ML20093D918

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Affidavit of J Doyle Supporting Case 841009 Answer to Applicant Reply to Case Answer to Applicant Motion for Summary Disposition Re Local Displacements & Stresses. Supporting Documentation Encl
ML20093D918
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 10/04/1984
From: Doyle J
Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:
Shared Package
ML20093D907 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8410110463
Download: ML20093D918 (24)
v • d • e


Text

-

z

v..~,.a

.e S51Rf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'

.O OCT 11 pg '.y

BEFORE-THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of.

]

~

I TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING l-Docket Nos. 50-445-1

' COMPANY, et al.

{

and 50-446-1 I

(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. I Station, Units.1 and 2) l CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES in the form of AFFIDAVIT OF CASE WITNESS JACK D0YLE r

-Q:

Mr. Doyle, have you reviewed Applicants' Reply to CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Local Displacements and Stresses?

A:

'Yes.

Q:

.Is there new information contained in Applicants' Reply to which you believe you must respond?

~

A:

Yes, and for this particular case I will respond more than I normally would under the restricted time frame which we face.

Q:

What do you mean by that?

A:

-In the first place, we must start with the fact that by Applicants' procedures, the-stress ratio for the pipe is 39,169/44,000 equals about

.9 (see Attachment A, page 8, to the Affidavit of Applicants' Witness Finneran,' attached to Applicants' original Motion).

l.

I 8410110463 841009 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G

PDR

,gy.+

y w

wg-se-m. ram-Y---+.

  • T

~.

.~ __._ _._

3 .:

c N,4

.v n.,

7 51 ' n y,.f es

+

~

/

b With this as'a. baseline, the Applicants'. procedures and counter

arguments'for this example present a study-in pencilwhipping.

Q:

Do'you agree with Applicants' assertion.that Cygna found no serious problems with the concept of a box frame used in lieu of a clamp and

-further;that.Cygna'actually accepted this principle?

A:'

No,;I do not, ~for several. reasons. First, on the point of Cygna's 4

finding no serious problem, I argue that when the sophisticated-analysis done by Cygna leaves Cygna in doubt as to'what_ problems'there are, then there is serious doubt as to the box frame concept itself, and'this doubt may be noted in the testimony by Cygna in the' April 1984-hearings..For example:

Following a discussion at Tr. 12,666-12,669, Judge Bloch asked if the support should beflooked into because of the high loads indicated by ' finite element analysis of about 70% of the maximum allowable (3-Sm):-

At Tr. 12,669/10-25 (emphases added):

4

- " JUDGE.BLOCH:.I. guess Mr. Doyle is asking when.you're faced with

-a situation'like this which after substantial analysis shows

~

fairly.high loads, isLit your judgment it.was proper to dismiss this as a matter of engineering judgment rather than analysis.

e

.." WITNESS BJORKMAN:

I believe that is correct, that this should be looked at.

" JUDGE BLOCH:.Should have been looked at by the Applicants?

!L

" WITNESS BJORKMAN: Yes.

" JUDGE BLOCH: And does it need further analysis now also, or is 1

the analysis now sufficient?

l

" WITNESS BJORKMAN:

No, the analysis is not sufficient because it does not contain the effects of internal pressure or the actual

[

ef fects due to the bending moment in the pipe at that specific

' location."

2

4 And at Tr. 12,712/15-24 (emphases added):

" JUDGE JORDAN:

It's your opinion then, even if the U-bolt was left off, the frame itself would provide adequate support for the pipe.

" WITNESS WILLIAMS: That's how we evaluated it.

I'm not sura that, to be conservative, they shouldn't approach the design in a more traditional manner.

There's-a lot better designs for that particular application and I, don' t think that's the approach we would take. However, we accepted it as adequate."

At Tr. 12,719/14-19 (emphasis added):

" JUDGE BLOCH:

Does Cygna have adequate basis, nevertheless, to believe that this is not a problem?

" WITNESS WILLIAMS:

I think as we stated before, we don't think this is a good design. There is a limit as to how much we are going to sit and defend the thought processes behind it, but we think it is adequate."

At Tr. 13,027/8-13,028/3 (emphasis added):

"BY MR. BACHMANN:

"0: -Getting back to our basic box frame and U-bolt, clip angle, clamp, support, assemblage... Is this type of clamp and support commonly used in the nuclear industry, to your knowledge?

"A:

(Witness Williams)

Is the question have we seen a lot of examples of that specific configuration?

"0:.I would like to know within your experience have you seen a lot of it; have you seen none of it;.is this the only place you have seen it? _Just what do you know about it?

"A:

In my experience, I have not seen other examples of that particular configuration.

" JUDGE BLOCH:

Dr. Bjorkman, is your experience the same or otherwise?

" WITNESS BJORKMAN: Mine is the same."

In reference to the above, the acceptance by Cygna is based on speculation, since there is no history nor is there test, calculation 3

or other evidence of adequacy. For that matter, all of the evidence currently offered indicates that stress levels in the pipe and box frame are extremely high (.68 per cent of 3 Sm minimum by Cygna, see Tr. 12,667/16, for box frame; and by Applicants,.9 of allowable for pipe, see Attachment A, page'8, to the Affidavit of Applicants' Witness

~ Finneran,' attached to Applicants' original Motion).

Q:

Do you have reason to disagree with Applicants on point 2 of their Reply at pages 5 through 9 (referencing Finneran Af fidavit at pages 2 through 6)?

A:

.I certainly do.

It is this area more than any other which proves conclusively that when justification for completed structures is required, the fundamental procedures suffer.

For example, Applicants insist on failing to state the full facts as apply.to particular phenomenon.

In the case of a full surface air film acting as an insulator-for the box beam and Applicants' neglecting the use of this element as being conservative would mislead a "somewhat knowledgeable" engineer. The reason is that, while Applicants accept

-credit for conservatism because they failed to use this insulator, they failed to note that the same air film surrounds the stainless steel pipe and therefore the temperature as calculated for the surface of the i

pipe is non-conservative.

Therefore, the fact is that not including the use of an air film on the carbon steel box frame is more than offset by the failure to include the air film for the stainless steel pipe. At best these are 1

offsetting, but at worst, it is non-conservative.

j; l

4 L

o s

i Applicants state that I mistakenly believed that the air film referenced was located at the interface of the pipe and box frame.

This is not true. Mentally.1 merely cancelled the air film from both the box frame a'nd the pipe and concentrated on the air film that exists at the interface of the pipe and the box frame which with or without the self-cancelling effects of the air film for the total structure would render Applicants' procedure non-conservative. This " contact resistance" is a well-known phenomenon which causes " engineers" to avoid calculations which ride the razor's edge (stress ratio of

.9, for example). To show the Board how common this knowledge is, I offer three sources (see Attachments A, B, and C hereto).

The final statement in this sub-section by Applicants is also incorrect, as will be noted in Attachments A, B, and C.

There is a

" contact resistance" (air film, etc.) without a gap.

In sub-section (b) of Applicants' item 2, they offer a recent finite differential calculation which they state shows how conservative Applicants' approach to the thermal problem was.

In my previous Answer, I was addressing errors within Applicants' procedure as presented, without anticipat'ing other offerings.

I will.

therefore dispose of this deception by Applicants and move on.

One fact that deserves attention relative to the tests by ITT Grinnell is that as you move away from the heat source, the temperature drops drastically.

In Item 13J of CASE Exhibit 669B (accepted at Tr.

3630), point 5 (which is, by the way, fully insulated), the temperature is 542 degrees F.

This is.6 of the source temperature.

In the model.

attached to the Finneran Affidavit the minimum meta' temperature at 22 5

,s~

f'

' inches from the sourcecis also about.6 of the source temperature.

This isinot r'easonable (especially when this is an uninsulated heat path). (See also CASE Exhib'it 669B,' items 13H and 131.)'

First, the finite program lacks a' factor which is critical to

~ accuracy. I say factor because, with the information given and the condition of the information which is given, I can only address'one point which -I will cover below.

As was pointed out-by Cygna's Dr. Bjorkman during the April 1984 hearings, the accuracy of output depends on input.

See Tr. 12,964 et.

4

' seq., especially at Tr. 12,964/12-14, where Dr. Bjorkman states ".

-the obvious conclusion is that the model is too crude to predict the actual behavior.which is-going on here.

." The problem with Dr.

Bjorkman's' model (which he.could not pinpoint):is the precise problem with the current model offered by Applicants with one exception, we know what at least'one of the omissions is.

This finite differential model does not include the integration of time.in the analysis and this is a critical factor, particularly when

-one considers the contact area between the pipe and the tube steel involves only a few thousanths of a square inch per contact point-(see

~

-page 3 of Attachment A to Applicants' Reply).

It appears that at.this point, we must commence with a class on what is occuring with energy conduction.

First conduction occurs by two separate phenomenon. The first mechanism of energy transfer is molecular interaction. This occurs when a molecule at a higher energy level (temperature) imparts some of'

{

its energy to adjacent molecules which are at lower temperature levels.

I m

6

g s

The second mechanism or energy transfer involves the presence of free electrons and it is the numbers of free electrons which is the principal factor involved in conductivity.

As shown above, it is the transfer of energy from one surface area (heated) to a colder (relative) surface area which determines the heat transport profile at a given instant.

If the area of contact is small and the volume of the heated element is large, then the heating time will be much longer for a given temperature gradient than would be true if all parameters were the same except the contact area is large.

In short, it is the contact area and volume which determines the time for energy transport.

In addition, with such a small heat input area, it is probable that the losses in the box frame at a particular heat level due to radiation and convection could equal the input due to conductance and the temperatures ~ assumed by the standard steady state fornulas would be incorrect.

In short, all elements of energy transfer must be considered simultaneously, both the contributors and the losses.

This is best noted in a couple of analogies: First, the blacksmith finds no problem with heating an 18" long bar of steel to -

near its melting point in a forge and then working this steel with a hammer on an anvil while holding the still relatively cool end in his bare hand. As any blacksmith can attest, the longer you hold the bar in your bare hand, the hotter it will get.

In other words, heat takes time to travel.

A second analogy can be found in a standard cast steel spider.

This utensil for frying in one piece with an integral steel handle. To 7

c test the validity of-transport over time, just heat the spider over a medium heat until the center is hot enough to make water skip, about 3 minutes.. Pick up the. pan by hand and remove it from the heat. Then try and pick up the pan by the handle 10 minutes after it has been removed'from the heat source.

The purpose of the above is to point out by example that heat travels slowly and la dependen,... the area exposed to the heat source, the energy path, and the volume to be heated.

In the case of the pipe and the box frame, there are major differences affecting the energy transport. The entire inside diameter of the pipe is affected by the 350 degree heat source which will be conducted through the mass which results from its 1.2 wall thickness.

On the other hand, there are 4 lines with an area of a few thousanths of a square inch which will be the thermal trcasport windows for the l

r large mass which makes up the box frame.

It.is obvious that the pipe will achieve 326 degrees F. average temperature long before the box frame reaches its maximum average temperature.

From the above, it is clear that, assuming that Applicants' output is correct (which I don't concede), the fact that at some point in time the pipe temperature averages 326 degrees F. and the box frame averages 222 degrees F. at another point in time is without relevance.

The fact is that the time when the differential temperature between the pipe and the box frame is at a maximum in its effects on the pipe and the box f rame is still unknown, but one thing is know, the pipe will see stresses in excess of.9 of maximum allowable as calculated by Applicants and the stress levels for the box frame will 8

Mc;c

~

t C

tj_

v be considerably higher-than assumed.

~

A major problem with the above is that the.RHR system particularly varies in temperature over.the' life of the plant, as do the steam lines; therefore, any overstress condition is not a one-time even't but Jis. cyclic. This' misapplication'of heat transport by Applicants is not

' only wrong, it is dangerous and will result in a deterioration of the protection due the public.

.Having disposed _of the finite model as a means of' backing up their t erroneous conclusions drawn.from the equations in Applicants' Attachment A, I will proceed to prove that what I said is in fact the truth of the matter.-

In their calculations in Attachment A, Applicants, using standard K

steady-state equations (which does not imply that.I concur with their mathematical gymnastics) si certain values for certain points (see

=page 1 of Attachment A) fc

.e inner surface of the_ pipe,'they derived

a. temperature of 350 degrees F.,

for the outer surface of the pipe they calculated a temperature of.302 degrees F. (with an average temperature for the pipe of 326 degrees F.).

-For the box frame (same. source) they.

assumed the interface' temperature was 302 degrees F. and the outer

-frame temperature was 104 degrees F. (with an average frame temperature of 203 degrees F.).

Attached to this Affidavit is Attachment D which includes-two sketches: Sketch 1 is of the RHR pipe with a thickness of 1.0 inch and

~ 1ndefinite diameter disc welded all around. Sketch 2 depicts the RHR t

l pipe with a box frame and represents the conditions as they exist in the real world.

9 i

k f~

~_

. ~...

l w.

S Correlating the information from Applicants' Exhibit A (given above) w'ith my Attachment D (attached), the problem of gradients, not considered by Applicants, will become obvious.

-The temperature for PT A for either Sketch 1 or 2 of my Attachment D vould be 350 degrees F., the' average temperature (no PT given) in either Sketch 1uor 2 would be 326 degrees, the. temperature for PT B in either Sketch 1 or 2 would be 302 degrees F., the average temperature

.for PT C in either Sketch 1 or 2 would be 203 degrees F.,

the temperature for PT D in either Sketch 1 or 2 would be 104 degrees F.

Now with everything of consequence transferred to the sketches in my Attachment D, we can proceed. As can be seen, we agree that the method of determining the temperatures by' Applicants' procedures would have the same values for Plane A-A in Sketch 1 or Plane B-B in Sketch

2.. The divergence from reality occurs when we depart from Plane A-A or B-B.

Referring to Sketch 1, if we take any radial plane similar to Plane A-A, the values for corresponding PT's (similar to those at A-A) would be the same at PT's A, B, C, and D on Plane A-A.

Referring now to Sketch 2, it is obvious that any radial plane within a quadrant, C-C for example, would not be represented by the values as calculated by Applicants as shown in the section view of Applicants' Attachment A, page 1.

Any conductive increase in temperture at the frame corners can only result from thermal transport due to the temperatures at PT's B, C, and D, and will be something less than 302 degrees and 203 degrees.-

(The 104 degrees would obviously be constant); this is because the only 10

s.

source of energy for the b'ox fratae is at Point' B (4 places).

-The temperature range at PT E plus 2-1/2 inches (at the centerline of the veritcal member) would be (using Applicants' first equation fro.m page l'of Attachment 1):

104 + (302-104/13) 2.5 = 142 degrees F.

. and the average temperature for this area is approximately:

(142 + 104)/2 = 123 degrees F. (again using Applicants' methods).

~Therefore, the use of 203 degrees F. as the average temperature on which to base the calculations for thermal expansion of the box frame is incorrect and non-conservative.

Carrying Applicants' procedures forward as shown above, and not truncating-as Applicants did, shows the average temperature fer all cross sections of the box frame combined is not 203 degrees F. as shown by Applicants, but is somewhere between 123 degrees F. and 203 degrees F., about 163 degrees F., and this error is fatal to Applicants' equations from this point on.

My argument in my initial Answer to Applicants' Motion did'not extend to future analysis, accurate or not, by finite methods (of dubious input technique since we only have a

' field of numbers and unreadable sketches'without interpretation) but.

only to the cale which we were supplied and for that we find an error of about 20 per cent (203-163/163 equals 20 per cent) in determining the critical force used to determine all stresses.

In reference to (c) and (d) of Applicants' Reply, I was not aware that the Board Memorandum relieved Applicants of.the requirement to consider such stresses.

If I am wrong, I stand corrected.

To Summarize: While Applicants' equations on page 1 of Attachment 11

m fg_

>8 A may be applicable to Sketch 1 of'my Attachment D, they are in no way applicable to Sketch 2.

In reference to sub paragraph (e), regarding the design properties of structures of A500 Steel, this material is not covered by ASME'Section III, but rather Code Case N-71, and the physical and mechanical properties are obtained from AISC.- It was clear to CASE that for expansion properties, the obvious source would be AISC.

We were not aware that Applicants would look to ASME because it had a lower value. Therefore, I stand corrected, at least as far as the lower value is concerned. As far as the value-1 quoted, that is the proper value and method of determining that value for designing commercial structures to AISC.

Q:

Do you have any further comments on the Reply by Applicants?

A:

No, I do not.

I e

12

6.

^

7 o:

b L

+

I have :ead the foregoing affidavit, which was prepared under my personal direction, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

3 gg

3. 4

()

~'V

(

Y,.* Date: $r

</_l90$

.f[

/

[

, n 11 s,

~

i s.

STATE OF Ye b1 a"

~ COUNTY OF N c d On this, the ~~6d day of Schba

,1981, personally appeared hd A. NA.

known to me to be the person o

g 9

whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument,.and acknowledged to me -

that[he/she executed the same for'the purposes therein expressed.

Subscribed and sworn before me on the 3d day of M w

-1981 O

e I

Y W cu 0.

cht Notary Public in and for the State of y

%-_l e ; 1; My Commission Expires:

MY COMMtssioN EXPIRES 'JANUAm 1 Si

-1 o

el 1l r

e f

ATTACHMENT A 1

PROCESS HEAT TRANSFER i

IW DONALD Q. KERN Dsrector. Process Engine 5ng Division The Patterson Foundry 4 Machine Company. and

.tdjumt Professor of Chemical Engineering Polytechnic institute of Brooklyn i

l FIRMT EDITION

$ECOND IMPREMSION l

NEW YORK TORONTO LONDON McGRAW-IIILL BOOK COMPANY, INC.

19~>0

~

~

. -.~

ib Q 4

.cr m'O

+

2

- bE'. \\?; w dLiT d.-nlb) u[w?500I?.%,,%,.f4$nw,d.SisW,M.=. -.~v ffh.k$ $s?$$g [&. }i ?? $?S?@p.i L%2/-5 .= m y; Yi-D;~ - l%. 3: Sy if(E7g j, .g,,

. :1u 4p s r..-l % r w...m. ,!...c.m$l :$ $l.?h!I!!$'h! & :bh f h ]h'b 0 b.kkaQC 3jh Man 4;a;;,gny;,,mg4%ggp95;4ww;yu..c.v a.u z.r.~.<rm-v y:<. myg na -- r w-.p nm.m;, r,~ vm .e <1.- j??fh}fh$ $$$Yhh!$$5\\.h,,..,,m,- <.:eu~.. a s..im.. A s n m.. . 4t .s.w. f o pw. ay .g r g.s u ; w.a m. m,e.,w,.m q p. ng y @p ; % 1 a

m. u a-e.

y M g.. sde4 d p.g t39 wkm mmu 6: n n q, s w : w. n k s %. cm., .&w? - e r y

na.sS.&

e a n:a a, g.,3 :: a s* w 4 w%,Jls w. n,.,$ a:,n.Q (*& xa. k & p @g i fytt M g, p' w g+d W 9 w w :., p. L g.'r Vf,%a.. ',VW Vu u. C-A V *h & l~p sikhaa,rn.y.n.L J f '_ Q, w-4W On5Yd'gs - y.yetyrg' V a 9 c,.

  • a w W 2 h~4:4.+&?&

6 2' ~ &V Rj h ij D r .rT= m)m.swrm ag;d qe Qvv:;; ,.n;g; 9 m ss n p:3;4 N.$-th$ h7 M 5 k

kt4m:;p.

-F ..:.. > w Mmme}m$235@M&s A &" tWMu w.% d r p. gre n, Ny N.x . w m.n c l'[ N N N N A g Q.$2 ~hfM M@&AW k$$&M4fWRfhedMtWMM83gd%# gyr;g@ hrs n f1Leel y wm Tms NdlashMmM M I ! I' L l 4 'Y >;\\,t j'; k 1 t i 4 t i ,i .;i, ii-e l' t '1 i a '.lt'..1 LL Tt i ![ s f i., ~ l Z k ) l [ 1 s 't I I t .m },,; v' E Eb i i p= ( I \\ l I i < o r. h, fy f I' i l l

h n i h 640 PROCESS HEAT TRANSFER i leading mathematicians and physicists. It is possible to present only N "#'* some of the simplest and most representative cases here and to sui h Wall of finite thickness the overall nature of the study. The reader is referred to the excelj,.,' M Cylinder of in6 nite length, s; detail and provide the solutions for a number of specific problems as w,: @i $'*P;aldte1 natio books on the subject listed below.2 They treat the subject in grear. as many with more complex geometry. & Wall of Infinite Thickn 8 hi p In the treatment of unsteady-state conduction the simplest type.. % ckness and at a t problems are those in which the surface of the solid suddenly atlan kroundings with consta a new temperature which is maintained constant. This can happen,,e contact resistance betwee when the film coefficient from the surface to some isothermal heat-t rans II!I that the face temperature medium is infinite, and although there are not many practical appi,. % nary quenching in which t tions of this type,it is an important steppingstone to the solution of ninn. ly eneral equation for com g ous problems. Ordinarily, heating or cooling involves a Snite fihn en F wall ofinfinite thicknessit f cient or else a contact resistance develops between the medium an.i : Pk Eq. (2.12). The group k surface so that the surface never attains the temperature of the mnin . Ij7 the properties of the cond Moreover, the temperature of the surface changes continuously a-M duction may be represent solid is heated even though the temperature of the medium remain. gy; stant. It is also possible that the temperature of the mediurn n ,A varies, but this class of problem will be treated separately in tin i.. section. The cases treated in this section include those with finin Q

g. Fourier has indicated coefficients or contact resistances as well as those with infinit e cocili-i-a body of uniform tempe The following are considered:
g. be represented by the ext sudden change of the surface ternperature (inyinite corpcient) is the time, and x the dis 4 ing point it is possible t Wall of infinite thickness heated on one side

'g he variation of the terr Wall of finite thickness heated on one side ' 4. - Wall of finite thickness heated on both si *es (slab) ' h.. solid suddenly subjectet l M however, that the equat Square bar, cube, cylinder of infinite length, cylinder with length equal to e-

d boundary conditions imi

) eter, ephere .g. . w:. of this type is given by i Boelter, L. M. K., V. IL Cherry, II. A. Johnson, and R. C. MartincliL $i i Transfer Notes," University of California Press, Berkeley,191G. CarsLw. Ii. 'e#*': l ( J. C. Jaeger, " Conduction of IIeat in Solids," Oxford I*niversity Pres. h. l'n which Ci, Cs, and C 1947. Grober, II., "Einfuhrung in die Lehre von der Warmeubertragure. 3, 'which describes the cast Julius Springer, Berlin,1920. Ingersoll, L. R., O. J. Zobel, and A. C. Inger-d' dM.it, ions is given by Scha l Conduction with Engineering and Geological Applications," McGrau-lim i-Company Inc.. New York,1948. McAdams, W. II., "IIcat Transmi+ ion.'. t=C' McGraw-IIill Book Company, Inc., New York,1942. Schack, A., " Der ind'i.- J$ %y Warmeubergang," Verlag Atableisen, Dusseldorf,1929; English tran>lation ! i D. Goldschmidt and E. P. Partridge, " Industrial IIeat Transfer," John Wile.s A .+ [where 2 C-',d218 s inc., New York,1933. Sherwood, T. K., and C. E. Reed, " Applied Mathenr ~~ % M " 0 Chemical Engineering," McGraw-IIill Book Company, Inc., New York. Im .,g* Gauss's error,ntegral T i a review of more recent methods see Dusinberre, G. M.," Numerical Analy-i- ' m tions for an infinite wt Flow," McGraw-IIill Book Company, Inc., New York,1949, and Jakob, R f

  1. = 0, f = to and, whe:

Transfer," Vol.1, John Wiley & S<ma, Inc., New York,1949. L N.Y!c'. JW \\ 2 e r i eQy .r-i. 8 9 p a $"* h[ y g4 E 0' f'f * 'J$- '[ I

ATTACHMENT B APPLIED an,. HEAT TRANSMISSION BY HEIGIAN J. STOEVER Associate Professor of Me%anical Engineering lowa Nate Cdlege 7 r FinsT Eomos t d!11 'l

i AlcGRAW-IIILL BOOK CO3fPANY, INc.

NEW TORK AND LONDON 1941 A j r -t J! E ,N a g %_ b35%M. Aa,fn . l. 2B'102?$ivf$L' ' ' ~ - <.., AD;1S$fil?

..
:r%.7

- ' N'.'fYN $k ' gn_,.

= t.g p "i'id :2434

.2.n.m;;s:e.3;.xt ... eyc: c ,c

I d'$ r k if k f aki-2 g% e w n: n a n n= n n : v u n + iambemww<M a ann

g. Ansy,/w..g;;, k&(&ww+ygm;pM
ngnc
wn yn.

Lo eW w T vw Np;7s4.obA,,v&,9a k. a ym,f4 Ape @ iM gt Rc5+ 8 f 4N

  1. mmaweaNw m

e a mum L 4FA," W,md y tw gwy st y m pe m._%m.; A;g4m,m:MVfk. E M h.~.ph. b$$ghl~j$$ SW4 %.s-:?,. 1ul. u. ps % 7M,,.t.+x,T _h s7 A -,,Lt.g$,k 4 * <Y- },,f !ON l/ 'k+;a'y?$.T$Eh?W..,, &hY,N.g A pl.' &k;&;h, hth,' % 4 -e, g-t

E' b l

$.{'$ 4 .g "p 4 h.; NR w I t 4 ( ' ,\\ 3 * 'l 5 *' d ' > V 8' T.1I 'm. e I ,j ...q a 4 L 6, . m.,- .\\ N M@# Nd'3(x"Q ' ~~.;;' 1

%
qc -

\\ G..$$ g '.2 'N l drg% 4 u- ....r. wp... W .y,. + ,r' t [ i-N '* ) f * *., v M ] f;{f,,r-e. w n.. [ Sin s; . ~ hYhiC n i h cgy. ..veyo ,i d sh %4"If, % r(;!g,,L i n> 1 P. vg e % s>.,;., (.. /. ,,+ ; )k.1', ' ', j / f/,h &, W '\\ l t.' h,.if> 9, . i t,v.C. *,. / .)' 3 i <'{.;V.. u -- Y. t

s..., t.

./u, l I / ~

  • N !,

%q , 4.. + l ..r_b,',s. ~ . a;,is P :. 4 t. st w gy $

  • : ylg : N t

' L t.. La -, F r i ,1 1 t i I i : i ) .i s I 3 l' 1 !i l *i t: 1: ? .' I,i I t l1 i l' l f

w 14 APPLIED HEAT TRANS311SSION g. 2*lf't - l') (7) repeated if greater ace + ' "" (k. TT tion is illustrated in tl r* 6 2.3 k. i Illustrative Problem 5. where q = the rate of heat transfer by conduction from the covered with 4 in. of insub inner to the outer surface, B.t.u. per hr. fiber, and a bonding mate

k. and k. = the thermal conductivities of materials a and duction through each squa f

5, evaluated at the average temperature of each, l. B.t.u./(ft.)(hr.)(*F.).

    • ]'

"",d * ' [p g gg interface between the two [ r = 3.14. the average temperatures < p i = the length of the cylinders, it. 900*F., respectively, and t! fi and is = the temperatures at the inside and outside faces these temperatures are 0.t of the composite body, 'F. the rate f heat transfer th ; r.' and r." = the radii (or the diameters) of the inside and out-side faces of material a, ft. or in. 7" r/ and r." = the radii (or the diameters) of the inside and out-side faces of material b, it. or in. This equation can be extended to include any number of con-Since this is also the rate o j centric cylindrical bodies in series a more accurate value of the i f,__ N 44/ by adding additional (1/k) logi, by Eq. (3). Thus, for the a 4/6 (r"/r') terms to the denominator. ,/ 7 '# /4 ;i In applying Eqs. (G) or (7), the m. A N thermal conductivity of each of whence U the materials should be evaluated f= D #"pf 'jp g,{ at the average temperature of the u The same result would be // A 'E i, material, and consequently the This temperature does not a 7 temperatures between thevarious assumed, but an appreciabl p/ layers must be determined. repeatmg the calculations, /~ f /- These temperatures may also be mater 2al8 vary nly slightly B.t.u. per hr. is obtained if requid for Mgn purposes if Fro. 7.-Temperature gradient Illustrative Problem C. L through two cylindrical bodies in some of the materials are suitable insulation each 1 in. thick. series. for only a limited range of tem. silica, asbestos, and a bondi: perature. They can be determined as follows: (1) A reasonable 8m Magnesia, which is su value for each temperature is first assumed. (2) Based on these he used f r the outer layer. [ assumed values, the thermal conductivity of each of the materials r,,",,"*g jj yd}'*** "ill p is determined. (3) The rate of heat transfer g through the com-Solution.-As a first appr posite body is calculated by Eq. (6) or (7). (4) Using this value of interface will be 600*F. B g, the temperatures at each of the interfaces is calculated by Eq. (3) atures of the inner and outer I or (4). These calculated temperatures will usually be sufficiently e mluetivities at these ten ce3 ([y', the accurate for practical purposes, although the procedure may be in. It l '\\ m.we# .* w Vfd;Yp$; &.lW w.a n . s f dQC

ys ,0;*Wyf L < wq.,.M.+.y Y W.B* r+E2: :.L-tm, y,7 ~ mgn

  • [: Gym QM?@..

H .~ g;ty ^ '~- - ,b *hn " & ~ W: . +. - 'y, l. I i CONDUCTION 15 3g;g3;oy repeated if greater accuracy is desired. The method of calcula-tion it illustrated in the following problems: Etc (rs"/r/)' Illustrative Problem 5.-A furnace wall consists of G in. of firebrick J t c vered with 4 in. of insulating blocks made of diatemaceous s.ilica, asbestos bY conduction from the } fiber, and a bondu g matenas. Calculate the rate of heat transfer by con-e, B.t.u. per hr. duction through each square foot of the wallif the temperature at the inside ties of materials a and face is 2000*F. and the temperature at the outside face is 200*F. Solution.-As a first approximation, assume that the temperature at the age temperature of each, 4 interface between the two materials is 1000*F. Based on this assumption, the average temperatures of ti.e firebrick and of th insulation are 1800 and 900*F., respectively, and the thtrmal conductivno of the two materials at 3rs,it. these temperatures are 0.71 and 0.001 B.t.u./(ft.)(hr.)(*F.). By Eq. (6), e insida and outside faces the rate of heat transfer through the composite wallis 'F. 1 x (2000 - 200) ers) of the inside and out-Y it. or in. 12 x 0.71 12 X 0.061 ers) of the inside and out- - 276 B.t.u. per hr. f t. or in. Since this is also the rate of heat transfer through each individual material, clude any number of con. p a more accurate value of the temperature t' at the mterface can be calculated I c cylindr.ical bod.ies in series by Eq. (3). Thus, for the insulation, l ding additionai (1/h) logt. ) terms to the denominator. 276 0.061 x 1 x (t' - 200) M spP ying Eqs. (6) or (7), the i l whence tal conductivity of each of l' - m 0*F. iaterials should be evaluated T1.e same result would be obtained by applying Eq. (3) to the Srchrick. 3 averagetemperatureof the This temperature does not agree very closely with the temperature originally rial, and consequently the j'- asaumed, but an appreciably different value of g would not be obtained by eratures betweenthevar.ious i repeating the calculations, since the thermal conductivities of the two .rs must be determmed. materials vary only slightly with the temperature. Thus, a value of 280 y{d B.t.u. per hr. is obtained if the calculations are repeated. e temperatures may also bc Illustrative Problem 6.-A 2-in. pipe is to be covered with two layers of ired for design purposes if ,msulation each 1 in. thick. An insulating material made of diatomaccous

  • of the materials are suitable

? n > dica, asbestos, and a bonding material is to be w,ed for the inner layer; and nly a l.imited range of tem. g as follows:(1) A reasonable he used for the outer layer. Will this covering be satisfactory if the temper- <sumed. (2) Based on these 4 ature at the inside face will be 1000*F. and the temperature at the outside

ivity of each of the materials

) face will be 120*F.7 g . M'dian -^a a first approximation, assume that the temperature at the t transfer ry through the com-l nterface wdl be G00*F. Based on this assumption, the average temper-r (7). (4) Us.ing th.is vggue g j atures of the inner and outer layers will be S00 and 360*F., and their thermal erfacesiscalculated by h,q.(3) .,nductivities at these temperatures will be 0.0 29 and 03:4 B.t.u./(ft.) f hr.)(*F.), respoetively. The actual outside diameter of a 2-in. pipe is 2.375 res will usually be sufficiently 3 lience, by Eq. (7), the rate of heat transfer per foot of length will be hough the procedure may be m-a b a l I'% a J

n .s - ,x > q 16 APPLIED IIEAT TRANS.111SSION C' 2 X 3.14 X 1 X (1000 - 120) ' * ' ' ~ ' ' ' " through two sphen. cal bo-I~ 2.3 ~logie (4.375/2.375) + logi. (6.375/4.375)- .~2 - 292 il.t.u. per hr. , /. _ -. Eq. (5), but this case is of g,g39 g,g,4

10. Unsteady Conductior temperamm at end urfac Since this is also the rate of heat transfer through the individual layers, the 71 temperature t' at the interface can be calculated by Eq. (4). Thus, using umform over the entire M the data for the outer layer, a

the temperatures within th 292 = 0.084 X 2 X' 3.14 X 1 X (l' - 120) -. the temperatures within th4 2.3 logi (6.375/4.375) ,_m__ N whence ..r_~ h+ t' = 320'F. Although a more accurate value could be obtained by repeating the calcu. ..u!- c 2-. 2 lations, the foregoing value is sufficiently accurate to indicate that the 85% - Eb =-- f,S /a Magnesia will not be overheated and that the covering will therefore be .nm% y -r satisfactory. J AA - _ w. { Equations (6) and (7) involve the assumptien that no drop in 2-. s - _L [: temperature takes place at the boundary between the two . r.M,.: Mec//on materials. In practice, however, the contact between the layers - + othea/ //ow i is usually not perfect because of the roughness of the surfaces, and ~ ' " - consequently a drop in temperature does take place As a ~ L a result, the actual rate of heat transfer by conduction is likely to -h~'~NW1L f be somewhat less than the calculated rate. -,.o f ) r Equation (6) can be obtained as follows: Referring to Fig. 6, ~*~ - .,c the rate of conduction through material a is, by Eq. (3), h,, A (at.) 7" L, ,[ (Fr'o[8.-Temperature gradient fo: or h 3f, _9 a. closely approximated by th A k- - Schmidt:' Similarly, ' - m. - 1. The body is divided af, 8. thickriesses z, as shown in I A k. i.,.n;-the larger the value the Since steady flow is assu ned, the rate of heat transfer q is the

2. -The temperatures to,

~ > > - I same through both materials. IIence, adding the last two these n imaginary laminae equations, equal intervals of time 6, ti in - ts = 3q /L, i L,\\ equation - Q < u.uw., - which is Eq. (6). 8 Equation (7) is obtained from Eq. (4) in a similar manner. An ~ equation for calculating the rate of heat transfer by conduction i senwror, E., " A. Foppla rei = 4 - a _ -m_. fr&wu ms. mea:sc ; .:;.~%., ;- :.x.:i*-h llO :n& k?. 5 . _..= m, v .m ~-= M - A s,;,;g. l)T,r., s. . M [*w"![ -y. o

r ...CE ?; ,,t;y ATTACitiENT C 4 Heat ..y

e n Transmission i

ew Is A Y BY 't a WILLIAM Id,McADAMS Professor of Chemical EngineeXng at the Massachusetts k' 1nstituts of Technology D ,s Sponsored by the [ Committee on Heat Transmission, 3 National Rescarch Council RS ~ li a f SECOND EomoM ( RenSED AND ENLARGED e EtsvrNrn luratss ON 'g McGRAW-HILL BOOK COAIPANY, INC. NEW YORK AND LONDON 1982 Qyfv _7 -e v. .;,q!!kbY ;y &L:r $5f -': r:'i.!:r?i% .? R ~: +

t Yl,"*;3.- :f:%.m >* -

-.me. 7:<ga +g,yp)).;.. ~- p;e.ng .I .; 2;,'O 3'd)f%W5 s G: - 's;a ;* ass w g s t O, [p g*.:t. '. ~ v.'n:rgg:.ncles .j. m, x,,,wy.upy <fp _,

..o t W.56tt % .'b^ 24 HEAT TRANSMISSION C%.Y. 7 l

c. Calculate the surface coefficient of heat loss A, expressed as 11tu/thrs r,..

(sq ft of outside legging surface)(deg F difference from surface to room). ..C Conductance.-Where ? ^* # anism through a strue I-Solution.-The following diameters are needed: i.d. of pipe,2.07 in.: o.d. of h pipe, 2.37 in.; mean diameter of pipe, 2.22 in.; o.d. of first covering. 4.87 in ; da the conductance is defi> iogarithmic mean diameter, 3.48 m.; o.d. of second covering, 9.87 in.; mem, " "*7 livided by the temperatun q diameter 7.07 in. The heat loss per foot is calculated from Eq. 2&l, page 23, 7 JN3-using k of 23.5 for wrought iron, page 3SO, and a wall thickness of 0.154 in. 4 .,.s A. 900 - 122 t I~ 0.154/12 1.25/12 2.5/12 [f. ' The unit conductance C', l (23.5)(2.22r/12) + (0.058)(3.48r/12) + on12(7.07r/12) jj defined by the equation f ( = 167 Btu /(hr)tf t i =.00094 + 197 + 2.68 ". 0 s, and equals C/A.* Where 1 l I No

6. Since temperature drop is pmportional to resistance, 000 - t, = 773 ion, q = k.A.(.it)f

.. Q" n. conduct. L (1.97/4.65) - 330; whence te equals 570*F. LA./r, and the res, stance. f' _ % g( the conductance. i For c. h ~ A.f.it) " 9.871< 1 - 1.8 Blu/(hr)(sq f t)(deg F) 2 - 86) 12 ' i:,c.d hollow enclosure by conduct

m 'is! tion and radiation acting in Contact Resistance.-In the preced.mg example, m. which tw"
h wall, and out by conductic y

solids were in contact, no allowance was made for a tempera ure Mpreferred (Eq. 27a), althoi

  • l drop at the boundary, widch presupposes perfect contact. How-

<W'.>' apparent conductivities, b. f ever, this requires the absence of gases or vacant spaces caused by

  • some structures is indepemi those blowholes, bubbles, rot.gh surfaces, etc., which are very i

the apparent conductivity 3 j likely to be present where two solids are brought together. Even - Other Applications of the f. traces of poorly conductmg matenal between metala, such as oxide conduction equation of F( films on the surface, will cause abrupt drops m the temperature.** 2" point in the theoretical tre f It is usually trnpossible to estimate accurately the thickness of such transfer other than steady-st i films, but their effect may tw senous. V Instead of attempting to determine separately the conductivit. -a,n.; problems are unsteady stat i e i ies heat transfer to fluids in str of bnck and mortar, it is often customary to measure the average wetted-wall heaters (page 2 conductivity of a brick-and-mortar wall. Van Dusen and Finckm report experimentally determined over-all thermal resistances of a . free convection (page 237). ~. problems in steady flow an number of walls and also, dtvidual resstances of the various compo-m i: a heat transfer from condensi 6 nents. In general, fairly satisfactory agreement u as found between the predicted values and observed results. Over-all resistances for "*[ large walls in service may be determined by the use of the Ical ' I

1. The plane wall of a furm meter,* which measures the temperature drop through the knov n

',@. (k - 1.0) and 9.0 in. of red bri< side of the firebrick was at 1305'l resistance of the meter, simultaneously measuring the temperature gradient through the wall itself, in this way the thermal con-h 70 reduce heat I ss, the uts 1.5.m. layer of magnesia (k = 0.0 3 e. ductivity of the whole wall, or of any layer, may be measured, ever

. the temperature of the outer sur though the use of the meter reduces the heat flow compared with y-
  • Although C' has the same a that from the bare wall. Precautions should be taken to necure 4 fp. 3), the temperature differen i

the surface and the body of flui data under steady conditions. .f), employed in the definition of c' i i t v 9 a . s of. =W I ,; a kp.m.w 3~ .pu w ' W?f[M'N'@ /[$,p* ( 7.y p.9 wre e qp q.pt v y =&pgg&_ g., ,, c m c ..y'7p g - ~ G. i%WE$33iB ^ -.v m nur =q p:n

~ ..-2 HCTEKsT \\ i 3 )C 7 1 5 ~ / p ag orp -..:5x35r:~ _:::. ucms 8 .A s EPIP oT i Epip RHR.

  • " f e h/,

9* O _g 6 9 a u->- a ._4 -_.a_ _,zaA.u 4.s.m. ,+z .am,A_--.a. -_u_m..s--.i#_ .- ana

a. --> 10/9/84 00CMETED V U;NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 04 OCIII AJJ :19 BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OFir ~ In the Matter of I cociej@~g{ Docket Nos. 50-445 fffb TEXAS U'JILITIES GENERATING COMPANY, et al. I and 50-446-1)(_, l (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1 Station, Units 1 and 2) l CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' REPLY TO CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION REGARDING LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS AND STRESSES CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy), Intervenor herein, hereby files this, its Answec to Applicants' Reply to CASE's Answar to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Local Displacements and Stresses. We discussed in some detail the reasons we believe the Board should allow this and similar Answers to Applicants' replies to CASE's Answers to Applicants' Motions for Summary Disposition in our 10/1/84 and 10/2/84 Answers /1/, so we will not repeat those same arguments here but incorporate them herein by reference. We note that \\pplicants have filed a 10/4/84 Motion to Strike those two pleadings and any future such Answers by CASE, and we urge that the Board deny Applicants' Motion. CASE believes that the Board must (especially because of the very unusual nature of the method adopted for handling the design / design OA/QC issues in this proceeding) base any decision in this matter primarily on its ultimate responsibility to assure a complete record on which to base a /1/ See CASE's 10/1/84 Answer to Applicants' Reply to CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Consideration of Friction' Forces; and CASE's 10/2/84 Answer to Applicants' Reply to CASE's Answer to Applicants' Motion Regarding Alleged Errors Made in Determining Damping Factors for OBE and SSE Loading Conditions. 8410110468 841009 PDR ADOCK 05000445 1 G PDR

L- & - reasoned. Informed decision. This cannot be accomplished if the Board allows Applicants to use their replies to provide new information and analyses which CASE has not_had the opportunity to address previously. CASE urges _that the Board assure that all the cards are on the table on these important matters. This unusual procedure also requires that the Board take into consideration the requirements of 10 CFR 2.743(a) and 2.754(a), since-we are, in effect, engaged in hearings by mail on the design / design OA/0C issues. CASE will attempt not to abuse our filing of these Answers; for example, we are not responding to Applicants' many comments with which we merely disagree, but we are, rather, attempting to restrict our responses to addressing new information, analyses, argument, etc., included in Applicants' Replies. The Board must have CASE's response to such new information in order to have a complete record and in the interest of fairness and due process. For the preceding reasons, the Board should accept our instant pl'eading and future'such pleadings as being necessary to the Board's arriving at a valid decision in these proceedings. Our Answer in this instance is contained in the attached Affidavit of CASE Witness Jack Doyle. Respectfully submitted, 'JLN > FAN', > ghfs.~)JuanitaEllis, President ~ CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 2 .--.-___a.----.-___.-----------._----.--------__-----_---.:.--.-,--.------.---._----------_,,,----_.-_---,---,,---_---_-_____------_--.

s ... e,s nu CC'KE7E 'J'!NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI dAP In the Matter of - }{ '{ TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC }{ Docket Kos. 50-445 1 COMPANY, et al. }{ and 50-446 -1 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric }{ Station, Units 1 and 2) }{ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'shAnswer to Applicants' Reply to CASE's Answer to Applico.ts' Motion for Summary Disposition Regarding Local Displacements and Stresses day of ,19g 4, have been sent to the names listed below this 9th October by: Express Mail where indicated by

  • and First Class Mail elsewhere.
  • Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch
  • Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor & Reynolds Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1200 - 17th St., N. W. Washington, D.C. 20036

  • Ms. Ellen Ginsberg, Law Clerk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • Geary S. Mizuno, Esq.

4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Office of Executive Legal Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

  • Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Commission Division of Engineering, Maryland National Bank Bldg.

Architecture and Technology - Room 10105 Oklahoma State University 7735 Old Georgetown Road Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

  • Dr. Walter H. Jordan Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 W. Outer Drive Board Panel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U. 3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 1

7 S o6%.o}*A Chairman Renea Hicks, Esq. . Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal -Assistant Attorney General Board Panel' Environmental Protection Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Supreme Court Building Washington, D. C. 20555 Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV ' U.-S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas - 76011 Lanny A. Sinkin~ 114 W. 7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 Dr. David H.. Bolt: 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Michae[9.' Spence $ President Texas Utilities Generating Company Skyway Tower 400 North Olive St., L.B. 81 Dallas,-Texas 75201 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies) Office of the Secretary U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ~ l Md-8

  • .)

~ pp.)JuanicaEllis,~ President GSE.(Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 I 2 l -m. m-.

m. --.

m. -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20093D918&oldid=4329569"