Qualification of Random-Wound

Home Exit
Qualification of Random-Wound
Continuous Duty Motor Insulating
Systems
For Use in Nuclear Power Plants – Test 1, R1
SED
N
A L
LICE
R I
M AT E
Technical Report
Home Exit
Home Exit
Qualification of Random-Wound
Continuous Duty Motor Insulating
Systems
For Use in Nuclear Power Plants – Test 1, R1
1009972
Final Report, March 2005
EPRI Project Manager

K. Caraway
N. Wilmshurst
Electric Power Research Institute • 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
Home Exit
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
Nuclear Logistics, Inc.
NOTICE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THAT IS THE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF 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.
THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT WAS PROCURED, REVIEWED, ACCEPTED,

AND ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EPRI’S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM AND
PREPARED UNDER NUCLEAR LOGISTICS, INC.’S QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM,
BOTH OF WHICH COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 10 OF THE CODE OF
FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 50, APPENDIX B.
NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Home Exit
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Nuclear Logistics, Inc.

7450 Whitehall Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76118
Principal Investigator
D. Leach
Verifier
A. Seiken
Approver
M. Behr
This report describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Qualification of Random-Wound Continuous Duty Motor Systems: For Use in Nuclear Power
Plants – Test 1, R1. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1009972.
iii
Home Exit
Home Exit
REPORT SUMMARY
This test program is intended to environmentally qualify up to five insulating systems that can be
used when rewinding random-wound motor stators with voltage ratings up to and including 575
Vac, used in safety-related motors located in harsh environments in nuclear generating stations.
These insulating systems could be installed during refurbishment of continuous duty, random-
wound motors that had previously been qualified with other insulating system designs or have an
established qualification status, and they may be applicable to intermittent duty motors with
appropriate analysis. These insulating systems could also be used in new motors if other motor
elements were qualified using applicable information. This report documents the test results for
one of the insulating systems. Subsequent reports will provide the results of testing conducted on
the other insulating systems as well as the procedure for rewinding AC random-wound stators for
environmentally qualified motors.
Background
To represent various aging conditions, five different 10-hp (7.5-kW) continuous duty random-
wound specimens were fabricated using 575-V motors with a 215 motor frame size. The test
specimens were rewound to represent the stator insulating system assemblies of typical low-
voltage motors. These motors were subjected to aging and accident tests that bound the assumed
conditions for continuous duty, low-voltage motor applications. The loss-of-coolant
accident/high-energy line break (LOCA/HELB) simulation conditions did not include BWR
drywell conditions or high-temperature superheated steam conditions in the vicinity of outside
containment main steam line breaks (MSLBs). The simulations did include other inside and
outside containment accident conditions, such as inside containment MSLBs.
Objective
• To develop qualified insulation systems that can be used for rewinding nuclear safety-related
random-wound continuous duty motors used in harsh environments
Approach
Qualification tests were performed under EPRI’s 10 CFR 50 Appendix B quality assurance
program. Different low-voltage random-wound systems (LVRWS) were used to rewind five
continuous duty 10-hp (7.5-kW) motor stators representing various aging conditions. Each motor
test specimen was subjected to baseline functional testing after receipt and following each major
test performed, that is, thermal aging, mechanical cycling, resonance search and vibration aging,
radiation simulation, and accident testing. Specific parameters were monitored during each test
as required per the qualification plan, which is included as an appendix in this report.
v
Home Exit
Results
Based on the testing performed, the random-wound continuous duty motor insulating system
installed in Test Specimen ID #RW708/709-SDG/HML is qualified for the specified service
conditions previously described and further detailed in the report.
EPRI Perspective
The testing and evaluation described in this report were performed to support various nuclear
stations that need to rewind stators on qualified low-voltage random-wound continuous duty
motors used in harsh environments.
Keywords
Equipment qualification
Motor insulation
Random-wound
Rewind
Stator
vi
Home Exit
EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
2 EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION .............................................................................................2-1

2.1 Test Specimens...............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Safety Function ...............................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Interfaces ........................................................................................................................2-2
3 PLANT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Service Conditions ..........................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Functional Parameters ....................................................................................................3-2
3.3 Margins ...........................................................................................................................3-2
3.4 Synergistic Effects...........................................................................................................3-2
4 TEST SEQUENCE..................................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Receipt Inspection...........................................................................................................4-2
4.2 Baseline Functional Test .................................................................................................4-3
4.3 Thermal Aging .................................................................................................................4-4
4.5 Mechanical Cycling .........................................................................................................4-6
4.7 Resonance Search and Vibration Aging .........................................................................4-7
4.7.1 Resonant Search.....................................................................................................4-7
4.7.2 Vibration Aging ........................................................................................................4-8
4.9 Radiation Simulation .....................................................................................................4-10
4.10 Baseline Functional Test .............................................................................................4-11
4.11 Accident Test...............................................................................................................4-12
4.11.1 Electrical Test Configuration................................................................................4-13
vii
Home Exit
4.11.2 Physical Test Configuration.................................................................................4-14

4.11.3 Instrumentation....................................................................................................4-14
4.11.4 Calculated Values................................................................................................4-15
4.11.5 Test Sequence ....................................................................................................4-16
4.11.6 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................................4-21
4.12 Final Functional Test and Inspection...........................................................................4-22
5 EVALUATION OF RESULTS.................................................................................................5-1
5.1 Anomalies .......................................................................................................................5-1
5.2 Modification of Test Specimen ........................................................................................5-3
5.3 Results/Conclusions........................................................................................................5-3
6 QUALITY ASSURANCE ........................................................................................................6-1
7 MEASUREMENT AND TEST EQUIPMENT ..........................................................................7-1
8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................8-1
A ACCIDENT TEST PROFILES, TEST CIRCUIT SCHEMATIC, TRANSMISSIBILITY

PLOT, CHAMBER TEMPERATURE VS. MOTOR TEMPERATURE PLOTS, AND
CHEMICAL SPRAY COMPOSITION CALCULATION ............................................................ A-1
B TEST SPECIMEN TRAVELER, BASELINE FUNCTIONAL TESTS, AND

QUALIFICATION TEST DATA SHEETS ................................................................................. B-1
C ANOMALIES......................................................................................................................... C-1
D PHOTOGRAPHS OF QUALIFICATION TEST SET-UPS .................................................... D-1
E NLI QUALIFICATION PLAN FOR RANDOM-WOUND CONTINUOUS DUTY MOTOR

INSULATING SYSTEMS FOR USE IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS QP-109004-1,
REVISION 2 AND EPRI QUALIFICATION PLAN FOR RANDOM-WOUND
CONTINUOUS DUTY MOTOR INSULATING SYSTEMS FOR USE IN NUCLEAR
POWER PLANTS RWCDMIS-1, REV. 0.................................................................................. E-1
viii
Home Exit
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Initial Transient Temperature/Pressure Profile .......................................................4-12

Figure 4-2 Second Transient Temperature/Pressure Profile ...................................................4-12
Figure 4-3 First Transient Actual Vs Required Temperature Profile Motor Specimen ID:
RW708/709-SDG/HML.....................................................................................................4-18
Figure 4-4 First Transient Actual Vs Required Pressure Profile Motor Specimen ID:
RW708/709-SDG/HML.....................................................................................................4-19
Figure 4-5 Second Transient Actual Vs Required Temperature Profile Motor Specimen
ID: RW708/709-SDG/HML ...............................................................................................4-20
Figure 4-6 Second Transient Actual Vs Required Pressure Profile Motor Specimen ID:
RW708/709-SDG/HML.....................................................................................................4-21
ix
Home Exit
Home Exit
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Low-Voltage Continuous-Duty Random-Wound Test Specimens .............................2-2

Table 3-1 Normal and Accident Service Conditions ..................................................................3-1
xi
Home Exit
Home Exit
1
INTRODUCTION
This test program is intended to environmentally qualify up to five insulating systems that can be
used when rewinding random-wound motor stators, with voltage ratings up to and including
575 Vac, used in safety-related motors located in harsh environments in nuclear generating
stations. These insulating systems could be installed during refurbishment of continuous duty,
random-wound motors which had previously been qualified with other insulating system designs,
or have an established qualification status; and may be applicable to intermittent duty motors
with appropriate analysis. These insulating systems could also be used in new motors if other
motor elements were qualified using applicable information.
Five different 10 HP continuous duty random-wound test specimens were fabricated using
575 Vac motors with a 215 frame size. The test specimens were rewound to represent the stator
insulating system assemblies of typical low voltage motors. These motors were subjected to
aging and accident tests that bound the assumed conditions for continuous duty, low voltage
motor applications. The LOCA/HELB simulation conditions did not include BWR drywell
conditions or high temperature superheated steam conditions in the vicinity of outside
containment Main Steam Line Breaks. The simulations did include other inside and outside
containment accident conditions, including inside containment Main Steam Line Breaks.
The five random-wound continuous-duty motor insulating systems, as identified in Section 2.1,
were tested in accordance with IEEE 323-1974/1983 [8.1], IEEE 344-1975 [8.2], IEEE 334-1994
[8.3], IEEE 382-1985 [8.4], Electric Power Research Institute Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1
[8.5] and NLI Qualification Plan for Random Wound Continuous Duty Motor Insulating
Systems For Use In Nuclear Power Plants QP-109004-1 [8.12]. The qualification testing was as
specified in Section 5.0, of EPRI Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1 [8.5]. Exceptions to Section
5.0 were noted and discussed in Section 4.0, Test Sequence of the NLI qualification plan [8.12].
The qualification is for the insulation systems that can be used in rewinding safety-related motors
located in harsh environments at nuclear generating stations.
This report addresses the qualification testing for motor SPECIMEN ID: RW 708/709
SDG/HML. The remaining qualification testing is currently in progress on the other four test
specimen motors and will be included in subsequent reports following the completion of
qualification testing.
There were seven anomalies identified during the qualification testing, anomalies 109004-3,
109004-5, 109004-6 and 109004-7 apply to motor test specimen, SPECIMEN ID: RW 708/709
SDG/HML, and are discussed and dispositioned in Section 5.1 of this report. Other anomalies
will be discussed in subsequent reports containing the qualification test data for the specific
motor.
1-1
Home Exit
Introduction
The qualification testing was based on sequential testing as outlined in Section 4.0. The motor
insulating systems are referred to as ‘test specimens’ henceforth.
All tests were performed at the NLI facility in Fort Worth, Texas, except the radiation exposure,
which was performed at the Steris facility in Whippany, New Jersey. The Steris facility is an
approved NLI vendor for performance of radiation exposure.
No maintenance is required to maintain the qualified status of the motor insulation system.
1-2
Home Exit
2
EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION
2.1 Test Specimens
The test specimens in this qualification report are AC squirrel-cage induction motor stator
rewind insulating systems for EPRI’s Sub-Program B (SP-B) random-wound continuous-duty
motors. The rewind insulating systems include the motor insulation and lead wires.
The different continuous-duty Low-Voltage Random-Wound Systems (LVRWS) that were

tested for the SP-B LVRWS applications are represented by five 10 HP 575 Vac motors with a
215 frame size. The details of the insulation system for the test specimens are contained in the
EPRI qualification plan [8.5]. Subsequent EPRI reports will be issued with detailed information
on motor rewind procedures and materials for the insulation systems that are acceptably qualified
via this test program.
This qualification program did not include parts of the motor other than the rewind insulation
systems. The following parts are specifically not part of the qualification program:
• Bearings, seals, and grease
• Junction box gaskets
• Motor rotor
These parts were not exposed to the full test sequence. There are no acceptance criteria
associated with these components. Failure of these components during testing is documented;
however, they are not considered a failure of the test specimen.
The test specimens are summarized in Table 2.1.
2-1
Home Exit
Equipment Identification
Table 2-1
Low-Voltage Continuous-Duty Random-Wound Test Specimens
Specimen ID RW74038- RW708/709- RW74038- RW708/709- RW478-

SDG/HML SDG/HML HML HML HML
EM&C job # 82997 82994 82995 82999 77988
HP 10 10 10 10 10
Nominal Amps 11.9 12.1 11.7 12.1 11.4

(Based on 80°C
Temperature Rise
Testing)
Frame 215 215 215 215 215
Phase 3 3 3 3 3
Voltage (AC) 575 575 575 575 575
RPM 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800
Hz 60 60 60 60 60
Duty continuous continuous continuous continuous Continuous
Thermal Aging Served Served Heavy Build Heavy Build Heavy Build
Group
Note: See Section 3.2 for details on the temperature rise.
2.2 Safety Function
The safety function of the insulation system is to insulate the turns from each other and the stator
to allow current to flow in the coil to produce a rotating magnetic field to induce current in the
rotor winding and thereby produce torque at the shaft. The insulation must be adequate to
withstand operating voltage and surge voltages from energization and deenergization of the
winding.
2.3 Interfaces
The test specimens were configured to simulate standard installation in the plant. The following
interfaces were used:
• Prior to the performance of any testing, heat shrink wire markers were installed onto the
motor leads to ensure all measurements were made from the same leads throughout the
qualification process.
• The motors were powered by a 575 Vac, 3 phase, solidly grounded neutral Wye power
supply, unless specified otherwise in this report.
• The loading conditions (not operating, no load, full load, and overload) were as specified in
each section of this report.
2-2
Home Exit
Equipment Identification
• The physical mounting conditions were as specified in each section of this report.
• The following activities were performed to prevent damage to the lead wires:
– A faston type male/female connector was installed onto the motor leads, approximately
6" from the motor. The removable sections of the lead wires were marked to ensure the
same motor leads were used through out the qualification.
– During motor disassembly/reassembly and when making connections to the test fixtures
to operate the motors, care was taken not to damage the lead wires.
– Prior to the accident test, a 90° elbow and section of flexible conduit was installed into
the motor junction box of motor Specimen ID: RW 708/709 SDG/HML. The motor leads
were trained out of the test chamber through the conduit (see Section 4.11.1 for additional
details).
– During the LOCA testing the motor leads were connected to Teflon insulated wire. The
10 AWG wire was oversized for the required current. The connectors were covered with
Raychem WCSF splices. The splices were installed in accordance with the Raychem
procedures.
– The spliced connections were put into the motor junction box to protect the connections
from direct steam and spray impingement. The flexible conduit was open to allow steam
penetration. The low point had a ¼" drain hole installed.
• The accident test of motor SPECIMEN ID: RW 708/709 SDG/HML was performed with the
motor loaded, using a hydraulic pump, to the current that produced an 80°C insulation
temperature rise during the ambient temperature rise testing. The pump was connected to an
adjustable valve circuit, capable of varying the load on the motor, as required.
2-3
Home Exit
Home Exit
3
PLANT CONDITIONS
3.1 Service Conditions
The specified service conditions for the motor stator rewind insulating systems for
Sub-Program B (SP-B) random-wound continuous-duty motors are as follows:
Table 3-1
Normal and Accident Service Conditions
Operating Parameters Normal Condition Accident Conditions

[8.5] (Continuous Duty)
Installed Life Up to 40 years (Included in Normal Conditions)

Duty Cycle 5% to 100% 5% to 100%
(see accident profile)
Start – Stop Cycles 2000 (Included in Normal Conditions)
Temperature (ambient) 40°C to 50°C 410°F / 340°F

(104°F to 122°F) (see accident profile
Figures 4.1 and 4.2)
Heat Rise (maximum) 80°C 80°C
Radiation (rads gamma) 10E6 (maximum) 95E6

Radiation Beta Included in gamma dose Included in gamma dose
Relative Humidity 10% to 90% 100% condensing/superheat
(see accident profile
Pressure Atmospheric 62 psig / 62 psig

(see accident profile
Chemical Spray N/A PWR

Vibration 1.5g peak to peak None.
amplitude, 60Hz for 1 hour. See note 4.
2g peak to peak amplitude,
60Hz for 90 seconds.
Notes:
1. Margin was added to the above parameters, where applicable per section 3.3 [8.1].
2. The specified service conditions envelop the service conditions per references [8.5, 8.12]
3. Dual values refer to the first and second transient peak conditions.
4. OBE and SSE testing was not performed, as specified in the EPRI qualification plan.
3-1
Home Exit
Plant Conditions
3.2 Functional Parameters
The following functional parameters are applicable to the test specimens:

• Voltage: 575 Vac
• Current (approximate): No Load 5.5 A
Full Load: Specimen RW708/709-SDG/HML: 12.1 A
The nominal full load amps specified above and referenced in Table 2.1 are taken from the 80°C
temperature rise testing performed on the test specimen motors prior to the initiation of the
qualification program [8.12].
3.3 Margins
Per the EPRI qualification plan [8.5], the service conditions specified in section 3.1 contain all
margins, except those associated with uncertainties in the test monitoring equipment. The basis
for this conclusion is presented in the EPRI qualification plan [8.5].
The following margins were applied to the service conditions specified in section 3.1 to account
for uncertainties in the test monitoring equipment:
• Aging temperature: + 2°C
• Radiation: + 10%
• Vibration: + 5%
• Accident Temperature: + 5°F
• Accident Pressure: + 2 psig
• Accident Duration: + 2% on total time
3.4 Synergistic Effects
In general, a synergistic relationship is observed when two or more stresses applied

simultaneously produce degradation of a different type or magnitude than the same stresses
applied sequentially. Current research indicates that synergistic effects can typically be
categorized in two groups [8.8]:
• Test Sequence Effects: Radiation exposure prior to thermal aging
• Radiation Dose Rate Effects
Synergistic effects are addressed in the EPRI qualification plan [8.5], which is included in
Appendix E. The test sequence adequately addresses known synergistic effects.
3-2
Home Exit
4
TEST SEQUENCE
The test specimen was subjected to the full qualification sequence specified in the test plan.
Subsequent testing will be performed on the other test specimens to expose them to the full
qualification sequence. A Test Specimen Traveler was used to document each step of the test
program and was kept with the test specimen throughout the test sequence.
Test Sequence Basis
The test sequence is in accordance with the recommendations of IEEE 323-1974, as clarified by
the EPRI qualification plan [8.5] contained in Appendix E, which specified the following test
sequence:
1. Equipment Fabrication
2. Receiving Inspection
3. Baseline Functional Tests
4. Normal Radiation Exposure
5. Functional Test
6. Thermal Aging Exposure
7. Functional Test
8. Mechanical Cycling Exposure
9. Functional Test
10. Vibration Aging Exposure
11. Functional Test
12. Accident Radiation Simulation
13. Functional Test
14. LOCA/HELB Simulation
4-1
Home Exit
Test Sequence
15. Functional Test
16. Post-Test Inspection
The following additional information is provided:

• Thermal aging was performed before radiation (normal + accident) exposure.
Radiation/thermal synergistic effects are discussed in Section 3.4.
• All operational cycling was performed following thermal aging.
• The normal radiation exposure was combined with the accident radiation exposure.
• Seismic OBE and SSE testing was not performed as specified in the EPRI qualification plan.
Client Witness Points
There were 6 EPRI witness points identified for the qualification program:
• Initial Baseline Functional Test: waived
• Motor disassembly for thermal aging: waived
• Motor reassembly after thermal aging: witnessed
• Initiation of Vibration Aging Exposure: witnessed
• Initiation of LOCA/HELB Simulation: witnessed
• Post-test Functional Testing and Inspection: waived
4.1 Receipt Inspection
The test specimen motors were receipt inspected as follows:

• Verify motor is as specified in EPRI Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1 [8.5]
• Inspection for physical damage
Acceptance Criteria
• Motor is as specified in EPRI Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1 [8.5].
• No physical damage.
The acceptance criteria were met.
4-2
Home Exit
Test Sequence
4.2 Baseline Functional Test
The test specimen was functionally tested following each step of the qualification testing. The
required functional testing was performed in accordance with Electric Power Research Institute
Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1, Revision 0 [8.5] and NLI Qualification Plan QP-109004-1,
Rev. 2 [8.12], as specified on the Baseline Functional Test Data Sheets.
Initial baseline functional testing and acceptance criteria are per Baseline Functional Test BFT-
109004-1, Report BFT-109004-MIS-MTR2-1.
Test Details
Baseline functional test BFT-109004-1 consisted of the following:

• The shaft was initially rotated by hand to ensure there was no binding, drag, noise or
interference and shaft/rotor rotates freely.
• A 500 Vdc megger test between the motor windings and the frame for a minimum of 1
minute.
• An AC High-Pot test with the motor leads tied together, applying the test voltage between the
leads and the frame at 2150 Vac and maintained for 1 minute, then decreased to 538 Vac in
not more than 15 seconds.
• The initial winding resistance and ambient temperature were recorded.
• The motor was operated at No Load and 518 Vac and the voltage, phase currents and RPM
were recorded.
• The motor was operated at No Load and 633 Vac and the voltage, phase currents and RPM
were recorded.
• No Load temperature rise test at 575 Vac was performed.
• A vibration analysis was recorded.
• The motor weight was recorded.
• A visual inspection of the motor’s physical condition was performed and observations were
recorded.
Test Configuration and Instrumentation

• The test specimens were on a horizontal surface.
• Testing was performed at lab ambient conditions.
• Instrumentation to collect data was per BFT-109004-1.
4-3
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Acceptance Criteria
• Shaft/rotor rotates freely.
• No breakdown in insulation.
• All other recorded data was for information only, and contained in Appendix B.
The acceptance criteria were met, except as discussed and dispositioned as acceptable in
Anomaly 109004-1.
4.3 Thermal Aging
Test specimen motor SPECIMEN ID: RW708/709-SDG/HML, was thermally aged for 3 months
(2160 hours) at 180°C.
Test Details
• The test specimen was placed inside a circulating air oven set to the specified aging
temperature with uncontrolled relative humidity.
• The test specimen was not powered during the thermal aging.
• The aging period was 3 months (2160 hours).
• At the completion of the thermal aging period, the test specimen was allowed to cool
naturally with the door to the oven closed until the oven temperature returned to ambient
conditions.

• Prior to thermal aging the test specimen was disassembled per the procedures specified in
Test/Inspection Report TIR-109004-1 [8.13], IMPRO seal specifications and Toshiba motor
manual. The rotor, bearings, seals and conduit box gasket were removed, and the end bells
reassembled onto the motor. All parts removed during the disassembly were protected from
damage until reassembly. High temperature tape was placed over the motor’s shaft holes to
prevent intrusion of contaminants into the motor. Each set of rotor, bearings, seals and
gaskets were labeled and segregated from the rest of the test specimens, to ensure they were
reinstalled into the corresponding frame.
• The test specimen was situated in the normally mounted orientation (horizontal) during the
thermal aging period.
• A chart recorder was used to continuously record the aging temperature and time. A digital
thermometer was used to verify the temperature in the oven.
• Following the thermal aging period, the test specimen was reassembled.
4-4
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Acceptance Criteria
• The aging times and temperatures were in accordance with the NLI and EPRI test plans
[8.5, 8.12]. The test data is contained in Appendix B.
Baseline functional testing was performed in accordance with BFT-109004-2, Report BFT-
109004-MIS-MTR2-2.
Test Details

interference and shaft/rotor rotated freely.
• A 500 Vdc megger test between the motor windings and the frame for a minimum of
1 minute.
• A vibration analysis was recorded.
recorded.

Acceptance Criteria
• Shaft/rotor rotated freely.
4-5
Home Exit
Test Sequence
4.5 Mechanical Cycling
The test specimen motor SPECIMEN ID: RW 708/709 SDG/HML was cycled 2205 on/off
cycles; see mechanical cycling report MC-109004-MTR2-1.
Test Details
• A cycle is defined as starting, running for a minimum of one minute, and stopping for a
minimum of one minute.
• Each actual cycling period was approximately 5 minutes on and 10 minutes off, to allow for
adequate heat dissipation, between cycles.
• The test specimen motors were energized at the rated voltage, 575 Vac ± 5%, and operated
with no load.
• The test circuit for the motors contained the following:
– Contactor, with overload protection, to cycle the motor on and off.
– Magnetic trip circuit breaker set to 15amps to provide overcurrent protection.
– Protection from single phasing was also provided for each motor circuit using a Time
Mark 3-Phase Power Monitor, Model D2642.
– The motors had an electrically operated counter connected to the contactor to record the
number of cycles. The counter only operated when the motors were energized and
operating.
• During the mechanical cycling, the stator temperatures were monitored by the three winding
thermocouples and not allowed to exceed 180°C.
• The operating status of the test specimens was verified and the relevant data recorded, three
times a day (morning: approximately 8:00 am, afternoon/evening: approximately 5:00 pm
and night: approximately 10:00 pm) for the duration of the test.

• The test specimens were securely mounted on a horizontal surface.
• Testing was performed at lab ambient temperature.
• The following parameters were monitored and recorded during the cycling process:
– 3 phase supply voltage, all test specimens were connected in parallel.
– 3 phase current to each motor.
– Stator temperature via the winding thermocouples.
– Number of cycles.
4-6
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Acceptance Criteria
• The motors start and stop properly.
The motors were tested per Step # 2, Insulation Resistance, of Baseline Functional
BFT-109004-2, Report BFT-109004-MIS-MTR2-3. The physical condition of each motor
was recorded on the baseline functional test data sheet.
Test Details
• Test details per BFT-109004-2.

Acceptance Criteria
• Per Baseline Functional Test, BFT-109004-2, Step # 2. The physical condition of the motors
is referenced on the baseline functional test data sheet for each motor.
4.7 Resonance Search and Vibration Aging
The test specimens were subjected to a resonance search and the vibration aging as specified in
the corresponding section of the Test Plan [8.12]. The test procedure followed the guidelines
provided by Electric Power Research Institute Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1, Revision 0
[8.5], IEEE Standard 334-1994 [8.3], IEEE Standard 382-1985 [8.4] and NLI Qualification Plan
QP-109004-1, Revision 2 [8.12].
4.7.1 Resonant Search
A global resonance search was performed on motor SPECIMEN ID: RW 478 HML, which was
the heaviest of the five test specimens, to demonstrate that the test specimens are rigid up to 60
Hz. A low level (minimum 0.2g) sine sweep from 1 Hz to 100 Hz to 1 Hz was performed in one
direction, with the axis of acceleration perpendicular to the long axis of the motor. The sweep
rate was 1 octave per minute. An accelerometer was mounted at the top of the drive end of the
4-7
Home Exit
Test Sequence
test specimen motor in the same direction as the shaker table control accelerometer. The shaker
table Test Response Spectra (TRS) and on-specimen TRS were used to prepare the
transmissibility plot.
See Section 4.7.2 for the basis of the non-standard 45° orientation of the accelerometers.
The basis for only performing the resonant search on one motor is as follows:
• The natural frequency and transmissibility of the motor is a function of the design, including
shaft/rotor and motor enclosure, and component weights. All of the motors will respond in
the same manner. The heaviest motor is expected to have the lowest natural frequency.
• The resonant search is not a motor degradation mechanism. Therefore, it is not required to be
part of the test sequence.
• Motors operate at 60Hz. Therefore, by design, they should not have natural frequencies
below or near 60Hz. There were no natural frequencies between 1 Hz and 100 Hz.
4.7.2 Vibration Aging
Vibration aging was performed in accordance with Electric Power Research Institute
Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1, Revision 0 [8.5] and NLI Qualification Plan QP-109004-1
[8.12]. The vibration aging was performed on each test specimen as follows:
• A sinusoidal 60 Hz oscillating motion at 2.0g, for a minimum period of 60 minutes. This is to
simulate normal vibration and mechanical aging stresses. This envelopes the requirement of
1.5g + 5% margin.
• Following the 60 minute 1.5g exposure, a sinusoidal 60 Hz oscillating motion at 2.0g was
applied for a minimum of 90 seconds, to simulate OBE aging (five 30 second OBEs). This
does not envelop the requirement of 2.0g + 5% margin (see Anomaly 109004-7).
Test Details
• Testing was performed in one direction only, with the axis of acceleration perpendicular to
the long axis of the motor.
• The table control accelerometer and test specimen accelerometer were installed in the
direction of motion of the shake table (45° from the horizontal and vertical planes). The
required acceleration levels are in this 45° direction of motion.
4-8
Home Exit
Test Sequence

• The test specimens were mounted to a rigid test fixture using four 7/16-14 Grade 5 bolts,
nuts, and flat washers, torqued to 27.5 ft-lbs (± 10%). The test fixture was bolted to the
horizontal surface of the shaker table.
• The test specimens were de-energized/not operating during the testing.
• The accelerometers were mounted as follows:
– The control accelerometer was mounted in the horizontal direction of motion near the
base on the motor.
– During the resonance search, one accelerometer was mounted on the top of the drive side
end bell in the horizontal direction of motion.
• The following parameters were monitored:
– Accelerations.
– Vibration acceleration magnitude and duration.
• Photographs were taken of the test setup, including the location of the accelerometers, and
are contained in Appendix D.
Acceptance Criteria
• Mounting integrity was maintained.
• No physical damage during testing.
• Accelerations and times are as specified above.
• Transmissibility curves are supplied for information only. There were no natural frequencies
from 0 Hz to 100 Hz.
The acceptance criteria were met, except as discussed and dispositioned in Anomaly 109004-7.
The transmissibility plot is contained in Appendix A, and the test data is contained in
Appendix B (Report RSVA-109004-1) and the anomaly is contained in Appendix C.
Test per Baseline Functional BFT-109004-3, Report BFT-109004-MIS-MTR2-4.
Test Details

4-9
Home Exit
Test Sequence
1 minute.
1 minute.
recorded.

• Instrumentation to collect data per BFT-109004-3.
Acceptance Criteria
4.9 Radiation Simulation
The test specimens were irradiated to a total integrated dose (TID) of 11.6E7 rads gamma using a
Cobalt-60 source. The dose rate was less than 7.9E5 rads/hour. Margin was included in the TID
to account for dosimetry error (10%).

• The test specimens were orientated with the long axis parallel to the plane of the incident
radiation. The test specimens were rotated 180° in the horizontal plane half way through the
radiation exposure.
• The motors were not operating (de-energized) during the radiation exposure.
• The radiation exposure was in a chamber with free flow of air.
• The dose and dose rate were documented using calibrated dosimetry.
4-10
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Acceptance Criteria
• The radiation TID is equal to or greater than the specified value. Dose rate < 1E6 rad/hour.
The acceptance criteria were met. The test data is contained in Appendix B
(Report RAD-109004-1).
Test per Baseline Functional BFT-109004-3, Report BFT-109004-MIS-MTR2-5.
Test Details

1 minute.
1 minute.
recorded.

Acceptance Criteria
4-11
Home Exit
Test Sequence
4.11 Accident Test
Figure 4-1
Initial Transient Temperature/Pressure Profile
Figure 4-2
Second Transient Temperature/Pressure Profile
4-12
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Test specimen motor, SPECIMEN ID: RW708/709-SDG/HML was placed inside an

environmental chamber and subjected to the accident conditions identified in the profiles,
Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2. The following information is provided on the test conditions:
• 5°F and 2 psig were added to the required service conditions specified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2
to account for inaccuracies in the monitoring equipment.
• The specified pressure and temperature conditions of the profiles are minimum conditions.
• Figure 4-1 is the initial transient and Figure 4-2 is the second transient and long term accident
conditions. The full test sequence (Figure 4-1 + Figure 4-2) was performed. The test chamber
was not opened between the Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 sequences.
• The temperature/pressure conditions were obtained using the NLI accident system, as
follows:
– The system used to produce the required temperature/pressure profiles consisted of a
saturated steam boiler and two 50kW, 150psig, 500°F super-heaters.
– The specified profile was achieved by changing the mixture of saturated and superheated
steam that was injected into the chamber. The chamber was also partially vented during
the ramp up transients to achieve the required ramp rates and profiles.
– Pressurized air was injected into the chamber to help lower the chamber temperature as
required.
• The chemical spray, consisting of Boric Acid (H3BO3), Sodium Thiosulfate (Na2S2O3) and
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) was per section 4.11.4 of this report.
• The chemical spray was applied at a flow rate required to obtain 0.15 gpm/ft2 of chamber
projected area, which resulted in a flow rate of 3 gpm. See Anomaly 109004-5 in
Section 5.1.
4.11.1 Electrical Test Configuration
The test specimen was electrically configured as follows:

• The motor was connected to 575 Vac 3 phase power, with an externally grounded neutral.
• The test/operation circuit for the motor was as follows:
– The motor was protected from overload conditions using a 15 amp magnetic trip circuit
breaker connected to a contactor with solid state overload protection, adjusted to 12%
above the required full load current.
– The motor power circuit was equipped with a 3 phase power monitor to detect and
prevent phase loss, low voltage, phase reversal and phase unbalance.
– See the schematic in Appendix A for details.
• Field wire to the motor was Teflon insulated, which is suitable for the temperature and
chemical spray conditions. The 10 AWG conductors were oversized for the required current.
4-13
Home Exit
Test Sequence
• The motor lead wires were lugged to the lead wires and covered with Raychem WCSF
splices. The splices were installed in accordance with the Raychem procedures.
• The spliced connections were put into the motor’s terminal enclosure to protect the
connection for the direct steam and spray impingement. Flexible metal conduit was
connected to the motor terminal enclosure to direct the lead wires within the chamber. The
low point of the conduit had a ¼" drain hole installed. The conduit was not watertight.
• Epoxy potted feed-through fittings were used for the field wires where the lead wires exited
the chamber.
4.11.2 Physical Test Configuration
The motor was physically mounted as follows:

• The motor was mounted horizontally above the chamber flood level.
• The motor was loaded using a hydraulic load circuit with an adjustable valve control and
bypass for no-load operation. The motor was loaded as follows:
– No load: Hydraulic pump unloaded allowing a no load condition to the motor.
– Full load: Motor loaded to 12.1 amps (the current that produced an 80°C insulation
temperature rise during the ambient temperature rise testing).
– The winding thermocouples were used to verify full load temperature rise, based on
previous full load temperature rise testing.
• The hydraulic loading system was checked to verify that there were no excessive bolt, shaft,
bearing, or other loads on the motor due to differential thermal expansion.
Note: The temperature rise of 80°C at 12.1 amps was obtained by temperature rise testing
performed at ambient temperature. The temperature rise during the accident test varied. The
motor temperature rise was maintained at approximately 80°C to 85°C for the duration of the
accident test following the initial temperature ramp ups, except during the initial 24 hour spray
period. During the initial transient the motor temperature matched the chamber temperature at
176°C after approximately 15 minutes. During the second transient the motor temperature
matched the chamber temperature at 176°C after approximately nine minutes. The winding T/C’s
were used to verify that the motor was not overheating based on the rated temperature rise above
ambient. Chamber temperature vs. motor temperature plots of the initial and second ramp up are
contained in Appendix A.
4.11.3 Instrumentation
The following parameters were monitored during the testing:

• Temperature: Three thermocouples were mounted within 2" of the test specimen.
• Pressure: One digital pressure transducer was mounted in the chamber. One backup analog
pressure gauge was mounted in the chamber.
4-14
Home Exit
Test Sequence
• Time: The temperature and pressure were recorded against time using stop watches and the
NLI data acquisition system.
• Spray flow rate: The spray flow rate was measured using a flow meter and was recorded
regularly (approximately hourly).
• Voltage: Three phase supply voltage to the test specimen motor in the LOCA test chamber.
The test circuit for the motor included overcurrent and single phasing protection.
• Current: Three phase current to the test specimen.
• Three winding thermocouples of the motor: This is backup information for the winding
temperature rise (see the note above).
• One ground leakage current to the motor.
Instrumentation outputs were continuously recorded using the data acquisition system. Sampling
rates were begun at the initiation of each transient. The sample rates were approximately the
following:
• Temperature and pressure:
– 1/second during initial transient and first 48 hours of the second transient.
– 1/10 seconds during remaining portion of the LOCA testing.
• Motor operating conditions (V, I, ground leakage current):
– 1/second during initial transient and first 48 hours of the second transient.
– 1/10 seconds during remaining portion of the LOCA testing.
4.11.4 Calculated Values
The following values were calculated:

• Chemical spray flow rate required to obtain 0.15 gpm/ft2 of chamber projected area:
– Chamber projected area: 20 ft2
– 0.15 gpm x 20 ft2 = 3 gpm
• Chemical Spray Composition:
– Boric Acid, H3BO3, 0.28 molar (3000 parts per million boron)
– Sodium Thiosulfate, Na2S2O3, 0.064 molar
– Sodium Hydroxide, NaOH, to make a pH of 10.5 at 25°C
The calculations used to calculate the required chemical composition and the mixing data sheets
are contained in Appendix A.
4-15
Home Exit
Test Sequence
The pH values of the spray are the initial values for the solution used in the spray system. The
spray system is a closed system (the condensate at the bottom of the chamber is recycled through
the spray system). Therefore, the spray was diluted by the steam condensate.
4.11.5 Test Sequence
General
• Transient ramp up rates were as specified below.
• Ramp down rates for each transient were 2°F to 5°F per minute or less, when practical.
Specific Test Sequence
The test sequence was performed as follows:
1. Prior to closing the test chamber, the test configuration was checked, as follows:
• The three motor phase leads were tied together and meggered at 500 Vdc to ground.
• The test specimen was operated at no load for approximately 10 minutes.
• The test specimen was operated at 12.1 amps for approximately 10 minutes.
• Proper operation of all monitoring equipment was verified.
• The hydraulic system was verified at greater than the full load condition.
Note: For the purposes of the accident test, “full load” = current (12.1 amps) to produce an 80°C
temperature rise, based on temperature rise testing performed at ambient temperature.
2. Prior to the initiation of the accident test, the test specimen motor was placed in the
environmental chamber and the chamber preheated to 120°F for 2 hours. The test specimen
motor was operated at no load conditions during the preheating period.
• The 120°F temperature was achieved using the heat generated by the motors, and small
amounts of steam injected into the chamber with the chamber vented.
3. With the chamber preheated, steam was injected into the chamber to obtain the initial
transient from 125°F/52°C to a peak of 415°F/213°C temperature and a pressure of 108 psig.
The peak temperature was achieved in 56 seconds, 400°F/204°C was achieved in 33 seconds,
and the peak pressure was achieved in 57 seconds. Ramp up times were best effort based on
test equipment.
4. The temperature of greater than 410°F/210°C was only maintained for 13 seconds due to the
limitations of the test equipment. See Anomaly 109004-5.
5. One minute following the peak temperature the test specimen motor was energized at
575 Vac and operated at full load conditions (12.1 amps). The test specimen continued to be
4-16
Home Exit
Test Sequence
operated at full load conditions (12.1 amps) for the duration of the first transient
(approximately 3.21 hours).
6. The peak pressure was greater than 65 psig for 17 minutes.
7. The temperature and pressure were ramped down per the profiles, Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2
(with added margin per Section 3.3). The ramp down temperatures and pressures were
always higher than the test profiles. See Figures 4-3 and 4-4 for actual vs. required
temperature and pressure profiles.
8. After 3.2 hours the motor was unloaded to no load conditions and the chamber was vented to
atmospheric pressure. The temperature was allowed to stabilize at 93°F/34°C in the chamber
with the motor operating at no load providing heating in the chamber.
9. Due to operational scheduling, the motor was operated at no load conditions for 72 hours
prior to the initiation of the second transient. During the no load period the chamber was
vented to atmospheric pressure and the ambient temperature in the chamber was provided by
the motor.
10. Prior to the initiation of the second transient the motor was operated at full load conditions
(12.1 amps) for a minimum period of 2 hours with the chamber at less than 120°F/49°C and
pressure vented to atmospheric conditions.
11. With the motor operating at full load conditions (12.1 amps), steam was injected into the
chamber to obtain the second transient from 123°F/51°C to a peak temperature of
397°F/203°C and a pressure of 105 psig. The peak temperature was achieved in 34 seconds,
with the required profile temperature of 340°F/171°C being achieved in 13 seconds. The
peak pressure was achieved in 44 seconds, with the required profile pressure of 62 psig
achieved in 10 seconds.
12. The temperature was maintained between 392°F/200°C and 399°F/204°C for a 2.75 minute
period then ramped down and maintained between 345°F/174°C and 358°F/181°C for
41.25 minutes.
13. The pressure was maintained above 64 psig for 30 minutes.
14. A spray solution, per IEEE 323-1974; Table A-1, of boric acid, sodium hydroxide and
sodium thiosulfate was started in the chamber 47 minutes from the initiation of the second
transient. The spray was applied at a rate of 0.15 gpm/ft2 of area of the test chamber
projected onto a horizontal plane (3.0 gpm). The spray was maintained for a 24 hour period.
15. The temperature and pressure were ramped down per the profiles in Figure 4-1 and
Figure 4-2 (with added margin per Section 3.3). The ramp down temperatures and pressures
were always higher than the test profiles, except as discussed and dispositioned as acceptable
in Anomaly 109004-5. The relative humidity was 100% condensing when saturated
conditions were reached. See Figures 4-5 and 4-6 for actual vs. required temperature and
pressure profiles.
4-17
Home Exit
Test Sequence
16. The motor was operated at full load for the duration of the testing.
17. At the completion of the 30 day test period the following were performed:
• Chamber was vented to atmosphere.
• The test specimen motor was allowed to return to ambient temperature while being operated
at no load conditions, approximately 6.5 hours.
See Figures 4-3 through 4-6 for profiles of Actual vs. Required Temperature and Pressure
testing.
Figure 4-3
First Transient Actual Vs Required Temperature Profile Motor Specimen ID: RW708/709-
SDG/HML
4-18
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Figure 4-4
First Transient Actual Vs Required Pressure Profile Motor Specimen ID: RW708/709-
SDG/HML
4-19
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Figure 4-5
Second Transient Actual Vs Required Temperature Profile Motor Specimen ID: RW708/709-
SDG/HML
4-20
Home Exit
Test Sequence
Figure 4-6
Second Transient Actual Vs Required Pressure Profile Motor Specimen ID: RW708/709-
SDG/HML
4.11.6 Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria are as follows:

• Temperature, pressure, and spray conditions envelope accident test profiles contained in
Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2.
• The motor operates continuously at the specified load conditions.
The acceptance criteria were met, except as discussed and dispositioned as acceptable in
Anomaly 109004-5. The test data is contained in Appendix B (Report AC-109004-MTR2-1), and
the anomaly is contained in Appendix C.
4-21
Home Exit
Test Sequence
4.12 Final Functional Test and Inspection
Per Baseline Functional BFT-109004-4, Report BFT-109004-MIS-MTR2-6.
Test Details

interference and shaft/rotor rotated freely.
1 minute.
1 minute.
• An AC High-Pot test with the motor leads tied together, applying the test voltage between the
leads and the frame at 2150 Vac and maintained for 1 minute, then decrease to 538 Vac in
not more than 15 seconds. See Anomaly 109004-6.
• A visual inspection of the motor’s physical condition was performed and observations
recorded.

• The test specimen was on a horizontal surface.
Acceptance Criteria
The acceptance criteria were met, except as discussed and dispositioned in Anomaly 109004-6.
4-22
Home Exit
5
EVALUATION OF RESULTS
5.1 Anomalies
There were seven anomalies identified during the qualification testing. Anomalies 109004-3,
109004-5, 109004-6 and 109004-7 apply to motor test specimen, SPECIMEN ID: RW 708/709
SDG/HML, and are summarized below. Other anomalies will be discussed in subsequent reports
containing the qualification test data for the specific motor. The anomalies are contained in
Appendix C.
Anomalies 109004-1, 109004-2, and 109004-4 apply to other test specimen motors and are not
included in this revision of the report.
Anomaly 109004-3
The mechanical cycling testing, Step 4.5, was started on 6/22/04. On 6/29/04 the Data
Acquisition System (DAS) stopped recording the motor winding temperature readings of the
motors. The motor winding temperatures are for information only and are not a part of the
qualification program. Manual readings were taken of the motor winding temperatures three
times a day during the 20 day mechanical cycling test. All other parameters monitored by the
DAS (Voltage and Current) were recorded for the full duration of the mechanical cycling test.
Following the mechanical cycling test, the DAS was tested and the thermocouple module was
functioning properly. The anomaly is acceptable as noted.
Anomaly 109004-5
1. During the initial transient of Step 4.11, Accident Test, for motor SPECIMEN ID:
RW 708/709 SDG/HML the peak temperature of 410°F/210°C was not achieved within the
specified 10 second ramp-up period and the peak temperature of 410°F/210°C was not
maintained for the specified 1 minute dwell period. The chamber temperature of
415°F/213°C was achieved in 56 seconds following the injection of steam into the chamber.
The chamber temperature was maintained above 410°F/210°C for 13 seconds and above
400°F/204°C for 45 seconds. The initial peak temperature of 410°F/210°C is for margin.
Per IEEE Std. 323-1983 two methods can be used to apply margin for the environmental
transients, which are: (1) temperature and pressure margin may be added or (2) the peak
transient without temperature and pressure margin can be applied twice. The peak
temperature of 340°F of the second transient was enveloped with the first transient, resulting
in the temperature being applied twice. It is noted that there was a thermal lag in the motor
5-1
Home Exit
Evaluation of Results
winding temperatures reaching the ambient chamber temperature. The motor winding
temperature rise matched the chamber temperature at 348°F/176°C, 14.3 minutes following
the injection of steam into the chamber. The anomaly is acceptable as noted.
2. During the second transient of Step 4.11, Accident Test, for motor SPECIMEN ID:
RW 708/709 SDG/HML the pressure dropped below the specified 20 psig for approximately
15 minutes, at 16 hours and 24 minutes following the start of the second transient. To
compensate for the period the pressure dropped, pressure was maintained above the specified
20 psig an additional 15 minutes before the pressure was ramped down per the accident test
profile. The anomaly is acceptable as noted.
3. The NLI qualification plan QP-109004-1, Rev. 2 specified the chemical spray be applied at a
rate of 3.9 gpm; however, during the 24 hour spray period for motor SPECIMEN ID: RW
708/709 SDG/HML the flow rate was 3 gpm. The NLI qualification plan QP-109004-1, Rev.
2 indicates that the chemical spray be applied at a rate of 0.15 gpm/ft2 of chamber projected
area. The chamber projected area was originally calculated at 26 ft2, which resulted in a flow
rate of 3.9 gpm. When the test specimen motor was installed into the test chamber a smaller
chamber end bell was used. The smaller end bell resulted in a chamber projected area of 20
ft2; consequently, the flow rate was adjusted to the required 3 gpm. The anomaly is
acceptable as noted.
4. At two points during the second transient the motor was de-energized in order to perform
maintenance on the hydraulic testing equipment. On day eight of the second transient the
motor was de-energized and the chamber opened to replace the return line from the hydraulic
pump. Following the replacement of the line the motor was operated at No Load for one hour
prior to loading the motor to the Full Load Current of 12.1 amps. On the 20th day of the
second transient the motor was de-energized for approximately 5 minutes to perform the
required maintenance on the hydraulic system exterior to the test chamber, then energized
and loaded back to Full Load. The motor was operated the additional time the motor was de-
energized, resulting in the motor being operated the required 30 days with margin of the
second transient. The anomaly is acceptable as noted.
Anomaly 109004-6
While performing the Final Baseline Functional Test and Inspection Step 4.12, AC high pot
testing of the motor, with 800 to 1000 Vac applied between the motor leads and the frame; there
was a breakdown of the insulation. Step 2 of the Final Baseline Functional Test was a megger
test of the motor, with a result of 152 GΩ insulation resistance. Step 3 resulted in no breakdown
of insulation with 1500 Vdc applied between the motor leads and the frame. When the AC High-
Pot test was applied to the motor, the insulation broke down between 800 and 1000 Vac.
Following the AC High-Pot testing, the DC insulation test was repeated and also indicated a
breakdown of insulation; consequently, the remaining steps of the Final Baseline Functional Test
were not completed. The motor had operated at full load during the accident test, then at no load
for approximately 7 hours while returning to ambient conditions prior to being de-energized. The
results from the accident test indicate that the motor will function properly and fulfill its critical
mission during and after a LOCA. It is noted that the AC High-Pot test can be considered a
5-2
Home Exit
Evaluation of Results
destructive test. As a result the AC High-Pot testing on the subsequent Final Baseline Functional
Tests will be performed following all other final testing, prior to motor disassembly. The
anomaly is acceptable as noted.
Anomaly 109004-7
The qualification plan indicates that a 5% margin will be added to the vibration testing; however,
the 90 second OBE simulation was only performed at 2.0g without the added 5% margin.
A sinusoidal 60 Hz oscillating motion at 2.0g, was applied to the motors for a minimum period
of 60 minutes, to simulate normal vibration and mechanical aging stresses. Following each
60 minute 2.0g exposure, a sinusoidal 60 Hz oscillating motion at 2.0g was applied for a
150 seconds, to simulate OBE aging (five 30 second OBEs); however, the OBE aging did not
included an additional 5% margin. The additional margin would have made the OBE aging level
2.1g. The initial 60 minute mechanical aging exceeded the required 1.6g (1.5g plus 5% margin)
by an additional 0.4g, which is conservative. As the motors were exposed to the higher 2.0g level
for the 60 minute period the motors received sufficient vibrational aging to simulate the OBE
aging. The anomaly is acceptable as noted.
5.2 Modification of Test Specimen
There were no modifications to the test specimens.
5.3 Results/Conclusions
Based on the testing performed, the random-wound continuous-duty motor insulating system, as
identified in test specimen, SPECIMEN ID: RW708/709-SDG/HML, is qualified for the specified
service conditions.
5-3
Home Exit
Home Exit
6
QUALITY ASSURANCE
All project activities within the test program were performed in accordance with the NLI Quality
Assurance Program [8.6], which meets the requirements of ASME NQA-1, 10CFR50 Appendix
B and 10CFR21.
6-1
Home Exit
Home Exit
7
MEASUREMENT AND TEST EQUIPMENT
The measurement and test equipment (M&TE) that was used in the test program is controlled by
the NLI M&TE program (procedure NLI-QUAL-05, latest revision). The data sheets in the
appendices to this report identify the test equipment that was used. M&TE was selected based on
the parameter being measured and to provide the required accuracy. The calibration of calibrated
M&TE is traceable to NIST or equivalent industry standards.
7-1
Home Exit
Home Exit
8
REFERENCES
1. IEEE 323-1974/1983, “IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class 1E Equipment for Nuclear Power
Generating Stations.”
2. IEEE 344-1975, “IEEE Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class 1E

Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.”
3. IEEE 334-1994, “IEEE Standard for Qualifying Continuous Duty Class 1 E Motors for
Nuclear Power Generating Stations.”
4. IEEE 382-1985, “IEEE Standard for Qualification of Actuators for Power Operated Valve
Assemblies with Safety-Related Functions for Nuclear Power Plants.”
5. Electric Power Research Institute Qualification Plan RWCDMIS-1, Revision 0,

“Qualification Plan Random-Wound Continuous Duty Motor Insulating Systems for Use in
Nuclear Power Plants.”
6. NLI Quality Assurance Manual, Rev. 6 dated 12/08/04.
7. EPRI NP-2129, “Radiation Effects on Organic Materials in Nuclear Plants,” 11/81.
8. EPRI NP-1558, “A Review of Equipment Aging, Theory and Technology,” 9/80.
9. Test/Inspection Report TIR-119002-1, Temperature Rise Testing.
10. National Electrical Manufacturers Association Standards Publication Motors and Generators
No. MG 1-1988.
11. IEEE 112-1991, “IEEE Standard Test Procedure for Polyphase Induction Motors and
Generators.”
12. NLI Qualification Plan for Random Wound Continuous Duty Motor Insulating Systems for
Use in Nuclear Power Plants QP-109004-1, Rev. 2.
13. NLI Test/Inspection Report Tir-109004-1, Rev. 0.
8-1
Home Exit
Home Exit
A
ACCIDENT TEST PROFILES, TEST CIRCUIT
SCHEMATIC, TRANSMISSIBILITY PLOT, CHAMBER
TEMPERATURE VS. MOTOR TEMPERATURE PLOTS,
AND CHEMICAL SPRAY COMPOSITION
CALCULATION
A-1
Home Exit
Home Exit
Motor Insulating Systems QR-109004-1

Electric Power Research Institute Appendix A, Page A-1
Figure A-1
Home Exit

Figure A-2
Home Exit

Figure A-3
Home Exit

Figure A-4
EPRI Motor S/N: RW 478 HML

Transmissibility
Front to Back Vertical
10
R a tio
0.1
1.00 10.00 100.00
Frequency Hz
Home Exit

Figure A-5
Chamber Temperature vs. Motor Temperature
Initial Transient
Motor Temperature
Chamber Temperature
Initial Transient 3.2 Hours
Data Acquisition System Plot

Home Exit

Figure A-6
Chamber Temperature vs. Motor Temperature
Second Transient
Motor Temperature
Chemical Spray
Started Chamber Temperature
Second Transient First 24 Hours
Data Acquisition System Plot

Home Exit

Chemical Spray Composition Calculation

(3000 ppm solution)
Ref: IEEE Std. 323 - 1974; Table A1
1 liter solution 10 liter solution 40 liter solution
Boric Acid: H3BO3 H3BO3 H3BO3

17.377g 173.770g 695.080g
Sodium Thiosulfate:
Na2S2O3 Na2S2O3 Na2S2O3
10.119g 101.190g 404.76g
Sodium Hydroxide
NaOH NaOH NaOH
1.260x10-2g 0.126g 0.504g
For 1 liter solution, dissolve chemicals in the following order:
1. 600 mL potable water

2. H3BO3, (Boric Acid)
3. NaOH (Sodium Hydroxide), to make a pH of 10.5
4. Na2S2O3, (Sodium Thiosulfate)
5. Add remainder of water to volume of one liter
6. Add NaOH (Sodium Hydroxide) to make a pH of 10.5 at 25ºC
For larger solutions multiply each ingredient accordingly.
H3BO3 molar mass = 61.84 g/mole (61.84)(0.281) = 17.377
Na2S2O3 molar mass = 158.11 g/mole (158.11)(0.064) = 10.119

Home Exit
Home Exit
B
TEST SPECIMEN TRAVELER, BASELINE
FUNCTIONAL TESTS, AND QUALIFICATION TEST
DATA SHEETS
B-1
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit EPRI Proprietary Licensed Material
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
C
ANOMALIES
C-1
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
D
PHOTOGRAPHS OF QUALIFICATION TEST SET-UPS
D-1
Home Exit
Home Exit

Electric Power Research Institute Appendix D, Page D-2
Figure D-1
Motor Lead Wires Marked for Testing
Home Exit

Figure D-2
Baseline Functional Testing Set-Up
Home Exit

Figure D-3
Thermal Aging Configuration
Home Exit

Figure D-4
Mechanical Cycling
Home Exit

Figure D-5
Resonance Search Test Set-Up
Response
Accelerometer
Control
Accelerometer
Home Exit

Figure D-6
Vibrational Aging Test Set-Up
Figure D-7
Radiation Simulation Configuration
Home Exit

Figure D-8
Lead Wire Terminations for Accident Testing
Home Exit

Figure D-9
Thermocouple Location for Accident Test
Motor Specimen ID: RW 708/709 SDG/HML
Thermocouples
Home Exit

Figure D-10
Accident Test Set-Up
Motor Specimen ID: RW 708/709 SDG/HML
Home Exit
Home Exit
E
NLI QUALIFICATION PLAN FOR RANDOM-WOUND
CONTINUOUS DUTY MOTOR INSULATING SYSTEMS
FOR USE IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS QP-109004-1,
REVISION 2 AND EPRI QUALIFICATION PLAN FOR
RANDOM-WOUND CONTINUOUS DUTY MOTOR
INSULATING SYSTEMS FOR USE IN NUCLEAR
POWER PLANTS RWCDMIS-1, REV. 0
E-1
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
REWIND SYSTEM QUALIFICATION PLAN (Rev. 0)
Attachment A
BASIS FOR SPECIMEN THERMAL AGING
Specific activation energy values have not been established for the EPRI insulating systems.
However, the values obtained from available formette, twisted pair, and helical coil life tests
with the same resins and other similar materials provide guidance on appropriate values for the
EPRI random-wound systems. In addition, activation energy data for the major insulating
materials used in these systems supports the selection of conservative system activation energy
values. Based on this information, EPRI has established the thermal aging conditions for the
Sub-Program B specimens.
Available Aging Data for Random-Wound Insulating Systems (Resin-based)
Epoxylite 478: Epoxylite has performed several UL1446 style motorette (random wound) life
tests with Epoxylite 478 thixotropic solventless Bisphenol A epoxy resin. The activation energy
results for two listed systems, DASH-2-H6 and DASH-2-H7, are 1.34eV and 1.56eV. Epoxylite
has also performed ASTM D3251/D3145 Helical Coil (HC) and ASTM D2307 Twisted Pair
(TP) life tests with the 478 resin and MW-16 (polyimide) wire enamel. The resulting activation
energies are 1.34 eV (HC) and 1.06 eV (TP). Georgia Power in a motor qualification test
program [Wyle Test Report 48412-1, August 24, 1988] that included Epoxylite 478 used a value
of 1.309 eV for the 478 insulated systems. Their basis was IEEE 117 (random-wound) testing
by GE in 1977/78 using Epoxylite 108 and subsequent tests with Epoxylite 358 showing that the
358 life was equal-to-or-better-than the 108 life. The 108 and 358 resins are similar except for
filler and catalyst. The 358 and 478 are also similar except for filler and catalyst. Schultz
Electric has recently conducted formette and motorette aging tests for insulating systems
utilizing Epoxylite 477. Epoxylite 477 is a nonthixotropic (i.e., neutonian) resin version of 478
and is identical except for the thixotropic materials. Schultz established activation energy values
of 1.192 eV (formettes) and 1.127 eV (motorettes).
VRI 708/709: VRI is unaware of any formette life data for the VRI 708/709 solventless
thixotropic polyester resin or the chemically equivalent but nonthixotropic VRI 709 resin. VRI
has performed twisted pair (TP) electrical, and helical coil (HC) bond strength aging tests with
the VRI 708 and VRI 709 resins and various styles of round magnet wire including MW-16 and
MW-35. Most of the activation energy values range from 0.85 to 1.62eV. The values for the
MW-16 are 1.62 eV (TP) and 0.85 eV (HC).
VRI 74038: VRI is unaware of any formette life data for the VRI 74038 solventless
cycloaliphatic epoxy resin. VRI has not performed twisted pair (TP) electrical or helical coil
(HC) bond strength aging tests with the VRI74038 resin. According to a Georgia Power test
plan, GE at their Schenectady, New York turbine laboratory performed IEEEE 117 motorette
tests in 1977 and 1978 using a proprietary designation (74023) for an identical resin. The GE
motorettes were overcoated with a polyester resin and did not use the phenolic catalyst precoat
used in the EPRI system. The Georgia Power report lists an activation energy value of 0.991 eV.
A-1
Home Exit
Individual Material Activation Energies
In addition to resins, activation energy data for the principal insulating components of the
random-wound systems can be used to help select a system activation energy. Since all these
materials are contained in and covered by the VPI resins they are not subject to the same amount
of oxidative degradation that would be present when the virgin material is heat aged in derive
this material thermal aging data. The major materials used in these systems are polyimide resin,
Nomex paper and fibers, polyester fibers, woven glass fibers, and PEEK and silicone insulated
lead wires.
Magnet Wire: Both the random-wound and form-wound systems utilize a MW-16 (polyimide)
insulating film. Some of the random-wound systems also used served wire consisting of the
MW-16 resin and a single wrap layer of polyester-glass fibers.
Ground Wall Insulation: The random-wound coil ground wall consists of Nomex paper and
Nomex felts.
Phase Insulation: The random-wound coils use either woven fiberglass or woven polyester tapes
as phase insulation in the end turns. In addition Nomex slot separators and phase separators are
used on some systems.
Lead Wire (low voltage): The low voltage random-wound motor lead wire styles are a
Rockbestos silicone Firewall SR (KS-550) material and a Harbour Industries PEEK
(polyetheretherkeytone). The activation energy for the KS-550 material, according to
Rockbestos Test Report QR-8802 for the Firewall SR (KS-550) material, is 1.65 eV. Activation
energies of 0.65 eV (based on cracking after mandrel bending at 1D) and 0.76 eV have been
established based on data provided by Victrex on the heat aging of PEEK cable insulation to
failure (cracking). Phelps Dodge has established a thermal index of 243°C at 20,000 hours for
PEEK insulated magnet wire. Based on their literature an activation energy of approximately 2
eV defines the dielectric aging line for magnet wire insulated with PEEK. ASCo, in Test Report
AQR21691 for a new line of solenoid operated valves (NS-2), established a PEEK activation
energy value of 0.95 based on mandrel bend dielectric tests after thermal aging at three
temperatures. During normal operation motor lead wires operate at temperatures that are
significantly lower than winding temperatures. Since motor lead wires are typically overaged
during thermal aging sequences that are based on winding temperature, lead wire activation
energy values are not critical to establishing accelerated thermal aging temperatures.
Summary
In summary, available motor insulating system data suggest that activation energies for the EPRI
systems likely falls in the range of 0.98eV to 1.34eV. Higher or lower values are possible but
unlikely. EPRI believes it highly unlikely that any system life test values would fall outside the
range of 0.95eV to 1.5eV. The following table (A1) summarize the anticipated range of
qualified life values based on thermal aging of the form-wound 200 HP stator at 180°C for 3
months (2160 hours) and the 400 HP stator at 190°C for 3 months. Table A2 summarizes the
A-2
Home Exit
anticipated range of MOV motor normal ambient temperatures assuming a 40 year installed life
based on thermal aging of the random-wound MOV at 150°C for 306 hours (12.75 days).
Table A1 - Activation Energy and Life Values for Random Wound Specimens
Reasonable Activation Energy Range

180°C aged specimen
eV= 0.98 eV= 1.1 eV= 1.2
Test temp (°C) 180 Test temp (°C) 180 Test temp (°C) 180
Test time (hours) 2160 Test time (hours) 2160 Test time (hours) 2160
Qual. Life (years) 5.5 Qual. Life (years) 8 Qual. Life (years) 11
Qual. Temp (°C) 130 Qual. Temp (°C) 130 Qual. Temp (°C) 130
eV= 0.98 eV= 1.1 eV= 1.2
Qual. Life (years) 9.5 Qual. Life (years) 15 Qual. Life (years) 21.5
Maximum Expected Activation Energy Range

eV= 0.95 eV= 1.19 eV= 1.34
Qual. Life (years) 5 Qual. Life (years) 10.75 Qual. Life (years) 17.5
eV= 0.95 eV= 1.19 eV= 1.34
Qual. Life (years) 8.5 Qual. Life (years) 20.75 Qual. Life (years) 36.5
A-3
Home Exit
Appendix B
Technical Basis for Omitting Seismic Testing From Rewind

Qualification Program
The following information is provided as a basis to exclude seismic testing as part of the EPRI
environmental qualification program for random and form wound motor rewinds. The
qualification program includes vibration aging, including the aging effects of OBE events, but
not a seismic simulation during the motor rewind qualification program. Section 3.4 describes
method used to by this program to simulate OBE vibration aging levels. The basis for excluding
seismic testing is described below under the following headings.
• Winding Seismic Stresses are Insignificant in Comparison to Operational Stresses
• IEEE 334-1994
• Continued Validity of Prior Seismic Evaluations and Tests
• Exclusion of Seismic Testing in Other Winding Qualification Programs
• Motor Earthquake Experience Data
In summary, the starting and operating forces occurring in typical motors significantly exceed
the forces resulting from typical OBE and SSE levels. This inherent motor capability is
recognized by IEEE 334-1994. Further, prior seismic testing and analysis for a motor remain
valid after the rewind whenever the winding structure and bracing are adequately replicated.
Finally, a review of equipment operating experience during actual seismic events has not
identified any instances of seismically induced motor damage for commercial motor
applications. These considerations apply to vertical and horizontal motors of random-wound or
form-wound construction used in low-voltage (e.g., 480 Vac) or medium voltage (e.g., 4160
Vac) applications. Given these considerations seismic qualification testing of a motor rewind
system is not needed to establish the seismic adequacy of a rewound Class 1E motor using an
EPRI qualified system. This assumes that 1) seismic qualification of the Class 1E motor had
been previously established in accordance with applicable generic and plant-specific regulatory
requirements and 2) the rewind adequately replicates the structural characteristics and bracing of
the motor's original winding system.
1. Winding Seismic Stresses are Insignificant in Comparison to Operational Stresses
The seismic stresses imposed on stator windings are generally considered to be insignificant
when compared to operational and starting loads. The slot portion of the winding is held firmly
in place by the stator core, resin treatment, and slot wedges. For VPI (vacuum pressure
impregnation) treated windings a solid rigid structure in the slot portion of the winding precludes
differential movement or seismic-related winding stresses in this area. The stator winding end
turns is the only element of the winding system that might be damaged due to seismic stresses.
However, several considerations indicate that the seismic stress levels in the end turn areas are
so low that they need not be evaluated when motor-specific seismic analysis is performed.
B-1
Home Exit
Reliance Electric performed a conservative simplified analysis of the operating and seismic
forces in Seismic Report 78-R-33, Justification for Omission of Routine "End Turn Stress
Analyses" for Random Wound Motors, July 10, 1978.4 In this analysis Reliance calculates the
operating and seismic forces on the end turns of a 300 HP, 3600 RPM 460 V, 1.15 service factor
motor. They conclude, using the copper end turn yield strength, that a factor of safety in excess
of 8:1 exists when considering combined seismic and operational (service factor) loads.
Reliance concludes that the seismic forces on random-wound windings are negligible and need
not be evaluated on a machine-by-machine basis as part of a seismic analysis. This Reliance
evaluation has been widely accepted, by both the NRC and utilities, as a basis for excluding
further seismic stress analysis for random-wound end turn coils.
The Reliance static seismic analysis, using the guidance of IEEE 344-1975, assumes a seismic
load of 5 g and an operating current equivalent to full service factor load. The analysis found
that the bending moment at the base of the end-turns due to the magnetic forces associated with
operational current was in excess of 2.5 times the bending moment due to the seismic forces.
Since magnetic forces and the associate bending moments are proportional to the square of
current (I2), even larger operational forces exists during motor starting. Typical motor full
voltage starting currents are 5 - 10 times full load currents. This results in magnetic forces and
bending moments during starting that are 25 - 100 times larger than those encountered during
full load operation. Assuming that the Reliance ratio (2.5) of typical operating to seismic forces
is generally representative of other motors suggests that typical starting forces and bending
moments on end-turns are roughly 60 - 250 times larger than those occurring during a
conservative seismic event (i.e., 5 g ZPA). This simplified analysis demonstrates that the
seismic forces and bending moments on a motor insulating system are insignificant when
compared to the forces encountered during motor operation, particularly motor starting.
Consequently, a motor winding, designed and fabricated for repeated full voltage starts and
continuous operation, need not be seismically tested to demonstrate its capability to survive
seismic events.
2. IEEE 334-1994
IEEE 334-1994, IEEE Standard for Qualifying Continuous Duty Class 1E Motors for Nuclear
Power Generating Stations, requires seismic qualification for Class 1E motors and accessory
equipment to demonstrate necessary safety functions. It considers its guidelines as supplemental
information supporting the more specific guidance contained in IEEE 334-1987. IEEE 334
recognizes that the internal forces during operation significantly exceed those due to seismic
events. Section 6.2 of the standard states:
Inherent in a motor's design are features accounting for induced electrical

magnetic stress, starting torque stress, and load variation stress. These features
result in motors that, when properly applied and installed, are inherently rugged
4 This report is an attachment to Reliance Report NUC-9, Summary Report Nuclear Power Motor Systems.
B-2
Home Exit
to seismic events. A motor's internal forces during normal operation are much
greater than seismic forces. Thus, each time a motor is started and loaded, it
experiences internal forces much greater than those experienced during a seismic
event.
3. Continued Validity of Prior Seismic Evaluations and Tests
A motor insulating system's vibration and seismic tolerance are functions of the winding
structure and end turn bracing system. The fabrication process and associated control are
intended to assure that the motor rewind process adequately replicates both the structure and
bracing of the original motor. It is further assumed that the motor's prior seismic qualification
was previously established in accordance with applicable generic and plant-specific regulatory
requirements. Therefore, the seismic qualification remains valid for the rewound motor.
Motor seismic qualification typically involves seismic testing, seismic analysis, or both in
accordance with the guidance contained in various revisions of IEEE 344 and IEEE 334.
Seismic testing of a "representative" motor is often performed as part of a qualification program
but supplemental motor-specific analysis based on size, configuration, and accessories is often
considered necessary to establish seismic capability.
The results of previous seismic tests on the winding structure remain valid since the stator
rewind will physically replicate the winding configuration. The only differences in the rewind
system involve the types of insulating materials and resin impregnation methods. The structural
capabilities of the existing winding are retained by:
• replicating the cross-sectional areas of copper and insulating materials,
• replicating all critical coil/winding dimensions, including mean coil length and overhang,
• replicating end turn bracing, and
• using VPI resin treatment and processing which binds the winding materials into a single
solid composite structure.
A typical motor seismic analysis evaluates the following under combined operational and
seismic loads:
• Rotor/shaft natural frequencies, stresses, and deflection
• Bearing adequacy and life
• Motor mounting feet, bolts, and anchorage loadings
• Attachment and bolt loading for the endbell (bracket), conduit box, fax cover, and
accessories
Because of significant margins and design simplicity, static analyses are generally performed
using conservative assumptions. These evaluations remain valid since a stator rewind does not
affect any of the assumptions and conclusions contained in analyses of rotors, bearings,
B-3
Home Exit
mounting, and anchorage. As enumerated below seismic analysis of the winding system is
generally not performed due to significant winding design margins.
4. Exclusion of Seismic Testing in Other Winding Qualification Programs
The following three Westinghouse qualification reports, which have been widely accepted by the
NRC an utilities, state that vibration aging during the environmental qualification program is
simulated by one hour at 60 Hz and 1.5g and motor seismic qualification is established
separately by analysis.
WCAP-7829, Fan Cooler Motor Unit test, (4/72) documents the qualification testing of form-
wound low-voltage systems for inside containment fan cooler and similar applications exposed
to LOCA conditions. As noted in the report, vibration aging was applied to all thermally aged
specimens and the motor stator but seismic testing was excluded since qualification of motors
was established separately from environmental qualification using the procedures of IEEE 344.
The vibration aging was conducted per IEEE 275 which requires one hour at 60 Hz and 1.5g.
According to the report these methods meet the requirements of IEEE 344.
WCAP 8754 Rev. 1, Environmental Qualification of Class 1E Motors for Nuclear Out-of-
Containment Use describes an approach for qualifying form-wound motors for non-steam
conditions. Section 5 of this report states that Westinghouse establishes seismic qualification
using analysis combined with experimental (test) data for calculation parameters such as spring
constants and natural frequencies. A separate seismic qualification test is not performed.
Section 5-12 describes the critical elements that are analyzed. These elements include stresses in
welds, supports and shaft stresses and deflections but do not include the insulating system.
Buffalo Forge Report DO-146F, Qualification for Westinghouse Class 1E Motors, July 1987,
documents the qualification testing of random-wound low-voltage systems for inside
containment fan cooler and similar applications exposed to LOCA conditions. The testing
involved thermal aging, irradiation, mechanical vibration, and a LOCA steam simulation. As
stated in the Appendix B test plan Section 5.3: "Seismic qualification of the motor will be
established separately by static analysis in accordance with IEEE 344-1975. Seismic testing
will not be performed. However, mechanical vibration will be applied to the thermally aged and
irradiated stator to simulate the vibration level to be encountered in normal service." Vibration
aging was simulated using 60 Hz, 1.5g for one hour.
5. Motor Earthquake Experience Data
In 1980, the NRC designated seismic qualification of equipment in operating plants as

unresolved safety issue (USI A-46). In response the industry established the Seismic
Qualification Utility Group (SQUG) which sponsored studies to investigate the seismic
adequacy of equipment using historical earthquake data. The scope of the study which grew to
twenty classes of equipment is documented in EPRI NP-7149-D, Summary of the Seismic
Adequacy of Twenty Classes of Equipment Required for the Safe Shutdown of Nuclear Plants,
March 1991. A group of seismic consultants, the Senior Seismic Review Panel (SSRAP) was
formed by SQUG and worked closely with the NRC to develop acceptable approaches for using
B-4
Home Exit
seismic experience data. The following information extracted from EPRI NP-7149-D
demonstrated the inherent seismic ruggedness of typical industrial motors and further
demonstrates the seismic adequacy of commercial motor designs.
Horizontal Pumps
Rotary Impeller (multi-stage and single stage) and Positive Displacement pumps. The Horizontal
Pump Class includes those driven by motors directly coupled to the pump shaft, connected
through gear boxes, or by belt drives.
Anchorage: Pump casing and drive motor typically bolted to a common steel base skid. Base
skid in turn anchored to a raised concrete pad.
The horizontal pump data base includes 280 examples, representing 35 sites and 12 earthquakes.
The pump horsepower ratings range for 5 to 2,300 hp. Four sites experienced seismic damage to
horizontal pumps. In none of these instances was the damage associated with the motor drivers.
The analysis concludes that horizontal pump seismic vulnerabilities were related to isolation
mounts not designed to accommodate lateral earthquake forces and attached piping imposing
excessive loads onto the pumps.
Vertical Pumps
Deep well and single-stage centrifugal pumps including electric motor driver vertically aligned
and mounted on a steel or cast-iron support frame anchored to a concrete pad.
Anchorage: Vertical pumps normally anchored by a minimum of 4 bolts cast into concrete pad
supporting the pump and motor. Motor attachment is typically through the use of bolted flanges.
The vertical pump data base includes 220 examples, representing 29 sites and 9 earthquakes.
The pump horsepower ratings range for 5 to 7,000 hp. Two sites experienced seismic damage to
vertical pumps. In none of these instances was the damage associated with the motor drivers.
The analysis concludes that vertical pump seismic vulnerability is generally limited to deep-well
pumps affected by ground settlement.
Motor-Operated Valves
The motor-operated valve (MOV) data class includes all valves actuated by either an electric
motor or a solenoid. The valve, operation and attached conduit are included in the class.
The MOV data base includes about 300 examples representing 16 sites and 9 earthquakes. The
data base contained no instances of seismic effects to MOVs and no evidence of MOV
malfunctions during an earthquake.
B-5
Home Exit
Fans
This class of equipment includes axial (both propeller and vane-axial) fans and centrifugal fans
that are either free-standing or duct-mounted. The fans are coupled to their respective motors
either through a belt drive or a direct shaft connection.
Anchorage: The fans are free-standing, anchored to floors and attached duct work, mounted in
sheet metal enclosure, or attached through wall or floor penetrations.
The fans data base contains between 200 and 300 examples representing 24 sites and 10
earthquakes. The data base represents fan ratings from 5 to 700 hp. Eight sites experienced
seismic effects to fans. Loss of function due to seismic events was limited to a few units at two
sites. There were also several instances of damage associated with fan isolation mounts not
designed for seismic loads. However, the data base contains no instances of seismic effects
resulting in motor failures.
Air Handlers
Air Handlers, often referred as fan cooler units, include centrifugal fans powered by either direct
drive or belt drive motors. The air handlers can also include heat exchanger coils, filter,
dampers, and mixing boxes.
Anchorage: The larger air handling units are anchored to the floor by bolts. Smaller units can
be suspended on rod hangers from ceilings.
The data base includes about 90 examples, representing 15 sites and 9 earthquakes. The fan data
base represents motor ratings from 5 to 25 hp. Two sites experienced seismic damage to air
handlers that resulted in loss of function. These problems were related to isolation mounts not
design for seismic forces or damage to attached piping of flexibly supported units. The data base
contained no instances of seismic effects resulting in motor failures.
Chillers
The basic components of chillers are the chiller, including a compressor, condenser, evaporator
and the control and instrument panel. Motors are typically an integral element of the refrigerant
compressor.
Anchorage: Chillers are typically anchored to a concrete pad by friction clops or bolts.
The chiller data base contains about 30 units representing 10 sites and 4 earthquakes. The only
instances of chiller damage were related to poorly designed anchorage. Except for units
mounted on vibration isolators, the data base includes no instances of damage to chillers or
compressor motors.
Air Compressors
B-6
Home Exit
Air compressors are generally categorized as rotary screw or reciprocating piston. Compressor
units include the electric motor driver along with tanks filters, coolers, moisture separators and
control systems. Compressors are either directly coupled to the drive motor or belt driven.
Anchorage: Compressors are normally bolted to the floor through the skid base using anchor
bolts.
The data base includes about 125 examples representing 30 sites and 11 earthquakes. The
compressor ratings range from 5 to over 7,000 hp. There were no examples of seismically
induced damage to air compressors that resulted in loss of function.
Motor-Generators
Motor-generator (M-G) sets include either an AC or DC motor attached through a direct shaft
drive to an AC or DC generator. Small M-G sets sometimes house the motor and generator
within the same casing.
Anchorage: M-G sets are typically anchored to a concrete floor or pad using expansion or
embedded anchor bolts.
The M-G set data base includes about 25 examples representing 16 sites and 8 earthquakes. M-
G sets are also structurally similar to horizontal pumps. The data base represents M-G sets from
7.5 to 500 hp. There were no instances of seismically induced damage to M-G sets.
B-7
Home Exit
Home Exit
Home Exit
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted with The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with major locations in
the specific understanding and requirement that responsibility Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte, North Carolina, was established
for ensuring full compliance with all applicable U.S. and in 1973 as an independent, nonprofit center for public interest
foreign export laws and regulations is being undertaken by energy and environmental research. EPRI brings together members,
you and your company. This includes an obligation to ensure participants, the Institute’s scientists and engineers, and other leading
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is not a experts to work collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric
U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is permitted access power. These solutions span nearly every area of electricity generation,
under applicable U.S. and foreign export laws and delivery, and use, including health, safety, and environment. EPRI’s
regulations. In the event you are uncertain whether you or members represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the
your company may lawfully obtain access to this EPRI United States. International participation represents nearly 15% of
Intellectual Property, you acknowledge that it is your EPRI’s total research, development, and demonstration program.
obligation to consult with your company’s legal counsel to
determine whether this access is lawful. Although EPRI may Together...Shaping the Future of Electricity
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.
Program:
© 2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Nuclear Power
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of
the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1009972
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

Qualification of Random-Wound

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qualification of Random-Wound

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Home Exit

For Use in Nuclear Power Plants – Test 1, R1

Final Report, March 2005

EPRI Project Manager

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

Nuclear Logistics, Inc.

NOTICE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION THAT IS THE

THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THIS REPORT WAS PROCURED, REVIEWED, ACCEPTED,

This report was prepared by

Nuclear Logistics, Inc.

2 EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION .............................................................................................2-1

3 PLANT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................3-1

4.11.2 Physical Test Configuration.................................................................................4-14

6 QUALITY ASSURANCE ........................................................................................................6-1

7 MEASUREMENT AND TEST EQUIPMENT ..........................................................................7-1

A ACCIDENT TEST PROFILES, TEST CIRCUIT SCHEMATIC, TRANSMISSIBILITY

B TEST SPECIMEN TRAVELER, BASELINE FUNCTIONAL TESTS, AND

D PHOTOGRAPHS OF QUALIFICATION TEST SET-UPS .................................................... D-1

E NLI QUALIFICATION PLAN FOR RANDOM-WOUND CONTINUOUS DUTY MOTOR

Figure 4-1 Initial Transient Temperature/Pressure Profile .......................................................4-12

Table 2-1 Low-Voltage Continuous-Duty Random-Wound Test Specimens .............................2-2

2.1 Test Specimens

The different continuous-duty Low-Voltage Random-Wound Systems (LVRWS) that were

The test specimens are summarized in Table 2.1.

Specimen ID RW74038- RW708/709- RW74038- RW708/709- RW478-

EM&C job # 82997 82994 82995 82999 77988

Nominal Amps 11.9 12.1 11.7 12.1 11.4

Frame 215 215 215 215 215

Voltage (AC) 575 575 575 575 575

RPM 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800

Duty continuous continuous continuous continuous Continuous

2.2 Safety Function

3.1 Service Conditions

Operating Parameters Normal Condition Accident Conditions

Installed Life Up to 40 years (Included in Normal Conditions)

Start – Stop Cycles 2000 (Included in Normal Conditions)

Temperature (ambient) 40°C to 50°C 410°F / 340°F

Radiation (rads gamma) 10E6 (maximum) 95E6

Pressure Atmospheric 62 psig / 62 psig

Chemical Spray N/A PWR

3.2 Functional Parameters

The following functional parameters are applicable to the test specimens:

3.4 Synergistic Effects

In general, a synergistic relationship is observed when two or more stresses applied

Test Sequence Basis

3. Baseline Functional Tests

4. Normal Radiation Exposure

6. Thermal Aging Exposure

8. Mechanical Cycling Exposure

10. Vibration Aging Exposure

11. Functional Test

12. Accident Radiation Simulation

13. Functional Test

14. LOCA/HELB Simulation

15. Functional Test

16. Post-Test Inspection

The following additional information is provided:

Client Witness Points

4.1 Receipt Inspection

The test specimen motors were receipt inspected as follows: