Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 6b7eddf4-f7ce-4821-9f11-e37070221e57
Document Type: srp
Title: DYNAMIC TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, AND
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1613/ML16133A418.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 3
Section ID: 3.9.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
iteria for acceptance of the analytical results are described in SRP Sections 3.9.3 and 3.9.5. For PWRs, the criteria and review methods for verifying whether the applicant has appropriately addressed asymmetric blowdown loadings on reactor internals are described in SRP Section 3.9.5. 6. For requirements of GDC 1, as to the correlation of tests and analyses of reactor internals, the applicant should address the following items to ensure the adequacy and sufficiency of the test and analysis results. Vibration predictions should be verified by test results. This procedure should consider all sources of bias errors and uncertainties, and preferably be based on end-to-end benchmarking, where measured structural vibration and/or strains are compared to simulations. If the test results differ substantially from the predicted response behavior, the vibration analysis should be modified appropriately to achieve agreement with test results and validation of the analytical method and input forcing functions as appropriate for predicting responses of the prototype unit as well as of other units where confirmatory tests are conducted. An acceptable correlation analysis should include the following comparisons, where applicable: A. Comparison of the measured response frequencies with the analytically obtained natural frequencies of the reactor internals for validation of the mathematical models used in the analysis. B. Comparison of the response amplitude time variation and the frequency content from test and analysis. C. Comparison of the measured amplitudes, frequencies, and time variations of loads with those assumed during design calculations for validation of the predicted flow, mechanical, and acoustic forcing functions. D. Comparison of the maximum responses from test and analysis for verification of alternating stress levels. E. Comparison of the mathematical model for dynamic system analysis under operational flow transients and under combined LOCA and SSE loadings for