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 Fabrication Records Review Al Csontos, RES June 19, 2007
2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Background
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.
3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Summary 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.
4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Recommendations 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.
1 Pressurizer Nozzle Fabrication Detail Cameron Martin Wolf Creek Task Group Meeting June 19 -20, 2007
2 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 D
N/A E
N/A - Machined Fit F
N/A G
2.10 0.30 H
N/A - Machined Fit I
N/A J
2.10 TBD A - Approx.
B
3 Nozzle Buttering - Weld Land Detail Plant Location C (in)
B SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06 C
SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06 D
SURGE NOZZLE 0.10*
SPRAY NOZZLE 0.10*
SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.10*
E SURGE NOZZLE N/A SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06
- Machined C
Nozzle Buttering
4 Nozzle Buttering - Weld Land Detail Plant Location C (in)
G SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06 H
SURGE NOZZLE 0.10*
SPRAY NOZZLE 0.10*
SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.10*
J SURGE NOZZLE 0.06 SPRAY NOZZLE 0.06 SAFETY/RELIEF NOZZLE 0.06
- Machined C
Nozzle Buttering
11730 Plaza America Dr. #310 Reston, VA 20190 703.437.1155 www.domeng.com 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.
Tuesday and Wednesday, June 19 and 20, 2007 Meeting on Implications of Wolf Creek Dissimilar Metal Weld Inspections DEI Offices, Reston, Virginia
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 2
June 19 and 20, 2007, 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 3
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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 4
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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 5
June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Principal Meeting Participants EPRI Project Management / Support
- Craig Harrington, EPRI
- Christine King, EPRI
- Tim Gilman, Structural Integrity Associates Project Team
- Glenn White, DEI
- John Broussard, DEI
- 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 NRC Participants
- Al Csontos, NRC Research
- Mauricio Gutierrez, NRC NRR
- Tim Lupold, NRC NRR
- Dave Rudland, EMC2
- Simon Sheng, NRC NRR
- Ted Sullivan, NRC NRR
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 6
June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Fabrication Records Meeting Update To be presented by NRC
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 7
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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 8
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)
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 9
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 3.
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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 10 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)
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 11 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Additional WRS Analysis Cases Safety/Relief with 0.75" Deep Repair 0.25" 0.38" 0.75"
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 12 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia WRS Modeling 3D Model for Safety and Relief Configuration #1a
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 13 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Additional WRS Analysis Cases Type 8 (W) Surge with 0.6" Fill-In 0.30" 0.63" 2.18" 3.33"
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 14 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Additional WRS Analysis Cases Type 9 (CE) Surge Nozzle 3.00" 7.77" 15.37" 15.63" 16.76" 18.57" 19.79" 18.71" 19.68" 16.07" 16.32" 15.64" 10.80" 15.32" 19.07" 19.32" 10.25" 5.72" 5.94" 5.50" 5.13" 4.88" 5.13" 6.38" 3.00" 7.50" 6.53"
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 15 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 16 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia WRS Modeling Comparison Between REFT=1800 and REFT=70 - NOPT 1
MN MX 1
MN MX REFT=1800 REFT=70
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 17 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld + SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-74955
-59494
-44032
-28570
-13109 2353 17815 33277 48738 64200 type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 18 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld, No SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-65868
-51548
-37228
-22907
-8587 5733 20053 34373 48693 63013 type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 19 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Safety/Relief NOT DMW + 0.75" Repair, No SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-55900
-42493
-29087
-15680
-2273 11133 24540 37947 51353 64760 type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 20 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 18 2007 16:24:14 PLOT NO.
1 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=32003 SZ (AVG)
RSYS=11 DMX =.15798 SMN =-73099 SMX =78621 1
MN MX
-73099
-56242
-39384
-22526
-5668 11190 28047 44905 61763 78621 type1a_sr-4_3d - Operating Temperature Conditions Safety/Relief NOT - 3D Repair DMW + 0.75" Repair, No SS Weld (1/2)
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 21 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia 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 1
MN MX
-73099
-56242
-39384
-22526
-5668 11190 28047 44905 61763 78621 Safety/Relief NOT - 3D Repair DMW + 0.75" Repair, No SS Weld (2/2)
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 22 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld + Safe End ID + SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-77029
-61282
-45535
-29788
-14040 1707 17454 33201 48948 64696 type1a_sr Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 23 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Safety/Relief NOT DMW + Backweld + Liner + SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-78522
-62729
-46935
-31142
-15348 445.203 16239 32032 47826 63619 type2b_sr Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 24 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Fill-In + SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-65449
-51208
-36966
-22724
-8483 5759 20001 34243 48484 62726 type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 25 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Fill-In, No SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-62299
-48871
-35443
-22015
-8587 4841 18269 31697 45125 58553 type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 26 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Repair + 0.6 Fill-In, no SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-65443
-50874
-36306
-21737
-7168 7401 21970 36538 51107 65676 type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 27 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia W Surge NOT DMW + Backweld + Repair + Fill-In + SS Weld 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 1
MN MX
-63453
-49365
-35276
-21188
-7100 6988 21076 35164 49253 63341 type8_surge Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 28 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia CE Surge NOT DMW + Final Machining, No SS Weld ANSYS 10.0A1 JUN 16 2007 14:58:33 PLOT NO. 14 NODAL SOLUTION TIME=20003 SY (AVG)
RSYS=0 DMX =.115727 SMN =-57196 SMX =52051 1
MN MX
-57196
-45058
-32919
-20780
-8642 3497 15635 27774 39913 52051 type9_surge Operating Temperature Conditions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 29 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia WRS Analysis Results Safety/Relief - Normal Operating Temperature
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000 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 Axial Stress (psi)
Type 1a-1 (base case)
Type 1a-4 (0.75" Repair)
Type 2b-1 (liner)
ASME Modified per EMC2
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 30 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia WRS Analysis Results Safety/Relief 3D Repair - Normal Operating Temperature
-80000
-60000
-40000
-20000 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 Axial Stress (psi) 0 10 20 30 45 60 90 180 EQUIV AXI NO REPAIR EQUIV AXI REPAIR
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 31 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia WRS Analysis Results Surge - Normal Operating Temperature
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000 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 Axial Stress (psi)
Type 8-1 (base case)
Type 8-2 (5/16" ID repair)
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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 32 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Stress Distributions Used in Case Matrix Type 1 Safety and Relief Nozzle - Cubic Fit y = -591849.2769x3 + 1207788.1107x2 - 618169.1311x + 54261.3841 R2 = 0.9443
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000 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 Axial Stress (psi)
ASME Modified per EMC2 Poly. (Type 1a-3 (no SS Weld))
Crack arrest is predicted for matrix Cases 1 through 16 Therefore, 3/30 ASME WRS was conservatively applied for these matrix cases
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 33 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 predicted for matrix Cases 1 through 16 Therefore, 3/30 ASME WRS was conservatively applied for these matrix cases y = 833566.7025x4 - 2176526.9737x3 + 2124566.3456x2 - 771992.0080x + 54000.0000 R2 = 0.9693
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000 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 Axial Stress (psi)
ASME Modified per EMC2 Poly. (Type 1a-3 (no SS Weld))
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 34 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 with no SS weld conservatively applied for matrix Cases 17 through 20 y = -379575.57924x4 + 629044.56427x3 + 51816.32546x2 - 305132.55771x + 54000.00000 R2 = 0.92775
-80,000
-60,000
-40,000
-20,000 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 Axial Stress (psi)
Type 8-1 (base case)
Surge w/ Repair per EMC2 ASME Modified per EMC2 Poly. (Type 8-3 (no SS Weld))
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 35 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Stress Distributions Used in Case Matrix Type 1 Surge Nozzle with 3D Repair Upper fit with 0 = 74.8 ksi applied for repair zone Lower fit with 0 = 27.5 ksi applied for transition zone Quartic fit for axisymmetric Type 1 case applied for remainder y = 368125.90618x3 - 302363.56840x2 - 72263.72562x + 74800.00000 R2 = 0.96857 y = -346646.916833x3 + 872630.992358x2 - 487133.355555x + 27500.000000 R2 = 0.992444
-60000
-40000
-20000 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 Axial Stress (psi) 0 20 EQUIV AXI REPAIR Poly. (0)
Poly. (20)
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 36 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 37 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 38 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Geometry and Load Combinations Min Max Min Max Min Max 1a 12 3.17 3.45 0.07 5.71 0.02 0.64 1b 4
3.20 3.71 0.78 5.74 0.20 0.63 2a 8
3.93 4.29 1.04 7.63 0.21 0.64 2b 4
3.57 3.90 2.35 4.78 0.38 0.57 3
7 3.16 3.24 0.00 6.70 0.00 0.67 4
2 3.45 3.58 1.38 4.89 0.28 0.59 5
3 4.00 4.20 1.12 4.75 0.21 0.54 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 9
2 4.92 5.06 6.65 14.55 0.57 0.74 Loads Pm Surge Nozzles (ksi)
Spray Nozzles Safety and Relief Nozzles Design Type (ksi)
Pb/(Pm+Pb)
Pb
- of nozzles Note: Pm in this table based on pressure stress pDo/4t. Pressure stress pDi 2/(Do 2-Di
- 2) plus deadweight and secondary piping axial force and pressure on crack face to be used for crack growth.
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 39 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Current Planned Matrix (slide 1/2)
Prelim Case #
Model Type Nozzle Type Geometry Configuration Do (in)
Di (in) t (in)
Ri/t TW Z-factor per PVP Pm Case Pm (ksi) max Code Total Pm (ksi)
Pb Case Pb (thick)
(ksi)
Pb/7.51 (thick)
Pb/(Pm+Pb)
WRS Case 2c/a Shape Factor Depth
(%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%
Geometry Case Initial Flaw CGR Expon.
n Load Case
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 40 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Current Planned Matrix (slide 2/2)
Prelim Case #
Model Type Nozzle Type Geometry Configuration Do (in)
Di (in) t (in)
Ri/t TW Z-factor per PVP Pm Case Pm (ksi) max Code Total Pm (ksi)
Pb Case Pb (thick)
(ksi)
Pb/7.51 (thick)
Pb/(Pm+Pb)
WRS Case 2c/a Shape Factor Depth
(%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%
Geometry Case Initial Flaw CGR Expon.
n Load Case
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 41 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Results for Phase 1 Inputs - TW Profiles 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Crack Depth, a (in) 100% Moment 95% Moment 90% Moment 85% Moment 80% Moment 75% Moment 70% Moment 65% Moment 60% Moment 55% Moment 50% Moment
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 42 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Results for Phase 1 Inputs - Time to TW 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 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)
Time to Through-Wall Penetration from Initial 10% Deep 360° Flaw (yrs)
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 43 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases TW Profile for S&R Nozzles - 360° Initial Flaw 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7 Case 8
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 44 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases TW Profile for Spray Nozzles - 360° Initial Flaw 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 10 Case 12 Case 13
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 45 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases TW Profile for Surge Nozzles - 21:1 26% Initial Flaw 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 17 (21:1 26%tw initial crack)
Case 18 (360° 10%tw initial crack)
Case 18 (21:1 26%tw initial crack)
Case 19 (21:1 26%tw initial crack)
Case 20 (360° 10%tw initial crack)
Case 20 (21:1 26%tw initial crack)
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 46 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Final Profile for Arrested Cracks - 360° Initial Flaw 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 9 Case 11 Case 14 Case 15 Case 16
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 47 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Surface Crack Cases (1/2)
Prelim Case #
Nozzle Type Geometry Configuration Ri (in) t (in)
Pm Case Pm (ksi) max Code Total Pm (ksi)
Pb Case Pb (thick)
(ksi)
Pb/7.51 (thick)
WRS Case 2c/a Shape Factor Depth
(%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%
Geometry Case Initial Flaw CGR Exp.
n Load Case
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 48 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)
Prelim Case #
Nozzle Type Geometry Configuration Ri (in) t (in)
Stability Margin Factor Support.
Code Pm (ksi)
Support.
Pb (thick)
(ksi)
Crack Face F (kips)
Max tot Faxial (kips)
Max Pm Based on CF (ksi)
Stability Margin Factor Support.
Pm (ksi)
Support.
Pb (thick)
(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 Geometry Case Time to TW (yr)
Fraction Xsection Cracked Pm Based on pDo/4t Pm Based on ID Area plus Crack Face Area
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 49 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 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 1 Step 13 Case 1 Step 31 Case 2 Step 14 Case 2 Step 32 Case 3 Step 15 Case 3 Step 33 Case 5 Step 15 Case 5 Step 32
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 50 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 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 6 Step 7 Case 6 Step 15 Case 7 Step 10 Case 7 Step 25 Case 8 Step 12 Case 8 Step 29
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 51 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 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Nondimensional Crack Depth, y /t Case 10 Step 20 Case 10 Step 33 Case 12 Step 17 Case 12 Step 27 Case 13 Step 18 Case 13 Step 30
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 52 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Complex Crack Cases (1/3)
- Initial complex crack assumed to have total through-wall crack circumferential extent of 42° Case and Step Fraction Xsection Cracked Crack Face Force (kips)
Max tot Faxial (kips)
Max Pm Based on CF (ksi)
Support.
Pm (ksi)
Support.
Pb (thick)
(ksi)
Stability Margin Factor Complex Crack Time*
(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 Crack Stability Results - 1 gpm Calculated Leak Rate
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 53 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Complex Crack Cases (2/3)
Case and Step Fraction Xsection Cracked Crack Face Force (kips)
Max tot Faxial (kips)
Max Pm Based on CF (ksi)
Support.
Pm (ksi)
Support.
Pb (thick)
(ksi)
Stability Margin Factor Complex Crack Time (h)
Time since 1 gpm (days)
Time since 1 gpm (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 Crack Stability Results - 1.4 Factor on Pm and Pb Loads
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 54 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim Summary Results for Complex Crack Cases (3/3)
Case and Step Fraction Xsection Cracked Crack Face Force (kips)
Max tot Faxial (kips)
Max Pm Based on CF (ksi)
Support.
Pm (ksi)
Support.
Pb (thick)
(ksi)
Stability Margin Factor Complex Crack Time (h)
Time since 1 gpm (days)
Time since 1 gpm (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 Crack Stability Results - 1.0 Factor on Pm and Pb Loads
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 55 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Prelim PICEP Leak Rate Calc for Complex Crack Cases Matrix Case #
Nozzle Type OD (in) t (in)
Area (in2)
COD (in) 2cOD (in)
Quality Roughness (in)
- Turns Leak Rate (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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 56 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Phase II Sensitivity Cases Leak Rate and Crack Stability vs. Time for Example Case 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 Time after Calculated Leak Rate Reaches 1 gpm (days)
Stability Margin on Load (Pm and Pb) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Leak Rate (gpm at 70°F)
Stability Margin Leak Rate Case 6
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 57 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 58 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 59 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 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Circumferential Location along OD (in)
Crack Opening Displacement (in)
Crack Opening Profile Diamond Rectangular Ellipse Case 1 at 1 gpm leak rate PRELIMINARY
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 60 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Knockdown Factor Calculations See separate presentation by Ted Anderson of Quest Reliability, LLC
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 61 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Probabilistic Assessment See separate presentation by Pete Riccardella of Structural Integrity Associates
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 62 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 63 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 64 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia K Verification Test Crack Profiles 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Surface Crack length (inch) a/t alpha=8, a/t=5, c=5 alpha=2, a/t=0.8, c=7 alpha=5, a/t=0.25, c=1.5 Extra Case
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1 0
1 2
3 4
5 0
1 2
3 4
5 alpha=5, a/t=0.25, c=1.5 alpha=8, a/t=0.5, c=5 alpha=2, a/t=0.8, c=7 Extra Case
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 65 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia K Verification Corner Node Positions Along Crack Front 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Circumferential Distance Along ID (in)
Crack Depth (in) 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 kver03-1: 2c/a=18.2, a/t=0.511
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 66 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia K Verification K Result as Function of Relative Crack Front Position 0
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Relative Distance Along Crack Front from Deepest Point to Surface Point (--)
FEA Stress Intensity Factor, K (psi-in0.5) 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 kver03-1: 2c/a=18.2, a/t=0.511
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 67 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia K Verification K Result as Function of Circumferential Position on ID 0
5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Circumferential Distance Along ID (in)
FEA Stress Intensity Factor, K (psi-in0.5) 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 kver03-1: 2c/a=18.2, a/t=0.511
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 68 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 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0
30 60 90 120 150 180 Circumferential Position, (deg)
Crack Depth, y (in) 30 steps 60 steps No.
Time to Steps TW (yr)
Dev.
30 22.03
-3.3%
60 22.78
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 69 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Nozzle-to-safe-end Geometry Cases Example Cracked Model
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 70 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 71 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 72 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Discussion from Previous Days Results WRS Models Phase II Sensitivity Cases
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 73 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Acceptance Criteria and Safety Factors -
Industry Revised Proposed Industry Acceptance Criteria & Safety Factors Discussions
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 74 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 75 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
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 76 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?
Project Review Meeting: Advanced FEA Crack Growth Evaluations 77 June 19 and 20, 2007, Reston, Virginia Meeting Summary and Conclusions Industry NRC
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 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 True Plastic Strain True Stress, ksi Ramberg-Osgood Assumed for FEA
Moment Knock-Down Factors Elastic Analysis Imposed Rotation, Elastic Analysis 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized Crack Length (c/Ro)
M/Mo L = 30 in L = 30 ft
Moment Knock-Down Factors Elastic-Plastic Analysis Imposed Rotation, Elastic-Plastic Analysis o = 25 ksi 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized Crack Length (c/Ro)
M/Mo L = 30 in L = 30 ft 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 0
0.25 0.5 0.75 1
1.25 1.5 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Normalized Crack Length (c/Ro)
J-Integral, ksi-in Applied Moment Applied Rotation, L = 30 in Applied Rotation, L = 30 ft
Elastic-Plastic Crack Driving Force Elastic-Plastic Analysis o = 25 ksi 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 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 ksi-in Applied Moment Applied Rotation, L = 30 in Applied Rotation, L = 30 ft
J-Integral Knock-Down Factor Elastic-Plastic Analysis Elastic-Plastic Analysis L = 30 ft, o = 25 ksi 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 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)
J/JM
1 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Emc2 Verification and Confirmatory Analyses David Rudland, Do-Jun Shim, Tao Zhang and Gery Wilkowski Engineering Mechanics Corporation of Columbus June 19, 2007
2 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Outline K-Verification Welding Residual Stress Confirmatory Sensitivity Analyses
3 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Surface Crack length (inch) a/t alpha=8, a/t=0.5, c=5 alpha=2, a/t=0.8, c=7 alpha=5, a/t=0.25, c=1.5 Extra Case Continuous Arbitrary Surface Cracks
( )
( )
ix J
i x
I
=
( )
(
)
d x
x J
=
2 0
sin cos 2
1 Modified Bessel of the first kind Developed by DEI
4 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions K Verification 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0
2 4
6 8
Inner surface crack length, inch K, ksi*in 0.5 Case1 - Emc2 Case2 - Emc2 Case3 - Emc2 Case4 - Emc2 Case1 - DEI Case2 - DEI Case3 - DEI Case 4 - DEI Excellent Agreement
5 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Surge Nozzle Welding Residual Stress Model Zero location
6 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Relief Nozzle Welding Residual Stress Model Zero location
7 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 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
8 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Initial ID Last Pass Weld After Original Weld After 0.1 grind
9 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Initial ID Last Pass Weld After last pass weld
10 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Fill-in Weld Sequence - Left-to-right
11 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Fill-in Weld Sequence - Left-to-right
12 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Safe End Weld After Stainless Weld
13 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Surge Nozzle DMW at Operating Conditions At Operating Conditions Pressure and Temperature
14 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Surge Nozzle - No Repair - Left-to-right Sequence No SS weld With SS weld Operating Temperature Only
15 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Surge Nozzle - No Repair - Right-to-left Sequence No SS weld With SS weld Operating Temperature Only
16 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Surge Nozzle - with Repair - Left-to-right Sequence No SS weld With SS weld Operating Temperature Only
17 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Surge Nozzle - with Repair - Right-to-left Sequence No SS weld With SS weld Operating Temperature Only
18 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Relief Nozzle Welding Stresses No SS weld With SS weld Operating Temperature Only
19 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Axial Stress on ID - Surge Nozzle - No SS Weld
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance, mm (along ID)
Axial Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87 0.00 0.24 0.47 0.71 0.94 1.18 1.42 1.65 1.89 2.12 2.36 Distance, inch Axial Stress, ksi NoRepair-NoSS (Left-Right)
NoRepair-NoSS (Right-Left)
Repair-NoSS (Left-Right)
Repair-NoSS (Right-Left)
Preliminary
20 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Axial Stress on ID - Surge Nozzle - With SS Weld
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 Distance, mm (along ID)
Axial Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87 0.00 0.24 0.47 0.71 0.94 1.18 1.42 1.65 1.89 2.12 2.36 Distance, inch Axial Stress, ksi NoRepair-WithSS (Left-Right)
NoRepair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Repair-WithSS (Left-Right)
Repair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Preliminary
21 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Axial Stress on ID - Relief Nozzle
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Distance, mm (along ID)
Axial Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87 0.00 0.35 0.71 1.06 1.42 1.77 2.12 2.48 2.83 3.19 3.54 Distance, inch Axial stress, ksi NoRepair-NoSS NoRepair-WithSS Preliminary
22 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Axial Stress Along Weld Centerline - Surge Nozzle
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600
-10
-5 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance, mm (along Weld Center)
Axial Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87
-0.39
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.59 0.79 0.98 1.18 1.38 Distance, inch Axial Stress, ksi Main weld 0.1" last pass Fill in Stainless Weld Hydro test Operating Left-to-right sequence - Operating is pressure + temperature Preliminary
23 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Hoop Stress Along Weld Center - Surge Nozzle
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600 800
-10
-5 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Distance, mm (along Weld Center)
Hoop Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87 104
-0.39
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.59 0.79 0.98 1.18 1.38 Distance, inch Hoop Stress, ksi Main weld 0.1" last pass Fill in Stainless Weld Hydro test Operating Left-to-right sequence - Operating is pressure + temperature Preliminary
24 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Axial Stress Along Maximum Stress Path - Surge Nozzle
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600 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)
Axial Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87 Axial Stress, ksi NoRepair-NoSS (Left-Right)
NoRepair-WithSS (Left-Right)
Repair-NoSS (Left-Right)
Repair-WithSS (Left-Right)
Scoping Left-to-Right Weld Sequence Operating Temperature Preliminary
25 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Axial Stress Along Maximum Stress Path - Surge Nozzle
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600 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)
Axial Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87 Axial Stress, ksi NoRepair-NoSS (Right-Left)
NoRepair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Repair-NoSS (Right-Left)
Repair-WithSS (Right-Left)
Scoping Right-to-Left Sequence Operating Temperature Preliminary
26 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Axial Stress Along Maximum Stress Path - Relief Nozzle
-600
-400
-200 0
200 400 600 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)
Axial Stress, MPa
-87
-70
-52
-35
-17 0
17 35 52 70 87 Axial stress, ksi NoRepair-NoSS NoRepair-WithSS DEI - Type 1a NoSS Original Operating Temperature Preliminary
27 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 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
28 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 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.
29 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Comparison of WRS
-40
-30
-20
-10 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 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 Axial Welding Residual Stress (ksi)
ASME WRS 180 degree location 0 degree location
30 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 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
31 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Wolf Creek Critical Crack Sizes 100% moment 65% Moment
32 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Crack Shape at Leakage WC 100%
WC 65%
Case 1 - 76%
33 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Wolf Creek Case - 100% Moment 6.6 years at first leakage Preliminary 0
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 18 0
0.5 1
1.5 2
2.5 3
3.5 4
Time after first leakage, months Leak rate, gpm 1
1.5 2
2.5 3
3.5 4
Margin on Critical Crack Size at NO Leak Margin on Pb Margin Pb&Pm Relief - Wolf Creek geometry and loads No safety factors applied Preliminary
34 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Wolf Creek Case - 65% moment 29.4 years at first leakage Preliminary 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0
2 4
6 8
10 Time after first leakage, months Leak rate, gpm 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
Margin on Critical Crack Size at NO Leak Margin on Pb Margin on Pb&Pm Relief - Wolf Creek geometry and loads No safety factors applied Preliminary
35 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions Wolf Creek Comparison 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0
2 4
6 8
10 Time after first leakage, months Leak rate, gpm 100% moment 65% moment Relief - Wolf Creek geometry and loads No safety factors applied Preliminary
36 Innovative Structural Integrity Solutions 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)
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) 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
l/circumference a/thickness DMW Indications WOLF Creek Indications Farley Surge Nozz Mean Failure Locus 99.9%-tile Failure Locus)
Clean Inspections Circ Indications Axial Indications
Flaw Distributions fitted to Circ Indication Data (in terms of CF %)
2 5
10 20 50 CF (%)
Probability Data Exponential Weibull Log Normal Fits Compared (Rank = i/N)
E:\\EPRI248\\Rev 2\\StatsDD4.plt Distribution Parameters R2 Exponential 1/b = 18.608, Cutoff = 0.1524 0.9349 Weibull
=0.3034 =0.001321 0.9772 Log Normal Median = 0.0009785, 2nd parameter = 2.36058 0.9765
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) 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
CF (Pm+Pb)/Sm Complex Surface Thru-wall WOL (Surf)
Fit y = 0.0403x + 0.0027 R2 = 0.9801
-10.00%
-8.00%
-6.00%
-4.00%
-2.00%
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Norm Prob CF% Residual Residuals well-fit by normal distribution
Plant Loading Statistics Provided by DEI 0
5 10 15 20 01 A - Re (7.75x5.17) 02 A - SA (7.75x5.17) 03 A - SB (7.75x5.17) 04 A - SC (7.75x5.17) 05 E - Re (7.75x5.17) 06 E - SA (7.75x5.17) 07 E - SB (7.75x5.17) 08 E - SC (7.75x5.17) 09 H - Re (7.75x5.17) 10 H - SA (7.75x5.17) 11 H - SB (7.75x5.17) 12 H - SC (7.75x5.17)
WC1 J - Re (7.75x5.17)
WC1a J - Re/Sa (7.75x5.17)
WC2 J - SA (7.75x5.17)
WC3 J - SB (7.75x5.17)
WC4 J - SC (7.75x5.17) 13 F - Re (8x5.19) 14 F - SA (8x5.19) 15 F - SB (8x5.19) 16 F - SC (8x5.19) 17 B - Re (7.75x5.62) 18 B - SA (7.75x5.62) 19 B - SB (7.75x5.62) 20 B - SC (7.75x5.62) 21 G - Re (7.75x5.62) 22 G - SA (7.75x5.62) 23 G - SB (7.75x5.62) 24 G - SC (7.75x5.62) 25 C - Re (7.75x5.62) 26 C - SA (7.75x5.62) 27 C - SB (7.75x5.62) 28 C - SC (7.75x5.62) 29 D - Re (8x5.19) 30 D - SA (8x5.19) 31 D - SB (8x5.19) 32 D - SC (8x5.19) 33 I - Re (8x5.188) 34 I - SA (8x5.188) 35 I - SB (8x5.188) 36 A - Sp (5.81x4.01) 37 E - Sp (5.81x4.01)
WC5 J - Sp (5.81x4.01) 38 B - Sp (5.81x4.25) 39 G - Sp (5.81x4.25) 40 C - Sp (5.81x4.25) 41 F - Sp (8x5.695) 42 D - Sp (5.188x3.062) 43 I - Sp (5.188x3.25) 44 A - Su (15x11.844) 45 E - Su (15x11.844) 46 H - Su (15x11.844)
WC6 J - Su (15x11.844) 47 B - Su (15x11.844) 48 G - Su (15x11.844) 49 C - Su (15x11.875) 50 D - Su (13.063x10.125) 51 I - Su (13.063x10.125)
Pm, Pb, Pm +Pb Stress Loading (ksi) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.00 0.75 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 5.25 6.00 6.75 7.50 8.25 9.00 9.75 10.50 11.25 12.00 12.75 13.50 14.25 15.00 15.75 16.50 17.25 18.00 18.75 19.50 20.25 21.00 21.75 22.50 23.25 24.00 24.75 25.50 26.25 27.00 27.75 28.50 29.25 30.00 30.75 31.50 32.25 33.00 33.75 34.50 35.25 36.00 36.75 37.50 38.25 39.00 39.75 40.50 41.25 42.00 42.75 43.50 44.25 45.00 45.75 46.50 47.25 48.00 48.75 49.50 50.25 51.00 51.75 52.50 53.25 54.00 54.75 55.50 56.25 57.00 57.75 58.50 59.25 60.00 Pm Pm with SSE Pb Pb with SSE Pm+Pb Pm+Pb with SSE
Plant Loading Statistics
- Data very well fit by Lognormal Distributions Pm + Pb w/o SSE (adjusted for fraction Pm)
- Mean = 9.4 ksi, STD = 4 ksi, Max = 21.4 ksi
- R2 of Lognormal Fit =.9752 Pm + Pb w/SSE (adjusted for fraction Pm)
- Mean = 10.9 ksi, STD = 4.7 ksi, Max = 23.6 ksi
- R2 of Lognormal Fit =.9822 Log Norm Fit (w/o SSE) y = 0.3997x + 2.1658 R2 = 0.9752 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
-2.500
-2.000
-1.500
-1.000
-0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 Norm Dist.
LN (Pm + Pb) w /o SSE Log Normal Fit w/SSE y = 0.4187x + 2.2984 R2 = 0.9822 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
-2.500
-2.000
-1.500
-1.000
-0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 Norm Dist.
LN (Pm + Pb) w / SSE)
Test Data + Load Distributions Combined Statistically 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 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 Probability Sim Data Lognormal Dist.
- Final Fragility Curve very well fit by Lognormal
- Mean CF = 76%
- 99.9%-tile = 34%
- R2 of fit = 0.992
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 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.10 1.00 10.00 CGR Multiplier Probability LogNorm Data
Flaw Distributions w/Growth vs. Fragility Curve 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CF %
Probability Weib Flaw dist LN Flaw Dist Fragility 6 Mo Growth 12 Mo Growth 18 Mo Growth
Flaw Distributions w/Growth vs. Fragility Curve (zoomed) 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CF %
Probability Weib Flaw dist LN Flaw Dist Fragility 6 Mo Growth 12 Mo Growth 18 Mo Growth
Preliminary Monte Carlo Results (Growth x1 for CF>40%)
Time (months)
Cumulative Prob.
Incremental Prob. (6 Mo.) # Nozzles 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 Nozzle Failure Prob.
Preliminary Monte Carlo Results (Growth x10 for CF>40%)
Time (months)
Cumulative Prob.
Incremental Prob. (6 Mo.)
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 Nozzle Failure Prob.
Failure Probabilities per Plant per Year Weib Log Normal Exponential 2007 0.0070 0.0124 0.0002 2008 0.0019 0.0021 0.0005 2008*
0 0
0 (Growth x1 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 (Growth x10 for CF>40%)
- 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