You are on page 1of 104

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Guidelines (MRP-32)

WARNING: Please read the Export Control Agreement on the back cover.

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the document prior to publication.

Technical Report

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Guidelines (MRP-32)


1001016

Final Report, April 2001

Proprietary Information NOTICE: This report contains proprietary information that is the intellectual property of the MRP utility members and EPRI. Accordingly, it is available only under license from EPRI and may not be reproduced or disclosed, wholly or in part, by any Licensee to any other person or organization.

EPRI Project Manager J. Carey

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES


THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT Framatome Technologies

ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 1355 Willow Way, Suite 2478, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 2001 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITATIONS
This report was prepared by Framatome Technologies 3315 Old Forest Road Lynchburg, VA 24506 Authors B. L. Boman R. W. Moore R. R. Schemmel Prepared for: Materials Reliability Project Thermal Fatigue Issue Task Group and EPRI The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Guidelines (MRP-32), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2001. 1001016.

iii

REPORT SUMMARY

The Materials Reliability Project (MRP), formed in January 1999, is an association of utilities focusing on pressurized water reactor (PWR) vessel, material, and related issues. The Thermal Fatigue Issue Task Group (MRP TF-ITG) was formed in mid-1999 to evaluate potential effects of thermal fatigue on normally stagnant piping systems attached to reactor coolant system piping. This TF-ITG report provides thermal fatigue monitoring guidelines for attached piping systems where there may be high potential for thermal fatigue cracking. Background In 1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expressed concerns that surface examinations of small diameter (< 4-inch NPS) high-pressure safety injection piping required by American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Section XI were not adequate and that volumetric examination should be considered. This led to formation of the MRP Thermal Fatigue program to provide evaluation and assessment techniques for managing potential thermal fatigue in attached piping systems. Objective To assist utility engineers in defining an effective thermal fatigue monitoring program that determines whether significant thermal stratification and/or cycling is occurring in normally stagnant piping systems attached to the reactor coolant system (RCS). Approach The research team used industry thermal fatigue monitoring experiences and current understanding of thermal stratification phenomena to develop the thermal fatigue monitoring guidance described in the report. Team members compared competing monitoring technologies and provided recommendations. Results External thermocouples are recommended as the general thermal fatigue monitoring method for detecting cyclic thermal stratification caused by in-leakage or turbulent penetration. The report presents monitoring locations for both detecting thermal stratification and for obtaining data required for detailed structural evaluations. In addition, pressure, leakage, and displacement monitoring are discussed.

EPRI Perspective These thermal fatigue monitoring guidelines provide utilities with a reference for establishing an effective monitoring program to determine the potential for unanticipated cyclic thermal stratification. Using these guidelines can contribute to an effective thermal fatigue management program and assist in avoiding unplanned outages due to thermal fatigue cracking. Keywords Fatigue Thermal fatigue Thermal stratification Monitoring Reactor coolant piping Cracking Leakage

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The contributions made by the members of the MRP TF-ITG and other persons affiliated with the project, listed below, are gratefully acknowledged for their efforts which led to the successful completion of this document: MRP TF-ITG Utility Members: Mike Robinson Chairman Mike Belford Jeff Brown Mike Davis Guy DeBoo Maurice Dingler Glenn Gardner Charles Griffin Daniel Jopling Richard Lutz Larry Rinaca Sherman Shaw Les Spain Raymond To Others: Kurt Cozens

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This MRP Thermal Fatigue report provides thermal fatigue monitoring guidelines for normally stagnant piping systems attached to reactor coolant piping where there may be high potential for thermal fatigue cracking. The thermal fatigue monitoring process is defined for detecting the presence or absence of cyclic thermal stratification or for obtaining the required data for detailed structural evaluations of lines where cyclic thermal stratification occurs. For each of the process steps, guidance is provided such that the utility engineer can implement an effective thermal fatigue monitoring program. External thermocouples are recommended as the general means for detecting cyclic thermal stratification recognizing that adjustments to the measured data may be required to account for the temperature cycle attenuation through the pipe wall. Other temperature sensor methods and sensor types are discussed for their applicability to the problem. Temperature sensor locations are provided for a number of attached piping configurations believed to encompass the variability in PWR power plant system piping designs. These locations are classified in two broad categories: (1) sensor locations required to detect the presence or absence of cyclic thermal stratification, and (2) sensor locations required for detailed stress and fatigue evaluations of these cyclic conditions. Data acquisition and transmission considerations are also discussed and the results of a monitoring survey are presented.

ix

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 1-1 2 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 2-1 3 IMPLEMENTING A THERMAL FATIGUE MONITORING PROGRAM ................................ 3-1
3.1 3.2 Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Process......................................................................... 3-2 Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Process Steps............................................................... 3-2 Define the Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program Objective .............................. 3-2 Determine the Sensors to be Used .................................................................. 3-4 Determine Sensor Locations ............................................................................ 3-4 Define Sampling Rate Requirements ............................................................... 3-6 Develop Software/Hardware Specification ....................................................... 3-7 Procure, Install, Configure Software/Hardware ................................................ 3-7 Collect Data ..................................................................................................... 3-7 Evaluate Data .................................................................................................. 3-8 Determine if Monitoring can be Discontinued ................................................... 3-8 If Stress Evaluation Required, are the Data Sufficient? .................................... 3-9 Re-configure .................................................................................................... 3-9

3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.2.10 3.2.11

4 TYPES OF SENSORS FOR MONITORING......................................................................... 4-1 5 MONITORING LOCATIONS................................................................................................ 5-1 6 DATA ACQUISITION AND TRANSMISSION ...................................................................... 6-1
6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Data Acquisition ........................................................................................................ 6-3 Data Transmission .................................................................................................... 6-3 Smart-Front-End versus Raw Data Acquisition.......................................................... 6-4 In-Containment Installation........................................................................................ 6-5

xi

7 MONITORING EXPERIENCE SURVEY .............................................................................. 7-1 8 ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ 8-1 9 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 9-1 A TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT.....................................................................................A-1
A.1 Resistance Temperature Detectors and Thermocouples........................................... A-1 A.1.1 Temperature Range ............................................................................................. A-1 A.1.2 Response Time and Monitoring Frequency .......................................................... A-1 A.1.3 Temperature Measurement Accuracy................................................................... A-2 A.1.4 Installation ............................................................................................................ A-5 A.2 A.3 Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs)............................................................... A-6 Thermocouples ......................................................................................................... A-6

A.3.1 Thermocouple Types ............................................................................................ A-6 A.3.2 T/C Measurement Uncertainty Discussion ............................................................ A-7 A.3.3 Special Fabrication Methods................................................................................. A-8 A.3.4 Insulation .............................................................................................................. A-8

B DISPLACEMENT METHOD INSTALLATION AND COST COMPARISON ........................B-1


B.1 B.2 B.3 Displacement Sensor Types...................................................................................... B-1 Measurement Accuracy Comparison......................................................................... B-2 Installation................................................................................................................. B-3

C THERMAL FATIGUE MONITORING SURVEY SUMMARY................................................C-1

xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Process.................................................................... 3-10 Figure 4-1 Inside and Outside Pipe Surface Temperature Variations - Illustrating Typical Attenuation Through Pipe Wall ........................................................................................ 4-4 Figure 4-2 Attenuation of Through-Wall Temperature Oscillations with Cyclic Period.............. 4-5 Figure 5-1 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement Upward-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage ....................................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-1 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement Upward-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage.................................................................................. 5-5 Figure 5-2 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to Up (or Inclined)to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage .................................................... 5-6 Figure 5-2 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Up (or Inclined)to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage............................................... 5-7 Figure 5-3 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage ....................................................................................... 5-8 Figure 5-3 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage.................................................................................. 5-9 Figure 5-4 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage.................................... 5-10 Figure 5-4 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage .............................. 5-11 Figure 5-4 (e) and (f) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration No Leakage (Turbulent Penetration) ...... 5-12 Figure 5-5 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Down (or Inclined)-toHorizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage ...................................................... 5-13 Figure 5-5 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Down (or Inclined)-toHorizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage................................................. 5-14 Figure 5-5 (e) and (f) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Down (or Inclined)-toHorizontal-to-Valve Configuration No Leakage (Turbulent Penetration)......................... 5-15 Figure 5-6 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Hot Trap Inflow/In-leakage ................................................................................................... 5-16 Figure 5-6 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Hot Trap Outflow/Out-leakage ............................................................................................. 5-17 Figure 5-7 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Cold Trap Inflow/In-leakage ................................................................................................... 5-18 Figure 5-7 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Cold Trap Outflow/Out-leakage ............................................................................................. 5-19

xiii

Figure 6-1 Illustration of Recommended System Configuration .............................................. 6-2 Figure A-1 Recommended Temperature Sensor Installation Method .................................. A-10 Figure A-2 T/C Temperature Measurement Principles ........................................................ A-11 Figure B-1 PT Installation Requirements............................................................................. B-3 Figure B-2 LVDT Signal Conditioning Requirements............................................................. B-5 Figure B-3 LVDT Data & Supply Voltage Installation Requirements ..................................... B-5

xiv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Minimum Required Temperature Measurement Locations ..................................... 3-5 Table 5-1 Key for Thermocouple Placement Figures............................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2 T/C Placement Around Circumference of Pipe (for C-C designation) ...................... 5-3 Table A-1a Temperature Measurement Sensor Accuracies For Thermocouples and RTDs ............................................................................................................................... A-3 Table A-1b Temperature Measurement Sensor Accuracies For Thermocouples and RTDs ............................................................................................................................... A-4 Table A-1c Thermocouple Measurement Sensor Accuracies ................................................ A-5 Table A-2 Characteristics of Tefzel (280), a Fluoropolymer Resin......................................... A-9 Table C-1 Plant Survey Summary .........................................................................................C-2 Table C-2 Plant Survey Summary .........................................................................................C-6 Table C-3 Plant Survey Summary .........................................................................................C-9

xv

1
INTRODUCTION
This guideline presents plant-monitoring recommendations to support engineering evaluations of thermal fatigue in normally stagnant, unisolable piping systems attached to the main reactor coolant system (RCS) piping in Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) power plants. Some of the piping covered by this guideline was previously identified as being susceptible to thermal fatigue with the issuance of NRC Bulletin 88-08 and its supplements. These guidelines are provided for implementing means to detect and monitor the occurrence of the fluid conditions having the potential for inducing significant cyclic thermal stresses in RCS attached piping. As such, they include approaches to configuring and operating various types of monitoring and data handling systems for these purposes. Section 3 provides an overview of the steps involved in developing a monitoring program to support evaluations of thermal fatigue in piping connected to the RCS. Included is a discussion of factors to be considered when setting up a program for monitoring plant piping for thermal cycling. Section 4 addresses the measuring devices for use in monitoring the parameters of fluid temperatures and pressures, and piping deflections. Section 5 provides guidelines for placement of sensors for temperature monitoring. Section 6 addresses data collection and transmission. Section 7 summarizes results of a survey of thermal fatigue monitoring experience at operating plants. A list of acronyms used in this report is provided in Section 8. Appendix A provides details related to temperature measurements and Appendix B addresses methods of displacement sensor installation. Appendix C presents results of a limited thermal fatigue monitoring survey summary conducted in connection with the development of these thermal fatigue monitoring guidelines.

1-1

2
BACKGROUND
Cracking in piping attached to the reactor coolant system has, in some cases, been attributed to unanticipated cyclic thermal stratification. To assist utility personnel in assessing the potential for cyclic thermal stratification to occur in their plant, guidance for developing an effective thermal fatigue monitoring program was needed. Thermal fatigue monitoring is but one means of assessing the potential for cyclic thermal stratification in attached piping system. The reader is advised to review EPRIs Thermal Fatigue Management Guidelines (currently in preparation) for additional information.

2-1

3
IMPLEMENTING A THERMAL FATIGUE MONITORING PROGRAM
This section provides guidelines for implementing a thermal fatigue monitoring program for piping systems attached to the RCS. The steps in the monitoring process are presented and discussed. Some of the steps are easily described and understood while others warrant a detailed discussion. For the latter, an overview is presented in this section and a more detailed discussion is presented in a separate section of the report (e.g., types of sensors for monitoring, and locations for temperature monitoring). The occurrence of leakage from normally stagnant piping in operating PWRs and experience in thermal fatigue monitoring of piping indicate that cyclic thermal stratification has the potential for causing significant fatigue damage in RCS attached piping. Leakage has occurred in makeup and safety injection piping, residual heat removal (RHR), excess letdown, and RCS drain piping [1]. Plant measurements have demonstrated that very significant temperature gradients may exist in these piping systems due to thermally stratified flows. Because of the large potential temperature differences between the RCS and attached piping, it can reasonably be assumed that appreciable thermal loading of attached piping will occur over at least some fraction of the plant operating lifetime. Whether the thermal loading is significant depends on the magnitude of the temperature differences and the number of occurrences, i.e., cycles. For example, if an attached line experiences a quasi-steady thermal stratification during hot operation that dissipates during plant cooldown, it is likely that the fatigue damage can be shown acceptable given the relatively limited number of heatups and cooldowns. If, however, thermal fatigue monitoring showed cyclic thermal stratification to be occurring more frequently than once per heatup and cooldown, then data would be required for a structural evaluation to determine if the associated fatigue damage is acceptable considering the observed frequency and the expected plant operating lifetime. Generally, all piping connecting with the RCS should be considered potential candidates for thermal fatigue and reviewed to determine the need for thermal fatigue monitoring (see EPRIs thermal fatigue management guidelines), including the following: Safety injection Charging / makeup RCS drain lines Normal letdown Alternate letdown RHR/CF injection RHR / Shutdown Cooling (SDC) / Decay Heat Removal (DHR) letdown 3-1

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

Not all normally stagnant attached piping systems are expected to require monitoring (see Section 3.1 for monitoring criteria) but all of the above should be considered. Pressurizer surge, spray, and auxiliary spray lines are also potential candidates for thermal fatigue monitoring. While these lines are not included within the scope of this report, discussions on monitoring types, data collection, and data transmission are applicable to these lines.

3.1

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Process

An overview of the thermal fatigue monitoring process is presented in Figure 3-1. Once the requirement for thermal fatigue monitoring has been established, the steps shown in this figure can be followed to implement a successful monitoring program. In general, the requirement for thermal fatigue monitoring can arise as a consequence of one or more of the following: An attached line has the potential for cold in-leakage from a high pressure source through a single, normally-closed isolation valve. An attached line has the potential for cyclic thermal stratification due to its downward orientation and ambient heat losses. Pipe cracking or leaks occur (or have occurred) in unisolable RCS attached piping at the particular plant under consideration or in similar piping configurations at other plants. Additional data is required to show the structural evaluation of an attached line to be acceptable for the components design life.

3.2

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Process Steps

A discussion of the individual monitoring steps follows.

3.2.1 Define the Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program Objective


Definition of the monitoring program objective is the key step in the process. The monitoring program objective directly affects the selection of a) the parameter to be monitored, b) the viable sensor types, c) monitoring frequency, d) monitoring locations, e) choice of monitoring system hardware and software, and f) the recommended action levels. The monitoring program objective is closely tied to the phenomena of interest. Plant piping leaks (see Reference 1 for more details) that have been attributed to thermal fatigue have been caused by: The cyclic interaction of cold in-leakage from a high pressure injection system with turbulent penetration from the RCS. This has been described within the industry as a FarleyTihange type piping leakage event due to its occurrence at those plants. It has only occurred on lines that rise vertically from the RCS and then turn horizontal to a check valve and for which in-leakage has occurred. This configuration is designated UHV for upwardhorizontal-valve.

3-2

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

The cyclic turbulent penetration into attached lines that fall vertically from the RCS followed by a horizontal section in which the ambient heat losses are sufficient to provide a cold source of water to intermittently mix with the hot water conveyed from the RCS. This type of piping failure has occurred in the TMI-1 and ONS-1 cold leg drain lines and in Mihamas excess letdown line. This configuration is designated DHV for downward-horizontalvalve. The cyclic thermal mixing between hot RCS water and cold makeup water that has occurred in B&W makeup lines due to thermal sleeve loosening. Because the thermal sleeve redesign has precluded additional failures, this application was not included in the scope of the EPRI thermal fatigue management project. Cyclic thermal stratification due to hot RCS out-leakage through the packing of an isolation valve. This event, which occurred at the Genkai plant, is believed to be unique and highly unlikely to re-occur. Thus, it has not been emphasized by the EPRI Thermal Fatigue Issues task group. The monitoring guidance presented herein does allow for the possibility of cyclic thermal stratification due to out-leakage and monitoring locations to detect out-leakage are included herein.

The specific objectives of monitoring include: Determining whether or not significant in-leakage into the RCS is occurring. Determining whether or not turbulent penetration is causing significant cyclic thermal stratification to occur. Determining whether or not significant out-leakage from the RCS is occurring. Obtaining sufficient data to perform a detailed stress evaluation should cyclic thermal stratification occur due to in-leakage, turbulent penetration, or out-leakage.

In general, the extent of monitoring coverage, i.e., number of sensors, necessary to support a structural evaluation for a particular section of piping is greater than that required simply to determine whether leakage flow or thermal cycling occurs. This is because any deficiencies in the data intended for use in a structural evaluation require conservative, bounding assumptions where data are lacking, reducing the chances of demonstrating acceptable results. For piping configurations known to be susceptible to thermal cycling, the monitoring objective should be to confirm the conservatism of the prediction of the potential phenomena or to obtain sufficient thermal loading information to be able to analyze the piping in sufficient detail to predict with confidence that undetected cracking will not occur over the service lifetime of the piping. In certain cases, it may not be possible to show by analysis that cracking will not occur unless the available monitoring data is adequate to thoroughly characterize the thermal conditions. Monitoring goals should also include the gathering of sufficient information to justify changing plant operating conditions or making equipment changes to the affected system. Once modifications are made, monitoring should continue for a time sufficient to demonstrate the effects of the changes.

3-3

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

3.2.2 Determine the Sensors to be Used


Thermal fatigue due to cyclic thermal stratification is caused by time-varying changes in the inside water temperature. It is not practical to directly measure the inside fluid or inner pipe wall temperatures. Thus, indirect measurements are relied upon. Candidate measurements for monitoring include the following: external pipe wall temperatures, flow rate, fluid pressure, piping displacements, and strain gage data. The selection of the measurement(s) to be made is governed by the particular thermal fatigue monitoring objective. If detection of in-leakage or out-leakage is the desired objective, then the use of external piping temperature and/or fluid pressure measurements may be appropriate. Pressure measurements may be used to indicate the potential for leakage, but cannot be used to determine whether the leakage flow is significant. Valve leakage rates have also been measured directly and monitored at scheduled times with the reactor at hot conditions. Monitoring leakage rates directly would be important if the leakage flow is routed to the RCS for normal valve lineups. For determining whether turbulent penetration thermal cycling is occurring, external temperature measurements are recommended. Thus, the recommended and most widely-used measurement is the external temperature measurement. Of the potential sensors (thermocouples, RTDs, and thermography), externally mounted thermocouples provide the best combination of accuracy, affordability, and reliability for measuring pipe wall temperature. However, external temperature measurements have their limitations in applications where rapid cycling or short spikes in fluid temperature occur. If the objective is to obtain sufficient data to perform a detailed structural evaluation (e.g., if a certain degree of thermal cycling is being justified for continued operation), then external measurements alone may not provide adequate detail to properly characterize the thermal cycling occurring on the inner pipe wall. Methods to predict inner wall temperatures from external measurements, such as described in References 2 or 3, need to be employed. In addition, the use of piping displacements and/or strain gage data can provide supplementary information for use in stress calculations, but are not required in most cases. Sensor types are discussed further in Section 4 with additional details in Appendix A.

3.2.3 Determine Sensor Locations


Pressure measurements to accurately indicate the potential for in-leakage may require installing a pressure tap upstream of the first isolation valve outboard of the RCS. Differential pressure measurements across the isolation valve generally will require installation of taps upstream and downstream of the valve. However, installing pressure taps in the piping specifically for monitoring purposes is not considered practical. 3-4

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

Piping displacement measurements, when advisable, should be made at mid-span between piping supports. Strain gages (optional) should be placed at the top and bottom of the piping at the supports, within or adjacent to sections of piping subjected to thermal stratification. The piping displacement and strain measurements may be useful for steady-state calibration of the structural model and input data for time-averaged temperature distributions in the piping. Successfully correlating displacements with analytical predictions relies upon all the information for both displacements and temperatures at corresponding times being communicated correctly to the modeler. In the case of temperature measurement, sensor placement is dependent on the particular phenomenon and the physical layout of the section of piping of concern. To meet the specific objectives listed previously in Section 3.2.1, minimal sets of piping temperature measurements are required as shown in Table 3-1 (for detailed recommendations refer to Section 5).
Table 3-1 Minimum Required Temperature Measurement Locations Objective Detect significant in-leakage. Quantify the thermal cycling caused by turbulent penetration . Detect significant out-leakage. Provide data for stress and fatigue evaluations. Minimum Required Temperature Measurement Locations Top and bottom of pipe immediately inboard of isolation valve.

In downward-running lines to a horizontal section, one measurement in the vertical section immediately above the elbow or bend to the horizontal section. Two additional measurements at top and bottom of the horizontal piping at the elbow or bend if the elbow/bend is located at 5 to 25 diameters from RCS (but not beyond the first closed valve). Top and bottom of pipe immediately outboard of isolation valve.

Top and bottom of pipe for all sections subjected to significant thermal stratification and/or turbulent penetration at several axial locations for each horizontal section of piping, see Section 5.

Two assumptions regarding thermal cycling phenomena based on current understanding and plant operating experience are: In upward configurations without in-leakage or out-leakage, the thermal stratification that occurs will be such that it will not result in failure. This is based on observations from plant data and thermal-hydraulic understandings that a near steady, relatively mild top-to-bottom temperature difference (< 70F) will develop during each plant heatup and dissipate during the plant cooldown and that the number of heatup/cooldown thermal cycles are such that failure will not occur (i.e., failures occur due to 105 to 107 cycles and not for 102 cycles). In downward configurations where the turbulent penetration does not reach the horizontal (i.e., cycling occurs exclusively in the vertical piping), the cycling as a result of the penetration depth variation does not produce sufficient gradients in the pipe to cause 3-5

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

throughwall cracking. It is believed that pipe wall conduction will preclude formation of sharp temperature gradients. If these assumptions are proven false (by analysis or measured data), then the monitoring guidelines will need to be modified so that these locations are properly taken into account.

3.2.4 Define Sampling Rate Requirements


Required data sampling rates in terms of measurements per unit time will vary with the type of parameter to be measured and the particular phenomenon of concern (i.e., monitoring objective). The inverse of sampling rate is sampling interval, or time between successive samples. If detection of in-leakage or out-leakage is the desired objective, then sampling should be continuous during dynamic plant conditions such as heatup, and on a periodic basis such as weekly for steady state conditions. The periodic basis depends on valve characteristics and operating loads. If a valve is normally closed and isolated from temperature changes and water hammer effects, the steady state monitoring may be greatly reduced. It is also noted that valve seat conditions can change due to open/close cycles, so that a conclusion that a valve does not leak past its seat in the short term is difficult to project to the end of plant life. Sampling rates, using external thermocouples or pressure monitors, can be as low as one per minute for detection of in-leakage or out-leakage. However, as discussed in Section 3.2.8, data only needs to be reviewed periodically to demonstrate that leakage has not developed. If the objective is to detect cyclic thermal stratification, the sampling should be performed for at least one fuel cycle. Sampling rates need to be relatively high to capture the fluid temperature fluctuations. Fluid temperatures in piping subjected to turbulent penetration may oscillate with periods as short as a few seconds. However, the corresponding amplitude of wall temperature variations generally is much reduced relative to the fluid at these frequencies. The pipe wall thickness is the limiting factor on the time response for externally mounted sensors and can mask variations with periods of less than 10 seconds for inch thick stainless steel material. Consequently, the limits on the time response of the signal, and therefore on the required sampling rate with externally mounted temperature sensors, is determined by the method of mounting and pipe wall thickness and not the time response of the sensors. In general, the fastest sampling time required will not be any faster than 2 to 5 seconds. If the objective is to obtain data for a structural evaluation, data needs to be obtained during heatups, power operation, and cooldowns. Since turbulent penetration is dependent on RCS flow, data should be collected during the changes in RC pump status that occur during heatups and cooldowns. Sampling rates need be only fast enough to capture the short duration pulses. To capture temperature data that does not involve rapid cyclic variations or short pulses, such as quasi-steady thermal stratification, sampling intervals can be as long as one minute. Sampling intervals for other than temperature data, such as plant or system operating parameters, are not critical and generally can be as long or longer than one minute.

3-6

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

3.2.5 Develop Software/Hardware Specification


For all but the simplest of plant monitoring systems, development of an equipment specification is recommended to document the system requirements and provide the bases for design and procurement. Requirements should address the following: Objectives Measurement locations, number of sensors, and sensor types Environmental conditions for sensor and candidate data acquisition locations Sensor placements Data acquisition hardware location and mounting method Sensor mounting method and signal transmission Data range (absolute and differential) requirements Data dynamic character requirements Accuracy, resolution, repeatability requirements Duration for data acquisition Alarms and event identification On-line display requirements Accessibility to data (reporting) needs Data storage, file maintenance, and retrieval

3.2.6 Procure, Install, Configure Software/Hardware


Details regarding the procurement and installation of the sensors and data acquisition system are provided in Sections 4 and 6 along with Appendices A through C.

3.2.7 Collect Data


Data collection for purposes of monitoring for thermal fatigue should be scheduled to cover plant operation over at least one complete fuel cycle such that all aspects of operation are covered (i.e., monitoring should be performed during plant heatup, power ascension, full power operation, reactor shutdown, and plant cooldown). In general, monitoring data collected during normal operating conditions are of interest. Data collected during upset conditions are of lesser value since the cumulative times and numbers of thermal cycles for these conditions would be small relative to the totals for normal operation. Data acquisition systems can be set up to automatically archive monitoring data based on any number or kinds of triggering events. This can minimize the need for human attention and intervention as well as make efficient use of data storage devices over the 12 to 24 month duration of the operating cycle. 3-7

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

3.2.8 Evaluate Data


Monitoring data must be evaluated to determine the course of action to be followed, whether to terminate monitoring or perform a stress and fatigue evaluation for the particular piping section of concern. If temperature data are obtained using externally mounted temperature sensors, the raw data must be processed to extract estimates for the magnitudes and cycle counts of temperature variations at the inner surface of the pipe wall. References 2 and 3 provide examples of such methods to convert these data. Plant monitoring data should be examined periodically to determine if mitigating steps are indicated to prevent excessive fatigue damage accumulation. Engineering actions may include, for example, requesting modification of operating procedures or plant parameters, or recommending corrective maintenance of leaking valve seats. Technical specification requirements regarding integrity of pressure boundaries must of course be satisfied. Ideally, the monitoring system would be programmed to alert/alarm the existence of any condition likely to require action by plant engineering. If the objective of monitoring is to detect leakage, and given that leakage induced cracks have developed quickly (one fuel cycle in a French plant), data should be reviewed at least once or twice within a fuel cycle, depending on operational practices that could affect the leakage of the valves, for example after each major plant evolution (heatup, power ascension, steady-state power operation, cooldown, etc.). Again, a system that alerted the user whenever the action levels are exceeded would be ideal. If the objective is to detect cyclic turbulent penetration, as into a drain line, the evaluation need be done only once if the conditions sampled are bounding of plant conditions. Further discussion of the sufficiency in this case is given in Section 3.2.9.

3.2.9 Determine if Monitoring can be Discontinued


Once monitoring of a particular section of piping is initiated, termination would be justified under the following circumstances: The piping section passes the screening criteria (currently under development). Use of monitoring data input to a structural evaluation shows acceptable fatigue results. Modifications made to plant procedures or equipment eliminates or decreases thermal cycling and reduces fatigue usage to acceptable levels as determined by post modification monitoring data input to the screening criteria and/or a structural evaluation.

Confidence in the decision to terminate monitoring is directly related to the adequacy, i.e., extent, of the available amount of data used in the structural evaluation and the margins exhibited by the analytical results.

3-8

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

If the original objective is to reduce uncertainty regarding cyclic behavior in an engineering evaluation that considers a set of conditions concluded to bound those for the remaining plant life, then a fixed period of monitoring is adequate for the purpose and the monitoring may be removed at its completion. An example is drain line turbulence penetration where current conditions would be expected to be essentially unchanging for the remaining plant life. If the objective of monitoring is to detect cyclic behavior as would be caused by in-leakage, no guidance on terminating monitoring is provided since alternate provisions to assure lack of unacceptable leakage are highly plant specific. As stated in section 3.2.4, it is noted that valve seat conditions can change due to open/close cycles, so that a conclusion that a valve does not leak past its seat in the short term is difficult to project to the end of plant life.

3.2.10 If Stress Evaluation Required, are the Data Sufficient?


Once monitoring data are available, a stress and fatigue evaluation may be required using the monitoring data for the specific piping section of concern. If the need to perform a stress analysis is indicated based on minimal sets of temperature measurements for a section of piping, additional measurement points may be required depending on the magnitude of the temperature differences. As an example, in a worst case scenario, the top-to-bottom temperature differences conceivably could approach 400F for in-leakage to the RCS. A quick evaluation for this value of stratification temperature difference and cyclic temperature range caused by turbulent penetration would likely show that more detailed data would be required to show acceptable stress and fatigue results. Additional data would likely be required in this case including measurements of top-and-bottom temperatures at a number of axial locations along the pipe.

3.2.11 Re-configure
A need to re-configure the monitoring of a specific section of piping will generally entail the addition of temperature sensors. In the case of in-leakage, additional top-and-bottom of pipe measurements along the pipe axis might be needed to define the axial temperature distributions and the axial extent of piping subjected to cyclic temperatures. (Section 5 classifies sensor locations into two categories: minimum coverage for cyclic thermal stratification detection, and maximum coverage for detailed structural evaluation.)

3-9

Implementing a Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Program

Monitoring Requirement Defined

Define Monitoring Objectives

Determine Sensors To Be Used

Determine Sensor Locations

Define Sampling Rates

Develop Software/ Hardware Specification

Configuration Development Phase Monitoring & Evaluation Phase

Procure, Install, Configure

Re-configure
(e.g., add sensors)

Collect Data

Evaluate Data

Inleakage Objective

Outleakage Objective

Cyclic TP Objective

Data Objective

No
Continue Monitoring Is Leakage < Yes Allowable ? No Reduce Leakage Are Ts < Allowable ? Yes Data Sufficient ?

No

Yes

Perform Detailed Evaluation

Discontinue Monitoring

No

Monitoring Required Yes ?

Figure 3-1 Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Process

3-10

4
TYPES OF SENSORS FOR MONITORING
The types of parameters recommended for monitoring to detect and characterize thermal cycling in piping attached to the RCS include piping outside surface temperatures, as a minimum, and the additional parameters of fluid pressure and flow rate, piping displacements, and possibly local pipe strain as deemed appropriate. System parameters (e.g., RC pressure, temperatures, and loop flows or pump status) are also necessary for interpretation of collected data. Generally, the recommended method for measurement of temperatures is to use externally mounted thermocouples. There are obvious advantages of outside rather than inside wall measurements in a plant program for thermal fatigue monitoring. However, to make a determination of the acceptability of outer surface measurements an evaluation needs to be made of the accuracy requirements for cyclic temperature variations and the ability of outside wall temperatures to meet these requirements for various values of pipe wall thicknesses. Temperature measurements on the outside surface of piping may be used for monitoring of nearsteady or slowly varying thermal stratification (e.g., for periods of oscillation on the order of a minute or more). However, because of attenuation through the wall, more rapid variations may not be observable at the outer surface. Figure 4-1 illustrates typical differences in amplitudes of temperature oscillations between the inside and outside of piping due to attenuation. Using outside temperature measurements, temperature variations on the piping inside surface may be recoverable using signal processing techniques (refer to Reference 2 for a description of the method). However, cyclic information above a certain frequency at the inside surface of the pipe can be lost, depending on the particular pipe wall thickness and metal thermal properties. Also, the ability to accurately transform outside surface temperature measurements to the inside surface is limited by the level of noise in the signal, possibly resulting in the introduction of significant errors in the predictions of inside temperature variations. Figure 4-2 illustrates how the through-wall attenuation of the amplitude of temperature oscillations varies with cyclic period, specifically for stainless steel piping with inch wall thickness. The figure is based on calculated results using an analytic solution for the temperature distribution through a flat plate with a periodic surface temperature. As shown, the amplitude of inside temperature oscillations with a period of about 25 seconds is reduced by a factor of 10, i.e., the outside amplitude is only 10 percent of the value at the inside surface. For cyclic periods below about 10 seconds, the outside amplitude is less than 1/30th, or about three percent, of the inside value. This also shows the importance of adjusting the measurements made using sensors mounted on the outside of the piping to reflect the amplitude of temperature variations at the inner surface. For example, if outside measurements indicated an oscillation period of 15 seconds, the inside amplitude would be about 20 times that observed on the exterior. 4-1

Types of Sensors for Monitoring

Thermocouple-pairs mounted top and bottom on the piping OD at the valve are generally adequate for detecting the occurrence of significant leakage (i.e., leakage that results in nonnegligible thermal cycles). Where the magnitude of the temperature is less important than the difference in temperature, e.g., for top-to-bottom temperature difference, thermocouples can be set up in series fashion to produce a signal directly proportional to the temperature difference (see Figure A-2). This type of arrangement will provide a more accurate measure of temperature differential than taking the difference between two separate temperature measurements. Thermography can be useful for determining the temperatures of piping under steady conditions, including steady thermal stratification in stagnant or near-stagnant, un-insulated lines. However, this method is not considered appropriate for purposes of monitoring to detect significant thermal cycling. This is primarily a result of the inability to assure that short-term "spikes" in temperature will be captured at the time the thermograph is made, since spikes caused by turbulent penetration, for example, may occur at random intervals separated in time by many minutes, or even hours. In addition, temperature fluctuations on the inside of the pipe are significantly attenuated by the pipe. Therefore, thermography is of extremely limited value for detecting thermal cycling due to certain mechanisms and is not considered an important tool in thermal fatigue monitoring. Pressure monitoring can be used to indicate potential for leakage into or out of the RCS. However, the ability to determine the true pressure difference based on two separate measurements is limited in cases where the difference approaches the sum of uncertainties in the two pressure measurements. Consequently, pressure measurements using existing instruments (e.g., RCS pressure and HPI pressure) would be of limited use because of the associated uncertainties and the need to correct for elevation differences. For gross indications, existing pressure measurements would be acceptable. However, for conditions where small differences in pressure could exist, which could occur for certain valve lineups and valve leak rates, the uncertainties in pressure measurements could conceivably lead to an incorrect conclusion as to the direction of potential leakage. A local delta-pressure measurement at the valve would be less subject to effects of measurement error, but this would require pressure taps in the piping, which if they need to be installed would be expensive. For the case of slight pressure differences between RCS loops, even a local delta-pressure measurement may not be sufficiently accurate to properly indicate the direction of flow through cross-connected lines in the case of low leakage flow rates (which do not require more than a few psi pressure difference to drive flows that are a significant fraction of one gallon-per-minute). Flow rate in the RCS attached piping may be an important monitoring parameter if the flow rate is throttled to the range where thermally stratified flow results, such as in the makeup line for B&W plants, for example. In this type of situation, the flow rate and pipe size influence the stratified layer depth in the pipe, thereby determining the general characteristics of the pipe temperature distribution in the circumferential direction. Piping displacement measurements are needed in some cases to confirm the accuracy of the temperature data or to determine when the pipe comes into contact with a hard stop, e.g., 4-2

Types of Sensors for Monitoring

structural concrete. These measurements can be vital in discovering an interference that alters the pipe displacement and loading in relationship to free thermal growth. The displacements will be used to provide analytical benchmarks showing that the thermal input to the model correctly predicts the displacements. Note that the displacement measurements and strain gages are a secondary source of information used to ensure that an analytical model is working correctly. As such, it is very important that the location of the measurements is communicated correctly to the analyst. Small changes in displacements at the measurement location due to thermal stratification can yield large changes over a substantial length of pipe, while the stratification temperatures may remain fairly constant over the length. Successfully correlating displacements with analytical predictions relies upon all the information for both displacements and temperatures at corresponding times being communicated correctly to the modeler. Strain gages are useful in some instances to provide a direct measure of piping strain to supplement the more indirect and perhaps less accurate methods such as inference from a set of piping temperature measurements. Theoretically, strain gages would give a direct measurement of the strain resulting from the pipe deformity caused by thermal effects. The complexity of the measurement and uncertainty of the results have limited their use in fatigue applications to information only. To utilize strain gages, the designer must know if the measurement should detect static or dynamic strain and the appropriate strain direction. For this application, the sensors must either be temperature compensated or include a dummy gauge (no strain, only temperature effect) and it is recommended that individual gauge factors for each sensor be known (measured). Sensors are difficult to install and must be installed for each axis and the proper measurement bridge configuration selected. Plant status information is essential to the analysis of data. This should include global primary system status to allow identification of initiating events and baseline plant conditions. This information can be gathered from the plant computer either off-line or on-line through simultaneous monitoring. Parameters of interest would be RCS temperatures, RCS pressure, RC pump status, pressurizer level, pressurizer spray and heater status, makeup and letdown flows, and any safety injection status. Additional details regarding temperature and displacement sensors and measurements are included in Appendices A and B.

4-3

Types of Sensors for Monitoring

Figure 4-1 Inside and Outside Pipe Surface Temperature Variations - Illustrating Typical Attenuation Through Pipe Wall

4-4

Types of Sensors for Monitoring

120

100

80
Attenuation *

60

40

20

0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Cyclic Period, sec

Figure 4-2 Attenuation of Through-Wall Temperature Oscillations with Cyclic Period


* Attenuation is defined here as the amplitude of the temperature oscillation at the ID of the pipe divided by the amplitude of the temperature oscillation at the OD of the pipe. As such, it is a reduction factor applied to the inside excitation to obtain the outside response, or conversely, an amplification factor applied to the outside observation to obtain the inside excitation. For example, an attenuation of 40 means that the outside amplitude is only 1/40th of the inside, or the inside amplitude is 40 times that observed on the outside. (Note that the attenuation cannot be less than 1.0 (no attenuation), but full attenuation corresponds to a value of infinity.)

The chart shows a calculation of attenuation for a stainless steel pipe of a particular diameter and wall thickness. As an example, if the inside pipe wall experiences a temperature oscillation with a period of approximately 15 seconds and an amplitude of 50F, the amplitude of the outside pipe wall temperature oscillation will be about 1/20th, or 2.5F. Longer periods will reduce the attenuation factor, and thus increase the amplitude of the outside temperature oscillation while shorter periods will decrease the exterior amplitude.

4-5

5
MONITORING LOCATIONS
This section presents recommendations for placement of monitoring sensors for various representative piping layouts which are considered subject to possible thermal cycling. The thermal cycling may result from thermally stratified flow (TS), turbulent penetration (TP), or TP and TS interaction due to in-leakage/inflow (TP/TS). These recommendations deal with the details of thermocouple (T/C) placement (or other types of temperature sensors) for measurement of piping temperatures. The placement of sensors for other monitoring purposes, such as for displacement measurements, are discussed in Section 4. Figures 5-1 through 5-7 illustrate the preferred placement of T/Cs for various piping configurations. Because these configurations include upward (vertical and inclined), horizontal, and downward (vertical and inclined) orientations these figures are believed to encompass all attached piping configurations. Table 5-1 is a key to these figures. The specific recommendations for T/C placement depend on the particular mechanism of thermal cycling of concern (for the particular piping configuration), whether TP, TS, or TP/TS. Both maximum and minimum coverage are included to conform to the possible range of monitoring objectives, from the goal of simply detecting whether cycling occurs (minimum coverage) to determining the detailed temperature distributions for input to a fatigue evaluation (maximum coverage). An option is identified for more extensive coverage, for the case where the added data is needed or desired (possibly to refine calculations where margins need improvement and/or uncertainties need to be minimized). In describing preferred T/C placement, the terms "hot-trap" and "cold-trap" are sometimes used. A "hot-trap" is an inverted U-section of piping (normally provided with vent connections), whereas a "cold-trap" is a U-section, i.e., loop-seal (normally provided with drain connections). In the accompanying sketches showing preferred T/C placements, the following abbreviations are used: OPT - optional monitoring locations T&B - top and bottom of horizontal (or near-horizontal) pipe C-C - spaced around circumference of horizontal pipe, including T&B S-S - one (or two opposed) T/Cs placed on a vertical (or near-vertical) pipe.

5-1

Monitoring Locations

For T&B positions, consideration should be given to including redundant T/Cs at either the top or bottom at critical locations where loss of data could essentially defeat the purpose of the monitoring operations. Also for the T&B configuration, T/Cs could also be positioned to include one sensor at the top for temperature with a second top/bottom T/C pair connected in series to sense the temperature difference directly. The C-C designation, for placement around the pipe circumference, is intended for T/Cs from 0 degrees (at bottom of pipe) to 180 degrees (at top), on one side of the pipe. The number of T/Cs ranges from three, as a minimum, to as many as seven or more, with various values of angular spacing, depending on the pipe diameter and the purpose of the measurement. (For this description, the ranges of nominal pipe sizes are defined as (1) small 1 to 2 inches, (2) medium 2 to 6 inches, and (3) larger 6 to 14 inches or more. Table 5-2 describes the range of preferred T/C placements for the C-C layout.
Table 5-1 Key for Thermocouple Placement Figures Configuration Objective of Monitoring

In-leakage

Out-leakage

Turbulent Penetration Min Max

Min Upward-to-Horizontal-to-Valve (UHV) Horizontal-to-Upward-to-Horizontal-to-Valve (HUHV) Horizontal-to-Valve (HV) Horizontal-to-Downward-Horizontal-to-Valve (HDHV) Downward-to-Horizontal-to-Valve (DHV) Hot Trap Cold Trap 5.1a 5.2a

Max 5.1b 5.2b

Min 5.1c 5.2c

Max 5.1d 5.2d

NA

5.3a 5.4a

5.3b 5.4b

5.3c 5.4c

5.3d 5.4d 5.4e 5.4f

5.5a 5.6a 5.7a

5.5b 5.6b 5.7b

5.5c 5.6c 5.7c

5.5d 5.6d 5.7d

5.5e NA

5.5f

While not currently perceived to be a cause of thermal fatigue, monitoring for out-leakage is presented for completeness.

5-2

Monitoring Locations Table 5-2 T/C Placement Around Circumference of Pipe (for C-C designation) Phenomenon/ (Purpose of Measurement) TS Line Size Number of T/Cs Angular Position, (Bottom = 0o)

small (1" to 2")

3 to 5 5 to 7 7 3

0, 90, 180 0, 45, 90, 135, 180

(Resolve temperature distribution around circumference.)

medium (2" to 6")

0, 45, 90, 135,180 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180

large (6" to 14") In-leakage small to medium (1" to 6") large (6" to 14") (Detect in-leakage and provide a measure of stratified cold-layer depth.)

0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180 0, 30 to 45, 180

0, 15 to 30, 180

Out-leakage (Detect out-leakage and provide a measure of stratified hot-layer depth.)

small to medium (1" to 6")

0, 135 to 150, 180

large (6" to 14")

0, 150 to 165, 180

Local considerations for T/C placement -- For locations at or near: pipe elbows - on pipe, with clearance of at least one weld-bead width from weld. RCS nozzles / thermal sleeves - on pipe, spaced at least one weld-bead width from weld. valves - on pipe, spaced a distance from the valve of at least three times the pipe-wall thickness. piping supports - on pipe, spaced at least one pipe diameter from support.

5-3

Monitoring Locations

One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B (OPT)

T&B (In-leakage may be detected by B only)

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

(a) Minimum Coverage


Detects TP/TS Thermal Cycling Near Valve Detects Inflow/In-leakage Cycles

C-C T&B (OPT) T&B (C-C OPT)

T&B

(b) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP/TS, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal
Figure 5-1 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement Upward-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage

5-4

Monitoring Locations

One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

(c) Minimum Coverage


Detects Outflow/Out-leakage Cycles

T&B

T&B (C-C OPT)

(d) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal Figure 5-1 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement Upward-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Outleakage

5-5

Monitoring Locations

T&B (OPT) T & B

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

One or More Horizontal Runs

(a) Minimum Coverage


Detects Inflow/In-leakage Cycles Detects TP/TS Thermal Cycling

C-C T&B (OPT) T&B (C-C OPT)

T&B

T&B (OPT)

(b) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP/TS, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal Figure 5-2 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to Up (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage

5-6

Monitoring Locations

T&B

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

One or More Horizontal Runs

(c) Minimum Coverage


Detects Outflow/Out-leakage Cycles

T&B

T&B (C-C OPT)

(d) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal Figure 5-2 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Up (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage

5-7

Monitoring Locations

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

(a) Minimum Coverage


Detects Inflow/In-leakage Cycles Detects TP/TS Thermal Cycling

T&B (OPT)

C-C

T&B

One or More Horizontal Runs

(b) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP/TS, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal Figure 5-3 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage

5-8

Monitoring Locations

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

(c) Minimum Coverage


Detects Outflow/Out-leakage Cycles

T&B

T&B (C-C OPT)

One or More Horizontal Runs

(d) Maximum Coverage

Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal

Figure 5-3 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage

5-9

Monitoring Locations

T&B Either Vertical or Inclined Piping If more than 25 diameters beyond RCS T/C on vertical and lower horizontal not required.

S-S

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

(a) Minimum Coverage


Detects Inflow/In-leakage Cycles Detects TP, TS Thermal Cycling T&B (C-C OPT)

T&B Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

S-S

T&B (OPT)

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B T&B

(b) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP/TS, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal Figure 5-4 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage

5-10

Monitoring Locations

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

(c) Minimum Coverage


Detects Outflow/Out-leakage Cycles Detects TP, TS Thermal Cycling

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

S-S

T&B (OPT)

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

(d) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal

Figure 5-4 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage

5-11

Monitoring Locations

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping If more than 25 diameters beyond RCS, T/Cs on vertical and lower horizontal not required.

S-S

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

(e) Minimum Coverage


Detects Turbulent Penetration Cycles Detects TP, TS Thermal Cycling

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping If more than 25 diameters beyond RCS, T/Cs on vertical and lower horizontal not required.

S-S

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

(f) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal

Figure 5-4 (e) and (f) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Horizontal-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration No Leakage (Turbulent Penetration)

5-12

Monitoring Locations

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping If more than 25 diameters beyond RCS, T/Cs on horizontal not required

S-S

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

(a) Minimum Coverage


Detects Inflow/In-leakage Cycles Detects TP, TS Thermal Cycling

S-S

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping If more than 25 diameters beyond RCS, T/Cs on horizontal not required T&B (OPT)

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

T&B

(b) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP/TS, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal

Figure 5-5 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Inflow/In-leakage

5-13

Monitoring Locations

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

(c) Minimum Coverage


Detects Outflow/Out-leakage Cycles Detects TP, TS Thermal Cycling

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

S-S

T&B (OPT)

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

(d) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal
Figure 5-5 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration Outflow/Out-leakage

5-14

Monitoring Locations

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

S-S

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

(e) Minimum Coverage


Detects TP, TS Thermal Cycling

Either Vertical or Inclined Piping

S-S

T&B One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

(f) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TP, TS Thermal Cycling Along Horizontal Figure 5-5 (e) and (f) Thermocouple Placement RCS-to-Down (or Inclined)-to-Horizontal-to-Valve Configuration No Leakage (Turbulent Penetration)

5-15

Monitoring Locations

One or More Horizontal Runs

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve.

T&B

First in a series of downward steps in a run of piping

(a) Minimum Coverage


Detects Inflow/In-leakage Cycles Detects TS Thermal Cycling One or More Horizontal Runs

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve.

T&B

First in a series of downward steps in a run of piping

(b) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TS at Measurement Location

Figure 5-6 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Hot Trap Inflow/In-leakage

5-16

Monitoring Locations

One or More Horizontal Runs

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve.

First in a series of upward steps in a riser section.

T&B

(c) Minimum Coverage


Detects Outflow/Out-leakage Cycles One or More Horizontal Runs

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve.

T&B (OPT)

T&B (OPT)

First in a series of upward steps in a riser section.

T&B

(d) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TS at Measurement Location Figure 5-6 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Hot Trap Outflow/Out-leakage

5-17

Monitoring Locations

T&B

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve. First in a series of upward steps in a riser section.

(a) Minimum Coverage


Detects Inflow/In-leakage Cycles

One or More Horizontal Runs

T&B

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve. First in a series of upward steps in a riser section.

(b) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TS at Measurement Location One or More Horizontal Runs Figure 5-7 (a) and (b) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Cold Trap Inflow/In-leakage

5-18

Monitoring Locations

First in a series of downward steps in a run of piping

S-S

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve.

T&B

(c) Minimum Coverage


Detects Outflow/Out-leakage Cycles

One or More Horizontal Runs

First in a series of downward steps in a run of piping

S-S

Refer to other appropriate figure for specific layout of RCS to first valve. T & B T&B (OPT)

(d) Maximum Coverage


Collect Data for Fatigue Evaluation TS at Measurement Location One or More Horizontal Runs Figure 5-7 (c) and (d) Thermocouple Placement Outboard of First Valve Through Cold Trap Outflow/Outleakage

5-19

6
DATA ACQUISITION AND TRANSMISSION
The data acquisition system (DAS) design should consist of application-specific components for instrumentation, data acquisition, and data reduction. It can utilize state-of-the-art, commercially available hardware and software with the following features. An important design consideration is to utilize distributed remote I/O data acquisition hardware that is modularly expandable to allow expansion-contraction flexibility. On-line data reduction software should be employed to turn data into information in a real-time format to facilitate analysis. Special software configuration can provide event or condition triggered application files coupled with long-term (two years or greater) data storage and on-demand downloading of continuously monitored logged data. Periodic status reports can be automatically generated and user defined reports or data analysis can be available when needed. Threshold limits can be used to alarm conditions requiring investigation. A historical database can be generated from the distributed inputs, including monitoring temporary sensors and existing plant signals, and linking to a plant computer for plant status. The system should provide real-time information stored with an accessible database server and plant network compatibility. Figure 6-1 provides an overview example.

6-1

Data Acquisition and Transmission

Figure 6-1 Illustration of Recommended System Configuration

6-2

Data Acquisition and Transmission

6.1

Data Acquisition

When considering the purchase of a data acquisition system, too much emphasis is often placed on the cost of the data acquisition hardware, without giving enough thought to the overall system and software. Unexpected costs for system configuration and software typically approach or exceed the cost of the hardware itself. Small to medium size systems vary from limited channels to larger systems with up to 100 input channels, ranging from dedicated specialty units to portable or fixed flexible systems. A common purchasing guideline for evaluating potential DAS equipment has always been costper-channel. Hardware manufacturers are aware of this guideline and present products in their literature to reflect a low cost-per-channel. This "universal" guideline can be very misleading, unless the overall cost of implementation is considered. For applications from 4 to 40 channels, medium size or transportable products range from $200 to $300 per channel. The hidden costs are found in inflexibility for expansion and data handling (storage, analysis). These may not be easily distributed and quite often end up with unused channels (e.g. need 23, purchase 20-per-card). Distributed front-ends also normally provide a fixed number of inputs per I/O card (8 to 20) and are almost always dedicated to one input type. The largest risk factor, or hidden cost, is always software. Too often, products provide drivers that enable logging data in ASCII or CSV file format or provide communication links (dynamic data exchange, DDE) to allow communicating with any Windows application. Be aware that any software package that requires using a range of instrument command sets, or requires complex high-level statements as part of configuration, is likely to prove costly. An off-the-shelf software package may seem expensive at $500 to $3000, but the difference between a less expensive system and this amount is very often spent interfacing the hardware with the software or in efforts spent collecting data and turning it into information. Plug-n-Play PC bus plug-in boards have similar problems as portable or remote I/O" in that they normally have dedicated input types, 8 to 20 channels per card and normally lack isolation, signal conditioning, and the ability for distributed acquisition. Whereas these can be exceptionally fast (already on the PC bus) the specified accuracies and environmental tolerances may not apply to the thermal fatigue monitoring applications range of environmental conditions. System integration and software are almost always more important in total cost than the hardware procurement costs. All hardware products include minimum software to allow logging data and displaying some channels on the PC screen. However, acquiring useful data and turning data into useful information can be handled either with significant analysis man-hours, continuing software involvement, or with the purchase of an adequate integrated system and software at the beginning.

6.2

Data Transmission

Data acquisition is accomplished either through local storage (long signal leads to a logger or logger(s) located near signal source) or acquired with a distributed remote I/O and transmitted to the logger (file server with network link). 6-3

Data Acquisition and Transmission

Data transmission is typically accomplished via serial RS-232 or RS-422/485, manufacturer proprietary data highway, network (e.g., Ethernet), or wireless. RS-232 is a live-zero signal that has limited speed (<19K baud) and distance (typical 50 feet). To avoid noise interference and data loss, the RS-422 (or 485) signals can be used, which are differential allowing higher transmitting speed without interference and therefore longer distances (a few thousand feet). Network communication is much faster than serial and can go long distances depending on cable type. Wireless transmission has the advantage of not needing cables but requires a reasonable line-of-site, may require repeaters, has limited throughput capability, and cannot penetrate containment walls. Thus, for attached piping applications network or RS-422 communication is recommended.

6.3

Smart-Front-End versus Raw Data Acquisition

In cases where the application goals are reasonably well defined (as is the case with thermal fatigue monitoring) there may be advantages in a system that includes calculation capability at the data acquisition front end. A good example would be a programmable logic controller PLC based data acquisition system that allows for significant signal processing up front before signal transmission. This has the advantage of processing the data as it is collected and converting it to information already in an application specific format. The PLC remote I/O method can provide the following functions: all signal conditioning data processing (volts-to-engineering units conversion) input running average channel averaging time averaging offset correction special calculations on combined channels input dead bands logged data exception reporting built-in counters for discrete events the capability to convert signals using linear, log, or square root functions

The processed information and data would be transmitted to a data acquisition to PC running a Windows application software that provides these functions: various runtime trend graph screens, pre-configured for on-line data analysis historical logging (a separate log file per day with deadbands and exception reporting) statistics calculations links to Excel and an analysis program alarms

6-4

Data Acquisition and Transmission

If such processing is known to be desirable, it is usually best to accomplish it automatically at the time of data acquisition. While this processing can also be accomplished in an off-line PC, data tends to accumulate and may not be post - processed if it is not automated or made part of the software.

6.4

In-Containment Installation

As has been discussed and presented in Figure 6-1, there is an advantage to be able to have the data acquisition equipment located inside containment and the data be accessible outside containment. Environmental considerations of concern for in-containment include those listed below: Radiation levels Temperature Humidity Vibration

It is normally possible to find locations within containment with an environment acceptable for data acquisition hardware. Since the combination of temperature and humidity is of concern, the equipment is typically mounted as a special cabinet (to facilitate field connections) with forced ventilation, which can include a heat exchanger or air-conditioning unit. Electronic equipment must be located in an area not exposed to high radiation. Equipment performance will degrade above 103 rad with failures occurring near 104 rad. In general, a location can be found with radiation levels less than 50 mR/hr, which would be acceptable for long-term (many years) operation. If the radiation levels exceed 1R/hr, the data acquisition equipment may not survive one fuel cycle. Applications with equipment that will only be used for one heatup should not experience long-term dose effects, but still need to be outside of any high dose rate area.

6-5

7
MONITORING EXPERIENCE SURVEY
A survey of thermal fatigue monitoring experience by operating plants was conducted for this report. The responses from this survey are provided in Appendix C. The state-of-the-art for this type of product changes rapidly. In general, the data acquisition hardware and software used by the respondents would be considered out of date by today's technology standards. However, the problems reported by respondents can still provide useful insight for plants currently considering a monitoring system. Sensor Types For temperature monitoring, respondents reported experience with Resistance Temperature Devices (RTDs) and Thermocouples (T/Cs). While both types of sensors were reported to be effective, a plant that had experience with both types reported that they would use T/Cs, if additional monitoring were needed. FTI has selected T/Cs for providing temporary monitoring services to plants, and has found them to be reliable. T/Cs offer the convenience of two wires, compared to three or four wires for RTDs. An additional consideration for RTDs is the need for a bridge circuit for data acquisition. Mounting Methods Mounting RTDs RTDs cemented to pipe with leads fed through a penetration so they could be monitored at power. RTDs banded to the pipe with stainless steel bands. Mounting - T/Cs T/Cs spot-welded to a stainless steel band that is fastened to the pipe with a constant torque clamp. Stainless steel pipe clamps with attached tubes that are perpendicular to pipe; thermocouples are inserted into tubes. Weed type E curved radius T/Cs held in place with stainless steel pipe clamps. Sensor Problems Only one plant reported a problem specific to RTDs. Most problems reported could apply equally to RTDs or T/Cs.

7-1

Monitoring Experience Survey

Problems RTDs Difficult to trouble shoot; long run for lead wires made isolation of problems difficult. RTDs [on the downstream side of first block valve off the RCS loop] were removed from service because of reliability problems. RTDs and lead wire subject to damage during ISI, insulation, etc. Lack of redundancy when an RTD fails. RTDs were initially installed as temporary and thus are not as rugged as permanent plant instrumentation.

Problems T/Cs Changed from Gordon thermocouples mounted perpendicular to the pipe (was difficult to maintain a good reading) to Weed type E curved radius T/Cs. Thermocouples can come loose; connections can be made incorrectly (top reading is bottom temperature and vice versa); installation is temporary, and shows it. Encounter problems, if people step on insulation. "Funny data" i.e., thermocouples wired wrong, or bad thermocouple. Data Acquisition Various data loggers were reported without a clear preference for any particular type. Usually the data acquisition software was supplied with the data logger. Most did not identify the software that was used for data acquisition. One plant reported using EPRI/SIA FatiguePro software to monitor existing plant instrumentation, which allows fatigue analysis associated with plant transients. Data Acquisition Hardware Two Fluke NetDAQ units and a network hub custom installed in a single cabinet in containment. Fluke Helios extender chassis in containment receiving about 80 T/C inputs; Fluke Helios data acquisition unit and PC in cable spreading room for data logging. Beckman Industrial (BI) data logger and BI Digitrack 360 drive HP 34970A Data acquisition logger Fluke 2280 datalogger Wang and Omega data loggers Data Acquisition Software Fluke NetDAQ Logger software for data acquisition; Fluke Trend Link software for viewing the data.

7-2

Monitoring Experience Survey

Data Handling Typically, a data logger produces a data file that is transferred either manually (e. g. floppy disk) or electronically to a PC for analysis using a spreadsheet, such as Microsoft Excel or Lotus 123. Reported Data Handling Methods T/Cs terminated to input cards in containment; connected by single Ethernet cable through penetration to PC in cable spreading room. PC logs data that is manually downloaded to a Zip drive and transferred to another PC for analysis. T/Cs terminated to input cards in containment; connected by single RS-422 cable through penetration to data acquisition front end and PC in cable spreading room. PC logs data that is manually downloaded to a Zip drive and transferred to another PC for analysis. For drains and spray line, used a data logger connected to a PC. For other lines, fed leads through a penetration so they could be monitored at power. Data is collected by data logger and sent, by RS232 communications, to a plant computer that stores selected data. Periodic reports are generated off an Excel spreadsheet. Data is reviewed bi-weekly by site system engineers. Evaluate any data that does not meet the IEB 88-08 criteria. Data logger linked to Digitrack 360 drive; provides a floppy disk with data file retrievable by Lotus 123. Monitoring Frequency and Rate
Frequency Continuous Continuous Following power ascension and every 6 months Quarterly and during heat up Rate 30 sec samples for some (spray), 5 min samples for others Data is collected every minute Not available

Log data at 10 second intervals for 10 min, then at 10 minute intervals for 24 hours

Monitoring Duration Two plants reported that monitoring had been discontinued because the collected data showed that there was no thermal stratification. The rest plan to monitor indefinitely.

7-3

8
ACRONYMS
The following acronyms and abbreviations were used in this report: ASCII C-C ANSI standard character Monitoring location - spaced around circumference of horizontal pipe, including T&B Core Flood Comma Separated Variable data format Data Acquisition System Decay Heat Removal Attached piping configuration that runs vertically downward from the RCS and then turns horizontal to a control or check valve German Industry Standard Electromotive Force (Voltage generated in T/C wire with temperature gradients) Attached piping configuration that runs horizontally from the RCS, turns downward, turns horizontal to a control or check valve Attached piping configuration that runs horizontally from the RCS, turns upward, turns horizontal to a control or check valve Attached piping configuration that runs horizontally from the RCS to a control or check valve Inner Diameter (of pipe) Issue Task Group Linear Variable Differential Transformer Materials Reliability Project 8-1

CF CSV DAS DHR DHV

DIN EMF HDHV

HUHV HV

ID ITG LVDT MRP

Acronyms

NRC OD OPT PLC PT PWR RTD SQL S-S

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Outer Diameter (of pipe) Optional monitoring locations Programmable Logic Controller Position Transducer Pressurized Water Reactor Resistance Temperature Detectors/Devices Structured Query Language (real time, relational data base) Monitoring location - one (or two opposed) T/Cs placed on a vertical (or nearvertical) pipe. Monitoring Location - Top and bottom of horizontal (or near-horizontal) pipe Thermocouple Thermal Fatigue Turbulent Penetration TP and TS interaction due to in-leakage/inflow Reference Temperature Thermally Stratified Flow Reactor Coolant System Residual Heat Removal Shutdown Cooling Attached piping configuration that runs vertically upward from the RCS and then turns horizontal to a control or check valve

T&B T/C TF TP TP/TS TR TS RCS RHR SDC UHV

8-2

9
REFERENCES
1. 2. TR-1001006, Operating Experience Regarding Thermal Fatigue of Unisolable Piping Connected to PWR Reactor Coolant Systems (MRP-25), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA,: Guyette, M., Prediction of Fluid Temperature from Measurements of Outside Wall Temperatures in Pipes, ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, 116 (1994) 179187. Muroya, I. et al, The Evaluation System of Thermal Stratification Stress Using Outer Surface Temperature presented at the International Conference on Fatigue of Reactor Components, Napa, CA, July-August 2000.

3.

9-1

A
TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT
A.1 Resistance Temperature Detectors and Thermocouples

The two most common methods of measuring plant component exterior temperatures are with resistance temperature detectors (RTD) or thermocouples (T/C). The decision on which to use is usually determined from consideration of temperature range, response time, size, overall accuracy, installation concerns and cost.

A.1.1 Temperature Range


For the thermal fatigue monitoring application, the points to be monitored fall into two categories: Those in proximity to the RCS with maximum temperatures between 550oF and ~650oF possible. Those on piping or components some distance from the RCS, without continuous flow, with temperatures below 300oF.

Both RTDs and T/Cs envelop this range. The temperature to be sensed affects the sensor configuration and type of insulation used for the instrumentation cables. RTDs would be the same for both ranges. T/C configurations would be different for the two ranges with respect to accuracy, wire insulation, and cost. To minimize cost for a long length T/C, the higher temperature application would possibly use an extension wire in conjunction with a high temperature (>350oF) T/C. For the high temperature range, the T/C should use a glass braided insulation with a stainless steel protective overbraid. Because of the high cost associated with this type it is usually used in combination with lower cost T/C extension cable with Teflon, PVC, or Tefzel insulation.

A.1.2 Response Time and Monitoring Frequency


As was shown and described with Figure 4-1, there is significant response attenuation when monitoring pipe fluid temperature with sensors on the outside wall. Experience indicates that sampling at rates faster than 10 to 30 seconds does not provide additional information with respect to absolute temperature. Since the major influence is a damping of the amplitude, sampling faster could however still give information about cyclic frequency.

A-1

Temperature Measurement

It is general knowledge that a T/C responds faster than an RTD. This difference is only of significance when a response time of less than one second is important. For the thermal fatigue monitoring application the slower system response is generally the main concern and installation technique is more important to response than sensor type. FTI has performed response time tests on various T/C and RTD configurations (exposed versus sheathed, grounded versus ungrounded T/C, sheath thickness) to use as guidance for monitoring frequencies. These can be summarized for functional purposes: Sensor Type Dead Time Exposed T/C .01s Exposed RTD .02s 1/8" sh. ground T/C .04s 1/8" sh. underground T/C .11s 1/8" sh. RTD .14s Rise Time 0.2s 0.2s 0.5s 0.9s 2.0s Settling Time 0.7s 0.8s 1.6s 2.7s 6.0s

Sheath Thicknesses (all type K T/C) Exposed 0.01s 1/16" 0.03s 1/8" 0.11s 1/4" 0.23s

0.2s 0.27s 0.9s 2.7s

0.7s 0.9s 2.7s 7.0s

dead time : the time lag before a material response occurs (e.g., 1% for a step response). rise time: similar to time constant, the time requires to reach more than 60% in response to a step impulse. settling time: the time required to reach (and stay within) 1% of the final value. Based upon these limitations on sensor response it appears that when using a 1/8" grounded junction T/C, monitoring much faster than every few seconds would not greatly increase data quality. Based upon FTI experience with thermal fatigue monitoring data it is possible to detect cycling, approaching 50 degrees peak-to-peak and a 2 minute frequency on RCS nozzles, with a 30-second sampling rate. This leads to a recommendation for a data scanning rate of 10 to 30 seconds for locations susceptible to cycling. As presented above, sensor size can be a consideration if the attached piping is not controlling response. Size does not become a concern with installation since miniature size RTDs and T/C are available today that make size a non-issue for most installations. A difference would be that RTDs must be purchased whereas a T/C can be fabricated to facilitate installation and improve accuracy. For very small diameter pipes (~1") the standard RTD sheath sizes of ~0.1" diameter require more attention to installation than a standard sheathed T/C of <0.05".

A.1.3 Temperature Measurement Accuracy


Overall accuracy is a multifaceted topic that is influenced by many factors and can be improved through selection and testing. It is best to discuss this as measurement uncertainty rather than an inaccuracy or error. This uncertainty is also different for an absolute measurement than for a A-2

Temperature Measurement

differential measurement. Since temperature differences less than about 50oF or less are not a concern, a guideline for a measurement uncertainty requirement would be 5F. In general, it can be assumed that installation and data acquisition will add an additional 1 degree to the measurement uncertainty. If this were to be used with the 5F measurement uncertainty requirement, then the temperature measurement sensor accuracies described in Table A-1 would have a 4-degree upper limit for T measurement. a. Sensor Accuracy

Table A-1(a-c) presents typical measurement uncertainties for RTD and T/C, absolute and difference, and T/C with special fabrication and selection testing. Theoretically, measurement strings that include a short section of high temperature T/C wire combined with a long section of low temperature extension wire (if T > 350oF) have measurement uncertainties that are again about 40% higher than those listed in Table A-1a for a single (1) T/C absolute temperature measurement. This is because each T/C segment contributes its own error (uncertainty) component. Practice has shown this to be conservative and can be minimized with in-place postinstallation testing and normalization. Extension T/C wire is normally used for long lengths of cable run because of the reduced cost compared to that for high temperature T/C wire. Additional errors associated with T/Cs during extended use are described below The uncertainties listed in Table A-1 (a-c) for RTDs assume that a 4-wire or 3-wire (wires run together from sensor to bridge) configuration is used. Temperature cycling, (T/t) can be monitored (followed) within the limits of the date acquisition for deadband, repeatability and resolution.
Table A-1a Temperature Measurement Sensor Accuracies For Thermocouples and RTDs Thermocouple o ~600 o ~300 (1) (2)

Uncertainty

Method

RTD

U(A) U(,A)

Absolute Difference(2)()

4 6.5 o

5 7o

7 10o

<3o 4.5 o

Differential (,A) from two similar but independent absolute (A) measurements such that square-root sum of the squares can be applied. U(,A) = 2 * U(A)

(1) Single T/C measurement without extension T/C (2) Single T/C measurement with extension T/C

A-3

Temperature Measurement

Using two T/C absolute measurements to determine the difference does not meet the five degree accuracy requirement. Using RTDs, T/C with averaging, special fabrication and selection testing, or direct T measurement improve the accuracy of the T/C measurement. b. Using Averages from Two T/Cs and Direct Temperature Difference T

As shown in Table A-1b, using the average of two measurements improves on the uncertainty. If absolute temperature is not important, the differential temperature between two points can be determined more accurately. If the "2" T/Cs are actually fabricated from the same T/C wire the differences between their mV/T will be small and, if combined for T, there is no need to measure (or control) the reference temperature, TR. In general the T must be calculated in software if the data acquisition does not include a direct T/C T measurement. Using a single value for the conversion (oF/mV) would result in less than a 0.25oF error for Type K T/Cs. Special consideration (ungrounded junction, isolated differential measurement) allows measuring absolute and differential temperature directly and simultaneously from the same sensors.
Table A-1b Temperature Measurement Sensor Accuracies For Thermocouples and RTDs Thermocouple o ~600 o ~300 (1) (2) o o o 3 3.5 5 o o o 5 7 4 <3
o

U(avg, A) U(,avg) U(dir )

Method Average (2) Difference from 2 Average Difference

RTD o 2 o 3 1 (matched pair)


o

13

Average (Avg) from two similar but independent absolute (A) measurements such that square-root sum of the squares can be applied. U(Avg, A) = U(A)/ 2 Difference () from two average (A) measurements of absolute temperatures. U(, Avg) = U(A), where T = TH (Avg) TL (Avg) Difference measured directly (dir) without measuring absolute temperature. U(dir) < U(A) (1) Single T/C measurement without extension T/C (2) Single T/C measurement with extension T/C

c.

Special Fabrication Methods to Improve Accuracy

By utilizing special fabrication and testing, improvements can be made in the uncertainty of monitoring temperature gradients from absolute measurements. This is accomplished by specifying (or fabricating) individual T/Cs from the "same lot" (same spool of T/C wire) and performing screening tests to guarantee the tighter tolerances. This should be backed up with stringent installation testing and post installation normalization (verification) at elevated A-4

Temperature Measurement

temperatures under isothermal conditions. Using these fabrication and testing methods can reduce the measurement uncertainty to those shown in Table A-1c.
Table A-1c Thermocouple Measurement Sensor Accuracies Test and "Same Lot" o o ~300 ~600 o o 3 4 o o 4 3 2 o 2.5 2
o o

U(A) U(,A) U(avg, A) U(,avg) U(dir )

3 o 3 3
o

Absolute temperature Difference from two absolute T Average of 2 absolute T Difference of absolute average Direct difference temperature

A.1.4 Installation
Successful RTD and T/C thermal fatigue monitoring experience suggests that the sensors be either cemented, bonded, spot welded to the pipe or held in place with a constant torque "clampon" band. It is recommended that all sensors fastened to the RCS pressure boundary be affixed with circumferential stainless steel bands utilizing a constant torque device to maintain a constant contact pressure and accommodate thermal expansion and contraction of the piping. These bands provide a chemically benign method of securing the sensors against the outside pipe diameter while permitting installation of covering insulation to assure that the entire sensor mass reaches a thermal equilibrium with the surface. They can easily be handled and installed in accordance with cleanliness procedures to ensure no contamination of the pipe surfaces. Each sensor band assembly weighs less than one pound and contributes a negligible load on the line. The entire assembly, thermocouples and band, can be pre-fabricated and tested prior to installation to minimize time required inside of containment (see Figure A-1). Installation acceptance test, comparing pre to post readings, should guarantee the integrity of the sensor including: a. Visual inspections and labeling b. Documented installation location and position c. Loop resistance (individual and string) d. Loop points check using heated junction e. Integrated system (through the Data Acquisition System (DAS)) patch verified with disconnect/connect f. Failed sensor (open junctions) detection in DAS

A-5

Temperature Measurement

Following installation, it is very important that T/Cs fastened to the outer pipe wall are insulated from the ambient to ensure only pipe temperature is being detected. This includes isolation from the room temperature as well as assuring that the T/C is protected from drafts and air currents that might cool the sensing location.

A.2

Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs)

In general, an RTD is more accurate than a T/C and must be used if tolerances less than 3oF are needed. RTDs are passive devices where the actual measurement is resistance in a bridge circuit. Temperature is determined from a resistance () versus temperature (T) correlation accomplished either in data acquisition hardware or in software. An RTD is a "point" measurement with the measured temperature determined from the actual temperature of the sensor material. Normally a platinum sensor is used, but nickel or copper could be selected for this application. The most common RTD is a 100 ohm platinum sensor with an alpha coefficient of 0.00385 //C. Different types of RTDs have different alpha coefficients and they must be matched in instrumentation for proper conversion to temperature. In all cases a 3 or 4 wire bridge configuration is recommended to eliminate an offset introduced from leadwire resistance. If a two wire approach is utilized, the error in absolute measurement can be quantified and corrected for in the software. Thus, the error introduced in the determination of the differential temperature can be less than for an absolute temperature measurement. Temperature is normally calculated from measured resistance in the data acquisition system using the approximation formula (for platinum RTD): RT = Ro * (1 + AT) where A = 0.00385. The exact formula would be: RT = Ro * (1 + At + BT2) where A = 0.00300784 and B = 0.5784 * 10-6 For the range of temperatures for the thermal fatigue monitor application, the results differ insignificantly (<0.01%). The uncertainties associated with the RTD temperature measurement are due to variations in material, resistance to temperature conversion, self-heating, and installation.

A.3

Thermocouples

Refer to Figure A-2 for an illustration of T/C setups for absolute and difference measurements.

A.3.1 Thermocouple Types


Thermocouples can be made with any combination of two dissimilar materials. ISA recognizes twelve thermocouple types. Eight of the 12 have letter designations including Type J, Type K, Type N, and Type T, which are candidates for this application. The most common determining factor for choosing thermocouple type is the temperature range of its intended application. Type J is suitable for a temperature range up to 1,400oF, Type K up A-6

Temperature Measurement

to 2,300oF, Type T up to 700oF, and Type N up to 2100oF. Any of these types are adequate for the thermal monitoring applications. Type T is copper-constantan T/C with copper wire having a positive coefficient and constantan negative coefficient. It is only recommended in mildly oxidizing environment and low temperatures (<700oF.) Type J is iron-constantan T/C with iron wire having a positive coefficient and constantan a negative coefficient. It is not recommended for an oxidizing environment. Type K is chromel-alumel with chromel wire having a positive coefficient and alumel having a negative coefficient. This is recommended for use in an oxidizing environment and therefore is best suited for in-containment applications. Type N is similar to Type K but it has been designed to minimize some of the instabilities in the conventional T/C combination. Changes in the alloy content have reduced thermal cycling hysteresis and a higher silicon content in the positive element improves oxidation resistance.

A.3.2 T/C Measurement Uncertainty Discussion


To better understand techniques that can improve the measurement uncertainty of T/Cs, a short discussion on the principle is helpful. T/Cs are manufactured using materials and processes to controlled specifications that guarantee that the product will be within standard tolerances for accuracy. For example, Type K thermocouple wire shall meet the standard limits of error, as given in ANSI MC96.1: + 4oF or .75% of the measured temperature, which ever is greater. This allows an error of + 4oF up to a temperature of 533oF, increasing linearly to +5.25oF at 700oF. This is normally referred to as "Full DIN (referring to the original German Industry Standard) tolerance. For added cost it is possible to specify and purchase "half DIN" tolerance T/Cs. These as-received tolerances and thermocouples can experience additional inaccuracies during use. Thermocouple types E, J, and K show inherent thermoelectric instability related to timeand/or temperature-dependent instabilities in several of their physical, chemical, nuclear, structural, and electronic properties. There are three principal characteristic types and causes of thermoelectric instability in the most commonly used thermoelement materials: 1. A gradual and generally cumulative time-dependent drift in thermal electromotive force (EMF) on long exposure at elevated temperatures due to compositional changes caused by oxidation and to neutron irradiation, which can produce transmutation in nuclear reactor environments. A-7

Temperature Measurement

2. A short-term cyclic change in thermal EMF on heating thought to be due to some form of structural change. 3. A time-independent perturbation in thermal EMF in specific temperature ranges. Unlike an RTD, with a T/C the temperature signal is not induced at the measurement point (junctions) but rather through temperature gradients along the length of the wires. Figure A-2 is provided to help with this explanation. For an absolute measurement, the T/C junction provides a common temperature and voltage connection (contact, short) at the measurement point. With changing temperature an electromotive force is generated along the lengths of wire, the voltage generated differing for dissimilar materials (wires). After some length of wire at different temperatures, this difference can be measured as a mV signal proportional to the temperature change. A reference junction is provided to give a reference point (normally 0oC = 32oF) from which to determine (calculate) the absolute temperature at the junction (either by formula or look-up table). The uncertainties are in the mV/T for the wires, the accuracy of reference temperature (TR) and the calculations. With special fabrication consideration and selection testing it is also possible to reduce the measurement uncertainty.

A.3.3 Special Fabrication Methods


If absolute temperature is not important, the differential temperature between two points can be determined more accurately. If the "2" T/Cs are actually fabricated from the same T/C wire the differences between their mV/T will be small and, if combined for T (see Figure A-2), there is no need to measure (or control) TR. In general the T must be calculated in the software if the data acquisition does not include a direct T/C T measurement. In a similar fashion, improvements can be made in the uncertainty of monitoring temperature gradients from absolute measurements. This is accomplished by specifying (or fabricating) individual T/Cs from the "same lot" (same spool of T/C wire) and performing screening tests to guarantee the tighter tolerances. This should be backed up with stringent installation testing and post installation normalization (verification) at elevated temperatures under isothermal conditions.

A.3.4 Insulation
Material properties for the in-containment cables are always a concern with most plants having restrictions over the commonly available Teflon and PVC materials. A recommended practice is for the thermocouples attached to the pipe to have stainless steel sheathing for high temperature (>300oF) T/C with fiberglass insulation and the low temperature T/C and extension cables made with insulation of Tefzel. The high temperature T/C attached to the bands should have an overall fiberglass braid jacket insulation and the individual wires should also have fiberglass insulation. Low temperature T/Cs can be fabricated directly using extension cable T/C wire.

A-8

Temperature Measurement

The Tefzel insulation (extensions cable jacket and wires) has: 1. Continuous temperature rating above 300oF. 2. Passes IEEE 383 flame test (70,000 BTU) and UL 83 (no afterburn). 3. Flame retardant and non-propagating in fire conditions. 4. Excellent chemical and radiation resistance. 5. Superior cut-through resistance. Table A-2 includes more descriptive information on Tefzel as supplied by the manufacturer (Product Information from DuPont).
Table A-2 Characteristics of Tefzel (280), a Fluoropolymer Resin

1.

Description Combining mechanical strength and toughness with chemical resistance, Tefzel fluoropolymer resins are widely used to make compact cable constructions that provide long, reliable service especially in hot, corrosive environments. Tefzel offers excellent electrical properties for demanding wire and cable applications. It resists heat aging and also offers high resistance to aggressive chemicals, making it ideal for chemical/petrochemical plants, paper mills, and other facilities with hostile service environments. Relatively radiation resistant, Tefzel meets the requirements of IEEE-383 and is approved for use in nuclear power plants. The physical and electrical properties of Tefzel permit more compact cable constructions for ready connection with today's smaller electronic components. In fact, cables insulted with Tefzel can be smaller and lighter, for a given ampacity, than almost any other insulting material offering economy of operating space and value. Tefzel also provides for trouble-free installation. Its toughness delivers excellent cut-through, abrasion, and crush resistance. Its flexibility, compactness, and low coefficient of friction make cables each to pull, minimizing the number of wires damages during installation. Cables insulated and jacketed with Tefzel also have a low flame spread rating, passing the largescale IEEE-383 flammability tests.

2.

Applications For high-temperature wiring with mechanical strength, stress crack resistance, and chemical o o resistance, Tefzel 280 is the insulation of choice. Rated by UL at 150 C (302 F), it is widely used for insulating and jacketing heater cables and automotive wiring and for other heavy-wall o o applications in which temperatures up to 200 C (392 F) are experienced for short periods or o repeated mechanical stress at 150 C is anticipated. It is also ideal for oil well logging cables.

A-9

Temperature Measurement

Figure A-1 Recommended Temperature Sensor Installation Method

A-10

Temperature Measurement

Figure A-2 T/C Temperature Measurement Principles

A-11

B
DISPLACEMENT METHOD INSTALLATION AND COST COMPARISON

B.1

Displacement Sensor Types

Six means of sensing displacement were reviewed. Three are recommended and three were not found to be suitable for attached piping applications. The recommended means of monitoring/measuring piping displacement during heatup, operation and cooldown are: 1. Cable-Extension Position Transducers (String Pots) (sensor is an extension wire connected to a precision potentiometer): A representative String Pot sensor has a 5 Stroke, 0.024 dia. measuring cable, top exit, 2mV/V bridge and 6 pin metal MS3106E-145-6P connector on the enclosure. The effective stroke length is 2.5. The sensor requires a power supply, which can be a simple 12-40V DC unregulated power supply. 2. Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) Position Transducers: A representative LVDT has a 3 Stroke, No. 8-32 threaded core, Hermetically sealed case, glass sealed MS type connector. Additionally, LVDTs require a signal conditioner to interface with the Data Acquisition System. Normally a multi-channel unit would be used with a large number of sensors. 3. Conductive-Plastic Resistance and Collector Track Position Transducer: A sample model has a 3 stroke with an IP65 enclosure (similar to NEMA Type 13). The sensor requires a power supply, which can be a simple 12-40V DC unregulated power supply. The following three alternative methods of monitoring/measuring piping displacement during heatup, operation and cooldown were reviewed. These alternative methods do not appear to offer any benefit and are simply not suitable for this type of task. 4. Inductive and Capacitive Proximity Sensors A review of existing and a search for new applications in this broad area of sensing technology did not result in a useable alternative method. These sensors have pickup ranges up to 40 mm (1 ) and operate between -8F and 158F. Their enclosures are rated for IEC

B-1

Displacement Method Installation and Cost Comparison

IP 67 (water immersion). These may be useful for an application that requires indication of possible catastrophic line growth or movement. Also as they are digital (single pulse), and quite accurate, these sensors could be applied with cable extension technology for unique displacement measurements. 5. Ultrasonic Sensors This is a relatively new application of sensor technology. A representative has a single transducer that functions as both transmitter and receiver. Its characteristics are: Ranges available are from 2 to 40 inches Sonic cone is 6 Output of up to 6 transducers is easily synchronized Normal sensor temperature range is between -13F and 158F Their enclosures are rated for IEC IP 67 (water immersion) While this model operates as a proximity sensor, the ability to accurately sense at a distance of up to 40 inches may be beneficial in certain applications. 6. Encoders A review of existing and a search for new applications in this broad area of sensing technology did not result in a useable alternative method.

B.2

Measurement Accuracy Comparison

Previous work for similar applications (to thermal fatigue monitoring) by FTI determined that an accuracy/resolution requirement for displacement measurement was 0.1-inch. Test results for both LVDTs and Position Transducers (PTs) showed resolution capabilities of 0.06 inch and 0.04 inch, respectively. Achieving these accuracies in practice requires controlled installation and calibration (normalization) methods. For information purposes, conclusions from the testing and evaluation of the above displacement transducers are:
From the thorough testing and evaluations of the two types of displacement transducers selected to measure movement of the surge line, it is evident that both the LVDTs and the String Pot position indicators (PTs) are well suited for the surge line test application. The qualification results demonstrate that these transducers exhibit desirable, if not exceptional, operating and performance characteristics when subjected to the range of expected surge line and Pressurizer room ambient temperatures. It is concluded, therefore, that the LVDTs and PTs would both provide reliable engineering information to support and enhance the understanding of thermal stratification and its effects on the surge line.

B-2

Displacement Method Installation and Cost Comparison

B.3

Installation

Installation and cost are a deciding factor with displacement measurements. Options 3 through 6 discussed above either do not meet required environments or are more costly and difficult to install than PTs or LVDTs. String pots are less expensive and much easier to install and calibrate (normalize). It is extremely important to document the as-installed conditions for displacement sensors to allow interpretation of the data. This includes distance to the pipe connection point from a fixed reference, and direction of the attached wire (axial, longitude, and angle). 1. String Pot or Position Transducer (PT) String Pots or Position Transducers (PT) are straightforward in their installation: PT enclosure bases have mounting provisions, PTs do not require perfect parallel alignment of the potentiometer spool wire for satisfactory operation PTs are relatively simple to set up (illustrated in Figure B-1). Resolution can be verified through testing and agreed to be within manufacturers specs. The actual calibration of the instrument takes place in the field when the unit(s) is zeroed after installation.

Other advantages include reliable operation, proven bridge circuit, and one easily replaceable power supply for multiple PTs. The environmental influences on the measurements have been shown to be minimal (ambient temperature variations affecting the potentiometer and vibration affecting the sensor and wire). The user can select either voltage or current as the output signal appropriate for the application.
6(1625 /2& $7,21
([FLWDWLRQ  6WULQJ 3RW RU 3RVLWLRQ 7UDQVGXFHU ([FLWDWLRQ 
6 WULQJ 3 RW RU 3 RVLWLRQ 7UDQVGXFHU

:LUH 5HVLVWDQFH 9 ,QSXW 9ROWDJH 3RZHU 6XSSO\ 9ROWDJH 9

'$4 /2& $7,21




([FLWDWLRQ  ([FLWDWLRQ  ([FLWDWLRQ  ([FLWDWLRQ 

6 WULQJ 3 RW RU 3 RVLWLRQ 7UDQVGXFHU

&XUUHQW )ORZ

'LVSOD\  3 /&

'$7$ $&48,6,7,21 )5217 (1'

3(1(75$7,216 '$4 3&

9'& 815(* 8/$7('  32:(5 6 833 /<

Figure B-1 PT Installation Requirements

B-3

Displacement Method Installation and Cost Comparison

Representative String Pot performance is: Accuracy: 0 to 5 Range 0.25% full stroke Resolution: Essentially infinite Repeatability: Greater of 0.001 inches or 0.02% full stroke Representative String Pot Environmental characteristics are: Operating Temperature: -40 F to +200F Humidity: 100% RH at 90F Vibration: up to 10 Gs to 2000 Hz Enclosure: NEMA 1 2. Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) LVDTs are also straightforward in their installation: LVDT enclosures can be purchased with a variety of mounting provisions. While LVDTs do not require perfect alignment of core for satisfactory operation, their alignment is more critical then that for String Pots. Each LVDT requires a dedicated signal conditioning module

The LVDT in itself is simple and has many commendable features, such as: Frictionless measurement and Infinite Mechanical Life Infinite Resolution and Null Repeatability Cross-Axis Rejection; i.e., the LVDT can also be used in application where the core does not move in an exact straight line. Input / Output Isolation the LVDT is a transformer Environmental Compatibility LVDT sensors can be designed to operate in: Temperatures ranging from cryogenic to 1000F Radiation tolerance up to 105 Rads Neutron flux up to 3x1020 NVT total integrated flux Pressure up to 3,000 psi LVDT signal conditioning electronics have the same environmental limitations as associated with the DAS hardware. However, while the LVDT itself is simple, Figure B-2 depicts the additional excitation and signal conditioning components required to operate an LVDT in the field.

B-4

Displacement Method Installation and Cost Comparison

%
 

'& 3RZHU ,Q

5HYHUVH 3RODULW\ 3URWHFWRU

&DUULHU 2VFLOODWRU

'(02'8/$725 $03/,),(' ),/7(5 '$7$ $&48,6,7,21 6<67(0

+&' 6(5,(6 /9'7

Figure B-2 LVDT Signal Conditioning Requirements

Figure B-3 depicts a possible arrangement of LVDTs used to monitor components in containment. The signal conditioning modules (ATA 2001) could be placed outside the containment wall also, but would require a much greater cabling effort.

6(1625 /2&$7,21
/9'7 6HQVRU
/9'7 6HQVRU /9'7 6HQVRU

'$4 /2&$7,21 
3 ( 1( 75$7,216
'$7$ $&48,6,7,21 6<67(0

6LJQDO &RQGLWLRQHU
6LJQDO

'$6 3&

&RQGLWLRQHU 
6LJQDO &RQGLWLRQHU


  9'& 815(*8/$7(' 3 2:(5 683 3 /<

Figure B-3 LVDT Data & Supply Voltage Installation Requirements

DC-DC LVDT Specifications are: Input Voltage: 15VDC (nominal), 25 ma Stroke Range: 3.0 Operating Temperature Range: 32 to 160F (0C to 70C) Null Voltage: 0 VDC Ripple: Less than 25 mV rms Linearity 0.25% full range Stability 0.125% full scale Temperature Coefficient of Scale Factor: 0.04%/F (0.08%/C) B-5

Displacement Method Installation and Cost Comparison

Shock Survival: 250 g for 11 milliseconds half sine Vibration Tolerance: 10 g up to 2 kHz Housing: ANSI 400 series Stainless Steel AC-AC Long Stroke LVDT Input Voltage: 1-7V RMS @ Stroke Range: 3.0 Operating Temperature Range: +32F to 158F (0C to 70C) Null Voltage: 0 VDC Ripple: Less than 25 mV rms Linearity 0.25% full range Stability 0.125% full scale Temperature Coefficient of Scale Factor: 0.04%/F (0.08%/C) Shock Survival: 250 g for 11 milliseconds half sine Vibration Tolerance: 10 g up to 2 kHz Housing: ANSI 400 series Stainless Steel 3. Position Transducer (Conductive-Plastic Resistance and Collector Track) A Conductive-Plastic Track Position Transducer is mounted the same as a LVDT and is operated the same as a string pot. This device utilizes conductive plastic resistive plates in lieu of a precision potentiometer (as used in the string pot) or variable transformer (as used in the LVDT). This system appears to be accurate and relatively low in cost. Representative Specifications for Position Transducers with a 3 in. Stroke are: Input Voltage: Max 42V DC Stroke Range: 3.0 Operating Temperature Range: -25F to 212F (-32C to 100C) Linearity 0.1% full range Repeatability: <0.01 mm Shock: 50 g for 11 milliseconds half sine Vibration: 0.75 mm 20 g, 52 kHz Housing: Anodized aluminum Note: These items provide a PT or LVDT in the field that will provide a measurement signal to a specialized Data Acquisition System input.

B-6

C
THERMAL FATIGUE MONITORING SURVEY SUMMARY
Questionnaires, prepared to obtain information about nuclear plant's experience with monitoring for thermal fatigue problems, were sent primarily to plants that had responded to an earlier EPRI questionnaire for Thermal Stratification and Cycling. FTIs monitoring experience is also included. The experiences for eleven plants, including three supplied by FTI, are provided in Tables C-1, C-2 and C-3. The first column of each table represents the questionnaire that was sent to the participants. A summary of responses is provided in the following paragraphs.

C-1

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Table C-1 Plant Survey Summary Entergy ANO 1 (BW) Bracy Means 501-858-5532 Bmeans@entergy.com Pzr Spray (normal and auxiliary), Decay Heat Drop leg, Cold Leg Drains, Surge Line

Utility:

Plant: Units: Contact person: Phone Number: E-mail: General description of thermal fatigue monitoring problem(s) addressed:

Purpose of monitoring:

Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Farley 1 & 2 (W) Mike Belford (205)992-5783 Mbelfor@southernco.com Farley-2 Safety Injection (SI) line cracking 3 cold leg, 3 hot leg, and 2 RHR lines, the normal and alternate charging line, and the aux Pressurizer spray line Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling. Monitor locations susceptible to valve leakage. In response to 88-08.

Carolina Power and Light Harris 1 (W) Ray Lebitz 919-362-2042 Ray.lebitz@cplc.com Safety Injection and Charging

Virginia Power North Anna/Surry 1 & 2 (for both sites) (W) Leslie (Les) Spain 804-273-2602 Les_spain@vapower.com High pressure safety injection

Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling.

General description of monitoring system at this plant:

Not using installed plant equipment; for 1" drain lines used 2 T/Cs strapped to pipe 180 deg apart; For Pzr spray (normal) had 5 or more T/Cs strapped to pipe at several locations for a temperature profile; for drains and spray line, used a data logger connected to a PC. For other lines, used RTDs cemented to pipe with leads fed through a penetration so they could be monitored at power.

See above for locations. RTDs were initially installed on both sides of the first block valve off the RCS loop. The RTDs on the downstream side of each valve were removed from service because of reliability problems and because they were not required by IEB 88-08. Data is collected by datalogger and sent to a plant computer that stores selected data. Periodic reports are generated off an Excel spreadsheet. Any data which does not meet the

Thermocouples are attached to top/bottom of charging/SI pipe. Recently replaced the mirror insulation with blanket type to allow for better installation of t/c. Recently changed from Gordon thermocouples mounted perpendicular to the pipe which was difficult to maintain a good reading.

Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling. Monitor locations susceptible to valve leakage. Look for stratification, top to bottom, and whether it moves with time; i.e., determine the amount of stratification, and whether it cycles over time. Thermocouples mounted downstream (of valve?); data logger linked to Digitrack 360 drive; provides a floppy disk with data file retrievable by Lotus 123

C-2

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Entergy ANO Southern Nuclear Operating Company Farley IEB 88-08 criteria is evaluated by Westinghouse. Fluke 2280 datalogger Carolina Power and Light Harris Virginia Power North Anna/Surry

Data acquisition hardware:

Wang and Omega data loggers (only bought Omega because Wang was in use).

HP 34970A Data acquisition logger

Beckman Industrial (BI) data logger and BI Digitrack 360 drive

Data acquisition software: Please comment on monitoring program experience for this plant: Strengths:

Data is reviewed bi-weekly by site system engineers RTDs were difficult to trouble shoot; long run for lead wires made isolation of problems difficult. RTDs and lead wire subject to damage during ISI, insulation, etc Still encounter problems if people step on insulation.

Weaknesses/problems:

System works most of the time; confident would detect stratification and cycling T/Cs can come loose; connections can be made incorrectly (top reading is bottom temp); intended as temporary installation

Limitations encountered: What were the cost considerations? Projects driven by availability of manpower

Number of locations: No. of points/location: Sensor type(s):

3 for Pzr Spray 5 or more T/Cs Experience with RTDs and T/Cs; would use T/Cs, if more monitoring needed. Got better results with T/Cs.

Lack of redundancy when an RTD fails None for the original installation but funding for reliability improvements has been harder to come by 11 2 RTDs

Cost of analyzing erroneous data compared to installation of new curved t/c 8 2 Weed type E curved radius 10 (typical, all four plants) 2/top and bottom; 4/redundant top and bottom Thermocouples

Monitoring locations: Sensor locations: Circumferentially spaced. Top/bottom of pipe. Horizontally spaced.

See above Top/bottom of pipe.

Charging, Alt Charging, Safety Injection (6) Top/bottom of pipe.

See General Description Top/bottom of pipe. Occasional on side of pipe at 90 deg.

C-3

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Installation techniques: Entergy ANO RTDs cemented to pipe; T/Cs mounted with jig of tubes and pipe clamp strapped to pipe Southern Nuclear Operating Company Farley The RTDs are banded to the pipe with stainless steel bands. Carolina Power and Light Harris Stainless steel pipe clamps Virginia Power North Anna/Surry Stainless steel pipe clamps with attached tubes; thermocouples are inserted into tubes; system has been in place since '89-'90;

Monitoring frequency: Continuous (constant), rates: Triggered, initiated on: Periodic, when: Description:

30 sec samples for some (spray), 5 min samples for some

Data is collected every minute

Following power ascension and every 6 months

quarterly and during heat up. Log data @ 10 sec for 10 min, then @ 10 min for 24 hours. Connections are made outside the containment (in the "cable vault").

Data transmission: Data Storage:

Proprietary for data logger. Circular or floating buffer. Proprietary format data file. ASCII, CSV (e.g., Excel).

Serial. Distribution in plant and offsite. Circular or floating buffer. ASCII, CSV (e.g., Excel).

Continuous monitoring with exception reporting. ASCII, CSV (e.g., Excel).

Reporting Format: Problems encountered:

On one occasion, lost use of PC due to damaged comm. cable; data logger produced hard copy that was manually entered into Excel.

Goals (wishes) not met:

Periodic reports. Primary problem has been that the RTDs were initially installed as temporary and thus are not as rugged as a permanent plant instrumentation. Plant plans to make the RTD installations permanent to increase the reliability of the readings

"Funny data" i.e., thermocouples wired wrong, or bad thermocouple

Be able to remove equipment from plant (it is cheaper to leave equipment in place and monitor every 18 months than to do regular inspections).

C-4

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Recommendations: Entergy ANO Use T/Cs instead of RTDs; If insulated, replace insulation correctly loose or improper insulation will have a noticeable effect on data readings Discontinue monitoring. Driven by the part of normal operation that piping is critical to operation; DH monitored through out cycle; Drain and spray lines taken out before operating plant. Southern Nuclear Operating Company Farley Carolina Power and Light Harris Virginia Power North Anna/Surry If doing installation again, would look for more robust equipment and more reliable way to mount thermocouples.

Future plans: Basis for discontinuing:

Continue monitoring indefinitely. NA

Continue monitoring indefinitely. NA

Continue monitoring indefinitely. NA

C-5

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Table C-2 Plant Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Units: Contact person: Phone Number: E-mail: General description of thermal fatigue monitoring problem(s) addressed: PG&E Diablo Canyon (DCPP) 1 and 2 (W) Suresh G. Khatri (805)545-4169 Sgk1@pge.com DCPP has not instrumented any lines for unisolable leaks. Please note that we had measured the temperature of the pressurizer surge line (top and bottom of the pipe). New York Power Auth Indian Point 3 1 (W) Ahmet Unsal (914)287-3435 Ahmet.Unsal@nypa.gov 2 auxiliary pressurizer spray and 4 pressurizer spray connection WCNOC Wolf Creek 1 (W) Maurice (Mo) Dingler (316)364-4127 madingl@WCNOC.com Pressurizer auxiliary spray line Ameren UE Callaway 1 (W) Richard Lutz (573)676-8536 rjlutz@cal.ameren.com N/A. Callaway Plant does not currently have special instrumentation installed to monitor leakage or thermal cycling. See below for discussion of EPRI/SIA FatiguePro fatigue monitoring system used to obtain global data at Callaway Plant to address long term RCS thermal fatigue issues.

Purpose of monitoring:

General description of monitoring system at this plant:

Provide means for ensuring that pressure upstream from block valves which might leak is monitored and does not exceed RCS pressure. A new isolation valve and pressure indicator (PI 155) have been installed in the BIT bypass line.

Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling.

Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling.

RTDs were installed at the interface of two lines (line #s 61 & 64)

RTDs installed on the pipe to record the temperature of the pipe, which would allow the determination of valve leakage.

Callaway has procured EPRI/SIA FatiguePro fatigue monitoring software. This software has been saving data on a triggered basis to allow fatigue analysis associated with plant transients. Uses previously existing plant instrumentation and is not designed to analyze valve leakage, TP etc.

C-6

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Units: Data acquisition hardware: Data acquisition software: PG&E Diablo Canyon (DCPP) 1 and 2 (W) New York Power Auth Indian Point 3 1 (W) WCNOC Wolf Creek 1 (W) Data Logger Records temperatures Ameren UE Callaway 1 (W) FatiguePro software installed in 1995 to save plant transient data

Please comment on monitoring program experience for this plant: Strengths: Weaknesses/problems:

Records a temperature every minute and easy to maintain data has to be downloaded every 6 months

Limitations encountered:

Saving plant data for future analysis Future analysis may be time consuming due to bad data, etc. Not designed to monitor valve leakage or turbulent penetration etc.

What were the cost considerations? Number of locations: No. of points/location: Sensor type(s):

1 1 Pressure indicator

installed in 1993 data no longer available 3 o 2/location 180 from each other RTDs

Monitoring locations:

Charging piping - BIT bypass line Single point location. Pressure indicator with isolation valve

Piping

pressurizer aux spray line - 2 in size Circumferentially spaced.

Existing plant instrumentation for temperature, flow, pressure, etc. Bounding locations chosen to cover RCS nozzles & pipe. N/A. Existing plant instruments used for FatiguePro

Sensor locations: Installation techniques:

Top/bottom of pipe.

C-7

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Units: Monitoring frequency: PG&E Diablo Canyon (DCPP) 1 and 2 (W) Routine weekly checks. New York Power Auth Indian Point 3 1 (W) Periodic. WCNOC Wolf Creek 1 (W) Every minute. Ameren UE Callaway 1 (W) Temperature probes used in past to identify specific RCS outleakage locations.

Data transmission: Data Storage: Reporting Format: Problems encountered: Goals (wishes) not met: Recommendations:

Constant Logging. Alarm. None Callaway plans to continue global fatigue/transient monitoring (probably to end of plant life) using FatiguePro software (or equivalent). No installed local monitoring at this time. Continue monitoring indefinitely. NA Discontinue monitoring. Data collected showed that there was no thermal stratification. Continue monitoring indefinitely. NA

Future plans: Basis for discontinuing:

C-8

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Table C-3 Plant Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Units: Contact person: Phone Number: E-mail: General description of thermal fatigue monitoring problem(s) addressed: Purpose of monitoring: General description of monitoring system at this plant: Duke Power Oconee 2 Fred Custer (864) 885-3465 Obtain High pressure injection line temperature profile to analyze for possible temperature stratification Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling. T/Cs terminated to input cards in containment; connected by single RS-422 cable through penetration to data acquisition front end and PC in cable spreading room. PC logs data that is manually downloaded to a Zip drive and transferred to another PC for analysis. Duke Power Oconee 1 and 3 Fred Custer (864) 885-3465 Obtain High pressure injection line temperature profile to analyze for possible temperature stratification Monitor locations susceptible to thermal cycling. T/Cs terminated to input cards in containment; connected by single Ethernet cable through penetration to PC in cable spreading room. PC logs data that is manually downloaded to a Zip drive and transferred to another PC for analysis. Duke Power Oconee 1 Tim Brown (864) 885-3952 Obtain temperature profile of pressurizer valves

Data acquisition hardware:

Data acquisition software:

Fluke Helios extender chassis in containment receiving about 80 T/C inputs; Fluke Helios data acquisition unit and PC in cable spreading room for data logging. LabTech notebook

Two Fluke NetDAQ units and a network hub custom installed in a single cabinet in containment.

T/Cs were added to existing NetDAQ system installed for HPI line monitoring; T/Cs terminated to input cards in containment; connected by single Ethernet cable through penetration to PC in cable spreading room. PC logs data that is manually downloaded to a Zip drive and transferred to another PC for analysis. Expanded input capability of existing system by adding a third Fluke NetDAQ unit to cabinet in containment.

Fluke NetDAQ Logger software for data acquisition; Fluke Trend Link software for viewing the data.

Fluke NetDAQ Logger software for data acquisition; Fluke Trend Link software for viewing the data.

C-9

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Units: Please comment on monitoring program experience for this plant: Strengths: Duke Power Oconee 2 Duke Power Oconee 1 and 3 Duke Power Oconee 1

A reliable system; has done continuous multi-year monitoring at five other sites. Product is no longer supported; only chassis extender meets incontainment requirements; data acquisition main frame must be located outside of containment.

A reliable system; has done continuous multi-year monitoring.

Additional T/Cs were easily added to existing system; a reliable system; has done multi-year monitoring

Weaknesses/problems:

Limitations encountered: What were the cost considerations? Number of locations:

7 to 8, for each of four lines

No. of points/location: Sensor type(s): Monitoring locations: Sensor locations: Single point location Installation techniques:

1 to 4 T/Cs fabricated and tested by FTI. Four HPI lines

4 to 5, for each of four lines for Unit 1; for each of two lines for Unit 3 1 to 2 T/Cs fabricated and tested by FTI. Four HPI lines for Unit 1; two HPI lines for Unit 3 Circumferentially spaced. Top/bottom of pipe T/Cs spot welded to constant torque stainless steel clamps (bands) Once a minute. Network Constant logging Demand reports

3 bands; on valve upper and lower flanges and center body 2 T/Cs 180 apart T/Cs fabricated and tested by FTI.

Monitoring frequency: Data transmission: Data Storage: Reporting Format:

Circumferentially spaced. Top/bottom of pipe. T/Cs spot welded to constant torque stainless steel clamps (bands) Once a minute. Serial RS-422 Constant logging Demand reports

Across valves. T/Cs spot welded to constant torque stainless steel clamps (bands) Once a minute. Network Constant logging Demand reports

C-10

Thermal Fatigue Monitoring Survey Summary Utility: Plant: Units: Problems encountered: Duke Power Oconee 2 (potential) occasional bad T/Cs avoided by having spare T/C bands available; location of data acquisition PC (in cable spreading room) not readily accessible; makes daily viewing of data unlikely; any system alarms are unnoticed until next visit to PC to get data. Coordinate reinstallation of insulation with craft and observe, if possible, to avoid pinching or cutting T/C leads with insulation; check all T/Cs for good signals after insulation is reinstalled. Duke Power Oconee 1 and 3 (potential) occasional bad T/Cs avoided by having spare T/C bands available; location of data acquisition PC (in cable spreading room) not readily accessible; makes daily viewing of data unlikely; any system alarms are unnoticed until next visit to PC to get data. Duke Power Oconee 1 (potential) occasional bad T/Cs avoided by having spare T/C bands available; location of data acquisition PC (in cable spreading room) not readily accessible; makes daily viewing of data unlikely; any system alarms are unnoticed until next visit to PC to get data. Coordinate reinstallation of insulation with craft and observe, if possible, to avoid pinching or cutting T/C leads with insulation; check all T/Cs for good signals after insulation is reinstalled.

Goals (wishes) not met: Recommendations:

Coordinate reinstallation of insulation with craft and observe, if possible, to avoid pinching or cutting T/C leads with insulation; check all T/Cs for good signals after insulation is reinstalled.

Future plans:

C-11

WARNING: This Document contains information classified under U.S. Export Control regulations as restricted from export outside the United States. You are under an obligation to ensure that you have a legal right to obtain access to this information and to ensure that you obtain an export license prior to any re-export of this information. Special restrictions apply to access by anyone that is not a United States citizen or a Permanent United States resident. For further information regarding your obligations, please see the information contained below in the section titled Export Control Restrictions.

Export Control Restrictions Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and your company. This includes an obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with your companys legal counsel to determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make available on a case by case basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it is still the obligation of you and your company to make your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or regulations.

About EPRI EPRI creates science and technology solutions for the global energy and energy services industry. U.S. electric utilities established the Electric Power Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research consortium for the benefit of utility members, their customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI, the company provides a wide range of innovative products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. EPRIs multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers draws on a worldwide network of technical and business expertise to help solve todays toughest energy and environmental problems. EPRI. Electrify the World

Program: Nuclear Power

1001016

2001 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America

EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com