L-MT-15-074, Enclosure 7, WCAP-18604-NP, Revision 0, Monticello EPU Main Steam Line Strain Data Evaluation Report.

Enclosure 7, WCAP-18604-NP, Revision 0, Monticello EPU Main Steam Line Strain Data Evaluation Report.

ML15289A076
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	09/30/2015
From:	Bakshi S, Berman I, Rowland A Westinghouse
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15289A082	List: L-MT-15-074, Enclosure 7, WCAP-18604-NP, Revision 0, Monticello EPU Main Steam Line Strain Data Evaluation Report. ML15289A073 ML15289A075
References
L-MT-15-074, TAC MD9990, TAC MF6730
Download: ML15289A076 (61)

Text

L-MT-1 5-074 ENCLOSURE 7 WESTINGHOUSE WCAP-1 8604-NP, (NON-PROPRIETARY) REVISION 0 MONTICELLO EPU MAIN STEAM LINE STRAIN GAUGE DATA EVALUATION REPORT 60 pages follow

Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 WCAP-1 8064-NP September 2015 Revision 0 Monticello EPU Main Steam Line Strain Gauge Data Evaluation Report Westinghouse

WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP-18064-NP Revision 0 Monticello EPU Main Steam Line Strain Gauge Data Evaluation Report Inessa E. Berman*

BWR Engineering September 2015 Reviewers: AnnMarie Rowland*

BWR Engineering Approved: Sanjaybir S. Bakshi*, Manager BWR Engineering

• Electronically approved records are authenticated in the electronic document management system.

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 1000 Westinghouse Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066, USA

© 2015 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC All Rights Reserved WCAP- 18064-NP.docx

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

....................................................................................... vi LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................. vii 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1- 1 2 ASSUMPTIONS AND

SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS WORK ..................................... 2-1 2.1 AS SUMPTIONS............................................................................... 2-1 2.2 ACOUSTIC SCREENING ................................................................... 2-1 2.3 SUB SCALE TESTING....................................................................... 2-1 3 DATA PROCESSING PLAN AND RESULTS ...................................................... 3-1 3.1 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................ 3-1 3.2 STRAIN-TO-PRESSURE CONVERSION ................................................. 3-2 3.3 NARROW-BAND FILTERING.............................................................. 3-4 3.4 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY............................................................. 3-7 3.5 RMS PRESSURE DERIVATION ............................................................ 3-7 3.6 PSD DERIVATION ........................................................................... 3-7 3.7 WAVELET DENOISING..................................................................... 3-7 3.8 LIMIT CURVES DERIVIATION ........................................................... 3-9 4 INPUTS TO PROCESSING ........................................................................... 4-1 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.......................................................................... 5-1 5.1 DATA ANALYSIS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING OF MSL STRAIN GAUGE DATA AT [ ]a~c THERMAL POWER ........................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Evaluation of Raw MSL Strain Gauge Plant Data .............................. 5-1 5.1.2 Comparison of Raw MSL PSD - Data and EIC Signals ....................... 5-9 5.1.3 Strain to Pressure Conversion ................................................... 5-14 5.1.4 Wavelet DeNoising............................................................... 5-14 5.2 EVALUATION OF PLANT ACOUSTIC SIGNATURE.................................. 5-23 5.2.1 PSD Evaluation................................................................... 5-23 5.2.2 RMS Pressure Trends ............................................................ 5-32 5.2.3 Limit Curves ...................................................................... 5-34 6 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 6-1 7 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 7-1

iii°.

LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1 Channel Combinations for Each Dataset .................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2 Notch Filters, [.....................................................................3-4 Table 3-3 Notch Filters, [.....................................................................3. 5 Table 3-4 Notch Filters, [.....................................................................3-5 Table 3-6 Notch Filters, [..................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-7 Notch Filters, [..................................................................... 3-6 Table 3-8 Notch Filters, [..................................................................... 3-6 Table 4-1 Data Filenames and Recording Times ....................................................... 4-1 Table 5-1 [ ]ac ............................. 5-14

iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5-1 ................................

................ 5-1 Figure 5-2 ........................ .................

5-2 Figure 5-3 ...............................

............. 5-2 Figure 5-4

.............. 5-3 Figure 5-5 Figure 5-6 ...............................

............ 5-3 Figure 5-7

.............. 5-4 Figure 5-8

]......................5-4 Figure 5-9 Figure 5-10 Figure 5-11 .................................... 5-6 Figure 5-12

............... 5-7 Figure 5-13 Figure 5-14 ...................... ..................... 5-7 Figure 5-15 ].................5-9 Figure 5-16 ]a ........ 5-80 Figure 5-17 ]c ....... 5-11 Figure 5-18 Sa¢........5-12 Figure 5-19 ]c.......5-11 Figure 5-20

]",* .................................................................. 5-12 Figure 5-21 1"*.................................................................. 5-13 Figure 5-22 II

]ao* ...................................................... 5-15 Figure 5-23

]a" ....................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-24

]a ....................................................... 5-17 Figure 5-25

V Figure 5-26 [

]a,c............................................................. 5-20 Figure 5-27 [ ]8'C. ......................................... 5-21 Figure 5-28 II

]3° .......................................... 5-22 Figure 5-29 ...........

... 5-24

......... ............................................................ i.......... 5-25 Figure 5-30 Figure 5-31 ........ ...................................................................... 5-26 Figure 5-32 ........ ........................................................................ 5-27 Figure 5-33 ........ ...................................................................... 5-28 Figure 5-34 ........ ..................................................................... 5-29 Figure 5-35 ........ ..................................................................... 5-30 Figure 5-36

].... ...................................................... 5-31 Figure 5-37

............ ....................................................... 5-32 Figure 5-38 Figure 5-39 ....... ..................................................................... 5-34 Figure 5-40 ........ .................................................................... 5-35 Figure 5-41 ........ .................................................................... 5-36 Figure 5-42 ........ .................................................................... 5-37

vi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Monticello Nuclear generating plant (MNGP, herein referred to as "Monticello") is implementing an extended power uprate (EPU) to increase plant power to[

a]ac

]aa~c

]aa~c

VII LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACM [ ]

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers BWR boiling water reactor CLTP current licensed thermal power, 1775 MWt DAS data acquisition system DS downstream (for Figures only)

EIC electrical interference check EPU extended power uprate, 2004 MWt FFT fast Fourier transform MSL main steam line NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OEM Original equipment manufacturer PCF [ ]

PSD power spectral density RMS root mean square RSD Replacement steam dryer RRP reactor recirculation pump SIA Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

SRV safety relief valve US upstream (for Figures only)

VPF vane passing frequencies Trademark Note:

MATLAB is a registered trademark of The Math Works, Inc.

1-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1a~c To satisfy the requirements of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commiss ion (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.20, Revision 3 (Reference 2), an analysis must be performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of reactor internal components,[

]a~c Current industry experience has shown that increasing power in a boiling water reactor (BWR) by increasing the steam speed in the MSLs may lead to pressure increases above the expected increase from the increase in dynamic pressure. [I

]C These requirements are contained in Regulatory Guide 1.20, Revision 3 (Reference 2).

From November 2014 till June 2015, Monticello went through power ascension from 1775 MWt to 2004 MWt thermal power. During the power ascension, time-history recordings were taken from 64 strain gages (SGs) installed on MSLs at each of the following approximate power levels:[

I]I

]aCo The processing of the MSL strain gauge data at each power level was described in Reference 4 through Reference 10.

The main purposes for processing the Monticello data are as follows.

1. [

]a~c

2. [ ]a,c

3. [ ]a,c

2-1 2 ASSUMPTIONS AND

SUMMARY

OF PREVIOUS WORK 2.1 ASSUMPTIONS

[

]a,c The acoustic speed in steam is assumed to be 1600 ft/s (Reference 11).

[I

]a~c The plant is assumed to be operating at steady state for the entire 4 minutes of data collection at each of the power levels at which data were collected.[

]a~c 2.2 ACOUSTIC SCREENING

]a,bc 2.3 SUBSCALE TESTING

[

]a,c

3-1 3 DATA PROCESSING PLAN AND RESULTS EPU power ascension MSL strain gauge data were collected by MNGP and provided to Westinghouse.

The processing that was performed on the data is described in the following sections. All filtering operations, as well as the processing for the data comparisons, were performed using custom MATLAB programs. These are documented in Reference 13. The processing methodology applied to the Monticello MSL strain gauge data was consistent with the benchmarking of the prediction of acoustic pressures using MSL strain gauge data described in Reference 14.

3.1 DATA COLLECTION

]

[

]a~c

[

]a~b Data were recorded at each of the following approximate power levels:[

a~bc

3-2 3.2 STRAIN-TO-PRESSURE CONVERSION where, L Ia'bab (3-1)

K I II ]a~c Sa~b

3-3 II a.b

3-4 3.3 NARROW-BAND FILTERING II

]a,c

[~

a]ac

]aa~e STable 3-2 Notch Filters, [ ]

__Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reason_

fl b

3-5 Table 3-3 Notch Filters, [ ]b ]

Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reason b-Table 3-4 Notch Filters, []

Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reason Table 3-5 Notch Filters, [

Filter Order Low Freq High Freq [Filter Type Reason b

3-6 Table 3-6 Notch Filters, [ ]b Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reason b

STable 3-7 Notch Filters, [ ]b Filter OrderI Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reason Table 3-8 Notch Filters, [

Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reason b

II

3-7 3.4 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY The PSDs were calculated using Welch's Modified Periodogram method. The data were separated into segments of 1 second, and a Hanning window was applied to reduce side-lobe leakage. This resulted in a frequency resolution of 1 Hertz.

3.5 RMS PRESSURE DERIVATION

]a,c L ]

ac (3 -2)

where, 3.6 K PSD DERIVATION Ia,c The PSDs used in the methods presented in this report were derived using Welch's modified periodogram method. The signal was divided up into time ensembles with the same number of lines as the sampling frequency, resulting in a 1 Hz frequency resolution in the final PSD. A Hanning window was used to reduce spectral leakage, and 50 percent overlap was used to increase the number of ensembles available for averaging.

3.7 WAVELET DENOISING II ]a,c II

]ac

[

]a,o

3-8

]aa~c Figure 3-1 [ ]a'c

]a~c

3-9

]a~c

[]a,C (3-3)

where,

[ ]a~

r ]a

]a~c 3.8 LIMIT CURVES DERIVIATION

]aa~c

[]a,c (3-4)

[]a,c (3-5)

where,

]a,c

[ a,c

[ ]o~

[

]a,c

4-1 4 INPUTS TO PROCESSING The inputs to the data processing include the Monticello plant signals. These were gathered by MNGP during and transmifted electronically to Westinghouse. The signals were formally documented in Reference 13. The dates, times, and filenames are listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1 Data Filenames and Recording Times Filename Signal Power Type Date Time Level a,b

5-1 5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 5.1 DATA ANALYSIS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING OF MSL STRAIN GAUGE DATA AT [ ]a~ THERMAL POWER 5.1.1 Evaluation of Raw MSL Strain Gauge Plant Data The raw time domain data and spectrograms from the MSL SG instruments were plotted and evaluated for channels that showed no data, or data that showed noticeable transients. If an MSL strain gauge channel showed no data, it was removed from processing.[

b Figure 5-11[]

[

5-2 Figure 5-21[]

Similar results are observed for all other channels shown in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4. Except, time history and PSD curve of channel 5 show elevated noise, and therefore this channel was also excluded from processing.

Figure 5-3[

5-3 Figure 5-4 [j]

K 7b Figure 5-5

5-4 mb Figure 5-6 [ ]b F 7b Figure 5-7[

5-5 b

Figure 5-8 ]b n 7b Figure 5-9[

5-6

]bb F 7b Figure 5-11 [ jb

5-7

]bb F 7b Figure 5-13[

5-8 b

Figure 5-15[ jb

5-9 b-Figure 5-16 [

5.1.2 Comparison of Raw MSL PSD - Data and ETC Signals

[

]a~c

5-10 a,b Figure 5-17 [ Ja,c

5-11 a,b Figure 5-18[ I ,c

5-12 a,b Figure 5-19[ la,c

5-13 a,b Figure 5-20[ I ,c

5-14 5.1.3 Strain to Pressure Conversion

[

]a,c b

5.1.4 Wavelet De-Noising

]a~o

5-15 Sa,b Figure 5-21 [

Sa,c

5-16 a,b Figure 5-22[

I,

5-17 a,b Figure 5-23[

Ia,c

5-18 a,b Figure 5-24[

Ia,c

5-19 a,b Figure 5-25[

a,c

5-20 a,b Figure 5-26[

Ia,c

5-21

-- a,b Figure 5-27[

j ac

5-22 a,b Figure 5-28[

I~

5 -23 5.2 EVALUATION OF PLANT ACOUSTIC SIGNATURE The evaluation of the plant acoustic signature is performed by examining the PSDs and the RMS pressure trends. The PSDs are derived as described in Section 3.6, and the RMS pressures are derived per the methodology detailed in Section 3.5.

5.2.1 PSD Evaluation

]a,c

5-24 b

Figure 5-29[ jb

5-25 b

Figure 5-30[ jb

5-26 b

Figure 5-31[

5-27 Figure 5-32 []

5-28 b

Figure 5-33 [ jb

5-29 b

Figure 5-34[

5-30 b

Figure 5-35 [ ]Ii

5-31 b

Figure 5-36[ jb

5-32 5.2.2 RMS Pressure Trends abb Figure 5-37[ ],

5-33 b

Figure 5-38[ ],

5-34 5.2.3 Limit Curves The minimum alternating stress ratio, which was derived in Reference 10 and is 1.43. Figure 5-39 through Figure 5-42 show the plots of the limit curves for MSL A through MSL D, respectively. In each plot, there are two lines; the limit curves Li and L2.

Figure 5-39 [ ]

5-35 b

Figure 5-40 [ b

5-36 b

Figure 5-41 [

5-37 Figure 5-42 [I Ib

6-1 6 CONCLUSIONS

[

]a~c

[t~

[ ]ac

7-1 7 REFERENCES

1. [

]a~b

2. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.20, Rev. 3, "Comprehensive Vibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial Startup Testing," March 2007.

3. [

]a,c

4. [

]a~b

5. r

]a,c 6.

I a,c

7. I

]a~b 8.

]a,c

9. I

]a~c

10. [

]a,c

11. ASME, "ASME Steam Tables," Fifth Edition, 1983.

12. [

]a~c

13. I

]a~c

7-2 14.

]a,c

15. r

]ac

16. I a,.c

17. r

],.c

18. [

19.

a,.c