ML15289A076

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 S, Berman I E, Rowland A M 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 5-074ENCLOSURE 7WESTINGHOUSE WCAP-1 8604-NP, (NON-PROPRIETARY) REVISION 0MONTICELLO EPU MAIN STEAM LINE STRAIN GAUGEDATA EVALUATION REPORT60 pages follow Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3WCAP-1 8064-NPRevision 0September 2015Monticello EPUMain Steam Line Strain GaugeData Evaluation Report Westinghouse WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3WCAP-18064-NPRevision 0Monticello EPUMain Steam Line Strain Gauge Data Evaluation ReportInessa E. Berman*BWR EngineeringSeptember 2015Reviewers: AnnMarie Rowland*BWR EngineeringApproved: Sanjaybir S. Bakshi*, ManagerBWR Engineering*Electronically approved records are authenticated in the electronic document management system.Westinghouse Electric Company LLC1000 Westinghouse DriveCranberry Township, PA 16066, USA© 2015 Westinghouse Electric Company LLCAll Rights ReservedWCAP- 1 8064-NP.docx iiTABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................iiLIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... ivEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... viLIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................. vii1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1- 12 ASSUMPTIONS AND SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK ..................................... 2-12.1 AS SUMPTIONS............................................................................... 2-12.2 ACOUSTIC SCREENING ................................................................... 2-12.3 SUB SCALE TESTING....................................................................... 2-13 DATA PROCESSING PLAN AND RESULTS ...................................................... 3-13.1 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................ 3-13.2 STRAIN-TO-PRESSURE CONVERSION ................................................. 3-23.3 NARROW-BAND FILTERING.............................................................. 3-43.4 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITY............................................................. 3-73.5 RMS PRESSURE DERIVATION ............................................................ 3-73.6 PSD DERIVATION ........................................................................... 3-73.7 WAVELET DENOISING..................................................................... 3-73.8 LIMIT CURVES DERIVIATION ........................................................... 3-94 INPUTS TO PROCESSING ........................................................................... 4-15 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.......................................................................... 5-15.1 DATA ANALYSIS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING OF MSL STRAIN GAUGEDATA AT [ ]a~c THERMAL POWER ........................................... 5-15.1.1 Evaluation of Raw MSL Strain Gauge Plant Data .............................. 5-15.1.2 Comparison of Raw MSL PSD -Data and EIC Signals ....................... 5-95.1.3 Strain to Pressure Conversion ................................................... 5-145.1.4 Wavelet DeNoising............................................................... 5-145.2 EVALUATION OF PLANT ACOUSTIC SIGNATURE.................................. 5-235.2.1 PSD Evaluation................................................................... 5-235.2.2 RMS Pressure Trends ............................................................ 5-325.2.3 Limit Curves ...................................................................... 5-346 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 6-17 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 7-1 iii°.LIST OF TABLESTable 3-1 Channel Combinations for Each Dataset .................................................... 3-3Table 3-2 Notch Filters, [.....................................................................3-4Table 3-3 Notch Filters, [.....................................................................3. 5Table 3-4 Notch Filters, [.....................................................................3-5Table 3-6 Notch Filters, [..................................................................... 3-6Table 3-7 Notch Filters, [..................................................................... 3-6Table 3-8 Notch Filters, [..................................................................... 3-6Table 4-1 Data Filenames and Recording Times ....................................................... 4-1Table 5-1 [ ]ac .............................5-14 ivLIST OF FIGURESFigure 5-1Figure 5-2Figure 5-3Figure 5-4Figure 5-5Figure 5-6Figure 5-7Figure 5-8Figure 5-9Figure 5-10Figure 5-11Figure 5-12Figure 5-13Figure 5-14Figure 5-15Figure 5-16Figure 5-17Figure 5-18Figure 5-19Figure 5-20Figure 5-21Figure 5-22................................ ................ 5-1........................ ................. 5-2............................... ............. 5-2................................ ..............5-3............................... ............ 5-3................................ .............. 5-4]......................5-4.................................... 5-6............................... ............... 5-7...................... ..................... 5-7].................5-9]a ........5-80] c .......5-11Sa¢........5-12] c.......5-11.................................................................. 5-12................................................................. 5-13......................................................5-15]a" .......................................................5-16]a ....................................................... 5-17IIFigure 5-23Figure 5-24Figure 5-25 VFigure 5-26[Figure 5-27 []a,c............................................................. 5-20]8'C. ......................................... 5-21Figure 5-28Figure 5-29Figure 5-30Figure 5-31Figure 5-32Figure 5-33Figure 5-34Figure 5-35Figure 5-36Figure 5-37Figure 5-38Figure 5-39Figure 5-40Figure 5-41Figure 5-42II]3° .......................................... 5-22........... ... ...............................................................................5-24......... ............................................................ i.......... 5-25........ ...................................................................... 5-26........ ........................................................................ 5-27........ ...................................................................... 5-28........ ..................................................................... 5-29........ ..................................................................... 5-30].... ...................................................... 5-31............ ....................................................... 5-32....... ..................................................................... 5-34........ .................................................................... 5-35........ .................................................................... 5-36........ .................................................................... 5-37 viEXECUTIVE SUMMARYMonticello Nuclear generating plant (MNGP, herein referred to as "Monticello") is implementing anextended power uprate (EPU) to increase plant power to[a]ac]aa~c]aa~c VIILIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSACM [ ]ASME American Society of Mechanical EngineersBWR boiling water reactorCLTP current licensed thermal power, 1775 MWtDAS data acquisition systemDS downstream (for Figures only)EIC electrical interference checkEPU extended power uprate, 2004 MWtFFT fast Fourier transformMSL main steam lineNRC Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOEM Original equipment manufacturerPCF [ ]PSD power spectral densityRMS root mean squareRSD Replacement steam dryerRRP reactor recirculation pumpSIA Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.SRV safety relief valveUS upstream (for Figures only)VPF vane passing frequenciesTrademark Note:MATLAB is a registered trademark of The Math Works, Inc.

1-11 INTRODUCTION1a~cTo satisfy the requirements of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commiss ion (NRC) RegulatoryGuide 1.20, Revision 3 (Reference 2), an analysis must be performed to demonstrate the structuralintegrity of reactor internal components,[]a~cCurrent industry experience has shown that increasing power in a boiling water reactor (BWR) byincreasing the steam speed in the MSLs may lead to pressure increases above the expected increase fromthe increase in dynamic pressure. [I]C These requirements are contained inRegulatory Guide 1.20, Revision 3 (Reference 2).From November 2014 till June 2015, Monticello went through power ascension from 1775 MWt to 2004MWt thermal power. During the power ascension, time-history recordings were taken from 64 straingages (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 powerlevel was described in Reference 4 through Reference 10.The main purposes for processing the Monticello data are as follows.1. []a~c2. [3. []a,c]a,c 2-12 ASSUMPTIONS AND SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS WORK2.1 ASSUMPTIONS[]a,cThe acoustic speed in steam is assumed to be 1600 ft/s (Reference 11).[I]a~cThe plant is assumed to be operating at steady state for the entire 4 minutes of data collection at each ofthe power levels at which data were collected.[]a~c2.2 ACOUSTIC SCREENING] a,bc2.3 SUBSCALE TESTING[]a,c 3-13 DATA PROCESSING PLAN AND RESULTSEPU 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 filteringoperations, as well as the processing for the data comparisons, were performed using custom MATLABprograms. These are documented in Reference 13. The processing methodology applied to theMonticello MSL strain gauge data was consistent with the benchmarking of the prediction of acousticpressures using MSL strain gauge data described in Reference 14.3.1 DATA COLLECTION][]a~c[]a~bData were recorded at each of the following approximate power levels:[a~bc 3-23.2 STRAIN-TO-PRESSURE CONVERSIONwhere, L I a'bab (3-1)K III ]a~cSa~b 3-3IIa.b 3-43.3 NARROW-BAND FILTERINGII]a,c[~a]ac]aa~eSTable 3-2 Notch Filters, [ ]__Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reason_fl b 3-5Table 3-3 Notch Filters, [ ]b ]Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type ReasonTable 3-4 Notch Filters, []Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type Reasonb-Table 3-5 Notch Filters, [Filter Order Low Freq High Freq [Filter TypeReasonb 3-6Table 3-6 Notch Filters, [ ]bFilter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter Type ReasonSTable 3-7 Notch Filters, [ ]bFilter OrderI Low Freq High Freq Filter Type ReasonbTable 3-8 Notch Filters, [Filter Order Low Freq High Freq Filter TypeReasonbII 3-73.4 POWER SPECTRAL DENSITYThe PSDs were calculated using Welch's Modified Periodogram method. The data were separated intosegments of 1 second, and a Hanning window was applied to reduce side-lobe leakage. This resulted in afrequency resolution of 1 Hertz.3.5 RMS PRESSURE DERIVATION]a,cL]ac(3 -2)where,KIa,c3.6 PSD DERIVATIONThe PSDs used in the methods presented in this report were derived using Welch's modified periodogrammethod. The signal was divided up into time ensembles with the same number of lines as the samplingfrequency, resulting in a 1 Hz frequency resolution in the final PSD. A Hanning window was used toreduce spectral leakage, and 50 percent overlap was used to increase the number of ensembles availablefor averaging.3.7 WAVELET DENOISINGIIII]a,c]ac[]a,o 3-8]aa~cFigure 3-1 [ ]a'c]a~c 3-9]a~c[]a,C (3-3)where,[ ]a~r ]a]a~c3.8 LIMIT CURVES DERIVIATION]aa~c[]a,c (3-4)[]a,c (3-5)where,]a,c[ a,c[ ]o~[]a,c 4-14 INPUTS TO PROCESSINGThe inputs to the data processing include the Monticello plant signals. These were gathered by MNGPduring and transmifted electronically to Westinghouse. The signals were formally documented inReference 13. The dates, times, and filenames are listed in Table 4-1.Table 4-1Data Filenames and Recording TimesFilenameSignalTypeDate TimePowerLevela,b 5-15 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS5.1 DATA ANALYSIS AND SIGNAL PROCESSING OF MSL STRAIN GAUGE DATAAT [ ]a~ THERMAL POWER5.1.1 Evaluation of Raw MSL Strain Gauge Plant DataThe raw time domain data and spectrograms from the MSL SG instruments were plotted and evaluatedfor channels that showed no data, or data that showed noticeable transients. If an MSL strain gaugechannel showed no data, it was removed from processing.[Figure 5-11[]b[

5-2Figure 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 alsoexcluded from processing.Figure 5-3[

5-3Figure 5-4 [j]K 7bFigure 5-5 5-4mbFigure 5-6 [ ]bF 7bFigure 5-7[

5-5bFigure 5-8 ]bn 7bFigure 5-9[

5-6]bbF 7bFigure 5-11 [jb 5-7]bbF 7bFigure 5-13[

5-8bFigure 5-15[jb 5-9b-Figure 5-16 [5.1.2 Comparison of Raw MSL PSD -Data and ETC Signals[]a~c 5-10a,bFigure 5-17 [J a,c 5-11a,bFigure 5-18[I ,c 5-12a,bFigure 5-19[la,c 5-13a,bFigure 5-20[I ,c 5-145.1.3 Strain to Pressure Conversion[]a,cb5.1.4 Wavelet De-Noising]a~o 5-15Sa,bFigure 5-21 [Sa,c 5-16a,bFigure 5-22[I, 5-17a,bFigure 5-23[Ia,c 5-18a,bFigure 5-24[Ia,c 5-19a,bFigure 5-25[a,c 5 -20a,bFigure 5-26[Ia,c 5-21-- a,bFigure 5-27[j ac 5 -22a,bFigure 5-28[I~

5 -235.2 EVALUATION OF PLANT ACOUSTIC SIGNATUREThe evaluation of the plant acoustic signature is performed by examining the PSDs and the RMS pressuretrends. The PSDs are derived as described in Section 3.6, and the RMS pressures are derived per themethodology detailed in Section 3.5.5.2.1 PSD Evaluation]a,c 5-24bFigure 5-29[jb 5-25bFigure 5-30[jb 5 -26bFigure 5-31[

5-27Figure 5-32 []

5-28bFigure 5-33 [jb 5-29bFigure 5-34[

5-30bFigure 5-35 []Ii 5-31bFigure 5-36[jb 5-325.2.2 RMS Pressure TrendsabbFigure 5-37[],

5-33bFigure 5-38[],

5-345.2.3 Limit CurvesThe minimum alternating stress ratio, which was derived in Reference 10 and is 1.43. Figure 5-39 throughFigure 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 [ ]

5-35bFigure 5-40 [b 5-36bFigure 5-41 [

5-375-3Figure 5-42 [IIb 6-16 CONCLUSIONS[]a~c[t~[]ac 7-17 REFERENCES1. []a~b2. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.20, Rev. 3, "ComprehensiveVibration Assessment Program for Reactor Internals During Preoperational and Initial StartupTesting," March 2007.3. []a,c4. []a~b5. r6.7. I8.9. I10. []a,cI a,c]a~b]a,c]a~c]a,c11. ASME, "ASME Steam Tables," Fifth Edition, 1983.12. []a~c13. I]a~c 7-214.]a,c15. r]ac16. I17. r18. [19.a,.c],.ca,.c