Latest revision as of 21:25, 18 March 2019

Text

NEDO-33601, Revison 0, Engineering Report Grand Gulf Replacement Steam Dryer Fatigue Stress Analysis Using Pble Methodology. Cover Through Appendix a
	ML102660401
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	09/30/2010
From:	; GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	DRF 0000-0119-9443, GNRO-2010/00056 NEDO-33601, Rev 0
	Download: ML102660401 (319)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:Attachment 11A GNRO-2010/00056 Steam Dryer Evaluation (Non-Proprietary) This is a non-proprietary version of Attachment 11B from which the proprietary information has been removed. The proprietary portions that have been removed are indicated by double square brackets as shown here: [[ ]]. This attachment includes the following: Engineering Report Grand Gulf Replacement Steam Dryer Fatigue Stress Analysis Using PBLE Methodology Appendix A - Steam Dryer Integrity Analysis Methodology Appendix B - ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology (NED-33408) Appendix C - ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology, Supplement 1 (NED-33408, Supplement 1) Appendix D - GEH BWR Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation (NED-33436) Appendix E - Steam Dryer Structural Analysis Methodology Appendix F - Power Ascension Test Plan Appendix G - Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Main Steam Line Test Report

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy NEDO-33601 Revision 0 Class I DRF 0000-0119-9443 September 2010

Non-Proprietary Information ENGINEERING REPORT GRAND GULF REPLACEMENT STEAM DRYER FATIGUE STRESS ANALYSIS USING PBLE METHODOLOGY

Copyright 2010 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC All Rights Reserved NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 2 of 176 INFORMATION NOTICE This is a non-proprietary version of the document NEDC-33601P, Revision 0, which has the proprietary information removed. Portions of the document that have been removed are indicated by an open and closed bracket as shown here [[ ]]. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The design, engineering, and other information contained in this document is furnished for the purpose of supporting the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station license amendment request for an extended power uprate in proceedings before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The only undertakings of GEH with respect to information in this document are contained in the contracts between GEH and its customers or partic ipating utilities, and not hing contained in this document shall be construed as changing that contract. The use of this information by anyone for any purpose other than that for which it is in tended is not authorized; and with respect to any unauthorized use, GEH makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information contained in this document. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 3 of 176 REVISION HISTORY Revision Date Changes Comment 0 September 2010 Initial issue None NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 4 of 176 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..............................................................................................................14 2.0 Product Description..............................................................................................................16

2.1 Original

Grand Gulf Dryer............................................................................................16

2.2 Replacement

Dryer Design.............................................................................................16

2.2.1 Modifications

Made for Grand Gulf.......................................................................17 2.2.2 Design Improvements to BWR/4 Replacement Design..........................................17 3.0 Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description....................................................................18

3.1 Evaluation

Process Overview.........................................................................................18

3.2 Steam

Dryer Load Definition.........................................................................................19

3.2.1 Screening

for Potential Acoustic Sources...............................................................19

3.2.2 Obtain

Data for Dryer Load Evaluation..................................................................22 3.2.3 Steam Dryer Fluctuating Load Definition..............................................................25

3.2.4 Basis

for Projected FIV Loads to EPU...................................................................28

3.2.5 Comparison

of Projected Loads with Industry Data...............................................31

3.3 Steam

Dryer Stress Analysis...........................................................................................34

3.3.1 Dryer

FEA Model...................................................................................................34 3.3.2 FIV Analysis...........................................................................................................38 3.3.3 ASME Loads...........................................................................................................44

3.3.4 Acceptance

Criteria.................................................................................................48 3.4 End to End Bias and Uncertainty..................................................................................50 4.0 Results..................................................................................................................................143 4.1 FIV Final Stress Table with Bias and Uncertainty.....................................................143 4.2 ASME Code Load Case Stress Results........................................................................143 5.0 Non-Prototype Justification...............................................................................................148 5.1 BWR/4 Prototype Test and Operating Experience....................................................148 5.2 GGNS Dryer Geometry Comparison With BWR/4 Prototype.................................149

5.3 Plant

Geometry and Operating Condition Comparison............................................149 5.4 RPV Acoustic Property Comparison...........................................................................150

5.5 Plant

FIV Load Comparison........................................................................................151

5.5.1 Steam

Dryer Loads...............................................................................................151 NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 5 of 176

5.6 Applicability

of PBLE and FEM Bias and Uncertainty Values to GGNS...............151

5.6.1 Overview

- FIV Bias and Uncertainty..................................................................151 5.6.2 Summary and Conclusions...................................................................................154 6.0 Monitoring During Power Ascension and Final Assessment at EPU.............................174

6.1 Power

Ascension Test Plan...........................................................................................174

6.2 Final

Assessment at EPU..............................................................................................175 7.0 References............................................................................................................................176 Appendix A - Steam Dryer Inte grity Analysis Methodology Appendix B - ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology (NED-33408) Appendix C - ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology, Supplement 1 (NED-33408, Supplement 1) Appendix D - GEH BWR Steam Dryer - Plan t Based Load Evaluation Methodology (NED-33436) Appendix E - Steam Dryer Structural Analysis Methodology Appendix F - Power Ascension Test Plan

Appendix G - Grand Gulf Nuclear Stat ion Main Steam Line Test Report NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 6 of 176 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1. GGNS-[[ ]] Plant SRV Dimension Comparison..........................................52 Table 3-2. Predicted and Measured Resonant Frequencies....................................................53 Table 3-3. Filtered Frequencies............................................................................................... ..54 Table 3-4. GGNS PBLE RPV Acoustic FEM Parameter Inputs...........................................55 Table 3-5. Overview of Element Type by Component.............................................................56 Table 3-6. Material Definitions............................................................................................... ...57 Table 3-7. Temperature Dependent Modulus of Elasticity Used for 304L SS......................58 Table 3-8. Component Element Mesh Sizes.............................................................................59 Table 3-9. Overview of Vane Bank Element Type by Component and Real........................60 Table 3-10. [[

               ]] Material Densities After Adjustment.................................................61 Table 3-11. Primary Stress Scoping for Nominal [[
           ]] Case............................................62 Table 3-12. Primary Stress Scoping for Nominal [[
           ]] Case............................................63 Table 3-13. Weld Scoping for Nominal [[
           ]] Case.............................................................64 Table 3-14. Weld Scoping for Nominal [[
           ]] Case.............................................................65 Table 3-15. Maximum Stress from Prim ary and Weld Scoping for Nominal [[                      ]] Case.......................................................................................................................66 Table 3-16. Maximum Stress from Prim ary and Weld Scoping for Nominal [[                 
   ]] Case.......................................................................................................................67 Table 3-17.  [[                                                            ]]...........................................................................68 Table 3-18.  [[                                                              ]].........................................................................69 Table 3-19.  [[                                                                                                                  ]].............................70 Table 3-20.  [[                                                                                                                  ]].............................71 Table 3-21.  [[                                                                                                            ]]..................................72 Table 3-22.  [[                                                                            ]].............................................................73 Table 3-23. GGNS Replacement Dryer Load Combinations..................................................74

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 7 of 176 Table 3-24. Differential "Static" Pressure Load for Dryer Outer Hood...............................76 Table 3-25. Peak Normalized Acoustic Loads for [[

       ]].......................................................77 Table 3-26. Peak Normalized Acoustic Loads for [[                                ]] Event [[              
]]..................................................................................................................78 Table 3-27. Zero Period Acceleration.......................................................................................79 Table 3-28. Material Properties...............................................................................................

..80 Table 3-29. ASME Code Stress Limits......................................................................................81 Table 4-1. Final Stress Intensity Table with Bias and Uncertainty......................................144 Table 4-2. FIV Bending Plus Membrane Stress Intensity with Bias and Uncertainty.......145 Table 4-3. FIV Membrane Stress Intensity with Bias and Uncertainty..............................146 Table 4-4. EPU ASME Results for No rmal, Upset, Emergency and Faulted Conditions.................................................................................................................147 Table 5-1. GGNS Dryer Geometric Comparison...................................................................156 Table 5-2. Comparison of Plant Operating Conditions - GGNS vs. Prototype Plant........157 Table 5-3. Comparison of Plant Ge ometry - GGNS vs. Prototype Plant.............................158 Table 5-4. RPV Acoustic Property Comparison....................................................................159 Table 5-5. Comparison of Test Conditions for GGNS and BWR/4 Prototype Plant.........160

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 8 of 176 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1. Evaluation Process Overview.................................................................................82 Figure 3-2. Typical MSL Layout Between RPV and Turbine (Plan View)...........................83 Figure 3-3. SRV Layout........................................................................................................ ......84 Figure 3-4. Branch Line Layout................................................................................................ 85 Figure 3-5. Single Valve FEM Model........................................................................................86 Figure 3-6. Results of [[

               ]] Valve Model.........................................................................87 Figure 3-7. Results of [[
             ]] Valve Model...........................................................................88 Figure 3-8. Waterfall from GGNS MSL Strain Gauge Measurements.................................89 Figure 3-9. Waterfall from [[
               ]] Plant MSL Strain Gauge Measurements.................90 Figure 3-10. Shear Wave Analysis-Observed and Predicted Resonances.............................91 Figure 3-11. Example Singularity Factor Plot Showing Installed Sensor Comparison Results [[                                                                                                      
                                   ]]......................................................................................................92 Figure 3-12.  [[                                                                                        ]]..................................................93 Figure 3-13.  [[                                        ]] Strain Gauge Signal Filtering.......................................94 Figure 3-14.  [[                                        ]] Strain Gauge Signal Filtering  [[                               
          ]]...........................................................................................................................95 Figure 3-15.  [[                                                ]] Strain Gauge Signal Filtering.................................96 Figure 3-16. CLTP Loads, Projected EPU Loads and EPU SRV Design Loads, [[                                                         ]].................................................................................97 Figure 3-17. CLTP Loads, Projected EPU Loads and EPU SRV Design Loads, [[                                                           
]].....................................................................98 Figure 3-18. CLTP Loads, Projected EPU Loads and EPU SRV Design Loads, [[                                                       ]]...................................................................................99 Figure 3-19. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSDs to [[                    ]] Plant Data  - [[              
                         ]]..............................................................................................................100

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 9 of 176 Figure 3-20. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSDs to [[ ]] Plant Data - [[

                                         ]]................................................................................................101 Figure 3-21. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSDs to [[                   ]] Plant Data - [[                
                        ]].............................................................................................................102 Figure 3-22. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD with [[
                ]] Test Data - [[                
                                                             ]].............................................................................103 Figure 3-23. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD with [[
             ]] Test Data - [[                    
                                           ]].............................................................................................104 Figure 3-24. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD to [[                                                ]] Plant Data  - [[                                  ]].....................................................................................105 Figure 3-25. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD to [[

]] Plant Data - [[ ]]........................................................................106 Figure 3-26. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD to [[ ]] Plant Data - [[ ]].....................................................................................107 Figure 3-27. [[ ]] FEM........................................................................108 Figure 3-28. GGNS Replacement Dryer FEM.......................................................................109 Figure 3-29. Nomenclature for Major Components..............................................................110 Figure 3-30. Nomenclature for Major Components..............................................................111 Figure 3-31. Nomenclature for Major Components..............................................................112 Figure 3-32. [[ ]]...........................113 Figure 3-33. [[ ]].....................................114 Figure 3-34. [[ ]] Model Used In The Dynamic Analysis Study: [[ ]] (Reference Case)..............................................................115 Figure 3-35. Top View of Dryer Showing the Vane Bundles................................................116 Figure 3-36. Vane Bundle FEM and Master DOFs...............................................................117 Figure 3-37. [[ ]]..................................................................................................................118 Figure 3-38. Area of the Repl acement Steam Dryer Submodeled........................................119

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 10 of 176 Figure 3-39. Components In and Near the Submodel Region..............................................120 Figure 3-40. Cut Boundary Conditions Applied to the Submodel.......................................121 Figure 3-41. Nominal Maximum Stress Time Point Unmodified Geometry.......................122 Figure 3-42. [[ ]] for the Bank End Plate...........................................123 Figure 3-43. Stress Distribution After Geometry Modification............................................124 Figure 3-44. Inner Hood Tee Weld Line Stress [[ ]].....................125 Figure 3-45. [[ ]]...................................................................126 Figure 3-46. Illustration Of The [[ ]]........................................127 Figure 3-47. Tie Rod to Bank End Plate Connection Geometry..........................................128 Figure 3-48. Tie Bar Actual Geometry...................................................................................129 Figure 3-49. Differential "Static" Pressure Loads for Dryer Components.........................130 Figure 3-50. Components for MSLB Acoustic Pressure Loads............................................131 Figure 3-51. Components in Dryer FE Model for [[

                ]] Pressure Load.....................132 Figure 3-52. Components in Dryer FE Model for [[
                ]] Pressure Load.....................133 Figure 3-53. Horizontal Seismic Model...................................................................................134 Figure 3-54. Vertical Seismic Model.......................................................................................135 Figure 3-55. Horizontal SSE Seismic Spectra........................................................................136 Figure 3-56. Vertical SSE Seismic Spectra.............................................................................137 Figure 3-57. Horizontal OBE Seismic Spectra.......................................................................138 Figure 3-58. Vertical OBE Seismic Spectra............................................................................139 Figure 3-59. Horizontal SRV North-South Spectra...............................................................140 Figure 3-60. Horizontal SRV East-West Spectra...................................................................141

Figure 3-61. Vertical SRV Spectra (Vertical).........................................................................142 Figure 5-1. GGNS-BWR/4 Dome Acoustic Properties..........................................................161 Figure 5-2. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Comparison [[

                            ]]..........................................................................................................162

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 11 of 176 Figure 5-3. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

                                         ]]..............................................................................................163 Figure 5-4. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                          
                                         ]]..............................................................................................164 Figure 5-5. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                          
                                         ]]..............................................................................................165 Figure 5-6. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                          
                                                ]]........................................................................................166 Figure 5-7. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Pl ant S Dryer Loads Comparison [[                      
                                                ]]........................................................................................167 Figure 5-8. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                          
                                                ]]........................................................................................168 Figure 5-9. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                          
                                                ]]........................................................................................169 Figure 5-10. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                      
                                        ]]...............................................................................................170 Figure 5-11. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                      
                                        ]]...............................................................................................171 Figure 5-12. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                      
                                        ]]...............................................................................................172 Figure 5-13. GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[                      
                                        ]]...............................................................................................173

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 12 of 176 LIST OF ACRONYMS Short Form Description 1-D One-dimensional 3-D Three-dimensional Micro Strain (10 -6 length/length) ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&PV Boiler and Pressure Vessel BWR Boiling Water Reactor CLTP Current Licensed Thermal Power DAS Date Acquisition System DOF Degree of Freedom EPU Extended Power Uprate FEA Finite Element Analysis FEM Finite Element Model FFT Fast Fourier Transform FIV Flow Induced Vibration FRF Frequency Response Function GEH GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy GGNS Grand Gulf Nuclear Station HCF High Cycle Fatigue HF High Frequency Hz Hertz IGSCC Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking LF Low Frequency MASR Minimum alternating stress ratio Mlbm/hr Millions pounds mass per hour MSIV Main Steam Isolation Valve MSL Main Steam Line MSLB Main Steam Line Break MW t Megawatt Thermal NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Page 13 of 176 Short Form Description NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OBE Operating Basis Earthquake OLTP Original Licensed Thermal Power Pa Pascal PATP Power Ascension Test Program PBLE Plant Based Load Evaluation PSD Power Spectral Density psi Pounds per square inch PT Penetrant Test QC2 Quad Cities Unit 2 RCIC Reactor Core Isolation Cooling RFO Refueling Outage RIO Refueling Inspection Outage RMS Root-Mean-Squared RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel SCF Stress Concentration Factor SF Singularity Factor SRF Stress Reduction Factor SRV Safety Relief Valve SSE Safe Shutdown Earthquake TC Test Condition TSV Turbine Stop Valve [[ ]] VPF Vane Passing Frequency ZPA Zero Period Acceleration NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Executive Summary Page 14 of 176 1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report documents the finite element stress analyses of the replacement steam dryer for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (GGNS). The focus of these analyses is to predict the replacement dryer's susceptibility to fati gue under flow-induced vibration and hydrodynamic loads during normal operation as well as for established design conditions, including normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions at extended po wer uprate (EPU) power levels. A detailed finite element model (FEM) is used to perform the structural dynamic analyses. The results of these analyses are used to assess dryer compone nt stresses versus fatigue design criteria under the operating conditions at EPU. The GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) Plant Based Load Evaluation (PBLE) methodology (Appendices B and C) was used to develop the fluc tuating pressure loading that is applied to a finite element model of the replacement steam dryer to calculate the steam dryer transient dynamic responses. The pressure loads were developed from main steam line (MSL) strain gauge instrumentation data obtained during the power ascension of GGNS in November 2008. The MSL strain gauge data at 100% Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) level and additional potential safety relief valve (SRV) ac oustic resonance signals at high frequency range were used as the input to the PBLE for the determination of the fluctuating pressure loading. To evaluate uncertainties in the steam dryer structural frequency response, [[

                                                                                                                                  ]] from the nominal value to create frequency shifts in the load definition. Trending of power ascension test measurements of MSL strain gauge data and asso ciated dryer pressure loads we re used to develop frequency dependent EPU scaling factors, to proj ect FEM stress results to EPU conditions.

After incorporating end-to-end bias and uncertainty values, the results from fatigue evaluations confirm that at EPU conditions, the replacement dryer is structurally adequate to accommodate flow-induced vibration (FIV) loads. All dryer components meet the fatigue acceptance criteria with a minimum alternating stre ss ratio (MASR) greater than 2.0. The GGNS replacement steam dryer was analyzed for the applicable American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) load combinations under normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions (primary stress). Results demonstrated that at EPU conditions, stresses for all structural components are below the ASME Code allowable limits. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Executive Summary Page 15 of 176 The comparison of steam dryer geometry, plant geometry and operating conditions, as well as the comparison of FIV loads between GGNS and its valid prototype, ju stify and support the non-prototype designation, obviating the need for on-dryer instruments. A Power Ascension Test Program (PATP) will be followed at GGNS for the initial cycle of EPU operation. MSL strain gauges will be monitored and the resulting steam dryer pressure loads compared to acceptance limit criteria to ensure that the dryer stresses remain below the fatigue limit. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Product Description Page 16 of 176

2.0 PRODUCT

DESCRIPTION 2.1 Original Grand Gulf Dryer The original Grand Gulf steam drye r is a curved hood six-bank dryer. Inspections of the original Grand Gulf dryer have reported only a few indications. Three indications have been found on the dryer support ring. These indications were determined to be intergranular stress corrosion cracking, which is common for suppor t rings in dryers of this vint age. Other indications were found on the lifting eye-to-lifting rod tack welds. These cracks were determined to be caused by low cycle fatigue during handling of the drye r, not high cycle fatigue (HCF) during power operation of the reactor. When compared to other curved hood dryers, the Grand Gulf indications have been minor. Other original equipment curved hood dryers have required repairs to drai n channels, end plates, hoods and tie bars to address fatigue cracking. Since 2004 the interiors of several curved hood dryers have been inspected. These inspections have shown cracking at the junction of the interior hood supports, the hood panel and base plate, as well as the junction of the interior hood support and the trough. The configurat ion at these locations is very stiff (the junction of three perpendicular planes). It is believed that the cracks formed early in life and once formed, the cracks introduced sufficient flexibility in the structure. Of those affected dryers that have been re-inspected, the results indicate that the existing cracks are relatively stable. 2.2 Replacement Dryer Design The Grand Gulf replacement steam dryer design is based on the design of a curved hood six-bank replacement dryer used in a prototype Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)/4 reactor. To satisfy the current MASR and maximum allowable stress limits, the BWR/4 replacement dryer design uses [[

                                          ]]  In addition, [[                                                                                                             
                                                          ]]  This steam dryer also uses [[                                                               
                                                                                                                                                        ]] to improve the stress distribution and move the welds away from the stress concentration at these panel junctions. The replacement steam dryer also uses an improved [[                                                           
                                                                                                                  ]]  As a result, the BWR/4 prototype replacement steam dryer design is significantly more robust than the st eam dryer it replaces.

Both the Grand Gulf reactor vessel and the BWR/4 reactor vessel where the BWR/4 prototype replacement dryer was installed have the same internal diameter so the Grand Gulf replacement NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Product Description Page 17 of 176 steam dryer design remains essentially unchanged from the BWR/4 prototype design. Differences between the BWR/4 dryer and the Grand Gulf replacement steam dryer will be discussed in Section 2.2.1 below. The Grand Gulf replacement dryer is very similar in profile to the original Grand Gulf dryer but has the improvements incorporated in the [[

            ]]design. 2.2.1 Modifications Made for Grand Gulf Several minor changes were made to the BWR/4 prototype dryer design to match the fit and form of the original Grand Gulf steam dryer. First, the Grand Gulf reactor design uses six vessel supports for the steam dryer as opposed to four supports for the BWR/4 design. The six support locations are included in the Grand Gulf replacement steam dryer design. The steam dryer skirt was lengthened by 9.5 inches to match the original Grand Gulf dryer. The Grand Gulf reactor is designed with six hold-down locations on the vessel head to hold the dryer in place during a postulated MSL break. Four of th ese are the lifting rods as in the BWR/4 design. The additional two hold-down channels in the BWR/6 design are located in the end closure plates between the two center banks.  [[

                                                              ]]  Section 5 provides additional information comparing the BWR/4 prototype dryer and the GGNS replacement dryer. 2.2.2 Design Improvements to BWR/4 Replacement Design A minor change to the BWR/4 prototype steam dryer was [[

                                                                                                  ]], reducing the stress in this location.  [[
                                                                                                                       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 18 of 176

3.0 STEAM

DRYER EVALUATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3.1 Evaluation Process Overview The following process is used to evaluate the capability of the steam dryer to withstand the vibration and hydrodynamic loadings during normal operation, as well as transient and accident conditions (see Figure 3-1). The MSL geometry is evaluated for potential acoustic resonances that may occur in the expected range of EPU operating conditions. This evaluation is based primarily on an acoustic evaluation of the safety relief valve (SRV) standpipe and MSL geometry, as well as measurements taken in plants with similar geometries and operating conditions. (Reference Appendix A.) The potential acoustic resonance frequencies are used in conjuncti on with the vessel and MSL acoustic models to determine optimum locations for the MSL pressure measurements. Measurements of the acoustic pressures in the MSLs are taken during the plant power ascension to CLTP. (Reference Appendix A.) The power ascension trend data is used to de velop scaling factors fo r projecting the dryer acoustic loads to EPU conditions. (Reference Appendix A) The dryer fluctuating pressure load definiti on for the FIV analysis is developed based on the plant MSL pressure measurements and the potential SRV resonances identified in the source screening using the PBLE methodology. (Reference Appendices A, B, C and D.) The fatigue analysis of the dryer is performed using the fluctuating pressure load definition, the stress analysis is adjusted for all bias and uncertaintie s and the results are confirmed to meet the fatigue acceptance criteria. (Reference Appendix E.) The power ascension monitoring program and acceptance limits are defined for confirming the steam dryer meets the fatigue acceptance criteria at EPU conditions. (Reference Appendix F.) The dryer is evaluated under defined load combinations to demonstrate that the dryer will maintain structural integrity under normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. (Reference Appendices A and E.) NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 19 of 176 3.2 Steam Dryer Load Definition 3.2.1 Screening for Potential Acoustic Sources The purpose of this section is to describe th e process of screening GGNS for potential acoustic sources. Regulatory Guide 1.20, Revision 3, Secti on C 2.0 (Reference 1) indicates studies of past failures have determined th at flow-excited acoustic resonances within the va lves, stand-off pipes and branch lines in the MS Ls of BWRs can play a significant role in producing mid- to high-frequency pressure fluctuations and vibration that can damage MSL valves, the steam dryer and other reactor pressure vessel (RPV) internals and steam system components. The screening for acoustic sources is plant specific because the BWR models are not all alike. The MSL configuration for BWR/6 plants is generically similar across the plant fleet, particularly within the containment drywell where the limited sp ace dictates a standa rdized pipe routing configuration. The MSLs exit the vessel symmetrically offset about 18-20 from the 90-270 vessel line, then collect and exit the drywell along the 0-180 vessel line towards the turbine, as shown in Figure 3-2. Outside the drywell, after the outboard main steam isolation valves (MSIVs), the MSL configuration varies from plant to plant. The different containment types introduce only a minor difference in the MSL configuration within the drywell. For the BWR/6 Mark III containments, the MSLs drop to roughly mid-height of the RPV and exit the drywell.

GGNS has the typical four MSL configuration where the steam line nozzles are offset +/- 18 o from the 90-270 line. There are no dead-legs so no prominent low frequency (LF) acoustic loads are expected. GGNS uses a common standpipe configuration for all of the SRV branches. There are two SRV layouts in the MSL confi guration, with MSLs B and D being mirror images of MSLs A and C. The short lines, A and D, have four SRVs , as shown in Figure 3-3. The long lines, B and C, have six SRVs, with the last two just downstream of a slight bend. There is a Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) line and a Reactor Vent line on MSL A at 107 inches and 81 inches

below the centerline of the nozzle, respectively, as shown in Figure 3-4. This line typically falls between the SRVs and the RPV in most BWR/3 through BWR/6 plants. The acoustic FEM modal analysis has been used to predict the expected range of steam acoustic resonant response of the standpipe using a small single valve model and full multi valve models. The FEM acoustic analysis of the si ngle Grand Gulf SRV indicates [[

                                            ]], as shown in Figure 3-5.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 20 of 176 However, the SRV and MSL acoustics will interact and the combined system may resonate at frequencies different from that of the single valve standpipe fundamental frequency. For that reason, acoustic modes in the full model, including all valves, must be evaluated. The acoustic FEM for the short MSL line with [[

               ]] SRVs shows [[                                                                    
            ]], as shown in Figure 3-6.

The acoustic FEM for the long line with [[ ]] SRVs shows prominent modes at [[

                                                      ]], as shown in Figure 3-7. A test program was performed following Refueling Outage (RFO)-16 at GGNS to obtain MSL strain gauge data.  (See Section 3.2.2 for more details regarding th e test.)  The test report is contained in Appendix G of this report. From the MSL strain gauge testing done in November 2008, maxima appear in the 95% CLTP and 100% CLTP measurements in the frequency range of [[                                        ]] In the GGNS MSL measurements at 95% power, there are [[                                                                   
                                                                                                                ]] (see Figure 3-8). These peaks are believed to be associated with a single standpipe resonance. At 100% power, the amplitude for the [[                                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                    ]]  In addition, the coherence at [[                  ]] between the measurement locations on MSL C is very hi gh (~0.9) whereas the coherence is only about 0.2 for the [[                              ]]  The [[
                 ]] peak appears to be a true SRV resonance and is modeled in the load definition. In the GGNS MSL measurements, a strong [[
                 ]] peak (see Figure 3-8) develops at 100% CLTP power (MSL flow velocity ~141 ft/sec). The associated 0V measurements [[                         
                                                                                                                                          ]]  This peak shows in all MSL measurement locations, though at varying am plitudes. This peak has the appearance of

[[ ]]; however, it is most apparent in the 100% power measurements. [[

                                                                                  ]] An FEM acoustic model of an SRV at a similar [[                 ]] predicted [[
                    ]] resonance for a standpipe with similar dimensions to the GGNS standpipe (see Table 3-1). The MSL measurements taken in 2009 at this [[
                  ]] show an SRV resonance at [[                     ]] that begins between 95% and 100% Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) (MSL flow velocity of [[                                  ]]). The GGNS [[
                 ]] peak is close to the [[
                 ]] peak seen in NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 21 of 176 the [[                ]] plant data. This could be the be ginning of a resonan ce at 100% power.

Therefore, this is assumed to be an SRV resonance and is modeled in the load definition. The [[ ]] MSL measurements show an SRV resonance at [[

                    ]] (Figure 3-9) that begins between 100% and [[
                ]] OLTP power (MSL flow velocity of [[                                                                     ]]). The SRV standpipe dimensions are about the same as GGNS (see Table 3-1).

Therefore, this potential SRV resonance in this frequency range [[ ]] is considered in the load definition. A review of the acoustic mode shapes shows that modeling the SRV resonance frequency at [[

                 ]] will tend to maximize the pressure loading on the dryer. Table 3-2 shows how the predicted resonant frequencies match up with the measurement data from GGNS and the similar [[                    ]] plant. From the combined FEM analysis and measuremen ts, the first candidate frequency for the dryer analysis would be [[
                   ]]  From the measurements, this frequency is [[                                                                  ]] and will probably [[
                     ]], and is close to the predicted [[
                    ]]  Next would be [[
                 ]], which grows quickly with increas ed power. It is close to the predicted [[
                  ]] and the [[
                  ]] plant measured frequency of [[                       ]]  The next candidate would be the [[
                 ]] SRV resonance.  [[                                                                                                                                                                        ]]  The final frequency, the predicted [[
                 ]] mode, is close to the [[
                 ]] peak seen in the [[
               ]] plant measurements.

Figure 3-10 shows the observed and predicted SRV resonances. [[

      ]]  The vertical lines are the average MSL flow velocitie s at CLTP and EPU. The sloped lines signify the possible interaction between the first ac oustic mode of the SRV and the first and second shear wave modes associated with the flow instabilities.

Figure 3-10 illustrates that the acoustic modes shown in the measurements and predictions are [[

                            ]]  The flow velocities required to initiate [[                                                          ]] resonances are well above the EPU range. However, resonances due to [[                                           
                ]] would be expected to o ccur during power ascension and C LTP and could continue at EPU.

The data points represent measured data during power ascension at GGNS and the [[

               ]] plant, respectively. The horizontal lines represent the [[                                      ]] used in the GGNS dryer analysis.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 22 of 176 3.2.2 Obtain Data for Dryer Load Evaluation The methodology used to obtain data for the dryer load evaluation is outlined in more detail in Appendix A. This section provides a summary of the following topics: Optimization of Strain Gauge Locations, Data Acquisition Equipment, Data Acquisition Summary, and Data Filtering and Scaling. 3.2.2.1 Optimization of Strain Gauge Locations The PBLE can be used with [[ ]] data to define the acoustic loads on a BWR steam dryer. For MSL instrumentation, the methodology requires: A minimum of two measurement locations per steam line. [[

                                                                                                                                                     ]] That there are no significant acoustic sources between the measurement locations and the vessel nozzles. The process for determining sensor locations that minimize singularities in the PBLE solution is described in Appendices B and C. The candi date sensor locations are chosen to [[                           
                                                                                                    ]]  The PBLE model is then run [[

                                                                                                                        ]]  There were [[
               ]] strain gauge mounting locations on the A and C lines and [[
                ]] locations on the B and D lines.

[[

                                                                                      ]] Figure 3-11 shows an example of the SF plot comparing the response of the [[                                   
                                        ]]  Prior to installing the gauges, the as-built arrangement of the piping was evaluated and the pipe condition at the proposed locations was assessed to determine the final mounting location. 3.2.2.2 Data Acquisition Equipment  The data acquisition system (DAS) equipment us ed to gather MSL data at GGNS is an LMS ScaDAS-05. This system meets cr iteria outlined in Appendix A.

This DAS is a computer-based NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 23 of 176 system capable of acquiring, storing and analyzing strain gauge data. This DAS was selected to have high immunity to electrical noise. This system is suitable for static and dynamic measurements for a frequency bandwidth of at least [[

                               ]]  It is sensitive enough to detect and measure strain levels of [[                                                                                                                   
                                          ]]  Anti-aliasing filtering is sufficient to exclude aliasing of [[                           
                ]] data with an anti-alia sing noise floor less than [[

                                                                                                            ]]  The anti-aliasing filtering requirement exceeds the noise floor requirement. The DAS has an option to set bri dge excitation to zero volts.  [[

                      ]]  Figure 3-12 shows a comparison of the strain gauge measurements with and without excitation.  [[

                                                                         ]] 3.2.2.3 Data Acquisition Summary In 2008, during RFO-16 at GGNS, [[
         ]] strain gauge sensors were installed at [[
           ]] MSL locations. After RFO-16, a data acquisition test program was conducted to collect power ascension data. The tests performed during this event were as follows.

[[

                                                                                              ]] This acquired test data serves as input to PBLE load generation as described in more detail in Appendix A. In May 2010, a second data acquisition campaign was conducted to collect GGNS data.  [[

                        ]]  Tests performed during the Ma y 2010 program are as follows: [[                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 24 of 176 [[ ]] A more detailed summary of these test campai gns can be found in Appendix G. The DAS was left in place at GGNS and may be used again to support steam dryer limit curve monitoring in a future power ascension test program as described in Appendix F. 3.2.2.4 Data Filtering and Scaling The first step in the filter ing process for GGNS was to [[

                                ]] For all of these reasons the frequencies listed in Table 3-3 were judged [[                                             
                                                                                      ]] The GGNS noise was filtered using a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to achieve reduced bandwidth and linear phase. These filters operate in the zero phase mode by passing the data in the forward direction and then pa ssing the result back through in reverse time order. This method was used to avoid stability and roll-off issues with Butterworth filters with the narrow line rejection desired without subs tantial overlap to ad jacent frequencies. The frequencies that were filtered had [[                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                    ]]   The result is [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 25 of 176 [[ ]] it was treated as a potential SRV resonance frequency because it falls in the band of likely SRV sources. Figure 3-13 shows an example of [[

                                                            ]]  The figure shows the unfiltered and filtered signal and also includes the 0V excitation signal for comparison.  [[

                          ]]  Figure 3-14 shows the same filtered data but only includes the range from [[
                           ]] so that the effects of [[                                                                                                                       
                                                                    ]]  This figure demonstrates that the filtering [[                           
                                                                                                   ]]  Figure 3-15 is an example of the filtering performed for the [[

                                                                                             ]]  It is noted that for the QC2 benchmark cases, [[                                                                                                                                          ]]  These figures show that the filtering performed for the GGNS MSL data is consistent with the filtering performed for the benchmark data. The notch width used in the GGNS filtering was narrower than that used on the benchmark plant; therefore, the generic PB LE bias and uncertainty values are bounding for the GGNS application. The time histories were [[                                                                                                                                    
                    ]] from GGNS-acquired pl ant data and then [[

                              ]]  The common conversion factor from pressure in psi to pressure in Pascals was applied to each station average stream. More information is provided in Appendix A on calibration testing of strain gauge pressure data using pre-operational leak test data. The full frequency range filtered and back-filled and scaled to Pascals was also output in the PBLE format to be used in generating the dryer acoustic node pressure time histories from PBLE over the full time record. 3.2.3 Steam Dryer Fluctuating Load Definition 3.2.3.1 Load definition The replacement steam dryer FIV response analysis uses the filtered MSL strain gauge data to develop the load. The methodology is described in Appendices B and C [[                                         
                    ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 26 of 176 [[

  ]] A 3-D acoustic FEM of the GGNS replacement steam dryer and RPV was constructed [[

                                                                                                                                       ]]  Additional key input

[[

                                                                                                                                          ]] to the steam dryer. Table 3-4 shows these parameters for the GGNS acoustic FEM. The parameters are within the range of the PBLE sensitivity assessment shown in Appendix G of Appendix C.

MSL strain gauges were placed at [[

           ]] locations, including [[
           ]] locations on MSLs B and D and [[
                 ]] locations on MSLs A and C. Strain time histories from GGNS Test Condition J (100% CLTP) were converted [[

                                                                                                                                  ]]  The MSL steam properties are derived by the PBLE as de scribed in Section 2.4 of Appendix C.

The nozzle acoustic velocities and amplitudes are then used to excite the dome acoustic FEM. The relationship between MSLs spectral content and the RPV spectral content is modeled with a [[ ]] transfer matrix (Transmatrix - Section 2.3.3 of Appendix C). The Transmatrix also includes smaller internal RPV noise [[

                                                                                                                ]] (Section 3.1.2 of Appendix C). This noise contributes to dryer load when MSL signals are low or have been filtered to remove noise. Velocity of GGNS at EPU ([[                             ]]) is well below QC2 at test condition 41a

([[ ]]). Therefore, in accordance with Appendix C, the QC2 source amplitude was used in the GGNS PBLE load development.

Pressure loads are calculated and recorded at specific nodes on the acoustic model that are adjacent or coincident with nodes on the surface of the structural FEM. A time segment of the pressure loads (i.e., pressure time histories) from the adjacent acoustic model nodes were mapped to the surface of the structural FEM. These mapped pressure loads were used to perform NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 27 of 176 the FIV structural analyses. This process is performed distinctly for both LF and HF PBLE pressure loadings. 3.2.3.2 Selection of Time Segments The MSL strain gauge data acquisition for each GGNS power ascension test condition consisted of data sets [[

                                                                              ]], a subset of this data is used to attain a reasonable calculation time for the structural analyses.

Dividing the structural an alysis into LF and HF ranges facilitates the management of the large data sets. A [[

                               ]] segment from the MSL pressure time histories was selected to capture the peak response for the LF [[
                            ]] acoustic loads, using a sampling rate of

[[ ]] A [[ ]] time segment from the MSL pressure time histories was selected to capture the peak response for the HF [[ ]] acoustic loads, [[

                                                        ]] The length of the time segments was chosen to [[                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                    ]] capture the peak response at each frequency. The time segments were selected by evaluating the spectral content of the [[                                  ]] MSL strain gauge data [[                                                     
                                                                                                                                              ]]  The uncertainty in the various time intervals is addressed in Section 3.4 of this repor t and in Appendix A.

[[

                                                                                      ]]  This process was performed for [[                           
              ]] loads, respectively. Following preliminary structural analysis, stress time history results were used with the [[                      ]] stress projection methods (Appendix E) to select the time segment used in the final stress analysis.

The steam dryer pressure and stress intensity PSDs were [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 28 of 176 [[

                                                          ]]  The resulting stress intensity PSDs represent the projected stress

[[ ]] These projected peak stress intensity values are compared on a component basis [[

                                                                                                                                                                        ]] 3.2.4 Basis for Projected FIV Loads to EPU The GGNS dryer loads were pr ojected to EPU amplitude [[                                                                       
                ]]  It was determined that the majority of the dryer loads in the frequency span [[

                              ]] were [[                          ]] as a function of MSL flow [[                                             ]]  The scaling of GGNS drye r to EPU also included [[
             ]] combinations of potential SRV resonance conditions [[                                  ]] scaled to EPU. 3.2.4.1 Trending and Projection of Non-SRV Resonance Dryer Loads Section 3.2.2.3 and Appendix G discuss acquiring MSL strain gauge data. This data is used to project PBLE generated steam dryer loads for each condition. The load is projected to [[

                                                                                    ]] To derive the frequency dependent EPU scaling the load [[                                                                       
                                                                                                                                            ]]  These loads were calculated at [[                                                                                                                                                         
                                         ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 29 of 176 [[

                                                                                                                          ]]  Equation 3-2 provided a good fit to all the non-resonant data and supports previous observati ons that non-resonant loads [[

                                                                                                                                                        ]] Figure 3-16 through Figure 3-18 de pict the CLTP PSD curve (g reen) and the EPU projection curve (light blue) [[

                                                                                                         ]] is included in Appendix A, Section 5.1. 3.2.4.2 Trend and Project SRV Resonance Data The acoustic response will be tr acked and projected during powe r ascension (See Appendix F). SRV acoustic resonance can be characterized [[                                                                                           
                ]]  After an initial onset period the load projections can be reasonably made with modest power ascension power steps and linear projections to estimate the dryer load amplitude at the next test step.  [[                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                              ]]  Once the resonance is established, [[                               
                                                                                                ]]  When the resonance beings to peak, [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 30 of 176 [[

                                                                                                       ]] The SRV resonant loads at [[                                           ]] are in early onset. Scaling of those loads for dryer qualification at EPU is discussed in the next section. The 95% and 100% average power data was used with Equation 3-4 and the resulting projection for the [[                                        ]] loads are depicted by the light blue lines in Figure 3-16 through Figure 3-18.  [[                             
                                                                                                                                                     ]], the projection is below the EPU design values (expected maximum response). Further discussion on SRV projection is included in Appendix A, Section 5.1. 3.2.4.3 Generation of SRV - Projected Loads. A review of the GGNS power as cension data indicates that, [[                                                                 
                      ]], there is evidence of [[                                                                                            ]] SRV acoustic resonances. The initial onset was observed at [[                                          ]] as well as

[[ ]] Based on the assessment in Appendix A, Section 3, there is potential for additional SRV resonances [[

                                                      ]] To evaluate the acoustic response of the GGNS dome and the sensitivity of the replacement dryer to SRV acoustic resonances through this frequency range, [[

                                                                                                                                                                        ]]  The scaling [[                                                            ]] is described in Appe ndix A, Sections 3 and 5.

[[ ]] different projected EPU conditions were evaluated for evaluation of the GGNS replacement dryer at EPU. These include: [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 31 of 176 [[

                                                                                                                                             ]] The loads were scaled such that the projec ted GGNS design basis loads bounded the projected peak resonant response loads from plants with similar [[                                                                             
                                                                                                                                          ]] design. The projected [[
                ]] dryer load is scaled to the full GGNS projected Strouhal number at EPU for each of the Strouhal Adder Frequencies. The resulting load amplitude is depicted as th e purple lines in Figure 3-16 through Figure 3-18.

These [[ ]] design conditions provide what is expect ed to be a conservatively high set of design loading conditions for the structural analysis. These loads, coupled with the modest resulting stress, provide high assurance that the GGNS replacement dryer will be acceptable at EPU conditions. The acceptance limit criteria presented in Appendix F will assure GGNS does not operate at conditions that will result in FIV stresses above the ASME Code endurance limit. Additional information on the generation of projected SRV resonance loads is included in Appendix A, Section 5. 3.2.5 Comparison of Projected Loads with Industry Data The previous sub-sections within this report have described the pro cess to develop the GGNS dryer loads. This includes scaling acoustic data to EPU projected steam flows and adding [[ ]] This was added at the following frequencies: [[ ]] The [[ ]] frequencies are directly obser ved in GGNS test data, and the signal amplitudes at these frequencies are expected to increase as the power is increased toward EPU conditions. The [[

                                 ]] frequencies have also been observed in test data from other plants with similar steam line and SRV standpipe geometries. This section presents a qualitative review of the GGNS loads with the available industry data. The key purpose of this section is to compare dryer loads from other plants and demonstrate the validity of [[                                                              ]] the load definition.

Industry data [[ ]] is used in the comparison PSDs that follow. These comparisons demonstrate the consistent nature of steam dryer loads between similar plants and the [[ ]] SRV resonance load used in the replacement steam dryer design for GGNS. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 32 of 176 The GGNS load used in these comparisons is the projected load at EPU conditions used in the stress evaluation of the replacement dryer. The simulated SRV resonances at [[

                        ]] were applied [[                                        ]] in each of the [[
              ]] EPU load conditions used in design. The acceptance limits included in Appendix F assure that the GGNS loads during EPU will not exceed the peak response or [[                                                  ]] response over the [[                                  ]] range in these [[                                         ]] SRV conditions. The

[[

     ]] peaks have been combined in the plots to facilitate comparisons with other plants. This demonstrates how the amplitude and frequency choice compares with plants with similar valve arrangements. 3.2.5.1 Comparison with

[[ ]] Plant Data A similar design [[ ]] plant [[ ]] and has obtained measured MSL strain gauge data at a steam ve locity equivalent to GGNS at EPU (See Appendix A for more details). The dryer load comparison is made for [[

                                                                                                ]] (see Figure 3-19 through Figure 3-21). The

[[ ]] loads are representative of the loads [[ ]] The PSD plots for GGNS and the [[

               ]] plant are [[                                                                ]] frequency range. The signal content at a given frequency is typically [[                                              ]] when compared to GGNS.

For the [[ ]] peaks of the GGNS dryer loads, the GGNS [[ ]] amplitudes are [[ ]] This is the result of scaling the [[ ]] load based on GGNS Strouhal values. As demonstrated, this approach ensures the simulated SRV resonant load bounds the [[

               ]] loads.

The [[ ]] loads include a resonance peak at approximately [[

                                                                                                     ]]  Thus, the potential effect of the

[[

 ]] peak will be captured during the finite element analysis (FEA) [[                                     
                                                                                                                              ]] 3.2.5.2 Comparison with

[[ ]] Plant Data The [[ ]] data, PSD plots shown in Figure 3-22 a nd Figure 3-23, includes peak hold data based on a [[ ]] test data sample. The resolution was [[ ]] The sensor selected for the comparison was [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 33 of 176 [[ [[ ]] This sensor is located at the [[

                                                     ]] The [[                          ]] reactor developed [[                                                                                              ]] that peaked at [[
           ]] power and [[                                                                                                                         
                                                                                  ]] Figure 3-22 and Figure 3-23 compare the amplitude of the [[
                 ]] SRV resonance with the GGNS [[                            ]] dryer loads. The GGNS loads [[                                                                         
              ]]  It is also noted that outside the [[
                    ]] SRV resonance band, the [[
                   ]] test data is [[                                            ]] than GGNS EPU projections between [[
                                 ]]  This difference is attributable in part to the [[                                                                                                 
                                    ]] and the conservative noise floor load produced by the PBLE with MSL strain gauge input. 3.2.5.3 Comparison with

[[ ]] Plant Data The [[ ]] data comparison with GGNS data is shown in Figure 3-24 through Figure 3-26. The [[ ]] loads are PBLE generated using [[

                                          ]]  Figure 5-2 through Figure 5-13 provide a comparison with [[                     
                          ]] loads generated using MSL strain gauge instrumentation. The dryer load comparison is made for [[                ]] dryer regions [[                                                         
                                                                                                         ]]  The [[
         ]] loads are representative of the loads [[                                        ]] In general, the [[                                                ]] loads have a [[
                       ]] content [[                           
                                                                                    ]] and a [[                          ]] content. The [[
                 ]] and GGNS have a comparable response in the [[                            ]] band. The PBLE load based on dryer data drops off after [[
                   ]], but the conservative nois e floor load produced by the PBLE with MSL strain gauge input produces a more comparable amplitude to GGNS above

[[ ]] The [[ ]] plant developed [[ ]] Strouhal resonance at [[

                 ]] during EPU [[                                                                                                           
            ]]  For the [[                                  ]] peaks of the GGNS dryer loads, the GGNS [[                              ]] loads are [[                                ]] the loads shown in the [[                                                ]] plant data. These NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 34 of 176 plots demonstrate the conservatism of the simulated SRV resonant load in comparison with that observed on the [[                                                  ]] 3.3 Steam Dryer Stress Analysis 3.3.1 Dryer FEA Model A typical steam dryer has been described in Section 2.0. The components of this dryer are included in the full steam dryer FEM and are specified later in this section. The commercial finite element software ANSYS 11 is used for the analyses. This sec tion provides a detailed description of the FEM. The FEM for the GGNS replacement dryer is based on [[                                            ]] dryer (Figure 3-27). Nominal dimensions are used at al l locations. The global FEM includes all the structurally significant components of the dryer. The GGNS replacement dryer FEM is shown in Figure 3-28 through Figure 3-31 and incorporates the improvements and modifications from Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. 3.3.1.1 General Description 3.3.1.1.1 Elements and Major Components The element selection follows the element descri ption in Section 5.1.1 of Appendix E. The FEM of the steam dryer contains [[                                            ]] elements. Additional element types include [[                                                                                                                                          ]]  The tie bars on bank top caps, which provide the structural links among vane banks, are modeled [[                   
                          ]]  ANSYS [[                                                                    ]] elements are used for the support ring [[                                                                                          ]] The major dryer components are shown in Figure 3-29 through Figure 3-31.  [[                                 
                                                                                ]] are discussed separately in the next paragraphs. An overview of the element types by component, real ID and material ID is provided in Table 3-5. Table 3-6 lists the ANSYS material ID separately, along with a description of their use in the model. For material ID 1, temperature dependent properties were obtained from the ASME Code (Reference 2). Table 3-7 correla tes the elastic modulus with temperature. The chemical composition of ASTM 304L Stainl ess Steel is 18Cr-8Ni, which points to Material Group G of Table TM-1 of the above menti oned code (Reference 2). Poiss on's Ratio is 0.3, and the density is 8.0763E-04lb f-s 2/in 4 [[                                                ]]  Material ID 13 is used to [[                    ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 35 of 176 [[ ]] The Poisson Ratio and the temperature dependency of the elasticity modulus are identical to material ID 1. The material properties for water (material ID 17) are discusse d separately in Section 3.3.1.1.5. 3.3.1.1.2 [[ ]] The vane bundles are enclosed [[

                              ]] The mass of the [[

                                                                                                                                                    ]] The stiffness reduction of the [[

                                                              ]] 3.3.1.1.3 Element Mesh Density Mesh element sizes for various components in the FEM are provided in Table 3-8. The dryer components listed in Table 3-8 are shown in Figure 3-29 through Figure 3-31. These typical mesh sizes follow the guidelines outlined in paragraph 5.1.2 of Appendix E. A mesh convergence study demonstrated that the FEM satisfied the [[
         ]] convergence criterion of Appendix E. 3.3.1.1.4 Vane Bank Modules An overall description of the dryer vane bank is provided in Section 2 of Appendix E. The mass, stiffness and damping distributions of the numer ous vanes and their appendages are modeled to NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 36 of 176 account for their inertia and stiffness eff ect on the dryer in the FIV analysis.  [[

                                                                                                                                                                  ]]  A vane bundle is a vane module without end plates. There are a total of [[
         ]] vane bundles in the GGNS replacement dryer. Figure 3-35 shows the vane bundle positioning. The modeling of each of the vane bundles is described in Section 5.1.3 of Appendix E. A detailed mesh of each Vane Bundle [[                                              ]] is created. The mesh consists of

[[ ]] An overview of the element types by component, real ID and material ID is provided in Table 3-9. The temperature dependent properties were obtained from Reference 2. Table 3-7 correlates the elastic modulus with temperature. The chemical composition of AISI 304L Stainless Steel is 18Cr-8Ni, which points to Material Group G of Table TM-1 of the above mentioned code. Poisson's Ratio is 0.3. [[

                                                                                                                                                            ]]  Table 3-10 provides an overview of the density used for each of the vane bundles. The detailed vane bundle modeling is used [[

                                                ]] input to the global model. The master DOFs are defined at those locations where, per hardware design, certain vane bundle nodes in a super-element are in terfacing with corr esponding nodes of other dryer components in the global model.

In addition, [[ ]] are defined in the vane bundle models to properly capture the internal bundle dynamics consistent with the prototype dryer benchmark. Figure 3-36 shows the [[ ]] FEM of a vane bundle illustrating at the same time the interface points and master DOFs. 3.3.1.1.5 Water Coupling and Water Properties The skirt of the dryer is partially submerged in water, which is modeled [[

                            ]] to account for the fluid (i.e., water) structure interaction. Water volume is NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 37 of 176 modeled to represent the thermodynamic properties of the steam water mixture that exists in the annular region between the dryer skirt and the RPV wall as well as the skirt and steam separators. ANSYS [[                                ]] fluid elements are used to model the water as described in Section 5.1.4 of Appendix E. The water levels inside and outside were determined by a dryer performance calculation.  [[

                                            ]]  The displacement boundary conditions are applied to represent the solid boundary of either the reactor ve ssel wall or stea m separator.

The water surrounding the skirt and drain channels contains a large number of steam bubbles rising from the reactor core and steam separato rs. The properties of the two-phase mixture, "bubbly water," are calculated using equations 5.1-1 and 5.1-2 in Section 5.1.4 of Appendix E. The bulk modulus and density are [[

                       ]] 3.3.1.1.6 Damping For the flow-induced vibration of steam dryers, GE Hitachi (GEH) applies the ANSYS

[[

                           ]]  (See Section 6.1.1 of Appendix E.) Based on Equation 6.1-2 of Appendix E, the damping ratio, i.e., the ratio of the damping constant over critical damping constant, varies [[                                                                                                           
                      ]] [[                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                       ]]  In the time domain transient dynamic analysis with ANSYS, [[

                                                                                                                                    ]]   Figure 3-37 represents the [[                                                              ]] damping curves for [[                       
                  ]] for the global model.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 38 of 176 3.3.1.2 Comparison of GGNS Modeling with Benchmarked Model As discussed above, the FEM structural modeling approach for the GGNS replacement dryer follows the methodology outlined in Appendix E, [[

                                                                      ]] The [[                                     ]] model reflects the GGNS replacement dryer [[                                           
                                                                                                                                        ]]  The dynamic response corresponds well with published da ta for "Elastic Constants fo r Bending of Thin Perforated Plates with Triangular and Square Penetration Pattern" by O'Donnell.  (See Reference 3.) 3.3.2 FIV Analysis This section describes the process used to perform the FIV structural analysis. The commercial finite element software ANSYS is used in the solution. For the flow-induced vibration of steam dryers, GEH incorporates [[                                                                                                                                 
                                                                  ]] 3.3.2.1 Vibration Analysis Approach The structural responses of the GGNS replacement steam dryer components to the FIV loads are calculated [[                                                                                                                                                            ]] (Section 6.1.2 of Appendix E). Th e acoustic load definition is [[

                                                                                                                                                                             ]] Displacement boundary conditions are applied to the lug support locations in the dryer model. Displacement boundary conditions are also used to contain the fluid. The support ring rests on

[[ ]] steam dryer support brackets that are welded attachments to the RPV wall. [[

                                                                                                                                                ]]  The motion of the steam dryer in the circumferential direction is constrained [[                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ]]  Motion in the vertical directi on is constrained by the dryer dead weight.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 39 of 176 3.3.2.2 Structural Uncertainty, Maximum Stresses and Weld Factors 3.3.2.2.1 Uncertainty in Structural Modes There is an uncertainty in the predicted structural mode frequencies and dynamic response of steam dryers because of the approximations in the structural model and variations in the as-built dryer as compared to the nominal design dimensions (Section 6.1.2 of Appendix E). The structural model's modal uncertainty is addressed [[

                                                                            ]]  This is accomplished by [[

                  ]]  In addition to the nominal load case, [[                                                                    ]] cases are

[[ ]] 3.3.2.2.2 Maximum Stresses The results of the dynamic stress analysis consist of time histories of the structural response of all the elements in the FEM [[ ]] In the post-processing of the analysis results, the stresses [[ ]] are searched to determine the maximum stress intensities for the dryer compone nts (Table 3-11 and Table 3-12 [[

              ]]  [[                                                                                    ]]  In the global dryer FEM, the components of the dryer model are defined a nd grouped based on their common design features and relative loading. The resulting FIV stress table contains the maximum stress intensities

[[ ]] for each dryer component. 3.3.2.2.3 Weld Factors

Weld Factors A key component of the fatigue alternating stress calculation at a specific location is the appropriate value of the stress c oncentration factor (SCF). The weld types of relevance for the steam dryer stress analysis are the [[ ]] (Section 4.2 of Appendix E). Because the use of a weld quality factor is for static rather than for fatigue applications, the peak stress is based on the calculated [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 40 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 4.2-1 of Appendix E shows the flow diagram for the calculation of fatigue st ress with appropriate SCFs. For the case of NG-3352 Type I and III full penetration welded joints, the recommended SCF value is 1.4. In this case, the finite element stress is directly multiplied by the appropriate SCF to determine the fatigue stress. Although the reco mmended 'f' factor for Type I and III welds in the NG table is 1.0, a SCF of 1.4 is recommended [[

                            ]] The weld factor value [[                                      ]] can be derived [[

                                                                                                                                                                             ]] multiplier to obtain the fatigue stress. Weld Quality Factor
[[

                                                                                                                                                  ]]   3.3.2.3 Weld Scoping and Initial Fatigue Assessment 3.3.2.3.1 Weld Scoping

[[

                                     ]]  Stress concentrations due to welds are handled [[                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                    ]] [[                                                                        ]] such that the actual weld geometries are fully captured. In addition to the primary scoping that was de scribed in Section 3.3.2.2.2; the weld lines are NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 41 of 176 scoped to determine the maximum stress intensities at each weld line.  [[

                                                                                                                                                               ]]  To obtain the weld peak stress intensities, the [[                                                                                                               
                                                                                                 ]]  The maximum weld stress intensity is then determined for each component that is associated with welds (Table 3-13 and Table 3-14 [[

                                              ]] 3.3.2.3.2 Initial Fatigue Assessment In performing the fatigue evaluation for steam dryers under FIV loading, the maximum stress intensity in each dryer component from both the primary scoping and the weld scoping is determined from the FIV stress analyses. As described in Section 3.3.2.3.1 the maximum stress intensities are adjusted as necessary by the appropriate weld SCF defined in the design criteria.

[[

                                                                                    ]]  Table 3-15 and Table 3-16 are for [[
                       ]] nominal cases, and are provided here as a sample scoping output. These results are tabulated for the nominal and all other load cases. 3.3.2.4 Dryer Components Requiring Further Post Processing  Several dryer components included more refined stress processing to more accurately reflect the stress in these locations. The affected components include the [[

                            ]]     3.3.2.4.1 [[                                                             ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 42 of 176 [[

]] 3.3.2.4.2

[[ ]]

[[

]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 43 of 176 [[

]] 3.3.2.4.3

[[                                                                                             ]]
 [[

]]

3.3.2.4.4 [[ ]]

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 44 of 176 [[ ]] 3.3.2.4.5 [[ ]]

[[

]] 3.3.2.4.6 [[

       ]]
[[[

]] 3.3.3 ASME Loads The GGNS replacement steam dryer was analyzed for the primary structural stress assessment under ASME load combinations for normal, upset, emergency and faulted operation conditions NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 45 of 176 at EPU power level. The ASME load comb inations are shown in Table 3-23, and each individual load is calculated and specified in this section. 3.3.3.1 Steady State, Upset Transient, Emergency and Faulted Condition Pressure Loads The pressure differentials across the steam dryer are calculated for four categories of events: normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. Normal conditions are the steady-state operating conditions. Upset conditions are the anticipated transient events. Emergency conditions are within the reactor internals de sign basis and are defined by the rapid vessel depressurization via operation of the automatic depressurization system relief valves. Faulted conditions are the design basis accident events (e.g., main steam line break). The loads have been developed for the original GGNS steam dryer at EPU conditions. These loads were confirmed to remain bounding for the replacement steam dryer [[
]] 3.3.3.1.1 Normal and Upset P N & P U The normal and upset differential pressure loads are determined based on the methods defined in Appendix A, Section 9.3.1.3. The differential pressure loads are based on EPU conditions for GGNS and account for the higher steam flows at EPU conditions.

Table 3-24 shows the differential 'static' pressure load (P N) for the dryer outer hood. The static pressure is divided into two general regions

an outer hood region that includes the higher pressure drop of the nozzle region and the bala nce of the dryer. Figure 3-49 presents the pressure load applied on the dryer components.

As discussed in Section 9.3.1.3 of Appendix A, P U, the pressure differential load for the steam dryer for upset operation is determined [[

                             ]] 3.3.3.1.2 Differential Pressure Load During Emergency and Faulted Conditions For emergency and faulted conditions, the pressure differentials across the steam dryer components are calculated [[                                                                                                                    ]] as discussed in Section 9.3.2.5 of Appendix A. The limiting event for the emergency condition is [[                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                ]]  For EPU conditions, the differential pressure load during emergency operation (P E) is [[                        ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 46 of 176 For the faulted condition, the limiting event is [[

                                                                                             ]] analyzed [[                                  ]] as described in Section 9.3.2.5 of Appendix A. For EPU conditions, the differential pressure load for these two conditions is [[
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ]] 3.3.3.2 Main Steam Line Break Event Acoustic Loads

[[ ]] The methodology for determining the acoustic loads on the steam dryer hoods during a main steam line break (MSLB) event is described in Section 9.3.2.6 of Appendix A. [[

         ]]  The acoustic load is calculated at

[[ ]] reactor operating conditions defined by the load combination table. The peak normalized acoustic load distribution (P/P Vessel) for the [[

           ]] operating conditions is provided in Table 3-25. The multiplier P 0 is determined [[

           ]] based on EPU conditions. The maximum acoustic loads [[
                           ]] on the steam dryer hood due to the MSLB are obtained [[

                                                                                         ]]  The components in the dryer FEM for these acoustic pressure loads [[
                         ]] are shown in Figure 3-50. 3.3.3.3 Turbine Stop Valve (TSV) Closure Event Loads

[[

         ]] The TSV closure event produces [[
           ]] loads on the steam dryer.  [[

                                                                                                                                             ]]  The methodology for determining these loads is similar to the methodology for determining the acoustic loads due to the MSLB and is described in Section 9.3.2.2 of Appendix A. The peak normalized load distribution is shown in Table 3-26. For EPU conditions, [[

                                                                           ]]  The maximum load on the steam dryer hood is obtained [[

             ]] pressure loads are shown in Figure 3-51 and Figure 3-52.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 47 of 176 3.3.3.4 Seismic Loads Seismic events transmit loads to the dryer through the vessel support brackets. Horizontal loads due to a seismic event are applied [[ ]] as shown in Figure 3-53. Vertical seismic loads are applied [[ ]] as shown in Figure 3-54. Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) and opera ting basis earthquake (O BE) loads for spectral analysis are shown in Fi gure 3-55 through Figure 3-58. Structural damping [[

                 ]] is applied to the response spectra. 3.3.3.5 SRV Load The SRV containment discharge loads are transmitted to the dryer through the vessel support brackets. The horizontal SRV discharge loads are applied [[                                                                     
                    ]]  The vertical SRV discharge loads are applied [[                                                                    
                                                        ]]  SRV discharge loads for the spectral analysis are selected [[

                                                                                      ]] as shown in Figure 3-59 through Figure 3-61.

The applied structural damping is [[

           ]] 3.3.3.6 Zero Period Acceleration (ZPA) The static structure analyses were performed using ZPA accelerations for seismic loads and SRV discharge loads when frequency exceeds the ZPA frequency. The zer o period accelerations applied in the ASME structural an alysis are listed in Table 3-27.

3.3.3.7 Metal and Water Weight Load (DW) The stresses caused by metal and water weight are obtained by applying G loading to the GGNS replacement dryer FEM. 3.3.3.8 FIV Stresses The FIV analysis for GGNS replacement dryer during normal operation was performed and documented in Section 3.3.2. Because the ASME Code load combinations stress analysis is the primary structural assessment, [[ ]] The maximum primary bending stresses and maximum primary membrane stresses will be adjusted using the methodology defined in Section 8 of Appendix A to account for biases and uncertainties. These will be applied [[ ]] for the ASME load combinations. FIV loads for the steam dryer for upset operation (FIVU) are determined [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 48 of 176 3.3.4 Acceptance Criteria The steam dryer, including the drye r units, is a non-safety related item and is classified as an Internal Structure as defined in Reference 2, Subsection NG, Paragraph NG-1122. The steam dryer is not an ASME Code component, but the structural evaluation methodology uses the Code as a design guide with the exception [[ ]] as discussed in Subsections 3.3.4.3 and 3.3.4.4. 3.3.4.1 Material Properties The ASME Code material properties for 304L are listed in Table 3-28. 3.3.4.2 ASME Code Stress Limits for Load Combinations The ASME Code, Subsection NG stress limits for the steam dryer analysis are listed in Table 3-29. Stress limits for Service Levels A, B and C are according to NG-3220 and for Service Level D are per ASME Code Section III Appendix F Paragraph F-1331 for Level D. Upset condition stress limits are increased by [[

           ]] above the limits shown in this table per NG-3223 (a). 3.3.4.3 Static Evaluation The limits outlined in Section 3.3.4.2 above are used for static analysis except when evaluating

welds [[ ]] in lieu of ASME Code Table NG-3352-1, as explained in Section 3.3.4.3.1 below. 3.3.4.3.1 Weld Quality Factor ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Subsection NG weld quality factors are used to evaluate the steam dryer, which is not a core support structure. Samples of the original production welds have been taken as part of the root cause evaluations for the steam dryer failures that occurred at EPU conditions. Metallurgical evaluations of those samples showed [[

                                                                                                                                                                            ]]  To assure high quality welds, new or replacement steam dryer fabrication employs weld processes that have be en fully qualified.  [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 49 of 176

                                                                                                                                  ]], robust weld process qualifications are conducted to prevent weld defects from occurring during fabrication. Representative weld samples using the same joint design and material types as specified for the new or replacement steam dryer are destructively tested. Metall urgical evaluations demonstrating an acceptable weld root are required prior to weld procedure approval. These tests demonstrate that no defects are pr esent at the root of production welds.

Therefore, [[ ]], as well as qualified weld processes [[ ]], are used [[

                                            ]] for new dryer analyses. 3.3.4.4 Fatigue Evaluation Steam dryers are subjected to cyclic acoustic pr essures that cause flow-i nduced vibration during normal operation. They may experience on the order of [[
             ]] stress cycles during a steam dryer's typical [[
               ]] year life. Therefore, HCF constitutes a major structural acceptance criterion for the steam dryer. The steam dryer FI V fatigue evaluation descri bed in this section is consistent with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code Section III requirements. Other cyclic loads [[                                                                                                                                               
                                                                ]], have not been significant contributors to fatigue damage and

[[ ]] are considered to add minimal fatigue usage. The steam dryer structural analyses are performed assuming that the dryer will be operated for [[ ]] years. The stresses are expected to be well within the elastic range when the dryer is subjected to FIV loading during normal operati on. Therefore, the HCF life is the major design consideration. The fatigue stress limit is lower than the material yield stress. Steam dryer components are subjected to cyclic acoustic pressure in normal operation where HCF constitutes

the controlling structural acceptance criterion for steam dryers. Determination of the fatigue stress limit used in the FIV structural analysis is consistent with ASME B&PV Code Section III. In performing the fatigue evaluation for steam dryers under FIV loading, the maximum stress intensity in each dryer component is found from the FIV stress analyses described in Section 3.3.2. The maximum stress intensities are then adjusted as necessary by the appropriate weld SCFs defined in Section 3.3.2.2.3. In support of a plant power uprate, the adjusted stress intensities are [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 50 of 176 described in Section 3.2.4. Finall y, the analysis biases and uncerta inties described in Section 3.4 are incorporated into the results. The design fatigue curves and curve selection criteria for Austenitic Ni-Cr stainless steel are given in the ASME code Section III, Divisi on 1, Appendix I, Figure I-9.2.2 and Figure I-9.2.3. The ASME stress-cycle, or S-N curves plot the alternating st ress intensity versus number of cycles. Alternating stress limit is dependent on mean stress. Th e selection criteria provided for the ASME S-N curves are based on the sum of local membrane, bending and secondary stresses on the dryer components evaluated. The summed stress includes mean stress. Curve C is the most conservative of the th ree curves in Figure I-9.2.2 [[

                                                                                                              ]]  Curve C also includes margin to address the residual stress from fabrication. The fatigue stress limit for the steam dryer is chosen to be the alternating stress intensity limit at [[
             ]] cycles. The fatigue stress limit of Curve C at [[              ]] cycles is [[                            ]] The requirement for acceptance of a steam dryer component is that its maximum stress intensity has to be less than the fatigue limit. The MA SRs are calculated and reported for each of the steam dryer components. The MASR is defined as follows.

....FatigueStressLimit MASR MaximumServiceStress (3-5) A minimum alternating stress ratio less than 1.0 indicates the stress in the steam dryer component has exceeded its fatigue limit. For this evaluation, a MASR of 2.0 is specified as the acceptance criteria (Reference 4). 3.4 End to End Bias and Uncertainty This section identifies the various biases and uncertainties that are applied for the evaluation of the GGNS replacement steam dryer. Section 8 of Appendix A provides a deta iled description of the methodology for applying the bias and uncertainty values that were applied for GGNS. This section summarizes the GGNS plant-specific inputs. These include: 1. Strain to Pressure Uncertainty (Bias a ddressed in Strain to Pressure conversion) 2. EPU Bias (for stress adjustment to EPU conditions) 3. CLTP Bias and Uncertainty (for adjustment of "Strouhal Adders" to observed CLTP amplitude) 4. PBLE Load Projection, [[ ]], Bias and Uncertainty NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 51 of 176 5. PBLE Load Projection, [[ ]], Bias and Uncertainty 6. GGNS Acoustic Mesh and Model Bias and Uncertainty 7. FEM Bias and Uncertainty

8. CLTP Time Interval Selection Bias

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 52 of 176 Table 3-1. GGNS-[[ ]] Plant SRV Dimension Comparison Standpipe Diameter (in.) Standpipe Height (in.) GGNS [[ [[ ]] Plant ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 53 of 176 Table 3-2. Predicted and Measured Resonant Frequencies

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 54 of 176 Table 3-3. Filtered Frequencies Center Frequency, (Hz) Full Width at [[

   ]] Attenuation, (Hz) Probable Source 
   [[

     ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 55 of 176 Table 3-4. GGNS PBLE RPV Acoustic FEM Parameter Inputs Parameter Value [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 56 of 176 Table 3-5. Overview of Element Type by Component

[[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 57 of 176 Table 3-6. Material Definitions Material ID Description [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 58 of 176 Table 3-7. Temperature Dependent Modulus of Elasticity Used for 304L SS Temperature, °F Modulus, MSI -100 29.1 70 28.3 200 27.6 300 27.0 400 26.5 500 25.8 600 25.3 700 24.8 800 24.1 NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 59 of 176 Table 3-8. Component Element Mesh Sizes Component Approximate Element Size (inch)Base Plate [[

Top Cap Closure Plates

End Plates

Divider Plates

Inner Hoods

Outer Hoods Hood Supports Skirt

Drain Channels Lower Ring ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 60 of 176 Table 3-9. Overview of Vane Bank Element Type by Component and Real

[[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 61 of 176 Table 3-10. [[ ]] Material Densities After Adjustment

[[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 62 of 176 Table 3-11. Primary Stress Scoping for Nominal [[

           ]] Case [[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 63 of 176 Table 3-12. Primary Stress Scoping for Nominal [[

           ]] Case [[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 64 of 176 Table 3-13. Weld Scoping for Nominal [[

           ]] Case [[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 65 of 176 Table 3-14. Weld Scoping for Nominal [[

           ]] Case [[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 66 of 176 Table 3-15. Maximum Stress from Primary and Weld Scoping for Nominal [[

           ]] Case [[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 67 of 176 Table 3-16. Maximum Stress from Primary and Weld Scoping for Nominal [[

           ]] Case [[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 68 of 176 Table 3-17. [[ ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 69 of 176 Table 3-18. [[ ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 70 of 176 Table 3-19. [[ ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 71 of 176 Table 3-20. [[ ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 72 of 176 Table 3-21. [[ ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 73 of 176 Table 3-22. [[ ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 74 of 176 Table 3-23. GGNS Replacement Dryer Load Combinations Comb. No Level Combination A-1 Normal [[

B-1 Upset

B-2 Upset

B-3 Upset

B-4 Upset

B-5 Upset

C-1 Emergency

D-1 Faulted

D-2 Faulted

D-3 Faulted D-4 Faulted

D-5 Faulted

       ]] Note: For the D-2 case the load combination used in the analysis is

[[

                               ]] which is conservative compared to the definition in the load combination as shown in Table 3-23.

Definition of Load Acronyms: [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 75 of 176 [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 76 of 176 Table 3-24. Differential "Static" Pressure Load for Dryer Outer Hood Outer Hood Location P N (psid) [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 77 of 176 Table 3-25. Peak Normalized Acoustic Loads for [[

       ]] y, Edge of Vertical Cover Plate (ft) Normalized Pressure Differential

[[

     ]] Note: x = 0 at edge of dryer face nearest stea m line with break, y = 0 at lower horizontal cover plate.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 78 of 176 Table 3-26. Peak Normalized Acoustic Loads for [[ ]] Event [[

                 ]] y, Edge of Vertical Cover Plate (ft) Normalized Pressure Differential

[[

                                                     ]] Note: x = 0 at edge of dryer face nearest stea m line with break, y = 0 at lower horizontal cover plate.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 79 of 176 Table 3-27. Zero Period Acceleration ZPA (inch/s^2) ZPA (inch/s^2) SSE HOR 170.8 SRV HOR NS 44.3 OBE HOR 93.7 SRV HOR EW 34.7 SSE VT 52.5 SRV VT 62.8 OBE VT 27.7

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 80 of 176 Table 3-28. Material Properties Installation Temp Operating Temp Steam Dryer Material SA240 Type 304L [[ Sm, Stress intensity limit, ksi Sy, Yield strength, ksi Su, Tensile strength, ksi ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 81 of 176 Table 3-29. ASME Code Stress Limits Stress Value (ksi) at Temperature Service Level Stress CategoryStress Limit [[ P m S m Design P m+P b 1.5S m P m S m Service Levels A & B Pm+P b 1.5S m P m 1.5 S m Service Level C P m+P b 2.25 S m P m Min (0.7S u or 2.4S m) Service Level D P m or P L + P b Min 1.5 (0.7S u or 2.4S m) ]] Note: Upset condition service level limits are increased by 10% above the limits shown in this table per NG-3223(a). Legend: P m: General primary membrane stress intensity P L: Local primary membrane stress intensity P b: Primary bending stress intensity S m: Design Stress Intensity S u: Ultimate tensile strength NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 82 of 176 [[

                                       ]] Figure 3-1.

Evaluation Process Overview NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 83 of 176 Figure 3-2. Typical MSL Layout Between RPV and Turbine (Plan View)

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 84 of 176

Figure 3-3. SRV Layout

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 85 of 176

Figure 3-4. Branch Line Layout NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 86 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-5. Single Valve FEM Model

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 87 of 176

[[

                              ]] Figure 3-6. Results of [[                ]] Valve Model

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 88 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-7. Results of [[ ]] Valve Model

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 89 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-8. Waterfall from GGNS MSL Strain Gauge Measurements

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 90 of 176

   [[       ]]   Figure 3-9. Waterfall from [[                ]] Plant MSL Strain Gauge Measurements

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 91 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 3-10. Shear Wave Analysis-Observe d and Predicted Resonances

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 92 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-11. Example Singularity Factor Plot Showing Installed Sensor Comparison Results

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 93 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 3-12. [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 94 of 176 Figure 3-13. [[ ]] Strain Gauge Signal Filtering NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 95 of 176 Figure 3-14. [[ ]] Strain Gauge Signal Filtering [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 96 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 3-15. [[ ]] Strain Gauge Signal Filtering NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 97 of 176

 [[       ]]  Figure 3-16. CLTP Loads, Projected EPU Loads and EPU SRV Design Loads, [[                           
                      ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 98 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 3-17. CLTP Loads, Projected EPU Loads and EPU SRV Design Loads, [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 99 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 3-18. CLTP Loads, Projected EPU Loads and EPU SRV Design Loads, [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 100 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-19. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSDs to [[
               ]] Plant Data  - [[                                       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 101 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-20. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSDs to [[

               ]] Plant Data  - [[                                     
            ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 102 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-21. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSDs to [[

               ]] Plant Data - [[                                         ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 103 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-22. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD with [[

             ]] Test Data - [[                                       
                          ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 104 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-23. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD with [[

             ]] Test Data - [[                                       
                        ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 105 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-24. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD to [[ ]] Plant Data - [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 106 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-25. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD to [[ ]] Plant Data - [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 107 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-26. Comparison of Grand Gulf PSD to [[ ]] Plant Data - [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 108 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-27.

[[ ]] FEM NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 109 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-28. GGNS Replacement Dryer FEM

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 110 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-29. Nomenclature for Major Components

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 111 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-30. Nomenclature for Major Components

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 112 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-31. Nomenclature for Major Components

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 113 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-32.

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 114 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 3-33. [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 115 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-34.

[[ ]] Model Used In The Dynamic Analysis Study: [[

              ]] (Reference Case)

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 116 of 176

  [[       ]]  Figure 3-35.

Top View of Dryer Showing the Vane Bundles

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 117 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-36. Vane Bundle FEM and Master DOFs

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 118 of 176

[[ ]] Figure 3-37. [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 119 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-38. Area of the Replacement Steam Dryer Submodeled

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 120 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-39. Components In and Near the Submodel Region

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 121 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-40. Cut Boundary Conditions Applied to the Submodel

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 122 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-41. Nominal Maximum Stress Time Point Unmodified Geometry

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 123 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-42.

[[ ]] for the Bank End Plate

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 124 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-43. Stress Distribution After Geometry Modification

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 125 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-44. Inner Hood Tee Weld Line Stress [[                                              ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 126 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-45.

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 127 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-46. Illustration Of The [[                                                          ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 128 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-47. Tie Rod to Bank End Plate Connection Geometry

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 129 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-48. Tie Bar Actual Geometry NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 130 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-49.

Differential "Static" Pressure Loads for Dryer Components

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 131 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-50. Components for MSLB Acoustic Pressure Loads

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 132 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-51. Components in Dryer FE Model for [[
             ]] Pressure Load

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 133 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-52. Components in Dryer FE Model for [[
             ]] Pressure Load

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 134 of 176 [[ ]] Figure 3-53. Horizontal Seismic Model

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 135 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-54. Vertical Seismic Model

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 136 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-55. Horizontal SSE Seismic Spectra

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 137 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-56. Vertical SSE Seismic Spectra

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 138 of 176

 [[       ]]   Figure 3-57.

Horizontal OBE Seismic Spectra

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 139 of 176

[[       ]]   Figure 3-58. Vertical OBE Seismic Spectra

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 140 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-59.

Horizontal SRV North-South Spectra

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 141 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-60. Horizontal SRV East-West Spectra

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Steam Dryer Evaluation Process Description Page 142 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 3-61. Vertical SRV Spectra (Vertical)

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Results Page 143 of 176

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 FIV Final Stress Table wi th Bias and Uncertainty The FIV analysis of Section 3.3.2 generated peak stress intensities based on scoping analyses. [[

                                                                                                                                            ]]  Following the methodology outlined in Section 8 of Appendix A, final peak stresses were determined

accounting for bias and uncertainty. These peak stresses are se lected from the [[

                    ]] load cases representing the [[                                                              ]] cases as well as the nominal load case.

Also, [[ ]] methods were used to evaluate the bias and uncertainty, and the peak stress [[ ]] was selected for each component [[

                                 ]]  The final peak stresses were then compared to the design limit, and the minimum alternating stress ratio was determined. These results are shown in Table 4-1. As specified in Reference 4, a minimum alternating stress ratio of 2.0 is required to demonstrate adequate margins. From Table 4-1, it is demonstrated that for all dryer components, using a load definition scaled to EPU conditions including the potential effects of SRV resonances, the minimum alternative stress ratio for all components is greater than 2.0. Therefore, these analyses demonstrate the acceptability of the GGNS replacement steam dryer de sign at EPU operating conditions. Two additional tables of peak stresses are provided for the bending plus membrane stress intensity (Table 4-2) and membrane stress intensity (Table 4-3), as input to the ASME load combination analysis. These stresses also include the applicable bias and uncertainties defined in Section 8 of Appendix A. 4.2 ASME Code Load Case Stress Results The GGNS replacement steam dryer was analyzed for the ASME Code load combinations (primary stresses) using the FEM as described in Section 3.3.1. The results of these analyses are

used to assess dryer component primary stresses versus ASME de sign criteria as described in

Section 3.3.4.2 for a [[ ]] load combinations described in Section 3.3.3 under normal, upset, emergency and faulted operation conditions at EPU power level. The summary of the results is presented in Table 4-4. The accep tance criteria used for these evaluations are the same as those used for safety-related components. The results indicate that the stresses for all structural components are below the ASME Code allowable limits at EPU operating conditions. The ASME load combination results demonstrate the acceptability of the GGNS replacement steam dryer design at EPU operating condition. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Results Page 144 of 176 Table 4-1. Final Stress Intensity Table with Bias and Uncertainty EPU Maximum Stress Intensity (psi) Dryer Component CLTP Maximum Stress Intensity (psi) [[

     ]] Max Stress Intensity (psi) MASR[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Results Page 145 of 176 Table 4-2. FIV Bending Plus Membrane Stress Intensity with Bias and Uncertainty

[[

]]

The maximum stress location is not on the welds, so primary stress intensity is the same as the peak stress intensity in Table 4-1. ** The component requires further post processing to refine the primary stress intensity prediction. The peak stress intensity in Table 4-1 is conservatively applied.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Results Page 146 of 176 Table 4-3. FIV Membrane Stress Intensit y with Bias and Uncertainty

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Results Page 147 of 176 Table 4-4. EPU ASME Results for Normal, Upset, Emergency and Faulted Conditions

[[       ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 148 of 176 5.0 NON-PROTOTYPE JUSTIFICATION The GGNS replacement steam dryer design is based on the valid BWR/4 prototype replacement steam dryer and meets the non-prototype classification in accordance with Reference 1 as outlined by Regulatory Position 1. Replacement steam dryers have been installed at the two unit Susquehanna Steam Electric Station with on-dryer instrumentati on included at Unit 1. The Unit 1 replacement steam dryer is designated as the BWR/4 prototype. The following sections contain information related to current operating experience with the BWR/4 prototype steam dryer, the similarities between the BWR/4 prototype design and proposed GGNS replacement steam dryer, and side-by-side comparison of the following areas: [[

                                                ]] 5.1 BWR/4 Prototype Test and Operating Experience The replacement Susquehanna Steam Electric Stat ion Unit 1 (SSES-1 or SSES) steam dryer was installed in March 2008 during Refueling In spection Outage #15 (RIO-15). The Unit 1 replacement steam dryer assembly was operated until March 2010. During the March 2010 SSES-1 RIO-16 outage, the steam dryer was removed from the reactor vessel to the equipment pool where the following work was performed. 1. Vibration instrumentation was removed. 2. Planned comprehensive visual inspections were performed. 3. The lifting rod lugs, which had rota ted during operation, were repaired.

The qualified Level 3 inspector, responsible for the March 2010 Unit 1 dryer inspections, documented the [[

         ]] interior weld inspections and [[
           ]] exterior inspections completed.

There were a total of five devia tion reports prepared. Four of these reports involved lifting lug set screw tack weld cracks and associated lo ose lifting lugs. One de viation report involved [[

                                                            ]]  The corrective actions from these findings have resulted in the following changes that have been implemented for the GGNS replacement steam dryer:

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 149 of 176 Revised fabrication procedures [[

]] and [[
]] Eliminated the use of tack welds. 5.2 GGNS Dryer Geometry Comparison With BWR/4 Prototype Table 5-1 is a comparison of important plant parameters and dryer geometry. This comparison directly supports the non-prot otype discussion by showing how similar the prototype dryer is compared to the design basis of the GGNS replacement dryer. 5.3 Plant Geometry and Operating Condition Comparison As discussed in Appendix D, the evolutionary design of the BWR plant has resulted in similar reactor vessel, steam dryer and MSL geometrical configurations, as well as similar plant operating conditions. As a result, the range of plant-to-plant variations that affect the steam dryer pressure loading is small. A consequence of this relatively small envelope of dryer conditions is that the prototype dryer experience can be applied to the GGNS replacement dryer. Section 5.2 provided a comparison of the GGNS replacement dryer design with the prototype dryer. Table 5-2 provides a comparison of th e GGNS reactor-operating c onditions compared to those for the prototype plant. This comparison is a side-by-side comparison of the operating conditions that are significant with respect to the fluctuating pressure loads that act on the steam dryer. Table 5-3 provides a comparison of the reactor vessel and MSL configuration for GGNS and the prototype plant. With respect to fluctuating pressure loads on the dryer, reactor power is significant only in that it determines the steam flow rate through the system. The higher GGNS power level results in higher steam mass flow through the dryer compared to the prototype. The flow velocities are relatively low and the difference in turbulent loading is not significant (Reference 5). The steam flow velocity in the MSLs governs the pressu re loads on the dryer. The GGNS MSLs are a larger diameter than the prototype plant to accommodate the higher steam output from the plant.

The resulting flow velocities in GGNS and th e prototype plant are essentially the same. Therefore, the fluctuating pressure loads acting on the dryer are also similar. Differences in the pressure loading arise due to the effects of plant-specific features, [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 150 of 176 [[ ]] The effect that these differences may have on the dryer pressure loading is discusse d in Section 5.5. The geometric parameters may have an effect on the acoustic mode shapes within the vessel. The vessel and steam dome volumes are similar between the two plants. Therefore, differences in acoustic mode response are minimal as exhibited by the comparison of the acoustic model impedance of the MSL steam nozzle shown in Figure 5-1. The expected minor differences in acoustic properties are discusse d in Section 5.4. The differences in the MSL geometry [[

                         ]] may affect the frequency content of the plant-specific pressure loads. The effect of these differences on the dryer pressure loading is describe d in Section 5.5. The GGNS-specific load definition based on MSL measurements (Section 3.2) and the plant-specific FIV fatigue analysis (Section 3.3) address differences in plant geometry and operating conditions between GGNS and the prototype plant. 5.4 RPV Acoustic Property Comparison Appendices B and C describe the important acoustic properties in the vessel and steam dome. The purpose of this section is to compare these acoustic properties between the BWR/4 prototype and GGNS.

RPV acoustic properties are listed in Table 5-4, which illustrates the similarities in these parameters between GGNS and the BWR/4 prototype. A sensitivity assessment is performed [[ ]] (Appendix C). The objective of the assessment is to confirm that the acoustic parameters are within the established range of application, so that bi as and uncertainty values determined from the benchmarked plant can be applied. These PBLE input parameters are within the range of input parameters treated in the sensitivity assessment in Appendix C. The acoustic model is consistent with the benchmark assumptions. Examining Table 5-4, the dome pressure determin es vessel saturated steam properties and is provided, [[

                                    ]]  As described in Section 5.3, the GGNS and BWR/4 prototype steam dome and dryer geometries are very similar. Also, the operating conditions described in Section 5.3 are comparable. Because the acoustic properties, geometries and operating conditions are comparable, the vessel NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 151 of 176 acoustic FRFs will be similar between the two plants as exhibited by Figure 5-1. Differences between the BWR/4 prototype and GGNS are addressed by the GGNS-specific vessel acoustic model and the PBLE load definition. 5.5 Plant FIV Load Comparison This section compares the FIV loads between the BWR/4 prototype plant and GGNS. MSL measurements from strain gauges mounted on the MSLs have been compared along with steam dryer loads from PBLE load definition predictions. 5.5.1 Steam Dryer Loads MSL measurements taken at GGNS and the BWR/4 prototype plant are us ed as input to the PBLE to predict the steam dryer loads taken at [[
           ]] locations on the acoustic finite element model. These predicted loads are averaged and the same regions of the dryer are compared. Figure 5-2 shows the loads comparison for th e dryer outer hood quadrant 1. Below [[
                 ]]  the BWR/4 prototype plant loads are [[
                   ]] particularly the [[                                ]] peaks, likely associated with [[                                                                                   ]]  Between [[                             
          ]] the loads are generally [[                                         ]] the GGNS loads, although [[                         
                                          ]] the GGNS loads are [[                                                                                               
                                                                ]] in the GGNS data and at [[
                   ]] in the BWR/4 prototype plant data. Figure 5-3 through Figure 5-13 and Table 5-5 show the load compar ison for the other dryer outer hood [[                          ]] along with the skirt and en d plates and inner hood [[                                ]]  Similar trends are observed for those locations.

The comparison of the steam dryer loads be tween GGNS and the BWR/4 prototype plant demonstrate that the loads are very similar, with some differences attributed to plant-specific features and dimensions. These differences between the BWR/4 prototype plant and GGNS loads are addressed in the GGNS-specific pressure vessel acoustic model and the PBLE load definition. 5.6 Applicability of PBLE and FEM Bi as and Uncertainty Values to GGNS 5.6.1 Overview - FIV Bias and Uncertainty Bias and uncertainty values are applied to mode l predictions to account for variations in the expected plant operating state, as well as tendencies of the methodology to over or under-predict actual data. Correcting predictions for biases and uncertainties is an important consideration NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 152 of 176 [[ ]] The corrections that are applied to the GGNS steam dryer evaluation fall into several categories. These are discussed in de tail in Section 8 of Appendix A. Appendix C also contains a de tailed discussion of the PBLE model qualification through plant benchmarks, as well as the application methodol ogy (including the application of biases and uncertainties). 5.6.1.1 PBLE Bias and Uncertainty Bias and uncertainty values derived from comparisons against plant data [[

                                                                                            ]]  Different types of data are available from instrumented dryers, including [[

                                                                                                                                                                                   ]]  In general, corrections derived from instrumented dryer benchmark cases can account for the tendencies of the methodology to over or under-predict stress. Benchmark comparisons have demonstrated that the PBLE methodology [[                                                       ]]  The PBLE model has been benchmarked with dryer instruments [[                                                                                                 
                    ]]  The peak stress is determined based on [[                                                                                 
                                                                                    ]]  [[                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                    ]]  Additional discussion regarding the applicability of these values to GGNS is provided in Section 5.6.2. 5.6.1.2 Structural FEM Bias and Uncertainty The structural FEM has uncertainty that affects the dryer frequency response. For example, the dryer global model does not perfectly represent [[

                                                                                                                                                                              ]]  This is addressed by the methodology, [[                                                                                                         
                                      ]]  The dryer analysis methodology utilizes [[                                                          ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 153 of 176 [[ ]] as a means to [[ ]] assure that the uncertainty in the response frequency is adequately bounded. [[

                                          ]]  The [[                                  ]] values were used in the results shown in Section 4. The [[                    ]] stress results [[                                              ]] are used in assessing the design margin.

The FEM for GGNS was developed following the same guidelines used for the benchmark FEM (for the purposes of the FEM benchmark, this is the [[ ]], Reference 6). In this process, the FEM mesh is refined by reducing the element sizes to demonstrate that the solution is converged [[ ]] The [[ ]] criterion is used to ensure that the plant-specific application is consistent with the benchmarked model. Sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 demonstrate that the GGNS replacement dryer is adequately represented by the BWR/4 prototype design and operating conditions, including the similarity in pressure loads, as shown in Section 5.5. This confirms the applicability of the FEM bias and uncertainty for the GGNS replacement steam dryer. 5.6.1.3 Time Interval Bias A time interval bias is considered in the final calculated peak stress values. [[

                                                                                                                                           ]]  The time segment is not nominal. Regardless, a bias valu e is included, recognizing that [[                                                   
                            ]], the segment still represents a time sample. 5.6.1.4 Instrumentation Uncertainty Instrumentation uncertainties can potentially affect the PBLE-based prediction.  [[

                                                                                  ]]  For the GGNS application, the DAS and strain gauge system were calibrated during pre-operational hydro-test to minimize the uncertainty added by piping geometry and gauge field installation. These [[                      ]] provide a means to NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 154 of 176 narrow instrument (inherent) uncertainty. The DAS and strain gauges used in the GGNS installation are consistent with those presented in Appendix C. 5.6.1.5 Plant Specific Uncertainties Uncertainties are applied to account for variation in the anticipated plant operating state, [[

                        ]]  The acoustic model is sensitive to [[                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                  ]]  These values are confirmed [[                                                         ]] to assure that representative values are applied in the evaluation (see Appendix C, Section 4.4, [[                                                                                  ]]  The acoustic properties are summarized in Section 5.4. 5.6.2 Summary and Conclusions The bias and uncertainty values applied to the GGNS steam dryer analysis are consistent with the benchmarked approach presented in Appendix C and discussed in Sections 5.6.1.1 through 5.6.1.5. In general, the biases and uncertainties associated with the PBLE methodology are

attributable to the [[

             ]] main components of the calculation, although measurement errors also have an impact on accuracy.

The "TransMatrix" is central to the PBLE methodology (Appendix C). It provides a means to [[ ]] Due to similarities in BWR operating conditions, as well as similar plenum and steam line configurations, the TransMatrix values can be app lied to a wide range of plants. The bias and uncertainty values applied to GGNS (see Section 8.0 of Appendix A) reflect application of the TransMatrix developed from [[ ]] data. These bias and uncertainty values represent the result of benchmark comparisons against the instrumented [[

             ]] steam dryer. It is worth noting that the [[
           ]] dryer has the same diameter as the GGNS dryer and has a similar arrangement of [[                                            ]] hoods, which is also true for the prototype. Benchmark information for the prototype plant is included in Appendix C. Additional justification for applying the PBLE methodology to all GEH BWR plant configurations is presented in Appendix D. Furthermore, given the similarities in the overall dryer geometry and acoustic parameters, the PBLE prediction for GGNS is expected to be consistent with prior benchmarks. It follows that the biases and uncertainties based on the benchmarks are valid for GGNS. However, r ecognizing that the quali fication basis supporting broad application of PBLE is somewhat limited, the GGNS replacement dryer structural integrity NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 155 of 176 evaluation demonstrates a MASR greater than 2.0, consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for application to other plants (Reference 4).

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 156 of 176 Table 5-1. GGNS Dryer Geometric Comparison No. Compared Item [[

                                  ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 157 of 176 Table 5-2. Comparison of Plant Operating Cond itions - GGNS vs. Prototype Plant Item [[ Units Rated Power MWt Dome Temperature °F Dome Pressure psia Total MSL Mass flow

lbm/hr Flow velocity in steam line

     ]] ft/Sec NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 158 of 176 Table 5-3. Comparison of Plant Geometry - GGNS vs. Prototype Plant Plant Geometric Item GGNS Prototype Units

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 159 of 176 Table 5-4. RPV Acoustic Property Comparison Property GGNS BWR/4 prototype [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 160 of 176 Table 5-5. Comparison of Test Conditions for GGNS and BWR/4 Prototype Plant

 [[                                         
               ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 161 of 176 Figure 5-1. GGNS-BWR/4 Dome Acoustic Properties

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 162 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-2.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Comparison [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 163 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-3.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 164 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-4.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 165 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-5.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 166 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-6.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 167 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-7.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant S Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 168 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-8.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 169 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-9.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 170 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-10.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 171 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-11.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 172 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-12.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Non-Prototype Justification Page 173 of 176

[[       ]]  Figure 5-13.

GGNS-BWR/4 Prototype Plant Dryer Loads Comparison [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Monitoring During Power Ascension and Final Assessment at EPU Page 174 of 176 6.0 MONITORING DURING POWER ASCENSION AND FINAL ASSESSMENT AT EPU 6.1 Power Ascension Test Plan During startup and power ascension above CLTP, monitoring of MSL data will be performed and the data will be compared to the acceptance limits to confirm acceptable steam dryer structural performance. These acceptance limits are based upon the FEA results for full EPU conditions (Appendix F). Entergy plans to use strain gauges on the MSLs for GGNS to obtain acou stic vibration data during power ascension. [[

                                                                                                                                                                                    ]]  Demonstrating that the dryer pressure loads remain within the allowable pressure loads confirms that the steam dryer alternating stresses remain within the structural analysis basis (reference Appendix E). The [[                                            ]] uncertainty analyses are accounted for in the development of the acceptance limits.

The primary function of the monitoring program is to confirm that the [[

            ]] steam dryer during power operation is consistent with the pressure loading assumed in the structural fatigue evaluation and to confirm that the steam dryer can adequately withstand the acoustic and hydrodynamic pressure loads. The primary objectives are as follows: [[

                              ]] Confirm the steam dryer analyses performed for the EPU conditions.

[[

                                ]] Evaluation of data against the acceptance criteria [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Monitoring During Power Ascension and Final Assessment at EPU Page 175 of 176 Forwarding to the NRC the evaluation results taken [[

                                                                                                                                                 ]] monitored against established acceptance limits to assure steam dryer structural integrity is maintained.  [[

                                                                                                                                                  ]]  The acceptability of the steam dryer for the measured loading would then be evaluated [[                       
                                                              ]] as required (reference Appendix F).  [[

                                                                                                                    ]] 6.2 Final Assessment at EPU

[[

                                                                                                            ]] Station operating procedures will be used to monitor plant parameters potentially indicative of steam dryer failure as recommended in General Electric Service Information Letter 644, "BWR Steam Dryer Integrity."  Results will be review ed and evaluated on a de fined basis to monitor moisture carryover conditions.

[[ ]] visual inspection of all accessible, susceptible locations of the steam dryer in accordance with General Electric Service Information Letter 644, "BWR Steam Dryer Integrity" will be performed.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information References Page 176 of 176

7.0 REFERENCES

1. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.

20, Revision 3, March 2007. 2. 2001 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II - Mate rials (Includes 2002 and 2003 Addenda). 3. "Effective Elastic Constants for Bending of Thin Perforated Plates with Triangular and Square Penetration Patterns" by W.J. O'D onnell, February 1973, ASME Journal of Engineering Industry 95: 121-128. 4. MFN 10-219, Letter from S. Philpott (NRC) to J. Head (GEH), "Boiling Water Reactor Operating Fleet -- Extended Power Uprate Technical Basis for the Requirement of a Minimum Alternating Stress Ratio of 2.0," July 27, 2010. 5. MFN 09-392 Letter to NRC, "Response to Portion of NRC Letter No. 339 Related to ESBWR Design Certification A pplication -- DCD Tier 2 Se ction 3.9 -- Mechanical Systems and Components; RAI Numbers 3.9-211 S01, -212 S01, -219 S01 Part D, -220 S01, -244 S01, -246 S01," June 18, 2009. 6. MFN 09-509 Letter to NRC, "Response to Portion of NRC RAI Letter No. 220 and 399 Related to ESBWR Design Certification A pplication -- DCD Tier 2 Section 3.9 -- Mechanical Systems and Components, RAI Nu mbers 3.9-213 and 3.9-217 S01," July 31, 2009. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A

Appendix A

Steam Dryer Integrity Analysis Methodology

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 2 of 142 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Overview .......................................................................................................................8 2.0 Overview of Steam Dryer Evaluation Approach............................................................10 3.0 Screening for Potential MSL Acoustic Sources.............................................................13 3.1 Potential SRV Acoustic Resonance Frequencies.........................................................14 3.2 Onset of SRV Acoustic Resonance..............................................................................28 3.3 SRV Resonance Frequency Selection for Analysis.....................................................30 3.4 SRV Resonance Projection to EPU Conditions...........................................................32 4.0 Obtaining Input Data for Steam Dryer Load Evaluation................................................40 4.1 Plant Measurements.....................................................................................................40 4.2 Data Acquisition and Test Plan....................................................................................46 4.3 Data Acquisition of Plant MSL Pressures...................................................................48 4.4 Signal Processing of Experimentally Measured Data..................................................49 4.4.1 Signal Processing During Power Ascension..........................................................49 4.4.2 Signal Filtering.......................................................................................................52

4.4.3 Strain

Conversion to Pressure and Measurement Bias..........................................53 5.0 Basis for Projected FIV Load to EPU............................................................................55 5.1 Trending Test Data......................................................................................................55 5.1.1 Trend and Project Non-Resonance Data................................................................55 5.1.2 Trend and Project SRV Resonance Data...............................................................64 5.2 CLTP Load Set Selection for PBLE Load Development............................................65 5.3 SRV Scaling Factor......................................................................................................67 5.3.1 Development of Simulated SRV Loading for FE Analysis...................................67 5.3.2 Projecting Simulated SRV Loading to EPU..........................................................75 5.3.3 Projecting Simulated SRV Loading to CLTP........................................................85 6.0 Steam Dryer Fluctuating Pressure Load Definition.......................................................87

7.0 Fatigue

Stress Evaluation...............................................................................................89 8.0 Stress Adjustment for End to End Bias and Uncertainty...............................................90 8.1 Method .................................................................................................................... ..90 8.2 Biases and Uncertainties..............................................................................................92 8.2.1 Strain to Pressure Calibration Uncertainty............................................................92 8.2.2 EPU Scaling Factor (Bias).....................................................................................92 8.2.3 PBLE Loads Bias and Uncertainty........................................................................94 8.2.4 PBLE Model - [[ ]] Bias and Uncertainty...........................................94 8.2.5 PBLE Model - [[ ]] Bias and Uncertainty........................................95 8.2.6 GGNS Acoustic Mesh - Model Bias and Uncertainty...........................................95

8.2.7 Finite

Element Model Peak Stress Bias and Uncertainty....................................102 NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 3 of 142 8.2.8 Time Segment Selection Bias..............................................................................103 8.3 Stress Adjustment [[ ]] with Bias and Uncertainty...........................104 8.3.1 Combining Biases and Uncertainties [[ ]].....................................104 8.3.2 Calculating Bias and Uncertainty [[

               ]].....................................................................................................106 8.3.3. Calculating Adjusted Stress [[                                                                      ]]................109 8.3.4 Calculating Bias and Uncertainty [[                                                                          
       ]]............................................................................................................109 8.3.5 Calculating Adjusted Stress [[                                                                      ]]................112 8.4 Stress Adjustment [[                                          ]] with Bias and Uncertainty...................112 8.4.1 Combining Biases and Uncertainties [[                                        ]]............................112 8.4.2 Calculating Bias and Uncertainty [[                                                                    
                 ]]...................................................................................................113 8.4.3 Calculating Adjusted Stress [[                                                                        
                  ]]...................................................................................................116 8.4.4 Calculating Bias and Uncertainty [[                                                                    
                  ]]...................................................................................................116 8.4.5 Calculating Adjusted Stress [[                                                                                    
                 ]]...................................................................................................119 8.5 Adjusted Stress Results..............................................................................................119 9.0 Primary Stress Evaluation............................................................................................121 9.1 Description of Design Conditions..............................................................................121 9.2 Load Combinations....................................................................................................121 9.3 Individual Load Term Definition and Source............................................................123 9.3.1 Static Loads..........................................................................................................123

9.3.2 Dynamic

Loads....................................................................................................126 10.0 References ...................................................................................................................142 NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 4 of 142 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page Table 3-1 Comparison of [[

             ]]...................................................................................................................18 Table 3-2 SRV Resonance Analysis Range...........................................................................31 Table 3-3 Summary of Modeled SRV Resonances................................................................32 Table 4-1 Comparison of [[                                          ]] for Different Strain Gauge Spacings....43 Table 4-2 Strain Gauge Distance from Vessel, PBLE Benchmark Plants.............................44 Table 4-3 GGNS Linear Distance from Vessel Nozzle to Strain Gauge Locations...............45 Table 5-1 Steam Velocity Adjusted for Flow Losses (GGNS)..............................................57 Table 5-2 Evaluation of CLTP Data.......................................................................................65 Table 5-3 Comparison of Test Condition 100%-J [[                                                      ]]...............66 Table 5-4 SRV Load Factors Applied to [[                                                ]] for Comparison with GGNS EPU SRV Load Conditions...............................................................77 Table 5-5 SRV Resonance Load Factors App lied to Define SRV Resonance Conditions at EPU....................................................................................................................82 Table 5-6 Comparison of Dryer SRV Loads from [[              ]] GGNS EPU Conditions with Dryer SRV Loads from [[                                                ]] Test Conditions.........84 Table 5-7 CLTP SRV Resonance Load Adder Bias and Uncertainties.................................86 Table 8-1 Peak Stress Calculation Methods...........................................................................91 Table 8-2 PBLE Model [[                        ]] Bias and Uncertainty..............................................94 Table 8-3 PBLE Model [[                            ]] Bias and Uncertainty...........................................95 Table 8-4 FE Model [[                            ]] Bias.........................................................................103 Table 8-5 [[                                                                                      ]]................................................104 Table 8-6 [[                                                                                                        ]].................................120 Table 9-1 Typical Steam Dryer Load Combinations...........................................................122

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 5 of 142 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page Figure 2-1 Steam Dryer Structural Evaluation Overview.......................................................12 Figure 3-1 Acoustic Mode Shape for SRV Standpipe [[

                     ]].....................................15 Figure 3-2 Frequency Response for SRV Standpipe...............................................................16 Figure 3-3 Full Steamline Acoustic FEM, Six SRVs..............................................................19 Figure 3-4 [[                                                                                                                ]]............................20 Figure 3-5 [[                                                                                                                               
                       ]]...........................................................................................................21 Figure 3-6 [[                                                                                                ]].........................................22 Figure 3-7 [[                                                                                                ]].........................................22 Figure 3-8 [[                                                                                                ]].........................................23 Figure 3-9 [[                                                                                                ]].........................................23 Figure 3-10 [[                                                                                                ]].........................................24 Figure 3-11 [[                                                                                                ]].........................................24 Figure 3-12 Power Ascension MSL PSD, [[                                                                ]].....................25 Figure 3-13 Frequency Response for Four SRV Steamline Acoustic FEM..............................26 Figure 3-14 [[                                                                                                  ]]........................................27 Figure 3-15 [[                                                                                                                                                                            ]].....................................................................................................34 Figure 3-16 [[                                                                                                                                                                      ]]..........................................................................................................35 Figure 3-17 [[                                                                                                                  ]]..........................36 Figure 3-18 [[                                                              ]].......................................................................37 Figure 3-19 [[                                                                            ]]...........................................................38 Figure 3-20 [[                                                                                ]].......................................................39 Figure 4-1 Singularity Factor: Large versus Small Sensor Spacing........................................41 Figure 4-2 [[                                                                                                                                           ]]....42 Figure 4-3 [[

         ]]........................................................................................................43 Figure 4-4 GGNS Low Power Data from Strain Gauge DAS.................................................47 Figure 4-5 Prototype Plant Low Power Data from SG DAS (585MWth)...............................48 Figure 4-6 A-Upper PSD & Cohe rence, 100% CLTP, Set 1...................................................51 Figure 4-7 Identification of Electrical Interference.................................................................52 Figure 5-1 Acoustic Mesh Points............................................................................................56 Figure 5-2 [[                                                                                ]].......................................................57 Figure 5-3 Typical Trending Plot [[                                    ]].........................................................59 Figure 5-4 Typical Trending Plot [[                                      ]].......................................................60 NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A  Page 6 of 142 Figure 5-5 Typical Trending Plot [[                                        ]].....................................................61 Figure 5-6 Typical Trending Plot [[                                        ]].....................................................62 Figure 5-7 Typical Trending Plot [[                                        ]].....................................................63 Figure 5-8 Strouhal Numbers of Flow-Excited Acoustic Resonances of Closed Side Branches (Reference 6)..........................................................................................64 Figure 5-9 Sensitivity Study for SRV Acoustic Loads [[                                          ]]...................71 Figure 5-10 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input with SRV Resonance Load Adders with Projected Loads at CLTP..................................................................73 Figure 5-11 Variation of MSL Indicated Pressure [[
                                       ]].............................74 Figure 5-12 Pressure Sensor Location [[
                 ]]...................................................................76 Figure 5-13 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input [[                                                                                                ]]..........................................................................................78 Figure 5-14 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input [[                                                                                                                    ]].........................................................................78 Figure 5-15 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input [[                                                                                                ]]..........................................................................................79 Figure 5-16 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input [[                                                                                            ]]..............................................................................................80 Figure 5-17 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input [[                                                                              ]]..........................................................................................................81 Figure 8-1 [[                                                                                                                              ]]................97 Figure 8-2 [[                                                                                                                          ]]...................98 Figure 8-3 [[                                                                                                                          ]]...................99 Figure 8-4 [[                                                                                                                ]]..........................100 Figure 8-5 [[                                                                                                                        ]]...................101 Figure 8-6 [[
                           ]] Bias Calculation [[                              ]]........................................107 Figure 8-7 [[
                           ]] Uncertainty Calculation [[
                             ]]............................108 Figure 8-8 [[                ]] Bias Calculation [[                        ]]..............................................110 Figure 8-9 [[
                       ]] Uncertainty Calculation [[                              ]]................................111 Figure 8-10 [[
                           ]] Bias Calculation [[                                        ]]...............................114 Figure 8-11 [[
                           ]] Uncertainty Calculation [[                                        ]]....................115 Figure 8-12 [[                      ]] Bias Calculation [[                        ]]........................................117 Figure 8-13 [[                     ]] Uncertainty Calculation [[                           ]]...........................118 Figure 9-1 Steam Dryer Vane Bank and Outer Hood Pressure Drops..................................124 Figure 9-2 Steam Dryer Outer Hood Pressure Drops vs Elevation.......................................125 Figure 9-3 TSV Closure Characteristics................................................................................128 Figure 9-4 Turbine Valve Schematic.....................................................................................129 Figure 9-5 [[                                                                                      ]]................................................130 Figure 9-6 Peak Normali zed Load Distribution [[

                                   ]].....................133 NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A  Page 7 of 142 Figure 9-7 Finite Element Model Component for [[
             ]] Pressure Load.........................133 Figure 9-8 Projected [[                                    ]] Load [[
                 ]]..............................................135 Figure 9-9 Typical SRV Response Spectra...........................................................................136 Figure 9-10 Peak Normalized Acoustic Loads for MSLB......................................................141

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 8 of 142

1.0 OVERVIEW

The steam dryer in a boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear power plant performs no safety function, but must retain its struct ural integrity to avoid the generation of loose parts that might adversely affect the capability of other plant equipment to perform safety functions. As a result of steam dryer issues at one BWR plant implementing an extended power uprate, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued revised guidance that included a comprehensive structural evaluation and vibration assessment program for steam dryers in References 1 and 2, with supplementary guidance provided in Reference 3: "Applicants proposing to c onstruct and operate a new nuclear power plant, or licensees planning to request a power upr ate for an existing power plant, (that have prototype dryer design) should perform a detailed anal ysis of potential adverse flow effects (both flow-excited acoustic resonances and flow-induced vibrations) that can severely affect the steam dryer in BWRs and other main steam system components" (Reference 3). "Because adverse flow effects in reactors caused by flow-excited acoustic and structural resonances are sensitive to minor changes in arrangement, design, size, and operating conditions, even applications submitted for non-prototypes should include rigorous assessments of the potential for such adverse effects to appear. For any two nearly identical nuclear power plants, one may experience significant adverse flow effects, such as valve and steam dryer failures, while the other does not. Also, small changes in operating condition can cause a small adverse flow effect to magnify substantia lly, leading to structural failures. For example, severe acoustic excitation occurred in the steam system of one BWR nuclear power plant when flow was increased by 16 percent for extended power uprate (EPU) operation" (Reference 3). This appendix describes the overall analysis and power ascension measurement programs used to verify structural integrity of the steam dryer. Techniques for c onducting inspections of the steam dryer have been provided in References 4 and 5 and are not within the scope of this report. Although the steam dryer is not a safety-related component, it is evaluated to ASME Code NG design rules and fabrication gui dance as delineated in this appendix and other supporting appendices. This approach will assure that the dryer has no adverse effect on the operation of safety related components during normal operation, transient and accident conditions. Because the steam dryer issues arising from extended power uprate operation were fatigue cracking, the most challenging ar ea of the dryer evaluations is to demonstrate that the steam dryer (whether existing, modified, or a replacement dryer) will meet the fatigue acceptance criteria when subjected to the vibrations resulting from the acoustic and fluctuating pressure loading during normal operation. As descri bed in this report, this requires: NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 9 of 142 Review of the dryer construction details and industry data to identify relevant inspection findings. Evaluation of the main steam line (MSL) geometry for potential acoustic resonances that may occur over the expected range of conditions. Installation of instrumentation and measurement and trending of dryer or MSL data up to the current licensed therma l power (CLTP) conditions. Development of the dryer fluctuating pressure load definition, performance of a structural analysis, and demonstration that the dryer satisfies limits for the projected loads over the expected range of operation, including normal, upset, emerge ncy and faulted conditions. Definition of dryer acceptance limits for power ascension testing. Implementation of a power ascension test program for confirming that the steam dryer alternating stresses remain within the fatigue acceptance criteria as reactor power is increased from CLTP to power uprate conditions. In the event the current dryer is to be used or modified for power uprate, a baseline dryer inspection per Reference 4 guidance is required prior to operation at uprated power conditions. After operation at power uprate co nditions, the dryer is re-inspected per the requirements of Reference 4. In the case of a replacement dryer, GEH will issue inspection guidance that is specific to the replacement dryer. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 10 of 142

2.0 OVERVIEW

OF STEAM DRYER EVALUATION APPROACH The following process is used to evaluate the capability of the steam dryer to withstand the vibration and pressure loadings during normal operation as well as transient and accident conditions. This process is appli cable to evaluating an existing steam dryer in consideration of a power uprate, evaluating modificat ions or repairs to an existing dryer, or evaluating the design for a new or replacement dryer. This process satisfies the structural analysis requirements of References 1 and 2 and incorporates the guidance provided in Reference 3. The overall dryer evaluation process is shown in Figure 2-1. The major steps of the evaluation process are: The MSL geometry is evaluated for potential acoustic resonances that may occur in the expected range of EPU operating conditions. This evaluation is based primarily on an acoustic evaluation of the safety relief valve (SRV) standpipe and MSL geometry, as well as measurements taken in plants with similar geometries and operating conditions. The potential acoustic SRV resonance frequencies are used in conjunction with the vessel and MSL acoustic models to determine optimum locations for the MSL pressure measurements. Measurements of the acoustic pressures in the MSLs are taken during the plant power ascension to CLTP. The power ascension trend data is used to de velop scaling factors for projecting the dryer acoustic loads to EPU conditions. The power ascension measurements are also used to

identify SRV acoustic resonances that may be present at CLTP. The dryer fluctuating pressure load definition for the flow-induced vibration (FIV) analysis is developed based on the plant MSL pressure measurements and the potential SRV resonances identified in the source scr eening using the Plant Based Load Evaluation (PBLE) methodology. The fatigue analysis of the dryer is perf ormed using the fluctuating pressure load definition. After incorporating the analysis bias and uncertainties, the results are confirmed to meet the fatigue acceptance criteria. The primary stress analysis of the dryer is performed to demonstrate that the dryer will maintain structural integrity under normal, upset, emergency and faulted conditions. The power ascension monitoring program and acceptance limits are defined for confirming the steam dryer meets the fatigue acceptance criteria at power uprate

conditions. The evaluation process is suppor ted by the following appendices: Appendix B - ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation Methodology: This appendix describes the GEH analytical model for determining the fluctuating pressure loads acting on the steam dryer. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 11 of 142 Appendix C - ESBWR Steam Dryer - Plan t Based Load Evaluation Methodology, Supplement 1: This appendix describes the application of the PBLE model for determining the fluctuating pressure loads acting on the steam dryer based on MSL measurements. Appendix D - GEH Boiling Water Reactor Steam Dryer - Plant Based Load Evaluation: This appendix justifies the applicability of the PBLE for BWR plants with parallel bank steam dryers. Appendix E - Steam Dryer Structural Analys is Methodology: This appendix describes the modeling and analysis process for performi ng the structural fatigue and primary stress analysis of the steam dryer. Appendix F - Power Ascension Test Plan: This appendix describes the development of the acceptance limits for the power ascension monitoring program, application of the acceptance limits during power ascension, and the methodology for updating the limits if

necessary during power ascension. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 12 of 142 Figure 2-1 Steam Dryer Structural Evaluation Overview FIV Acceptance Criteria Limit Curves & Power Ascension Monitoring Screen for Potential MSL Acoustic Sources Obtain Input Data for Steam Dryer Load Evaluation Project FIV Loads to EPU Fluctuating Pressure Load Definition (PBLE)Vessel Acoustic FE Model Appendix A Overall Analysis Methodology Appendix B, C, D PBLE Methodology FIV Stress Analysis Appendix E Structural MethodologyDryer Finite Element Model End-to-end Bias and Uncertainty ASME Stress AliASME Acceptance Criteria Appendix F Plant-Specific Power Ascension Test and Acceptance Criteria NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 13 of 142

3.0 SCREENING

FOR POTENTIAL MSL ACOUSTIC SOURCES The evolutionary design of the GE BWR plant has resulted in similar reactor vessel, steam dryer, and MSL geometrical configurations, as well as similar plant operating conditions. [[

                                                           ]]  Appendix D provides a discussion of how the MSL geometrical configuration governs the frequency content in the pressure loads acting on the steam dryer.

[[

                                                                                                                                                              ]]  The plant-specific frequency and amplitude and content must be determined for the dryer FIV fatigue load definition.

[[

     ]]  A few plants have a stagnant branch line, or deadleg, on some of the MSLs. These deadlegs serve as a mounting location for safety relief valves (SRVs).

Acoustically, the deadleg provides a resonating chamber that may amplify the low frequency pressure content of the fluctuating pressure load s acting on the dryer. The high quality factor SRV resonance peaks occur above 100 Hz. The frequency is dependent primarily on the SRV branch line cavity depth; the MSL flow velocity at which the SRV branch line begins to resonate is governed by the diameter of the standpipe. Whether or not the SRV acoustic resonance actually produces a pressure load that acts on the dryer depends on whether or not the SRV acoustically couples through the steamline to an acoustic mode in the vessel steam dome. [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 14 of 142

3.1 POTENTIAL

SRV ACOUSTIC RESONANCE FREQUENCIES The only significant potential acoustic sources in the MSLs that are not captured by the plant measurements are the SRV standpipe acoustic resonances that ma y occur at power levels above those at which the measurements are taken. The frequencies at which SRV resonances occur are determined primarily by the depth and shape of the SRV standpipe cavity between the MSL and the valve disc, and secondarily by acoustic intera ctions between other SRVs and interactions with the MSL acoustic modes. Because of these interactions, the MSL and the SRVs must be

[[ ]]. First, a standalone acoustic finite element model of the SRV sta ndpipe is analyzed to determine the basic resonance frequency. The SRV standpipe forms a closed end cavity. High velocity steam flow passing the entrance to the SRV may produce an acoustic resonance in this cavity. The prominent SRV acoustic resonance mode observed in BWR measurements is the fundamental quarter wave mode for the cavity. The frequency for this mode, f , is given by L c f 4 (3-1) Where c is the speed of sound in steam and L is the depth of the standpipe cavity. This equation assumes that the cavity has a uniform diameter. However, the standpipe cavity for most SRVs is not uniform in diameter and tends to taper to smaller diameters towards the top (Figure 3-1). The taper increases the fundamental frequency of the cavity. Because the geometry of the cavity is complex, an acoustic finite element analysis of the standpipe cavity must be performed to determine the fundamental frequency. [[

                                                                                                                                                       ]]  The resolution of the acoustic finite element model (FEM) must also be fine enough to replicate the details of the geometry.  [[

                                                                                                                    ]]  The model is driven [[

                                                              ]]  The speed of sound is [[                                                                       
                                           ]] determined based on the PBLE mode ling described in Section 2.4 of Appendix C.

Figure 3-1 shows the results of the acoustic FEM analysis for a typi cal SRV standpipe. [[

                                                                                                                      ]]  This is almost 30 Hz higher than the frequency estimated by the idealized eq uation. Figure 3-2 shows the acoustic frequency response for the standpipe.

The individual curves show th e relative pressures along the centerline of the standpipe (highest pre ssure at the top of the standpipe). [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 15 of 142

                                                                                        ]] [[       ]] Figure 3-1 Acoustic Mode Shape for SRV Standpipe

[[ ]] (Relative Pressure) NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 16 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-2 Frequency Resp onse for SRV Standpipe (Relative Pressure at SRV Centerline Locations)

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 17 of 142 The frequencies at which SRV resonances occur are also determined by acoustic interactions between SRVs and with interactions with the MSL acoustic modes. Because of these interactions, [[

                      ]]  Each individual MSL [[

                                                                                                                                                                                    ]]  The speed of sound is [[

]] determined based on the PBLE modeling descri bed in Section 2.4 of Appendix C. Figure 3-3 shows the full steamline acoustic FEM for a GGNS MSL with six SRVs. [[

                                                                                                                                                                      ]] Figure 3-12 is a waterfall plot showing the frequency content and amplitude of the MSL pressures [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 18 of 142 Table 3-1 Comparison of [[

        ]] [[

                     ]]  Notes: (1) [[

                                                                                                                                           ]]  The above analysis was repeated for a GGNS MSL with four SRVs in the MSL.  [[

                               ]]  Assessing potential resonances at flow rates higher than measured will be addressed in the next section.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 19 of 142 Figure 3-3 Full Steamline Acoustic FEM, Six SRVs

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 20 of 142

   [[       ]] Figure 3-4

[[ ]] (SRV nodes) (Relative Pressure at Top of SRVs) NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 21 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-5

[[ ]] (Relative Pressure at MSL SG Locations) NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 22 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-6

[[ ]] (Relative Pressure at Various MSL and SRV Locations) [[ ]] Figure 3-7 [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 23 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-8

[[ ]] [[ ]] Figure 3-9 [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 24 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-10

[[ ]] [[ ]] Figure 3-11 [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 25 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-12 Power Ascension MSL PSD, [[                                                                ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 26 of 142

[[       ]]  Figure 3-13 Frequency Response for Four SRV Steamline Acoustic FEM

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 27 of 142

 [[       ]]  Figure 3-14

[[ ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 28 of 142

3.2 ONSET

OF SRV ACOUSTIC RESONANCE Once the potential SRV acoustic resonant frequencies have been identified, the MSL flow velocities at which the resonances are expected to appear must be determined. [[

                                                                                                                                                                                    ]] to determine which resonances need to be addressed in the load definition for the dryer FIV fatigue analysis. Figure 3-15 shows the prominent SRV acoustic resonances [[                                                                   
                  ]]. A wide spread of frequencies are observed [[

]] because of the differences in SRV standpipe height, as well as the interaction between the acoustics in the SRV standpipes and the MSL described in the previous section. [[

                                                                                              ]] The wide variation in the flow velocity at the onset of the resonances can be explained by the phenomena that produce the resonance. The SRV resonance is caused by an acoustic feedback loop between the disturbances in the shear layer across the SRV entrance and the acoustic standing wave in the SRV standpipe. In the resonance condition, large coherent vortices are generated in the shear layer. The SRV acoustic resonances observed in GE BWRs are the fundamental quarter wave mode of the standpipe as driven by the first or second mode (one or two vortices) of the shear layer instability.

Because the resonance is driven by a vortex shedding phenomenon, the Strouhal number can be used to characterize the conditions at which the resonances occur. The Strouhal number is defined as V fd S (3-2) Where f is the resonance frequency (1/sec), d is the diameter of the standpipe (inches), and V is the average flow velocity in the steamline (inches/sec). First shear layer mode resonances typically occur with Strouhal num bers in the 0.3-0.6 range; second shear layer mode resonances typically occur with Strouhal numbers in the 0.8-1.0 range. The plant observations in Figure 3-15 were replotted [[

                                                                              ]]. The replotted observations are shown in Figure 3-16.

The plant observations line up [[

]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 29 of 142 Based on the plant observations, the resonance onset occurred at a Strouhal number of [[

                                                                                                                                     ]]. A simple prediction for the plant-specific SRV resonance onset can be made by using the onset Strouhal numbers based on [[

                            ]]  Potential SRV resonances predicted by the acoustic FEM analysis in Section 3.1 can then be screened [[                                                    ]] with consideration of the range of steamline flow velocities for the plant-specific analyses.

Continuing with the example in Section 3.1, the [[

]].

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 30 of 142 3.3 SRV RESONANCE FREQUENCY SELECTION FOR ANALYSIS [[ ]] are used to identify candidate frequencies to be considered in the plant measurements and analyses. The candidate frequencies are considered in Section 4 for determining the MSL measurement locations to [[

                      ]]. Several factors must be taken into consideration when [[                                                                           
                                                                ]]. These are the SRV res onances observed in the MSL measurements taken at CLTP for the fluctuating pressure load definition (Section 4) and the potential resonances that may come up as the plant ascends in pow er (Section 3.2).  [[

                                                                                                                                     ]] SRV resonances may be observed in the MSL measurements taken at CLTP for the fluctuating pressure load definition (Section 4). These resonances must be addressed in the SRV resonance modeling when projecting the pressure loads to EPU conditions.  [[

                                                                          ]] [[

                                                                                                                                                          ]] It is desirable to analyze the dryer response through the full SRV resona nce frequency range to address the uncertainty in predicting which resonance frequency may come up and to ensure that the structural response will be acceptable throughout the range. This can be accomplished while

[[ ]] by taking advantage of the NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 31 of 142 nine frequency shift sensitivity cases in the structural analysis. [[

                                                                                                                                    ]]  Table 3-2 and Figure 3-18 show the analys is range covered by the nine frequency shift cases [[                               
                                                                                   ]]. Because of the frequency shifts, the dryer structure will be analyzed [[                                                ]]. In addition, the overlap between the various frequencies means that [[                                                                                                                       
                            ]]. Table 3-2 SRV Resonance Analysis Range

[[

                                                                     ]]  [[

                                                                                                                        ]]  Figure 5-4 shows the pressure loading on various regions of the dryer as a function of frequency for the SRV resonance range.

[[

                                                                                                                                                          ]] Table 3-3 provides a summary of the SRV source screening evaluation. Based on the SRV screening evaluation results from Sections 3.1 and 3.2 as well as the plant measurements shown in Figure 3-17, the SRV resonance [[                                                                                                               
                                                                                        ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 32 of 142 Table 3-3 Summary of Modeled SRV Resonances [[

                                                                                      ]] [[                                                                                                                                    ]]  3.4 SRV RESONANCE PROJECTION TO EPU CONDITIONS It is difficult to analytically predict the amplitude of an SRV acoustic resonance.  [[

                                              ]]    As can be seen in Figure 3-19, the change in [[                    ]] velocity between the onset of the resonance and the peak [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 33 of 142

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 34 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-15
[[                                                                                                                                                                            ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 35 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-16

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 36 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-17
[[                                                                                                                  ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 37 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-18
[[                                                              ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 38 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-19
[[                                                                            ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 39 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 3-20
[[                                                                                ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 40 of 142

4.0 OBTAINING

INPUT DATA FOR STEAM DRYER LO AD EVALUATION This section describes the plant instrumentation required for obtaining the i nput data necessary to develop the fluctuating pressure load definition for the fatigue analysis. This section describes the MSL and on-dryer instrumentation requirements and the methodology for determining the sensor locations. Data acquisition system and shielding requirements are defined. The process for data collection, signal evaluation and noise filtering are described. Instrumentation Strategy: [[

                          ]] Data Acquisition and Processing: a measurement test program is conducted to obtain synchronized time measurements of the dynami c MSL piping strains or pressures; the electrical noise is filtered out of the measured strain or pressure si gnals; and pipe strains are converted to pressures.

4.1 PLANT

MEASUREMENTS The PBLE can be used with vessel pressure data or MSL pressure data to define the acoustic loads on a BWR steam dryer. For MSL instrumentation (used for the GGNS analysis) the methodology requires: A minimum of two sensor locations per steam line [[

                                                                                            ]] The sensors can either be pressure transducer s or arrangements of st rain gauge bridges around the pipe circumference. If strain gauge bridges are used, the MSL pressures are calculated from the pipe hoop stress measurements.  [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 41 of 142

                                                                                    ]]  More information on the methodology used for determining the MSL sensor locatio ns is described in Appendix C.[[       ]]  Figure 4-1 Singularity Factor: Larg e versus Small Sensor Spacing Red: 30 feet - Blue: 7.5 feet Typical plant environmentAs described in Appendix C, each location was instrumented with a minimum of four strain gauges distributed in pairs 180 degrees apart. When the signals from two diametrically opposed gauges are averaged together, th e pipe bending effects in that plane are canceled out. The remaining strain signal represents the hoop stre ss in the pipe, which is proportional to the pressure inside the pipe. It is best if the pairs of gauges are equally spaced around the pipe. Where possible, the gauges should be located away from pipe supports, 6" from welds, one pipe diameter from elbows or tees, and 6" from welded attachments. All of th ese can affect the local pipe deformation and the subsequent strain to pressure conversion process.  [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 42 of 142

                                                                                                                                                                              ]] Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1 show a sample comparis on of two different strain gauge spacings for the GGNS MSL illustrating how the spacing affects [[

                                                                                                        ]] [[       ]] Figure 4-2

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 43 of 142 Table 4-1 Comparison of [[ ]] for Different Strain Gauge Spacings SG Locations, Distance from Nozzle (inches) SG Location Plans [[

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2 Preliminary

Uneven spacing

]]

[[

                                                                                                                                                            ]] [[       ]] Figure 4-3

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 44 of 142 Prior to installing the gauges, the as-built arrangement of the piping is evaluated and the pipe condition at the proposed locations is assessed to determine the final mounting locations. The final sensor locations represent a compromise between the physical constraints [[

                                                                                                                                                            ]]  Table 4-2 shows the upper and lower MSL sensor locations for the two PBLE benchmark plants described in Appendix C. Both of these plants had long st raight section pipe runs immediately downstream of the vessel nozzle that allowed for the large sp acing between sensor locations that is desirable for resolution at low frequencies.  [[

                                                                                                                                          ]] Table 4-2 Strain Gauge Distance from Vessel, PBLE Benchmark Plants Plant MSL Upper Location (ft) MSL Diameters from Nozzle, Upper Location Lower Location (ft) Spacing Between Locations (ft) QC2 A QC2 B                                         QC2 C                                         QC2 D                                         SSES A                                             SSES B                                             SSES C                                             SSES D                                                   Table 4-3 provides the sensor lo cations and spacing for GGNS.  [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 45 of 142 Table 4-3 GGNS Linear Distance from Vessel Nozzle to Strain Gauge Locations MSL Upper Location (ft) MSL Diameters from Nozzle, Upper Location Lower Location (ft) Spacing Between Locations (ft) A [[ B C D

                                          ]]     To ensure an accurate strain-to-pressure conversion for each strain gauge, ultrasonic test (UT) pipe thickness measurements are ma de at each mounting location [[

]]

The data acquisition system (DAS) is a computer-based system capable of acquiring, storing, and analyzing the strain gauge data. The measurement system is designed to provide a well-shielded system with low noise so that only minimal electrical noise filtering is required. [[

                                                               ]]  The preferred method for grounding the DAS is to ground the system with the existing plant instrument ground.  [[

                                                                                                                                  ]]  The higher frequency bandwidth will enable higher frequencies to be recorded, making that content available if

needed. [[

                                                                                                                           ]]  Anti-aliasing filtering must be sufficient to exclude aliasi ng of high frequency data [[

                                                             ]]  The strain gauge bridge excitation must have an option to set NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A  Page 46 of 142 the bridge excitation to zero volts. Measuremen ts will be taken with and without the bridge excitation and comparisons between the two measurements will be to differentiate between electrical noise and acoustical sources.

4.2 D ATA ACQUISITION AND T EST P LAN The data acquisition test plan for taking MSL pressure measurements using strain gauges includes a system checkout, sensor pre-calibration, [[

                                                        ]] low power testing, power as cension and steady state test hold points, and sensor post-calibrati on (final test acceptance).

Measurements are taken during [[

]]

Low power testing is performed for the purpose of comparing the noise floor from the plant being analyzed with the noise floor of the PBLE benchmark plants. The low power testing is performed at conditions where the reactor is at normal operating temperature and pressure with the recirculation pumps and drywell equipment operating, but the steam flow is low (approximately 10 - 30% of CLTP flow). These conditions minimize the contribution of the acoustic and hydrodynamic pressure loads to the measured signal. The noise floor from the plant being analyzed is then compared with the noise floor of the benchmark plant measurements. [[

]]

Figure 4-4 (GGNS) and Figure 4-5 (BWR/4 prototype) compare low power data from GGNS with low power data from the DAS used in MSL monitoring at the BWR/4 prototype plant

during initial power ascension testing in 2008. While the NRC has asked that GEH maintain a 100% margin to the 13,600 psi allo wable, to account in part fo r potential bias due to a lower noise floor, [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 47 of 142 Steady-state measurements are taken at several hold points during the plant power ascension to CLTP in order to define the change in FIV load s as the power increases and to provide a basis for projecting the loads to higher power levels. These measurements form the basis for the inputs to the load ge neration process. Figure 4-4 GGNS Low Power Data from Strain Gauge DAS

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 48 of 142 MSL Data 585 MWth1.E-061.E-051.E-041.E-031.E-02050100150200250Frequency HzUErms^2/Hz Figure 4-5 Prototype Plant Low Power Data from SG DAS (585MWth) 4.3 D ATA ACQUISITION OF PLANT MSL P RESSURES During plant operation, MSL data is recorded at va rious plant conditions to form the basis for the inputs to the load generation process. These measurements are taken with strain gauges located on the MSLs and are used to infer the variatio n in the pressure waves moving along the MSLs and into the RPV. Data taken at CLTP is used as the basis for the load generation using the PBLE methodology (described furt her in Appendix C).

Steady-state measurements are taken at severa l hold points during the plant power ascension to define the change in FIV loads as the power increases and to pr ovide a basis for projecting the loads to higher power levels. Each steady-state measurement taken is [[

                                                                                                                        ]]  The measurements are taken at approximately 5% increments in power levels from 75% to 100% CLTP. When the plant is in steady-state operation at approximately 100% CLTP, multiple sets of test data are collected over a long period of time to determine wh ether the data is stationary.  [[                                                       
                                                                       ]]  During the load defini tion process described in Section 6, one set is then sele cted for further processing as the CLTP input data set for the analysis load definition.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 49 of 142 The data acquisition and evalua tion during power ascension is performed by first null and balancing the strain gauge bridge. Only anti-ali asing filtering is used during collection. The bridge excitation voltage must be chosen to balance between measurement sensitivity and measurement stability. Higher excitation voltages provide a better signal to noise ratio; however, the voltage must be limited to limit gauge heating and the associated signal drift. For each test condition measurements will also be taken at each test hold point with zero bridge excitation to facilitate identifying electrical interference in eac h data set.

4.4 SIGNAL

PROCESSING OF EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURED DATA 4.4.1 Signal Processing During Power Ascension Following data collection at each test point, the m easured signal data are processed and plotted in the frequency domain for review before the ascending to the next power step. The initial

evaluation of the data is performed by reviewing power spectral density (PSD) data averaged over long periods of time. This proc ess is now described in detail.

The individual strain gauge signals, the averaged strain gauge signals (both excited and non-excited), and coherence between averaged strain gauge signals at the upper and lower sensor locations on the same MSL are pl otted and reviewed. The indivi dual strain gauge signals are reviewed to identify non-functional gauges. The averaged signal excited and non-excited curves are compared to identify frequency bands that can be identified as electric noise. Electrical noise signals are typically narrow band and have similar excited and non-excited signal amplitudes. This typically includes AC electri cal noise at 60 Hz (US plants) and one or more harmonics of the AC noise as well as the recirculation pum p drive frequency noise and/or driv e frequency noise harmonics. Electrical or mechanical interference associated with the recirculation pump vane passing frequency may also be present.

Figure 4-6 provides a fre quency domain PSD plot [[

          ]] for GGNS. The PSDs are [[                                                                                                                   
                                                                                              ]]. The sensor locations consisted of eight strain gauges mounted in the circ umferential direction at a spacing of 45 degrees. In this setup, pairs of gauges 180 degrees apart were wired together in series to average the signals, thus canceling out the pipe bending effects in that plane. The signals from the individual pairs are plotted in purple, green, yellow, and blue. As can be seen in the figure, the individual gauge signals in many frequency bands di verge as a result of the pipe vibration. The black line shows the PSD for the time domain average of the signa ls for the four pairs of strain gauges. The signals are averaged to define the average hoop strain that is proportional to the average dynamic pressure at the monitoring location. To evaluate data integrity, the indivi dual signals are plotted and reviewed to identify potential problems with individual channels that could skew the averaged data.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 50 of 142 For the data set shown in Figure 4-6, the bridge excitation was set at 10 VDC. Higher excitation voltages provide a better signal to noise ratio; however, the voltage must be limited to limit gauge heating and the associated signal drift. The blue dotted line is non-excited data set that was taken immediately following the 10 VDC data collection. This data set helps identify signals caused by electrical noise ([[ ]]). The plot also shows the coherence between the averaged signals at this location (A-Upper) and at the other sensor location on the line (A-Lower). [[

                                                                                                                      ]]  Acoustic resonances in the SRV standpipes will also show a hi gh degree of coherence.  [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 51 of 142 A-Upper PSD & Coherence, 100% CLTP, Set 11.E-061.E-051.E-041.E-031.E-02050100150200250Frequency (Hz) UErms 2/Hz 00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9 1 CoherenceA1:upr (10v)A2:upr (10v)A3:upr (10v)A4:upr (10v)A:upr_avg: A1:upr, A2:upr, A3:upr, A4:upr (10v)A:upr_avg: A1:upr, A2:upr, A3:upr, A4:upr (0v)Coher(A:upr_avg)&(A:lwr_avg) (10v). Figure 4-6 A-Upper PSD & Coherence, 100% CLTP, Set 1

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 52 of 142

4.4.2 Signal

Filtering Electrical noise is filtered from the measurements before using the strain gauge data to develop the dryer load definition. The electrical noise bands are identified and the basis for defining electrical noise bands documented. Comparisons of measurements taken with and without the bridge excitation help to differentiate between electrical noise and acoustical sources. Figure 4-7 illustrates this excitation/no excitation comparison. Without excitation, the acoustic signal content is removed and only the 60 Hz fundamental and 180 Hz third harmonic electrical line interference remain. [[ ]] Figure 4-7 Identification of Electrical Interference

The potential for masked acoustic response in the electrical noise frequency bands were evaluated with other available dynamic plant instrumentation. Waterfall plots of the measurements taken during power ascension (e.g., Figure 3-17) are also useful for differentiating between electrical interference (relatively constant amplitude) and FIV content (amplitude grows with increasing steam flow). For example, in Figure 4-7, the narrow band maxima in the averaged signal coincide with th e blue dotted non-excitation signal [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 53 of 142

                                                                                                                                  ]]  The width of the electrical peak on the zero excitation measurement is used to determine the width of the notch filter used to remove the electrical interference. The electrical frequencies that were notch filtered can be filled at the amplitudes of the neighboring non-filtered measurements to minimize the potential non-conservative bias introduced by the notch filtering. The filtered bands are compared with the filtering performed for the benchmar k plants to assess whether the plant-specific filtering may contribute additional bias to the dryer load predictions.

The data is high- and low-pass filtered to remove the signal content below 2 Hz and above 250 Hz. Filtering out the data below 2 Hz removes any residual DC signal that was not removed by the strain gauge null a nd calibrating process.

4.4.3 Strain

Conversion to Pressure and Measurement Bias This section describes the method used to determine and quantify the bias and uncertainty involved with a given MSL instrumentation system. [[

                                                                                                                                                            ]] The strain gauge measurement bias (or correction factor) is determined by:

[[ ]] (4-1) NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 54 of 142 Where: [[

                                  ]] The individual strain gauge time domain signals at each location are averaged and converted to pressure by applying the st rain-to-pressure conversion factor determined [[                                         
                                                                                                            ]]. The resulting pressure time histories are then input to the PBLE calculation of the loads for each load case and frequency range. Because the correction factor or bias is already included in the loads that are used to determine the peak stresses, it is not included as a separate bias term in the final calculation of the peak stress.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 55 of 142

5.0 BASIS

FOR PROJECTED FIV LOAD TO EPU

5.1 TRENDING

TEST DATA 5.1.1 Trend and Project Non-Resonance Data Trending is performed to characterize the increase in FIV load as a function of frequency and MSL flow velocity and project the load to EPU conditions. The EPU scaling factor is [[

                                                                                              ]]. Plant MSL data for GGNS was obt ained at 75% through 100% CLTP in 2008. Waterfall plots of PSD data are provided in Appendix G. The MSL data provides a benchmark of the local and aggregate change in acoustic loading. However, for this methodology, the EPU Scaling Factor is developed [[

                                                                                                                                   ]] This provides a direct assessment of the change in [[                    ]] a function of MSL steam velocity. [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 56 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-1 Acoustic Mesh Points The trending evaluation was performed for [[                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                          ]]. For each test condition the [[                                                                                                                      ]] at each test condition.  [[

                                                                                                                                                                            ]] For each test condition, measured plant operating data recorded by the plant process computer was used for temporal mass flow and steam property data that was used to calculate the MSL velocity. A typical set [[                                                    ]] is included Figure 5-2. The MSL velocities used in Section 3 of this appendix were based on reactor steam density and mass flow.  [[

                                       ]] and therefore provide a more accurate assessment. The adjusted values are provided in Table 5-1. Th e projected velocity for GGNS at EPU conditions is [[
                         ]].

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 57 of 142 Table 5-1 Steam Velocity Adjusted for Flow Losses (GGNS) Test Condition Mass Flow (Mlbs/hr)MSL Velocity (ft/sec) [[

                            ]] [[       ]] Figure 5-2

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 58 of 142 The pressure load data is trended using the following formulation: [[ ]] (5-1) Where , [[ ]] (5-2) [[

                                                                                           ]] An example of a trending evaluation [[                                                                                                             
                                                                       ]] is included in Figure 5-2. The trend lines for GGNS were calculated [[                                                                                                                                                             
                                        ]] conditions. The data points for the highest steam velocity [[

                                              ]] Data trends were performed with different trending equations pr ior to settling on equation 5-1.

This relation provided a good fit [[ ]] and supports previous observations that non-resonant loads grow in relation to velocity squared. [[

                                                                ]]  Figures 5-3 through 5-7 show trend plots [[                                 
                                                                                    ]]. These trend plots demonstrate that Equation (5-1) adequately represents the trend [[                                                                                                                ]].

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 59 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-3 Typical Trending Plot

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 60 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-4 Typical Trending Plot

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 61 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-5 Typical Trending Plot

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 62 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-6 Typical Trending Plot

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 63 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-7 Typical Trending Plot

[[ ]] The EPU Scaling Factor is then defined as [[

                                                                                                                                                  ]]. As described in Section 8, the EPU Scaling Factor is applied to the calculated peak stresses in the form of a bias term. The EPU Scaling Factor can then be determined [[                                                                                       
        ]]: [[      ]]        (5-3)

[[ ]] [[ ]] (5-4) For consistency with definitions of model biases, the bias associated with the EPU Scaling Factor is defined as: EPU EPUSF1B (5-5) NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 64 of 142 The EPU Scaling Factor is determined by [[

                                                                           ]]. 5.1.2 Trend and Project SRV Resonance Data During power ascension it is nece ssary to track and project the SRV acoustic response. The SRV resonance is characterized by response that is similar to a half-sine wave shape as shown below in Figure 5-8 (Ziada, Reference 6) and in Figure 3-19. After an initial onset period the load projections can be reasonably made with modest power ascension power steps and linear projections to estimate the dryer load amplitude at the next test period. The load at step n, can be predicted as

[[ ]] (5-6) Where, [[

                                                                                                                     ]]  Figure 5-8 Strouhal Numbers of Flow-Excited Acoustic Resonances of Closed Side Branches (Reference 6)

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 65 of 142 5.2 CLTP LOAD S ET SELECTION FOR PBLE LOAD DEVELOPMENT The [[ ]] CLTP data were evaluated and demonstrated to be [[ ]]. Table 5-2 provides [[

                                                                                                                                                                         ]]  Table 5-2 Evaluation of CLTP Data

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 66 of 142 Test Condition 100%-J was selected for the development of the PBLE loads. This test condition is compared in Table 5-3 [[

                                                                                                                                                                          ]]. Table 5-3 Comparison of Test Condition 100%-J

[[ ]] [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 67 of 142 5.3 SRV SCALING FACTOR When an SRV branch line resonance is in earl y onset or not yet obser ved in the MSL data, [[

                                                                                                                      ]], and to assess the effect on the GGNS replacement dryer. 5.3.1 Development of Simulated SRV Loading for FE Analysis This section discusses the development of SRV res onance load adders that are used in the base load for performing the structural analysis. For a plant with multiple SRV valves in each MSL with similar geometry, a band of potential frequency responses can be predicted for each line.

The exact frequency response, location of prev ailing acoustic source, and phase relationship between the acoustic source and the MSL mode at increased steam flow is difficult to predict. The load source location and rela tive phase can have a signifi cant effect on the magnitude and distribution of dryer load. The approach used for GGNS was to [[

                                            ]]  The method used to create simulated SRV re sonance loads at poten tial SRV frequencies

[[ ]], The evaluation of the acoustic load sensitivity [[

                                        ]], The determination of the best parameter [[                                                                                       
                                  ]], and The combination of the SRV resonance load adders with CLTP data for the structural FE analysis.

5.3.1.1 SRV Resonance Load Generation To create a simulated SRV resonance load, [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 68 of 142

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 69 of 142

[[      ]]  The equations are then rearrange d to provide the solution for  
[[      ]]  [[                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                      ]]  5.3.1.2 SRV Load Source

[[

     ]] The above solution was executed [[                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                              ]]. The results demonstrated that [[

      ]]. Therefore a relatively simple method was developed to define [[              ]] simulated SRV loads [[                                           
                                                                                                                                                        ]]. To evaluate the acoustic load sensitivity, [[

                                                                      ]]. As expected, the GGNS dome acoustic response shows NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A  Page 70 of 142 variability in loading as the driving frequencies are changed. The key observation is that with a good selection [[                                                                     ]] can be provided with high loading for the analysis.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 71 of 142

[[        ]] Figure 5-9 Sensitivity Study for SRV Acoustic Loads

[[ ]]. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 72 of 142 5.3.1.3 SRV Resonance Modeling in Structural Analyses [[ ]] SRV resonance frequencies [[ ]] were selected to be included in the GGNS structural analysis (See Section 3 of this Appendix). These loads were scaled and combined with PBLE acoustic loads developed from CLTP data and this combined load is used in the FE structural analysis of the dryer. The [[ ]] SRV resonance load adders [[

                                                                 ]]. This methodology provides a load definition for finite element structural analysis [[                                                                                                                              
                              ]] in combination with turbulence driven CLTP FIV loads [[                                           
                                                                             ]] to be used for evaluation. With the nine load definition time step sensitivity cases, the four SRV resonance load adders provide ample data to conservatively characterize the relation between potential SRV re sonance dryer loads and dryer stress. Figure 5-10 provides an example [[                                                                                                ]] load input with the [[              ]] SRV resonance load adders and compares that load with the average and peak hold CLTP data [[                                              ]]. The scaling of the SRV resonance load adders [[                                                                                           
                              ]] is performed [[                                                                          ]] and [[                                  
     ]] the bias and uncertainty evaluations performed after completion of the structural analysis. This methodology is described in Section 8 of this Appendix.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 73 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-10 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input with SRV Resonance Load Adders with Projected Loads at CLTP.

5.3.1.4 Power Ascension Monitoring During power ascension testing by Entergy at Vermont Yankee in 2006 and at the prototype BWR/4 in 2009 and 2010 with GEH criteria, monitoring and acceptance limits were based on MSL strain gauge limits. With the exception of SRV resonances the change in steam line signals are very gradual and MSL strain gauge limits are practical for monitoring the power ascension for these loads. [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 74 of 142

                                                                                                                ]] [[       ]] Figure 5-11 Variation of MSL Indicated Pressure

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 75 of 142

5.3.2 Projecting

Simulated SRV Loading to EPU Section 5.3.1 of this Appendix discussed the development of SRV resonance load adders that were used to develop the base load for performing the structural analysis. This section discusses the development of scaling factors that are desi gned to project potential SRV loading up to EPU conditions. These scaling factors are used with other s caling factors and bias es and uncertainties in determining the final peak stresses as di scussed in Section 8 of this Appendix. [[ ]] different projected EPU conditions were evaluated. These include:

1. [[

                                                                                                                ]] The SRV resonance loads were scaled such th at the projected GGNS design basis loads bounded the projected peak resonant response loads from plants with similar [[                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                       ]] design. The projected [[                ]] SRV resonance dryer load is scaled to the full GGNS projected Strouhal number at EPU for each of the SRV resonance load adder frequencies. This evaluation is performed in Section 3 of this Appendix.

5.3.2.1 Comparison of Projected Loads to Plant Data The FE element input loads for GGNS SRV resonance load adders were compared with the projected dryer load data at test conditions for the [[ ]] plants. The loads at the [[ ]] plants were projected [[

          ]] with a PBLE model for each plant.  [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 76 of 142 There was insufficient test data for [[ ]] a PBLE load definition. Therefore the [[ ]] was compared with loads projected on the GGNS dryer at the same location. (See Figure 5-12.) [[ ]] Figure 5-12 Pressure Sensor Location [[

     ]]   For the [[                                    ]] plants (including GGNS), there were long periods of test data available. The [[                    ]] value used in the comparison were the [[                                                     
                                                                                                      ]]. For the [[                        ]], only [[                 
                                                                        ]] was available. Therefore the [[                                                 
                    ]] were conservatively compared with a [[                    ]] value based on [[                               
                                                                                                                ]]. Figures 5-13 through 5-17 show the GGNS load definitions (including the SRV resonance load adders) compared with the [[                                                                                                            ]] plants based on measured plant data.

As shown in Figure 3-20, both the [[ ]] plant data, the branch line response had peaked prior to maximum plant steam flow. For the [[ ]], it was [[

          ]] and for the [[                     ]] plant it was prior to [[                             ]]. The test conditions at both plants bracketed the projecte d peak response. Based on the data trend curve, it is expected NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A  Page 77 of 142 that the amplitude may have increased [[                                        ]] above the test condition amplitude.

The [[ ]] plant has a very similar branch line arrangement when compared to GGNS. The [[ ]] plant was at [[ ]] of OLTP for the test condition shown in Figures 5-13 through 5-15. This is the maximum test condition available. Th e branch line resonance is [[

                                                                                                                                         ]]. At this plant there are

[[ ]] main response frequencies, [[ ]]. The projected [[

         ]] is scaled to the full GGNS projected Strouhal number at EPU for each of the SRV resonance frequencies. This evaluation is performed in Section 3 of this Appendix. Table 5-4 summarizes the [[              ]] factors applied to the test conditions from each of these plants for comparison with the GGNS EPU desi gn conditions. These factors are then converted to a Bias for consistency with the conversion used for load scaling.

Table 5-4 SRV Load Factors Applied to [[ ]] for Comparison with GGNS EPU SRV Load Conditions Factor=PlantProj/PlantTest [[

Target Bias=1-PlantTest/PlantProj

          ]] Minimum Scaling Requirements Min Factor Target Bias Min Factor Min Bias Min Factor Min Bias [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 78 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-13 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input

[[

                                      ]] [[       ]] Figure 5-14 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 79 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-15 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 80 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-16 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 81 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 5-17 Comparison of FE Structural Model FIV Input

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 82 of 142 The following adjustment factors shown in Table 5-5, when applied to the SRV resonance load adders, will provide dryer loads that match or exceed the projected loads for the [[ ]] comparison plants. [[

                                                                                                                                                              ]]  Table 5-5 SRV Resonance Load Factors Applied to Define SRV Resonance Conditions at EPU

[[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 83 of 142

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 84 of 142 Table 5-6 compares the minimum Target Bias values from Table 5-3 with those realized with the EPU design conditions. The applied EPU design load will meet or exceed the projected EPU load from the [[

               ]] comparison plants.

Table 5-6 Comparison of Dryer SRV Loads from [[ ]] GGNS EPU Conditions with Dryer SRV Loads from [[ ]] Test Conditions. [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 85 of 142

5.3.3 Projecting

Simulated SRV Loading to CLTP Load scaling for CLTP and EPU are treated as bias and uncertainties in the GEH adjusted stress methodology. This facilitates proper accounting for all model bias and uncertainties when the model is used for projection. The SRV resonance load adders are compared with CLTP loads at GGNS [[

                                                                                                  ]]. The CLTP bias and uncertainty is then expressed as:

[[ ]] (5-7) [[ ]] (5-8) The input for the adjusted stress routine requires that the bias and uncertainty be expressed [[

]].

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 86 of 142 Table 5-7 CLTP SRV Resonance L oad Adder Bias and Uncertainties [[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 87 of 142

6.0 STEAM

DRYER FLUCTUATING PRESSURE LOAD DEFINITION The dryer structural analysis must demonstrate that the dryer will maintain its structural integrity without failing due to fatigue during normal plant operation when subjected to the vibrations resulting from acoustic and fluctuating pressure loads. During normal operation, fluctuating pressure loads are created by the flow adjacent to the dryer (FIV loads) and from acoustic pressures generated by sources in the reactor dome and MSLs (e.g., acoustic resonances in the safety/relief valve standpipe s). Appendix B provides the methodology for developing the fluctuating pressure load definition using measurements from on-dryer instrumentation. Appendix C provides the methodology for developing the load definition using measurements taken from the MSLs. The following steps provide a brief summary of the dryer FIV load defi nition calculation with the PBLE from the MSL measurements described in Section 4 of this appendix. The same process is followed, with the exception of the MSL parameters and Transmatrix, when on-dryer measurements are used as inputs: [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 88 of 142 The potential SRV acoustic resonance load si gnals identified in Sections 3 and 5 of this appendix are included in the time segment data. [[

                                                                                                                          ]] the PBLE MATLAB scripts are run and dryer loads are obtained. The resulting load definition is applied to the structural finite element m odel as described in the following section.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 89 of 142

7.0 FATIGUE

STRESS EVALUATION The dryer structural analysis must demonstrate that the dryer will maintain its structural integrity without failing due to fatigue during normal plant operation. Appendix E describes the methodology for constructing the finite element st ructural models and performing the fatigue stress evaluation using the fluctuating pressure load definition described in Section 6 of this appendix. NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 90 of 142

8.0 STRESS

ADJUSTMENT FOR END TO END BIAS AND UNCERTAINTY

8.1 METHOD

This section identifies the biases and uncertainties in the overall evaluation of the steam dryer, explains how the biases and uncertainties are combined, and how these bias and uncertainties are applied to the stress results to determine the adjusted peak stress [[ ]]. This adjustment includes projection to EPU. The GEH acoustic model uses frequency dependent medium properties in which the harmonic frequency domain solution is linear. Therefore uniform frequency dependent changes in the input will have a proportional affect on the output at the same frequency. The GEH finite element dryer structural model employs the time domain direct integration solution method. This is performed assuming all linear model properties. [[

]] During the power ascension at Vermont Yankee, Entergy first used the [[ ]] method (Reference 7). Later GEH used the [[ ]] method and added the [[ ]] method to support the Susquehanna power ascension testing (Reference 8). Because these techniques are linear, and because the acoustic load and stress models are linear, the bias, uncertainty, and EPU adjustment that affect the loads can be combined with the structural model bias and uncertainty and applied directly to th e peak stress results. The process for determining the peak stress for the steam dryer is based on the following steps: 1. Obtain plant MSL data and generate PBLE lo ads at CLTP and lower power test points for trending. 2. Generate simulated dryer loads of nominal amplitude (referred to as "SRV resonance load adders") for potential SRV resonant frequencies that may appear between CLTP and EPU. 3. Select time segments of the PBLE loads at CLTP that contain excita tion over all frequencies and strong loads at frequency bands that contri bute significantly to th e dryer stress in the most limiting locations. This last selection is based on a preliminary stress analysis. 4. Combine the simulated SRV resonance loads with CLTP loads at selected time segments. 5. Run the FE time history stress analysis for the nine load time step variation cases. The load time step is varied from the nominal case by 10%, 7.5%, 5% and 2.5%. This is done for both a low frequency analysis to cover the structural response from 2-135Hz, and a high frequency analysis to cover the structural response from 135Hz to 250Hz. 6. Elements with high peak stress from all areas of the dryer for all nine LF and nine HF time step conditions are then selected for stress adjustment.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 91 of 142 The following parameters are used in the peak stress adjustment:

1. Strain to Pressure Uncertainty (Bias a ddressed in Strain to Pressure conversion) 2. EPU Bias (for stress adjustment to EPU conditions)

3. CLTP Bias and Uncertainty (for adjustment of "SRV resonance load adders to observed CLTP amplitude.) 4. PBLE Load Projection, [[ ]], Bias and Uncertainty 5. PBLE Load Projection, [[ ]], Bias and Uncertainty

6. [[ ]] Acoustic Mesh and Model Bias and Uncertainty 7. FE Element Model Bias and Uncertainty 8. CLTP Time Interval Selection Bias To determine the adjusted peak stresses for an evaluation, the following input is required [[

                                                                                                                                            ]] Biases and uncertainties descri bed in the previous sections The adjusted stresses are calculated for each of the nine load cases. There are [[              ]] methods for calculating the final peak stresses and all [[              ]] methods are used and for each dryer component, the maximum peak stress is selected as the limiting stress value from the [[              ]] methods. Table 8-1 summarizes the [[              ]] methods and applicable bias and uncertainty terms that are included along with the stress adjustment methodology.

Table 8-1 Peak Stress Calculation Methods [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 92 of 142

[[

             ]] The biases and uncertainties are applied [[                                                                                                      ]] in accordance with the methodology identified in this Appendix. The maximum of the calculated stress from the [[              ]] methods and nine load cases for each dryer component is then summarized in a final stress table.

8.2 BIASES

AND UNCERTAINTIES

8.2.1 Strain

to Pressure Calibration Uncertainty The uncertainty in the measurement system can be directly quantified by comparing the variation in the gauge measurements between the converted pressures when compared to the plant instrumented pressure reading per sensing locati on. As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1 of this appendix, the average error or bias from this comparison is used to adjust the strain to pressure conversion factor for each strain gauge sensing location. [[

                                                                                                                                          ]]  This uncertainty is independent [[                                                                          ]]. It represents the uncertainty in the plant specific strain gauge calibration factor (SGCF) bias values. The larger bias and uncertainty from strain gauge measurements is introduced in dynamic measurements where mechanical vibration can be interpreted as acoustic pressure. This has been addressed in the bias and uncertainty in the PBLE benchmark comparisons between predicted pressure and on-dryer pressure gauges as discussed in Appendix C. 8.2.2 EPU Scaling Factor (Bias) From the trending relations developed in Section 5 of this Appendix, the EPU Scaling Factor is determined [[                                                                                          ]] as: [[      ]]        (8-1)

[[ ]] (8-2) [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 93 of 142

                                                ]] When expressed as a bias, for consistency with definitions of model biases, the bias associated with the EPU Scaling Factor is defined as:

EPU EPU SF B1 (8-3) The EPU Scaling Factor is determined [[

                                                                                                                                    ]]. To address the potential for SRV resonances as steam flow is increased up to EPU power levels, SRV Scaling Factors are developed (Section 5 of this Appendix). These scaling factors represent the potential increase in magnitude of the pressure loading [[                                                                   
                                ]]. These scaling factors are based on a review of the plant MSL data that was obtained during power ascension and is also supplemented with available plant data from similar BWRs. The objective of the SRV sc aling factor is to provide a de sign basis pressure loading for the evaluation of the steam dryer [[                                                                                                                   
                                                                                        ]]. The SRV scaling factor s also are part of the development of the limit curves that are used during plant startup to demonstrate compliance with the design basis stress analysis. Similar to the treatment of the EPU Scaling Factor, the SRV Scaling Factor can then be represented as [[                                                                                          ]]: [[      ]]       (8-4)

[[

                                              ]]  When expressed as a bias, for consistency with definitions of model biases, the bias associated with the SRV Scaling Factor is defined as:

SRV SRV SF B1 (8-5) The SRV Scaling Factor is initially determined based on [[

                                                                                                                                                                          ]]. By treating the EPU factors and potential SRV resonances as bias terms, there is appropriate treatment of combined bias and uncertainty; this is especially important for uncertainty terms that scale with pressure loads.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 94 of 142 8.2.3 PBLE Loads Bias and Uncertainty The PBLE plant benchmark evaluations (as reported in Appendix B and Appendix C) form the basis for the generic PBLE application bias and uncertainty values. The biases and uncertainties have been developed based on comparisons to plant measured data with instrumented steam dryers. The results are provided [[

]]. The bias is expressed in the following manner: [[ ]] (8-6) Where, [[ ]] (8-7) [[ ]] (8-8) [[

                                                                                                                                   ]] 8.2.4 PBLE Model -

[[ ]] Bias and Uncertainty The [[ ]] PBLE model bias and uncertainties are documented in Table 10 of Appendix C, which represents the biases and uncertainties for loads generated based on MSL data input. Table 8-2 summarizes the bias and un certainty values that are applicable for loads

generated based on MSL data input. Table 8-2 PBLE Model [[ ]] Bias and Uncertainty [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 95 of 142 8.2.5 PBLE Model - [[ ]] Bias and Uncertainty [[

                                                                                                                              ]]  As discussed in Appendix C, [[                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                          ]]. The PBLE [[                                                                    ]] bias and uncertainties are documented in Appendix K of Appendix C of this report. Table 8-3 provides the cross reference to the correct tables in Appendix K of Appendix C of this report.

Table 8-3 PBLE Model [[ ]] Bias and Uncertainty [[

                    ]]  8.2.6 GGNS Acoustic Mesh - Model Bias and Uncertainty An acoustic model geometric sensitivity study is presented in Section 2.2.2 of Appendix B.

[[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 96 of 142

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 97 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 8-1
[[                                                                                                                              ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 98 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 8-2
[[                                                                                                                          ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 99 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 8-3

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 100 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 8-4

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 101 of 142

[[       ]] Figure 8-5

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 102 of 142

8.2.7 Finite

Element Model Peak Stress Bias and Uncertainty In response to NRC RAI 3.9-217 S0 1 (Reference 9), uncertainties a nd bias errors associated with the finite element structural models of the steam dryer were provided to the NRC based on benchmarking against an instrume nted dryer that included strain gauges and accelerometers. The prototype steam dryer was instrumented with [[

                                                                        ]]. The FIV PBLE load data for this benchmark evaluation was developed using [[

                                    ]]. The FE model was run with [[

                                                  ]]  Nine frequency sensitivity cases were performed with time step size increments of  2.5% up to a shift of  10%.  [[

                ]] To calculate the FE model contribution to the overall bias and uncertainty, [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 103 of 142

                                                                                                                                                                              ]]  Table 8-4 FE Model

[[ ]] Bias [[

                  ]]  8.2.8 Time Segment Selection Bias For direct integration structural assessments, a conservative time segment that maximizes both the frequency content and amplitude [[

                                                         ]]. The time interval bias factor is based on an assessment of [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 104 of 142

                                                                                                                                                        ]]. Therefore, the time interval of test data in the load definition will include a conservative time segment based

[[ ]] and a time interval bias factor based [[

                                            ]]. 8.3 STRESS ADJUSTMENT

[[ ]] WITH BIAS AND U NCERTAINTY

[[                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                ]]  [[      ]]         (8-9)

[[

                                                                                                                                    ]]  Table 8-5 [[                                                                                      ]] [[       ]] 8.3.1 Combining Biases and Uncertainties

[[ ]] [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 105 of 142

                                                                                              ]] [[      ]]        (8-10)

[[ ]] (8-11) [[

                                ]]   [[      ]]       (8-12) 
[[

                                                                                                                                                                             ]] [[      ]]        (8-13)

[[

                                                  ]] [[      ]]       (8-14)

[[

                      ]] [[      ]]    (8-15)

[[ ]] (8-16) [[ ]] [[ ]] (8-17) [[ ]] == (8-18) NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 106 of 142

[[

                                                                                                                    ]]  [[      ]]       (8-19)

[[ ]] (8-20) [[ ]] (8-21)

[[

                              ]] 8.3.2 Calculating Bias and Uncertainty

[[ ]] The [[ ]] Biases are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-6. The [[ ]] Uncertainties are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-7.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 107 of 142

[[

                                         ]]  Figure 8-6
[[                            ]] Bias Calculation

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 108 of 142

[[

]] Figure 8-7

[[                            ]] Uncertainty Calculation

[[ ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 109 of 142

8.3.3. Calculating

Adjusted Stress [[ ]] [[ ]] [[ ]] (8-22) [[ ]] (8-23) [[

                                                                                                                                                                    ]] [[      ]]    (8-24) 
[[                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                ]] [[      ]]       (8-25)

8.3.4 Calculating

Bias and Uncertainty [[ ]] The [[ ]] Biases are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-8.

The [[ ]] Uncertainties are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-9.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 110 of 142

[[

                                         ]] Figure 8-8 [[

]] Bias Calculation [[

]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 111 of 142

[[

                                                                          ]]  Figure 8-9
[[                        ]] Uncertainty Calculation

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 112 of 142

8.3.5 Calculating

Adjusted Stress [[ ]] [[

                                                                                                        ]]  8.4 STRESS ADJUSTMENT

[[ ]] WITH BIAS AND UNCERTAINTY

[[

                        ]]  8.4.1 Combining Biases and Uncertainties

[[ ]] [[ ]] [[ ]] (8-26) [[

y

                                                                                      ]]  [[      ]]     (8-27)

[[ ]] (8-28)

[[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 113 of 142

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ]]  [[      ]]  (8-29)

[[

                  ]]  8.4.2 Calculating Bias and Uncertainty

[[ ]] The [[ ]] Biases are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-10. The [[ ]] Uncertainties are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-11.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 114 of 142

[[

                                         ]]  Figure 8-10 [[                            ]] Bias Calculation [[                                        ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 115 of 142

[[

    ]]  Figure 8-11
[[                            ]] Uncertainty Calculation

[[ ]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 116 of 142

8.4.3 Calculating

Adjusted Stress [[ ]] [[ ]] [[ ]] (8-30) [[ ]] (8-31) [[

                                                                                                                                                                    ]] [[      ]]    (8-32) 
[[                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                          ]] [[      ]]       (8-33)

8.4.4 Calculating

Bias and Uncertainty [[ ]] The [[ ]] Biases are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-12. The [[ ]] Uncertainties are combined in accordance with the flow chart shown in Figure 8-13.

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 117 of 142

[[

            ]]  Figure 8-12 [[
                     ]] Bias Calculation [[

]] NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 118 of 142

[[

              ]]  Figure 8-13 [[
                    ]] Uncertainty Calculation [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 119 of 142

8.4.5 Calculating

Adjusted Stress [[ ]] [[

                                                                                                                          ]]  8.5 ADJUSTED STRESS RESULTS Table 8-6 below summarizes stress results [[                                              ]] used in the stress assessment, [[                                                                                  ]]. This summary was done for the limiting EPU Condition, [[                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                        ]]. The table demonstrates that the [[

                                  ]]. With the conservative treatment of the uncertainty, the dryer still maintained a MASR of greater than 2.0.

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 120 of 142 Table 8-6 [[ ]] [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 121 of 142

9.0 PRIMARY

STRESS EVALUATION The steam dryer is a non-safety component and performs no active safety function; however, the dryer must maintain structural integrity during normal, transient and accident conditions and not generate loose parts that may interfere with the operation of safety systems. Sections 7 and 8 of this appendix describe the fatigue evaluation process used to demonstrate that the dryer alternating stresses are sufficiently low to precl ude the initiation of high cycle fatigue cracking during normal plant operation. This section desc ribes the input loads and load combinations used to evaluate the primary stresses during normal, transient and accident conditions and demonstrate that the dryer will maintain struct ural integrity during all modes of operation. Appendix E describes the methodology for constructing the finite element st ructural models and performing the primary stress evaluation using the loads and load combinati ons described in this section.

9.1 DESCRIPTION

OF DESIGN CONDITIONS Plant operating conditions are defined in Chapter 15 of a plant's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). These operating conditions are categorized and re flect varying probabilities of conditions, which are then compar ed against appropriate acceptance criteria. The main design conditions are defined as: Normal Normal steady-state operation Upset Anticipated operational transients (e.g., turbine trip, stuck open relief valve) Emergency Infrequent operational transients (e.g., inadvertent opening of ADS valves) Faulted Accident and rare transients (e.g., LOCA, SSE) The limiting design basis condition for the steam dryer is the double-ended guillotine break of the MSL outside containment. For this event, the steam dryer must maintain its structural integrity and not generate loose parts that may interfere with the closure of the main steam isolation valves. 9.2 L OAD COMBINATIONS The load combinations are plant-specific and are defined in the plant's de sign basis. Typically the load combinations used for the steam dryer analysis are specific to the candidate plant in question. These combinations are specified in a plant's Steam Dryer Design Specification and the analyses are performed over a range of conditions that support the licensed operating domain. The ASME load combinations for a typical plant are shown in Table 9-1. Definitions of the individual loads and calculation methodology are specified in the following section. Loads from independent dynamic events are combined by the square root sum of squares method (SRSS). The dryer is at uniform temperature at normal and transient conditions, and therefore the thermal NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 122 of 142 expansion stress is assumed zero. There is no radial constraint of the dryer, and differential expansion is accommodated by slippage. Table 9-1 Typical Steam Dryer Load Combinations Comb. No Level Combination A-1 Normal [[ B-1 Upset

B-2 Upset

B-3 Upset

B-4 Upset

B-5 Upset

C-1 Emergency

D-1 Faulted

D-2 Faulted

D-3 Faulted D-4 Faulted

D-5 Faulted

       ]] Definition of Load Acronyms:

[[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 123 of 142

]] 9.3 INDIVIDUAL L OAD T ERM DEFINITION AND SOURCE 9.3.1 Static Loads The following loads are considered to be static loads that are app lied during steady-state operating conditions. 9.3.1.1 Dead Weight (DW) The stresses caused by metal and water weight are obtained by applying gravity (G) loading to steam dryer FE model. 9.3.1.2 Thermal Expansion The steam and water temperatures at each dryer component are the same at saturated pressure/temperature conditions. The RPV transient temperature changes for all operating events are mild in the steam space where the dryer is located. The materials for the steam dryer components are of the same type of stainless steel and, therefore, have the same thermal expansion coefficient. Alt hough the RPV is carbon steel and has a lower thermal expansion coefficient, the dryer support ring is not radia lly constrained by the RPV and therefore the loads due to thermal expansion effects on the dryer ar e negligible and do not need to be analyzed. 9.3.1.3 Differential Pressure Loads (PN, P U) The operating pressure differentials across each dryer component are based on reac tor internal pressure differences (RIPD) calculated for the applicable plant operating conditions. The P loads assumed in the analysis depend on the service condition and event being analyzed. At normal conditions, the calculation of steady state pressure drops through the core is performed using the ISCOR computer program (Reference 10). This method has been applied to BWR/2 NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 124 of 142 through BWR/6 designs as well as the ABWR to calculate the Normal condition reactor internal pressure differentials (RIPD). [[

                    ]] The static pressure drop across the steam dryer hoods is determin ed by the pressure drop through the vane banks plus the static pressure drop along the steam dryer hoods at the steam line nozzle locations (see Figures 9-1 and 9-2). The pressu re drop across the dryer outer hoods has generally been determined for BWRs at OLTP conditions. For operation at higher steam flows experienced during EPU, the increased steam flow will increase the pressure drop along the steam dryer hoods.  [[

                                      ]] [[

                       ]]       (9-1)  Where,  [[

               ]]  P 1 P 2 P 3P 12P 23Dryer HoodOuter BankSupport RingMSL Nozzle Centerline P 1 P 2 P 3P 12P 23Dryer HoodOuter BankSupport RingMSL Nozzle Centerline Figure 9-1 Steam Dryer Vane Bank and Outer Hood Pressure Drops NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A  Page 125 of 142 PDOMELocation 1 2 3 4 5 h 3h/4h/2 3h/4Steam Nozzle PDOMELocation 1 2 3 4 5 h 3h/4h/2 3h/4Steam Nozzle PDOMELocation 1 2 3 4 5 h 3h/4h/2 3h/4Steam Nozzle Figure 9-2 Steam Dryer Outer Hood Pressure Drops vs Elevation The pressure drop resulting from Anticipated Operational Occurrences, or Upset Conditions, is calculated [[

                              ]] The opening of a safety relief valve can also result in loads on the dr yer directly through the resulting pressure effects in the steamline and indirectly by transmission of the discharge loads through the containment structure and RPV. The flow transient produced by rapid opening of a single SRV generates a decompression wave in the MSL that affects the RPV dryer. The development of [[                                                                          ]] did not consider the case of one stuck open relief valve and this must be evaluated separately to confirm or replace the generic increment factor. The one stuck open SRV event methodology develops [[

     ]] during the SRV event.  [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 126 of 142

                  ]]   [[      ]]     (9-2)

[[ ]] [[ ]] (9-3) Where, [[

                                                                                ]] [[

                                              ]]     For accidents, or Faulted conditions, the pressure differentials across the steam dryer components

[[

]]. These dynamic loads are discussed in more detail in the following section. 9.3.2 Dynamic Loads Dynamic loads result from various off-normal operating conditions for the plant. The most basic dynamic load is the result of flow-induced vibration (FIV) where small varia tions in the pressure field of the steam flow are caused by turbulen ce, acoustic resonances an d other sources. Other dynamic loads are the result of plant operational tr ansient and accident conditions. The NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 127 of 142 following sections provide a discussion of the various dynamic loads and the methodology for calculation of the steam dryer loading. 9.3.2.1 Flow-induced Vibration (FIV N, FIV U) The primary concern for the steam dryer structure is fatigue failure of the components from the FIV loading during normal operation. There are two primary sources of flow-induced vibration loads on the dryer. The first load is an acoustic pressure loading caused by the steam flow through the steam piping system. Based on in-plant measurements, the acoustic pressure loading is the dominant FIV load on the steam dryer. The second load is turbulent buffeting caused by the steam flow through and across the steam dryer structure. The veloci ties through the dryer are low; therefore, the contribution of the buffeting load to the total FIV load is negligible. The detailed methodologies for determining the FIV loads for the steam dryer are outlined in Section 7 of this Appendix and in Appendix E. The FIV primary bending stresses and maximum primary membrane stresses for different components of the steam dryer are calculated with consideration for biases and uncertainties as disc ussed in Section 8 of this Appendix. Because the ASME Code load combination stress analysis is the primary structural stress assessment, the weld factor effect is not incl uded in the final FIV loading (FIV N). The FIV load for the Upset Condition (FIV U), is calculated [[

                                                                                                                            ]] 9.3.2.2 Turbine Stop Valve Loads

[[

         ]] A turbine stop valve closure produces [[            ]] loads on the steam dryer.  [[

                                                                                                                                                                                    ]]  The [[            ]] TSV loads are separated in time and are therefore applied separately. The key assumptions of the methodology are summarized as follows; [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 128 of 142

                                                                                     ]] The TSV and turbine control valv es (TCV) are basically in seri es, with connecting headers to equalize the pressure both in fr ont and behind the TSVs. The turbine bypass valves (TBV) are on a header that connects to the MSLs in a manner similar to that shown in Figure 9-4.

Figure 9-3 TSV Closure Characteristics

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 129 of 142 To CondenserFrom RPVTo TurbineTCVTBV TSVTo CondenserFrom RPVTo TurbineTCVTBV TSV Figure 9-4 Turbine Valve Schematic The rate of steam flow decrea se during a valve closure event depends on the relative closing speeds and delay (if any) of the valves. If one valve closes faster than the other, the faster valve will control the flow. TBVs open after a delay time, and usually do not become effective until the flow to the turbine is almost shut off by TSVs or TCVs. [[

                                                                                                     ]] 9.3.2.2.1

[[

         ]] [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 130 of 142

                                                                                             ]] [[      ]]

(9-4) Where, [[

t Time (second) Local normalized acoustic load di stribution based on plant specific evaluations (function of time).

                                                                                                                    ]]  [[                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                ]] [[       ]] Figure 9-5
[[                                                                                      ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 131 of 142

[[                                                                                                          ]] [[      ]]  (9-5) [[                                                            ]] [[      ]]  (9-6) Where: [[

                                                                                          ]]   [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 132 of 142

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 133 of 142 Figure 9-6 Peak Normalized Load Distribution [[

                                   ]] [[

                    ]] [[                                                                                                                                                       ]] [[       ]] Figure 9-7 Finite Element Model Component for

[[ ]] Pressure Load

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 134 of 142 9.3.2.2.2 [[

         ]] [[

                                        ]] [[      ]]    (9-7) Where, [[      ]]        (9-8)

[[ ]] [[ ]] (9-9) Where, [[ ]] (9-10) and, [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 135 of 142

                                                                                                                      ]]  [[

                                                                                                  ]] [[       ]] Figure 9-8 Projected

[[ ]] Load [[ ]] 9.3.2.3 SRV Related Loads (SRV, SRV ADS) The opening of the safety relief valves during a transient can result in loads on the dryer directly through the resulting pressure effects in the steamline and indirectly by transmission of the discharge loads through the containment structure and RPV. [[

                              ]]  The differential pressure and FIV loads related to the increase in steamline flow when the relief valves are opened are addressed in the upset condition load terms in Sections 9.3.1.3 and 9.3.2.1 of this appendix.

The SRV discharge flow to the suppression pool causes containment vibrations that may be transmitted through the containment structure and reactor vessel to the RPV internals, thus creating a load on the dryer components. The SRV containment discharge loads are transmitted to the dryer through the vessel suppo rt brackets. The horizontal SR V loads at the dryer elevation are selected per the horizontal seismic model. The vertical SRV loads at the closest node to the dryer are selected per the vertical seismic mode. SRV loads for spectral analysis are selected to NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 136 of 142 envelope spectra for all the SRV cases. Applicable structural damping (typically 2%) is applied to the response spectra. Figure 9-9 shows an example of a typical set of SRV discharge loads along with the selected bounding spectra. 9.3.2.4 Seismic Loads (OBE, SSE) Seismic events transmit loads to the dryer through the vessel support brackets. Seismic loads for the operating basis earthquake (OBE) and safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) in the form of amplified response spectra (ARS) at the reactor dryer support elevation are used in accordance with the data documented in plant design basis seismic loads evaluations. The horizontal seismic loads are selected from the horizontal seismic model at the appropriate node representing the dryer elevation. Vertical loads are selected per the vertical seismic mode l at the closest node to the steam dryer. Appropriate structural dampi ng is applied to the response spectra. Spectral analyses are performed for the seismic loads. Seismic anchor motion effects do not need to be considered because they are negligible inside the RPV.

[[ ]] Figure 9-9 Typical SRV Response Spectra 9.3.2.5 Emergency and Faulted Conditions A general class of postulated reactor events is those where depressurization of the RPV is the limiting phenomenon. The rapid depressurization causes water in the RPV to flash into steam. The resulting two-phase level swell affects the underside of the dryer, producing a transient differential pressure loading across the dryer panels. [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 137 of 142

                                                                                         ]]  The Reactor Internals Pressure Differential (RIPD) calculations determine analytically the differential pressures during these conditions. For Emergency and Faulted conditions, the pressure differentials across the steam dryer components [[                                                                                                                                                         
                                        ]]. This blowdown can be the result of a postulated recirculation line, steam line, or feedwater line break or depressurization through the primary system relief valves.  [[

                                ]]    Differential Pressure Load during Emergency Operation

[[ ]] The limiting event for the Emergency condition [[

                                                        ]]. The additional 2% power is assumed per Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.49. The NRC withdrew this RG in April 2008. [[                                                                                     
                                                                                                  ]]  The blow-down model (Reference 11) is used to calculate the RIPDs for the steam dryer hood and vane ba nks during the postulated event.

Differential Pressure Load during Faulted Condition [[ ]] The Faulted category addresses accidents or limiting faults, which are postulated as part of the plant's design basis. For the steam drye r, the design basis Faulted event is the [[

                                                                                                             ]]. The dryer must be shown to maintain structural integrity and not generate loose parts that may interfere with the closure of the main steam isolation valves. Two reactor operating conditions are analyzed for this event: [[

                         ]] At each condition, [[                                                                                                                                            ]] is evaluated.  [[

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 138 of 142

                                             ]]  The blow-down model 2 is used to calculate the RIPDs for the steam dryer hood and vane banks during the postulated event. 9.3.2.6  Acoustic Loads due to MSLB Outside Containment

[[ ]] The flow transient produced by rapid opening of the break generates a decompression wave in the MSL that affects the dryer. The methodology for calculating the acoustic loads on the steam dryer vertical cover plate (hood) [[ ]] was modified to determine the steam dryer vertical cover plate acoustic loads due to the faulted MSLB event because the acoustic wave imposing the load on the outer hood is similar for both events. [[

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ]] [[      ]]         (9-11) [[                                                                                                          ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 139 of 142

[[      ]]   (9-12) 
[[                                                            ]] [[      ]]   (9-13) Where, [[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 140 of 142

[[

]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 141 of 142 Figure 9-10 Peak Normalized Acoustic Loads for MSLB [[

                    ]]  [[                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ]]

NEDO-33601, Revision 0 Non-Proprietary Information Appendix A Page 142 of 142

10.0 REFERENCES

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0800, Revision 3, March 2007, Section 3.9.5, "Reactor Pressure Vessel Internals

." 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0800, Revision 3, March 2007, Section 3.9.2, " Dynamic Testing and Analysis of Sy stems, Structures, and Components ." 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.20 Revision 3, March 2007, "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing." 4. SIL No. 644 Rev. 2, BWR Steam Dryer Integrity, August 30, 2006.

5. BWRVIP-139-A: BWR Vessel and Internals Project, Steam Dryer Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines, EPRI Technical Report 1018794, July 2009. Errata issued September 2005, BWRVIP letter 2005-422, report corrected.

6. S. Ziada, S. Shine, Strouhal Numbers of Flow-Excited Acoustic Resonance of Closed Side Branches, Journal of Fluids and Structures Volume 13, Issue 1, January 1999, Pages 127-142. 7. Letter, Entergy to USNRC, "Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Report on the Results of Steam Dryer Monitoring," BVY 06-056 (D ocket No. 50-271, TAC No. MC0761), dated June 30, 2006. 8. 0000-0101-0766-P-R0, DRF 0000-0080-2990 R0, Engineering Report, "Main Steam Line Limit Curve Adjustment During Power Ascension," Susquehanna Replacement Dryer, April 2009 9. MFN 09-509, Letter to NRC, "Response to Portion of NRC RAI Letter No. 220 and 339 Related to ESBWR Design Certification App lication -- DCD Tier 2 Section 3.9 -- Mechanical Systems and Components; RAI Numbers 3.9-213 and 3.9-217 S01," July 31, 2009. 10. NEDE-24011-P-A, "GESTAR II: General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," Licensing Topical Report, latest approved version. 11. NEDE-20566-P-A, "Analytical Model for Lo ss-of-Coolant Analysis in Accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix K," Volumes I, II and III, September 1986. 12. "Revised Susquehanna Replacement Steam Dryer Limit Curves -- Main Steam Line Mounted Instrumentation," 0000-0096-5766-P-R1, February 2009.}}

v t e Letter Sequence Request
TAC:ME4679, Clarify Application of Setpoint Methodology for LSSS Functions (Open)
Initiation Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request Acceptance Supplement, Supplement Administration Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance Meeting Questions 26 January 2011 26 January 2011 27 January 2011 31 January 2011 8 February 2011 23 February 2011 23 February 2011 1 March 2011 16 March 2011 23 March 2011 23 March 2011 4 April 2011 5 April 2011 5 April 2011 12 April 2011 10 May 2011 20 May 2011 1 June 2011 6 June 2011 22 June 2011 29 June 2011 17 August 2011 6 October 2011 14 December 2011 14 February 2012 21 March 2012 18 April 2012 18 April 2012 Answers 31 March 2011 14 April 2011 5 May 2011 15 June 2011 6 July 2011 12 September 2011 10 October 2011 6 February 2012 15 February 2012 20 February 2012 13 March 2012 21 March 2012 5 April 2012 18 April 2012 Results Approval... Other: GNRO-2012/00150, Final Report for Replacement Steam Dryer, GNRO-2017/00039, Steam Dryer Visual Inspection Results for the First Two Scheduled Refueling Outages, ML102660403, ML111720830, ML112560396, ML12167A257, ML12167A269, ML12177A287, ML13108A217, NRC-2012-0105, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related Amendment Request for Extended Power Uprate to Increase the Maximum Reactor Core Power Operating Limit from 3898 to 4408 Mwt
MONTHYEAR2011-03-30 [Table View]

ML102660401: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:25, 18 March 2019

Text

2.1 Original

2.2 Replacement

2.2.1 Modifications

3.1 Evaluation

3.2 Steam

3.2.1 Screening

3.2.2 Obtain

3.2.4 Basis

3.2.5 Comparison

3.3 Steam

3.3.1 Dryer

3.3.4 Acceptance

5.3 Plant

5.5 Plant

5.5.1 Steam

5.6 Applicability

5.6.1 Overview

6.1 Power

6.2 Final

SUMMARY

2.0 PRODUCT

3.0 STEAM

4.0 RESULTS

7.0 REFERENCES

4.4.3 Strain

7.0 Fatigue

8.2.7 Finite

9.3.2 Dynamic

1.0 OVERVIEW

2.0 OVERVIEW

3.0 SCREENING

3.1 POTENTIAL

3.2 ONSET

4.0 OBTAINING

4.1 PLANT

4.4 SIGNAL

4.4.2 Signal

4.4.3 Strain

5.0 BASIS

5.1 TRENDING

5.3.2 Projecting

5.3.3 Projecting

6.0 STEAM

7.0 FATIGUE

8.0 STRESS

8.1 METHOD

8.2 BIASES

8.2.1 Strain

8.2.7 Finite

8.3.3. Calculating

8.3.4 Calculating

8.3.5 Calculating

8.4.3 Calculating

8.4.4 Calculating

8.4.5 Calculating

9.0 PRIMARY

9.1 DESCRIPTION

10.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search