ML092460496

CDI Technical Note No. 09-12NP, Rev. 0, Limit Curve Analysis with ACM Rev. 4 for Power Ascension to 120% OLTP at Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1, Enclosure 7

ML092460496
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	08/31/2009
From:	Teske M Continuum Dynamics
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Tennessee Valley Authority
References
00077408, TAC MD5262, TS-431 CDI Technical Note No. 09-12NP, Rev 0
Download: ML092460496 (16)

Text

ENCLOSURE 7 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)UNIT I TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGE TS-431 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU)CDI TECHNICAL NOTE NO. 09-12NP, "LIMIT CURVE ANALYSIS WITH ACM REV. 4 FOR POWER ASCENSION TO 120% OLTP AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR UNIT 1," REVISION 0 (NON-PROPRIETARY VERSION)Attached is the non-proprietary version of CDI Technical Note No. 09-12NP, "Limit Curve Analysis with ACM Rev. 4 for Power Ascension to 120% OLTP at Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1."

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information C.D.I. Technical Note No. 09-12NP Limit Curve Analysis with ACM Rev. 4 for Power Ascension to 120% OLTP at Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Revision 0 Prepared by Continuum Dynamics, Inc.34 Lexington Avenue Ewing, NJ 08618 Prepared under Purchase Order No. 00077408 for TVA / Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Nuclear Plant Road, P. 0. Box 2000 PAB-2M Decatur, AL 35609 Approved by OL2&eA Alan J. Bilanin Prepared by Milton E. Teske August 2009 This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table of Contents Section Page T able of C ontents ......................................................................

i 1. Introdu ction ............................................................................

1 2 .A pproach ..........................................................

...................

2 3. L im it C urves .......................................................

...................

4 4 .R eferen ces .............................................................................

9 This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

1. Introduction During power ascension of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 (BFN 1), from 110% Original Licensed Thermal Power (OLTP) to 120% OLTP (Extended Power Uprate, or EPU), TVA is required to monitor the dryer stresses at plant power levels that have not yet been achieved.Limit curves provide an upper bound safeguard against the potential for dryer stresses becoming higher than allowable, by estimating the not-to-be-exceeded main steam line pressure levels. In the case of BFN 1, in-plant main steam line data have been analyzed at Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP) conditions (based on Unit 1 data) to provide steam dryer hydrodynamic loads [1].CLTP is 105% of OLTP. A finite element model stress analysis has been undertaken on the CLTP loads [2]. These loads provide the basis for generation of the limit curves to be used during BFNI power ascension.

Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (C.D.I.) has developed an acoustic circuit methodology (ACM) that determines the relationship between main steam line data and pressure on the steam dryer [3]. This methodology and the use of a finite element model analysis provide the computational algorithm from which dryer stresses at distinct steam dryer locations can be tracked through power ascension.

Limit curves allow TVA to limit dryer stress levels, by comparing the main steam line pressure readings -represented in Power Spectral Density (PSD)format -with the upper bound PSD derived from existing in-plant data.This technical note summarizes the proposed approach that will be used to track the anticipated stress levels in the BFN1 steam dryer (with all final EPU modifications incorporated) during power ascension from 110% OLTP to 120% OLTP, utilizing Rev. 4 of the ACM [4], and the options available to TVA should a limit curve be reached.

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

2. Approach The limit curve analysis for BFN1, to be used during power ascension, is patterned after the approach followed by Entergy Vermont Yankee (VY) in its power uprate [5]. In the VY analysis, two levels of steam dryer performance criteria were described:

(1) a Level 1 pressure level based on maintaining the ASME allowable alternating stress value on the dryer, and (2) a Level 2 pressure level based on maintaining 80% of the allowable alternating stress value on the dryer. The VY approach is summarized in [6].To develop the limit curves for BFN 1, the stress levels in the dryer were calculated for the current plant acoustic signature, at CLTP conditions, and then used to determine how much the acoustic signature could be increased while maintaining stress levels below the stress fatigue limit. During power ascension, strain gage data will be converted to pressure in PSD format at each of the eight main steam line locations, for comparison with the limit curves. The strain gage data will be monitored throughout power ascension to observe the onset of discrete peaks, if they occur.The finite element analysis of in-plant CLTP data found a lowest alternating stress ratio of 2.77 [2] as summarized in Table 1. The minimum stress ratios include the model bias and uncertainties for specific frequency ranges as suggested by the NRC [7, 8]. The results of the ACM Rev. 4 analysis (based on Quad Cities Unit 2, or QC2, in-plant data) are summarized in Table 2 (a negative bias is conservative).

The standpipe excitation frequency of the main steam safety relief valves in BFN1 is anticipated to be 111 Hz [9], and thus the uncertainty determined around the QC2 excitation frequency of 155 Hz has been applied to the 109 to 113 Hz frequency interval.

Note also that it is anticipated that the 218 Hz will be mitigated.

by plugging the blank standpipes prior to power ascension, and that the stress analysis is based on this modification.

The additional bias and uncertainties, as identified in [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15], are shown in Table 3. SRSS of the uncertainties, added to the ACM bias, results in the total uncertainties shown in Table 4. These uncertainties were applied to the finite element analysis, resulting in the minimum stress ratio of 2.77.1 Table 1. Peak Stress Limit Summary for ACM Rev. 4 Peak Stress Limit 113,600 psi (Level 1) 10,880 psi (Level 2)Minimum Stress Ratio 2.77 2.22 2 This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Table 2. Bias and uncertainty for ACM Rev. 4[I (3)]]1 Table 3. BFN 1 additional uncertainties (with references cited)(3)]]1 Table 4. BFN1 total uncertainty (3)]3 This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

3. Limit Curves Limit curves were generated from the in-plant CLTP strain gage data collected on Unit 1 and reported in [1]. These data were filtered across the frequency ranges shown in Table 5 to remove noise and extraneous signal content, as suggested in [16]. The resulting PSD curves for each of the eight strain gage locations were used to develop the limit curves, shown in Figures 1 to 4. Level 1 limit curves are found by multiplying the signals by the limiting stress ratio (2.77).Level 2 limit curves are found by multiplying the signals by 80% of the limiting stress ratio (2.22). PSD results are then developed from the Level I and Level 2 pressure signals.Consistent with the stress analysis [2], the peaks at 218 Hz on all eight strain gage signals were also filtered from the main steam line data prior to the development of the limit curves.BFNI intends to mitigate the effect of the eight blind standpipes on main steam lines A and D, prior to power ascension.

Table 5. Exclusion frequencies for BFNl at CLTP conditions (VFD = variable frequency drive, Recirc = recirculation pumps)Frequency Interval (Hz) Exclusion Cause 0.0-2.0 Mean 59.8 -60.2 Line Noise 119.9 -120.1 Line Noise 179.8 -180.2 Line Noise 239.9 -240.1 Line Noise 51.3-51.7 VFD (Ix)127.0 -128.5 Recirc Pumps A, B Speed (5x)217.9 -219.6 Standpipe Excitation 4

This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)]]Figure 1. Level 1 (black) and Level 2 (red) limit curves for main steam line A, compared against the base curves (blue) over the frequency range of interest:

A upper strain gage location (top); A lower strain gage location (bottom).5

• This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information Figure 2. Level 1 (black) and Level 2 (red) limit curves for main steam line B, compared against the base curves (blue) over the frequency range of interest:

B upper strain gage location (top); B lower strain gage location (bottom).6 This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)]]Figure 3. Level 1 (black) and Level 2 (red) limit curves for main steam line C, compared against the base curves (blue) over the frequency range of interest:

C upper strain gage location (top); C lower strain gage location (bottom).7 This Document Does NotContain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information (3)]]Figure 4. Level 1 (black) and Level 2 (red) limit curves for main steam line D, compared against the base curves (blue) over the frequency range of interest:

D upper strain gage location (top); D lower strain gage location (bottom).8 This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary -Information

4. References

1. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2009. Acoustic and Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Loads at CLTP Power Level to 120% OLTP Power Level on Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer to 250 Hz (Rev. 0). C.D.I. Report No. 09-23 (Proprietary).

2. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2009. Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer to 120% OLTP Power Level (Rev. 0). C.D.I. Report No. 09-25 (Proprietary).

3. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Methodology to Determine Unsteady Pressure Loading on Components in Reactor Steam Domes (Rev. 6). C.D.I. Report No. 04-09 (Proprietary).

4. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2007. Methodology to Predict Full Scale Steam Dryer Loads from In-Plant Measurements, with the Inclusion of a Low Frequency Hydrodynamic Contribution (Rev. 1). C.D.I. Report No. 07-09 (Proprietary).

5. Entergy Nuclear Northeast.

2006. Entergy Vermont Yankee Steam Dryer Monitoring Plan (Rev. 4). Docket 50-271. No. BVY 06-056. Dated 29 June 2006.6. State of Vermont Public Service Board. 2006. Petition of Vermont Department of Public Service for an Investigation into the Reliability of the Steam Dryer and Resulting Performance of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station under Uprate Conditions.

Docket No. 7195. Hearings held 17-18 August 2006.7. NRC Request for Additional Information on the Hope Creek Generating Station, Extended Power Uprate. 2007. RAI No. 14.67.8. NRC Request for Additional Information on the Browns Ferry Generating Station, Extended Power Uprate. 2009. RAI No. 204/168.9. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2008. Flow-Induced Vibration in the Main Steam Lines at Browns Ferry Nuclear Units 1 and 2, With and Without Acoustic Side Branches, and Resulting Steam Dryer Loads (Rev. 0). C.D.I. Report No. 08-14 (Proprietary).

10. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. 2007. Evaluation of Browns Ferry Unit 1 Strain Gage Uncertainty and Pressure Conversion Factors (Rev. 0). SIA Calculation Package No. BFN-12Q-302.11. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Vermont Yankee Instrument Position Uncertainty.

Letter Report Dated 01 August 2005.12. Exelon Nuclear Generating LLC. 2005. An Assessment of the Effects of Uncertainty in the Application of Acoustic Circuit Model Predictions to the Calculation of Stresses in the Replacement Quad Cities Units I and 2 Steam Dryers (Rev. 0). Document No. AM-21005-008.9 This Document Does Not Contain Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Proprietary Information

13. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2007. Finite Element Modeling Bias and Uncertainty Estimates Derived from the Hope Creek Unit 2 Dryer Shaker Test (Rev. 0). C.D.I. Report No. 07-27 (Proprietary).

14. NRC Request for Additional Information on the Hope Creek Generating Station, Extended Power Uprate. 2007. RAI No. 14.79.15. NRC Request for Additional Information on the Hope Creek Generating Station, Extended Power Uprate. 2007. RAI No. 14.1 t0.16. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. 2007. Browns Ferry Unit 1 Main Steam Line 100%CLTP Strain Data Transmission.

SIA Letter Report No. KKF-07-012.

10 ENCLOSURE 8 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (BFN)UNIT 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (TS) CHANGE TS-431 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE (EPU)CDI AFFIDAVIT Attached is the CDI affidavit for the proprietary information contained in Enclosures 1, 2, and 3.

C Cn t i niiu~uin py.na`rn i c s In c (609) 538-0444 (609) 538-0464 fax 34 Lexington Avenue ~Ew~ing, NJ 086 18-2302kýAFFIDXVIý'.

C.D.. RpbrtNo.092P "coutican Low- requencyý H~~oynaýLodsa CLTP<Pow, L~~t uclear.. Unit CZDI Rpor No09 5P Str~s ~s~sirentofBrowns Ferry ' Ncear Uit I!Stea""Dryer o1!20/o O L... ...........

i ...C.DTI-- L "I ecwclNt o,0-2hLiiv~r'?alsswt C ~.4 I~ ~ ~~~~S!A hold th po3itioh 'IArsdiiSnoiAscae ofCniUmDnaics,:-

Ic.DLk (hrenfte ~fer-r-dt asC .DI. n I am atit6rizd~tovk' tbereusfo C"Descr17bed-in arp .Ti Affiavi is sumte to Athe Nuclear 4 Rultry anec'i ehidnf" mt fro C.M- deoi ndePreg and6 in confidence.

2.~ ~ ~ ~ 6ý:.Reo Th Information sogttcewthlajrnmte o TVAd Brons Fherya atacmetstoC..

e-erNoap3 aeis 27Auusmite 2009 C.D.T NceReporatNo 09-23 "Aosic L~:.8ow i F S reqeiby ~di:,odv:

'ynaic Loads atn CLTP LAevelie to Pai%'OLTP Poe T-v1onro wns, Fer ucerUit1Sea re Stom2iH," Revrison0; CuRes.D .;.,-T.: 2r .ba-s "St.ed- o the .faet ofa. Browns FterrymND&kr Ui 1 t eam P0 12:g0%elTP PRflnowernd Level, Reiso 0;. Ascensvei tho inforatiPn afrto t.Br. i und er Revisioence

3. The Information soughtarzeswthla:rnmtedt V rwsFrya (a) anprmcetsto mtdlo s, Luding supporateing dataust an si, whereporntion of23 itscousti bynd C LDow Frqsnc coptfriihydout ics Loads a CLTP consiwesra Leeomp20%

tiTe Pdataeower Ltere onmBrani es; ula nt ta re (bto 50Hz".Revision 0h;h CDif usedbaopeiort wNo .09-5 Sress use~hssexendtuo reofns Fr Nulear Unitiso imSrem Ds in-thefdnrreviDfsioin , an ip. .t.. .Technic alN te n h C urveAnal ysiis9 wih oArC Re.g o f Ascension to 1 d0scLTatBoses FaeryNt ulearUi , eiin0 The Information whicharz..e....s.-fbeciiiatte{r-for whicitlm6 y -be (.eb), lt Ion- w ich, ifen br te ctiior, isee of....... .... .. uclea.',r

~til :Dry er ito ,1 0)::ýýOsiti ower thevdesign e sm n ,anufctr ,: -....... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Mlti ... &&Ifiia]N t

i le: ic-l "sis goith ACM Rev rpfr-o weut; :-.-., ,,:sen tm o;l2 O TPatr'nsMryNslet

.,-

? i :. : : h,: i p': ef<: i t.:

.' Ji',4 ::iU ::i~~!: : -, y ,P,,. .,- .-... ,:'is ... ./ : .:,:. ::,. , :: : ;i::. .3 l e mI o ti'iit ub j'::ý *,,:_h :

i: ,. -.. ...... ff ia:!,:'!~:.i -b e :,.~i ...'......!.:... ( [ ., {.," AD i s"}',. .ioSC ;-'0aiS gi:wtC[.u d -!,?mg. wi e Yi: i6 sit !e [ ...: :... -'..* : ).: :.,M ':g!,ibn ic, H[ c6 p ild :i~ n fa !i)7.: ' .. .:: *: ' a:--:'::m

/

-:::.:' :7::',' -, ;:",. :'::.% .%., j;-'-:p h :::.5.?- r o e d io n .,;,:,/:'

L:::"Lf;J:'f":f :% -...;:. 7 .: :,./. Aes::i~iiHiý.Abk

!i~to IOibain _p` giign

tb qhflt;.6+i~~~i'

_fg:sm ~

T he information sought to be withheld is cosdee tobepropirietary for, the, reasons s'et forth in paragraphs 3(a),3(b) and 3(c) above.4. The Information has been 'held in confidence by C.D.L., its owner. The Information has consistently been held in corntNifnce by C.D.. iaind 'ino puPblic disclosure has been made and it is not avail able to the ipublic.!

to third partieswhich have' been lirmite'd, h'ave been made pursuant .to the terms 'and conditions contained in C.D.I.'s Nondisclosure Secrecy Agreement which must be fully eXecuted prior to disclosure.

... ' " .5. The iInformati6onis a type customarily heldiin confidence by C.D.I. and 'there is a rational basis therefore.

The Information considers trade secreti and is held' in confidence by. C .D.I. because itconstitutes, a source of.competitive advantage and performance of such work in the induistry.

Public disclosure of the Information is' lik 'to cause.substantial harm to .&D.Ls conmpetitive p'osition and foreclose ieducethe availability of profit-making opportunities.

I declare under penalty of perejury that the 'foregoing affidavit and mattefs stated therein air true and correct to be the best of myy knowledge, information and belief.Executed on i day of ./J60 .,-2009.Alan JBann Continuum Dynamics, Inc.Subscribed and sworn before me this day: -cU6Y giI6&ý.Urrn4t ,Notary Public EILEEN P. BURMEISTER NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My COMM, EXPIRES MAY 6,2012