ML20028G313: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot insert |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) StriderTol Bot change |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML20028G313 | | number = ML20028G313 | ||
| issue date = 11/30/1982 | | issue date = 11/30/1982 | ||
| title = Nonproprietary Version of, Suppl to Waterford 3,Cycle 1 Cpc/Ceac Phase II Software Verification Test Rept | | title = Nonproprietary Version of, Suppl to Waterford 3,Cycle 1 Cpc/Ceac Phase II Software Verification Test Rept | ||
| author name = | | author name = | ||
| author affiliation = ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY | | author affiliation = ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:. | {{#Wiki_filter:. | ||
..i., | |||
\\ | |||
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY CEN 208 (C)-NP, SUPPLEMENT 1-NP SUPPLEMENT TO WATERFORD 3, Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase II SOFTWARE VERIFICATION TEST REPORT COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. | |||
Nuclear Power Systems Power Systems Group Windsor, Connecticut 06095 NOVEMBER 1982 B302070621 830127 DRADOCK05000g | Nuclear Power Systems Power Systems Group Windsor, Connecticut 06095 NOVEMBER 1982 B302070621 830127 DRADOCK05000g | ||
LEGAL NOTICE This response was prepared as an aceount of work sponsored by Combustion Engineering, Inc. Neither Combustion Engineering nor any person acting on its behalf: | |||
a. | |||
Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied including the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this response, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed.in this response may r:ot infringe privately owned rights; or b. | |||
Assumes any liabilities 'with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this response. | |||
t Page 2 | t Page 2 | ||
ABSTRACT Phase II Testing is performed on the CPC/CEAC System to (1) | ABSTRACT Phase II Testing is performed on the CPC/CEAC System to (1) verify that the CPC and CEAC software modifications have been properly integrated with CPC and CEAC software and system hardware; (2) provide confirmation that the static and dynamic operation of the integrated system as modified is consistent with that predicted by design analysis. | ||
This supplement describes the results and resolutions of the open items which were identified in the Waterford 3, Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase II Software Verification Test Report (Reference 1). | This supplement describes the results and resolutions of the open items which were identified in the Waterford 3, Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase II Software Verification Test Report (Reference 1). | ||
I Page 3 | I Page 3 | ||
==1.0 INTRODUCTION== | ==1.0 INTRODUCTION== | ||
The verification process for the CPC/CEAC software implementation includes Phase I and Phase II Testings (Reference 2). | |||
The verification process for the CPC/CEAC software implementation includes Phase I and Phase II Testings (Reference 2). Phase I testing verifies the correct implementation of the software. Phase II testing verifies that the integrated CPC system, software including hardware, responds as expected.' The Phase I and Phase II testings are described in | Phase I testing verifies the correct implementation of the software. | ||
Phase II testing verifies that the integrated CPC system, software including hardware, responds as expected.' The Phase I and Phase II testings are described in References 1 and 3. | |||
In Reference 1, three of the test cases in Dynamic Software Verification Test (DSVT), had test results that fell outside the acceptance criteria. | In Reference 1, three of the test cases in Dynamic Software Verification Test (DSVT), had test results that fell outside the acceptance criteria. | ||
This supplement describes the analyses performed to show the Waterford-3 CPC/CEAC System Software (Rev. 00) is acceptable for plant safety operation. | This supplement describes the analyses performed to show the Waterford-3 CPC/CEAC System Software (Rev. 00) is acceptable for plant safety operation. | ||
2.0 DYNAMIC SOFTWARE VERIFICATION TEST The Dynamic Software Verification Test (DSVT) is a real time exercise of the CPC application software and executive software with transient CPC input values read from a storage device. The same CPC input values (test case) are executed on the Single Channel CPC and the certified CPC/CEAC FORTRAN simulation code. Acceptance criteria for DSVT are defined (in Reference 2) as a trip time and initial values of DNBR and LPD for each test case. The trip time and initial values of DNBR and LPD calculated by the CPC/CEAC FORTRAN simulation code, with the processing uncertainties factored in, will provide an acceptance range for the Single Channel CPC results. | 2.0 DYNAMIC SOFTWARE VERIFICATION TEST The Dynamic Software Verification Test (DSVT) is a real time exercise of the CPC application software and executive software with transient CPC input values read from a storage device. The same CPC input values (test case) are executed on the Single Channel CPC and the certified CPC/CEAC FORTRAN simulation code. | ||
2.1 | Acceptance criteria for DSVT are defined (in Reference 2) as a trip time and initial values of DNBR and LPD for each test case. | ||
[, | The trip time and initial values of DNBR and LPD calculated by the CPC/CEAC FORTRAN simulation code, with the processing uncertainties factored in, will provide an acceptance range for the Single Channel CPC results. | ||
2.1 FLOW TRANSIENTS In Reference 1, the time-to-DNBR trip observed on the Single Channel CPC | |||
[, | |||
]exceededthemaximumallowabletriptimesasdeterminedbytheCPC Page 4 | |||
FORTRAN simulation code. Investigation showed the difference in trip times was due to the difference in | FORTRAN simulation code. | ||
Investigation showed the difference in trip I~ | |||
by the two systems. | ~~ | ||
times was due to the difference in by the two L | |||
l | a systems. | ||
Case | The results of the two modified FORTRAN test cases are as follows: | ||
DNBR Trip (Sec.) | l Initial DNBR Initial LPD (KW/FT) | ||
Case | Case Min. | ||
A new Single Channel CPC input disk was created incorporating the same | Max. | ||
Min. | |||
changesinthe([, | Max. | ||
l | DNBR Trip (Sec.) | ||
LPD Trip (Sec.) | |||
Case Min. | |||
Max. | |||
Min. | |||
Max. | |||
A new Single Channel CPC input disk was created incorporating the same changesinthe([, | |||
~ | |||
l lwere rerun on the Single Channel CPC with the following results. | |||
Page 5 | Page 5 | ||
Case | Case Initial Initial DNBR LPD DNBR LPD Trip (sec) | ||
The Single Channel CPC results are in agreement with the FORTRAN simulation code results. It is concluded that no software errors were identified. | Trip (sec) | ||
The Single Channel CPC results are in agreement with the FORTRAN simulation code results. | |||
It is concluded that no software errors were identified. | |||
2.2 BOTH CEACS FAIL DtJRING BANK 6 DROP TRANSIENT t | 2.2 BOTH CEACS FAIL DtJRING BANK 6 DROP TRANSIENT t | ||
\\ | |||
Page 6 | Page 6 | ||
O | O | ||
.c 3.0 PHASE II TEST RESULTS | |||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
All the test results from the Phase II testing have been evaluated and it is concluded no safety concern exists. | |||
All the test results from the Phase II testing have been evaluated and it is concluded no safety concern exists. The only discrepancy in the software implementation is related to the penalty factors when both CEACs | The only discrepancy in the software implementation is related to the penalty factors when both CEACs fail. | ||
Under these conditions, plant protection function of the CPC is maintained in the DNBR calculation, therefore the present software (Rev. | |||
: 00) is acceptable for operation. | |||
==4.0 REFERENCES== | ==4.0 REFERENCES== | ||
1. | |||
Waterford 3, Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase II Software Verification Test Report, CEN-208(C)-P, June 1982. | |||
2. | |||
CPC Protection Algorithm Software Change Procedure, CEN-39(A)-P, Rev. 02, December 21, 1978. | |||
3. | |||
Waterford-3 Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase I Software Verification Test Report, CEN-209(C)-P, Rev. 00, June. 1982. | |||
9 Page 7 | 9 Page 7 | ||
,}} | |||
Latest revision as of 19:05, 20 December 2024
| ML20028G313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1982 |
| From: | ABB COMBUSTION ENGINEERING NUCLEAR FUEL (FORMERLY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19303B514 | List: |
| References | |
| CEN-208(C)-NP, CEN-208(C)-NP-S01, CEN-208(C)-NP-S1, NUDOCS 8302070621 | |
| Download: ML20028G313 (7) | |
Text
.
..i.,
\\
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY CEN 208 (C)-NP, SUPPLEMENT 1-NP SUPPLEMENT TO WATERFORD 3, Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase II SOFTWARE VERIFICATION TEST REPORT COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
Nuclear Power Systems Power Systems Group Windsor, Connecticut 06095 NOVEMBER 1982 B302070621 830127 DRADOCK05000g
LEGAL NOTICE This response was prepared as an aceount of work sponsored by Combustion Engineering, Inc. Neither Combustion Engineering nor any person acting on its behalf:
a.
Makes any warranty or representation, express or implied including the warranties of fitness for a particular purpose or merchantability, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this response, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed.in this response may r:ot infringe privately owned rights; or b.
Assumes any liabilities 'with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this response.
t Page 2
ABSTRACT Phase II Testing is performed on the CPC/CEAC System to (1) verify that the CPC and CEAC software modifications have been properly integrated with CPC and CEAC software and system hardware; (2) provide confirmation that the static and dynamic operation of the integrated system as modified is consistent with that predicted by design analysis.
This supplement describes the results and resolutions of the open items which were identified in the Waterford 3, Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase II Software Verification Test Report (Reference 1).
I Page 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The verification process for the CPC/CEAC software implementation includes Phase I and Phase II Testings (Reference 2).
Phase I testing verifies the correct implementation of the software.
Phase II testing verifies that the integrated CPC system, software including hardware, responds as expected.' The Phase I and Phase II testings are described in References 1 and 3.
In Reference 1, three of the test cases in Dynamic Software Verification Test (DSVT), had test results that fell outside the acceptance criteria.
This supplement describes the analyses performed to show the Waterford-3 CPC/CEAC System Software (Rev. 00) is acceptable for plant safety operation.
2.0 DYNAMIC SOFTWARE VERIFICATION TEST The Dynamic Software Verification Test (DSVT) is a real time exercise of the CPC application software and executive software with transient CPC input values read from a storage device. The same CPC input values (test case) are executed on the Single Channel CPC and the certified CPC/CEAC FORTRAN simulation code.
Acceptance criteria for DSVT are defined (in Reference 2) as a trip time and initial values of DNBR and LPD for each test case.
The trip time and initial values of DNBR and LPD calculated by the CPC/CEAC FORTRAN simulation code, with the processing uncertainties factored in, will provide an acceptance range for the Single Channel CPC results.
2.1 FLOW TRANSIENTS In Reference 1, the time-to-DNBR trip observed on the Single Channel CPC
[,
]exceededthemaximumallowabletriptimesasdeterminedbytheCPC Page 4
FORTRAN simulation code.
Investigation showed the difference in trip I~
~~
times was due to the difference in by the two L
a systems.
The results of the two modified FORTRAN test cases are as follows:
l Initial DNBR Initial LPD (KW/FT)
Case Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
DNBR Trip (Sec.)
LPD Trip (Sec.)
Case Min.
Max.
Min.
Max.
A new Single Channel CPC input disk was created incorporating the same changesinthe([,
~
l lwere rerun on the Single Channel CPC with the following results.
Page 5
Case Initial Initial DNBR LPD DNBR LPD Trip (sec)
Trip (sec)
The Single Channel CPC results are in agreement with the FORTRAN simulation code results.
It is concluded that no software errors were identified.
2.2 BOTH CEACS FAIL DtJRING BANK 6 DROP TRANSIENT t
\\
Page 6
O
.c 3.0 PHASE II TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY
All the test results from the Phase II testing have been evaluated and it is concluded no safety concern exists.
The only discrepancy in the software implementation is related to the penalty factors when both CEACs fail.
Under these conditions, plant protection function of the CPC is maintained in the DNBR calculation, therefore the present software (Rev.
- 00) is acceptable for operation.
4.0 REFERENCES
1.
Waterford 3, Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase II Software Verification Test Report, CEN-208(C)-P, June 1982.
2.
CPC Protection Algorithm Software Change Procedure, CEN-39(A)-P, Rev. 02, December 21, 1978.
3.
Waterford-3 Cycle 1 CPC/CEAC Phase I Software Verification Test Report, CEN-209(C)-P, Rev. 00, June. 1982.
9 Page 7
,