ML071360377
| ML071360377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/2007 |
| From: | Bilanin A, Teske M Continuum Dynamics |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Public Service Enterprise Group |
| References | |
| LCR H05-01, Rev. 1, LR-N07-0102 06-16NP, Rev 2 | |
| Download: ML071360377 (95) | |
Text
Attachment 4 LR-N07-0102 LCR H05-01, Rev. 1 Hope Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License NPF-57 Docket No. 50-354 Extended Power Uprate Estimating High Frequency Flow Induced Vibration in the Main Steam Lines at Hope Creek Unit 1: A Subscale Four Line Investigation of Standpipe Behavior CDI Report No. 06-16NP, Revision 2 April 2007
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information C.D.I. Report No. 06-16NP Estimating High Frequency Flow Induced Vibration in the Main Steam Lines at Hope Creek Unit 1: A Subscale Four Line Investigation of Standpipe Behavior Revision 2 Prepared by Continuum Dynamics, Inc.
34 Lexington Avenue Ewing, NJ 08618 Prepared under Purchase Order No. 4500341046 for Nuclear Business Unit, PSEG Nuclear LLC Materials Center, Alloway Creek Neck Road Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Approved by O/444 Alan J. Bilanin Reviewed by Milton E. Teske April 2007
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Executive Summary As part of the engineering effort in support of power uprate at Hope Creek Unit 1, Continuum Dynamics, Inc. undertook a subscale examination of the standpipe/valve geometry on two of the four main steam lines (one at a time), in an effort to validate the frequency onset at which flow induced vibration, resulting from standpipe/valve flow resonance, could potentially impact steam dryer loads. In this study Continuum Dynamics, Inc. constructed a nominal one-fifth scale model of main steam lines A and D at Hope Creek Unit 1, from the steam dome to just beyond the standpipes, then tested the as-built configuration of standpipes and Target Rock valves. The one-fifth scale results indicate that at Extended Power Uprate (EPU) conditions the standpipes and Target Rock valves will have a low level of excitation, and that this loading should receive further evaluation.
As part of a follow-on effort, Continuum Dynamics, Inc. constructed a nominal one-eighth scale model of the complete steam line system at Hope Creek Unit 1, from the steam dome to the turbine, with the objective of determining whether the existing standpipes have an acceptable level of excitation.
This effort provides PSEG with a subscale test that quantifies the level of excitation to be expected at Hope Creek Unit I at EPU conditions. EPU is 115% of Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP).
i
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Summary of Changes from Revision 1 to Revision 2 Revision 2 of C.D.I. Report No.06-16P reflects changes due to information developed after release of Revision 1, as explained below.
- 1. Revision I of C.D.I. Report No.06-16P included discussion and data on shortening the standpipes. PSEG elected not to shorten the standpipes, after determining that such a step would not eliminate SRV resonance at EPU conditions.
The shortened standpipe discussion has therefore been removed from Revision 2.
- 2. Revision 1 of C.D.I. Report No.06-16P summarized SMT results that predicted the onset of SRV acoustic resonance at approximately halfway between 80% and 90% CLTP conditions, whereas in-plant data showed that there was no SRV acoustic resonance at or below 100% CLTP conditions. As a consequence, C.D.I. re-benchmarked the SMT to provide more accurate loads. The benchmarking discussion has therefore been revised in Revision 2 to reflect the re-benchmarking.
- 3. Following the SMT re-benchmarking, all affected text, tables, and figures were revised to reflect the corrected power level. The run labeled in Revision 1 as CLTP was determined to represent 116% CLTP conditions, and was used in Revision 2 as EPU (115% CLTP).
Additional subscale tests were run to obtain data for the corrected CLTP conditions.
- 4. Based on this discussion, the revised power levels are as follows:
Power Level % CLTP Prior Power Level % CLTP to Re-Benchmarking After Re-Benchmarking 80 93 86 (new data) 100 90 105 100 116 105 122 110 128 112 130 115 134 125 145 135 157 145 169 ii
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Table of Contents Section Page Executive Sum m ary..................................................................
i Summary of Changes from Revision I to Revision 2...........................
ii T able of C ontents.....................................................................
iii
- 1. Introduction............................................................................
1
- 2. O bjectives............................................................................
2
- 3. Theoretical Approach................................................................
3 3.1 Side Branch Excitation Mechanism........................................
3 3.2 Scaling L aw s...................................................................
4
- 4. T est A pproach.......................................................................
7 4.1 T est D esign.....................................................................
7
- 5. Test Apparatus and Instrumentation...............................................
12 5.1 Experimental Facility....................................
12 5.2 Evaluation of Mach Number at the Standpipes...........................
12 5.3 Re-Benchmarking of the Mach Number at CLTP........................
13 5.3 Instrumentation and Data Acquisition.....................................
15
- 6. T est M atrix...........................................................................
17
- 7. T est Procedure........................................................................
18 7.1 Data Collection 18 7.2 Data Reduction 18
- 8. Results and Discussion..............................................................
20 8.1 Excitation Frequency.........................................................
20 8.2 Mach Number Effect / Plant Power Level.................................
21 8.3 Comparison of PDSs.........................................................
21 8.4 Steam Dryer Loads from the Acoustic Circuit Method..................
27
- 9. C onclusions...........................................................................
30
- 10. R eferences.............................................................................
31 Appendix A: Standpipe Valve Cross-Section...................................
33 Appendix B: PSD Results..........................................................
35 iii
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 1. Introduction As part of its effort in support of power uprate at Hope Creek Unit I (HC1), PSEG Nuclear LLC contracted with Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (C.D.I.) to evaluate existing main steam line data (collected downstream of the standpipes) to estimate the pressure loads expected on the steam dryer at Current Licensed Thermal Power (CLTP). These results [1], coupled with a finite element analysis of the resulting loads [2], suggested that the steam dryer stresses are acceptable at CLTP conditions. To go to higher power levels (EPU), PSEG requested that C.D.I.
evaluate the potential for flow induced vibration (FIV) in the main steam lines as a result of resonance of the as-built standpipe/valve combination. Studies conducted by Exelon for Quad Cities Unit I and Unit 2 suggested that excitation of the standpipe/valve should be explored, as this mechanism was most responsible for the pressure loading experienced on the Quad Cities steam dryers [3].
Such a study was undertaken for Hope Creek [4], and suggested that the as-built configuration, at EPU conditions, would be past excitation onset, and that this loading should receive further evaluation.
The frequencies associated with FIV are known to correspond to a resonance associated with the inlet standpipes connected to safety valves, and have been the source of problems in several power plants in recent years [5-8]. Specifically, in [8], C.D.I. conducted a series of tests in support of damage observed on Columbia's main steam line safety valves.
These tests concluded that the geometry of the Columbia standpipes and safety valve inlets, with flow conditions of approximately 60% to 70% of licensed power, resulted in a resonance at approximately 1050 Hz in a scaled facility (corresponding to approximately 204 Hz in the plant).
The observation was made that properly scaled tests could provide data that could be used for design.
At the request of PSEG, C.D.I. applied the insights gained from the study on Columbia, and previous work for Exelon, to the HC1 standpipe/valve configuration.
This report summarizes the test results on a scale model of the HCI plant with four main steam lines.
I
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 2. Objectives Construction of a high Reynolds number subscale test facility, simulating the steam delivery system ofHCl, was done so as to achieve the following goals:
- 1. Measure the excitation frequency and amplitudes of the as-built standpipe/valve configuration (encompassing all four main steam lines) at HC1, and determine the behavior of the system at CLTP and EPU conditions.
- 2.
Provide main steam line pressure data to be used with the acoustic circuit model to predict unsteady HC I steam dryer loads at CLTP and EPU conditions.
2
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 3. Theoretical Approach A one-eighth test facility is proposed as a means of measuring the effect of standpipes on the anticipated acoustic signal to the steam dome. A description of the phenomenon at work, analytical tools to be used, and scaling laws justifying the subscale tests are given here.
3.1 Side Branch Excitation Mechanism The phenomenon of flow-excited acoustic resonance of closed side branches has been examined for many years (see as early as [9] and [10]). In this situation acoustic resonance of the side branch is caused by feedback from the acoustic velocity of the resonant standing wave in the side branch itself. Figure 3.1 illustrates the typical geometry used here and in the standpipes at HCI. The main steam line flow velocity U approaches an open side branch of diameter d and length L. Pressure p as a function of time t can be measured at the closed end of the pipe. The flow velocity induces perturbations in the shear layer at the upstream separation location in the main steam line. As these perturbations are amplified and convected downstream, they interact with the acoustic field and produce acoustic energy which reinforces the resonance of the acoustic mode. Ziada has studied this effect extensively [11-13], and has shown that the flow velocity of first onset of instability Un corresponds to a typical Strouhal number of St = 0.55, where St is defined as St = f(d + r)
Uon (3.1) where d is the diameter of the standpipe, r is the radius of the inlet chamfer, and f is the first mode of acoustic oscillation in the pipe system. A design chart that more accurately infers St, based on d and the diameter D of the main steam line, may be found in [11].
U L
Figure 3.1. Schematic of the side branch geometry.
3
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Solving for Uon in Equation 3.1, it may be seen that the onset velocity is linearly proportional to the standpipe diameter, so long as that diameter does not change the first acoustic mode frequency of the standpipe.
The implications of this side branch excitation frequency may be seen by examining the behavior of the pressure response as a function of Strouhal number St (Figure 3.2). For large Strouhal numbers (beginning on the right side of the figure), the RMS pressure p1, s begins increasing (at a specific onset Strouhal number and flow velocity Uon, depending on acoustic speed a, pipe diameter d, and pipe length L), reaches a peak value, then decreases. Flow velocity increases from right to left in this figure, where it may then be seen that this phenomenon - if it occurs in a standpipe/valve configuration - will occur at a low power level, reach a peak effect, then diminish and disappear at sufficiently high power levels.
0.6 Increasing 0.5 04 r/d p s/q 0.3 0,2 O'l 0.0 0,30 035 040 045 0.50 0.55 Strouhal No., St ad Figure 3.2. Strouhal number behavior, where q is the dynamic pressure (/2pU 2), p is the fluid density, and a is the acoustic speed [14].
Initially, it may be anticipated that the first mode frequency f1 can be approximated by the quarter-standing wave frequency of the standpipe/valve combination f" = a (3.2) 4L Since the standpipe/valve combination changes area as a function of distance from the main steam line to the valve disk, a more accurate estimate of f, may be generated by including these area change effects.
The combination of an accurate excitation frequency f1 and subsequent calculation of onset velocity Uon with the appropriate Strouhal number then characterizes the behavior of the standpipe/valve combination considered.
3.2 Scaling Laws (3)]
4
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
5
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3) ))
6
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 4. Test Approach The purpose of the testing effort is to measure the excitation frequency and amplitudes of the as-built standpipe/valve configuration, and determine its behavior at CLTP and EPU conditions. To do so, a one-eighth scaled test facility was constructed that represents the HCI steam delivery system.
4.1 Test Design (3)1]
7
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))1 The standpipe locations at HC I are summarized in Table 4.1. Main steam line drawings and all necessary details were provided by PSEG in [16].
Table 4.1. Standpipe location summary at HC1.
Main Steam Line Valve Type A
A A
B B
B B
B C
C C
C D
D D
Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Blind Flange Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Target Rock Distance From Upstream Elbow (ft) 5.13 8.14 11.16 6.95 10.11 17.90 21.06 24.21 6.95 10.07 17.86 24.17 5.09 8.15 11.17 From drawings, pictures, and additional information supplied by PSEG [16], an approximate cross-sectional area of each standpipe/valve configuration -
as a function of distance from the main steam line - was generated. These cross-sectional areas include the standpipe length and diameter, mating flange to the valve, and internal valve geometries to the closed end of the valve. The configuration tested is shown in Appendix A.
The single spare location on main steam line B was also modeled.
This location is identical to the other locations except that the SRV is replaced with a blank flange.
8
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Figure 4.2. Subscale dryer schematic.
9
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3) 1]
Figure 4.3a. The four MSLs from the steam dome to past the standpipes. Note the standpipes.
(3)]
Figure 4.3b. The four MSLs from the steam dome to past the "D" ring. The four lines off the right side of the picture should actually be down (the whole piping system is on its side). The pipe in front is from the one-fifth scale test.
10
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure 4.3c. Detail at the "D" ring.
(3)
Figure 4.3d. Turbine end of MSLs - the tank is the accumulator for the one-fifth scale test rig.
The closer valves are opened simultaneously to initiate the test. The far valves (at the comer of the piping on the right center of the picture) are the control valves and were set to 15 degrees closed, consistent with the Quad Cities work.
11
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 5. Test Apparatus and Instrumentation Test apparatus for the PSEG one-eighth scale test program consists of a pressure tank, a system of pipes to model full scale steam lines, two sets of interchangeable model pressure relief valves, four ball valves, and a set of interchangeable orifices.
5.1 Experimental Facility (3)))
12
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3) 1]
13
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
14
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Table 5.1. Plant power and main steam line Mach numbers, where the CLTP Mach number =
0.0913 and the EPU (1.15 x CLTP) Mach number = 0.1050.
((
15
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure 5.3. Schematic of data acquisition system with ten DP transducers.
16
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 6. Test Matrix Table 6.1. Hope Creek Unit 1 Four-Line Test Matrix.
[(
)
(3)))
17
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 7. Test Procedure 7.1 Data Collection (3)))
7.2 Data Reduction (3)))
18
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure 7.1. Stagnation pressure time history.
19
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 8. Results and Discussion The purpose of the PSEG subscale test program was to characterize the behavior of the standpipe/valves currently at HC 1.
It should be noted that, overall, the 37 tests summarized previously in Table 6.1 can be divided into three general areas of investigation:
- 1. Tests hc2-1 to hc2-6 served to shakedown the piping system.
- 2. Tests hc2-7 to hc2-15 developed the statistics needed to characterize the behavior of the Mach number, from the entrance to the orifice (Figure 5.1). ((
(3)))1
- 3.
Tests hc2-16 to hc2-36, and hc2-57 and hc2-58, examined the behavior of the as-built configuration for all Mach numbers tested.
The results of the test program may be examined with regard to excitation frequency and RMS pressure as a function of power level, comparison of PSDs, and predicted peak pressures on the steam dryer. Of these, the change in peak pressures on the steam dryer provides the best extrapolation of the potential impact on steam dryer stresses.
8.1 Excitation Frequency
()
(3)))
20
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 8.2 Mach Number Effect / Plant Power Level The subscale tests swept Mach number by changing orifice size (increasing orifice size to increase Mach number). The effect of Mach number is not easily seen from a review of the PSDs of measured pressure (found in Appendix B). However, the task is simplified by noting that the largest contribution to the RMS is the discrete frequency peaks attributed to the excitation of valve standpipes. Figures 8.1 to 8.5 plot the normalized RMS pressures at the ten pressure transducers as a function of Mach number (plant power level). RMS pressures include the signal from 600 to 900 Hz.
Every Mach number was repeated, and except for an outlier in Figure 8.3 for PD6, the test pairs appear reproducible. The curves shown on these figures are cubic curve fits to the data.
RMS pressures include only the signal from 600 to 900 Hz to better demonstrate the change due to SRV excitation.
I'l (3)]1 8.3 Comparisons of PSDs All data obtained have been reduced to PSDs of the pressure, where the pressures have been normalized by CLTP main steam line dynamic pressure. This allows comparison between normalized PSDs so that data can be compared directly. Appendix B contains these PSD plots for all collected data.
((I 3)))
Similar comparisons can be made with all the data in Appendix B.
21
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
ý3)))
Figure 8.1.
Normalized RMS pressure on main steam line A.
PD1: upstream pressure transducer; PD2: downstream pressure transducer.
22
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Figure 8.2.
Normalized RMS pressure on main steam line B.
PD3: upstream pressure transducer; PD4: downstream pressure transducer.
Z3)] ]
23
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Figure 8.3.
Normalized RMS pressure on main steam line C.
PD5: upstream pressure transducer; PD6: downstream pressure transducer.
24
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure 8.4. Normalized RMS pressure on main steam line D.
PD7: upstream pressure transducer; PD8: downstream pressure transducer.
25
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
Figure 8.5.
Normalized RMS pressure at the dryer pressure transducers. PD9: opposite main steam line A; PD10: opposite main steam line D.
26
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Table 8.2. RMS pressure summary of one-eighth scale tests (600 to 900 Hz only).
(3)))
8.4 Steam Dryer Loads from the Acoustic Circuit Model Comparing pressure time histories at discrete locations in the steam delivery system is complicated by the fact that the measured pressure is both a function of source amplitude and frequency. Figure 8.8 plots the low resolution results for peak normalized differential pressures across the steam dryer, comparing CLTP conditions with EPU conditions. The non-physical 80 Hz signal has been removed from these results [21].
ý3j))
27
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
Figure 8.6. Normalized PSD for Test hc2-57: as-built configuration at a Mach number = CLTP.
Dryer A: steam dryer pressure transducer location opposite MSL A; Dryer D: steam dryer pressure transducer location opposite MSL D.
(3)))
(3)))1 Figure 8.7. Normalized PSD for Test hc2-23: as-built configuration at a Mach number = 1.15 x CLTP. Dryer A: steam dryer pressure transducer location opposite MSL A; Dryer D: steam dryer pressure transducer location opposite MSL D.
28
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[I Figure 8.8.
Dryer peak differential pressure loads computed on the one-eighth scale steam dryer using the Bounding Pressure Methodology acoustic circuit model [22].
(3)))
29
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 9. Conclusions One-eighth scale tests measured the excitation frequency and amplitudes of the as-built standpipe/valve configuration (encompassing all four main steam lines) at HC1, as a function of entrance Mach number, and determined the behavior of the system at CLTP and EPU conditions.
30
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 10. References
- 1. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Hydrodynamic Loads on Hope Creek Unit I Steam Dryer to 200 Hz. C.D.I. Report No. 05-17.
- 2. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Stress Analysis of the Hope Creek Unit I Steam Dryer for CLTP. C.D.I. Report No. 05-25.
- 3. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Evaluation of Continuum Dynamics, Inc. Steam Dryer Load Methodology Against Quad Cities Unit 2 In-Plant Data. C.D.I. Report No. 05-10.
- 4. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Onset of High Frequency Flow Induced Vibration in the Main Steam Lines at Hope Creek Unit 1: A Subscale Investigation of Standpipe Behavior.
C.D.I. Report No. 05-31.
- 5. Webb, M. and P. Ellenberger. 1995. Piping Retrofit Reduces Valve-Damaging Flow Vibration.
Power Engineering.
- 6. Bernstein, M. D. and Bloomfield, W. J. 1989. Malfunction of Safety Valves Due to Flow Induced Vibration. Flow-Induced Vibrations 1989 (ed: M. K. Au-Yang, S. S. Chen, S. Kaneko and R. Chilukuri) PVP 154: 155-164. New York: ASME.
- 7. Coffman, J. T. and Bernstein, M. D. 1980. Failure of Safety Valves Due to Flow Induced Vibration. Transactions of the ASME 102.
- 8. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2002. Mechanisms Resulting in Leakage from Main Steam Safety Valves. C.D.I. Technical Note No. 02-16.
- 9. Chen, Y. N. and D. Florjancic. 1975. Vortex-Induced Resonance in a Pipe System due to Branching. Proceedings of International Conference on Vibration and Noise in Pump, Fan and Compressor Installations 79-86. University of Southampton, England.
- 10. Baldwin, R. M. and H. R. Simmons. 1986. Flow-Induced Vibration in Safety Relief Valves.
ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology 108: 267-272.
- 11. Ziada, S. and Shine, S. 1999. Strouhal Numbers of Flow-Excited Acoustic Resonance of Closed Side Branches. Journal of Fluids and Structures 13: 127-142.
- 12. Ziada, S. 1994. A Flow Visualization Study of Flow Acoustic Coupling at the Mouth of a Resonant Side-Branch. Journals of Fluids and Structures 8: 391-416.
- 13. Graf, H. R. and S. Ziada. 1992. Flow-Induced Acoustic Resonance in Closed Side Branches:
An Experimental Determination of the Excitation Source. Proceedings of ASME International Symposium on Flow-Induced Vibration and Noise, Vol. 7: Fundamental Aspects of Fluid-Structure Interactions (ed: M. P. Paidoussis, T. Akylas and P. B. Abraham). AMD-Vol. 51: 63-
- 80. New York: ASME.
31
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
- 14. Weaver, D. S. and MacLeon, G. 0. 1999. Entrance Port Rounding Effects on Acoustic Resonance in Safety Relief Valves. PVP-Vol. 389, Flow Induced Vibration-ASME 1999.
- 15. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2004. Plant Unique Steam Dryer Loads to Support I&E Guidelines. C.D.I. Technical Memo No. 04-14.
- 16. PSEG VTD Drawing No. PNI-GOOO1-0020, Primary Steam Piping, Sheets 001 Rev. 8, 002 Rev. 8, and 003 Rev. 8 (GE Drawing No. 761E468). PSEG VTD Drawing No. PNI-GOOOI-0060, Expander Flange Rev. 8 (GE Drawing No. 131C7672). PSEG Vendor Manual PNI-B21-F013-0162, Rev. 8, Target Rock Relief Valve 7567F (dimensions are provided in Figure 4 of the manual; some dimensions are scaled off the drawing). Bonney Forge Drawing No.
DFA-17-009, Typical Sweepolet cross-section (some dimensions are scaled off the drawing).
PSEG Drawings No. PN-BI 1 -D041-66, PN1 -B 11-2010-0079, FSK-P-214, FSK-P-215, 1 -P-AB-0 1, 1 -P-AB-0 11, 1 -P-AB-00 1, 1 -P-AB-002, I -P-AB-003, I -P-AB-004, FSK-P-223, and 1-P-AB-023.
- 17. Shapiro, A. H. 1953. The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow.
Volume I. John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY.
- 18. Kayser, J. C. and R. L. Shambaugh. 1991. Discharge Coefficients for Compressible Flow Through Small-Diameter Orifices and Convergent Nozzles. Chemical Engineering Science 46:1697-1711.
- 19. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2006. Mitigation of Pressure Oscillations in the Quad Cities Unit 2 Steam Delivery System: A Subscale Four Main Steam Line Investigation of Standpipe Behavior. C.D.I. Report No. 06-08.
- 20. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2007. EPU Conditions in the Main Steam Lines at Hope Creek Unit 1: Additional Subscale Four Line Tests. C.D.I. Technical Note No. 07-01.
- 21. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2006. High and Low Frequency Steam Dryer Loads by Acoustic Circuit Methodology. C.D.I. Technical Memorandum No.06-25P.
- 22. Continuum Dynamics, Inc. 2005. Bounding Methodology to Predict Full Scale Steam Dryer Loads from In-Plant Measurements. C.D.I. Technical Note No.05-28P.
32
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Appendix A: Standpipe/Valve Cross-Section This appendix contains a schematic of the as-built standpipe/valve configuration at nominal one-eighth scale. All dimensions are in inches.
33
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 11 (3)))1 34
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information Appendix B: PSD Results Appendix B provides the normalized PSDs for the as-built standpipe tests.
- Here, normalized PSD is obtained by normalizing the pressure trace by the dynamic pressure at CLTP, then constructing the PSD from the Fast Fourier transform.
The test matrix is found in Table 6.1. The transducer designations are as follows:
Pressure Transducer Designations PDI MSL A upstream strain gage location PD2 MSL A downstream strain gage location PD3 MSL B upstream strain gage location PD4 MSL B downstream strain gage location PD5 MSL C upstream strain gage location PD6 MSL C downstream strain gage location PD7 MSL D upstream strain gage location PD8 MSL D downstream strain gage location PD9 Steam dryer location opposite MSL A PD1O Steam dryer location opposite MSL D 35
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 1[
(3)))
36
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
37
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[I (3)))
38
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 39
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 11 (3) ))
40
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
41
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)]1 42
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
43
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
44
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
45
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3jj 46
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
47
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3) ))
48
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[1 (3)))
49
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
50
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
51
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
52
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
53
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[1 (3)))1 54
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
55
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
56
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
57
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.L. Proprietary Information (3)))
58
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information I[
(3)))
59
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3) ))
60
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 11 (3)))
61
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
62
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)]
63
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 11 (3)))
64
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[1 (3)))
65
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3) ))
66
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
67
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 11 (3)))
68
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
69
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
70
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 1[
(3)))
71
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information lI (3)))
72
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
73
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[1 (3)))1 74
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)j1]
75
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
76
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
77
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 1[
(3)))
78
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
79
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information 80
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
81
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)]
82
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.1. Proprietary Information (3)]
83
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3)))
84
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
((
(3)))
85
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[(3 86
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[1 (3)))
87
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[1 (3)))
88
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information
[II (3)))
89
This Report Does Not Contain C.D.I. Proprietary Information (3) ))
90