ML031040142
| ML031040142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/2002 |
| From: | Pickett D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Norris W |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2003-0018 | |
| Download: ML031040142 (2) | |
Text
I1 1 3
- Gul-D
-af-8ese Safety Significance Telecon r are E
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Douglas Pickett DB Daily Call; DB0350; Wallace Norris 5129102 12:35PM Davis-Besse Safety Significance Telecon To all:
We have scheduled a telecon with the Davis-Besse licensee for Thursday, May 30, at 1:00 p.m. to discuss the attached questions concerning the Safety Significance Assessment The purpose Is to better understand the differences between the licensee's and our contractor's calculated failure pressure. I have reserved room 13B4 for headquarters personnel from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
We will use the usual conference bridge (301-231-5539 or 800-838-8081) witlascode _ J Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, exemptions FOIA- -2=s 3-00 IY
b--*
NRC STAFF COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ON DAVIS-BESSE SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT (SIA-W-DB-1IQ-301) SUBMITTED APRIL 8, 2002 FAILURE CRITERION (1)
What Is the technical basis of the failure criterion (e.g., strain exceeding 11.15%) used to determine the failure conditions of the cladding layer? Provide specific technical references in the literature that support the failure criterion used in this evaluation.
(2)
How does the failure criterion (e.g., based on ultimate strain in a uniaxial tensile test) account for the effects of biaxial loading in the cladding, or triaxial loading in the cladding at the edges of the degradation cavity?
(3)
The failure criterion applied in SIA report W-DB-1 Q-301 (e.g., the minimum cross-sectional strain exceeding the failure strain of 11.15%) allows the strain levels in the cladding to exceed the critical strain value entirely through the thickness, leading to very large strains at the surface of the cladding, up to 49% in Table 5 of the SIA report. What is the technical basis for this approach, as opposed to the average cross-sectional strain, or the maximum cross-sectional strain?
(4)
Did you explore a continuum damage mechanics analysis to give guidance of the failure criterion once the strains exceed the critical strain where neckinghoid growth starts? If not, provide the technical basis for not using a continuum damage mechanics analysis.
[Poisson's ratio of 0.5 no longer applies once this critical strain level Is exceeded, so the analysis is strictly not valid. (Poisson's ratio is continuously changing as the voids grow at the strains beyond the start of necking.) This results in a stress redistribution that is not accounted for in a standard elastic-plastic analysis.]
(5)
How would the strain values change if the stress free temperature was assumed to be the stress relief temperature instead'of 700F, and the analysis accounted for the differential thermal expansion of the cladding and head steel at the operating temperature of 605OF?
GEOMETRYIMESHING (A)
Does the size of the degradation cavity and the transition from the cladding thickness to the head thickness that was used in the SIA report reflect current knowledge regarding the cavity geometry, In particular the undercut area described In Figure 13 on page 103 of the Davis-Besse Root Cause Analysis Report (CR2002-0891), dated April 15, 2002?
What Is the transition geometry assumed in the analyses?
(B)
Is there sufficient mesh refinement through the cladding thickness to adequately capture the bending and shear strains at the edge of the cavity? Describe any sensitivity studies used to demonstrate the adequacy of the mesh refinement (C)
Was the cladding deposited by weld wire? Do the thinner cladding thickness measurements from UT coincide with the locations of weld bead toes? In what direction do the cladding weld beads run relative to the long axis of the degradation cavity?