ML20211K967
| ML20211K967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1987 |
| From: | Gridley R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Youngblood B NRC COMMISSION (OCM), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702270031 | |
| Download: ML20211K967 (52) | |
Text
_ _ - _ - _ - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
?
e TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CH ATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 SN 157B Lookout Place FEB 1M987 I
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document control Desk Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
, Washington, D.C.
20555 f Attention:
Mr. B. J. Youngblood ni In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-328 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON SEQUOYAH'S EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION UNDER SUPERHEAT CONDITIONS In response,to'NRC's request for additional information dated January 20, 1987, TVA is' submitting the enclosed response. TVA has provided itemized answers to each of the seven NRC questions and has included a detailed discussion of the modeling methodology, the heat transfer coefficients used, and the conservatisms built into each model.
r This submittal continues to support the conclusion that electrical equipment v
y' -
within Sequoyah's vslve vaults are qualified and would perform their safety-related function in the event of a main steam line break. This f /
7 submittal should also enable NRC preparation of a Safety Evaluation Report J
[
(SER) on Volume 2.of;Sequoyah's Nuclear Performance Plan.
/'
If you havf questions concerning this issue, please call Don Goodin of r
Sequoyah~ Site Licensing Staff at (615) 870-7462.
I r
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY j
f R. Gridley, irector Nuclear Safety and Licensing a
e /
Enclosure' cc:
see page 2
/',
'r D
g Ir P
\\
.ra v
/
f An Equal Opportunity Employer f
Oi
-2.
g.
U.S Nuclear Re5ulatory Comission FEB.171987
)
(v cc (Enclosure):
' )'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i
Region II.
s
-?
Attn:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 2/
Atlanta, Georgia 30323 i
n Mr. J. J. Holonich Sequoyah Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Mr. G. G. Zech, Director TVA Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II i 101'Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Sequoyah Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee' 37319 4
I Y
h
\\
'\\
s 1
i I
)g s
I ss I-l
[
.h
RESPONSE TO NRC'S QUESTIONS ON ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION FOR A MAIN STEAM LINE BREAK IN THE MAIN STEAM VALVE VAULT NRC requested additional information from TVA on the effects of temperature on electrical equipment located in the Sequoyah Nuclear (SQN) Plant's main steam valve vault (MSVV) during a main steam line break (MSLB).
The request was made by letter from B. J. Youngblood to S. A. White dated January 20, 1987.
The following information is provided to respond to that request and is current as of February 6, 1987. Note that TVA is in the process of adding a requirement for 10 CFR 50.49 conduit seals for specific MSVV limit switches which have.been added to the EQ program. TVA anticipates establishing qualification of these Conax conduit seals for superheat conditions by utilizing a methodology similar to this submittal. Full qualification documentation will be included for the conduit seals in the appropriate SQN EQ Binder in accordance with TVA's established procedures.
NRC Ouestion 1.
Page 2 of the December 23, 1986 TVA submittal states that:
"The equipment that would heat up most during the-steam line break were the ones with the least thermal inwrtia. The valve vault equipment lists were reviewed, and components with low mass and thin housings were selected for analysis."
During the January 7, 1987, conference call, TVA stated all Class A and B components in the vaults had either been tested or thermally analyzed to verify that internal temperatures were enveloped by the existing qualification results.
Accordingly:
- a. Confirm that all Class A and B equipment in the valve vaults have been tested or thermally analyzed and that none had been eliminated through an engineering judgment process (e.g., items with high thermal mass woro climinated from the thermal analysis).
- b. For the Class A and B equipment listed in the December 23, 1986, submittal, state which pieces of equipment have now been tested to determine internal temperatures. Also, identify those equipment items l
I for which the thermal analysis remains as the means of determining the internal temperature, r
Response
1.a.
TVA confirms that all 10 CFR 50.49 equipment which will not be moved outside the MSVV by unit restart that is classified as Category A or B for an MSLB in the valve vault has been qualified by test or analysis.
All such equipment is included in Tables 1 through 3 of our December '23, 1986 submittal.
No equipment was excluded based upon any engineering judgment process.
For additional information, see the responses to questions 2 and 4.
8 E
m 1.,
, ~ b o.
- %gM1tdbM05:qd g)2
,-4,..,
m, m., c,
. 1.b.
Qualification of all MSVV equipment types to the superheat profile is based on thermal analysis showing that the effects of the short duration superheat profile on temperature sensitive internal components are'less severe than the effects of existing qualification testing.
(Note:
Testing of the Masoneillan Model 8012 discussed in the December 23, 1986 submittal was suspended due to new information resulting in reclassification of these operators to Category C for the MS /V MSLB--see the response to question 4.)
NRC Ouestion 2.
In accordance.with the discussion of January 7, 1987, confirm that any Class A and B equipment in the valve vaults that was originally listed as requiring MSLB qualification but that now will be relocated outside of the valve vaults will be relocated prior to restart.
Provide a list of such equipment.
Response
Engineering Change Notice (ECN) L-6689 has been issued to relocate certain MSVV equipment outside the MSVV before restart. This equipment is listed below by TVA number. TVA confirms that all field work and EQ documentation for this relocation will be complete before restart of the respective units.
Therefore, inclusion of this equipment in TVA's superheat analyses is not necessary. No other MSVV 10 CFR 50.49 equipment relocations are planned at this time.
Equipment 1, 2-PSV-01-013A East Valve Vault
-013B
-024A
-024B 1, 2-PSV-01-006A West Valve Vault
-006B
-031A
-031B These devices are associated with the steamline PORVs.
It should be noted that relocation of these items was initiated as a result of considerations not related to superheat.
NRC Ouestion 3.
Page 4 cf the TVA submittal states:
"All of the cables located in the valve vault are routed through conduits and are terminated in junction i
boxes."
r i
i l
d 9
9
&S h
.. In' light of NRC-sponsored research which demonstrated high leakage currents on instrumentation signals as well as terminal-to-terminal'
' shorting of power and control terminations exposed to the effects of a LOCA/MSLB event, provide'the' test data or analyses which demonstrates the acceptability of the terminations for use in a steam environment or provide a description of any housings that preclude condensation of moisture from the steam upon the terminal blocks.
4
Response
The August 13, 1986 TVA superheat report and the December 23, 1986, submittal address only temperature effects since other aspects of a MSVV MSLB line break (i.e., radiation, flooding, moisture, etc.) are enveloped by other MSVV accident profiles. Qualification to those other conditions has been established by previously existing EQ documentation and has been extensively reviewed by NRC.
In the example of terminal blocks, SQN EQ Binder SQNEQ-TB-001 documents the 4
qualification of terminal blocks used in power, control, and instrumentation circuits in harsh environments. Qualification is based primarily on testing-documented in Wyle Laboratories' test report No. 17733-1.
In this test, terminal blocks were exposed to the worst-case accident profile postulated for Sequoyah's containment (including moisture / humidity effects).
Leakage currents were monitored, recorded, and then compared to actual plant requirements to determine the acceptability of using terminal blocks in power, control, and instrumentation circuit applications. As a result of these tests, TVA has removed terminal blocks from 10 CFR 50.49 transmitter circuits and has determined that the terminal blocks are acceptable for
~
remaining.10CFR50.49 applications at SQN.
NRC Ouestion j
s i
4 Confirm that the Masoneillan Model 120 level control valve positioners and f
associated ASCO solenoid operated valves no longer require MSLB qualification. Provide a description of the justification for the change in classification.
~
Response
i The Masoneillan Model 120 level control valve positioner and associated ASCO j
solenoid operated valves are not needed to mitigate an MSLB in the valve l-vaults and have been reclassified as Category C for this event.
It has been l
determined that for an overcooling event, (i.e., MSLB) only one steam generator and one motor-driven auxiliary feedwater pump (MDAFWP) are required to safely mitigate the event and effect plant cooldown (reference FSAR chapter 15.4 secondary system breaks). The failure of the Masoneillan valve I
8 4
g4M [
d Iaw-w e
e
.... - - -. - ~
_4_
positioners in conjunction wi*h a single active failure does not place the plant in a configuration that would prevent the availability of one intact steam generator and one MDAFWP.
NRC Ouestions 5.
Provide the values of the convective and condensation heat transfer coefficients used to account for the heat flow between the MSLB environment and the outer surface of the equipment housings.
6.
For all of the equipment which is being qualified by thermal analysis, provide the models used in the thermal analyses and actual dimensions of equipment.
Response (Items 5 and 6)
In the December 23, 1986 submittal TVA provided the thermal response of all types of Category A and B equipment that had not been qualified by testing except the cable in conduit which was provided in August 13, 1986 submittal.
This included the equipment which had been analyzed by Westinghouse using one dimensional slab geometry. These devices were reanalyzed with the HEATING 5 1
computer code using two dimensional models. A discussion of the methodology used for the analyses and a discussion of each component analyzed is provided below along with the values of the heat transfer coefficients and schematics of the models used, as requested.
General Modeling Guidelines Model Construction All HEATING 5 models were constructed as two-dimensional cross sections through the critical components. These cuts were chosen so as to maximize the heat transfer. The component physical dimensions were taken from manufacturer's drawings and specifications or from physical measurements of the actual device. Adjoining material layers within a component were conservatively asrumed to have no gap resistance in order to maximize the heat up of internal components. The only exception was the cable interface with conduit which is discussed in detail in the section dealing specifically with the cable in conduit model.
Thermophysical properties of materials were taken from manufacturer's information or from standard textbook sources. Models for components did not differ between the MSLB analysis and the EQ test analysis with the exception of the boundary conditions.
MSLB Heat Transfer coefficient Methodology For convection and condensation, heat transfer coefficients used to determine the thermal response of electrical equipment to MSLBs in the valve vaults were obtained by two methods.
\\
d.18 d%di -ma e g...wd.dA;1*1e; 8
i
' 5-1.
From correlations applicable to the mode of heat transfer:
For condensing heat transfer, four times the maximum heat transfer coefficient from the Uchida heat transfer correlation was used. The temperature difference used with this correlation was Tsaturated-Tsurface. Transition to convection heat transfer was assumed when the heat transferred.by convection exceeded that transferred by condensation.
This is consistent with the guidelines in NUREG-0588 Appendix B.
For forced convection heat transfer, the heat transfer correlation given in NUREG-0588 Appendix B was used:
Nu = C
- Re ** N where Nu = Nusselt number = D1 K
C = coefficient from Hilpert correlation N = exponent from Hilpert correlation Re = Reynolds number h = heat transfer coefficient K = thermal conductivity 1 = characteristic length The Hilpert correlation defines the coefficient and exponent as a function of Reynolds number for various geometries and is based upon experimental data.
Note, that in all enses the velocity corresponding to the minimum restrictive flow area was used to calculate the Reynolds number in' order to maximize heat transfer.
A discussion of the Hilpert correlation may be found in principles of Heat Transfer by Frank Krieth and Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer by Knudsen and Katz. The Hilpert correlation for forced convection flow was used to define the heat transfer coefficient when it exceeded the turbulent natural free convection heat transfer coefficient.
The turbulent natural free convection heat transfer coefficient was based upon standard textbook correlations found in Heat Transfer by A. J. Chapman, i.e.
H = C * (Tbulk - Tsurface) ** N where H = Heat transfer coefficient C = Coefficient from correlation T ulk = Atmospheric Temperature b
Tsurface = Surface Temperature N = Exponent from correlation hh#hhi 9tf"'2"*9
5 The temperature difference used for convective heat transfer was Thulk -
Tsurface-2.
From the Westinghouse COMPACT code analysis (where applicable):
The heat transfer coefficients from the COMPACT code incorporated the interaction between the environment and the heat transfer coefficient.
Condensation heat transfer coefficient used in COMPACT is fcar times Uchida but the values shown in the Tables have been adjusted to account for the fact that COMPACT heat transfer equations use temperature differences based on T ulk-Tsurface rather than Tsat-Tsurface-b COMPACT code documentation previously supplied to the NRC by Westinghouse describes the methodology for this equation derivation.
Convective heat transfer coefficients from COMPACT were developed based on the Hilpert correlation or flow over applicable geometries as described in the August 13, 1986 submittal to NRC.
Flow rates used to determine the Reynolds number required for the forced convection correlations were based on the velocity at the most restricted cross sectional area in either valve vault to conservatively maximize the heat transfer coefficients. In addition, at the end of blowdown stagnant natural convection heat transfer coefficients were used. This change delayed the cooldown of the surface of components to' conservatively retain heat within the components. These assumptions ensured conservative, boundary temperature profiles for the various components regardless of their location in the valve vault.
Radiation heat transfer coefficients for heat transfer from the environment to the surface were obtained from the k'estinghouse analysis (when available) or by using the beam length method developed by Hottel and described by Frank Kreith in Principles of Heat Transfer. The beam length method gives the effectivo cmissivity of water vapor as functions of the temperature and the product of the partial pressure of the water vapor and the hemispherical beam length (note: a conservatively low temperature and a 100-percent steam environment were assumed to maximize the gas emissivity during the tranulent). The HEATING 5 code uses the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and requires that the radiative heat transfer coefficient (h ad) be in the following r
format:
head = gray body shape factor X S.B.
Therefore, the radiative coefficient accounting for the gray body radiative i
interchange was calculated by:
head = S.B. / ( 1 / G.E.
& ((1 - S.E.)/ S.E.))
i where 4
= Gas Emissivity from beam length method C.E.
= Surf'ce Emissivity
)
S.E.
a S.B.
= Stefan-Boltzmann constant 4
- - -- - --- :L2rt : n vrM
. Radiative heat transfer from the surface across internal air gaps assumed a shape factor of one between two parallel flat plates and emissivities based upon materials involved in the radiative interchange.
Thus, the internal radiative heat transfer coefficient used in the HEATING 5 analyses was:
head = S.B.
/ (1/E.M1.
+ 1/E.M2.
-1 )
where E.M1. = Emissivity Material 1 E.M2. = Emissivity Material 2 Qualification Test Heat Transfer Coefficient Methodology Heat transfer coefficients used during analysis to the qualification test profile were based on four times Uchida during the condensation period and a stagnant natural convection heat transfer coefficient for convective periods without spray.
This stagnant natural convection coefficient was always less than 2 Btu /hr-ft OF.
The heat transfer coefficient used during the spray period was determined using a laminar convection heat transfer correlation for flim flow from Heat Transfer by A. J. Chapman (page 334).
MSIV Solenoid Qualification of the MSIV solenoid valves has been established by comparing the analysis of the solenoid valve thermal response during a MSLB to an analysis of the valve during qualification testing.
A schematic of the two-dimensional HEATING 5 model is provided in figure 1.
The dimensions given on the figure are actual dimensions obtained from vendor-supplied drawings of the MSIV solenoid valve.
Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the MSLB environment and the outer surface of the MSIV solenoid housing are given in table 1.
The heat transfer coefficients were obtained from the Westinghouse COMPACT code analysis. Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the test chamber environment and the outer surface of the MSIV solenoid valve housing are based on four times Uchida during condensation and stagnant natural convection during the remainder of the test.
The temperatura forcing function used for the MSLB HEATING 5 analysis is shown on figure 2 with the curve labeled "MSLB."
The temperature forcing function for the qualification test is also shown on figure 2 and is labeled " Atmos.
Qual. Profile."
The comparison of the results from the two HEATING 5 analyses is shown in figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3 shows the thetwal response of the surf ace of the MSIV solenoid housing to the MSLB.
The EQ test was done without a housing on the solenoid valve so a direct comparison of surface temperature cannot be made. However, a comparison of this curve to the atmospheric profile curve on l
x:.,x m.-.n.~
~.
+n u.:a
.,. Figure 2 shows that the maximum temperature of the MSIV housing surface is no more than 10 degrees greater than the qualification profile and only exceeds the atmospheric test profile for about 80 seconds. The calculated temperature of the coil (the critical component) surface during the MSLB was labeled "MSLB" on figure 4.
The calculated response of the coil to the atmospheric profile curve from figure 2 is labeled "EQ Test" on figure 4.
The time scale was modified (i.e. 3,600 seconds were added) for the MSLB curve to graphically illustrate the difference in magnitude and duration of the temperatures experienced by the solenoid valve during the MSLB event and equipment qualification testing. The curves demonstrate that the coil experiences a more severe temperature during the qualification testing than it would experience during the worst-case MSLB in the valve vault. These curves were taken from the December 23, 1986 submittal. No additional analyses were performed. Thus, qualification of the MSIV solenoid valve during a main steam line break was established.
ASCO Solenoid Qualification of the MSVV ASCO solenoid valves has been established by comparing a thermal analysis of the solenoid valve during a MSLB to a thermal analysis of the valve during qualification testing. A schematic of the two-dimensional HEATING 5 model is provided in figure 5.
The model was constructed to conservatively minimize the thermal inertia. The dimensions given on the figure are actual dimensions obtained from vendor-supplied drawings of the ASCO solenoid valve model type 206-381.
The same geometric model was used to analyze both the energized and unenergized operational modes.
Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the MSLB environment and the outer surface of the unenergized and energized ASCO solenoid housing are given in tables 2 and 3, respectively. The heat transfer coefficients are applied to all unlabeled boundaries in figure 5.
The heat transfer coefficients in table 3 contain no condensation heat transfer since the surface temperature of an energized ASCO solenoid is greater than the MSLB saturation temperature. The convective heat transfer coefficients were obtained from the Westinghouse COMPACT code analysis.
Four times the maximum Uchida heat transfer coefficient was used for condensation heat transfer to the unenergized solenoid. Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the' test chamber environment and the outer surface of the ASCO solenoid valve housing were based upon stagnant natural convection since the ASCO was energized at the beginning of the test.
The temperature forcing function used for the MSLB HEATING 5 analysis is shown on figure 6 with the curve labeled "MSLB."
The temperature forcing function for the qualification test is also shown on figure 6 and is labeled EQ.
The comparison of the resultc from the two HEATING 5 analyses of the unenergized ASC0' solenoid are shown on figures 7 and 8.
Figure 7 shows the i
l
+
y e i to e c's.e 34Ah6 N h*
M L
L-a*
ka
""**I e
g
. thermal response of the surface of the MSIV solenoid housing to the MSLB (labeled "MSLB") and to the atmospheric qualification profile (labeled "EQ IEST").
The curves show that the surface temperature of the unenergized Folenoid during an MSLB remains below the surface temperature during qJalification.
Figure 8 shows the calculated temperature response of the coil surface, the critical component, to the MSLB (labeled "MSLB") and to the atmospheric profile (labeled "EQ TEST").
The curves demonstrate that the unenergized ASCO coil experiences a more severe temperature during the qualification testing than it would experience during the worst-case MSLB in the valve vault.
These curves were taken from the December 23, 198, submittal. No additional analyses were performed. Thus, qualification of the MSVV ASCO solenoid valves during a main steam line break was established.
The comparison of the results from the two HEATING 5 analyses of the energized ASCO solenoid are shown on figures 9 and 10.
Figure 9 shows the thermal response of the surface of the ASCO solenoid housing to the MSLB (labeled MSLB) and to the atmospheric qualification profile (labeled EQ). These curves show that the surface temperature of the energized ASCO solenoid during an MSLB exceeds the qualification surface temperature for appecximately four minutes. However, as seen in figure 10, the temperature (labeled "MSLB") of the coil surface (critical component) does not exceed its initial steady state operating temperature by more than.2 F during the entire MSLB transient.
0 Therefore, energized ASCOs are not expected to fail during an MSLB since no appreciable change in the temperature of the coil occurs. These curves were taken from the December 23, 1986 submittal. No additional analyses were performed. Thus, qualification of the ASCO solenoid valve during a main steam line break was established.
Junction Boxes and Associated Equipment Qualification of the MSVV terminal blocks inside junction boxes has been established by comparing a thermal analysis of a junction box containing a terminal block during a MSLB to a thermal analysis of an identical configuration during qualification testing. A schematic of the two-dimensional HEATING 5 model is provided in figure 11.
The dimensions given on the figure were obtained from TVA drawings of junction boxes and from vendor supplied drawings of the terminal blocks.
Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the MSLB environment and the outer surface of the junction box are given in table 4.
The heat transfer coefficients were determined using the methodology described in item 1 of the section titled "MSLB Heat Transfer Coefficient Methodology" in this response.
Heat transfer coefficients used to account for the heat flow between the test chamber environment and the junction box are based on four times Uchida during condensation and stagnant natural convection during the remainder of the test.
The temperature forcing function used for the HSLB HEATING 5 analysis is shown on figure 12 with the curve labeled "MSLB."
The temperature forcing function for the qualification test of the terminal block (tested inside a junction box) is also shown on figure 12 and is labeled " Atmos. Qual. Profile."
4
,n a + m. % w.4.m. w w w J
. The comparison of the results from the two HEATING 5 analyses is shown on figures 13.
Figure 13 shows the thermal response of the terminal block to the MSLB (labeled CALC. MSLB RESPONSE) and to the atmospheric qualification profile from figure 12 (labeled CALC. EQ RESPONSE). The curves show that the terminal block experienced a more severe temperature during the qualification testing than it would experience during the worst case MSLB in the valve vaults. These curves were taken from the December 23, 1986 submittal. No additional analyses were performed.
Thus, qualification of the terminal blocks during a main steam line break was established.
Limitorque Valve Operators I
Qualification of the MSVV Limitorque valve operators has been established by comparing a thermal analysis of the Limitorque Valve operator during a MSLB to a thermal analysis of the valve operator during qualification testing. A schematic of the two-dimensional HEATING 5 model is provided in figure 14.
The dimensions given on the fi ure were obtained from vendor supplied drawings of t
the Limitorque assembly and from physical neasurements of the actual devices.
Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the MSLB environment and the outer surface of the Limitorque control box assembly are y
given in table S.
The heat transfer coefficients were determined using the i
methodology described in item 1 of the section titled "MSLB Heat Transfer Coefficient Methodology" in this response. Heat transfer coefficients used to account for the heat flow between the test chamber environment and the control oox assembly are based on four times Uchida during condensation, stagnant natural convection during convection, and film flow during the spray period.
The temperature forcing function used for the MSLB HEATING 5 analysis is shown on figure 15 with the curve labeled "MSLB."
The temperature forcing function for the qualification test of the Limitorque is also shown on figure 15 and is labeled "EQ TEST."
The comparison of the results from the two HEATING 5 analyses is shown on figures 16 and 17.
Figure 16 shows the thermal response of the surface of the limitorque control box to the MSLB (labeled "MSLB") and to the atmospheric qualification profile from figure 15 (labeled "EQ TEST").
The curves show that the surface of the Limitorque remains below the surface temperature experienced during qualification for all times during the MSLB ovent. The curves demonstrate that the Limitorque valve operator experienced a more severe temperature during the qualification testing than it would experience during the worst-case MSLB in the valve vault.
The jumper cable which was identified as one of the critical components in the December 23, 1986 submittal was installed by TVA after procurement of the Limitorques and therefore did not have the same qualification testing as the rest of the Limitorque valve operator components. An analysis to establish the thermal response of the installed cable to its qualification testing was performed for comparison with the thermal response of the same cable in the I
J. ~ - -~
. Limitorque model.
Figure 17 shows the jumper cable surface temperature response inside the Limitorque control box (labeled "MSLB") during an MSLB and the calculated surface temperature response during qualification (labeled "EQ TEST").
The curves demonstrate that the jumper cable installed by TVA experienced a more severe temperature response during qualification testing than it would experience during the worst case MSLB in the valve vault.
These curves were taken from the December 23, 1986 submittal. No additional analyses were performed. Thus, qualification of the Limitorque valve operators during a main steam line break was established.
NAMCO Limit Switch Qualification of the NAMCO limit switch has been established by comparing a thermal analysis of the limit switch during a MSLB to a thermal analysis of the limit switch during qualification testing. A schematic of the two-dimensional HEATING 5 model is provided in figure 18.
The dimensions given on the figure are actual dimensions obtained from physical measurements of the devices.
Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the MSLB environment and the outer surface of the limit switch housing are given in table 6.
The heat transfer coefficients were determined using the methodology described in item 1 of the section titled "MSLB Heat Transfer coefficient Methodology" in this response. Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the test chamber environment and the outer surface of the NAMCO limit switch housing are based on four times Uchida during condensation and stagnant natural convection during the remainder of the test.
The temperature forcing function used for the MSLB HEATINGS analysis is shown on figure 19 with the curve labeled "MSLB."
The temperature forcing function for the qualification test is also shown on figure 18 and is labeled " CHAMBER."
The comparison of the results from the two HEATING 5 analyses are shown on figures 20 and 21.
Figure 20 shows the thermal response of the surface of the limit switch housing to the MSLB (labeled "MSLB") and to the qualification profile (labeled "EQ TEST").
The curves show that the surface temperature of the limit switch during an MSLB exceeds the qualification surface temperature for approximately 100 seconds. However, as seen in figure 21, the temperature (labeled "MSLB") of the phenolle connectors, the critical component, during an MSLB does not exceed the calculated temperature responso (labeled "EQ TEST")
to the atmospheric profile curve from figure 19.
The curves demonstrate that the critical components of the limit switch experienced a more severe temperature during the qualification testing than it would experience during the worst case MSLB in the valve vault. These curves were taken from the December 23, 1986 submittal. No additional analyses were performed. Thus, qualification of the NAMCO limit switch during an MSLB was established.
I e
-... ~ m. m
-.. _m.w
p e
L
.- I Cable In conduit Qualification of the cable in conduit has been established by comparing a thermal analysis of the cable in conduit during a MSLB to a thermal analysis of the cable during qualification testing and by testing at Singleton Laboratories (see response to question 7).
A schematic of the two-dimensional HEATING 5 model is provided on figure 22.
All surfaces in the model were assumed to be molecularly connected to adjoining surfaces with the exception of the cable contact with the conduit wall. A gap resistance of 10 was used to model the tangential contact of the cable and the conduit. The dimensions given on the figure are actual dimensions obtained from manufacturer's specifications. Note that all cables in the valve vaults are inside conduit.
Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the MSLB environment and the outer surface of the conduit are given in table 7.
The heat transfer coefficients were applied to all unlabeled boundaries in figure 22.
The heat transfer coefficients were obtained from the Westinghouse COMPACT code analysis.
(Note, radiative and convective coefficients were combined in this model.) Heat transfer coefficients used to account for heat flow between the test chamber environment and the outer surface of the cable are based on four times Uchida during condensation and stagnant natural convection during the remainder of the test.
The temperature forcing function used for the HSLB HEATINGS analysis is shown on figure 23 with the curve labeled "MSLB."
The temperature forcing function for the qualification test of the cable is also shown on figure 23 and is labeled "EQ TEST."
The comparison of the results from the two HEATINGS analyses are shown on figures 24 and 25.
Figure 24 shows the thermal response of the surface of the conduit to the MSLB. The EQ test of the cable was done without a conduit on the solenoid valve so a direct comparison of conduit surface temperature cannot be made.
However, a comparison of the temperature response of the cable surface inside the conduit (labeled "MSLB") to cable surface temperature response during qualification testing (labeled "EQ TEST") is shown on figure 25. The curves demonstrate that the cable experiences a more severe temperature during the qualification testing than it would experience inside a conduit during the worst-case MSLB in the valve vault.
All cables in the valve vault are inside conduits. These curves were taken from the December 23, 1986 submittal.
No additional analyses were performed. Thus, qualification of the cable inside conduit during am MSLB was established.
Summarv Of Conservatisms Conservative modeling and analytical assumptlons were utilized to determine the environmental qualification of electrical components to the worst case MSLB in the valve vault. The following list summarizes conservatisms used in the analyses of the electrical equipment in the valve vaults.
Models were constructed to maximize heat transfer during MSLBs and to minimize heat transfer during qualification analysis, i
s* e 3 -A4h IMak'hMf '
A--'
m,,,- a,1/4 wh',,,h
. Cap resistances were neglected in order to maximize the heat up of the components. The only exception was the cable interface with conduit where an appropriate, but conservative, gap resistance tras used.
NUREG-0588, Appendix B methodology for determining condensation and convection heat transfer coefficients were used during the MSLB analysis.
Forced convection heat transfer coefficients for the MSLB analyses were calculated using the velocity corresponding to the most restrictive cross sectional area in either valve vault.
Stagnant natural convection heat transfer coefficients were used at the end of MSLB blowdown to delay cooldown of the components and retain heat within the components.
- Radiative heat transfer coefficients (external and internal) were maximized for the MSLB to promote heat transfer into the component.
Forced convection heat transfer was neglected in the environmental qualification analyses.
Stagnant natural convection was used.
Conclusions The analyses described in the preceding discussion established the qualification of the following MSVV devices by comparisons of their calculated thermal response during an MSLB to their calculated thermal response during qualification testins.
t Main steam isolation valve ASCO solenoid valves (energized and unenorgized)
Junction boxes (and associated equipment such as terminal blocks and cables)
Limitorquo Valve operators
- NAMCO limit switches
- Cable in conduit The calculated surface temperatures of the Limitorque valve operator, the MSIV solenoids, and the electrical devices contained within protective enclosures (i.e., the terminal blocks and electrical cables) during an MSLB were determined to be less severe than that experienced during qualification testing. Therefore, qualification of these devices is directly established without an examination of the critical components.
The temperature of the protectivo casings of the NAMCO limit switches and the ASCO solenoid volves was for a brief period of time greater than tho qualification temperaturo. However, the HEATINGS analyses of these devices demonstrated that the critical components (ASCO coli and NAMCO phenolic) experienced a more severe environment during qualification testing than would be experienced during a postulated MSLB.
Therefore, the qualification of these devices during the worst-case MSLB is established by comparison of taermal analyses'of the critical components.
- -.s w m m e _
-.m-
. In summary, qualification of the Catagory A and B electrical equipment in the valve vault during the worst-case MSLB has been established by conservative thermal analyses. These analyses have shown that the thermal inertia of even the smallest electrical device installed in the valve vault provides sufficient thermal lag to ensure acceptable operation of the device during MSLBs. These analyses coupled with the qualification by testing (see also response to question 1) of all other components in valve vault fully demonstrates Category A and B equipment will operate as required during and following a MSLB in the valve vault.
NRC Ouestion 7.
At which point or points inside the conduit was the temperature measured during the MSLB cable type test (i.e., was the measurement made in the air space or at the cable surface)?
Response
During the cable testing, the following temperatures were measured and documented in the test report:
- Oven temperature
- Conduit outer surface temperature
- Conduit inner surface temperature
- Conduit internal air temperature For conservatism, the temperature used for cable considerations was the conduit inner surface temperature rather than the conduit air temperature.
This inner surface temperature rose faster and reached a higher peak temperature than did the conduit air temperature.
0602c I
.s
.~,
so;.w w ss as. mom.we-
If TABLE 1 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS USED IN HEATING 5 MSIV SOLENOID MODEL Boundary Condition 1:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
_(Btu /hr f t2 degF)
(Btit/sec ft2 degF) 0.00 6.2 1.74E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 1.00 6.9 1.91E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 2.01 7.0 1.95E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 3.02 7.2 1.99E-3
- CONVECTION / RADIATION 4.03 7.3 2.02E-3_
CONVECTION / RADIATION 5.05 7.4 2.06E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 6.16 7.6 2.10E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 7.28 7.7 2.14E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 8.34 7.8 2.17E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 9.54 8.0 2.21E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 10.63 8.1 2.25E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 41.11 8.2 2.27E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 84.35 7.7 2.13E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 104.92 7.6 2.09E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 209.25 7.2 1.99E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 308.69 7.2 1.99E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 402.27 7.1 1.96E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 505.04 6.6 1.83E-3 CONVECTION / RADIATION 609.56 2.5 6.93E-4 CONVECTION / RADIATION 705.80 2.1 5.90E-4 CONVECTION / RADIATION 807.90 2.0 5.63E-4 CONVECTION / RADIATION t
l
[
...w. &.: aa mu.,
- M watum
4 TABLE 2 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS USED IN HEATING 5 ASCO SOLENOID MODEL (UNENERGIZED COIL)
Boundary Condition 1:
Time
' Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.01 1120.0 3.11E-1 CONDENSATION 11.25 1120.0 3.11E-1
. CONDENSATION 11.251 13.7 3.81E-3 CONVECTION 40.68 15.1 4.19E-3 CONVECTION
- 81.10 _
13.2 3.67E-3 COINECTION 123.24 11.8 3.28E-3 CONVECTION 165.54 11.2 3.11E-3 CONVECTION 209.47 11.2 3.10E-3 CONVECTION 255.88 11.1 3.08E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 10.9 3.03E-3 CONVECTION 356.22 10.7 2.97E-3 CONVECTION 410.50 9.8 2.72E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 9.3 2.58E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 8.1 2.25E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 7.4 2.05E-3 CONVECTION 604.96 3.3 9.17E-4 CONVECTION 656.52 2.0 5.55E-4 CONVECTION 1000.0 2.0 5.55E-4 CONVECTION l
- * ' Mwd-4/V hi 4 5$ _ _E
^ - ^ ^ ^ ' - -' ' '
6 n
s4 TABLE 3 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS USED IN HEATING 5'ASCO SOLENOID MODEL (ENERGIZED COIL)
Boundary Condition 1:
i Time Heat transfer coefficients-Remarks (sec.)
~ (Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF)
-0.0 1.3 3.70E-4 CONVECTION 0.01 9.3 2.58E-3
-CONVECTION 10.56 13.7 3.81E-3
. CONVECTION
~
40.68 15.1 4.19E-3 CONVECTION 81.10 13.2 3.67E-3.
CONVECTION 123.24 11.8 3.28E-3 CONVECTION 165.54 11.2 3.11E-3 CONVECTION 209.47 11.2 3.10E-3 CONVECTION 255.88 11.1 3.08E-3
. CONVECTION 308.84 10.9 3.03E-3 CONVECTION i
356.22 10.7 2.97E-3 CONVECTION 7
410.50 9.8 2.72E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 9.3 2.58E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 8.1 2.25E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 7.4 2.05E-3 CONVECTION 604.96 3.3 9.17E-4 CONVECTION j
656.52 2.0 5.55E-4 CONVECTION 1000.0 2.0 5.55E-4 CONVECTION i
l I
6 i
l t
i 4
i l
6 i
4 e
i 1..,
., a u; 2.,
l
,,a.u wpfg 6MQg_'
T
,..m..
m Is TABLE 4 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS USED IN HEATING 5 JUNCTION BOX MODEL Boundary condition 1:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 16.64 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 16.65 6.16 1.71E-3 CONVECTION 40.68 6.5 1.81E-3
. CONVECTION 80.10 6.0 1.67E-3
_ CONVECTION
~
123.24 5.6 1.56E-3 CONVECTION 165 54 _
5.4 1.50E-3 CONVECTION 209.47 5.4 1.50E-3 CONVECTION 255.88 5.3 1.47E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 5.3 1.47E-3 CONVECTION 356.22 5.2 1.44E-3 CONVECTION 410.50 5.0 1.39E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 4.1 1.14E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 4.3 1.19E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 4.2 1.17E-3 CONVECTION 604.96 2.17 6.04E-4 CONVECTION 656.52 1.46 4.07E-4 CONVECTION 711.21 1.44 4.01E-4 CONVECTION 759.22 1.44 4.01E-4 CONVECTION 802.68 1.43 3.97E-4 CONVECTION
.g s i+* a sti
-hd* NNh'6d
13 Table 4 (Continued)
Boundary condition 2:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks-
.(sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 15.27 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 15.28 9.54 2.65E-3 CONVECTION 40.68 10.24 2.84E-3 CONVECTION 80.10 9.19 2.55E-3
-CONVECTION
^'
123.24 8.33 2.31E-3 CONVECTION 165.54 7.97 2.21E-3 CONVECTION 209.47 7.92 2.20E-3 CONVECTION 255.88 7.92 2.20E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 7.81 2.17E-3 CONVECTION 356.22 7.68 2.13E-3 CONVECTION
'410.50 7.17 1.99E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 6.79 1.89E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 6.08 1.69E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 5.65 1.57E-3 CONVECTION 604.96 2.34 6.50E-4 CONVECTION 656.52 1.37 3.80E-4 CONVECTION 1.35 3.74E-4 CONVECTION 711.21 759.22 1.35 3.74E-4 CONVECTION 802.68 1.33 3.69E-4 CONVECTION I
t I
[
r
{
merAwA, e udR 6 d
$db ' -
--SI
30 Table 4 (Continued)
Boundary condition 3:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 280.0 0.124 CONDENSATION 375.00 280.0 0.124 CONDENSATION 376.00 2.05 5.70E-4 CONVECTION 410.50 2.00 5.56E-4 CONVECTION 451.12 1.64 4.56E-4 CONVECTION 508.18 1.72 4.78E-4 CONVECTION 550.36 1.68 4.67E-4
. CONVECTION 604.96 0.87 2.41E-4
~
CONVECTION 656.52 0.58 1.62E-4 CONVECTION 711.21 0.58 1.60E-4 CONVECTION 759.22 0.58 1.60E-4 CONVECTION 802.68 0.57 1.59E-4 CONVECTION e
f
~ - - - ~ - -
- ~ ~ ^ - - - - ' - - ~ - ' ' ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ '
at TABLE 5 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS USED IN HEATING 5 LIMITORQUE MODEL Boundary condition 1:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 5.15 1.43E-3 CONVECTION 1.40 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 26.99 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 27.00 6.73 1.87E-3
. CONVECTION 40.68 6.91 1.92E-3
. CONVECTION
~
81.10 6.37 1.77E-3 CONVECTION 123.24 -
5.92 1.65E-3 CONVECTION 165.54 5.74 1.59E-3 CONVECTION 209.47 5.72 1.59E-3 CONVECTION 255.88 5.70 1.58E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 5.65 1.57E-3 CONVECTION 356.22 5.58 1.55E-3 CONVECTION 410.50 5.30 1.47E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 5.10 1.42E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 4.69 1.30E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 4.45 1.24E-3 CONVECTION l
604.96 2.31 6.42E-4 CONVECTION 656.52 1.56 4.32E-4 CONVECTION
)
711.21 1.54 4.27E-4 CONVECTION 759.22 1.54 4.27E-4 CONVECTION 802.68 1.52 4.22E-4 CONVECTION l
4 s
i t
i f
4 i
-. sta M A/a N N.4V w t.asM 4.A6.*6
l n
Table 5 (Continued) 1 Boundary condition 2:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 5.40 1.50E-3 CONVECTION 1.40 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 26.99 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 27.00 7.78 2.16E-3 CONVECTION 40.68 8.08 2.24E-3 CONVECTION 81.10 7.25 2.01E-3 CONVECTION 123.24 6.57 1.82E-3
. CONVECTION 165.54 6.29 1.75E-3
. CONVECTION
~-
209.47 6.26 1.74E-3 CONVECTION 255.88 6.23 1.73E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 6.16 1.71E-3 CONVECTION 356.22 6.05 1.68E-3 CONVECTION 410.50 5.65 1.57E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 5.36 1.49E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 4.80 1.33E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 4.46 1.24E-3 CONVECTION 604.96 1.84 5.12E-4 CONVECTION 656.52 1.08 3.00E-4 CONVECTION 711.21 1.06 2.95E-4 CONVECTION 759.22 1.06 2.95E-4 CONVECTION 802.68 1.05 2.91E-4 CONVECTION i
e
?
E
^ ^ $Mee b A>N:
E w
6 4
y,
- g,. w a
I3 TABLE 6 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS USED IN HEATING 5 LIMIT SWITCH MODEL Doundary condition 1:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION i-39.99 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 40.00 8.21 2.28E-3
. CONVECTION 81.10 7.59 2.11E-3 CONVECTION 123.24 7.05 1.96E-3 CONVECTION i
165.54 6.83 1.90E-3 CONVECTION 209.47 6.80 1.89E-3 CONVECTION 255.88 6.78 1.88E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 6.73 1.87E-3 CONVECTION 356.22 6.64 1.84E-3 CONVECTION 410.50 6.31 1.75E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 6.07 1.68E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 5.59 1.55E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 5.29 1.47E-3 CONVECTION 604.96 2.75 7.65E-4 CONVECTION 656.52 1.85 5.14E-4 CONVECTION 711.21 1.83 5.08E-4 CONVECTION 759.22 1.83 5.08E-4 CONVECTION 802.68 1.81 5.03E-4 CONVECTION i
6 4
t 4
l e
.o e
a i
4 l.
... b
- a.........-. aa
li Table 6 (Continued)
Boundary condition 2:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr f t2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 54.99 1120.0 0.311 CONDENSATION 55.00 16.5 4.60E-3 CONVECTION 81.10 15.43 4.28E-3 CONVECTION 123.24 13.97 3.88E-3 CONVECTION 165.54 13.39 3.72E-3 CONVECTION 209.47 13.32 3.70E-3
-CONVECTION 255.88 13.26 3.68E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 13.11 3.64E-3 CONVECTION 356.22.
12.88 3.58E-3 CONVECTION 410.50 12.08 3.34E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 11.40 3.17E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 10.21 2.84E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 9.49 2.64E-3 CONVECTION 604.96 3.92 1.09E-4 CONVECTION 656.52 2.30 6.38E-4 CONVECTION 711.21 2.26 6.28E-4 CONVECTION 759.22 2.26 6.28E-4 CONVECTION 802.68 2.23 6.19E-4 CONVECTION I
c r
I i
B m-
.... I......
25 TABLE 7 HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS USED IN HEATINOS CABLE IN CONDUIT MODEL A.
Boundary condition 1:
Time Heat transfer coefficients Remarks (sec.)
(Btu /hr ft2 degF)
(Btu /sec ft2 degF) 0.0 1.0 2.78E-4 CONVECTION 1.01 37.8 1.05E-2 CONDENEATION 2.01 40.3 1.12E-2 CONDENSATION 3.02 359.3 9.98E-2 CONDENSATION 4.04 318.6 8.85E-2 CONDENSATION 5.06 280.4 7.79E-2 CONDENSATION '
6.21 246.2 6.84E-2 CONDENSATION
.7.32 217.1 6.03E-2 CONDENSATION
- 8.38 182.1 5.06E-2 CONDENSATION 9.55 155.2 4.31E-2 CONDENSATION 10.56 30.8 8.56E-3 CONDENSATION 40.68 22.4 6.21E-3 CONVECTION 81.10 20.9 5.81E-3 CONVECTION 123.24 19.1 5.31E-3 CONVECTION 165.54 18.5 5.15E-3 CONVECTION 308.84 18.5 5.15E-3 CONVECTION 356.22 18.3 5.08E-3 CONVECTION 410.50 17.4 4.83E-3 CONVECTION 451.12 16.1 4.49E-3 CONVECTION 508.18 15.0 4.18E-3 CONVECTION 550.36 12.8 3.56E-3 CONVECTION 604.92 8.9 2.46E-3 CONVECTION 650.41 5.9 1.63E-3 CONVECTION 703.51 5.6 1.54E-3 CONVECTION l
t I
s
/
19
. s
/
n a,
5 l' '<
? ', !"'
s c
a r
.s
~
SO4MRTIC CF TWO DIPENSILNAL l(III.
~
- /
F MRIN STEAM IELATICH VAVE ELEM)l0 et fN
.479 l
lllllllllllllllll 469 1,
/
C STEEL
[.') COPPER
//
[jRLUMINUM
//
C AIR
/
.20
/
.2,1.-
/
i-
~
/
, /*
/
.254 n
.n,s--
g/
xv/
):
g.,,2 g
.165'
[/-
f
.tas-
/
O
/
\\ \\'
ALINE OF g
g SYMMETRY
/
/
\\
'I
+/
g u'
.0I04 -
/
/ /
0.0 -
l
' lll l
INSULATED SOUNe5A(
. 094
,.155,
o.O.0104
.0sss '.'Oss.ils.i s'.isi
~~
X AXIS (OlSTANCE IN FEET) i F10LM i O
d'$
f e
r
-,n>
,l
. 9s.,s.mau -~.sgs'Abru4.s }:;
_ 3,
x l
~
l MSIV SOTRNOID EQ TEST CHAMBER TEMPERATURE-I l
.4 9
c
.a.
p 1
o I
1 o
f, 4 r; ll h
tr
=
g i
~
TMCS. QUAL PROFILE g
.d' l
E i i, y
l c= M M
l d
a i
o 45 l
to.
a o
m 2
l 9
l u
I, a
o l
o l
l L,
=
o o-s, we i
d
,. m.,
,C o
imasaama it
\\p-19 a.
o
- t, 4
ll o
5 i f O.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 7.0 5.0 -
0.0 10.0 11.0
' t li -
TIME (sec)
- 18 FIGURE 2 j
- l.,s
~.
d l
MSIV SOLENOID SUREACE TEMPERATURE DURING MSLB 1
=.
6' c
u I
- v _.
_g 4
l
\\
f
/
\\
y g
i F:
\\
/
N m
g-M.
i m
u 1
d i
o l
- /
C S-ll 1
'T ip s
l [.
W lI la{?
I n.
400.0 500.0 000.0 700.0 800.0
).b
'0 100.0 200.0
,300.0 0.
ii TIME (sec) n Il FIGURE 3 l f, f
24 3
Eun-Neh-Analysis ro 3
.I o
O o
d Eo k
.o M
6 MH
- =
Cf
- 3 N
.p O
Z
- 3o M
M
'E o
G se M
'T oe dO r
o E
- E O
- 5W
~$
5
- E E
8 N
.o
- =
A m
M E
d O
O 3,
- g*
- 3 A
m o
O
. ='
Z s
o
.g o
o 8
- ad to
~
M 0'009 0148 0*098 0*SES 0*005 0*S43 0*093 0133 0'003 MEMM
~
h
~~
. -.,. !~
30 SCHEMATIC OF TH0 DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF ASCO SOLEN 0ID VALVE
.132--
.185
'/////////
/
.168..
/
.157--
/
STEEL
.151 --
///~///'/ //////
[:...l STAINLESS
/
STEEL
.132-
i
\\'
HA R
C COPPER
/
. -- ; 'N
/
I'. ~
/
I l AIR 5
J
~N
/
w W
/
g N
/
/
m
~
\\
/
~~.-
- - k.'N N d
?
/
KN'
~
\\
j
\\
LINE OF SYMMETRY INSULATED BOUNDARY
. 978 ms
.07i
'.ma
. 04
,ist,igi R AXIS (DISTANCE IN FEET)
FIGURE 5 I
l i
~
x..nm n 44;_-
- u. a '., c,,,J
~, x:
O O
e ASCO SOLENOID VALVE EQ TEST CHAMBER TEMPERATURE
.d a
8 oe unn i
g,
.3 o
l
\\
W j
d e
i 8
i de l
n R9 4.
f4 m
og n
I g
,/
M.
i e
ee Y
o s'
g a
l t
l l
3 l
l o
a
{
f a
E i
4 t
}
"9 O
I-0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0 i
TmE (sec) ll i
FIGURE O J
l UNENERGIZED ASCO SURFACE TEMP. DURING EQ TEST AND MSLB i
o I
d i
S 6
C 53 e
A EQ TEST
[.-.- -.
. g. (
N y
R ls i
'\\
Q*
\\
\\
1 i
i o.
l
's i
d s
MS1 R U
C3 i
if 53 L
a, 45 i
s l
M.-
i l
o i
M i
y l!
\\,
ca s
u
's U
8 1
' l
\\
j
's, i
o
'~
y.
ca h
o-
- l,-
Y-a
+
,e
- {.
o b
'j 0.0 500.0 000.0 1500.0 5000.0 d500.0 5000.0' 3500.0' 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0 3
- J TIME (sec)
E
'l FIGURE 7-,
. 17 l
y I I..
<i
UNENERGIZED ASCO COIL TEMP. DURING EQ TEST AND MSLB o
o E
O a
y i
,)tQ TEST I
%F l"
d M 2-t:r iY
\\
o d
n C
ss e._,2 1
45 M..
i M
d Mstn N
',-[',
4 i
i
~~,N,'
i g-en
!l I
- t. -
s' S-l t
jc g
I
' 5500.0 2000.0 5500.0 3000.0 5500.0' d000.0 d500.0 5000.0 P
0.0 500.0 000.0
[
TIME (sec) if P'
FIGURE 8 5
+
t
! ENERGIZED ASCO SURFACE TEMPERATURE DURING EQ TEST AND MSLB f
9 8,
i i
c; 2
o jr 1
g-a-
=
W3-p I
I N
i g
m I
,f O
s'.
's N
wn-i l
M, I
g O
[
g t*
d
\\
q-
'I i
O
\\
l
~
'N
[
g-M i;
's li o
's
'd p
'N, 2
lj g's i $'
l i<
q N
e d
h
.i
.y 9
l3 o
i o
', t Q
' 5000.0 ' A500.0' ' ' 5000.0880 8
' ' fooo..
r 0.0 500.0 1000.0 500.0 4000.0 4so0.0 j
'UME (seg d
- 5 FIGURE '9 A
l[
~
1 w%
0amif erINa2 Wm.M 0
0 B
I,0 0
L 5
S M
0
. 00 D
5 4
N A
. 0
. 0 T
.0 s
. 0 4
E T
. 0
. 0 Q
0 5
E 3
G 0
N
. 00 I
0 R
3 U
.c
)
- 0. e De 0
0(s 1
e 0
r 5E u
e 2I g
D i
F l
- 0. T K
T
/
00 N
B
,s 2
\\
0 L
\\
L
~
I g
S O
\\
M
\\
0 s
C f.\\
0 0
/
\\'\\'
O 51 C
s$
s S
\\
\\
0 A
,\\
0 s
0 N
0 D
1 E
Z L
0 I
0 G
0
.5 R
i E
N 0
R
~
0 oo*
- E oe2
..En
- oE oE oyH ed3
~
N *v
~
..,lo,,};,{}I,!
,; <ij';
F.
!t;!
t l1i i4
.l!!
.l:4l,lij 4Il i
39 SCHEMATIC OF TWO OIMENSIONAL JUNCTION BOX HEATING S MODEL 7.0--
- h 4.0--
/
/
BC3 3.987
( BC1 3.948--
/
//,)
//,
/
/
v.
/
3.656--
f
/
f
/
f
!3.:::: /
3.344--
BC3
/
BC2 3.052--
\\
3.013--
f BC1 3.0" C SHEET STEEL
)l l AIR BC2 BC3 C CONCRETE m
{ PHENOLIC 0.0--
478
.5
.626 0.0.0'13 432.487.5'09
.6'35 3.635 DISTANCE IN FEET FIGURE 11 i
i
-- - =.m t" w w/ O d@ * ' -
CAE Lgy,-
-_m.u d f;Q
TERMINAL BLOCK EQ TEST CHAMBER TEMPERATURE a
e ll a
o l
o i.
f.I o
a e d
II W
TMOS. QUAL. PROFILE l
E Kl m
d i
s a
C. g
~
tc
~
tn S
l
~
w IA
-J N
.e
<a l
d o
n h
Ho o.
i t
f.
g,_
d k.8 o -
_smet1 3
w p.
d c
'f 4
i
.V.
o O
d
' s.o
' o.o
' ' 14.5
' as.d '
sa.o U
c.o 2.o 4.o s.o t
12.0
.E TIME (sec)
- 1(f
?x
$h-FIGURE 12 p; *^<'..
y -
Wh
1
! TERMINAL BLOCK SURFACE TEMPERATURE DURING EQ TEST AND MSLB
\\
o 1
e N
O g
!i 52 E
~
g AI.. I
,- s 4-ftESPO M5E l
l.
f
,o g
n u
B-L
/
n n
/
W
(
i s
u L
?O {
1 u:
4 t.n..
a_
M j
mi tn v
,s o
e N-i CL n e
.C.MSLB RESPONS E i
i eri
.y'-
l li!
o l
jt I :.
lb 1
0-I o
f y
L, : -
~
0.0 250.0 500.0 750.0 1000.0 1250.0 1500.0 1750.0' 2000.0 2250.0 2500.0 K
TIME (sec) fD FIGURE 13 (R
F Vi 15 51.,
i i
SCHEMATIC OF TWO DIMENSIONAL HEATING 5 LIMIT TOROUE MODEL 4..
BC2 i
10.0 9.75 9////////////////////////////////////////////A i
a h *,h '
m a
m
/-BC1 6.626 l
. 6 6.656 ssssxsss o
mD
.Z.
6.1248' m
m m
./,
/
/
/
l 2
/
/
/
/
~
/
/
/
i
\\
5.1876-
/
/
/
sa
/
/
/
2 w
C 4.6248-O u
w m
a (h
i O
2.4376-Ea STEEL j
O PHENOLIC
. {;.
m m
a m
m
- = BC3 O
AIR 0.0-
. [
' i[
g CO P 1.2400 2.25 2.8752 3.8748 4.5
\\
[(
6.1872 BC2 12.458 0.0
.25 2.1876 2.8128 3.8124 4.4376 5.4372 7.4372 S.0572 12.2088
.['5 DISTANCE IN INCHES i
j.
![If?
i is IfN i
- e-$.
t E. 2 FIGURE I4 I
.l 3
LIMITORQUE EQ TEST CHAMBER TEMPERATURE o
d O
I O
G
, ~~
/
l 55 l
1 t
o
/
i i.
o j
/
Q 'IEST 4
i l
.l C'
.i U
\\
T
./
i e
n
)i n
r s
l gs m%
~
e
\\
t.t:
1
~~~
LJ l
Lo r
m.
6 s
e o --
m l
a i
e e
i i-0 I
9 l
l o
e-e N
l' l
't.-
g l
l o
i i
cz -
! [.
N l
l r
j r. '
t 0
l l 85 l
l o
l l
i%:
- T3 S-l l
MSLB i/
i_ _. /_______ ________.
o o
i:
o i y:
-e
- 4' O.0 200.0 400.0 000.0 000.0 1000 0 3200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 2000.0 iF TIME (aec)
A FIGURE 15
.re
. fh
\\1,-
- C-I
t 4
1 I
i LIMITORQUE SURFACE TEMP. DURING EQ T.tssT AND MSLB l
- g i
s.
Q ca 1
2 l
I l
l
{i 4 "
/
,, ' \\,
g=
l?
[
/
N, gg I
i
/
\\
N l
s
\\
o.
a N. oE I
~,'
e l
l v
s, d3 3
N in i
s e.
\\
{$
o N
f o
2
/
\\
i i
/
s N
li.
N 15 at
\\'
je o
i o
j ^i N
s I
s iv I
{ {;r l
i i
t 1
B..e.
o p2-e-
-e p
i:
l b';
o j
d g
t we j
O.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 000.0 700.0 000.0 000.0 1000.0 1100.0 1200.0 TIME (a,ec) i s.c hit i
FIGURE 16 l
ys~
! !i W l a j
i i
~
1 JUMPER CABLE TEMPERATURE DURING EQ TEST AND MSLB
(
C 1f
$3 j'
l 1
o WO TRMT L, --_.
-d y-e-
!r W
- 6 7
a l
c W
e es a
e' IE o
go i*
G
[
SIJ3 te gg o
~ ~ ~. '
-t d
t*
l, 4e i)
M ii b
i(
d
/
- 9 o
/
\\~
o_
a
'{.
N
,e L
^,*
0' o
o
%' =,1 e
,o
.g v
a o
f a
L-
\\
....\\
....\\
-e 0.0 300.0 300.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 000.0 700.0 #00.0 000.0 1000.0 110 10 1200.0 1300.0 1400.0 TIME (sec) ke
,' b.
n
- a,s
- .
FIGURE 17 s
1 p,, -
{ :,,
.s.a
HI a
SCHEMATIC OF THO OIMENSIONAL LIMIT SNITCH HEATING 5 MODEL BC2 5.626--
5.526-
/
/
5.088--
5.025--
/'
~ ~ ~
~
/
h BC1%
fNSULATED
,/
[h:7
. f-
- /
BOUNDARY) g
/
x
-- /
i fi s
i$
/
h C STEEL
//:f/
"S**'
. 3,
.30 --
/
.20 --
O.0 --
\\ BC2
.1.56
.594
,1.157 0.0.1'25.2185
.469.531 1.094 1.219 DISTANCE IN INCHES FIGURE 18 t
i 3
.:y 5
- w i auA*.. O * ~' 'l ^_.
^
- 2.r-l l 1., l
^
. a, a :,.
c
' ^^
NAMCO LIMIT SWITCH EQ TEST CHAMBER TEMPERATURE 1
o&
er3 0
n c
ei o
ei 4
D d
.. l l.._
l o
ll W.
l CRAMBEB 1
O~
3-
=
l n
o <
t a
RE l
m
~
l LC o
M..
d a
w l
m a>
e I
o e
o-i n
a I
-e o n-
,e-
- 4 e
- t i
jg Ii 8 =-
JISL3 I....
i -
o g_
ct I b l[
0.0 1.0 th 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 ll' TIME (sec)
- nf
[
i.
FIGURE 19 y e. ,
O e
~ - -
4 NAMCO LIMIT SWITCH SURFACE TEMPERATURE 8
t c
b D
.g SLB o
l gg7 N
I l
/
/
l,\\
l a-2 3
/
! :s o
t
/
E u
i c
a G
8 l
v tn
&n
-,E e
A i
t id r
g a
{.
N l
.Fi l
1 y
o e.
a w
c-
,{
i l
f u
d o
- 'I i
i i
l 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 -
9.0 10.0
[
TIME (sec)
+1d
'[,'
FIGURE 20 5'..
~,
- r
- .
6.
I
i NAMCO LIMIT SWITCH TERMINAL BLOCK TEMPERATURES
- o a
D l
o y
JQ TEST p,
gn
- r m
i l
G f
T I
$e t; n n
l ~,
is Z
(C tn Oo 21B RESP 3NSE G*
l QB l
5 l
,/
i' o
l, i g
i N
I
- f.-
i o
it g
1 I(#..
S' in i!!
o d
0.0 1.0 2.0
.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 10.0 3
3 TIME (sec)
+1cf J
tt FIGURE 21 l[-
@i t
Schematic of Two Dimensional Cable inside Conduit HEATING 5 Model Air Copper R
7 g
Steel Insulation 2
i'
- 860 - -
xNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
.750 --
1 I
4 1
- 54
'.. '. ' ' ' ~ ~ ' ' ' '
,484 c
4 c
- .368 -
5-a E
$.322 --
15 6.295 -
. "./ [/ /
N.'
.210--
-' f
.bi
.b
-(
.237 -
O
//[//
i f.
!p
.160 -
\\
i
~ 110 --
xNNNNNNNNN
\\\\
NN 0.0 --
1
.293.339
.540.617
.750' i 4
e i
e t i I e
t I t i R
R 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
I 5
0.0.110
.243.320.378.482
.567
.860 if Distance in inches
- i
!).
Fiasre 22 l t-
CABLE EQ TEST CHAMBER TEMPERATURE o
D, 61 n
c 2
i o
i i
l l
s
?
l-g m
l l
tr g
o i
E EQ TEST j
l
/
f
"~ r a
i
~
o W
I
- a d t.n..
sn 4
I m
a*
N l
A o.
2E i
ma s
l a
i i
a l
f e
i o
1 4 N
8 is l
iI I
i-i.
et o
O e
i 1-l SLII y
i o
b0 500.0 1060.0 1560.0 2060.0 2s60.0 3000.o asho.o 4o00,o i P.
TIME (seconds) il
,.7 Figure 23 3
j;ll:
r.
g CONDUIT SURFACE TEMPERATURE DURING MSLB
=
o 9
^
, /
~N I
3
/
\\
E
/
9
(-
o N
JJSLD h
w"
/
4
/.
=
N:
/
a.
o i
N
$i g.
o
[_.
o r
8 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0 600.0 650.0 700.0 f
TIME (seconds)
}
Figure 24 i
,c -
CABLE SURFACE TEMP DURING EQ TEST AND MSLB t
o N
O i
C
)
i g
I o6
..:EQ TEf T y
a
/_
m n
g-
~s I
)9 ct y
o m
g"
,/
~
W l
tn.
ee Qo Y
W\\
b s'
mn i
S LB A
- g N
He I'
n If is 11 o
e' 1
l i
o
!i l
i l'
O.o 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800.0 000.01000.01100.01200.01360.o146o,o 33ao,o l
TIME (seconds)
'f Figure 25 i L