ML031050132
| ML031050132 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/20/2002 |
| From: | Bergendahl H FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co |
| To: | Dyer J NRC/RGN-III |
| References | |
| 1-1282, FOIA/PA-2003-0018 | |
| Download: ML031050132 (67) | |
Text
3I
-4I.
3
)
I-I I I, -
I i '.
FENOC AI.
h
-I t~np~ttfl Cin o
~nany Davis-Sesse Nuclear Power Stalion 5501 North Stare Rowle 2 Oak Harbor. Ohio 43449 9760 419-321-8588 Howard W. Bergendahl Fax 419-321-8337 At(an ent 1 M6dtains /
/to IOCFR2.790 Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1-1282 July 20, 2002 Mr. James E. Dyer, Administrator United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351
Subject:
Response to Request for Additional Information Related to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Safety Significance Assessment
Dear Mr. Dyer:
This letter responds to the NRC Region III Request for Additional Information (RAI) dated May 6, 2002, related to the Safety Significance Assessment of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) Reactor Pressure Vessel Head as was submitted by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) letter Serial Number 1-1268 on April 8, 2002. FENOC's response to the RAI was provided on June 12, 2002, by FENOC letter Serial Number 1-1277, except for the response to RAI Question l.d, which required additional time to perform the required analyses. This letter provides the FENOC response to Question I.d.
Question I.d of the RAI requested "The estimated areas of exposed clad material that would cause the cladding to fail at normal operating pressure for clad thicknesses of 0.297" and 0.125"." Elastic-plastic finite element stress analyses were performed by Structural Integrity Associates (SIA), Inc., to determine the failure pressure for various exposed clad area values. Attachment I provides a proprietary version of this calculation. Attachment 2 provides a non-proprietary version of this calculation. The results of these conservative analyses show that failure is predicted to occur for an exposed clad area of approximately 47.5 in2 aopatingsr,2 s
with a clad thickness bf 0.125 inches and for an exposed clad area in excess of!82. oin at operating i
S;:.
- i1";tOfi1 Or Inrorrnrc-AtA. E
/ X7
Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1-1282 Page 2 pressure (2185 psig) with a clad thickness of 0.297 inches. For comparison, the exposed clad area of the actual cavity is approximately 20.5 in.
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Mr. Patrick J, McCloskey, Manager - Regulatory Affairs, at (419) 321-8450.
Sincerely yours, Attachments cc:
USNRC Document Control Desk D.V. Pickett, DB-1 NRCJNRR Project Manager S.P Sands, DB-1 NRC/NRR Backup Project Manager C.S. Thomas, DB-1 Senior Resident Inspector Utility Radiological Safety Board
Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1-1282 Framatome ANP Affidavit for Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., File W-DB-OIQ-305 (3 Pages Follow)
AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
)
) ss.
CITY OF LYNCHBURG
)
- 1.
My name is James F. Mallay. I am Director, Regulatory Affairs, for Framatome ANP ("FRA-ANP"), and as such I am authorized to execute this Affidavit.
- 2.
I am familiar with the criteria applied by FRA-ANP to determine whether certain FRA-ANP information is proprietary. I am familiar with the policies established by FRA-ANP to ensure the proper application of these criteria.
- 3.
I am familiar with the information enclosed with a letter from FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (Howard Bergendahl) to the NRC (James Dyer) consisting of a calculation package prepared by Structural Integrity Associates (File No.: W-DB-01 Q-305) referred to herein as "Document." Information contained in this Document has been classified by FRA-ANP as proprietary in accordance with the policies established by FRA-ANP for the control and protection of proprietary and confidential information.
- 4.
This Document contains information of a proprietary and confidential nature and is of the type customarily held in confidence by FRA-ANP and not made available to the public. Based on my experience, I am aware that other companies regard information of the kind contained in this Document as proprietary and confidential.
- 5.
This Document has been made available to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in confidence with the request that the information contained in the Document be withheld from public disclosure.
- 6.
The following criteria are customarily applied by FRA-ANP to determine whether information should be classified as proprietary:
(a)
The information reveals details of FRA-ANP's research and development plans and programs or their results.
(b)
Use of the information by a competitor would permit the competitor to significantly reduce its expenditures, in time or resources, to design, produce, or market a similar product or service.
(c)
The information includes test data or analytical techniques concerning a process, methodology, or component, the application of which results in a competitive advantage for FRA-ANP.
(d)
The information reveals certain distinguishing aspects of a process, methodology, or component, the exclusive use of which provides a competitive advantage for FRA-ANP in product optimization or marketability.
(e)
The information is vital to a competitive advantage held by FRA-ANP, would be helpful to competitors to FRA-ANP, and would likely cause substantial harm to the competitive position of FRA-ANP.
- 7.
In accordance with FRA-ANP's policies governing the protection and control of information, proprietary information contained in this Document has been made available, on a limited basis, to others outside FRA-ANP only as required and under.suitable agreement providing for nondisclosure and limited use of the information.
- 8.
FRA-ANP policy requires that proprietary information be kept in a secured file or area and distributed on a need-to-know basis.
- 9.
The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
492211 F
(l SUBSCRIBED before me this J.
day of (+,
, 2002.
'-- 0'. 4-
76-"r --,
I t
Ella F. Carr-Payne NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 8131/05
Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1-1282 Page 1 COMMITMENT LIST The following list identifies those actions committed to by the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) in this document. Any other actions discussed in the submittal represent intended or planned actions by the DBNPS. They are described only for information and are not regulatory commitments. Please notify the Manager - Regulatory Affairs (419-321-8450) at the DBNPS of any questions regarding this document or associated regulatory commitments.
COMMITMENTS DUE DATE None
Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1-1282 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
File Number W-DB-OIQ-305 "Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analyses of Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity with Different Enlarged Areas and Thicknesses" (29 Pages Follow)
Non-Proprietary Version
STRUCTURAL CALCULATION FILE No: W-DB-OtQ-305 MTEGRITY Associates, Inc.
PACKAGE PROJECT No: W-DR-0l.Q PROJECT NAME: Operability and Root Cause Evaluation of the Damage of the Reactor Prmssure Vessel Head at Davis-Besse CLIENT: First Enera Coxporatian CALCULATION TITLE: Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analyses ofDavis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity With Different Enlargod Areas and Thicknesses PROBLEM STATEMENT OR OBJECTIVE OF THE CALCULATION:
Develop a finite elemrent models to evaluate the effects of wastage cavity growth for clad thicknesses of 0.125 inches and 0.297 inches.
Project Mgr.
Preparer(s) &
Document Affected Revision Description Approval Cbecker(s)
Revision Pages Signature &
Signatures &
Date Date 0
1 -29 Original Issue Project 7/ 0/4z 4
48 7_8 CD-Rom PAGE 1 of 29g
4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During recent in-service inspections of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head and penetrations at Davis-Besse, significant wastage was observed in the vicinity of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) No. 3. An initial investigation of the cavity was performed in order to understand the existing structural margin given different clad thickness values [1]. In the Reference 1 evaluation, the average measured clad thickness of 0.297 inches and the minimum measured thickness of 0.24 inches were considered. Subsequently, concerns were raised about the possibility of growth of the wastage cavity and how this growth will affect the structural margins. There was also a concern of the possibility of the cladding reaching the minimum specified thickness of 0.125 inches.
Initial investigations of the enlarged cavities were performed in a second calculation, which evaluated the effects of a cavity twice the original size of the cavity using the minimum measured thickness clad thickness of 0.24 inches [2].
This calculation is a follow up to the analyses performed in References 1 and 2 by evaluating clad thicknesses of 0.297 inches and 0.125 inches for cavities up to four times the original cavity.
2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH The evaluations will be performed using a three-dimensional finite element model (similar to those used in References 1 and 2), which accurately models the reactor pressure vessel head, the penetrations in the vicinity of the wastage, those CRDM attachment welds that are directly affected by the cavity and enlarged wastage areas. Similar to the References 1 and 2 evaluations, elastic-plastic material properties of the materials of the various components will be used to determine the limiting pressure.
2.1 Finite Element Model The finite element model was constructed using the ANSYS finite element software package [3]
and are based on the 3-D models developed in References 1 and 2. As such, the basic dimensions, material properties and assumption used in the original model development in References 1 and 2 remain valid. Any variations from Reference 1 and 2 modeling will be documented in the following sections. An example of the model can be seen in Figure 1. In summary, a series of full 3600 model were created and includes the following:
- Closure head Closure head cladding
- Upper closure flange
- CRDM housing tubes 1, 3, 6, 7 and 1
- Enlarged wastage cavity Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-01Q-305 Page 2 of 29
A total of seven evaluations will be performed for various cavity sizes and clad thickness. The 0.125 inch clad was evaluated using the original cavity and cavities that were twice, three times and four times larger than the original cavity. The 0.297 inch clad was evaluated using cavities that were twice, three times and four times larger than the original cavity. The original cavity was previously evaluated for 0.297 inch clad thickness in Reference 1.
2.1.1 CRDM-to-Head Weld For these evaluations, the J-groove attachment weld and butter were explicitly modeled only for Tubes 3 and 11. The one exception is in the case of the 0.125 inch clad evaluation for the original size cavity (20.5 in2). For that evaluation only, the J-groove weld for Tube 11 was also not explicitly modeled.
For all of the finite element models in this evaluation, the remaining modeled Tubes; 1, 6, and 7 (and Tube 11 for the original cavity 0.125 inch clad case) the CRDM tubes are attached only at the stainless clad.
The weld prep butter was assumed not to be part of the attachment between the vessel and the inconel tube. In addition, the cover fillet applied to the J-groove weld was not modeled.
2.1.2 Enlarged Wastage References I provided a basic layout of the original modeled wastage. The exposed clad for this original cavity was approximately 20.5 in2. Reference 2 expanded the wastage cavity to twice the original area, 41.0 in2 for 0.24 inches of clad thickness. In addition, Reference 2 included expanded results for the 0.297 inch clad case for the original cavity (20.5 in2).
The self-similar enlarged cavity reproduced the same shape by scaling up the original cavity dimensions until the exposed clad area reaches the desired values. In this case the exposed clad areas investigated are 20.5 in2 (A), 41.0 in2 (2A), 61.5 in2 (3A) and 82 in2 (4A). See Figures 2 through 5 for the resulting exposed clad area and transition region. The decision to limit the cavity growth value to 4A for this evaluation is to ensure that Tube 11 is not fully Sexposed. As will be shown later in this calculation package, for the 0.297 inch cladding thickness, significantly more area of the cavity can be exposed before failure is predicted at the operating pressure of 2185 psig.
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 I File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 3 of 29
I -
-r-- r.
3.0 MATERIALS 1 P.
Audi ffi
M! 1!
4.0 LOADING A uniform temperature of 6051F [4] was applied over all models with the stress free temperature being 700F.
A pressure load is applied incrementally to the inside surface of the hemispherical head, the external surfaces of the CRDM tube sections inside the vessel, the inside surfaces of the CRDM tubes and to the closure flange face out to a radius of 84.8115 inches [5] until instability is reached.
In addition, a cap pressure was applied to the outside free end of the CRDM tubes to simulate line load in each tube. Note that the applied cap load was actually applied in the negative direction in ANSYS, thus providing a traction load.
No other operating loads were applied since previous preliminary evaluations have shown that these loads do not have any significant effect on the limiting pressure. This includes closure loads such as bolt pre-load, gasket squash loads and ledge/spring loads.
5.0 FAILURE CRITERIA In this elastic-plastic analysis, the failure criterion is set such that the maximum strain cannot exceed the ultimate tensile strain. Hence for the stainless steel cladding where the maximum strain is expected to occur, the maximum equivalent total strain is limited to the maximum strain of 11.15%
(corresponding to the ultimate strain for the stainless steel cladding in Reference 6) through the thickness of the component.
Page 4 of 29 I
It was concluded from the analyses performed in Reference 7 that a better prediction of actual failure pressure is the pressure at which numeric instability is reached in the ANSYS program.
Hence, the pressure at which numeric instability occurred for each of the cases considered in this evaluation is also presented.
6.0 RESULTS The resulting failure pressures for the 0.125 inch and 0.297 inch clad thickness are shown in Table
- 1. Also included are the pressures at which instability occurred. Figures 6 and 7 present the same data graphically. Also plotted on Figures 6 and 7 for comparison is the normal operating pressure of 2185 psig.
Table 1 Failure Pressure for Enlarged Wastage Clad Thickness Exposed Clad Failure Pressure (psi)
(in)
Area (in2) 11.15% Criteria Instability 20.5
-3 4 8 0 t2l 3667.7 41.0
-2443[2J 3298.9 0.125 61.5
-1775(2]
2551.6 82.0
-1638[2 2281.1 20.5
-5649 3) 70007 41.0
-4657)'
6481.7 0.297 61.5
- 36 2 7[3j 5899.9 82.0
-3041l1' 4172.0
[1] Results from Reference 1.
[2] Interpolated from Analysis Results See Table 2 on the following page.
[3] Interpolated from Analysts Results See Table 3 on the following page.
Tables 2 and 3 present the through-wall strain distribution for the location that first exceeds the 11.15% failure criterion. Note that for each cavity size, two sets of strains are listed, which bound the 11.15% criteria. Between these two sets of strains is a linearly interpolated set of results to approximate the 11.15% criteria.
Figures 8 through 21 present total Von Mises strain versus the applied pressure at outside surface, middle and inside surface of the clad at a given location. The locations of interest include the point where the through-wall strain first exceeds the 11.15% failure criteria, the location of the maximum Von Mises strain and at the approximate center of the exposed clad region. The failure location in each of these cases is not the same due to the wastage configuration.
I Page 5 of 29 I
Table 2 Through Wall Total Von Mises Strain at Failure of 11.15% Strain Criteria Location 0.125 inch Clad Case Clad Thickness 0.125 (in)_
Cavity Size 20.5 20.5 20.5 41.0 41.0 41.0 61.5 61.5 61.5 82.0 82.0 82.0 (Wn )
I_
__I
__I_
Pressure 3365 34801'1 3547 2438 24431'1 2722 1722 177511' 1916 1617 16381r' 1780 (psi)
-I Clad OD 8.9 11.15"1' 12.4 11.0 11.15"11 18.0 9.1 11.15"'l 16.8 10.7 11.15"1 14.2
_ 13.7 16.2"'
17.6 11.9 12.0"'
18.9 10.7 12.8j I 18.6 16.7 1721"'
21.0 18.7 213"'
22.8 13.6 13.71" 20.9 14.2 16.4iil 22.5 23.5 24.1"'
28.7 Mid-Plane 23.0 25.71" 27.2 15.7 15.91' 23.3 18.6
- i l
27.4 28.5 292_
34.2 27.2 2
31.4 18.3 18.5"'
26.1 23.8 X6'1 32.7 32.8
'33.6"'l 38.7 31.4 34.111' 35.6 20.7 20.8"'
28.2 29.3 31.61'1 37.8 37.1 37.8"11 42.9 Clad ED 34.7 37.31" 38.8 27.3 27.4"'1 1 29.6 33.1 3531T 41.3 39.9 40.6"'
45.7
[I] Linearly Interpolated Results to Approximate 11.15% Failure Criteria Table 3 Through Wall Total Von Mises Strain at Failure of 11.15% Strain Criteria Location 0.297 inch Clad Case Clad Thickness 0.297 (in)
Cavity Size 20.5 20.5 20.5 41.0 41.0 41.0 61.5 61.5 61.5 82.0 82.0 82.0 (in 2)
I__
_I_
I__
_I Pressure 5600!2I 5 64 9rI 5800 4409 46571"1 4850 3448 36271'l 3742 2826 304111' 3115 (psi)
I_____
I_
Clad OD 26 812" 27.1111 28.02I1 20.5 21.6"1' 22.5 9.9 11.1511" 12.0 9.7 11.15"l' 11.7 14.01'i 14.31" l5.212I 10.8 11.6"'
12.2 11.8
-33Hr 14.2 11.5 13.21"'
13.8 10.8i'l 11.15"'1 12.3i21 9.1 11.15SMi 12.8 124 13.9Il 149 12.0 i13.7111 14.3 Mid-Plane 15.061 15.41" l6.9(21 13.9 16.5"1i 18.6 12.3 13.81 l 14.8 11.9 13.611l 14.2 22.31_ _
22.9I1" 24.9'1' 19.6 23.2"'
260 12.3
- 5 14.7 11.9 13.6111 14.2 33.9L21 34.8"'
- i61l 26.6 31.1"'
34.6 12.6 14.01'1 1 15.0 12.2 14.0"11 14.6 Clad ID 44.6121 45.61" 49.072I 31.7 36.91"'
40.9 13.3 14.81 lI 15.8 12.8 14.71" 15.4
[1] Linearly Interpolated Results to Approximate 11.15% Failure Criteria
[2] Results from Reference 2.
Revision Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 6 of 29
7.0 CONCLUSION
S The analyses presented in this evaluation have shown that for the 0.125 inch cladding thickness, considering the criterion based on the uniform elongation of 11.15%, failure is predicted to occur when the wastage cavity is over 47.5 in2 (as shown in Figure 6) for an operating pressure of 2185 psig, which is over two times the original cavity size. If the failure criterion is based on when numeric instability occurred, up to four times the area of the original cavity can be tolerated before failure is predicted.
For the 0.297 inch cladding thickness, both the 11.15% uniform elongation criteria and that based on numeric instability predicted that up to four times the area of the original cavity can be tolerated without predicting failure (as shown in Figure 7). Linearly fitting the 11.15% criteria data indicates that failure will occur at exposed clad area of approximately 102.5 in2, which is five times the original cavity area.
Page 7 of 29 II
8.0 REFERENCES
- 1) Structural Integrity Associates Calculation W-DB-OIQ-301, Rev. 1, "Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analysis of Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity."
- 2) Structural Integrity Associates Calculation W-DB-O1Q-302, Rev. 0, "Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analysis of Enlarged Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity."
- 3) ANSYS/Mechanical, Revision 5.7, ANSYS Inc., December 2000
- 4) Letter DBE-01-000133, Dated September 13, 2001 from Prasoon Goyal (First Energy) to Dick Mattson (SI), SI File W-ENTP-IIQ-219P.
- 5) Framatome Technologies Technical Document 33-1201205-02, Rev. 2, "Stress Report Summary for Reactor Vessel, Toledo Edison Company, Davis-Besse Unit No. 1," SI File W-ENTP-1 lQ-219P
- 6) Email of from B.R. Grambau (Framatome ANP) to N. Cofie (SI), "308 Stress -Strain Curve," March 15, 2002, SI File W-DB-OIQ-202.
- 7) Structural Integrity Associates Calculation W-DB-OIQ-304, Rev. 0, "Evaluation of Failure Criterion Used in Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage."
Revision 0
I Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 FileNo. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 8 of 29
Figure 1 - Typical Finite Element Model Revision 0_
I Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 9 of 29
Figure 2 - Original Cavity Layout (per Reference 1 and 2)
Exposed Clad Area = 20.5 in2 (A)
Figure 4 - Enlarged Self-Similar Cavity Layout Exposed Clad Area = 61.5 in2 (3A)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 I
Page 12 of 29
A -
Figure 5 - Enlarged Self-Similar Cavity Layout Exposed Clad Area = 82.0 in2 (4A)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date -
RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 i
I I File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 13 of 29
Failure Pressure Versus Enlarged Exposed Clad Area (0.125 Inch Clad Thickness) 0.
u, 0.
I-mI 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
_ +11.15 Mriob OpernbW Presu~re, 21 85pl 50 70 10 30 90 Exposed Clad Area, In2 Figure 6 - Failure Pressure Versus Cavity Exposed Area, Clad = 0.125 inches Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker[Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 14 of 29
Failure Pressure Versus Enlarged Exposed Clad Area (0.297 Inch Clad Thickness) 8000 7000 6000
- 0. 5000 E 4000 a_
a 3000 U.a 11.15 CrKaria m
LnstabUfty Opomtng Pmssure, 2185 psig
-Lbw R I
I I
I 2000 1000 0
10 30 50 70 90 110 Exposed Clad Area, In" Figure 7 - Failure Pressure Versus Cavity Exposed Area, Clad = 0.297 inches
CS Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 20.5 In2 Exposed Clad) 0~
U)
CL 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
I..
/Z1-7---OD Surface
-+-- Middle I-
'ID Surface
- Failure Criteria Is I
I i
I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in) 0.5 Figure 8 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 20.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
4'PreparerlDate RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 16 of 29
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 20.5 in2 Exposed Clad) 0-CD ULC)
L..
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
I
,--.A*
/~
I I,-Middle ID Surface iI
- - Failure Criteria I
Xi A I I<
I!
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin) 0.2 Figure 9 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 20.5 jl 2 Exposed Area)
Revision 1
01 Preparer/Date RLBq7-8-02 l
Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 l
l I File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 17 of 29
A 4 s w
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.125 inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Clad) 3500 -
3000 -'
=^
^2500-2000- -OD Surface 1500 -
Middle I
/
/1ID SurFace I
1000 -
Failure Crite 500-0 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in) 0.8 Figure 10- Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0 O Preparer/Date RL-B 7-8-02
______J Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 P
1 o
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305
__Page 18 of 29__
I Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Clad) 3500 -
3000 -
,2500 0.
/OD Surface 1500
-//Middle I //
-+ID Surface IL 1000 -
- Failure Critera 500 M-_
0-0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 11 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 41.0 jn2 Exposed Area)
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 In2 Exposed Clad) 3000 2500 X 2000
.0.
- 1500 (n
On
, 1000 I
- --- OD Surface
/-Middle
-- ID Surface
[- -
Failure Criteria I/
I 500 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 12 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02. j Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 I File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 20 of 29
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 In2 Exposed Clad) 3000 2500 C. 2000
= 1500 n0 0u E 1000 IL I
I e
FDD I
~----OD Surface
-u.
Middle A_
ID Surface f/
I-
- Failure Criteria I
I I~~
I I
I iI 500 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 13 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 jn2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 21 of 29
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Nose of J-Groove Weld-CRDM #11 (0.125 Inch Clad, 82.0 In' Exposed Clad) 2500 2000 5
& 1500 E 1 000 I-CL 500 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 14 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 82.0 in2Exposed Area)
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 82.0 In2 Exposed Clad) 2500 6-0u ua us 2000 1500 1000 500 0
/
OD Surface_
-*- Middle I
-+ID Surface I
- Failure Criteria i
I i
I 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 15 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 82.0 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision
- 0_
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02
- l.
l Checker/Date I SST 7-8-02 l
l
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 23 of 29
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of CavIty (0.297 Inch Clad, 41.0 In2 Exposed Clad) 7000 6000
,,, 5000
%Ev 4000 un 3000 X 2000 II
~/
--- OD Surface M Middle
/ IAID Surface I
- - Failure Critera I!
1000 0
I 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1.2 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 16 -Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.297 Inch Clad, 41.0 jn2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
I Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 I File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 24 of 29
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.297 inch Clad, 41.0 In2 Exposed Clad) 7000 6000
, 5000 two>
4000 0.
U' 3000 2, 2000
/11 0fK
{--
/-OD Surface i
g
-u-Middle I/
s ID Surface I
- - Failure Crtera I
1000 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 17-Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.297 Inch Clad, 41.0 inW Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 25 of 29
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.297 Inch Clad, 61.5 In2 Exposed Clad) 6000 5000 0.o4000 asA 3000
'06 2000 1000 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 18 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.297 Inch Clad, 61.5 jn2 Exposed Area)
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.297 Inch Clad, 61.5 In2 Exposed Clad) 6000 5000 t1XI a 4000 0
- 3000 van(0 0
0 X/7
/r If// I
--- OD Surface Middle
-,- ID Surface_
Failure Criteria Y/
I.
I 1000 I-/
/
I I
0
-II I
I 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 19 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.297 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.297 Inch Clad, 82.0 In2 Exposed Clad)
I-u, a,0~
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
m I
1--*
II I
I ________________
1 swI
- OD Surface
---MiddleL
.-
- ID Surface_
- - Failure Criteria_
7 I
I
'F l
l I
I I.1 I
I 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 20 -Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.297 Inch Clad, 82.0 in2 Exposed Area)
Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.297 Inch Clad, 82.0 In2 Exposed Clad) am)
U)
CL%a.-
C-0~
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
I I
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 21 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.297 Inch Clad, 82.0 jn2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB-7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 29 of 29
Docket Number 50-346 License Number NPF-3 Serial Number 1-1282 Attachment I Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.
File Number W-DB-OI Q-305 "Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analyses of Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity with Different Enlarged Areas and Thicknesses" (29 Pages Follow)
. 11 rtrVrATNV rD AM4ATAME' AWP. INC. PROAPRIFTARY INFORMATION.'
V STRUCTURAL CALCULATION FILE No: W-DB-OIQ-305 INTEGRITY Associates, Inc.
PACKAGE PROJECT No: W-DB-01Q PROJECT NAME: Operability and Root Cause Evaluation of the Damage of the Reactor Pressure Vessel Read at Davis-Besse CLIENT: First Energy Corporation CALCULATION TITLE: Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analyses of Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity With Different Enlarged Areas and Thicknesses PROBLENI STATEMENT OR OBJECTIVE OF THE CALCULATION:
Develop a finite element models to evaluate the effects of wastage cavity growth for clad thicknesses of 0.125 inches and 0.297 inches.
Project Mgr.
Preparer(s) &
Document Affected Revision Description Approval Checker(s)
Rerision Pages Signature &
Signatures &
Date Date 0
1 -29 Original Issue Project 7/e/oZ 4,9 7-oz.
CD-Rom PAGE 1 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOMEE ANP, INC. Pk(PRIETWRY=INFORM.A-T-ION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
During recent in-service inspections of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head and penetrations at Davis-Besse, significant wastage was observed in the vicinity of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) No. 3. An initial investigation of the cavity was performed in order to understand the existing structural margin given different clad thickness values [1]. In the Reference 1 evaluation, the average measured clad thickness of 0.297 inches and the minimum measured thickness of 0.24 inches were considered. Subsequently, concerns were raised about the possibility of growth of the wastage cavity and how this growth will affect the structural margins. There was also a concern of the possibility of the cladding reaching the minimum specified thickness of 0.125 inches.
Initial investigations of the enlarged cavities were performed in a second calculation, which evaluated the effects of a cavity twice the original size of the cavity using the minimum measured thickness clad thickness of 0.24 inches [2].
This calculation is a follow up to the analyses performed in References 1 and 2 by evaluating clad thicknesses of 0.297 inches and 0.125 inches for cavities up to four times the original cavity.
2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH The evaluations will be performed using a three-dimensional finite element model (similar to those used in References 1 and 2), which accurately models the reactor pressure vessel head, the penetrations in the vicinity of the wastage, those CRDM attachment welds that are directly affected by the cavity and enlarged wastage areas. Similar to the References 1 and 2 evaluations, elastic-plastic material properties of the materials of the various components will be used to determine the limiting pressure.
2.1 Finite Element Model The finite element model was constructed using the ANSYS finite element software package [3]
and are based on the 3-D models developed in References 1 and 2. As such, the basic dimensions, material properties and assumption used in the original model development in References 1 and 2 remain valid. Any variations from Reference 1 and 2 modeling will be documented in the following sections. An example of the model can be seen in Figure 1. In summary, a series of full 3600 model were created and includes the following:
- Closure head
- Closure head cladding
- Upper closure flange CRDM housing tubes 1, 3, 6, 7 and 11 J-groove attachment weld and butter for CRDM tube No. 3 (All cavity sizes)
- Enlarged wastage cavity I
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 CheckerfDate SST 7-8-02 I___
File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 2 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC.,PROP-RIE-T-ARY-INFORMA-TION A total of seven evaluations will be performed for various cavity sizes and clad thickness. The 0.125 inch clad was evaluated using the original cavity and cavities that were twice, three times and four times larger than the original cavity. The 0.297 inch clad was evaluated using cavities that were twice, three times and four times larger than the original cavity. The original cavity was previously evaluated for 0.297 inch clad thickness in Reference 1.
2.1.1 CRDM-to-Head Weld For these evaluations, the J-groove attachment weld and butter were explicitly modeled only for Tubes 3 and 11. The one exception is in the case of the 0.125 inch clad evaluation for the original size cavity (20.5 in2). For that evaluation only, the J-groove weld for Tube 11 was also not explicitly modeled.
For all of the finite element models in this evaluation, the remaining modeled Tubes; 1, 6, and 7 (and Tube 11 for the original cavity 0.125 inch clad case) the CRDM tubes are attached only at the stainless clad.
The weld prep butter was assumed not to be part of the attachment between the vessel and the inconel tube. In addition, the cover fillet applied to the J-groove weld was not modeled.
2.1.2 Enlarged Wastage References 1 provided a basic layout of the original modeled wastage. The exposed clad for this original cavity was approximately 20.5 in2. Reference 2 expanded the wastage cavity to twice the original area, 41.0 in2 for 0.24 inches of clad thickness. In addition, Reference 2 included expanded results for the 0.297 inch clad case for the original cavity (20.5 in2).
The self-similar enlarged cavity reproduced the same shape by scaling up the original cavity dimensions until the exposed clad area reaches the desired values. In this case the exposed clad areas investigated are 20.5 in2 (A), 41.0 in2 (2A), 61.5 in2 (3A) and 82 in2 (4A). See Figures 2 through 5 for the resulting exposed clad area and transition region. The decision to limit the cavity growth value to 4A for this evaluation is to ensure that Tube 11 is not fully od. As will 5bew-n latier-i-nis calculation packag-e-,r the 0.297 inch cladding thickness,-significantly morE-area-of the-davit can be exposed before failure is predicted at the operating pressure of 2185 psig.
Page 3 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. PROPRIETtARY-INFORMATION 3.0 MATERIALS The materials of the various components are as follows [1, 2]
Component Material Upper Head SA-533 Grade B Class 1 Closure Flange SA-508 Class 2 CRDM Housing Tube SB-167 (Alloy 600)
J-Groove Weld Alloy 82/182 Weld Butter Alloy 82/182 Clad 308/308L Stainless Steel It should be noted that Alloy 600 material properties were conservatively assumed for the i-groove Alloy 82/182 weld metal since the stress-strain properues for the weld metal are more favorable than the base metal.
Basic material properties, as well as detailed descriptions of the elastic-plastic material properties are included in Reference 2.
4.0 LOADING A uniform temperature of 605'F [4] was applied over all models with the stress free temperature being 707F.
A pressure load is applied incrementally to the inside surface of the hemispherical head, the external surfaces of the CRDM tube sections inside the vessel, the inside surfaces of the CRDM tubes and to the closure flange face out to a radius of 84.8115 inches [5] until instability is reached.
In addition, a cap pressure was applied to the outside free end of the CRDM tubes to simulate line load in each tube. Note that the applied cap load was actually applied in the negative direction in ANSYS, thus providing a traction load.
No other operating loads were applied since previous preliminary evaluations have shown that these loads do not have any significant effect on the limiting pressure. This includes closure loads such as bolt pre-load, gasket squash loads and ledge/spring loads.
5.0 FAILURE CRITERIA In this elastic-plastic analysis, the failure criterion is set such that the maximum strain cannot exceed the ultimate tensile strain. Hence for the stainless steel cladding where the maximum strain is expected to occur, the maximum equivalent total strain is limited to the maximum strain of 11.15%
(corresponding to the ultimate strain for the stainless steel cladding in Reference 6) through the thickness of the component.
Revision Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 FileNo W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 4 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. PROPRIETARY-INFORMATION It was concluded from the analyses performed in Reference 7 that a better prediction of actual failure pressure is the pressure at which numeric instability is reached in the ANSYS program.
Hence, the pressure at which numeric instability occurred for each of the cases considered in this evaluation is also presented.
6.0 RESULTS The resulting failure pressures for the 0.125 inch and 0.297 inch clad thickness are shown in Table
- 1. Also included are the pressures at which instability occurred. Figures 6 and 7 present the same data hically. Also plotted on Figures 6 and 7 for comparison is the normal operating pressure of t 2185 sigj Table 1 Failure Pressure for Enlarged Wastage Clad Thickness Exposed Clad Failure Pr ssure (psi)
(in)
Area (in2) 11.15% Criteria Instability 20.5
-348012]
3667.7 41.0
~
2443I21 3298.9 0.125 61.5
-1775L2]
2551.6 82.0
-163812 2281.1 20.5
-564913] Is'Lj 7000 to:
41.0
-4657[wJ b~c' 6481.7 l w4" 0.297 61.5
-362713]
zy'45 5899.9 2 7'2 82.0
-3041's3
.l y' 4172.0l52'
[I] Results from Reference I.
121 Interpolated from Analysis Results. See Table 2 on the following page.
13] Interpolated from Analysis Results. See Table 3 on the following page.
Tables 2 and 3 present the through-wall strain distribution for the location that first exceeds the 11.15% failure criterion. Note that for each cavity size, two sets of strains are listed, which bound the 11.15% criteria. Between these two sets of strains is a linearly interpolated set of results to approximate the 11.15% criteria.
Figures 8 through 21 present total Von Mises strain versus the applied pressure at outside surface, middle and inside surface of the clad at a given location. The locations of interest include the point where the through-wall strain first exceeds the 11.15% failure criteria, the location of the maximum Von Mises strain and at the approximate center of the exposed clad region. The failure location in each of these cases is not the same due to the wastage configuration.
Revision 0
9 Preparer/Date RLB.7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 Pg 5of2 File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 iPg f2
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. PRQ I
Table 2 Through Wall Total Von Mises Strain at Failure of 11.15% Strain Criteria Location 0.125 inch Clad Case Clad Thickness 0.125 (in)__
Cavity Size 20.5 20.5 20.5 41.0 41.0 41.0 61.5 61.5 61.5 82.0 82.0 82.0 (ui)
I_
I___
Pressure 3365 3480"'
3547 2438 2443"'
2722 1722 17751" 1916 1617 1638t1' 1780 (Psi)
Clad OD 8.9 (11.15 1) 12.4 1 1.0
'11.15"1,)
18.0 9.1 11.15""
16.8 10.7 is11.15"'
14.2 13.7 16.2"'l 17.6 11.9 12.01'1 18.9 10.7 12.8'"
18.6 16.7 21.0 18.7 21311 22.8 13.6 13.7"'
20.9 14.2 16.4"'
22.5 23.5 24.11 "
28.7 Mid-Plane 23.0 25.71" 27.2 15.7 15.9" 23.3 18.6 21.0"'
27.4 28.5 29.21' 34.2 27.2 29.91 "'
31.4 18.3 18.5_
26.1 23.8 26.2"'
32.7 32.8
'33.6"'
38.7 31.4 34.11" 35.6 20.7 20.81"'
28.2 293 31.61"1 37.8 37.1 37.81"1 42.9 Clad ID 34.7 37311) 38.8 27.3 27.4' 1 29.6 33.1 35.31 '
41.3 39.9 40.6'1 45.7
[1] Linearly Interpolated Results to Approximate 11.15% Failure Criteria Table 3 Through Wall Total Von Mises Strain at Failure of 11.15% Strain Criteria Location 0.297 inch Clad Case Clad Thickness 0.297 (in)
Cavity Size 20.5 20.5 20.5 41.0 41.0 41.0 61.5 61.5 61.5 82.0 82.0 82.0 (ID2)
I_
I I_
II Pressure 5600l1 56491" 5800 4409 46571'1 4850 3448 36271"'
3742 2826 3041111 3115 (psi)
Clad OD 26.8121 27.1"'
28.0121 20.5 21.6"'
22.5 9.9 11.151) 12.0 9.7 11.15 11.7 14.0121 14.31"'
15.2121 108 11.61" 12.2 11.8 13.3"'
142 11.5 13.2"I 13.8
.__.81_1
' 11.15j F
12.3'2' 9.1 l11.15".) 12.8 12.4 13.9"'
14.9 12.0 7
14.3 Mid-Plane 15.012i 15A41n 16.9121 13.9 16.5"I 18.6 12.3 13.8"'
14.8 11.9 13i6:I 14.2 22.3121 22.9"'T 24-.9T2 19.6 23.21" 26.0 12.3 13.811' 14.7 11.9 16 F 14.2 5____
339121 34 37.6121 26.6 31.1"'
34.6 12.6 14.01' 0
1 14.6 CladID 446121 45.6l 49 z
31.7 36.9"'
40.9 13.3 14.877 15.8 12.8 4
15.4
[1] Linearly Interpolated Results to Approximate 11.15% Failure Criteria
[2] Results from Reference 2.
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 6 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOMIE ANP, INC. 2ROPRIET-AARYINFORM-T-ION
7.0 CONCLUSION
S The analyses presented in this evaluation have shown that for the 0.125 inch cladding thickness, considering the criterion based on the uniform elongation of 11.15%, failure is predicted to occur when the wastage cavity is over 47.5 in2 (as shown in Figure 6) for an operating pressure of 2185 psig, which is over two times the original cavity size. If the failure criterion is based on when numeric instability occurred, up to four times the area of the original cavity can be tolerated before failure is predicted.
For the 0.297 inch cladding thickness, both the 11.15% uniform elongation criteria and that based on numeric instability predicted that up to four times the area of the original cavity can be tolerated without predicting failure (as shown in Figure 7). Linearly fitting the 11.15% criteria data indicates that failure will occur at exposed clad area of approximately 102.5 in", which is five times the original cavity area.
T I
It-Page 7 of 29 I
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INCA4PREPRIETARY-INFORMATION
8.0 REFERENCES
- 1) Structural Integrity Associates Calculation W-DB-O1Q-301, Rev. 1, "Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analysis of Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity."
- 2) Structural Integrity Associates Calculation W-DB-OlQ-302, Rev. 0, "Elastic-Plastic Finite Element Stress Analysis of Enlarged Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage Cavity."
- 3) ANSYS/Mechanical, Revision 5.7, ANSYS Inc., December 2000
- 4) Letter DBE-01-000133, Dated September 13, 2001 from Prasoon Goyal (First Energy) to Dick Mattson (SI), SI File W-ENTP-IQ-219P.
- 5) Framatome Technologies Technical Document 33-1201205-02, Rev. 2, "Stress Report Summary for Reactor Vessel, Toledo Edison Company, Davis-Besse Unit No. 1," SI File W-ENTP-1 Q-219P
- 6) Email of from B.R. Grambau (Framatome ANP) to N. Cofie (SI), "308 Stress -Strain Curve," March 15, 2002, SI File W-DB-O1Q-202.
- 7) Structural Integrity Associates Calculation W-DB-OIQ-304, Rev. 0, "Evaluation of Failure Criterion Used in Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Davis-Besse RPV Head Wastage."
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 0-Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 I File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 8 of 29
CONTAINS FRANATONIE ANP, INC. DROPRIET.RVYINfORM'VATlN Figure 1 - Typical Finite Element Model Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 9 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. PWRETARY"lNFORMA-TIO.N Figure 2 - Original Cavity Layout (per Reference I and 2)
Exposed Clad Area = 20.5 jn2 (A)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 10 of 29
CONTAINS FRANATOM ANP, INC. PWOPRIETXRY-IFORMATION--
Figure 3 - Enlarged Self-Similar Cavity Layout Exposed Clad Area = 41.0 jn2 (2A)
Revision Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02.
Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 11 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. RROPRIETXRYrINFORNIATIUN Figure 4 - Enlarged Self-Similar Cavity Layout Exposed Clad Area = 61.5 in2 (3A)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 12 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMNATONIE ANP, INC. PLRQPRIETARYdNFORMATON EARIFR.ITO Figure 5 - Enlarged Self-Similar Cavity Layout Exposed Clad Area = 82.0 in2 (4A)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8:02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 13 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOMIE ANP, INC. PRQPRIETARY INFORMATION Failure Pressure Versus Enlarged Exposed Clad Area (0.125 Inch Clad Thickness) en
.4, CL 0~
I-4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
-.- 1 1.1 5 CWOiN
-in-Instability Operating Pressure, 2185 psi I
10 30 50 70 90 Exposed Clad Area, in2 Figure 6 - Failure Pressure Versus Cavity Exposed Area, Clad = 0.125 inches Revision Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-01Q-305 Page 14 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. PROPRIE TIR' INORMATION Failure Pressure Versus Enlarged Exposed Clad Area (0.297 Inch Clad Thickness) 02 0
a-zJ 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
10 30 50 70 90 Exposed Clad Area, In' 110 Figure 7 - Failure Pressure Versus Cavity Exposed Area, Clad = 0.297 inches Revision 0
IPreparer/Date RLB 7-8-02.
Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_leNo W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 15 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMIATOME ANP, INC. PROPRIETARY-INFORMATION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 20.5 In2 Exposed Clad) 4000 3500 0.
2 3
U) 0 0~
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 I
-.--- OD Surface
-ZU Middle r/zo iID Surface I
- - Failure Criteria I
500 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 8 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 20.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
- Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 16 of 29
CONTAINS FRANMATOME ANP, INC. PROPRIETARY -INFORMiir[ON Total Von MisesvStrain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 inch Clad, 20.5 in2 Exposed Clad) 0--W a5-(0 L.
0~
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
I A-I'I XI",/~
k
-OD Surface_
/
z
/-'
I
+ Middle
/
/'
I A
ID Surface
+
Failure Criteria_
as-I l
lI 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 9 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 20.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date REB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-01Q-305 Page 17 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. PJZOPRIET-A-RY-INFOION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.125 inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Clad) 3500-3000-2500-2000 -
2OD Surface n 1500 -
-ulMiddle I
/
/
ID Surface X
1000--
/
Failure Criteria 500 -
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 10-Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 41.0 jn2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 18 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC.
P.OP.RIETARY4INFORAT-ION-Total Von Mises Strain Vs.-Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Clad)
%..o U) 0.
3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Ah
-9 k
j
-.- OD Surface Middle I
-I--ID Surface I
z-
- Failure Criteria
, I I
I 500 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in) 0.4 Figure 11 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Area)
Page 19 of 29
I -
CONTAINS FRAMATOMIE ANP, INC. PROPRIET-ARY-4NFORMATION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Clad) 3000 2500
'ui 2000 a
' 1500 0
(n a,
1000
.I
* - -.A--8 1
a I
I---
.t o
/el, -,
-OD Surface Middle A ID Surface
- Failure Criteria I.
rV 500 0
I A/ ---1I A
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 12-Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 20 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. P90OPRIETA-RYINFORMNTION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Clad) 3000 2500 X 2000 a)" 1500 en 2 1000 CL 500 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 13 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 I File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 21 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOMEE ANP, INC. P&QWRIETIARYINFORMOTION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Nose of J-Groove Weld - CRDM #11 (0.125 Inch Clad, 82.0 In2 Exposed Clad) 2500 2000
.75
%a. 1500 0)
I-U1 In 1000 Im.
---*-OD Surface i
/
- Middle_
/ A ID Surface
- Failure Criteria I
I If I!
500 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0
Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 14-Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.125 Inch Clad, 82.0 in2 Exposed Area)
.7 Revision 0
h
. 'Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02_j Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 22 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. PRORIET-ARY4NFORMATION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.125 inch Clad, 82.0 in2 Exposed Clad)
U, I..
0.
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
I O Surf-suace I
/
Middle
/
I A ID Surface iff j
Failure Criteria I of 1,I 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin)
Figure 15 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.125 Inch Clad, 82.0 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 23 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOMIE ANP, INC. gRORRIETARYINFORMA-T-ION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.297 Inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Clad) 7000 6000
', 5000 0 4000 uo 3000 X 2000
- -OD Surface
-uMiddle I
I
-'-ID Surface I
Failure Criteria I
i I
I 1000 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
1..2 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 16 -Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.297 Inch Clad, 41.0 in2 Exposed Area)
CONTAINS FRANIATOMIE ANP, IC-.-PR-OPRIETARY-INFORMATION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.297 inch Clad, 41.0 In2 Exposed Clad) 0.
a)
I-U, U,a) 2..
0L 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
X OD Surface
\\/
I Middle I
A k-ID Surface I
- Failure Criteria I
I I
I I
0 0.05 0.1 Total Von Mises 0.15 0.2 Strain (in/in) 0.25 Figure 17 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.297 Inch Clad, 41.0 jn2 Exposed Area)
Revision 0
Preparer/Dat& -
RLB 7-8-02 Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 File No. W-DB-O1Q-305 Page 25 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC.Kp(W1EjAK4RY(jNFORMATION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.297 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Clad) 6000 5000
- 4000 a
%-w 2 3000 0u
'm 2000 I
I
-'-OD Surface
+ Middle a ID Surface
- Failure Criteria 1000 0 III I
, I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin) 0.5 Figure 18 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.297 Inch Clad, 61.5 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision { 0 Preparer/Date RLB 7-8-02 l Checker/Date SST 7-8-02
_ File No. W-DB-OIQ-305 Page 26 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC-. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.297 inch Clad, 61.5 In2 Exposed Clad) 6000 I
5000
- u. 4000
, 3000 E 2000 a.
1000 0
/
-'-i-OD Surface I
-- Middle
-h-IID Surface i
/i
- - FailureCriteria
/
lI I
I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 19 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.297 Inch Clad, 61.5 jn2 Exposed Area)
Page 27 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC. P-ROPRIET-A-R-Y-INF-ORMATION Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Edge of Cavity (0.297 Inch Clad, 82.0 In2 Exposed Clad)
U)
U)
%..w 0~
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
I
.I I
A
/--+OD Surface_
/I
+ Middle rI A ID Surface_
.rI-
- Failure Criteria_
r
, l
.I 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Total Von Mises Strain (inlin) 0.25 0.3 Figure 20 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Location at 11.15% Criterion Failure (0.297 Inch Clad, 82.0 in2 Exposed Area)
Revision T 0 l
l l
_l Checker/Date SST 7-8-02 l
l l
SPileNo.
7-8-02 l
-g I
I I______
File No. W-DB-01Q-305 Page 28 of 29
CONTAINS FRAMATOME ANP, INC4RO RETMA' Total Von Mises Strain Vs. Pressure Middle of Cavity (0.297 inch Clad, 82.0 In2 Exposed Clad) 0 L.
U, 0
I-(L 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 Total Von Mises Strain (in/in)
Figure 21 - Total Von Mises Strain Versus Pressure, Middle of Exposed Clad Region (0.297 Inch Clad, 82.0 in2 Exposed Area)