ML071860690
| ML071860690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/2007 |
| From: | Csontos A Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | |
| MAURICIO GUTIERREZ, RES 301-415-1122 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML071860690 (149) | |
Text
Fabrication Records Review Al Csontos, RES June 19, 2007
Background
- On Friday June 8, 2007, Cameron Martin facilitated the NRC review of the as-built fabrication drawings from the ten plants under evaluation.
- Cameron identified and described the various fabrication processes as found in the drawings and answered NRC questions.
- An issue was identified by the NRC during the review that could affect the WRS models and the resulting Phase II crack growth calculations
- Potentially reducing WRS.
.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
Summary
- The majority of fabrication information was verified by the NRC reviewers except for the following:
- For Westinghouse surge nozzles:
- Fill-in welds after the back chip step were confirmed to be 0.3" as previously identified and modeled.
- The fill-in welds were 1-2" wide.
- For 1 out of 3 Westinghouse spray nozzle designs:
- Weld fabrication steps were more akin to a "CE" type design with wider lands and a final machining step.
- This may reduce ID WRS for this specific design.
.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3
Recommendations
- Determine if the findings need to be considered in the Phase II crack growth calculations.
- With regards to the fabrication tables from past industry presentations, add an additional column for:
- Land thickness for Westinghouse nozzles
- Fill-in weld thickness for Westinghouse surge nozzles
- Fill-in weld widths for Westinghouse surge nozzles.
.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
Pressurizer Nozzle Fabrication Detail Cameron Martin Wolf Creek Task Group Meeting June 19 -20, 2007
Thermal Sleeve Fill-In Weld Design Detail Approximate Dimensions)
Plant A B A 2.05 0.30 B 2.10 0.30 C 2.00 0.29 B
D N/A E N/A - Machined Fit F N/A G 2.10 0.30 H N/A - Machined Fit A - Approx.
I N/A J 2.10 TBD
Nozzle Buttering - Weld Land Detail Plant Location C (in)
SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 Buttering Nozzle SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 B
SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06 SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 C
SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06 SURGE NOZZLE 0.10*
SPRAY NOZZLE 0.10*
D SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.10*
SURGE NOZZLE N/A C SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 E
SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06
- Machined
Nozzle Buttering - Weld Land Detail Plant Location C (in)
SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 Buttering Nozzle SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 G
SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06 SURGE NOZZLE 0.10*
SPRAY NOZZLE 0.10*
H SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.10*
SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 J SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06
- Machined C
Advanced FEA Crack Growth Calculations for Evaluation of PWR Pressurizer Nozzle Dissimilar Metal Weld Circumferential PWSCC Sponsored by: EPRI Materials Reliability Program Presented To:
Expert Review Panel for Advanced FEA Crack Growth Calculations Presented By:
Glenn White John Broussard Jean Collin Matthew Klug Dominion Engineering, Inc.
11730 Plaza America Dr. #310 Tuesday and Wednesday, June 19 and 20, 2007 Reston, VA 20190 703.437.1155 Meeting on Implications of Wolf Creek Dissimilar Metal Weld Inspections www.domeng.com DEI Offices, Reston, Virginia
Tuesday Agenda Introductions - Industry and NRC Fabrication Records Meeting Update - NRC Status Update - Industry
- WRS Modeling
- Axisymmetric & 3-D WRS Results
- Typical Fabrication Steps
- Phase II Sensitivity Cases
- Knockdown Factor Calculations
- Probabilistic Assessment Status of NRC Confirmatory Research - NRC
- WRS Modeling
- Phase II Sensitivity Cases
- K Verification 2 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Wednesday Agenda Discussion from Previous Days Results - Industry & NRC
- WRS Models
- Phase II Sensitivity Cases Acceptance Criteria and Safety Factors - Industry
- Revised Proposed Industry Acceptance Criteria & Safety Factors
- Discussions Plans for next meeting(s) - Industry & NRC
- Project Timeline & Milestones Update
- Draft/Final Industry Report Update
- Expert Panel July 10th
- ACRS July 11th
- Expert Panel July 12th?
- End of July Management Meeting?
Meeting Summary and Conclusions - Industry & NRC 3 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Tuesday Agenda Introductions - Industry and NRC Fabrication Records Meeting Update - NRC Status Update - Industry Status of NRC Confirmatory Research - NRC 4 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Principal Meeting Participants EPRI Project Management / Support NRC Participants
- Craig Harrington, EPRI - Al Csontos, NRC Research
- Christine King, EPRI - Mauricio Gutierrez, NRC NRR
- Tim Gilman, Structural Integrity Associates - Tim Lupold, NRC NRR Project Team - Dave Rudland, EMC2
- Glenn White, DEI - Simon Sheng, NRC NRR
- John Broussard, DEI - Ted Sullivan, NRC NRR
- Jean Collin, DEI
- Matthew Klug, DEI Expert Review Panel
- Ted Anderson, Quest Reliability, LLC
- Warren Bamford, Westinghouse
- David Harris, Engineering Mechanics Technology
- Doug Killian, AREVA
- Pete Riccardella, Structural Integrity Associates
- Ken Yoon, AREVA 5 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Fabrication Records Meeting Update To be presented by NRC 6 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Status of Industry Work Topics WRS Modeling
- Axisymmetric & 3-D WRS Results
- Typical Fabrication Steps Phase II Sensitivity Cases Knockdown Factor Calculations Probabilistic Assessment Other Topics 7 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Modeling WRS Activities Since 5/31 Meeting Additional analysis cases Comparison between REFT=1800 and REFT=70 Stress plots of WRS cases with path lines Analysis results with and without SS weld Analysis results at residual and normal operating temperature (NOT)
Analysis results for short, deep repair (3D model) 8 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Modeling WRS Cases Named in Current Case Matrix
- 1. S&R No Liner
- 2. S&R With Liner
- 4. Generic Spray
- 5. Surge w/ Fill-In Weld
- 6. Surge No Fill-In Weld
- 7. S&R Repair No Liner
- 8. S&R Repair w/ Liner
- 9. Surge ID Repair w/ Fill-In 9 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Modeling DEI WRS Cases Type 1a - Safety/Relief No Liner
- DMW + backweld; with and without SS weld
- DMW + backweld + safe end ID weld buildup + SS weld
- DMW + backweld + 0.75-in deep repair, axisymmetric and 0.9-in on ID (3D)
Type 2b - Safety/Relief w/ Liner
- DMW + backweld + fillet weld + SS weld Type 8 - Surge (W)
- DMW + backweld + Fill-In; with and without SS weld
- DMW + repair + Fill-In + SS weld
- DMW + backweld + 0.6" thick Fill-In Type 9 - Surge (CE)
- DMW + final machining (no SS weld) 10 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Additional WRS Analysis Cases Safety/Relief with 0.75" Deep Repair 0.25" 0.75" 0.38" 11 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Modeling 3D Model for Safety and Relief Configuration #1a 12 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Additional WRS Analysis Cases Type 8 (W) Surge with 0.6" Fill-In 2.18" 0.30" 0.63" 3.33" 13 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Additional WRS Analysis Cases Type 9 (CE) Surge Nozzle 19.79" 19.68" 19.32" 19.07" 18.71" 18.57" 16.76" 16.32" 16.07" 15.63" 15.37" 7.77" 3.00" 10.25" 10.80" 15.32" 15.64" 7.50" 3.00" 6.53" 6.38" 5.94" 5.72" 5.50" 5.13" 4.88" 5.13" 14 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Modeling Comparison Between REFT=1800 and REFT=70 Stress paths taken at weld centerline for 5/31 meeting showed significant effect of operating conditions on inside surface axial stress Results from modeling choice for zero strain reference temperature of weld metal Comparison of stress plots reveals differences limited primarily to weld itself All runs performed using REFT=70 to eliminate effect on operating conditions 15 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Modeling Comparison Between REFT=1800 and REFT=70 - NOPT 1 1 MX MX MN MN REFT=1800 REFT=70 16 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld + SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 9 2007 23:21:50 PLOT NO. 14 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=42003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.068411 SMN =-74955 SMX =64200 MX -74955
-59494
-44032
-28570
-13109 2353 17815 33277 48738 64200 MN type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions 17 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld, No SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 7 2007 21:29:29 PLOT NO. 14 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=24003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.091784 SMN =-65868 SMX =63013 MX -65868
-51548
-37228
-22907
-8587 5733 20053 34373 48693 63013 MN type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions 18 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Safety/Relief NOT DMW + 0.75" Repair, No SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 8 2007 11:46:46 PLOT NO. 14 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=32003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.092126 SMN =-55900 SMX =64760
-55900
-42493
-29087
-15680
-2273 MN 11133 24540 37947 51353 64760 MX type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions 19 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Safety/Relief NOT - 3D Repair DMW + 0.75" Repair, No SS Weld (1/2) 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 18 2007 16:24:14 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=32003 SZ (AVG)
RSYS=11 DMX =.15798 SMN =-73099 MN SMX =78621
-73099
-56242
-39384
-22526 MX -5668 11190 28047 44905 61763 78621 type1a_sr-4_3d - Operating Temperature Conditions 20 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Safety/Relief NOT - 3D Repair DMW + 0.75" Repair, No SS Weld (2/2) 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 18 2007 16:26:43 PLOT NO. 1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=32003 SZ (AVG)
RSYS=11 DMX =.15798 SMN =-73099 SMX =78621
-73099
-56242
-39384
-22526
-5668 11190 28047 44905 61763 78621 MX MN 21 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld + Safe End ID + SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 9 2007 23:49:11 PLOT NO. 14 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=46003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.069726 SMN =-77029 SMX =64696 MX -77029
-61282
-45535
-29788
-14040 1707 17454 33201 48948 64696 MN type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions 22 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld + Liner + SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 10 2007 00:18:45 PLOT NO. 14 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=46003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.06799 SMN =-78522 SMX =63619
-78522
-62729 MX
-46935
-31142
-15348 445.203 16239 32032 47826 63619 MN type2b_sr Operating Temperature Conditions 23 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Fill-In + SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 10 2007 01:00:31 PLOT NO. 10 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=50003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.098933 SMN =-65449 SMX =62726
-65449 MX -51208
-36966
-22724
-8483 5759 20001 34243 48484 62726 MN type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions 24 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Fill-In, No SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 10 2007 02:20:01 PLOT NO. 10 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=32003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.124442 SMN =-62299 SMX =58553
-62299
-48871
-35443
-22015
-8587 4841 18269 31697 45125 58553 MN MX type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions 25 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Repair + 0.6 Fill-In, no SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 18 2007 15:34:34 PLOT NO. 6 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=38003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.124356 SMN =-65443 SMX =65676
-65443
-50874
-36306
-21737
-7168 7401 21970 36538 51107 65676 MN MX type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions 26 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Repair + Fill-In + SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 10 2007 01:46:51 PLOT NO. 10 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=56003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.097629 SMN =-63453 SMX =63341
-63453 MX -49365
-35276
-21188
-7100 6988 21076 35164 MN 49253 63341 type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions 27 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
CE Surge NOT DMW + Final Machining, No SS Weld 1 ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 16 2007 14:58:33 PLOT NO. 14 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=20003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.115727 SMN =-57196 MX SMX =52051
-57196
-45058
-32919
-20780
-8642 3497 15635 27774 39913 52051 MN type9_surge Operating Temperature Conditions 28 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Analysis Results Safety/Relief - Normal Operating Temperature Type 1a-1 (base case) Type 1a-2 (safe end ID) Type 1a-3 (no SS Weld)
Type 1a-4 (0.75" Repair) Type 2b-1 (liner) ASME Modified per EMC2 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Axial Stress (psi) 0
-20,000
-40,000
-60,000
-80,000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 a/t 29 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Analysis Results Safety/Relief 3D Repair - Normal Operating Temperature 0 10 20 30 45 60 90 180 EQUIV AXI NO REPAIR EQUIV AXI REPAIR 80000 60000 40000 20000 Axial Stress (psi) 0
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 a/t 30 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
WRS Analysis Results Surge - Normal Operating Temperature Type 8-1 (base case) Type 8-2 (5/16" ID repair) Type 8-3 (no SS Weld) Type 8-4 (0.6" Fill-In, No SS)
Type 9-1 (CE surge) ASME Modified per EMC2 Surge w/ Repair per EMC2 Surge Alone per EMC2 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Axial Stress (psi) 0
-20,000
-40,000
-60,000
-80,000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 a/t 31 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Stress Distributions Used in Case Matrix Type 1 Safety and Relief Nozzle - Cubic Fit Crack arrest is Type 1a-3 (no SS Weld) ASME Modified per EMC2 Poly. (Type 1a-3 (no SS Weld))
predicted for 80,000 matrix Cases 60,000 1 through 16 40,000 Therefore, 20,000 Axial Stress (psi) 3/30 ASME 0 WRS was -20,000 conservatively applied for
-40,000 3 2 y = -591849.2769x + 1207788.1107x - 618169.1311x + 54261.3841 2
R = 0.9443 these matrix -60,000 cases -80,000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 a/t 32 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Stress Distributions Used in Case Matrix Type 1 Safety and Relief Nozzle - Quartic Fit (0 = 54 ksi)
Crack arrest is Type 1a-3 (no SS Weld) ASME Modified per EMC2 Poly. (Type 1a-3 (no SS Weld))
predicted for 80,000 matrix Cases 60,000 4 3 2 y = 833566.7025x - 2176526.9737x + 2124566.3456x - 771992.0080x + 54000.0000 2
1 through 16 R = 0.9693 40,000 Therefore, 20,000 Axial Stress (psi) 3/30 ASME 0 WRS was -20,000 conservatively -40,000 applied for these matrix
-60,000 cases
-80,000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 a/t 33 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Stress Distributions Used in Case Matrix Type 8 Surge Nozzle - Quartic Fit (0 = 54 ksi)
Distribution for Type 8-1 (base case)
ASME Modified per EMC2 Type 8-3 (no SS Weld)
Surge w/ Repair per EMC2 Type 8 with no 80,000 SS weld 60,000 4 3 2 y = -379575.57924x + 629044.56427x + 51816.32546x - 305132.55771x + 54000.00000 conservatively 40,000 2
R = 0.92775 applied for 20,000 matrix Cases Axial Stress (psi) 0 17 through 20 -20,000
-40,000
-60,000
-80,000 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 a/t 34 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Stress Distributions Used in Case Matrix Type 1 Surge Nozzle with 3D Repair Upper fit with 0 20 EQUIV AXI REPAIR Poly. (0) Poly. (20) 0 = 74.8 ksi 80000 applied for 60000 3 2 y = 368125.90618x - 302363.56840x - 72263.72562x + 74800.00000 repair zone 2
R = 0.96857 40000 Lower fit with 0 = 27.5 ksi Axial Stress (psi) 20000 applied for 0 transition zone Quartic fit for
-20000 axisymmetric -40000 Type 1 case 3 2 y = -346646.916833x + 872630.992358x - 487133.355555x + 27500.000000 2
R = 0.992444
-60000 applied for 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 a/t 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 remainder 35 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Sensitivity results are available for the following cases:
- Base cases for safety and relief nozzle configurations (Cases 1 through 9)
- Base cases for spray nozzle configurations (Cases 10 through 16)
- Base cases for surge nozzle configurations (Cases 17 through 20)
Results presented include:
- Profile at time of through-wall penetration
- Time from initial flaw to through-wall penetration
- Stability margin at time of through-wall penetration
- Time from detectable leakage to critical crack Additional results for Phase 1 relief nozzle case with varying moment
- Assumes initial uniform 10% deep 360° flaw
- Profile at time of through-wall penetration 36 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Outputs Time from detectable leakage to rupture
- Key parameter
- Assuming normal loads
- Assuming faulted loads for select cases Time from through-wall penetration to rupture
- Can be compared to time of most recent bare metal visual examination Total time from initial flaw to rupture
- Can be compared to operating age of each subject plant For some key cases, complete output parameters will be displayed in the report, as in the Phase 1 calculation 37 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Geometry and Load Combinations Loads Pm Pb Pb/(Pm+Pb)
Note: Pm in this table (ksi) (ksi) -
- of based on pressure Type Design nozzles Min Max Min Max Min Max stress pDo/4t. Pressure 1a 12 3.17 3.45 0.07 5.71 0.02 0.64 stress pDi2/(Do2-Di2) Safety 1b 4 3.20 3.71 0.78 5.74 0.20 0.63 plus deadweight and and Relief 2a 8 3.93 4.29 1.04 7.63 0.21 0.64 secondary piping axial Nozzles 2b 4 3.57 3.90 2.35 4.78 0.38 0.57 force and pressure on 3 7 3.16 3.24 0.00 6.70 0.00 0.67 crack face to be used 4 2 3.45 3.58 1.38 4.89 0.28 0.59 for crack growth. Spray 5 3 4.00 4.20 1.12 4.75 0.21 0.54 Nozzles 6 1 3.84 3.84 0.75 0.75 0.16 0.16 7 2 2.76 3.05 1.16 4.80 0.30 0.61 8 6 5.24 5.43 4.04 13.58 0.43 0.72 Surge Nozzles 9 2 4.92 5.06 6.65 14.55 0.57 0.74 38 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Current Planned Matrix (slide 1/2)
Geometry Case Load Case Initial Flaw TW max Code CGR Prelim Model Nozzle Geometry Do Di t Z-factor Pm Pm Total Pm Pb Pb (thick) Pb/7.51 Shape Depth Expon.
Case # Type Type Configuration (in) (in) (in) Ri/t per PVP Case (ksi) (ksi) Case (ksi) (thick) Pb/(Pm+Pb) WRS Case n 2c/a Factor (%tw) 1 cylinder S&R Config 1a 7.750 5.170 1.290 2.004 1.170 typical 1.74 3.45 high 5.71 76.0% 0.60 S&R no liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
2 cylinder S&R Config 1a 7.750 5.170 1.290 2.004 1.170 typical 1.74 3.45 intermed 5.30 70.5% 0.58 S&R no liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
3 cylinder S&R Config 1a 7.750 5.170 1.290 2.004 1.170 typical 1.74 3.45 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.56 S&R no liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
4 cylinder S&R Config 1b 8.000 5.190 1.405 1.847 1.171 typical 1.90 3.71 high 5.74 76.4% 0.59 S&R no liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
5 cylinder S&R Config 1b 8.000 5.190 1.405 1.847 1.171 typical 1.90 3.71 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.55 S&R no liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
6 cylinder S&R Config 2a/2b 7.750 5.620 1.065 2.638 1.170 typical 2.34 4.29 high 7.63 101.5% 0.63 S&R with liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
7 cylinder S&R Config 2a/2b 7.750 5.620 1.065 2.638 1.170 typical 2.34 4.29 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.52 S&R with liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
8 cylinder S&R Config 3 8.000 5.190 1.405 1.847 1.171 typical 1.65 3.24 high 6.70 89.2% 0.64 S&R no liner (no SS weld) 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
9 cylinder S&R Config 3 8.000 5.190 1.405 1.847 1.171 typical 1.65 3.24 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.57 S&R no liner (no SS weld) 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
10 cylinder spray Config 4 5.810 4.010 0.900 2.228 1.156 typical 1.94 3.58 high 4.89 65.1% 0.55 generic spray 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
11 cylinder spray Config 4 5.810 4.010 0.900 2.228 1.156 typical 1.94 3.58 above arrest 4.13 55.0% 0.51 generic spray 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
12 cylinder spray Config 5 5.810 4.250 0.780 2.724 1.156 typical 2.51 4.20 high 4.75 63.3% 0.51 generic spray 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
13 cylinder spray Config 5 5.810 4.250 0.780 2.724 1.156 typical 2.51 4.20 above arrest 4.13 55.0% 0.47 generic spray 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
14 cylinder spray Config 6 8.000 5.700 1.150 2.478 1.171 typical 2.27 3.85 high 0.75 10.0% 0.15 generic spray 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
15 cylinder spray Config 7 5.190 3.100 1.045 1.483 1.147 typical 1.29 2.83 high 4.65 61.9% 0.58 generic spray 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
16 cylinder spray Config 7 5.190 3.100 1.045 1.483 1.147 typical 1.29 2.83 above arrest 4.13 55.0% 0.55 generic spray 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
17 cylinder surge Config 8 15.000 11.840 1.580 3.747 1.194 typical 3.72 5.43 high 13.57 180.7% 0.70 surge with fill-in weld 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
18 cylinder surge Config 8 15.000 11.840 1.580 3.747 1.194 typical 3.72 5.43 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.45 surge with fill-in weld 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
19 cylinder surge Config 9 13.060 10.120 1.470 3.442 1.189 typical 3.38 5.06 high 14.55 193.7% 0.72 surge no fill-in weld 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
20 cylinder surge Config 9 13.060 10.120 1.470 3.442 1.189 typical 3.38 5.06 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.47 surge no fill-in weld 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
21 cylinder S&R Config 1a 7.750 5.170 1.290 2.004 1.170 typical 1.74 3.45 high 5.71 76.0% 0.60 S&R ID repair no liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
22 cylinder S&R Config 1a 7.750 5.170 1.290 2.004 1.170 typical 1.74 3.45 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.56 S&R ID repair no liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
23 cylinder S&R Config 2a/2b 7.750 5.620 1.065 2.638 1.170 typical 2.34 4.29 high 7.63 101.5% 0.63 S&R ID repair with liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
24 cylinder S&R Config 2a/2b 7.750 5.620 1.065 2.638 1.170 typical 2.34 4.29 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.52 S&R ID repair with liner 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
25 cylinder surge Config 8 15.000 11.840 1.580 3.747 1.194 typical 3.72 5.43 high 13.57 180.7% 0.70 surge ID repair with fill-in 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
26 cylinder surge Config 8 15.000 11.840 1.580 3.747 1.194 typical 3.72 5.43 above arrest 4.88 65.0% 0.45 surge ID repair with fill-in 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
39 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Current Planned Matrix (slide 2/2)
Geometry Case Load Case Initial Flaw TW max Code CGR Prelim Model Nozzle Geometry Do Di t Z-factor Pm Pm Total Pm Pb Pb (thick) Pb/7.51 Shape Depth Expon.
Case # Type Type Configuration (in) (in) (in) Ri/t per PVP Case (ksi) (ksi) Case (ksi) (thick) Pb/(Pm+Pb) WRS Case n 2c/a Factor (%tw) 27 cylinder bound bounding typical sens 1 bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
28 cylinder bound bounding typical sens 2 bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
29 cylinder bound bounding typical sens 3 bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
30 cylinder bound bounding typical sens 4 bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
31 cylinder S&R as-built 1 typical bounding bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
32 cylinder S&R as-built 2 typical bounding bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
33 cylinder S&R bounding S&R low bounding bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
34 cylinder S&R bounding S&R high bounding bounding 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
35 cylinder TBD TBD typical bounding effect of SS weld 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
36 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding safe end ID buildup 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
37 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding tweaked axisymmetric 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
38 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding tweaked ID repair 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
39 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding multiple ID repairs 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
40 cylinder spray bounding spray typical bounding tweaked axisymmetric 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
41 cylinder surge bounding surge typical bounding tweaked axisymmetric 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
42 cylinder surge bounding surge typical bounding tweaked ID repair 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
43 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding shortened "weld" 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
44 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding simulate e-p redistrib. 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
45 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding 1.6 2 natural 26%
46 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding 1.6 6 natural 26%
47 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding 1.6 21 low 26%
48 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding 1.6 21 semi-ellipse 26%
49 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding 1.6 21 high 26%
50 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding 1.6 21 natural 15%
51 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding 1.6 21 natural 40%
52 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding low 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
53 cylinder S&R bounding S&R typical bounding bounding high 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
54 cylinder spray bounding spray typical bounding bounding low 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
55 cylinder spray bounding spray typical bounding bounding high 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
56 cylinder surge bounding surge typical bounding bounding low 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
57 cylinder surge bounding surge typical bounding bounding high 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
58 nozzle S&R bounding S&R typical bounding axsymmetric 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
59 nozzle S&R bounding S&R typical bounding ID repair case 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
60 nozzle surge bounding surge typical bounding axsymmetric 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
61 nozzle surge bounding surge typical bounding ID repair case 1.6 21 or 360° natural 26% or 10%
40 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Results for Phase 1 Inputs - TW Profiles 1.2 100% Moment 95% Moment 90% Moment 85% Moment 80% Moment 75% Moment 1.0 70% Moment 65% Moment 60% Moment 55% Moment 0.8 50% Moment Crack Depth, a (in) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 41 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Results for Phase 1 Inputs - Time to TW 50 Time to Through-Wall Penetration from Initial 10% Deep 360° Flaw (yrs) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
0 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 Fraction of Full Moment (M100% = 275 in-kips; Pb(thick) = 7.51 ksi) 42 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases TW Profile for S&R Nozzles - 360° Initial Flaw 1.0 Case 1 0.9 Case 2 0.8 Case 3 Case 4 0.7 Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 5 0.6 Case 6 Case 7 0.5 Case 8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 43 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases TW Profile for Spray Nozzles - 360° Initial Flaw 1.0 0.9 Case 10 0.8 Case 12 0.7 Case 13 Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 44 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases TW Profile for Surge Nozzles - 21:1 26% Initial Flaw 1.0 Case 17 (21:1 26%tw initial crack) 0.9 Case 18 (360° 10%tw initial crack)
Case 18 (21:1 26%tw initial crack) 0.8 Case 19 (21:1 26%tw initial crack)
Case 20 (360° 10%tw initial crack) 0.7 Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 20 (21:1 26%tw initial crack) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 45 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Final Profile for Arrested Cracks - 360° Initial Flaw 1.0 0.9 Case 9 0.8 Case 11 0.7 Case 14 Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t 0.6 Case 15 0.5 Case 16 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 46 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Surface Crack Cases (1/2)
Geometry Case Load Case Initial Flaw max Code Pb CGR Prelim Nozzle Geometry Ri t Pm Pm Total Pm Pb (thick) Pb/7.51 Exp. Shape Depth Case # Type Configuration (in) (in) Case (ksi) (ksi) Case (ksi) (thick) WRS Case n 2c/a Factor (%tw) 1 S&R Config 1a 2.585 1.290 typical 1.74 3.45 high 5.71 76.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
2 S&R Config 1a 2.585 1.290 typical 1.74 3.45 intermed 5.30 70.5% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
3 S&R Config 1a 2.585 1.290 typical 1.74 3.45 above arrest 4.88 65.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
4 S&R Config 1b 2.595 1.405 typical 1.90 3.71 high 5.74 76.4% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
5 S&R Config 1b 2.595 1.405 typical 1.90 3.71 above arrest 4.88 65.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
6 S&R Config 2a/2b 2.810 1.065 typical 2.34 4.29 high 7.63 101.5% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
7 S&R Config 2a/2b 2.810 1.065 typical 2.34 4.29 above arrest 4.88 65.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
8 S&R Config 3 2.595 1.405 typical 1.65 3.24 high 6.70 89.2% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
9 S&R Config 3 2.595 1.405 typical 1.65 3.24 above arrest 4.88 65.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
10 spray Config 4 2.005 0.900 typical 1.94 3.58 high 4.89 65.1% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
11 spray Config 4 2.005 0.900 typical 1.94 3.58 above arrest 4.13 55.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
12 spray Config 5 2.125 0.780 typical 2.51 4.20 high 4.75 63.3% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
13 spray Config 5 2.125 0.780 typical 2.51 4.20 above arrest 4.13 55.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
14 spray Config 6 2.850 1.150 typical 2.27 3.85 high 0.75 10.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
15 spray Config 7 1.550 1.045 typical 1.29 2.83 high 4.65 61.9% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
16 spray Config 7 1.550 1.045 typical 1.29 2.83 above arrest 4.13 55.0% ASME (3/30 version) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
17 surge Config 8 5.920 1.580 typical 3.72 5.43 high 13.57 180.7% surge w/ fill-in weld (no SS weld) 1.6 21 natural 26%
18 surge Config 8 5.920 1.580 typical 3.72 5.43 above arrest 4.88 65.0% surge w/ fill-in weld (no SS weld) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
19 surge Config 9 5.060 1.470 typical 3.38 5.06 high 14.55 193.7% surge w/ fill-in weld (no SS weld) 1.6 21 natural 26%
20 surge Config 9 5.060 1.470 typical 3.38 5.06 above arrest 4.88 65.0% surge w/ fill-in weld (no SS weld) 1.6 360° uniform 10%
47 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Surface Crack Cases (2/2)
Surface Crack Results (Press + Deadweight + Normal Thermal loads and Z-factor for critical size)
Geometry Case Pm Based on pDo/4t Pm Based on ID Area plus Crack Face Area Time to Fraction Stability Support. Support. Crack Max tot Max Pm Stability Support. Support.
Prelim Nozzle Geometry Ri t TW Xsection Margin Code Pm Pb (thick) Face Faxial Based on Margin Pm Pb (thick)
Case # Type Configuration (in) (in) (yr) Cracked Factor (ksi) (ksi) F (kips) (kips) CF (ksi) Factor (ksi) (ksi) 1 S&R Config 1a 2.585 1.290 18.4 0.40 2.8 9.8 16.3 23.18 72.52 2.77 3.2 8.8 18.1 2 S&R Config 1a 2.585 1.290 23.0 0.39 3.1 10.5 16.2 22.76 72.09 2.75 3.4 9.4 18.1 3 S&R Config 1a 2.585 1.290 27.0 0.38 3.4 11.6 16.4 21.96 71.30 2.72 3.8 10.4 18.6 4 S&R Config 1b 2.595 1.405 19.4 0.39 2.7 10.1 15.7 25.68 88.33 3.03 3.0 9.2 17.4 5 S&R Config 1b 2.595 1.405 28.3 0.37 3.2 12.0 15.8 24.18 86.83 2.98 3.7 10.9 17.9 6 S&R Config 2a/2b 2.810 1.065 3.5 0.43 1.9 8.2 14.6 21.58 82.00 3.67 2.1 7.6 15.7 7 S&R Config 2a/2b 2.810 1.065 10.6 0.44 2.4 10.3 11.7 21.82 82.24 3.68 2.6 9.7 12.9 8 S&R Config 3 2.595 1.405 14.2 0.39 2.7 8.6 17.8 25.56 74.58 2.56 2.9 7.5 19.7 9 S&R Config 3 2.595 1.405 Arrest 0.36 3.9 12.6 19.0 23.31 72.33 2.48 4.5 11.1 21.8 10 spray Config 4 2.005 0.900 21.6 0.39 3.2 11.5 15.7 11.96 39.84 2.87 3.6 10.4 17.7 11 spray Config 4 2.005 0.900 479 0.39 3.7 13.3 15.3 11.96 39.83 2.87 4.2 12.1 17.5 12 spray Config 5 2.125 0.780 10.5 0.43 2.5 10.6 12.0 11.89 44.06 3.57 2.8 10.0 13.2 13 spray Config 5 2.125 0.780 13.5 0.42 2.8 11.6 11.5 11.69 43.86 3.56 3.1 11.0 12.7 14 spray Config 6 2.850 1.150 Arrest 0.35 5.6 21.7 4.2 19.16 75.35 3.04 7.0 21.3 5.2 15 spray Config 7 1.550 1.045 Arrest 0.32 4.9 14.0 22.9 9.67 27.35 2.01 5.8 11.7 27.0 16 spray Config 7 1.550 1.045 Arrest 0.32 5.2 14.7 21.5 9.68 27.36 2.01 6.2 12.4 25.6 17 surge Config 8 5.920 1.580 1.2 0.23 1.6 8.9 22.1 34.81 288.93 4.34 1.8 7.6 23.9 18 surge Config 8 5.920 1.580 9.1 0.50 1.8 9.6 8.7 74.77 328.88 4.94 1.9 9.3 9.2 19 surge Config 9 5.060 1.470 1.2 0.25 1.5 7.8 22.5 29.56 214.31 4.00 1.7 6.7 24.2 20 surge Config 9 5.060 1.470 11.0 0.48 2.0 9.9 9.6 57.99 242.74 4.54 2.1 9.5 10.3 48 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Pairs of Complex Crack Profiles for Time w/ Detectable Leakage Safety and Relief nozzle cases: 1 gpm to critical for 1.4 factor on load 1.0 0.9 0.8 Case 1 Step 13 Case 1 Step 31 Case 2 Step 14 Case 2 Step 32 0.7 Case 3 Step 15 Case 3 Step 33 Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 5 Step 15 Case 5 Step 32 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 49 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Pairs of Complex Crack Profiles for Time w/ Detectable Leakage Safety and Relief nozzle cases: 1 gpm to critical for 1.4 factor on load 1.0 0.9 Case 6 Step 7 Case 6 Step 15 0.8 Case 7 Step 10 Case 7 Step 25 Case 8 Step 12 Case 8 Step 29 0.7 Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 50 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Pairs of Complex Crack Profiles for Time w/ Detectable Leakage Spray nozzle cases: 1 gpm to critical for 1.4 factor on load 1.0 Case 10 Step 20 Case 10 Step 33 0.9 Case 12 Step 17 Case 12 Step 27 Case 13 Step 18 Case 13 Step 30 0.8 0.7 Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 51 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Complex Crack Cases (1/3)
Crack Stability Results - 1 gpm Calculated Leak Rate Crack Complex Case Fraction Face Max tot Max Pm Support. Support. Stability Crack and Xsection Force Faxial Based on Pm Pb (thick) Margin Time*
Step Cracked (kips) (kips) CF (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) Factor (h)
C1S13 0.466 27.24 76.58 2.92 6.62 12.92 2.26 2,888 C2S14 0.468 27.38 76.72 2.93 6.86 12.39 2.34 3,654 C3S15 0.472 27.62 76.96 2.94 7.07 11.74 2.41 4,873 C5S15 0.470 30.55 93.20 3.20 7.39 11.27 2.31 5,009 C6S7 0.470 23.48 83.90 3.75 6.38 12.96 1.70 825 C7S10 0.488 24.38 84.80 3.79 7.64 9.84 2.01 1,651 C8S12 0.456 29.68 78.70 2.70 5.86 14.52 2.17 2,386 C10S20 0.497 15.42 43.30 3.12 6.46 10.13 2.07 4,642 C12S17 0.509 14.03 46.20 3.75 6.89 8.74 1.84 2,423 C13S18 0.511 14.08 46.26 3.75 7.31 8.05 1.95 3,163
- Initial complex crack assumed to have total through-wall crack circumferential extent of 42° 52 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Complex Crack Cases (2/3)
Crack Stability Results - 1.4 Factor on Pm and Pb Loads Crack Complex Time Time Case Fraction Face Max tot Max Pm Support. Support. Stability Crack since since and Xsection Force Faxial Based on Pm Pb (thick) Margin Time 1 gpm 1 gpm Step Cracked (kips) (kips) CF (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) Factor (h) (days) (years)
C1S31 0.546 31.94 81.27 3.10 4.38 8.06 1.41 5,208 96.7 0.26 C2S32 0.552 32.29 81.63 3.12 4.44 7.54 1.42 6,185 105.4 0.29 C3S33 0.558 32.66 81.99 3.13 4.49 7.00 1.43 7,585 113.0 0.31 C5S32 0.551 35.86 98.50 3.38 4.81 6.94 1.42 7,690 111.7 0.31 C6S15 0.501 25.07 85.49 3.82 5.44 10.86 1.42 1,463 26.6 0.07 C7S25 0.545 27.25 87.67 3.92 5.60 6.97 1.43 3,015 56.9 0.16 C8S29 0.529 34.42 83.44 2.87 4.10 9.59 1.43 4,442 85.7 0.23 C10S33 0.559 17.34 45.22 3.26 4.60 6.90 1.41 6,059 59.1 0.16 C12S27 0.551 15.17 47.34 3.84 5.46 6.76 1.42 3,207 32.7 0.09 C13S30 0.564 15.53 47.70 3.87 5.42 5.78 1.40 4,205 43.4 0.12 53 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Complex Crack Cases (3/3)
Crack Stability Results - 1.0 Factor on Pm and Pb Loads Crack Complex Time Time Case Fraction Face Max tot Max Pm Support. Support. Stability Crack since since and Xsection Force Faxial Based on Pm Pb (thick) Margin Time 1 gpm 1 gpm Step Cracked (kips) (kips) CF (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) Factor (h) (days) (years)
C6S28 0.557 27.85 88.28 3.95 3.97 7.67 1.01 2,152 55.3 0.15 C12S38 0.599 16.51 48.68 3.95 4.00 4.81 1.01 3,753 55.4 0.15 C13S40 0.610 16.81 48.98 3.97 3.98 4.14 1.00 4,722 65.0 0.18 54 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim PICEP Leak Rate Calc for Complex Crack Cases Matrix Nozzle OD t Area COD 2cOD Roughness Leak Rate 2 Quality # Turns Case # Type (in) (in) (in ) (in) (in) (in) (gpm @ 70°F) 1 S&R 7.750 1.290 0.0236 0.0062 4.812 1.00 3.9370E-04 31 1.02 1 S&R 7.750 1.290 0.0785 0.0132 7.566 1.00 3.9370E-04 31 4.05 2 S&R 7.750 1.290 0.0239 0.0061 4.969 1.00 3.9370E-04 31 1.03 2 S&R 7.750 1.290 0.0802 0.0132 7.713 1.00 3.9370E-04 31 4.14 3 S&R 7.750 1.290 0.0241 0.0060 5.121 1.00 3.9370E-04 31 1.03 3 S&R 7.750 1.290 0.0813 0.0132 7.825 1.00 3.9370E-04 31 4.20 5 S&R 8.000 1.405 0.0257 0.0062 5.285 1.00 3.9370E-04 34 1.07 5 S&R 8.000 1.405 0.0813 0.0131 7.909 1.00 3.9370E-04 34 4.03 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0222 0.0071 3.976 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 1.08 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0448 0.0106 5.407 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 2.38 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0295 0.0083 4.525 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 1.49 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0351 0.0092 4.882 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 1.81 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0564 0.0121 5.925 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 3.08 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0698 0.0138 6.426 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 3.92 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0924 0.0166 7.105 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 5.36 6 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.1132 0.0189 7.612 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 6.73 7 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0217 0.0063 4.399 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 1.02 7 S&R 7.750 1.065 0.0639 0.0120 6.763 1.00 3.9370E-04 26 3.49 8 S&R 8.000 1.405 0.0252 0.0067 4.810 1.00 3.9370E-04 34 1.07 8 S&R 8.000 1.405 0.0783 0.0133 7.498 1.00 3.9370E-04 34 3.89 10 Spray 5.810 0.900 0.0204 0.0059 4.415 1.00 3.9370E-04 22 1.01 10 Spray 5.810 0.900 0.0476 0.0103 5.895 1.00 3.9370E-04 22 2.70 12 Spray 5.810 0.780 0.0199 0.0062 4.090 1.00 3.9370E-04 19 1.07 12 Spray 5.810 0.780 0.0394 0.0095 5.290 1.00 3.9370E-04 19 2.34 13 Spray 5.810 0.780 0.0194 0.0059 4.173 1.00 3.9370E-04 19 1.03 13 Spray 5.810 0.780 0.0436 0.0099 5.595 1.00 3.9370E-04 19 2.61 55 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Phase II Sensitivity Cases Leak Rate and Crack Stability vs. Time for Example Case 1.8 8.0 1.6 7.0 1.4 Stability Margin on Load (Pm and Pb) 6.0 Leak Rate (gpm at 70°F) 1.2 5.0 1.0 4.0 0.8 3.0 0.6 Stability Margin 2.0 0.4 Leak Rate Case 6 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time after Calculated Leak Rate Reaches 1 gpm (days) 56 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Leak Rate Calculation Crack Opening Displacements (Half COD)
Case 7 - 1 gpm leak rate Case 7 - Critical for 1.4 Factor on Loading 57 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Leak Rate Calculation Effect of Variation in COD with Radial Position Crack opening area (COA) and crack length at OD applied in leak rate results presented above
- Circumferential extent of crack assumed to be same on ID as given by crack growth calculation for OD COA at OD approximately 1.5 times that at the mid-radius Approximately 20% reduction in flow rate when model the area expansion (from mid-radius to OD) using PICEP 58 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Leak Rate Calculation Effect of Assumed Crack Shape on Calculated Leak Rate Crack opening at OD from FEA closely approximated by ellipse Ellipse selected as default crack shape Rectangular and diamond crack shapes both resulted in 2% increase in predicted leak rate for the same COA 0.006 Crack Opening Profile PRELIMINARY Diamond Rectangular 0.005 Ellipse Crack Opening Displacement (in) 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 Case 1 at 1 gpm leak rate 0.000 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Circumferential Location along OD (in) 59 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Knockdown Factor Calculations See separate presentation by Ted Anderson of Quest Reliability, LLC 60 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Probabilistic Assessment See separate presentation by Pete Riccardella of Structural Integrity Associates 61 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Status of Industry Work Other Topics K Verification Model convergence
- Effect of time step on crack growth solution Nozzle-to-safe-end geometry cases Validation work
- EU mockup
- Battelle mockup with weld repairs Final report 62 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
K Verification Introduction Previously FEACrack has been applied to generate K solutions for the three custom crack profiles suggested by EMC2
- EMC2s solutions closely matched the DEI results for these cases Results are now available for the fourth profile, which was suggested by DEI 63 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
5 K Verification alpha=5, a/t=0.25, c=1.5 alpha=8, a/t=0.5, c=5 Test Crack Profiles alpha=2, a/t=0.8, c=7 4
Extra Case 3
2 1
0.9 0.8 alpha=8, a/t=5, c=5 alpha=2, a/t=0.8, c=7 0
0.7 alpha=5, a/t=0.25, c=1.5 Extra Case 0.6
-1 0.5 a/t 0.4
-2 0.3 0.2
-3 0.1 0
-4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Surface Crack length (inch)
-5 0 1 2 3 4 5 64 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
K Verification Corner Node Positions Along Crack Front kver00-1: 2c/a=15.5, a/t=0.500 1.20 kver01-1: 2c/a=13.6, a/t=0.800 kver02-1: 2c/a=9.3, a/t=0.250 kver03-1: 2c/a=18.2, a/t=0.511 1.00 0.80 Crack Depth (in) 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Circumferential Distance Along ID (in) 65 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
K Verification K Result as Function of Relative Crack Front Position 35,000 kver00-1: 2c/a=15.5, a/t=0.500 kver01-1: 2c/a=13.6, a/t=0.800 30,000 kver02-1: 2c/a=9.3, a/t=0.250 kver03-1: 2c/a=18.2, a/t=0.511 FEA Stress Intensity Factor, K (psi-in0.5) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Relative Distance Along Crack Front from Deepest Point to Surface Point (--)
66 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
K Verification K Result as Function of Circumferential Position on ID 35,000 kver00-1: 2c/a=15.5, a/t=0.500 kver01-1: 2c/a=13.6, a/t=0.800 kver02-1: 2c/a=9.3, a/t=0.250 30,000 kver03-1: 2c/a=18.2, a/t=0.511 FEA Stress Intensity Factor, K (psi-in0.5) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Circumferential Distance Along ID (in) 67 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Model Convergence Investigation of Effect of Time Step For the Phase 1 set of inputs and an initial 10% deep 360° surface flaw, the through-wall profile and time to through-wall were checked for 30 and 60 growth steps 1.4 30 steps 1.2 60 steps 1.0 No. Time to %
Steps TW (yr) Dev.
Crack Depth, y (in) 30 22.03 -3.3%
0.8 60 22.78 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg) 68 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Nozzle-to-safe-end Geometry Cases Example Cracked Model 69 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Status of NRC Confirmatory Research To be presented by NRC
- WRS Modeling
- Phase II Sensitivity Cases
- K Verification 70 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Wednesday Agenda Discussion from Previous Days Results - Industry & NRC Acceptance Criteria and Safety Factors - Industry Plans for next meeting(s) - Industry & NRC Meeting Summary and Conclusions - Industry & NRC 71 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Discussion from Previous Days Results WRS Models Phase II Sensitivity Cases 72 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Acceptance Criteria and Safety Factors -
Industry Revised Proposed Industry Acceptance Criteria & Safety Factors Discussions 73 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Acceptance Criteria and Safety Factors Conclusions from June 1 Presentation - Summary It is appropriate that analyses demonstrate a high and sufficient level of assurance given possibility of circumferential flaws This short-term implementation issue is different than long-term safety evaluations or disposition of actual detected growing flaws Extensive consideration of analysis uncertainties and modeling conservatisms reduce the effect of analysis uncertainties Operating ages of subject plants are generally less than that for Wolf Creek
- This effect tends to lower probability of crack initiation in subject plants
- However, time for crack initiation not explicitly credited in the type of leakage prior to rupture calculation being performed 74 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Acceptance Criteria and Safety Factors Conclusions from June 1 Presentation - Acceptance Criteria Under Development Acceptance criteria are currently under development for this project:
- Calculated time between leak detection and critical crack is main assessment parameter
- There is a high confidence of leak detection and plant shutdown within 7 days after the leak rate reaches 0.25 gpm
- A margin factor >1 on the calculated leak rate is under consideration to address the uncertainty in the best-estimate leak rate predicted by the leak rate codes
- Given extensive consideration of analysis uncertainties and modeling conservatisms, a margin factor of 1 on critical crack size may be appropriate
- A secondary assessment parameter is the time between the initial crack and the critical crack, which can be compared to the operating age of each subject weld 75 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Plans for Next Meeting(s)
Project Timeline & Milestones Update Draft/Final Industry Report Update Expert Panel July 10th ACRS July 11th Expert Panel July 12th?
End of July Management Meeting?
76 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Meeting Summary and Conclusions Industry NRC 77 Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia
Final Report on Secondary Stress Study Ted Anderson, Ph.D., P.E.
Eric Scheibler Greg Thorwald, Ph.D.
Overview
Elastic and elastic-plastic finite element analysis to determine the effect of an imposed end rotation on bending moment and crack driving force.
- Total pipe length (2L) = 60 in & 60 ft (L corresponds to the length of the model due to symmetry conditions).
- Initial (uncracked) bending stress = 25 ksi
- Through-wall cracks of various lengths.
Calculated Results
Moment knock-down factor (M/Mo) for a fixed rotation ():
- Ratio of the bending moment of the cracked pipe to that of the uncracked pipe.
J-integral knock-down factor (J/JM):
- Ratio of crack driving force for a fixed rotation to that for fixed applied moment.
Stress-Strain Curve 90 80 70 60 True Stress, ksi 50 Ramberg-Osgood 40 Assumed for FEA 30 20 10 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 True Plastic Strain
Moment Knock-Down Factors Elastic Analysis Imposed Rotation, Elastic Analysis 1
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 M/Mo L = 30 in 0.5 L = 30 ft 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized Crack Length (c/Ro)
Moment Knock-Down Factors Elastic-Plastic Analysis Imposed Rotation, Elastic-Plastic Analysis o = 25 ksi 1
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 M/Mo L = 30 in 0.5 L = 30 ft 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized Crack Length (c/Ro)
Imposed angle at free end is 0.1987 degrees for L = 30 in and 2.291 degrees for L = 30 ft
Elastic Crack Driving Force Elastic Analysis o = 25 ksi 1.5 Applied Moment 1.25 Applied Rotation, L = 30 in Applied Rotation, L = 30 ft J-Integral, ksi-in 1
0.75 0.5 0.25 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Normalized Crack Length (c/Ro)
Elastic-Plastic Crack Driving Force Elastic-Plastic Analysis o = 25 ksi 10 9 Applied Moment Applied Rotation, L = 30 in 8
Applied Rotation, L = 30 ft J-Integral ksi-in 7
6 5
4 3
2 1
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Normalized Crack Length, (c/Ro)
J-Integral Knock-Down Factor Elastic-Plastic Analysis Elastic-Plastic Analysis L = 30 ft, o = 25 ksi 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 J/JM 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Normalized Crack Length (c/Ro)
Emc2 Verification and Confirmatory Analyses David Rudland, Do-Jun Shim, Tao Zhang and Gery Wilkowski Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus June 19, 2007 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 1
Outline K-Verification Welding Residual Stress Confirmatory Sensitivity Analyses Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 2
Continuous Arbitrary Surface Cracks Modified Bessel of the first kind 0.9 alpha=8, a/t=0.5, c=5 0.8 alpha=2, a/t=0.8, c=7 0.7 alpha=5, a/t=0.25, c=1.5 Extra Case Developed 0.6 by DEI 0.5 a/t 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Surface Crack length (inch)
I (x ) = i J (ix )
2 J (x ) = cos( x sin )d 1
2 0 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 3
K Verification 35 Case1 - Emc2 30 Case2 - Emc2 Case3 - Emc2 Case4 - Emc2 Case1 - DEI 25 Case2 - DEI Case3 - DEI Case 4 - DEI 0.5 20 K, ksi*in 15 10 5
0 0 2 4 6 8 Inner surface crack length, inch Excellent Agreement Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 4
Surge Nozzle Welding Residual Stress Model Zero location Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 5
Relief Nozzle Welding Residual Stress Model Zero location Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 6
WRS Cases Run Surge Nozzle - Operating Temperature Only With safe-end weld With no repair (0.1 last pass) - left to right sequence With no repair (0.1 last pass) - right to left sequence With repair (5/16) - left to right sequence With repair (5/16) - right to left sequence Without safe-end weld With no repair (0.1 last pass) - left to right sequence With no repair (0.1 last pass) - right to left sequence With repair (5/16) - left to right sequence With repair (5/16) - right to left sequence Relief Nozzle - Operating Temperature Only With safe-end weld Without safe-end weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 7
Initial ID Last Pass Weld After Original Weld After 0.1 grind Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 8
Initial ID Last Pass Weld After last pass weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 9
Fill-in Weld Sequence - Left-to-right Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 10
Fill-in Weld Sequence - Left-to-right Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 11
Safe End Weld After Stainless Weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 12
Surge Nozzle DMW at Operating Conditions At Operating Conditions Pressure and Temperature Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 13
Surge Nozzle - No Repair - Left-to-right Sequence Operating Temperature Only No SS weld With SS weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 14
Surge Nozzle - No Repair - Right-to-left Sequence Operating Temperature Only No SS weld With SS weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 15
Surge Nozzle - with Repair - Left-to-right Sequence Operating Temperature Only No SS weld With SS weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 16
Surge Nozzle - with Repair - Right-to-left Sequence Operating Temperature Only No SS weld With SS weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 17
Relief Nozzle Welding Stresses Operating Temperature Only No SS weld With SS weld Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 18
Axial Stress on ID - Surge Nozzle - No SS Weld Distance, inch 0.00 0.24 0.47 0.71 0.94 1.18 1.42 1.65 1.89 2.12 2.36 600 87 70 400 52 Axial Stress, MPa Axial Stress, ksi 200 35 17 0 0
-17
-200 -35
-52
-400 Preliminary -70
-600 -87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance, mm (along ID)
NoRepair-NoSS (Left-Right) NoRepair-NoSS (Right-Left)
Repair-NoSS (Left-Right) Repair-NoSS (Right-Left)
Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 19
Axial Stress on ID - Surge Nozzle - With SS Weld Distance, inch 0.00 0.24 0.47 0.71 0.94 1.18 1.42 1.65 1.89 2.12 2.36 600 87 70 400 Preliminary 52 Axial Stress, MPa 35 Axial Stress, ksi 200 17 0 0
-17
-200
-35
-52
-400
-70
-600 -87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance, mm (along ID)
NoRepair-WithSS (Left-Right) NoRepair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Repair-WithSS (Left-Right) Repair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 20
Axial Stress on ID - Relief Nozzle Distance, inch 0.00 0.35 0.71 1.06 1.42 1.77 2.12 2.48 2.83 3.19 3.54 600 87 70 400 Preliminary 52 Axial Stress, MPa Axial stress, ksi 200 35 17 0 0
-17
-200 -35
-400 -52
-70
-600 -87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Distance, mm (along ID)
NoRepair-NoSS NoRepair-WithSS Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 21
Axial Stress Along Weld Centerline - Surge Nozzle Distance, inch
-0.39 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.59 0.79 0.98 1.18 1.38 600 87 Preliminary 70 400 52 Axial Stress, MPa Axial Stress, ksi 200 35 17 0 0
-17
-200
-35
-400 -52
-70
-600 -87
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance, mm (along Weld Center)
Main weld 0.1" last pass Fill in Stainless Weld Hydro test Operating Left-to-right sequence - Operating is pressure + temperature Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 22
Hoop Stress Along Weld Center - Surge Nozzle Distance, inch
-0.39 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.59 0.79 0.98 1.18 1.38 800 104 600 87 70 Hoop Stress, MPa 400 Hoop Stress, ksi 52 200 35 17 0 0
-17
-200 -35
-52
-400 Preliminary -70
-600 -87
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance, mm (along Weld Center)
Main weld 0.1" last pass Fill in Stainless Weld Hydro test Operating Left-to-right sequence - Operating is pressure + temperature Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 23
Axial Stress Along Maximum Stress Path - Surge Nozzle 600 87 400 Preliminary 70 52 Axial Stress, MPa Axial Stress, ksi 200 35 17 0 0
-17
-200
-35
-52
-400
-70
-600 -87 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Normalized Distance (along Defined Path from ID to OD)
NoRepair-NoSS (Left-Right) NoRepair-WithSS (Left-Right)
Repair-NoSS (Left-Right) Repair-WithSS (Left-Right)
Scoping Left-to-Right Weld Sequence Operating Temperature Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 24
Axial Stress Along Maximum Stress Path - Surge Nozzle 600 87 70 400 Preliminary 52 Axial Stress, MPa 35 Axial Stress, ksi 200 17 0 0
-17
-200
-35
-52
-400
-70
-600 -87 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Normalized Distance (along Defined Path from ID to OD)
NoRepair-NoSS (Right-Left) NoRepair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Repair-NoSS (Right-Left) Repair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Scoping Right-to-Left Sequence Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Operating Temperature 25
Axial Stress Along Maximum Stress Path - Relief Nozzle 600 87 Preliminary 70 400 52 Axial Stress, MPa 35 Axial stress, ksi 200 17 0 0
-17
-200
-35
-52
-400
-70
-600 -87 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Normalized Distance (along Defined Path from ID to OD)
NoRepair-NoSS NoRepair-WithSS DEI - Type 1a NoSS Original Operating Temperature Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 26
Confirmatory Sensitivity Analyses Purpose of these analyses are to confirm DEI analyses by conducting a selection of cases from the matrix.
Analyses matrix sent to Emc2 on June 13, and relief WRS sent on June 14.
Initial analyses focuses on original Wolf Creek case (100% + 65% Moment) and Cases 1,3,9,11.
Analyses conducted with PipeFracCAE + ABAQUS Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 27
Leak and Critical Crack Size Calculations For welding residual stress used Emc2 fit to WRS from scoping analyses - DEI Relief Nozzle WRS caused arrest!!
Calculated leakage using SQUIRT, PWSCC crack morphology parameters, COD dependence Assumed elliptical opening COD from FEA 100% quality steam Used arbitrary NSC analyses with SS flow stress - with no crack closure - Applied appropriate Z factor.
Included all displacement controlled normal operating loads.
Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 28
Comparison of WRS 70 ASME WRS 60 180 degree location 0 degree location 50 Axial Welding Residual Stress (ksi) 40 30 20 10 0
-10
-20
-30
-40 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Normalized Distance from ID Surface, (R-Ri)/t Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 29
Confirmatory Analyses - Status Analyses Completed Wolf Creek 100% Moment (leaked in 6.6 years)
Wolf Creek 65% Moment (very similar to Case 3 - leaked in 29.4 years )
Case 11 (started with 10%, 360 crack - arrest)
Analyses ongoing (chose cases with low moments)
Case 1 (leaked in 19.96 years - Complex crack still growing)
Case 1 with DEI WRS - Arrest Case 9 (leaked in 125 years - Complex crack still growing)
Case 10 (started with 10%, 360 crack - leaked in ~51years)
Analyses planned Case 15 (high), 17(high) and 20(low)
Selection of 5 or so more cases from Case 27-61 when defined Any bounding cases that seem appropriate Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 30
Wolf Creek Critical Crack Sizes 100% moment 65% Moment Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 31
Crack Shape at Leakage WC 100% WC 65% Case 1 - 76%
Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 32
Wolf Creek Case - 100% Moment 18 4 Leak 16 Preliminary Margin on Pb Margin Pb&Pm 3.5 Margin on Critical Crack Size at NO 14 12 3 Leak rate, gpm 10 Preliminary 2.5 8
6 2 4
Relief - Wolf Creek geometry and loads No safety factors applied 1.5 2
0 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Time after first leakage, months 6.6 years at first leakage Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 33
Wolf Creek Case - 65% moment 35 7 Preliminary Leak 30 Margin on Pb 6
Margin on Critical Crack Size at NO Margin on Pb&Pm 25 Preliminary 5 Leak rate, gpm 20 4
15 3
10 Relief - Wolf Creek geometry and loads No safety factors applied 2 5
0 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time after first leakage, months 29.4 years at first leakage Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 34
Wolf Creek Comparison 35 Relief - Wolf Creek geometry and loads 100% moment No safety factors applied 30 65% moment 25 Preliminary Leak rate, gpm 20 15 10 5
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time after first leakage, months Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 35
Plans and Schedule WRS Conduct comparisons with DEI - DEI to select plane(s) for comparisons Relief Nozzle - conduct deep repair analysis Complete by end of June Validation (EU report, etc) in July Confirmatory Sensitivity Analyses Conduct and reduce cases discussed earlier Complete by end of June (or first week in July)
Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 36
Evaluation of Pressurizer Alloy 82/182 Nozzle Failure Probability (Including Effect of Fall-06 Wolf Creek NDE Indications)
By Peter C. Riccardella June 19, 2007
Elements of Analysis
- Flaw Distribution
- Fragility Curve
- Crack Growth
- Monte Carlo Analysis
- Preliminary Results
Flaw Distributions
- Inspection data updated to reflect Spring-07 inspection results 10 new data points, 9 clean, 1 circ indication
- Incorporated several NRC suggestions in developing flaw distributions from the data Fitted only inspection results that had circ indications (8 of the 51 data points)
Fitted actual data rather than confidence bounds (i/N vs. MRR)
Employed several distribution types to evaluate extrapolation uncertainties
Inspection Data (Updated for Spring-07 Inspections) 100%
90%
80%
70%
Axial Indications 60%
a/thickness 50%
Circ Indications 40%
30%
DMW Indications 20% WOLF Creek Indications Farley Surge Nozz Clean Mean Failure Locus 10% Inspections 99.9%-tile Failure Locus) 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
l/circumference
Flaw Distributions fitted to Circ Indication Data (in terms of CF %)
Fits Compared (Rank = i/N)
E:\EPRI248\Rev 2\StatsDD4.plt Data 0.1 Exponential Weibull Log Normal 5x10-2 Distribution Parameters R2 Exponential 1/b = 18.608, Cutoff = 0.1524 0.9349
=0.3034 =0.001321 Probability Weibull 0.9772 Log Normal Median = 0.0009785, 2nd 0.9765 parameter = 2.36058 10-2 5x10-3 1 2 5 10 20 50 CF (%)
Fragility Curve
- Completely new approach developed based on:
Test data from Degraded Piping Program (DP2) full scale pipe tests
- Z-Factor of 1.17 applied
- Adjustment factor used to account for fraction of Pm vs. Pb Distribution of actual loads from Spring-08 plant nozzles
- Primary + Thermal
- No stratification loads
- SSE a non-factor w/ assumed 0.001 frequency of occurrence
Fit of DP2 Full Scale Pipe Test Data (adjusted for fraction Pm vs. Pb) 0 0
Complex 0
Surface Thru-wall Residuals well-fit by WOL (Surf)
Fit normal distribution 0
0 12.00%
0 10.00%
8.00%
0 6.00%
4.00% y = 0.0403x + 0.0027 CF% Residual 0 2 2.00% R = 0.9801 0.00%
0 -2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
-2.00%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
CF -4.00%
-6.00%
-8.00%
-10.00%
Norm Prob
Pm , Pb , Pm +Pb Stress Loading (ksi) 0 5 10 15 20 0.0 01 A - Re (7.75x5.17) 0 0.7 5
02 A - SA (7.75x5.17) 1.5 0
2.2 03 A - SB (7.75x5.17) 5 3.0 0
04 A - SC (7.75x5.17) 3.7 5
05 E - Re (7.75x5.17) 4.5 0
5.2 06 E - SA (7.75x5.17) 5 6.0 Pm 0 07 E - SB (7.75x5.17) 6.7 5
08 E - SC (7.75x5.17) 7.5 Pm with SSE 0 8.2 09 H - Re (7.75x5.17) 5 Pb 9.0 0
10 H - SA (7.75x5.17) 9.7 5
11 H - SB (7.75x5.17)
Pb with SSE 10
.5 0
11
.2 12 H - SC (7.75x5.17) Pm+Pb 5 12
.0 0
WC1 J - Re (7.75x5.17) Pm+Pb with SSE 12
.7 5
13
.5 WC1a J - Re/Sa (7.75x5.17) 0 14
.2 5
WC2 J - SA (7.75x5.17) 15
.0 0
15 WC3 J - SB (7.75x5.17) .7 5
16
.5 WC4 J - SC (7.75x5.17) 0 17
.2 5
13 F - Re (8x5.19) 18
.0 0
18 14 F - SA (8x5.19) .7 5
19
.5 0
15 F - SB (8x5.19) 20
.2 5
16 F - SC (8x5.19) 21
.0 0
21
.7 17 B - Re (7.75x5.62) 5 22
.5 0
18 B - SA (7.75x5.62) 23
.2 5
24 19 B - SB (7.75x5.62) .0 0
24
.7 20 B - SC (7.75x5.62) 5 25
.5 0
21 G - Re (7.75x5.62) 26
.2 5
27
.0 22 G - SA (7.75x5.62) 0 27
.7 5
23 G - SB (7.75x5.62) 28
.5 0
29 24 G - SC (7.75x5.62) .2 5
30
.0 25 C - Re (7.75x5.62) 0 30
.7 5
26 C - SA (7.75x5.62) 31
.5 0
32 27 C - SB (7.75x5.62) .2 5
33
.0 0
28 C - SC (7.75x5.62) 33
.7 5
29 D - Re (8x5.19) 34
.5 0
35
.2 30 D - SA (8x5.19) 5 36
.0 0
31 D - SB (8x5.19) 36
.7 5
37 32 D - SC (8x5.19) .5 0
38
.2 33 I - Re (8x5.188) 5 39
.0 0
34 I - SA (8x5.188) 39
.7 5
40
.5 35 I - SB (8x5.188) 0 41
.2 5
36 A - Sp (5.81x4.01) 42
.0 0
42 37 E - Sp (5.81x4.01) .7 5
43
.5 WC5 J - Sp (5.81x4.01) 0 44
.2 5
38 B - Sp (5.81x4.25) 45
.0 0
45 39 G - Sp (5.81x4.25) .7 5
46
.5 0
40 C - Sp (5.81x4.25) 47
.2 5
41 F - Sp (8x5.695) 48
.0 0
48
.7 42 D - Sp (5.188x3.062) 5 49
.5 0
43 I - Sp (5.188x3.25) 50
.2 5
51 44 A - Su (15x11.844) .0 0
51
.7 45 E - Su (15x11.844) 5 52
.5 0
46 H - Su (15x11.844) 53
.2 5
54
.0 WC6 J - Su (15x11.844) 0 54
.7 5
47 B - Su (15x11.844) 55
.5 0
56 48 G - Su (15x11.844) .2 5
57
.0 49 C - Su (15x11.875) 0 57
.7 5
50 D - Su (13.063x10.125) 58
.5 0
59 51 I - Su (13.063x10.125) .2 5
60 0 1 .0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 Plant Loading Statistics Provided by DEI
Plant Loading Statistics Log Norm Fit (w/o SSE)
Data very well fit by 3.500 Lognormal Distributions 3.000 2.500 Pm + Pb w/o SSE (adjusted L N (Pm + Pb ) w /o SSE 2.000 y = 0.3997x + 2.1658 R2 = 0.9752 for fraction Pm) 1.500 1.000
- Mean = 9.4 ksi, STD = 4 0.500 0.000 ksi, Max = 21.4 ksi -2.500 -2.000 -1.500 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 Norm Dist.
0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
- R2 of Lognormal Fit = .9752 Log Normal Fit w/SSE 3.500 Pm + Pb w/SSE (adjusted 3.000 2.500 for fraction Pm)
L N (Pm + Pb) w / SSE) 2.000 y = 0.4187x + 2.2984 R2 = 0.9822
- Mean = 10.9 ksi, STD = 4.7 1.500 1.000 ksi, Max = 23.6 ksi 0.500 0.000
- R2 of Lognormal Fit = .9822 -2.500 -2.000 -1.500 -1.000 -0.500 0.000 Norm Dist.
0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500
Test Data + Load Distributions 1.00 Combined Statistically 0.90 Sim Data 0.80 Lognormal Dist.
- Final Fragility 0.70 Curve very well fit by Lognormal 0.60
- Mean CF = 76%
0.50
- 99.9%-tile = 34%
0.40
- R2 of fit = 0.992 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%
Crit Factor at Failure
Crack Growth
- Awaiting Results of DEI Matrix runs to obtain distribution of CF% versus time
- In interim, used preliminary results from Phase I calcs CF% Increases linearly by 3.75% per year from 0 to 40%
Assumed to be 75%-tile, and Lognormal distribution from MRP-115 applied to this value Turn-up beyond 40% bounded by multipliers of 1 and 10
- Crack growth distribution indexed to same random number as original flaw distribution
Preliminary Crack Growth Results from DEI Phase I Calcs
Crack Growth Rate distribution from MRP-115 1.00 0.75 Probability LogNorm 0.50 Data 0.25 0.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 CGR Multiplier
Flaw Distributions w/Growth vs. Fragility Curve 1
Weib Flaw dist 0.9 LN Flaw Dist Fragility 6 Mo Growth 0.8 12 Mo Growth 18 Mo Growth 0.7 0.6 Probability 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CF %
Flaw Distributions w/Growth vs. Fragility Curve (zoomed) 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 Weib Flaw dist Probability LN Flaw Dist Fragility 0.025 6 Mo Growth 12 Mo Growth 0.02 18 Mo Growth 0.015 0.01 0.005 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
CF %
Preliminary Monte Carlo Results (Growth x1 for CF>40%)
Time Cumulative Incremental (months) Prob. Prob. (6 Mo.) # Nozzles Nozzle Failure Prob.
Weibull Total per Plant Spring-07 0 1.1869E-03 1.1869E-03 150 0.1632 0.0082 Fall-07 6 1.5012E-03 3.1430E-04 100 0.0309 0.0015 Spring-08 12 1.8903E-03 3.8910E-04 50 0.0193 0.0019 Log Normal Spring-07 0 2.5517E-03 2.5517E-03 150 0.3184 0.0159 Fall-07 6 2.9121E-03 3.6040E-04 100 0.0354 0.0018 Spring-08 12 3.3391E-03 4.2700E-04 50 0.0211 0.0021 Exponential Spring-07 0 3.4000E-06 3.4000E-06 150 0.0005 0.000025 Fall-07 6 3.0500E-05 2.7100E-05 100 0.0027 0.000135 Spring-08 12 1.2370E-04 9.3200E-05 50 0.0046 0.000465
Preliminary Monte Carlo Results (Growth x10 for CF>40%)
Cumulative Incremental Time (months) Prob. Prob. (6 Mo.) Nozzle Failure Prob.
Weibull # Nozzles Total per Plant Spring-07 0 1.1869E-03 1.1869E-03 150 0.1632 0.0054 Fall-07 6 3.4015E-03 2.2146E-03 100 0.1988 0.0099 Spring-08 12 4.5127E-03 1.1112E-03 50 0.0541 0.0054 Log Normal Spring-07 0 2.5517E-03 2.5517E-03 150 0.3184 0.0106 Fall-07 6 5.2430E-03 2.6913E-03 100 0.2362 0.0118 Spring-08 12 6.3873E-03 1.1443E-03 50 0.0556 0.0056 Exponential Spring-07 0 3.4000E-06 3.4000E-06 150 0.0005 0.000017 Fall-07 6 1.0640E-04 1.0300E-04 100 0.0102 0.000512 Spring-08 12 5.2640E-04 4.2000E-04 50 0.0208 0.002079
Failure Probabilities per Plant per Year (Growth x1 for CF>40%)
Weib Log Normal Exponential 2007 0.0070 0.0124 0.0002 2008 0.0019 0.0021 0.0005 2008* 0 0 0 (Growth x10 for CF>40%)
Weib Log Normal Exponential 2007 0.0153 0.0223 0.0005 2008 0.0054 0.0056 0.0021 2008* 0 0 0
- Assuming all plants inspected/mitigated in 2007
Preliminary Conclusions
- Failure Probabilities (per plant, per year) for Spring-08 Plants generally less than what has existed in these nozzles in 2007
- Greater than generally accepted 1E-3 for the most conservative assumptions
- However, these results assume no leakage or plant response to leakage They should be factored by probability of non-LBB or failure to react to leakage from DEI study