density of the combined fiber and sludge. )
Deposition is within the strainer volume is based on the assumption that tha bed thickness, limited by the distance between pleats, behaves like a thin bed. Deposition in the transmon region is, likewise, based on the assumption of a thin bed. Deposition in the ou'ter, cylindrical bed uses a mean surface eres, based on calculation of the outer radius needed to hold the calculated volume of the debris in the outer bed.
i MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page 7 of 62 ,
1
3.0 REFERENCES
i 1
- 1. MISC PENG CALC 059, Revision 00, "Model for Sizing and Evaluating Performance of BWR Replacement Strainers with Pleated Surfaces," ABB CENO, July 25,1997.
l
- 2. 599 NOME WTR 0005, " Test Request," Anni 18,1997. '
- 3. CDI Procedure Strainers 19 RVO (4/16/1997).
4 Continuum Dynamics, Inc., Technical Report No. 97-04, Revision 0, " Data Report for A88 Model A & B Strainers with Fiber and Corrosion Products," June 1997.
- 5. Continuum Dynamics, Inc., Technical Report No. 97-10 Revision 01, " Data Report for A88 Thrid Prototype Strainers with Fiber and Corrosion Products," November, l 1997.
- 6. 499-NOME-CALC-0073, Revision 00, " Peach Bottom and Limerick ECCS Strainer Screen Areas and Volumes," A85 CENO, July 11,1997.
- 7. 499 NOME CALC-0075, Revision 01, "Peacn Bottom ECCS Strainer Sizing for Debris Loading and Pressure Drops," ABB CENO, July 11,1997.
- 8. Grapher , Golden Software, Inc. (1992).
l 9. DRAWINGS E STR 908-003-01 Strainer Assy & Details,45 in dia model. -
- 10. MISC PENG-CALC-063, " Head Losa Coefficients for PECO Strainer Modules,"
September 26,1997.
l
- 11. Idelchik, l.E., et al, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, Hsmisphere Publishing, P Ed.
l l
l I
. . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . . . _ _ ._._. . _.._ _ _._ .~._._. .. _ .. ._ _ .- _ ... . _ . _
MISC P!NG CALC-062. REV 01 pag 2 8 of 62 i
4.0 NOMENCLATURE .
p Mf = mass of fiber
! Ms = mass of sludge i 1
M = mass of fiber plus sludge i 1
- _q = ratio of sludge to fiber l
.iH = heedloss P = pressure i Q =- volume flow j U = velocity As = surface eres
, Ao = envelope area
$ V = volume l
r L = tength t = bed thickness AL = change in bed thickness AL. /AL = bed compression p = fluid density ,
pe = fiber density
- p. = sludge density p= = fiber particle density
- p= = sludge particle density p.= = average density p.g. = average density with compression = 1 at = volume fracton y = power in bed compression relatonship a =- porosity v = lunematic viscosity t = shear stress dr = fiber diameter ds = inter fiber spacing T = fluid temperature Co = constant in scaling functon Ao = constant times sludge to fiber rato k = constant times Reynolds number Re = Reynolds number, (Q/Aside/v
MISC PENG CALC 063. REV 01
- age 9 of 62
5.0 BACKGROUND
A method was developed in Reference 1 to precict tne need loss of an extended surf ace strainer design as a function of the surface area, As, envolcoe area, As, length. L outer diameter Do, mass of fiber, Mf, and sludge, Ms and operating temperature. T. The model, Figure 1, was for a " deep pleated" design, in which the debris was deposited first within the volume formed by the pleats, followed by a transition volume between the strainer and a cylindrical outer bed, Figure 2.
The predictive method was based on soluton of conservation of momentum for a uniform deposition of the fiber and sludge both in the surface volume and then in the outer bed.
The resulting equation yielded a non-dimensional pressure, defined as, d
L_ -
which is refered to through out the referenced and this document as the " Scaling parameter'.
In this expresson the average density is defined as, -
- 9
\ l
- L where the volume fracton of fiber, cz,is given by, F
N This scaling f actor was shown t[be a funcuon of the rato of sludge to fiber, which was shown to be a funcuon of the porosity of the bed. The debris, actng pnmanly as a porous bed, the head loss is linearfy related to kinemanc viscostty, v, which is a dependent on temperature of the transport fluid, water. Thus, the above expression is noted as, O
Two senes of tests, refered to in Reference 1 and herein as EPRl1 and EPR12, were done to determine the applicatality of the above expression and the functonal relatonship Tests were defined in Reference 2 and done in accordance to the procedures in Reference 3. Test data
- MISC FENG CALC-062. REV 01 Dage 10 of 62 i were reported in Reference 4. Tests were cone with a number of surface oesgns. Results ,
{ indicated that Surface O (surface T in Reference 6) represented the best compromise of hign surf ace area, high surface volume and minimum head loss.
f h Both observatons and evaluanons of the tests showed the importance of bed compresson on j straner performance. This was martfested in a departure of head loss versus flow from the i expected linear relatonship. This required an interanve soluton in which the compression of
! in. bed w o .xpr. d o,
- ~
i "
t i*
Test data, in the form of scaling f actor, for depostion inside and in the outer bed, for the pornon of the data in which head loss is a linear funcuon of flow, is shown in Figure 3. The l following linear fit of these curves was used in the prodctions, appiscable to Surf ace D.
! i i
J 1
=
! The coupling between bed compresson and head loss results in a norWinear relanonship 1
j between head loss and the independent parameters; e.g.,
,,-~
- i_
An algonthm, BWRS. bas, wntten in QBASIC, was denved to solve this norWinear relenonship.
l
' The alp.G6 sequennally solved for the deposnion in each of the the three regions; the inner volume, the tranernon regon and then the outer bed. The deposition area for the outer bed
- was taken as the envelope area, As. This bemg fless than the surface area, As, the head loss for the outer bed would be the domment head loss. This a;gaiis si was validated by f
j compenson with the EPRl1 and EPR12 data. The above relationstwo for dimensonless pressure was within the apprommately 216.5% sttnbuted to posable vanscons in the independent 4
data. Prodctions of head loss were approximately 8% higher than the recorded data.
3 i
Based on these results a third senes of tests were planned to evaluated the performance of a
}
I prototype strainer module incorporating the pleated surf ace D design. The tests were to be J
4 4
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pag 311 of 62 cerformed at flow rates and debns losoings corresoonding to tne range roecified for tne Peachbottom 3 and 4 strainers. Reference 6.
1 1
The purpose of this calculanon is to validate the use of this comouanonal algonthm for i
predicton of stramer performance. This is done by companng predicted to test values of !
! head loss and to evaluate causes of notable differences, i
l I
l 1
I O
8 1
l I
s l
l I
I
_ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ m.___ _ _ ._ _ -.__..__ _ ____._..___ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _
]
MISC.PENG CALC 062. REV 01 i
- *ago 12 of 62 I i
6.0 TESTS I
i j 6.1 Test Model and Matrix l The tests were done on a prototypical model of, one,48 inch long,40 inch outer diameter, module. Reference 5, Figure 4. The modelincludes allintenor suoports,
! Reference 9. Details of the strainer surf ace are shown in Figure 5 and surf ace 1
- parameters, surface and envelope area, surface volume, transition volume, module i length and diameters, are listed in Table 1.
t i
- Testing was done in the 50,000 gal tank at EPRl/NDE, Chariotte, NC as were the
! previous tests.
1 Tests were done in accordance with the test request of Reference 2 and the
]
j g,rocedures in Reference 3. The test matnx. Table 2, was based on balancing the j flow requirements of the Peachbottom strainers, Reference 6, with the need to :,
~
j maintain as much of the fiber suspended in the tank as to be available for
! deposition on the strainer. Tests were initially designed based on the flow rate and v
l debris loadings for six modules. i 4
j Q = 11,100 gpm/ 6 modules = 1850 gpm i - Mf = 1159 lbm/ 6 modules = 193lbm l Ms = 537 lbm/ 6 modules = 89.5 lbm However, test performance for a fiber only test, indicated the possibility, at flow l
t rates below 2500 gpm, of stagnanon regions within the tank in which fiber could sarde out. The compromise was to use the flow for four modules, of 2775 gpm =
f l 2750 gpm, and the mass and fiber loadings for six modules.
l l' The above tests were all done with Nukon* insulation. In addition to the tests performed at conditions corresponding to the Peachbottom specifications, tests
! were done et loadsngs typical of the PCI strainers as reported in Reference 7 and
! with Tempmat" insulation. This evaluation is limited to conditions corresponding to the Peachbottom design, Tests 17. Results for PCI, which bed formation was at i considerably higher flows, and non-Nukon insulation are not evaluated in this report.
4 i
i i
l l
~
MISC FENG CALC C62. REV 01 Page 13 of 62 Preoscoons, based on SWRS18. bas, utilizing tne surf ace O couelacons, are listed in ,
Table 2 with details of the predictions: i.e. deposition regions, bed thicknesses, etc.
l documented in Appendix A.
4 6.2 Clean Tests
. Tesu without any deposioon were performed first. The head loss for these tests represent frictional shear and form losses due to the strainer surface, change in
, flow direction for radial to axial within the strainer, the inner support (cruciform and stiffening bars) and exit losses from the strainer to the suction pipe. A photograph I of the test model is shown in Figure 6.1. Test results, documented in Appendix B, j are shown in Figure 6. 2. An equivalent loss factor is defined as, G .
~
l
! where Aref is the axial flow area around the centerline of the module. This area
- includes blockage due to the cruciform suppon structure, nas a value of 1.079 ftL as computed in Appendix C. A comparison, Figure 6.3, of the clean losses for Surface O from the one quarter seccon tests of EPRI2 and the full seccon of EPRl3 show no significant differences. Thus., any differences between flow pattoms
- between the tank in the one-quarter section and full section tests should not have i had any major influence on debris transport and deDosition patterns.
6.3 Test Procedure
! The procedure in the subsequent tests, for both fiber and fiber and sludge, was to
- start with the design flow for four modules as the initial flow. Studge was first 4
added. After a penod of time allowed for the sludge to mix with the flow, fiber was
- added. Head losa, flow rate and temperature were monitored on digital read-outs,
! through out the test, with the data itself recorded for later analysis and documentacon.
The turnover time being about 20 minutes, two to three turnovers were reouired before equilibrium, where increases in head loss of less than .50 inches per 5 minutes was recorded, was reached. Upon reaching equilibrium, flow was first reduced to the six module flow rate of 1850 gpm, allowed to reach a new steady
i MISC P:NG CALC 062. REV 01 J Pag 314 of 62 l
I state before head loss was again recorded. Flow was then increased, to the five
)- ,
i and four module plateaus, before increasing up to as high as b500 gpm. Flow was then decreased to the initial flow and once again head loss recorded.
~
i i
Results of these tests are reviewed as follows. Note that tests are identified by both number in the matrix and the corresponding COI idenafication (3 A88 number).
Data are documented in Appendix 8.
6.4 Fiber Only Tests -
l l
m r- .
i l
l l
i-j
- i t
I l
(
l i
MISC PENG CALC-062. REV 01
'Page 15 of 62 N
i i
l l
l 1
L l
i I
i
?
l' I
i l
i' i
i-l-
l I
I l
i d
1 I
l' l'
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page 16 of 62 D
a 6.5.6 Preliminary and Final Data ,
Evaluation of strainer performance is based on the preliminary values of head loss versus flow, documented in Appendix B. Predictions based on final values, documented in Reference 5, are, as shown in Appendix G, within tne limits of possible experimental error based on expected variations in independent variables and instrument error.
__ _. ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
VISC PENG CALC C62. REV 01 Page 17 of 62 Thus, the ooservacons ano conciusions caseo on these preiiminary cata remain valid.
6.6 General Observatons and Conclusions The range of flows used in each of the test were selected to include both the six module PECO flow (1833 gpm) and extend to a range where possible turbulent and/or bed hysterstic effects could be observed. The head loss showed an essentially linear relationship with a reduction of the flow from the test flow to the 1833 gpm level. Furthermore, as the flow was increased from this flow back to the test flow, the head loss values showed good repeatability. Increasing the flow to values higher than the 2750 gpm and then reducing it back to this point resulted, generally, in head losses less than onginally measured.
I Therefore;
- 1. Based on the linear behavior between flow, head less predictions at the flow -
rate for six modules should have an accuracy similar to that for the test flow.
- 2. Hysterstic effects appear to become important a flows above the 2750 gpm
- test flow, which is outside the range for the PECO strainers.
- 3. All tests with condttions prototypical of the PECO strainers were conservauvely Dredicted with the excepton of the one tests where the 3% difference was within the scatter of the data.
I
- 4. The existing design correlation based on the one-quarter secton surface tests l can be used to conservauvely predicton head losses for the strainer.
I f
l
MISC FENG-CALC C62. REV 01 Pago 18 of 62 7.0 EVALUATION OF SCALING PARAMETER ,
The non-linear nature of the relanonsnio oetween head loss and mass of fiber and sludge make it impossible to utilize a correlation of the dimensionless crossure and just the rato of sludge to fiber, as implied in the functonal relatonship As seen in the predictions, the influence of compression is to alter the linear relationship between head loss and flow at the values of higher f:ow which correspond to higher head losses. However, as assumed in Reference 1, at flows below some limit this relatonship is linear. The model derived in Reference 1 is that this linear portion can be used to determine a correlation between dimensionless head loss and sludge to fiber rato. This functon is then used as an approximaton for determining head loss outside this linear range.
The purpose of this section is to evaluate this scaling f 3ctor for the EPRI 3 data and compare these results to the functonal relationships taken in Reference 1.
Least mean-square fit to head versus flow data for tests 1 to 7 are documented in Appendix D. The reduccon to the scaling factor is documented in Table 4. Values of sc,aling factors for the seven tests are shown in Figure 9. As done in Reference 1, the results are divided into the debris contained within the strainer volume alone and witnin the volume and outer bed.
7.1 Scalino Parameter 7.1.1 Strainer Volume The data used to fit the functonal rc au- . . ace D based on the EPRl2 tests. .leference 1, are sh un ..). The scaled data based on EPRl2 and EPRl3 tests are sne.. iO.2. Note that in both Figures 10.1 and 10.2 data ror '- anbris deposited in an outer bed has been deleted.
The functonal relatonsnm. caseo an the EPRI 2 tests, of
- MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01
" age 12 of 62 i
d #
l as compared to the data is shown in Figure 10.3. The relationship, considering the approximately 16% uncertainty in the data, is a: fair j representation of the data. The notable excepton is for the high sludge to i fiber rato at 13. A re calculacon of the least squares fit to the data results l in the following equation, l l l The intercept (Ms/Mf =0) has increased only 14% but the slope term has l 1 -
i decreased by 73%.
t l
7.1.2 Outer Bed l
- Tests 3ABB2,3ABB6 and 3ABB7 esi asuwc ir s nber or fiber and sludge l being held within an outer bed. As per Reference 1, the coefficient for the l linear portion of the bed-only heno ion rsus flow is calculated based on the assumption that the head loss is the sum of the head loss in the strainer j -
plus that in the outer bed, AH strainer - bed = AH strainer + AH bed With aH = k MO, k(MQ) strainer + bed = k(QM) strainer + k(QM) bed With the same flow rate, k bed = k (M) strainer + bed /M bed - k(M) strainer /Mbed Note that of the three tests only 3ABB2 and 3ABB7 were done at corresponding sludge to fiber ratos. Results of the above procedure, performed in Table 4, are shown in Figure 11.1 along with the correlaton for the outer bed from Reference 1.
MISC FENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pags 20 of 62 The correlaton, recommended in Reference 1. of s '
u is shown along with the data from the EPRl1, EPRl2 and EPRl3 tests, along with data based on deposanon on cylindrical surfaces from the nnted references. The EPRl3 data is noted to be lower than the majority of the data. Comparison with the EPRl2 data, done with a one-quarter secton located on the bottom of the model, indicates the possibility of larger head losses due to the influence of form losses related to the quarter section test surface arrangement of the model, as discussed in Reference 4.
7.2 Predictions versus Data The algorithm for predicting head loss as a function of strainer parameters is done with the BWRS18. bas algorithm, Reference 1. This algorithm uses the correlation between dimensionless pressure (referred to above as the scaling factor) and sluage to fiber ratio (related to porosity) to iterate on head loss, accounting for the compression of the bed. The algorithrn divides the bed into that held within the strainer, a transition region between the strainer and, lastly, the outer volume. The strainer and transition porton use the correlation for strainer volume while the outer bed uses that for the outer bed.
7.2.1 Based on EPRI 2 Data Correlanons Predictions, documented in Appendix A, are shown versus data in Figure 12 and summarized in Table 5. The predictions in which the fiber and sludge and fiber are within the strainer, Tests 1,3 and 5 are about 20% of predictions. Tests,in which a distinct outer bed formed Tests 2,4,6 and l
7, predictions are higher tnan the data. While 6 and 7 are within the +
20% range,2 and 4 are 52% and 42% respectively above the data.
i
! The following hypotheses help to explain differences between predictons I
- and data.
i l
MISC F!!NG CALC-062. REV 01 Page 21 of 62 7.2.2 Influence of a non-uniform ceo The analysis is based on the assumonon of uniform oeposition of fiber any sludge, resulting in a uniform distribution of velocity over the strainer surface Figure 13. The differences in bed thickness resulting from a non-uniform deposition of fiber and sludge results in a vanation in velocity, Figure 13, in order to equalize the head loss through different axial sections of the bed.
This is demonstrated in Appendix E, how a non-uniform bed results in a reduction of the scale f actor and thus predictions for heed loss.
This may explain the differences in predictions and data for Tests 2 and 4 in which the bed was observed to be non-uruform.
7.2.3 Influence of Bad Geometry on Form Losses The current analysis for the outer bed is based on the flow being uniform over the surface of the bed and in the radial direction. The correlation for the outer bed was based on data from the EPR12 tests. This correlation required a factor of 1.75 times Co to obtain agreement between predicted and measured head loss. Though data was examined for Reynolds number (form losses) no trend with Reynolds number was evident.
The model for these tests consisted of four quarter section surfaces. Form losses due to a turning of the flow near the edges of the bec, Figure 14, could be reisted the need for this factor of 1.75 times Co.
The form losses are accounted for through the term (1 + k Rel. When combined with the correlation for f(Ms/Mf) the right side of the dimensionless pressure becomes, _
r 1 b
As shown in Appendix F, the value of k can be approximated by,
. . .- - -- .-- _ ~.-.- .-..--.-.-- ..--. - - - . - . _
l MISC FENG CALC C62. FEV 01 ma go 22 of 62 i
i M
j where Kw' and K ' are the loss coefficients for the bed and eoges. As j shown in Appendix F. the value of k is expected to be between 0 (thin outer
- bed, R= Ro) and 1 (thick outer bed, R > Ro).
- Predicted values removing the 1.75 value, documented in Appendix F. are summarized in Table 6 and shown in Figure 15. The influence of the non-uniformity is still apparent in Test 3AB82, though the differences between j predictions and data for Tests 3AB86 and 3ABB7 have been reduced to about five and two percent below the data.
Y 7.3 General Observations Based on the full scale model the correlation between ec ;.ry; p.ntsmater and sludge, to fiber ratio is, i
~
The correlation for the outer bed is,
' %l Note that the f actor of 1.75 times the above expression was needed to match the EPRI 2 data. However, as noted, this represents poss.x sdge effects present in the quarter-section tests that would not be present for a full cylindncal surface.
The magnitude of the coefficients in these two expressions being close supports arguments that bed behavior is similar in both regions and that the model provides a reasonable basis for predicting strainer performance.
l MISC-PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page 23 of 62
8.0 CONCLUSION
S
( ,
m 1
l t
N
MISC PENGoCALC462. REV 01 Pago 24 of 62 -
l F
i.- m l
MISC PENG CALC 062 REV 01 Page 25 of 02 l
4 l
i i
I i
1 l
/
N
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page 26 of 62 l i
i, f
I 1
1 l
I'
[ !
l 4 I
i.
l i
l i
i l
l t
MISC-PENG-CALC-062. Rc.V 01 Page 27 of 62 -
i t
i
[
/
i I
i
4
- MISC-PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page 28 of 62 i
1 t
i
'l
'I 4
4 i
i 1
MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV O1
- aga 29 of 62 l
P l
/
4
MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 Paga 30 of 62 FIGURE 1: PLEATED SURFACE "T" STRAINER ,
1 3
1 ricege CO ,,
['"***
- Screen Corruqctions o
Ol C
( N gers) &
l I
a
,0 1 0, Swooort --
n .?
--.z'- .
\
O, ,0
- i -
Typical Strainer Cross-Section 1
s 4
a Ibffenerg =
Screen t m,getene
/'//
h ,
~ . , . *'
- =~
MISC-PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Page 31 of 62 FIGURE 2: DEBRIS RETENTION .
i l
l l I
l l
i l l
' l
( SURFACE l
VOLUME
\1 i i ,
i
?
i i
/ i 1
'A / j
^ OUTER BED N /
e 1
I i
i d
i i
I MISC-PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 Page 32 of 62 i
b d
J I
A l
's 9
A
's i
4
.h i
1 4
f W
5
. . - w -
MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 Paga 33 of 62 FIGURE 4: TEST MODULE .
N TANK g
, WALL
\ g a N p
\ -------- Ro = 20*
Ri = 8.625" _
N N --------
END N
a a MM s
s i= t = 4a- 4 N
N
MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 Page 34 cf 62 I FIGURE 5: TEST SURFACE
- l FIGURE E TEET SURFACE
~
- 7 '5C 4 0.0 " 0.C. x ') 7.5 " L O . _
{ ,9' 3 x 11. 25 x 2.0 .
l
/ A \
- i l
l N 2. coo \
l .' -
\
/
t
' l i 820.000
- I t i
== u.s0 so-a l
25.00F
/
/
1 423 1 1.308 /
- 2o.oor j
t mano = = sa.ss 50-=
i /
L 6 2.M30 DEVELOPED LENGTH = 76.95" I
\
l'
! MISC PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 I
Pago 35 of 62 FIGURE 6: HEAD LCSS VS FLOW FOR CLEAN SURFACE .
6.1 TEST MODEL b
1, a n ;
i
.. ~. .
.i I l 4
, ~
i ,
l . .
i .
B i l o ~
's l .
.}j
+ '
~ ~
a i .
r j
,i . .
- s -
0 l
i MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 l Page 36 of 62 FIGURE 6: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR CLEAN SUR8 ACE ,
6.2 HEAD LOSS AND LOSS COEFFICIENT VS FLOW i
I 7 ;
}
l
\
. . . . - .~ .. . . - . . . . . - . _ . _ . - - . - . . - - __-.- .._ - - . _ _ . - .
MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Pag 3 37 of 62 FIGURE 6: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR CLEAN SURFACE '
6.3 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR SAME SURFACE FOR EPRl2 AND EPRl3 CLEAN TESTS i
(
a
1 MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 i Page 38 of 62 l i
FIGURE 7: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR FIBER ON'.Y ll 7.1 BED DEPOSITION FOR TEST 3ABB1 1
8 .,.
i .
'^
l { t l. I'.
- j. .
'p l :1 . ., .-
p n 1 4 . .. .
i y
j . .
y ;
e 6 1'.
'. e o ;
$ 'b '-
i j .
^ '
(
[ ,
,1 .
.fy ,
. , ~- *
.; 4 4
g , 4 . _/.
.(
~^
\ ., ..
il . i ., t
~ ~
J. f. . S '4* ] !- , . i j l ,j .
~
l e 4 i (,',.I_ l \ -
- l i
i
. . = . - - . . - . . _ . - . . . . - - -.-. . . . . .-
MLSC PENG CALC 062, REV 01 Pago 39 of 62 FIGURE 7: HEAO LOSS VS FLOW FOR FIBER ONLY , 7.2 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR TEST 3ABB1 i i D
\
-i
\
\
\
l L_
\
MISC PENG CALC-062. REV 01 Page 40 of 62 FIGURE 7: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR FIBER ON'.Y 7.3 BED DEPOSITION FOR TEST 3ABB2 i e t k 1 . l l
. ? -
p. j
. (.,# .
5 e i t t 4. l l
= . 3 j - .
l i . j - k $ i
l l MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 ! Page 41 of 62 FIGURE 7: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR FIBER OlvLY , 7.4 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR TEST 3ABB2 I r I i l l l [ 4 I k i l .
MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 ' Page 42 of 62 s FIGURE B: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF f.is/Mf S 1 UNDERSIDE OF MODEL AFTER BED DEPOSITION FOR TEST 3ABB3 -
'e 4
+ , i j
d '
f
'/
w , lh I
'i
... h 1
') ', ;
e s 4 l 1 t i
. - . - . . . .. . _ . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . - . - . . - . . . - . . . _ - . _ - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - ~ . . ~
MISC-PENGoCALC 062. REV 01 Page 43 o162 4 i FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf . 8.2 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR TEST 3ABB3 ! i i e l l l I l i L
')
1 MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Page 44 of 62 FIGUAE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf - 8.3 BED DEPOSITION FOR TEST 3ABB4 bh 1 m *
'e ,
i 8 f .
., k '
4 . s
- . N \
s s g- . s-g F 1 .. 5- ... yg , i i.
. . 3
.t. ,
are
. .e w
h x x - ..
.p WP" s
- . - . ._ . ._ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . . - _ _ = _ . - . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . . - . . . _ . _ MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pago 45 of 62 FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf ' 8.4 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR TEST 3A884 J f b I(
----,,------,...-_.m . m,--a._ -
a s MISC-PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Page 46 of 62
, FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf .
! 8.5 BED DEPOSITION FOR TEST 3ABBS ) i a f 1 ex l 1 1
- i p A
. *... s -
f
- [
s . g 1 - 1 j 4 . I \
- l
/
1 j
-[
1 1 l Q% % l . l . 4
%)
- 4 i
3 l
l' !- MISC-PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Paga 47 of 62 FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf . 8.6 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR TEST 3 ABS 5 i l l l t i L 1 l l l l I l. f L _\
i MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 i Page 48 of 62 FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mt 8,7 BED DEPOSITION FOR TEST 3ABB6 i k
- I I
j ' v , i j -. e 4 ,
.~
I, ' g
.c i .
a , p { t . ,. ] 9 -
, . .. . g l -
ar.ig. / s.J. a ~ - e
, ,N ,',
l l ' 1,\ + y1 # i
.v q ,
y e d
,-)
) ), ,\ .
\
s .
\
/ 3 1 s l
k .g Y .
- 1 l p s.
l 1
- 4 4
i / 4 1 l 4
MISC-PENG CALC-062. REV 01 Page 49 of 62 j FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf ?. 8.8 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR TEST 3A886 l - I J i i i l 1 4 l
. I 4
a 4 l r \ l N I i l l
MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 Pags 50 of 62 i l FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf l 8.9 BED DEPOSITION FOR TEST 3ABB7 P ?e 1 y -_s[ l . , ,
\
\
, . W. . . . . .
l t O 0 t x
\. \
i O
~
i
/
'I e
9 a e N
+.
4 . 4 1 J .v' ., j e .. .- 1 i i
MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01
@ age 51 of 62 FIGURE 8: HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR RATIOS OF Ms/Mf ,
8.10 HEAD LOSS VS FLOW FOR TEST 3ABB7 I
. . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ _... _ _ _ _ . ~ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . . - _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . - . . _ . _ _ ______
1 MISC-PENG CALC 062. REV 01. Page 52 of 62 FIGURE 9: SCALING PARAMETER BASED ON EPR13 TEST DATA , i 1 1 I, i e
MISC-PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 Page 53 of 62 FIGURE 10: SCAT.ING PARAMETER FOR DEPOSITION INSIDn STRAINER . 10.1 CORRELATION BASED ON EPRI2 DATA i l 1 i I 1 I l l l 1 I I
. .- . - ~ . . _ ~ - . . - . . - ~ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . _ . . - . - _ . . - . . - . - . - ~ - . . . . - . - . - - . - . . - . _ - - . _ . . -
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page 54 of 62 FIGURE 10: SCALING PARAMETER FOR DEPOSITION INSIDE STRAINER - 10.2 CORRELATION COMPARED TO EPRl2 AND EPRl3 DATA
\
m b 4 l L '
. _ - ._ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ ~ ~ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . _ . - . _ _ _ _ . . _ . .
MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 l Page 55 of 62 1 i FIGURE 10: SCALING PARAMETER FOR DEPOSITION INSIDi STRAINER . j 10.3 CORRELATIONS BASED ON EPRl2 AND EPRl2 AND 3 DATA j i I l l I , J ! I l l l l l l l i I l t I
- MISC PENG CALC-062 REV 01 Page 56 of 62 FIGURE 11
- SCALING PARAMETER FOR DEPOSITION IN CUTER BED .
l 11.1 OUTER BED CORRELATION BASED ON EPRl2 DATA COMPARED WITH EPRl3 DATA l
- i i
a i l i i l I e 4 i I l 1 I I 1 i I
MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 Page 57 of 62 FIGURE 11: SCALING PARAMETER FOR DEPOSITION IN OUTER BED - 11.2 OUTER BED CORRELATION BASED ON EPRI 2 DATA COMPARED WITH , DATA FROM EPRi1, EPR12. EPRI3 AND DATA FOR CYLINDRICAL. STRAINERS D !
MISC PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 Page 58 of 62
- FIGURE 12
- PREDICTIONS VERSUS DATA .
5 ' l i J i I \ i 1 i .' I i \ 1 I I
I l MISC-PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 Pago 59 of 62
- FIGURE 13
- NON UNIFORM BED .
I i - , . o If II U If If Y If l j _ - _ - - , l I b I i UNIFORM BED T M8 ! R' ! A i I l 1 I 4 . } II Y 1l S ' Q N
.- ~ . .
Q a NOSUNIFORM BED I l 14
l MISC-PENG-CALC-062. REV 01
- i Page 60 of 62 FIGURE 14: EDGE EFFECTS WITH OUTER BED .
l 1f 1 . { UNIFORM R.0W l
)
4
+
01
\ __ l
\
02 .-
~
1 EDGE EFFECTS
i MISC PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 Page 61 cf 62 i FIGURE 15: PREDICTIONS FOR OUTER BED WITH & WITHOU~ EDGE EFFECTS .
~
m l l / 5
MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 Page 62 of 62 ,j
\
FIGURE 16: PREDICTIONS, WITHOUT EDGE EFFECTS, VS DATA i h I l I ! 1 l I
MISC PENG-CALC-062 REV 01 l Page A1 oF A14 l l APPENDIX A ~ PREDICTIONS FOR TEST MATRIX ! The algorithm BWRS18. bas, Reference 1, is used to calculate head loss as a function of flow rate, mass of fiber and sludge, surface area, envelope area, surface and transition volumes and operating temperature. These input values are listed in the Test Matrix. Table 3. Results, Table A 1, are listed in the following printed output. The predictions for head loss are summarized in Tables 3 and 5. C 1 i i ! I l l l-i i I I. d
MISC.PENG CALC.062. REV 01 Page A2 CF A14 I w
ag4_. 5 AlA I >, A .A A. .w- 4 m. s Je 3a4 aa- w.--,. A A-J*-.4,4 1, - A 443-.../J.4-. du- $wa-. 4 ch,6A-r, = -A us. . - . _mam , - . MISC PENG CALC 062 REV 01 Paga A3 cF A14 l t 7 4 L l l l , 3 J i l I r i. l i i i 1 lm W s 1 d< r h f
. - , ,-a
MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01
~ Page A4 of A14
/
i l l l
l < i 1 MISC-PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 l i Pag 3 A5 cF A14 l l 1 I I 1 I i I l . l f f 4 I I r l l. I t t L i l l i t i l a l l l l
MISC-PENG CALC-062,' REV 01 Page A6 cF A14 D l l l l [ l I l- ! I ji l l l i i J t Y
, -- . . . . ~ ._. . .. . . _ . . _ . _ - . . . .- . . . ._. - . . . _ . .
c MISC PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 Page A7 oF A14 i m N i 4 A i i 4
- 1 E
i ( ( I 1 I 1 l i === 4 4 k
" w- * -- - -
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page A8 oF A14 i l i I 1 l f t t
..)
k MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page A9 cF A14 n
+
4 i i I I
- i s
i
\ -
w m a Lt 9 ss., a s ,,.n4 . - , . , - a a ., s +.-s> _ aa-e m- + e MISC PENG CALC 062, REV 01
^ Page A10 cF A14 l
l I l l l I l i l l 1 i l l
- - I
'N b besp*"* casa'ammma
i MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 Page All of A14
-r i
t i. l l 4 4 T t J l Ya /
~--
r MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 Page A12 oF A14
.I I
l' I r I l i I l l l l l 6 i i 4 4 4 I i
MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 Page A13 eF A14 I i i 1
. _ ._. .- _ . . _ _ - .. . ..m __ _ .. . ..
MISC PENG CALC-052. REV 01 ,
- Page A14 cF A14 l
)
i l l i
)
l i 1 i-1 4 J
MISC PENG-CALC 062-REV 01 Page B1 oF B11 APPENDIX B , , DATA FOR EPRI TESTS Test procedure call for recording values of test head loss, flow rate and ! temperature versus time. These data are, taken from the data acquisition system, 4 are documented in Reference 5. l The enclosed sheets, Table B-1, represent estimates of flow, head loss and temperature as recorded from digital read-outs during the tests. These are provided { as interim documentation for the data, subject to confirmation upon issuing of l Reference 5. Variations in flow, head loss and temperature, due to instrument c: uracy, provided in Reference 4, and to be confirmed in Reference 5, are as follows: Head Loss: 2% 1 Flow Rate: 12% Temperature: 4.3% The head loss for the bed is the measured head loss minu; te clean heed loss.
' Thus the error associated with the head loss for the bed is the RMS of the head loss, or
- 2.8%.
The predicted head loss is linearly dependent on flow, mass of fiber and sludge, kinematic viscosity, average density and the square of the surface area. As derived , in Reference 1(Appendix J) the error in predicted head loss is about 16.5%, which included instrument error. I These data, as well as the comparison with head loss predicted with BWRS18. bas, are listed in Table B-2. i l
1 l MISC PENG CALC 062 REV 01 Page 82 cF B11 Table B 1: DATA SHEETS FOR EPRI 3 TESTS (3AE.BO) Ca.NTINWM OYNAMIC1. INC PMC#A!FTAAY IN70AMATict: 4 i t,
/
i l
MISC FiNG BALL vot ncw w a Page B3 oF B11 Table B 1: OATA SHEETS FOR EPRI 3 TESTS (3ABB1) CCNTINUUM OYflAMIC1. INC PROpRJf7ARY INFOAMAilct; f \ 'N b
.... .s e r . .a w n . a e n e a u ,
Paga B4 of B11 Table 81: DATA SHEETS FOR EPRI 3 TESTS (3AB82) c:NTwuum cynar.*ms. tac pnomus7AAY w70AMA71cn =
/
-p,-w -,
MISC PENG CALC 062 REV 01 Page 85 oF B91 Table B 1: DATA SHEETS FOR EPRI 3 TESTS (3A883) 00NTIMWM OYNAP/JCL INC N'l / PAQMUSTAAY INPCAMAiton .,, , o
MISC.PENG CAI.0 062 REV 01 Page B6 oF B11 Table B 1: DATA SHEETS FOR EPRI 3 TESTS (3AB84) cbHTINwM CYNAMICL INC [ PROPRiffARY IN70AMAi!Cn % ,
l l- MISC PENG CALC-062-REV 01 Page 87 cF 811
- Table B 1
- DATA SHEETS FOR EPRI 3 TESTS (3A885)
CONTINUUM DY?tAMJC3, INC PROPRIETAAY INPCAMATICM
) i I
l l. l i l _A f l l l
MISC PENG CALC-062 REV 01 l Page 88 cf 811 i I l 1 i l t l l-l l l l l l l l f f . i l l
_ _ i, _* -,$,<%__.4.*J-mi. -- A 4d..+..--J.-. . - . -,L4.A$J.a+J~.44..e-_.A..--4J.te4.-4Aum4 _A an. 2 4.a_ _ 4. w ., e_w._e.__J..La,maa.._6m _aa __a,_.a,.a,..a_JMe.a. _d.A.a.J> _ .A..__maa_4.-, .-.3 ..e__. , - -,_
# 0 N. p *,
- W y . M 4 4.W O <,.n ' ' - . l p89e gg of gyy
'O i
l i l I l I
pae P O# uJ W llf. U ( .. ,N eO O $ 4c 9 e 2 1
, 6 tn k
i
.d. 3.. e. -4 ..Me Aamm_<- au miaA._ 24M,_ e A.a4.-4 +A.-.46-6.-...aAme.A6.4-w_. .,M.g_A.A.Ah.K. mi.-6J+A-a.--M4-.4MJme-a4 KmEmAa-ed.4he=at .dh h e mW 4-..4M A-amW.4 5m.m. a_.s.4 4_ ma 3 A_( .
O~ m I - a. o 'O 0 j 4A U. Z a in 5 i i t I i i l l i 4 I I i l
MISC-PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 l
- Page C1 oF C4 APPENDIX C - \
HEAD LOSS FOR CLEAN STRAINER f The head loss for the clean strainer is taken as pressure difference between the tank l ambient static pressure and a static pressure measured downstream of the test model.
- 1 i
The head loss is defined as, 3 AH = KV 8/2go 1 i where i i AH = head loss (ft) l V = velocity (ft/sec) based on axial flow area, Ao. j go = 32.2 lbm ft!!bf sec 2 The axial flow area is taken, per Reference 7, as the area of the imaginary cylinder defined by the diameter to the bottom of the plaats minus the blockage due to the cruciform support structures, f i J i M i 4 w ! The head loss, flow rates, velocity and corresponding loss factors are shown in Table C 1. Values of K. plotted in Figure C 2, are constant, except for tnose at the two lowest flow rates. One explanation is the possible transition from a laminar to a turbulent regime in the losses through the screen and internals. An alternate explanation is related to the measurement errors associated with head losses at these low flow rates. Per References 4 and 5, the error on pressure measurements is one inch. Values of head loss, taking into account these variations, are also shown in Table C 1. Based on the assumption that the error has a normal distribution, the average and standard deviation of these values are, K = [ 1.8 71 .. : I. 301.w --
1 MISC PENG CALC-062. REV 01 Page C2 of C e % l l i N t
- \
l i MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pago C3 oF C4 , 1 l FIGURE C 1: FLOW PATH FOR CLEAN LOSSEb . l l l l 1 I Po I N @ 1 g g E N I ! E r
\ E _ _ _ _ _ _-J --
N ** 3
\
s E _ _ _ . _. . A.A N E - i l s i i B . . . _ _ .-
\ 5 "
- \ p N
N I i l l
MISC PENG CALC-062. REV 01 l Page C4 oF C4 l f l l l FIGURE C 2: CLEAN HEAD LCSS and HEAD LOSS FACTOR VS FLOW ~ l l i \
~
l
\
i l i i l i r l l l I
MISC PENG CALC 062, REV 01 Paga D1 oF D11 APPENDIX D , EVALUATION OF SCALING PARAMETER Per Reference 1, the scaling parameter is defined as, f i where the Reynolds number, Re,is defined as, Re = (Q/As) df/v.
- This can be rewntten as. I 1
I ,,,,, i f f
,_ m indicating,in keeping with an assumption for the derivation of the scaling parameter, or
- j. dimensionless head loss, that the frictional contribution to head loss is a linear function of 3 flow rate while the form losses are related to the square of the flow rate.
Head loss versus flow rate data are documented in Figures D-1. The non-linear behavior of ! th's data are the result of two competing influences; 4 a) Increase in value of average density due to bed compression at high values of head f i loss resulting in a decrease of head loss at higher flow rates 4 2 b) Increased infiuence of form losses (see Section 7.0) resulting in increased value of head loss at higher flows. } The scaling factor is based on the slope of head loss versus flow curve in the linear range, 1 i.e. 4 AH = k O i i
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page D2 oF D11 For tests in which the debris was retained within the strainer and transition volumes, the , slope, k, is used directly. These values are listed in Table D 1 and used to determine the scaling factor. Per Section 7.1.2, a scaling factor for the outer bed is obtained by subtracted a weighted value of k for a test with corresponding sludge to fiber ratio, in which the debris is all held within the strainer, i.e. k bed = k (M) strainer + bed /M bed - k(M) strainer /Mbed These values, and corresponding scaling factors for the outer bort, are documented in Table D-2.
~
l r l l t
MISC PENGoCALC-062. REV 01 Page 03 oF D11 0
-w r
L k
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 i Page D4 oF D11 ; I i l i I l J , 1 l J l i > J 1 l. l l l , I . k _-
^
- l. -
. . . . . . _. . - - . . - . . . - . ~ . . _ _ . - - . - . .. . -- .- . ... .-
MISC PENG CALC 062, REV 01, l Pag 3 05 cF D11 m_
)
i l [ r l l l I i t ; l 1 i i i I l f F l l
MISC PENG CALC-062 REV 01 Page D6 cF D11 e N
-- - - - .. ._=w ..
-~. ._. . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . , _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ , _ _ _ , , , _ _ , , ,
l MISC PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 l Page D7 cF D11 i I & l D ! i I ( s 1 i l I. - I
- MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 P:ge 08 cF D11 4
4 . i e 4 f I 3. i 1 e i s i i l . I i e I 3 s 4
. - _ . . _ - _ . - _ . _ . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . - ~ . . . . _ . . . _ . _ _ . -
V i i i MISC PENGoCALC 062. REV 01 I Page 09 oF D11 l' l s l l l I l I I i 1 I l* j l i l 1 1 1 I Y r
e - .l_ .- A. ai4 A.Aa,6 J A_ = 4 AhJ A. J4m.*w4+ e w. . . - ,m & J,.ae.,Jr4...-AA .- r(-44.a E _s e J A o aee.a-... .A s A.a.mAes,,ya,a MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 I Page D10 oF D11 ) 1 s F a 4 1 I 1, i
\
l l l .I l
. . i 4 1 1
4 1 i 4 9 4 1 t i i I
B 4 O L< --.4. 44-n-4 -4a A m a A&4 wA. , - - - , e .,m&, 4 4 4- a & -,- a w A 1 a -- m - I MISC FENG CALC-062 REV 01 Page 011 ep 011 1 i i 1 I 1 l 4 1 l 1 l
/
i
l MISC-PENG CALC 062, REV 01 l Paga El oF E4 i , APPENDIX E - i NON-UNIFORM BED i The assumption of a uniform bed implies that the head loss and thus flow rate will be i uniform over the surface of the strainer. While some non-uniformities may results in the i
- variations of the data, significant non-uniform bed can result in variations in flow, mass j deposition and head loss.
4 , Strainer performance can be expressed by the equation, Reference 1, i f a ' ]. where f(n),with a defined as the ratio of sludge to fiber,is related to the porosity of the sludge-fiber bed. 4 l The strainer is divided into N equal, axial, sections, Ax, as shown in Figure C 1. The flow, AQi, for each section is based on the relationship between head loss, AHi, the mass of f ) sludge and fiber, AMi, and the surface area of the section, AAi,is given as, l r I j- % . s ! Based on the assumption that the ratio of sludge to fiber is the same for all elements, the l average density, p, is the same in each of the above expressions. 3 i l' The total flow rate, Q is given as, i
~
L j i i i 5,__ . . . __ __ ., . _ _ _ __ . . . _ .
. _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ .. . ~ _ . _ _ .
i MISC PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 Paga E2 oF E4 Upon subAtitution of the expressions for 40, each element being the same size so that the , surf ace areas are equal to AAn = A/N, and making the assumption that the head losses are eoual for each element, %
~,
! F l-l l i
/ -
L ts a f actor less tnan one that accounts for the flow being divided into N parallel tiow patns. For example, for a uniform bed divided into three sections, AMi = AM: = AM: = M/3, so ! that I AMn = M and IAMn ' = 3(3/M) and I
MISC PENG CALC 062 REV 01 Pago E3 oF E4 1 1 l l 1 l 1 l l l 1 , t J 1 1 l l I I i I s - I i i l l
~
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pago E4 oF E4 FIGURE E.1: MODEL FOR NON UNIFORM CUTER BED R fIf V If
"' =2
, m, g M1 M2 MN
~
X
. ~ .- __ __ __
_ _ m._ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page F1 oF F31 ] i i APPENDlX F , INFLUENCE OF END EFFECTS ON HEAD LOSS ! Form losses maybe due to turbulence in tiis bed or the influence of bed geometry on the flow. For example, the turning of the flow that enters the end of the bed to an radial direction as it flows towards the center of the module, e.g. Reference 11 (diagram 6.4). According to the relationship derived in Reference 1 these form losses are accounted for in j the term (1 + k Rel where k is a " loss factor" and the Reynolds number was defined as, y
- Re = (Q/A) df/v 1
where the surface area was taken as the reference area, A. ~ Consider, per Figure F-1, the flow Qi through the ends and flow, Q , through the center portion of the strainer. Though the flow through the bed is normally laminar, the head loss l
- can be expressed in terms of flow squared by using the relationship, i
AH = (K!A8 Q')Q 2 Per Reference 10, the power p is in theory equal to one. However, because of compression effects the value is normally close to by greater than one. This expression can then be written as, aH = (K'/A )Q8 8 l where K' = f(Q'). The head loss through the center (1) and edges (2) are then, AHi = (Ki'/Ai )Oi' 8 8 AH: = (K '/A 2)Q With the head losses being equal, AHi = AHz, and based on the same reference area for Ai and As, the flows are then,
l MISC PENG CALC-062. REV Oi Pag 3 F2 oF F31 l Qi' = (Ka'/Ki )O2 8 l With conservation of flow, O = Qi + Q = Q [1 + (Ka'/Ki')'"] If the Reynolds number based on flow through the end, Q ,is defined as, l 1 Re = (02/A e) df/v l Substitution for Q , Re = (Q /A) df/v = (Q/A) df/v (1 + (Ka'/Ki')"] , 1
= Re/11 + (Ka'/Ki )"1 Equating this expression to kRe gives',
l k = (1 + (Ka'/Kt') "l Ftpm Reference 10, Ki = 25. From Reference 11,it can be approximated that, l l R= Ro, Ka -* = and k -* O R > Ro, Km -* O and k -> 1 Thus, the influence of the end flow is to increase the predicted head losses.
^
It should be noted that these edge effects, could, in the case of large outer beds, also introduce form losses as flow through the ends, Figure F-2, turns from a primarily axial to a radial direction. Predictions with BWRS18 include a 1.75 factor needed to obtain a match between data and predictions. This factor represents the increased losses due to edge effects for the
' Changing notation so that Kt' = Kw' and Ka' = K f-
MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 Page F3 oF F31 one-quarter saction test surfaces used in the EPRl2 tests. Removal of this factor. BWRS18.1,bes, Table F 1, results in lower values of head loss, Table F 2. for predictions in which the fiber and sludge were held in an outer bed.
~
. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . . . . _ . ~ . _ . . . _
Misc esNG.CAi.C 062 Asv v i Page F4 oF F31 FIGURE F 1: EDGE EFFECTS FLOW MODEL l
- I
)
01 l 02- - y l ' EDGE EFFECTS l en t i l 1 L
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pcg3 F5 oF F31 j i FIGURE F 2: END FLOW MODEL l 1 i l i i i i i 4 1 4 01 i l h V* ' 02 l ! I I l END EFFECTS R h1fIfifIfifififififIfiff R/Ro > 1 ! Ro k l
.~. . . . . . . - . - . .. . ~ - . . - . . . - . . ~ - . _ . . . . - . . - . - . .
MISC PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 Pago F6 oF F31
.. t TABLE F 1: BWRS 18.1 '
WITHOUT 1.75 FACTOR ON Co FOR OUTER BED CORRELATION . 1 i L 1. ( ..1 (
- t-
..u,.. m. , 4 a A A a e ....y, __. Aid-w_--s. w .M.,4- 4sa.__. ha m. 4 c, #a,,, ,_,m_4_, 4,,A_g,#_m,._ _a , 4, 44 3,,4 ,,_yg,,y,,7 ,,_ggj my,_,g,, g,, _y, MISC-PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 r~
Page F7 cF F31
%s
- - -- - - -- =. - . . _ . _ . _. . . _ _ _, _ i MISC-PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 Page FB cF F31 F
%r l i
I l i . l l 1 i l 1 I l I 6 t l. i I i is
%i
)
wusu-ecim vai.u vot, nc y v i j Page F9 cF F31 I l 1 i i I i . I l 4 l l I l l i I i
-w
_ MISChENG CALC-062 REV 01 e Page F10 c5.c31 f i 1 l l t I i l L [
- i. .i 1
l l l I l i l l l W %
MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Page F11 oF F31 ! ,e l l { l l t l l 1 l 1 I 1 l I I l I 1 i l
]
- l. ,
i l I i i j i l l i h l
/
M l
MISC PENG CALC 462, REV 01 Page F12 CF F31 j-1 1 l l l l l 1 l l l 1 l l I 1 l \f _.
.. . . . ~ . .. . .. . . . . - . . . . - . - - . . . . .- . .. . . . . . . . . - . ..
MISC-PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 Pace F13 SF F31 % f j
'T 4
W a J T d i t i i E d i i
/
# Pag 3 F14 oF F31 i
4 l r l l l u I I 6 r 1
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page F15 oF F31 1 l 4 t i i 1 t i i ! l 1 I! l I l ? l l i I i i
- - - . .- _ _, - - ~ ~ - __ _ . __ _ ^'"'"S44... A 4 _ ' ~~ '^ ~ MISC PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 f Page F16 oF F31 l l I i i
/
- - --- . .. . ._, . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . ~ ,
l MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 g Page F17 eF F31 t I i I l l' f i 1 1 1 I i i I. : i i l
> i
; i i
I l p I i I, e
MISC PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 Paga F18 cF F31 3: TABLE F 2: BWRS 18.1 PREDICTIONS FOR EPRl3 TESTS ' WITHOUT 1.75 FACTOR ON Co FOR OUTER BED CORRELATION I 1 I
~
MISC PENG CALC 034, nev v i Page F19 of F31 I l l i
< MISC-PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 l m PagD F20 of F31 ,
I t l
't l
i l i l l j i i i l i I I l I I/ N
MISC-PENG-CALC 062 REV 01
- Page F21 oF F31 l
I i l l l i l l l l
)
.e l
l 6 4 4 i' i 1
MISC PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 l
% Page F22 oF F31 i
l f' D i l i
\
i i, I h l h I N
. .- . . . -. . - . . . . - -. - . . . . . - . . - _ . . . . . - - - - . . - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . - .
MISC-PENuSALL-voz, nev v i t Page F23 of F31 l l ' t I l l l l l t i i I r 4 l l i i
MISC-PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 Page F24 oF F31 e , l t l l l t i
. . -. - .. . _ . _ . ..- -. . . - - . - . - . - . .. .... .-- . . _ _ . . .~. . . . - . - . .
MISC PENG CALC.geg, ggy y , e Page F25 of F31 I i i l l R 9 en k h
MJSC PGNG-CALC-062 REV 01 Page F26 cF F31 P ( [
i MISC PENG CALC 062, REV 01 l l Page F27 oF F31 l l I
misu.e cav-wmw v o 6. . .- - Page F28 cF F31 3 1, i
% Miw resvu-vacu-vot, nc , .
Page F29 cF F31 P ,
- f. -
l l l i l l l 1 1 1 I r t l l l l l t b I I I l [. I I -
/
l . . _ _ ^^~ - " ' -- -- _ _ _ _ ,
Un / # k 2 s l T 4 i d 4 4 4
)
i i, I 4 , -
+ 0 l
e a j . I l -
- ?
i J 5 l I 4 I t- l
*kWM*3E'9ADG'9ARCT4WVD Page F30 cF F31 I --
i.
MISC PENG-CALC-0620 REV 01 Page F31 oF F31 l i I i l t i l . l i l l^ l i l I l t l l l 1 l I r I n 4 6 4 N
MISC-PENG CALC-062 REV 01 Page G1 oF G14 i APPENDIX G COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DATA Preliminary data, documented in Appendix 8, was used to compare predictions of SWRS18. In addition, conclusions were made as to the appropriateness of the strainer l l and outer bed correlations based on these data. Final data has now been documented in ( Reference 5. Whereas preliminary values of head loss where for total head, i.e. strainer plus clean losses, the final values of head loss are for the strainer only. In addition, per Reference 5, flow rates have been adjusted for an off-set found in the pressure transducer of the flow venturi. The final data are complied in Table G 1. The objective of this appendix is to compare predictions of head loss with these final values. F l l l i l V Mesa loss and ioss enetticient versus flow rate, for tne preliminary ana riani cata, are compared in Figura G-1. Not evident on the figure, but as calculated in Table G-2, at the same value of flow, the preliminary head losses are larger than those based on the final i l \
._ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
I MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 PCge G2 oF G14 i i i' values of head loss and flow. The zero off set in the pressure transducer is evident in the j ' difference in head loss being larger at lower values of flow. The reduction in head loss is reflected in the reduction in values for loss factor based on the final values. The average $ value of loss factor is 1.645 .258 as compared to a value of 1.877*.096 based on ! preliminary data. G.2 HEAD LOSSES WITH FIBER & SLUDGE BEDS The head loss for the strainers are defined as. i AHeruman = AHvorm. - AHetsme j in the case of the preliminary data, Appendix C, values of total head loss were recorded. , The correlation between head loss and flow for the clean strainer used to calculate values l j of clean head losses. These values were then subtracted from the total head loss to arrive
- at the values of heat loss for the strainer.
i F : 1
^
1 4 4 i b 4
MISC PENG CALC-062 REV 01 PagO G3 oF G14 where Q = flow rate M = mass of fiber plus sludge
,$.s = surface area of the strainer T = temperature of the fluid ,
v = kinernatic viscosity of the fluid pm = average density of the fiber and sludge bed q = ratio of sludge to fiber l t
MISC PENG-CALC-062, REV 01 Page G4 oF G14 TABLE G-1: FINAL DATA FOR CLEAN STRAINERS FROM EPRI 3 TESTS ' 1
- 1 i-l
! Rua 3ABBS: ABB 3d Prototype Strsamer Send End Pines No Materish In Task ! ==== Clona Streber i. 1 1 l I I #
MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Pago G5 oF G14 TABLE G 2: COMPARISON OF CLEAN HEAD LOSSES -
'I
- - - - ~ .. - . .m.., _ . _ _ , _ _ ._ __ ,_
MISC PENG CALC 062, REV 01 I Paga G6 cF G14 l TABLE G 3: FINAL DATA FOR STRAINERS WITH FIBER & SLUDGE FROM EPRI 3 TESTS . 7 I l l 1 I i
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pago G7 of G14 43 i-'
)
N I ..
MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Pag: G8 oF G14 TABLE G 3: FINAL DATA FOR STRAINERS WITH FIBER & SLUDGE FROM EPRI 3 TESTS
......si i % -
I f l l t
, /
~
l i
- - -=. . ._ . . - . - - . . - . _ - . ..~ . .. . . . . . . . - . . . _
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Pago G9 oF G14
- TABLE G.4
- PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DATA I
i e
; 7
- i. ,
s i t. .i 1 I' l l l 4
MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Pag) G10 oF G14 TABLE G 5: COMPARISON OF PREDICTIONS VERSUS DATA l l t i I. l L \ 9
MISC PENG CALC-062, REV 01 Page G11 oF G14 FIGURE G 1: HEAD LOSS AND LOSS FACTORS FOR CLEAN STRAINER r D l 1 l 1 l l l i i
, }
i l l i i l . . _ _ - - . . -
I-MISC PENG CALC-062. REV 01 Pogs G12 oF G14 t I l I i l ( l I i
t l MISC PENG-CALC-062. REV 01 l Pag] G13 oF G14 l FIGURE G 2: PREDICTIONS OF HEAD LOSS BASED ON PRELIMINARY & FINAL DATA - 1 (cont'd) i l l I 1 l l l l I 5 f i g i t r I m N
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Ngo G14 oF G14 l ' ATTACHMENT G 1: 4 ! PREDICTIONS OF HEAD 1.OSS BASED ON BWRS18, bas FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL i l VALUES OF FLOW RATE l MICROFICHE l i l 1 1
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01
- 3ge r11 oF H11 APPENDIX H QUALITY ASSURANCE FORMS Verification Plan Title EVALUATION OF PREDICTIONS AND DATA FOR PROTOTYPE STRAINER Docurnent Number: Revision 01 MISC PENG CALC-062 Number:
i i.. . , * : Desenbe the method (s) of venfication to be employed, i.e., Design Review, Altemate Analysis, Qualification Testing, a combination of these or an altemative. The Design Analysis Verification Checklist is to be used for all Design Analyses. Other elements to consider in formulating the plan are: methods for checking calculations: compenson of results with similar analyses, etc. Descriotion of Verification Method: Verification by Design Review was performed, including: a verify that the correct data has been entered into Appendix G
+
verify that the appropriate methodology is used for sivaluating final as compared to preliminary data a review numerical calculations for accuracy
+ verify that the conclusions are consistent with the evaluation Venfication Plan prepared by: Approved by: $- '
O,;) dent S,p7evie g c .1. G . ns a. ~e Cp'3 indepen int name and Management approver printed name and signature signature s
. , - . . . ...- - - - . . . . . - - . . . - - - _ - . - - - . . . - . . . . . . . _ . .. .~.- .. . . . ?
MISC FENG CALC 062. REV 01 . Ng3 H2 oF H11 l~ ! Design Analysis in-Process Approvala - 1
Title:
EVALUATION OF PREDICTIONS AND DATA FOR PROTOTYPE i l STRAINER ) i Document Number: Revision Number: Rev MISC PENG-CALC 062 01
- 1. A::'_..w.i of ResponsdaiBty-Management assigns the following individuals to this l Desgn Analysis. These individuals are qualified to perform the assigned task by virtue !
] of training and exponence. Printed Name Tc :;:--e.i l Approval Unitiais) I l Cognunnt Enginseds) 8.T.Lubin Mentor QNone independent D.L Sibiga Revieweds)
- 1. The objective and method s ave been reviewed and approved: Independent Reviewer's initials:
- 2. Approval of deviations or modificacons to approved analytical techniques:
[ There are no deviations or mooificanons to approved analytical techniques, i O Devianons or modificanons to approved analyncal techniques are approved: Management initials
- 3. Approval of significant changes in the mode of computer program use:
There are no significant c:.anges in the mode of application of computer k programs. O Cognizant Program Manager concurs with the applicability of computer programs for this use: Program Manager initials
- 4. Design inputs are apprpppyt and traceable to their sources: Independent Reviewer's initials:
7 W
- 5. The Venfication Plan is approved: Management initials CWU
I . MISC FENG CALC 062, REV 01 l l 3 age n3 of H11 ! I l l Design Analysis Verification Checklist (Page 1 of 4) j instructions: The independent Reviewer is to complete this enecklist for each analysis and it { is to be incorporated into the completed analysis. If a major topic area (generally ! unnumbered, bold face type such as Use of Computer Software) is not applicable, then N/A . next to the topic may be checked and the check boxes for all items under it may be left l blank. Where there is no check box urset N/A (not applicable) for a numbered item, such a response is generally inappropriate, if b n a checked in such a situation, document the basis at the end of this checklist in the Comments section. Title EVALUATION OF PREDICTIONS AND DATA FOR PROTOTYPE STRAINER l MISC-PENG-CALC 062 lYes N/A Overat Assessment
- 1. Are the results/ conclusions correct and appropriate for their intended usa? W l
- 2. Are alllimitations and contingencies on the results/ conclusions documented? 7' a :t_..ra of Cogrurent Engineers,s' t;:ni .; Reviewere and Mentore
- 1. Have Cognizant Engineers, independent Reviewers and Mentors, if applicable, been assigned and approved by management?
[
- 2. If there are multiple Cognizant Engineers, has their scope been documented? O Y
- 3. If there are multiple independent Reviewers, hats their scope been documented?
O V
- 4. If there will be multiple Management Approvers, has their scope been documented?
O W
- 5. If an Independent Reviewer is the supervisor has the appropriate level of approval been documented?
O W use of campueer seetware O For software which has been validated under QP 3.13: O
- 1. Is the software applicable for this analysis? &
- 2. If there are significant changes in the mode of software use, has the Program O F Manager (s) been consulted and have they initialed the approvals section of the Design Analysis in Process Approvals form?
For software which has not been validated under CP 3.13: O
MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 ! Page He oF H11
- 1. Is the computer type, program name and revision identification oocumented? O
- 2. Is the documentation sufficient for the independent Reviewer to concur that O the software is appropriate for the analysis?
- 3. Is the documentation sufficient for the independent Reviewer to concur that O the results are correct?
- 4. If the documentation is incorporated by reference, is there assurance that the O software actually used is identical to that in the reference?
- 5. If spreadsheets have been used.is the documentation sufficient for the .O Independent Reviewer to concur that the results are correct?
es k i i
1 MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 Page nS of H11 Desgn Analysia Verification Checidist (Page 2 of 4) Design Analysis Contents Yes N/A Objective of the Design Analysis
- 1. Has information necessary to define the task been included or referenced? W
- 2. Has the reason why the analysis is being performed or revised been F documented?
- 3. Has the applicability and intended use of the results been documented? Q/
Assessment of Sign Scent Design Changes
- 1. Have significant design related changes that might impact this analysis been Q/
considered?
- 2. If any such changes have been identified, have they been adequately addressed?
C [ Analytical Techniques (Methodel
- 1. Are the analytkat techniques (methods) descrobed in sufficient detail to 7 judge their appropriateness?
- 11. Have analytical techniques incorporated by reference to genanc analyses, lead plant snelyses or prr vious cycle analyses been previously verified?
O # lil. For modifications or departures from previously approved analytical O Y techniques or conventionsi Engineering Analysis Procedures (OP 3.19): ~ A. Are they documented and justified? O T B. Have they been approved by Management initialing the Design O W Analysis in-Process Approvals form? IV. If superseded approved analytical techniques or Engineering Analysis Procedures are used, is their use justified and approved? O # V. Does the date of lasue of referenced approved procedures or Engineering Analysis Procedures predate their use in this analysis? O W l seasonen of Design inpues
- 1. Are the design inputs documented? 7
- 2. Are the design inputs correctly selected and traceable to their source? Y
- 3. Are references as direct as possible to the original source or documents containing collection / tabulations of inputs?
I MISC PENG-CALC 062. REV 01 Pago H6 oF H11 l l 3/ 4 Is the reference notation appropriately specific to the information utilizeo?
- 5. Are the bases for selection of all design inputs documented? [
- 6. Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from customers appropriate and documented?
[O
- 7. Is the verification status of design inputs transmitted from ABB CENS C g appropriate and documented?
l
- 8. Is the use of customer-controlled sources such as Tech Specs, UFSARs, etc. O O/
authorized, and does the authorization specify amendment level, revision number, etc.? Aeeumpdone
- 1. If there are no assumptions,is this documented? O Q/
- 2. Are all assumptions identified and justified? W D
- 3. Are assumptions which must be cleared by CENO or the customer listed on a O # l Contingencies and Assumptions form?
l 4. Is a process in place which assures that assumptions which must os cleared by the customer will be included in transmittals to the customer? O M l l
, _ . . _ - . _ - - - . . . - . - - . . - . ~ . - . - . . - . - . - . - . . - . . . - - - - - - -
MISC PQNG CAI.C 062. REV 01 j Page ri7 of H11 k 0-l Design Analysis Vesification Checidist i (Page 3 of 4) i j Results/conclusione Yee N/A l 1. Are all results contained in or referenced in the Results/ Conclusion section? W j 2. Are all limitations on the results/ conclusions and their applicability p documented in this section? e j
- 3. Are all contingencies on the results that must be cleared listed in the results/ conclusion section and on a Contingencies and Assumptions form?
O g i
- 4. Is a process in place which assures that those contingencies which are the customer's responsibility to clear will be included in transmittals to the O f
! customer?
- 5. Has a compenson of the results with those of a previous cycle or similar O j analysis been made and significant differences explained?
! Other Gements
- 1. Have applicable Codes (e.g. ASME Code) and stanoords been appropriately referenced and applied?
O W l l 2. Is the information from relevant literature searches / background data WO l adequately docurnented and referenced?
- 3. Are hand calculations correct and appropriately documented? O I
- 4. Is all applicable computer output and input included? IO
[ 5. Is all computer software used identified by name and revision identification? YO
- 6. Are ai! microfiche envelopes identified with the analysis number and number O 1 of sheets?
- 7. Are all files on CD ROM identified by the path name? O
- 8. Are all computer disks idenafied with the analysis number? O S/
I Referenees
- 1. Are all references used to perform the analysis listed? W j 2. Are the references as direct as possibie and appropriate to the source? W a
- 3. Is the reference notation specific to the information unlized, including revision i level or date of issue, and where apprognate, idenafication of the location of the information in the reference, such as page, table or paragraph number?
l Form /Formet 4 1 I 1 s
l MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 i Pags H8 oF H11 {
- 1. Is the document legible, reproducible and in a form suitable for filing and @-
retneving as a Quality Record?
- 2. Are all pages identified with the document number, including revision number? Q
- 3. Do all pages have a unique page number? @
- 4. Have all changes been authenticated by the initials and date of both the y Cognizant Engineer, independent Reviewer and,if required, by Manatoment?
For a revision to a completed analysis 0
- 1. Where practical have changes and additions been identified by mechanisms such as vertical lines etc.?
- 2. Where practical have deletions been identified by mechanisms such as stnke outs etc.?
Q
- 3. Have indications of changes in previous revisions been removed? g
- 4. Has a Record of Revisions page been added or revised, and does it contain W the extent of the revision?
- 5. Does the distribution of the revision include those .m the distribution of the previous revision?
g , 9 l l i 1 i I f
MISC PENG-CALC 062, REV 01 Page H9 oF H11 Design Analysis Verification Chec6dist (Page 4 of 4) Yes N/A I 1 For a " complete revision": O i
- 1. Have the title and document number been preserved without change? W
- 11. Has the revision number been incremented by one? g For a "page change package":
O
- 1. Are pages numbered in accordance with the original. analysis? O
- 2. Are instructions provided for the insertion and deletion of revised pages? O
- 3. Has a new Title Page been prepared with the Package Contents reflecting O the change package?
- 4. Has the original Title Page been retained to preserve the approval record? O
- 5. Has a new Design Analysis in-Process Approvals form been prepared? O
- 6. Has the original Design Analysis in-Process Approvals form been retained O to preserve the approval record?
Comments (if any) I
MISC PENG CALC-062. REV 01 Paga H10 oF H11 Rewower's Commem Form - Page 1 of 1
Title:
EVALUATION OF PREDICTIONS AND DATA FOR PROTOTYPE STRAINER Document Nurnber: Revision Number: 01
,p ,
Comment Row 6 ewer's Comment Response Author's Response Number Requwed? Response Accepted
?
1 Scales on Predicted vs Data curves no gg 2 vortex tests not included in Ref 5 yes CDIr=== M Ret 5 g l l 83 i S I I I e _ ._y
1 l MISC PENG CALC 062. REV 01 l 2a90 H11 cf H11 Conungencies and Assumpoons i
Title:
EVALUATION OF PREDICTIONS AND DATA FOR PROTOTYPE j STRAINER
! Document Nurnber: Revision Number: 01 i, MISC-PENG-CALC-062 instructions: List below all contingencies and assumpeons on this Design Analyss that must be cleared before structures, systems or cornponents to which they apply l are put into sorwce. Types of contingencies and assumptions:
l Intemal conongences/ assumptions are those which are CENO's responsbility to
, clear.
1 l Extemel conungencies/ assumptions are those which are the customer's i responmbility to clear. l Conungences/assumpoons which are CENO's responsbility shed be cleared by the j Cogruzant Engmeer umng one of two mechanisms desenbod in cragraph 3.8 of QP
- 3.4. A copy of this form is to be given to the Project Manager wno is responsbie for l" assunng that au contingencies and assumption on a pro %ct which are CENO's responsibility to clear are cleared, and those which are the customer's are '
transmetted to them. If there are no intomai or Extemet Contingencies / Assumptions, then this form need ) not be included in the Demon Analysis. Type of Contingency / Assumption Contingency /Assumpeon X Intemal Extemmi MICRO FICHE FOR APPENDIX G OIntemal O Extemal O intemme O External}}