Text

Report No. 0900090.401, Rev. 0, 60-Year EAF Analyses Summary Report, Kewaunee Power Station Charging Nozzle & RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle
	ML101610286
Person / Time
Site:	Kewaunee
Issue date:	05/11/2010
From:	Gilman T; Structural Integrity Associates
To:	; Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	10-324 0900090.401, Rev 0
	Download: ML101610286 (84)
	v • d • e

Serial No.10-324 Docket No. 50-305 ATTACHMENT Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. Report No. 0900090.401, Revision 0 60-Year EAF Analyses Summary Report - Kewaunee Power Station - Charging Nozzle and RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Dated May 2010 KEWAUNEE POWER STATION DOMINION ENERGY KEWAUNEE, INC.

Report No. 0900090.401 Revision 0 Project No. 0900090 May 2010 60-YEAR EAF ANALYSES

SUMMARY

REPORT Kewaunee Power Station Charging Nozzle and RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Prepared for:

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.

Kewaunee, WI P.O. No. 70199431, Rev. 2 Prepared by:

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

San Jose, California

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Approved by:

I oth

. Gilman Archana Chinthapalli David A. Gerber Date:

May 11, 2010 Date:

May 12,2010 Date:

May 12, 2010 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

REVISION CONTROL SHEET Document Number:

0900090.401

Title:

60-YEAR EAF ANALYSES

SUMMARY

REPORT, Kewaunee Power Station, Charging Nozzle and RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Client:

Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc.

SI Project Number:

0900090 Quality Program: 0 Nuclear El Commercial Section Pages Revision Date Comments 1.0 1-1 0

5/11/2010 Initial Issue 2.0 2-1 3.0 3-1-3-4 4.0 4 4-28 5.0 5 5-39 6.0 6-1 7.0 7-1-7-3 U

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................

1-1

2.0 BACKGROUND

AND REPORT OBJECTIVE.........................................................

2-1 3.0 ANALYSIS CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY....................................................

3-1 3.1 A SM E Code Fatigue Calculations...............................................................................

3-1 3.2 EAF Calculations.............................................

3-3 4.0 CHARGING NOZZLE.................................................................................................

4-1 4.1 Component Description and Finite Element Model......................

4-1 4.2 Loading Definitions and Loading Combinations......................................................

4-5 4.2.1 Sources of Information for Design Transients...................................................

4-5 4.2.2 Operating Parameters and System Transients Considered.....................................

4-6 4.2.3 Transient L um p ing....................................................................................................

4-8 4.2.4 H eat Transfer Coefficients...................................................................................... 4-8 4.2.5 Piping Interface Loads......................................................................................

4-10 4.3 Therm al and M echanical Analyses............................................................................

4-12 4.3.1 M ethodology O verview........................................................................

.................. 4-12 4.3.2 B oundary C onditions.............................................................................................

4-13 4.3.3 Internal Pressure A nalysis.....................................................................................

4-17 4.3.4 Piping Interface Loading Analysis.........................................................................

4-18 4.3:5 Therm al Transients................................................................................................

4-20 4.3.6 Selection of Analysis Sections (Paths) 4-20 4.3.7 Summary of FEA Analyses......................................................... 4-22 4.4 ASME Code Fatigue Calculations.............................................................................

4-24 4.4.1 F atigue C alculations.....................

....................................................................... 4-24 4.4.2 E A F C alculations.................................................................................................. 4-28 Report No. 0900090.401.RO iii Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

5.0 RCS HOT LEG SURGE NOZZLE.............................................................................

5-1 5.1 Component Description and Finite Element Model......................

5-1 5.2 Loading Definitions and Loading Combinations........................

5-5 5.2.1 Sources of Information for Design Transients.........................................................

5-5 5.2.2 Operating Parameters and System Transients Considered.................

5-6 5.2.3 Transient L ump ing.................................................................................................

5-11 5.2.4 H eat Transfer Coeff icients.....................................................................................

5-13 5.2.5 P ip ing Interface Loads...........................................................................................

5-15 5.3 Therm al and M echanical Analyses............................................................................

5-16 5.3.1 M ethodology O verview..........................................................................................

5-16 5.3.2 B oundary C onditions............................................................................................ 5-17 5.3.3 Internal Pressure Analysis..........................

5-20 5.3.4 Piping Interface Loading Analysis.........................................................................

5-21 5.3.5 Therm al Transients...............................................................................................

5-22 5.3.6 Selection ofAnalysis Sections (Paths).....

5-22 5.3.7 Sum m ary of FEA Analyses.....................................................................................

5-26 5.4 A SM E Code Fatigue Calculations.............................................................................

5-28 5.4.1 F atigue C alculations..............................................................................................

5-28 5.4.2 EA F C alculations............................................

...................................................... 5-35

6.0 CONCLUSION

S 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES

........................................... 7-1 Report No. 0900090.401.RO iv Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

List of Tables Table Table 4-1. Charging Nozzle M aterial Designations...............................................................

4-1 Table 4-2. Charging Nozzle M aterial Properties...................................................................

4-4 Table 4-3. Charging N ozzle Transients..........................................................................

........ 4-7 Table 4-4. Summary of Charging Nozzle Heat Transfer Coefficients, Btu/hr-ft2-°F........... 4-10 Table 4-5. Charging Nozzle Branch Piping Interface Loads................................................

4-10 Table 4-6. Summ ary of AN SYS Load Cases.......................................................................

4-23 Table 4-7. Charging Nozzle Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT (PATH2)............................

4-25 Table 4-8. Charging Nozzle Material Properties for Fatigue Analysis 4-26 Table 4-9. Charging Nozzle Stainless Steel Fatigue Curve for Fatigue Analysis................ 4-27 Table 4-10. Charging Nozzle Fatigue Usage Results (no OBE)..........................................

4-27 Table 4-11. Charging Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for Bounding PATH2 (+OBE).......... 4-28 Table 5-1. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Material Designations 5-1 Table 5-2. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Material Properties...................................................

5-4 Table 5-3. RCS Transients for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle...........................................................

5-9 Table 5-4. I/O/stratification Cycles for Pre-MOP Period.....................................................

5-10 Table 5-5. I/O/stratification Cycles for Post-MOP Period...................................................

5-10 Table 5-6. Summary of All 1/0/stratification Transients..........

5-11 Table 5-7. Summary of All RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Transients to be Analyzed........... 5-13 Table 5-8. Summary of RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Heat Transfer Coefficients, Btu/hr-ft2-0 F5-15 Table 5-9. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Piping Interface Loads, in-kips.............................

5-15 Table 5-10. Summary of RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle ANSYS Load Cases........................ 5-27 Table 5-11. Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT..................................

5-29 Table 5-12. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Material Properties for Fatigue Analysis......

5-30 Table 5-13. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stainless Steel Fatigue Curve for Fatigue Analysis5-30 Table 5-14. Charging Nozzle Fatigue Usage Results (no OBE)..........................................

5-31 Table 5-15. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for PATH6 (+OBE)......... 5-32 Table 5-16. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for PATH7,(+OBE)......... 5-33 Table 5-17. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed Fatigue Results for PATH6 (+OBE & Sm averaging)......................................................

5-34 Report No. 0900090.401.RO v

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Table 5-18. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for PATH7 (+OBE & Sm av erag in g )...............................................................................................................................

5 -3 5 Table 5-19. EAF Factors (Fen) for RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle PATH6.............

5-37 Table 5-20. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle EAF Results for Bounding PATH6...................

5-39 List of Figures FigurePage Figure 4-1. Charging Nozzle Finite Element M odel...............................................................

4-2 Figure 4-2. Charging Nozzle Dimensions (as modeled)........................................................ 4-3 Figure 4-3. Assumed Worst Case Orientation for Bounding Run Piping Moments............ 4-12 Figure 4-4. Charging Nozzle Convection Surfaces..............................................................

4-14 Figure 4-5. Charging Nozzle Mechanical Boundary Conditions..................

4-15 Figure 4-6. Charging Nozzle Coupled Boundary Conditions...............................................

4-16 Figure 4-7. Charging Nozzle Unit Internal PressureApplication........................................

4-17 Figure 4-8. Charging Nozzle Full Finite Element Model.....................................................

4-18 Figure 4-9. Charging Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH1..........................

1......................

4-21 Figure 4-10. Charging Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH2 through PATH4..................... 4-22 Figure 5-1. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Finite Element Model.............................................

5-2 Figure 5-2. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Dimensions (as modeled).......................................

5-3 Figure 5-3. Typical I/O/stratification Transient......................................................................

5-8 Figure 5-4. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Convection Surfaces...........................................

5-18 Figure 5-5. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Mechanical Boundary Conditions........................

5-19 Figure 5-6. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Unit Internal Pressure Application......................

5-20 Figure 5-7. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Full Finite Element Model...:................................

5-21 Figure 5-8& RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH1 and PATH2......

5-23 Figure 5-9. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH3 through PATH5...... 5-24 Figure 5-10. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH6.................. 5-25 Figure 5-11. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH7............................. 5-26 Report No. 0900090.40 LRO vi R oN Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

1.0 ACRONYMS The following acronyms are used in this report.

3-D Three-dimensional ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CUF Cumulative usage factor DO Dissolved oxygen EAF Environmentally-assisted fatigue FEA Finite element analysis FSRF Fatigue strength reduction factor ID Inside diameter KPS Kewaunee Power Station MOP Modified Operating Procedure MRP Materials Reliability Program (EPRI)

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System NUREG Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulation OBE Operating Basis Earthquake OD Outside diameter PWR Pressurized water reactor PZR Pressurizer RCL Reactor coolant loop RCS Reactor coolant system RIS Regulatory Information Summary RTSR Reload Transition Safety Report SBF Stress-based fatigue SCF Stress concentration factor SI Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

SRSS Square root sum of the squares USAS USA Standard WOG Westinghouse Owners Group.

WSS Westinghouse Systems Standard Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 1-1 R

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

2.0 BACKGROUND

AND REPORT OBJECTIVE KPS is currently submitting an application to the NRC in order to renew the license and extend operation to a period of 60 years. Plants are required to manage the aging effects of systems, structures and components in the scope of license renewal. Part 54 to Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR54) specifies the "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants".

NRC report NUREG-1801, the "Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report" [4], identifies acceptable aging management programs, including programs for fatigue and cyclic operation.

Although the NRC concluded that the effect of a reactor water environment is not a safety issue, the NRC does require of all license renewal applicants to assess the fatigue effect from a reactor water environment for the entire 60 "ear period of extended operation. High fatigue locations studied in NRC report NUREG/CR-6260 [2] are considered an appropriate sample-for evaluation.

KPS demonstrated acceptable EAF for each NUREG/CR-6260 sample location during the course of initial license renewal activities. Two of these locations, the charging nozzle and the RCS hot leg surge nozzle, relied on EPRI's FatiguePro software stress-based fatigue (SBF) monitoring results to demonstrate acceptability. FatiguePro SBF uses a simplified, single stress term methodology. Subsequent to these analyses, the NRC staff expressed concern about the use of simplified, single stress term methods of fatigue analysis of nuclear plant components in Regulatory Issue Summary RIS-2008-30 [3].

This report summarizes work performed that provides independent fatigue analyses of the charging and RCS hot leg surge nozzles. This work used NRC approved methodology to address all concerns expressed in RIS-2008-30.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 2-1.

V Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

3.0 ANALYSIS CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 ASME Code Fatigue Calculations The KPS Class 1 piping, which includes the charging and hot leg surge branch nozzles, were designed according to the requirements of USAS B31.1-1967, which requires no explicit fatigue analysis. Later, in response to NRC Bulletin 88-11, the pressurizer surge line (including the hot leg surge nozzle) was analyzed to the 1986 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subarticle NB-3600 to address the effects of thermal stratification. For the purposes of license renewal the NRC does require that fatigue calculations of the NUREG/CR-6260 [2] sample locations be performed in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Code Section III, but also allows use of later Code Editions. Therefore, the 2001 Edition of the ASME Code with Addenda through 2003 [1], approved by the NRC per 10CFR50.55a, was used for the EAF analyses of the charging and hot leg surge nozzles.

Detailed 3-D finite element models were developed using ANSYS [8], which is NRC approved software and also verified under SI's nuclear QA program. ASME Code temperature-dependent material properties for Class 1 components were used in the Finite Element Analysis (FEA).

Linear elastically computed stresses for the relevant design transients were computed. Thermal transient stresses were added to static stresses due to pressure and piping loads, which were scaled based on the magnitudes of the pressure andpiping loads. Fatigue strength reduction factors (FSRFs) or stress concentration factors (SCFs) were applied, as appropriate, to the.

analysis sections. All six, unique components of the stress tensor are used throughout the calculations.

SI's VESLFAT software [5], which is verified per SI's nuclear QA program, was used to perform the fatigue usage calculations in accordance with the fatigue usage portion of Section III of the ASME Code [1], Subarticle NB-3200 (Design by Analysis). VESLFAT performs the analysis required by NB-3222.4(e) for Service Levels A and B conditions defined by the user.

The program computes the stress intensity range based on the stress component ranges for all event pairs [1, NB-3216.2] and evaluates the stress ranges for primary plus secondary and primary plus secondary plus peak stress based upon the six unique components of the stress tensor (3 direct and 3 shear stresses), considering the possibility of varying principal stress Report No. 0900090.401.R0 3-1 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

directions. Primary plus secondary stress intensity range (Sn) is calculated as [1, Figure NB-3222-1]:

Sn PL + Pb + Pe + Q, where PL = primary local membrane stress intensity range Pb = primary bending stress intensity range Pe = secondary expansion stress intensity range Q = secondary membrane plus bending stress intensity range The Code allowable stress Intensity, Sm, was specified as a function of temperature for each analysis section. The input maximum metal temperature for both states of a load set pair is used to determine Sm from the user-defined values. If Sn is greater than 3 Sm, then the total stress range is increased by the strain concentration factor Ke, as described in NB-3228.5 [1].

When more than one load set is defined for either of the event pair loadings; the stress differences are determined for all of the potential loadings, saving the maximum for the event pair, based on the pair producing the largest alternating total stress intensity (Salt), including the effects of Ke. Salt is calculated as:

Salt = (Ke S p /2) (Ecurve /Eanalysis), where Ke

=

strain concentration factor SP

=

primary plus secondary plus peak (total) stress intensity range Ecurve

=

modulus of elasticity shown on applicable fatigue curve Eanalysis =

modulus of elasticity used in the analysis, conservatively taken as E at the input maximum metal temperature of the load set pair (E becomes lower with increasing temperature)

The principal stresses for the stress ranges are determined by solving for the roots of the cubic equation:

S 3 _ (Cyx +a (Ty -+- z)S 2 + (Cx Cy +a a

y

'z.-+"

az Yx - txy 2

x2 _ Tyz2 )S

-X (5 y ("z +- 2 Txy "xz ayz tz "xy2

_ Cy "xz2 _ OTx "yz 2 )0 The stress intensities for the load set pairs are reordered in decreasing order of Salt, including a correction for the ratio of modulus of elasticity (E) from the fatigue curve divided by E from the analysis. This allows a fatigue table to be created to eliminate the number of cycles available for Report No. 0900090.401.R0 3-2 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

each of the events of an event pair, allowing determination of fatigue usage per NB-3222.4(e)

[1]. For each load set pair in the fatigue table, the allowable number of cycles is determined using logarithmic interpolation based on Salt, per ASME Code requirements.

Unless justified otherwise, transients that consist of multiple extreme stress conditions (local maximum, or peak, and local minimum, or valley) were split so that each significant, extreme condition is treated as a separate event. Intermediate peaks or valleys that produce obvious alternating stress intensities below the fatigue curve endurance limit are negligible and may therefore be filtered out (not split separately). If multiple peaks result from different principal stresses peaking at slightly different times due to the thermal response behavior of the location, then the peaks were determined to be simultaneous and were therefore grouped into a single event. Peaks and valleys in pressure, vessels and piping are typically associated with upward and downward temperature or pressure ramps or abrupt changes in temperature slopes.

The cumulative effect of load set pairs is calculated using a linear damage relationship (Miner's Rule). That is:

kn CUF=

n <- 1.0 j =1 Ni where:

k number of stress levels in the loading spectrum (i.e., the number of rows in the fatigue table) ni

=

number of cycles at the ith stress level, Sai Ni

=

fatigue life at Sai Sa amplitude of the alternating stress intensity CUF -

Cumulative usage factor 3.2 EAF Calculations -

EAF calculations were performed for the reactor water environmental effects. The evaluation uses the appropriate Fen relationships from NUREG/CR-5704 [6] (for austenitic stainless steels),

which is the relevant material at the analyzed sections of the charging and hot leg surge branch nozzles. MRP-47 Rev. 1 [7] was also used for guidance in the calculations. These expressions are:

Report No. 0900090.40 1.RO 3-3 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

For Types 304 and 316 Stainless Steel:

F

= e°935 - T*c*o*

where:

Fen

=

fatigue life correction factor T

=

service temperature of transient, °C T*

=

0 for T < 2000 C

=

1for T >_ 200'C

=

0 for strain rate, ý > 0.4%/sec ln(i /0.4) for 0.0004 _

_ 0.4%/sec ln(0.0004/0.4) for & < 0.0004%/sec 0*

=

0.260 for dissolved oxygen, DO.< 0.05 parts per million (ppm) 0.172 for DO _> 0.05 ppm Using the above equation, resulting Fen values for several sets of parameters are shown below.

The bounding (maximum possible) Fen value for stainless steel material is 15.35.

Fen = 2.55 (T < 2000C, any ý, any DO)

Fen = 2.55 (T > 200°C,

_ 0.4%/sec, any DO)

Fen = 3.78 (T _> 200°C, * = 0.04%/sec, DO _> 0.05 ppm)

Fen = 4.64 (T > 2000C, ? = 0.04%/sec, DO < 0.05 ppm)

Fen = 5.62 (T > 200°C, c = 0.004%/sec, DO _> 0.05 ppm)

Fen = 8.43 (T > 200°C, c = 0.004%/sec, DO < 0.05 ppm)

Fen = 8.36 (T > 200°C,

<0.0004%/sec, DO _> 0.05 ppm)

Fen = 15.35 (T > 200'C, / _ 0.0004%/sec, DO < 0.05 ppm)

The fatigue usage contribution for each row in the fatigue tables was multiplied by either an Fen value specific to the load pair or a bounding value to account for the reduction in life due to the reactor water environment. In the Fen calculations for the two nozzles the DO content was assumed to be less than 0.05 ppm, which is a conservative assumption when using the Fen formulation above for stainless steel materials. Higher DO values at temperatures above 150'C (302'F) are not reasonably expected in a PWR light water environment. Where detailed strain rates were computed, the Integrated Strain Rate methodology, as described in the MRP-47, Rev.

1 [7] guidance document, was utilized.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 3-4 S structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

4.0 CHARGING NOZZLE 4.1 Component Description and Finite Element Model The' austenitic stainless steel charging nozzle is a fitting welded to the Loop B RCS cold leg. A thermal sleeve is attached to the nozzle, and the charging piping is slip fitted into the nozzle with an OD socket weld. A 3-D finite element model was developed in the Reference 9 calculation package using the ANSYS software and is shown oii Figure 4-1. As-modeled dimensions are shown on Figure 4-2.

Material designations for the various components used in the model are shown on Table 4-1.

The water gap between the thermal sleeve and the nozzle and cold leg piping was modeled using

.an effective conductivity that accounts for free convection in an enclosed annulus. This effective conductivity was used to compute accurate temperature distributions throughout the component in the transient thermal analyses and was removed from the model during stress analyses.

Material properties are shown in Table 4-2, taken from the ASME Code, Section 1I Part D [1],

with the exception of the-water gap thermal properties, which were specified or calculated, as documented in Reference [9], and the density of the steel components, which was assumed to be 0.283 lb/in3.

Table 4-1. Charging Nozzle Material Designations Component Cold Leg Piping Charging Nozzle Charging Nozzle Piping Thermal Sleeve Material A351 GR CF8M A182 F304 A376 TP304 A312 TP316 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-1

I MAT NUM I

I I

Thermal Sleeve Water Gap Thermal Sleeve to Nozzle Weld RCS Cold Leg Cold Leg to Nozzle WeldNo zzl k - I le Charging Piping to Nozz e Weld Charging Piping CHARGIIX NUZZLE FOR KEWAUNEE Figure 4-1. Charging Nozzle Finite Element Model Report No. 0900090.401.R0 4-2 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc,

~ANSYS 8.1A1 PLOT NO).

1 2.75" 2.75" 0.50" MI0

h. 0.375" 0.344"1 I

I T 0.172" I I 3.625" OD 1.687" ID OD CEARGING NOYZZLE KCR KEWAUNEE Figure 4-2. Charging Nozzle Dimensions (as modeled)

Report No. 0900090.40 1.RO 4-3 Sbructural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc,

Table 4-2. Charging Nozzle Material Properties Young's Material

Modlugs, Mean Coefficient of Conductivity,k SpecificHeat,Cp Densityk3)

No.eria Description Temperature (0F)

Mdlus Thermal Expansion, a (BTU/hr-ft.°F)

SpTc/icmeat (Seenote 2)

No.

Ex 106 06(/F-(e oe1 (B ITU/Ibm'°F)

(See Note 2)

(s) x 10"6 (1/°F)"

(See Note 1)

(psi) 70 28.3 8.5 8.6 0.116 100 28.1 8.6 8.7 0.117 150 27.9 8.8 9.0 0.120 200 27.6 8.9 9.3 0.122 250 27.3 9.1 9.6 0.124 A376 TP304 1

300 27.0 9.2 9.8 0.125 A182 F304 A8182 350 26.8 9.3 10.1 0.127 Chargin 400 26.5 9.5 10.4 0.129 Charging Nozzle 450 26.2 9.6 10.6 0.130 500 25.8 9.7 10.9 0.131 550 25.6 9.8 11.1 0.132 600 25.3 9.8 11.3 0.133 650 25.1 9.9 11.6 0.134 700 24.8 10 11.8 0.135 70 28.3 8.5 8.2 0.121 100 28.1 8.6 8.3 0.121 150 27.9 8.8 8.6 0.124 200 27.6 8.9 8.8 0.124 250 27.3 9.1 9.1 0.127 A351 GRCF8M 300 27.0 9.2 9.3 0.127 A312 TP316 350 26.8 9.3 9.5 0.128 (l6Cr-l2Ni-2Mo) 400 26.5 9.5 9.8 0.129 RCS Cold Leg Thermal Sleeve 450 26.2 9.6 10 0.130 500 25.8 9.7 10.2 0.130 550 25.6 9.8 10.5 0.133 600 25.3 9.8 10.7 0.133 650 25.1 9.9 10.9 0.133 700 24.8 10 11.2 0.135 70 0.999 62.25 100 0.999 62.1 150 1.0045 61.1 200 1.01 60.1 250 1.02 58.7 300 1.03 57.3 350 1.055 55.45 3

Water Gap 400 N/A N/A 4.1 1.08 53.6 450 1.135 51.3 500 1.19 49.0 550 1.35 45.7 600 1.51 42.4 650 1.51 42.4 700 1.51 42.4 Notes

1. Convert to BTU/sec-in.°F for input to ANSYS

2. Convert lb/ft3 to lb/in3 for input to ANSYS Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 4-4 R0Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

4.2 Loading Definitions and Loading Combinations 4.2.1 ( Sources of Information for Design Transients 4.2.1.1 Transient Definitions The charging nozzle was designed to USAS B3 1.1 requirements, which require no explicit fatigue analysis for the RCS and attached piping. Guidance in developing conservative, bounding, transients was therefore taken from the Westinghouse Systems Standard.(WSS). WSS 1.3.F [271 defines transients for the NSSS RCS and WSS 1.3.X [28] defines transients for the NSSS auxiliary equipment. Transients specific to two-loop Westinghouse PWR's, applicable to

.KPS, are provided in the WSS., The WSS. transients include temperature, pressure and flow rate histories.

The approach taken here in selecting transients for the KPS charging nozzle is reasonable and consistent with that taken in NUREG/CR-6260 for the "Older Vintage Westinghouse Plant" charging nozzle. For example, Section 5.5.4 is quoted, in part, below:

"Since the piping was designed to the rules ofB31.1 piping code, no fatigue analyses had been conducted. Consequently, the INEL staffperformed a fatigue analysis using representative

transients based on the charging nozzle analyses from the other PWR plants reviewed in this study..."

4.2.1.2 Effects of Power Uprate KPS has initiated a 7.4% power uprating program. It was concluded that "the effects on the class 1 Auxiliary Piping systems that are attached to the RCL are insignificant due to the RTSR / 7.4%

power uprating program" [11, p. 5]. Additionally, the range of design cold leg temperatures for the power uprate at full-load conditions is 521.9°F to 539.2°F [12, p. 3-7], which is considerably lower than the 560'F operating temperature assumed in WSS 1.3.X. Fatigue usage at the charging nozzle is driven mainly by the temperature differential induced by cold injection of flow through an initially hot charging nozzle (and returning to hot conditions). The actual thermal transients experienced by the charging nozzle would' therefore be considerably less severe than those assumed by the WSS, since the temperatures differences are less. Therefore, Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-5 W Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

for the reasons stated above, the WSS transients were determined to be sufficiently conservative to account for both pre and post power uprate conditions.

4.2.2 Operating Parameters and System Transients Considered Kewaunee is a two loop plant. The following parameters are specified in the WSS:

Normal charging flow (Qchrg = 100%) = 55 gpm Normal cold leg temperature Tcold = 560'F Normal charging temperature = 500'F Normal RCS flow per loop = 94,500 gpm Table 4-3 lists the transients evaluated for 60 years of operation. Design Cycles were taken from the WSS 1.3.F and WSS 1.3.X. The numbers of design cycles for the transients from the WSS are either bounding or equal to the numbers of cycles in the KPS USAR. The KPS Metal Fatigue of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Aging Management Program [29] will ensure that actual cycle counts remain within the assumed number of Design Cycles, or appropriate actions will be taken.

Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 4-6 R o Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc

Table 4-3. Charging Nozzle Transients Design Transient Cycles Auxiliary Transients Charging and letdown flow shutoff and return to service 60 Letdown flow shutoff with prompt return to service 200 Letdown flow shutoff with delayed return to service 20 Charging flow shutoff with prompt return to service 20 Charging flow shutoff with delayed return to service 20 Charging flow step decrease and return to normal 24,000 Charging flow step increase and return to normal 24,000 Letdown flow step decrease and return to normal 2,000 Letdown flow step increase and return to normal 24,000 Normal Condition RCS Transients RCP startup and shutdown Plant heatup and cooldown 200 Unit loading and unloading between 0 and 15 percent of full power Unit loading and unloading at 5 percent of full power/minute Reduced temperature return to power Step load increase and decrease of 10 percent of full power Large step load decrease with steam dump 200 Steady state fluctuations Boron concentration equalization Feedwater cycling Refueling 80 Turbine roll test 20 Primary side leakage test 200 Secondary side leakage test Upset Condition RCS Transients Loss of load 80 Loss of power 40 Partial loss of flow 80 Reactor trip A - with no inadvertent cooldown 230 Reactor trip B - with cooldown and no S.I.

160 Reactor trip C - with cooldown and S.I.

10 Inadvertent RCS depressurization - Umbrella Case 20 Inadvertent RCS depressurization - Inadvertent auxiliary spray 10 Control rod drop Excessive feedwater flow 30 OBE 1,000 Test Condition RCS Transients Primary side hydrostatic test 10 Secondary side hydrostatic test Tube leakage test Note:

This transient is judged to produce negligible fatigue usage at the charging nozzle, based on small/slow changes in cold leg temperature.

Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 4-7 ds:!Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

4.2.3 Transient Lumping To simplify thermal analysis, bounding RCS. transients were chosen based on maximum cold leg temperature changes and ramp rates to "lump" transients together into a single,' conservative set.

The following transients were chosen.

" Plant heatup, plant cooldown, and inadvertent RCS depressurization were analyzed separately due to their large temperature or pressure changes.

Excessive feedwater flow was chosen as the bounding RCS downward transient. This was shown to bound the following transients:

o Large step load decrease with steam dump o

Turbine roll test o

Reactor trip A - with no inadvertent cooldown o

Reactor trip B - with cooldown and no S.I.

o Reactor:trip C - with cooldown and S.I.

Loss of load was chosen as the bounding upward RCS transient. This bounds the following transients:

o Loss of power 6 Partial loss of flow o

Reactor trip A - with no inadvertent cooldown (also a downward transient) 4.2.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients Heat transfer coefficients were not provided in the WSS. Conservative values were calculated by SI based on the temperatures and flow rate histories. For the cold leg and charging piping and nozzle, the following equation was used for turbulent flow in tubes.

Nu = 0.023 Re0 '8 Pr0'4, where Report No. 0900090.401.R0 4-8 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Nu Nusselt number = hD/k Re = Reynolds number = VD/v Pr = Prandtl number, non-dimensional h

= heat transfer coefficient D = inside diameter, feet k

thermal conductivity V

= velocity, ft/sec = Q/(irD2/4)

Q = volumetric flow rate v

= kinematic viscosity For conditions where there is no charging flow, there is swirl penetration from the RCS cold leg such that forced convection equations are appropriate. Guidance was taken from the EPRI MRP document MRP-132 [13] and MRP-146S [14]. The Reynolds number is calculated based on swirl velocity, 9(x), which is given by:

92(x) = (2U/D)[ioD/(2U)]/[1 + (x/D)/(Ln/D)]O, where K2oD/(2U) = 0.63(D/DR)

Ln/D = 3.2 3 = 1.4 U = RCS flow velocity D - branch inside diameter DR = RCS diameter x = axial distance from the RCS inside surface The equation simplifies to:

14 Q(x) =

o/[1 + (x/D)/(3.2)]

, where Qo=l1.26U/DR The formulae for Reynolds number based on the swirl flow and heat transfer coefficient are as follows:

1 QfD 2 Re = -1D 2

v h = 0.023Re°8 Pr°3 (k/D)

(for Re> 10,000)

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-9 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 4-4 summarizes all heat transfer coefficients that will be applied for the thermal transient analysis of the nozzle.

Table 4-4. Summary of Charging Nozzle Heat Transfer Coefficients, Btu/hr-ft2-°F Qchrg, %

Pipe/nozzle Thermal sleeve Cold leg 0%

359 517 7,054 50%

1,590 1,590 7,054 100%

2,769 2,769 7,054 150%

.3,830 3,830 7,054 180%

4,432 4,432 7,054 4.2.5 Piping Interface Loads 4.2.5.1 Branch Piping Bounding charging nozzle / branch piping interface loads due to thermal expansion and operating basis earthquake are shown in Table 4-5. The piping loads were transformed into the ANSYS coordinate system by the analysts. OBE loads in two different orientations are shown (X and Z). The OBE orientation that maximized the fatigue usage was determined by the fatigue analyst.

OBE was specified to have 20 occurrences with 50 cycles each, for a total of 1,000 cycles.

OBE was conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously with any transient, up to the total number of OBE events.

Table 4-5. Charging Nozzle Branch Piping Interface Loads Load Type THERMAL EXPANSION OBE X QUAKE OBE Z QUAKE Forces (lbf)

Fx Fy Fz 18 29 0

.10 24 8

7 22 13 Moments (ft-lbf)

Mx My Mz

-5 28 176 36 18 58 64 23 38 Piping interface loads from thermal expansion were scaled based on the following factor, TFACTOR.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-10 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

TFACTOR = (Tchrg - 70) / (500 - 70), where Tchrg = charging nozzle local temperature during transient, 'F 4.2.5.2 Run Piping Conservative run piping interface loads for thermal expansion and OBE loading conditions were developed [26]. These loads at the branch nozzle location were not specifically tabulated in the available design input. However, interface loads were available at other sections of the same runs of piping. Standard structural analysis methodologies were utilized to calculate bounding interface load values at the location of interest. SRSS values were computed and assumed to be applied in the worst case orientation, as shown on-Figure 4-3, to maximize the fatigue usage for conservatism.

The KPS replacement steam generator project contained the latest piping analysis of record for the Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL). Piping interface loads for thermal expansion and seismic loading conditions were contained in this report and were calculated based on a piping model of the RCL. Seismic OBE values are one half the seismic SSE values.

The thermal expansion values for the cold leg were assumed to represent conditions going from a stress-free temperature of 70'F to a design basis temperature of 543.6°F. The SRSS thermal moment for the charging nozzle was calculated to be 2662.363 in-kip. Based on the temperature of the cold leg, TCOLD, the thermal run piping moment at the charging nozzle, Mchg thim, may be calculated as:

Mchgthm = (TCOLD-70)/(543.6-70)-2662.363 in-kip The OBE run piping moment at the charging nozzle was calculated to be 909.499 in-kip, and can reverse direction in equal magnitude.

Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 4-11 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

MSRSS M SRSS Figure,4-3. Assumed Worst Case Orientation for Bounding Run Piping Moments 4.3 Thermal and Mechanical Analyses 4.3.1 Methodology Overview ANSYS [8] FEA was used to compute transient and static stresses [15] for input to the fatigue calculations. In computing transient (time-dependent) stresses a thermal analysis was first performed to compute temperature distributions throughout the model over time. The temperatures were then used to compute thermal stresses using standard, linear elastic FEA methodology. The following is a summary of the overall process used to perform the thermal and mechanical analyses.

Apply bulk temperatures and heat transfer coefficients on defined convection surfaces to compute temperature distributions over time for all thermal transients.

Perform stress analyses using temperature distribution results with the thermal sleeve (non-structural attachment) and water annulus (non-structural) removed.

Perform stress analysis of unit internal pressure load case with thermal sleeve attachment and water annulus removed.

Perform stress analyses of piping interface loads with thermal sleeve attachment and water annulus removed.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-12 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

" Review stress results and select analysis sections ("paths") along discontinuities and with high stress intensities.

Extract linearized through-wall stresses at selected paths.

4.3.2 Boundary Conditions 4.3.2.1 Thermal Boundary Conditions Due to symmetry, thermal transients were analyzed using a quarter model, as shown on Figure 4-1. Convection surfaces were defined in the loads calculation package [10] for the piping, thermal sleeve and RCS header regions. ANSYS macro files were created to apply temperature

/

and film coefficients to the various convections surfaces, which are shown on Figure 4-4.

4.3.2.2 Mechanical Boundary Conditions Symmetry and displacement boundary conditions were applied to the cut surfaces of the quarter model, as shown on Figure 4-5.

The edges of the charging piping and the cold leg piping were coupled in the axial (longitudinal) direction to prevent gross distortion of the cross sections and simulate the connected piping. The coupled conditions are shown on Figure 4-6.

Report No. 0900090.40 1.RO 4-13 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

I I-AT NUM Cfl'I-HCXE

.003285

.005-

.004431 CHARING INDZZLE FOR KEWAUNEE ANSYS 8.1A1 PLOT NO.

1

'1245

.013596 Figure 4-4. Charging Nozzle Convection Surfaces Report No. 0900090.40 1. RO 4-14 V

Sthctural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

1 F1124 ANSYS 8.1lAl PLOT NO.

1 ANSYS 8. 1A1 PLOT No.

1 i

4 CHARGINGX NOYZZLE FCP. KEWANEE Figure 4-5. Charging Nozzle Mechanical Boundary Conditions Report No. 0900090.401.R0 4-15 Strctural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Figure 4-6. Charging Nozzle Coupled Boundary Conditions Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-16 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., Inc.

4.3.3 Internal Pressure Analysis A unit (1 psig) internal pressure analysis was performed so that results could be scaled to any internal pressure condition, based on linear elastic analysis. The pressure surfaces are shown in Figure 4-7. Cap loads were applied on the charging piping and the cold leg piping, based on multiplying the unit pressure by the ratio of the fluid cross sectional area to the metal cross sectional area. Values are negative to simulate tensile stress.

PRES-INK1ZM 1ANSYS 8.1A1 PfLOT INO.

1

-2.273

-1.545

-1. 909 CHARGING NOZZLE FOR KEWAUNEE

-. 818183

-. 09091

-. 454547

.636363

.272727 1

-1.182 Figure 4-7. Charging Nozzle Unit Internal Pressure Application Report No. 0900090.401.R0 4-17 V

Stctural Integrift Associates, Inc, Inc.

4.3.4 Piping Interface Loading Analysis 4.3.4.1 Branch Piping Table 4-5 lists branch piping interface loads for thermal and OBE conditions. For the stress analysis the loads were transformed into a coordinate system consistent with that of the FEA.

In order to apply these asymmetric loads, a full model was created from the quarter model using symmetry commands in ANSYS. The model is shown on Figure 4-8. A pilot node was created at the neutral axis of the charging piping along with a defined contact surface to apply the loads on the model.

1 ANSYS 8.1A1 PLOT NO.

1 rx CHARGING MUZE= FOR KEWAUNEE Figure 4-8. Charging Nozzle Full Finite Element Model Report No. 0900090.401.R0 4-18 V

SbVctural Integrity Assiates, Inc, Inc.

I The boundary conditions were similar to the quarter model, except that the edge of the charging piping was not coupled in the circumferential direction in order to allow rotation of the pipe due to bending. The cut surfaces of cold leg piping had symmetry boundary conditions applied, the longitudinal direction of one edge of the cold leg piping had rollers applied, and the other side of the cold leg piping was coupled in the longitudinal direction to allow expansion but prevent gross distortion of the cross section to simulate the connected piping.

A benchmark analysis to verify proper application of the pilot node methodology was also conducted in [ 15] using a unit moment. The FEA computed axial stress was compared to that computed using a standard structural mechanics equation. The ANSYS results matched the hand calculation to within 3% and was considered to be more accurate, as it reflected the effects of gross structural discontinuities in the overall structure. Therefore the FEA methodology was confirmed to be appropriately executed.

4.3.4.2 Run Piping A full model to analyze the cold leg run piping loads was created from the quarter model using symmetry commands in ANSYS. In addition, the cold leg piping portion of the model was extended 3600 to allow an asymmetric load about the run pipe. A pilot node was then created on the neutral axis of the nozzle at the end of the cold leg piping along with a contact surface to apply moments on the model in the orientation specified on Figure 4-3. For mechanical boundary conditions, rollers were applied on one edge of the cold leg piping.

A unit moment was applied to the model. The unit moment may be scaled to any actual resultant moment based on cold leg temperature.

A two-part benchmark analysis to verify proper application of the pilot node methodology was also conducted in [15] using a unit moment. First, the FEA-computed axial stress was compared to that computed using a standard structural mechanics equation. The ANSYS result matched the hand calculation to within 0.6% and was considered to be more accurate, as it reflected the effects of gross structural discontinuities in the overall structure. Second, for the stress riser on the nozzle comer, guidance was taken from an NB-3600 equation (NB-3683. 1(d)) to perform a benchmark of the computed stress. The maximum stress intensity computed by ANSYS was Report No. 0900090.401 RO 4-19 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, inc.

approximately 8% higher than that calculated using the NB-3600 formula. The FEA calculations of the run pipe moment stresses therefore reasonably match the alternate benchmark calculations and are considered to be applied correctly.

4.3.5 Thermal Transients The thermal stress analyses were performed by ANSYS using the temperature distributions computed in the thermal analyses for various time steps of each defined transient.

4.3.6 Selection of Analysis Sections (Paths)

Four stress linearization paths were chosen for fatigue analysis. PATH 1 captures a high thermal stress intensity in the bore of the cold leg during Loss of Letdown transients. PATH2, PATH3, and PATH4 capture high stresses around the nozzle-to-charging piping weld and where FSRFs are required for the fatigue analysis due to the presence of the socket weld.

The paths for stress extraction are shown on Figure 4-9 and Figure.4-10. Because a full model was used for the analysis due to piping interface loads, the quarter model used for transient and

,pressure analysis will have different nodes. However, these represent the same physical location due to symmetry of the quarter model and because the stress results were extracted in a cylindrical coordinate system; that is, in this coordinate system radial, hoop and axial have consistent meanings around the cylinder circumference. The nodes for both the full and quarter models are shown on the figures.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-20 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

CHARGING NT3Z=

FOR KEWAUNEE Figure 4-9. Charging Nozzle Stress Linearization PATHI Report No. 0900090.40 1.RO 4-21 V

Sl mtural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

PANSYS 8.1A1 PLOT NO.

1 ClH/INrhX Dro ZZLE U

KEW =E Figure 4-10. Charging Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH2 through PATH4 Note: Actual nodes are rotated into the model to capture peak stresses.

4.3.7 Summary of FEA Analyses Table 4-6 summarizes the various ANSYS thermal and mechanical analyses and post-processing operations performed to support the fatigue evaluation of the KPS charging nozzle.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-22 V

Structurl Integrity Associates, Inc. Inc.

Charging Nozzle Transients - Symmetric Loading on Quarter Model OANSYS Input Files Output "0

Label Description Thermal Stress Post Notes Charging/Letdown ShutoffTransients, As Analyzed 1

TRANI Charging and letdown shutoff 1 TRAN1-T.INP TRAN1-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN1-S#.LIN' 2

TRAN2 Charging and letdown shutoff 2 TRAN2-T.INP TRAN2-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN2-S#.LIN 3

TRAN3 Letdown shutoff, prompt return TRAN3-T.INP TRAN3-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN3-S#.LIN 4

TRAN4 Letdown shutoff, delayed return 1 TRAN4-T.INP TRAN4-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN4-S#.LIN 5

TRAN5 Letdown shutoff, delayed return 2 TRAN5 is the same as TRAN2.

6 TRAN6 Charging shutoff; prompt return TRAN6-T.INP TRAN6-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN6-S#.LIN CD Charging/Letdown Flow Change Transients, AsAnalyzed 4,

7 TRAN7 Charging decrease and return TRAN7-T.INP TRAN7-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN7-S#.LIN 8

TRAN8 Charging increase and return TRAN8-T.INP TRAN8-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN8-S#.LIN g

TRAN9 Letdown decrease and return 1 TRAN9-T.INP TRANg-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRANg-S#.LIN 10 TRAN10 Letdown decrease and return 2 TRAN10-T.INP TRAN10-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN10-S#.LIN 11 TRANI1 Letdown increase and return 1 TRAN11-T.INP TRAN11-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN11-S#.LIN 12 TRAN12 Letdown increase and return 2 TRAN12-T.INP TRAN12-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN12-S#.LIN RCS Transients, As Analyzed Ij 13 TRAN13 Plant heatup TRAN13-T.INP TRAN13-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN13-S#.LIN 0

14 TRAN14 Plant cooldown TRAN14-T.INP TRAN14-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN14-S#.LIN 15 TRAN15 Refueling / zeroload Zero stress state.

16 TRAN16 Primary leak test @ 2500 psia Scale results based on unit pressure case.

17 TRAN17 Loss of load TRAN17-T.INP TRAN17-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN17-S#.LIN Bounding transient for upward RCS transients 18 TRAN18 Inadwrtent RCS depress.

Inadvertent aux spray TRAN18-T.INP TRAN18-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN18-S#.LIN r

g19 TRAN19 Excessive feedwater flow (modified)

TRAN19-T.INP TRAN19-S.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP TRAN19-S#.LIN Bounding transient for downward RCS transients.

0 20 TRAN20 Primary hydro test @ 3122 psia Scale results based on unit pressure case:

Charging Nozzle Static Load Cases Label Description Stress Post Output Notes 1 Thermal Exp. Thermal Expansion Interface Loads MOMENT.INP LIN-STR-paths2.INP MOMENT#.LIN Cb 2

OBE X OBE Xlnterface Loads MOMENT.INP LIN-STR-paths2.INP MOMENT#.LIN 3

OBE Z OBE Z Interface Loads MOMENT.INP LIN-STR-paths2.INP MOMENT#.LIN Analyzed at stress free, uniform temperature of 4 BENCHMARK 10,000 in-lbfXrmoment (benchmark)*

MOMENT.INP LIN-STR-paths2.INP MOMENT#.LIN 70'F on full FE model forall 4 load cases.

5 RCS-MOM RCS Unit Moment for scaling RCS-MOM.INP-LIN-STR-RCS.INP RCS-MOM-P1.LIN r4 6

UNITPRESS 1 psig internal pressure UNITPRESS.INP LIN-STR-paths.INP UNITPRESS#.LIN

=3 Used only to benchmark model to hand calculation

.. *1 PATH number from 1 through 4 Cb

4.4 ASME Code Fatigue Calculations 4.4.1 Fatigue Calculations 4.4.1.1 Stress Calculations Fatigue calculations were performed in the Reference [16] calculation package using the methodology summarized in Section 3.1 of this report.

For PATH4, FSRFs were applied to the membrane plus bending (M+B) stress components.

These FSRFs were cons'ervatively applied to all six components (three normal, three shear) of the stress tensor. The following factors were chosen by taking guidance from the local stress.

indices (K indices) from NB-3600, as follows [1, Table NB-3681(a)-1]:

Pressure: 3.0 Moment: 2.0 Thermal: 3.0 In addition, for PATH4, the peak thermal stress components (PEAK) were added back into the total stress to capture the peak stress due to nonlinear radial temperature gradient, as required by Table NB-3217-2 of the ASME Code [1], as follows:

P+Q+F = (ANSYS M+B)FSRF + (ANSYS PEAK)

For the branch piping moments, the results were scaled based on temperature and applied in both the positive and negative direction to determine which direction maximizes the stresses at the location of interest.

4.4.1.2 Load Sets Transients that consist of both stress peaks and valleys are split so that each successive peak or valley is treated as a separate load set. Table 4-7 shows the transients as input to VESLFAT.

Since the Transient 5 (Letdown Shutoff, Delayed Return 2) temperature and pressure profile is identical to Transient 2 (Charging and Letdown Shutoff Return to Service 2), the 20 cycles from Transient 5 were added to the 80 cycles of Transient 2.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-24 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 4-7. Charging Nozzle Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT (PATH2)

Load Set 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Transient

1. Charging and Letdown Shutoff 1

2. Charging and Letdown Shutoff 2

3. Letdown Shutoff, Prompt Return

4. Letdown Shutoff, Delayed Return 1

4. Letdown Shutoff, Delayed Return -

6. Charging Shutoff, Prompt Return

7. Charging Decrease and Return

8. Charging Increase and Return

9. Letdown Decrease and Return 1

10. Letdown Decrease and Return 2

11. Letdown Increase and Return 1

11. Letdown Increase and Return I

12. Letdown Increase and Return 2

12. Letdown Increase and Return'2

13. Plant Heatup

14. Plant Cooldown

15. Refueling/Zero Load

16. Primary Leak Test @ 2500 psia

17. Loss of Load

18. Inadvertent RCS Depressurization

19. Excessive Feedwater Flow

20. Primary Hydro Test @ 3122 psia Self-Cycling OBE Tran + OBE"'*

Start Time (sec.)*

0 0

30 0

600 0

1021 0

1022 0

600 0

0 600 0

600 0

0 0

55 0

100 0

96 491 0

0 0

Cycles 80 100*

100*

200 200 20 20 20 20 24000 24000 24000 24000 2000 2000 2000 24000 24000 24000 24000 200 200 290 200 430 430 30 30 650 650 650 10 950 50 Note that stress peaks may occur after the start of the subsequent ramp.

Note that 20 cycles of Letdown Shutoff, Delayed Return 2 are included.

- - Note that the numbers of cycles of the limiting transient are reduced by 50 cycles when OBE is applied. If the limiting transient has less than 50 cycles, 50 cycles is conservatively used and load set 34 is not necessary.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-25 Structural Integrily Associates, Inc, Inc.

4.4.1.3 Material Properties Table 4-8 lists the temperature-dependent material properties used in the analysis, and Table 4-9 lists the fatigue curve for stainless steel materials [ 1, Appendix I, Tables 1-9.1 (Figure 1-9.2.1) and 1-9.2.2 (Curve C)]. At welds, the material that has lower Sm values is used. VESLFAT automatically scales the stresses by the ratio of E on the fatigue curve to E in the analysis, for purposes of determining allowable numbers of cycles, as required by the ASME Code.

Table 4-8. Charging Nozzle Material Properties for Fatigue Analysis Material A351 Gr. CF8 (PATH1)

T, OF 70 200 300 M

400 500 600 650 700 70 200 300 400 500

4) 600 650 700 E, ksi 28300 27600 27000 26500 25800 25300 25050 24800 28300 27606 27000 26500 25800 25300 25050 24800 S2. ksi 20.0 20.0 20.0 19.2 17.9 17.0 16.6 16.3 20.0 20.0 20.0 18.6 17.5 16.6 16.2 15.8 A182 F304 and, TP304 (PATH2, 3, &

Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 4-26 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 4-9. Charging Nozzle Stainless Steel Fatigue Curve for Fatigue Analysis Number of Cycles Sa, ksi 10 708 20 512 50 345 100 261 200 201 500 148 1,000 119 2,000 97 5,000 76 10,000 64 20,000 55.5 50,000 46.3 100,000 40.8 200,000 35.9 500,000 31 1,000,000 28.2 2,000,000 22.8 5,000,000 18.4 10,000,000 16.4 20,000,000 15.2 50,000,000 14.3 100,000,000 14.1 1,000,000,000 13.9 10,000,000,000 13.7.

100,000,000,000 13.6 4.4.1.4 Results Initial fatigue calculations were made for all four selected paths, to determine the one with the highest CUF. Table 4-10 summarizes the initial fatigue usage results at the inside surface for PATHs 1 through 4.

Table 4-10. Charging Nozzle Fatigue Usage Results (no OBE)

Bounding Load Set Pair Total Path Load A Load B S_, psi KI S.,,, psi Usage I Inside

4. Tran4

15. Tranl3 44,921 1.000 26,625 0.0002 2 Inside

2. Tran2

4. Tran4 63,380 1.500 101,720 0.0300 3 Inside

2. Tran2

4. Tran4 26,017 1.000 77,914 0.0184 4 Inside

2. Tran2

4. Tran4 63,900 1.652 89,080 0.0190 Report No. 0900090.401 -RO 4-27 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

PATH2 had the highest fatigue usage and was run with additional branch piping OBE loads. For these runs, moment stresses due to OBE were added to one of the thermal load sets in the pair with the highest alternating stress from the initial run. Table 4-11 shows the results.

Table 4-11. Charging Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for Bounding PATH2 (+OBE)

I Load A Load B Sn K,

Salt N

Nalow U

1

7. Tran4

34. LS2+OBE 63447 1.504 101971 20 1688.25 0.0118 2

5. Tran3

34. LS2+OBE 58821 1.202 75812 30 5050.17 0.0059 3

2. Tran2

5. Tran3 58752 1.198 75573 50 5115.06 0.0098 4

5. Tran3

6. Tran4 43218 1

39434 20 120259 0.0002 5

4. Tran3

5. Tran3 43218 1

39434 100 120259 0.0008 6

4. Tran3

20. Tranl2 29078 1

28808 100 855507 0.0001 7

9. Tran6

20. Tranl2 21677 1

17686 20 6345700 0.0000 8

18. Tranl

20. Tranl2 20522 1

15586 23880 1.59E+07 0.0015 9

15. Tran9

18. Tran I1 17942 1

13652 120 3.03E+10 0.0000 Total Usage=

0.0302 4.4.2 EAF Calculations The CUF for the KPS charging nozzle, without environmental effects, as calculated in the fatigue analysis is 0.0302. When multiplied by the maximum Fen of 15.35, the resulting EAF is 0.4636, which is below the allowable limit of 1.0. The KPS charging nozzle EAF is therefore acceptable for the period of extended operation if plant cycle counts remain within the limits presented in Table 4-3..

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 4-28 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

5.0 RCS HOT LEG SURGE NOZZLE 5.1 Component Description and Finite Element Model The austenitic stainless steel RCS hot leg surge nozzle is a forging welded to the Loop B RCS hot leg. A non-structural thermal sleeve is attached to the nozzle, which is connected to the 10" schedule 140 surge line by a field butt weld. A 3-D finite element model was developed in the Reference [17] calculation package using the ANSYS software and is shown on Figure 5-1. As-modeled dimensions are shown on Figure 5-2.

Material designations for the various components used in the model are shown on Table 5-1.

The water gap between the thermal sleeve and the nozzle and hot leg piping was modeled using an effective conductivity that accounts for free convection in an enclosed annulus. This effective conductivity was used to compute accurate temperature distributions throughout the component in the transient thermal analyses and was removed from the model during stress analyses.

Material properties are shown on Table 5-2, taken from the ASME Code,Section II Part D [1],

with the exception of the water gap thermal properties, which were specified or calculated, as documented in [17], and the density of the steel components, which was assumed to be 0.283 lb/in3.

Table 5-1. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Material Designations Component Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Surge Piping Thermal Sleeve Material A-351 CF8M A-182 F316 A376 TP316 A240 TP304 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-1

MAT NUM WrUSURGE tNZLE RR KEWN~E Figure 5-1. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Finite Element Model Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-2 V

tructural Integty Associates, Inc, Inc.

10.75" OD

.0" 8.959" 8.75"

1l8, 1.0"ID 1/8" ID 18 1

=u LEG SURGE NOZZLE FOR KEWAUJNEE Figure 5-2. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Dimensions (as modeled)

Report No. 0900090.401.R0 5-3 Strctural Integrity Associates, Inc. Inc.

Table 5-2. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Material Properties Mean Conductivity, Density Serial Temperature Young's Coefficient of k

Diffusivit, Specific Heat, (ib/ft3)

Description Modulus, E x Thermal (r

No.

(OF) 106 (psi)

Expansion, a.(BTU/hrtF) d (ftlhr)

SeeNote x 10-1 (1i°F)

(See Note 1) 2)

70 28.3 8.5 8.2 0.1-39 0.121 100 28.1 8.6 8.3 0.140 0.121 150 27.9 8.8 8.6 0.142 0.124 200 27.6 8.9 8.8 0.145 0.124 250 27.3 9.1 9.1 0.147 0.127 sA376' 300 27.0 9.2 9.3 0.150 0.127 TP316 (16Cr-350 26.8 9.3 9.5 0.152 0.128 489.024 12Ni-2Mo) 400 26.5 9.5 9.8 0.155.

0.129 (see note 3) 450 26.2 9.6 10 0.157 0.130 500 25.8 9.7 10.2 0.160 0.130 550 25.6 9.8 10.5 0.162 0.133 600 25.3 9.8 10.7 0.165 0.133 650 25.1

. 9.9 10.9 0.167 0.133 700 24.8 10 11.2 0.170 0.135 70 0.999 62.25 100 0.999 62.1 150 1.0045 61.1 200 1.01 60.1 250 1.02 58.7 300 1.03 57.3 2

Water Gap 350 3.713 1.055 55.45 400 1.08 53.6 450 1.135 51.3 500 1.19 49.0 550 1.35 45.7 600 1.51 42.4 650 1.51 42.4 700 1.51 42.4 Report No. 0900090.401.R0 5-4,

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-2. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Material Properties (continued)

Mean SeilTemperature Young's Coefficient of Conductivity, Yon',Diffusiientyo Specific Heat, Density Serial Description TemperpsiaExanson Modulus, E x Thermal k

Diffusivity, Speic Heat, D

Senst Nod.l10 Ex Teml (BTU/hr'ft'°F) d (ft2/hr)

Cp (lb/ft 3) (See No.

Derito (OF) 106 (psi)

Expansion, a x (BTU/Irf-F ft h)

(T/bm'°F)

Note 2) 10.6 (l/OF)

(See Note 1) 70 28.3 8.5 8.6 0.151 0.116 100 28.1 8.6 8.7 0.152 0.117 150 27.9 8.8 9

0.154 0.120 200 27.6 8.9 9.3 0.156 0.122 250 27.3 9.1 9.6 0.158 0.124 300 27.0 9.2 9.8 0.160 0.125 SA240 3

TP304 350 26.8 9.3 10.1 0.162 0.127 489.024 (18Cr-8Ni) 400 26.5 9.5 10.4 0.165 0.129 450 26.2 9.6 10.6 0.167 0.130 500 25.8 9.7 10.9 0.170 0.131 550 25.6 9.8 11.1 0.172 0.132 600 25.3 9.8 11.3 0.174 0.133 650 25.1 9.9 11.6 0.177 0.134 700 24.8 10 11.8 0.179 0.135 Notes 1, Convert to BTU/sec-in.'F for input to ANSYS 2, Convert lb/ft3 to lb/in 3 for input to ANSYS 3, Also includes the material properties of A-351 CF8M and A-182 F316 due to similar composition.

5.2 Loading Definitions and Loading Combinations 5.2.1 Sources of Information for Design Transients 5.2.1.1 Transient Definitions The RCS hot leg surge nozzle was designed to USAS B3 1.1 requirements, which require no explicit fatigue analysis for the RCS and attached piping. Later, in response to NRC Bulletin 88-11, the pressurizer surge line (including the hot leg surge nozzle) was analyzed to ASME Section III, Subarticle NB-3600 to address the effects of thermal stratification. Guidance in developing, conservative, bounding transients was taken from a combination of the following sources.

Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 5-5 R o Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

RCS design transients were taken from the WSS 1.3.F. Transients specific to two-loop Westinghouse PWR's, applicable to KPS, are provided in the WSS. The WSS transients include temperature, pressure and flow rate histories.

Insurge/outsurge (I/O) and stratification transients were developed based on the evaluation performed by Westinghouse [18] in response to NRC Bulletin 88-11 and an evaluation performed by the WOG in response to PZR insurge/outsurge [19]. The former evaluation collected thermocouple data specific to:KPS operation at the time and a spectrum of I/O and stratification transients to bound plant operation, consisting of transients at several AT thresholds. The latter evaluated insurge/outsurge for several different modes of operation, including water solid, steam bubble, etc.

This, analysis was conducted in two phases. In the first phase the "modified steam bubble" method of Heatup and Cooldown operation along with design numbers of cycles was conservatively assumed for the life of the plant. The second phase refined the analysis to credit the implementation in March 2006 of a Modified Operating Procedure (MOP), Which was the "water solid" method of Heatup and Cooldown operation, along with cycles projected to 60 years based on rates of accumulation of past events.

5.2.1.2 Effects of Power Uprate KPS has initiated a 7.4% power uprating program. It was concluded that "the effects on the RCL Branch Nozzles are insignificant due to the RTSR / 7.4% power uprating program" [11, p. 5].

5.2.2 Operating Parameters and System Transients Considered Kewaunee is a two-loop plant. The following parameters are specified in the WSS:

Full power HL temperature (THL) = 616.1 F

Zero load HL temperature (THL) = 557°F

Normal RCS pressure (P) = 2332 psia (bounding value) (This includes the head at the bottom of the RPV. It is conservative for the rest of the RCS)

Thermal Design Flow (QRcs) = 94,500 gpm/loop

Pressurizer temperature (TpzR) = 6531F

Pressurizer surge rate (QsL)j= 11,695 gpm Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-6 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

The QRCS and QSL values shown above are nominal values used to scale the QRCS and QSL ratios in the transient tables.

Table 5-3 lists the RCS transients evaluated. 60-year projected cycles are based on monitoring results projected into the future, based on rates of accumulation of the past events.

I/O/stratification transients were evaluated with a template, simplified as follows.

" Initially there is stratification equal to ATstat.

During insurge, the top temperature in the piping ramps down to TRCS, causing stratification to ramp down to zero.

" Once the insurge stops, stratification slowly reestablishes.

After an indefinite period of time, outsurge occurs, such that the bottom temperature in the piping ramps up to TpZR, causing stratification to ramp down to zero.

" Once the outsurge stops, stratification slowly reestablishes in the piping.

Figure 5-3 presents a typical PZR I/O transient. To simplify analysis, the above transient description is split into insurge and outsurge.

Table 5-4 lists the I/O/stratification transients evaluated for the pre-MOP period. Since the numbers of pre-MOP I/O transients are based on 58 Heatups and 58 Cooldowns, and there are 110 projected Heatups and Cooldowns for 60 years, the estimated number of post-MOP Heatups and Cooldowns is:

110 - 58 = 52 Heatups and 52 Cooldowns Using this information and the distribution of cycles for the water solid methods [19, Table 4-13], the post-MOP PZR 1/0 transient spectrum is determined as shown in Table 5-5. Pressurizer temperature (TpzR) is 440'F for Heatup [ 19, Figure 2-5] and 451 OF for Cooldown [19, Figure 2-6], and RCS temperature TRCS was calculated as TPzR - AT. To simplify the analysis, the surges are grouped as shown in Table 5-6.

For transients that have experienced zero events to-date, at least one event is postulated for future operation for conservatism. The KPS Metal Fatigue of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Aging Management Program [29] will ensure that actual cycle counts remain within the assumed number of analyzed, or appropriate actions will be taken.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-7 R o Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

ftS N

ENSURGE:

ATMAX PIPE TOP

/ PIPE

/

8 I

L T!

a ss--a--If IN5URGE

-. - a-] S--

TIME I

a-CLUTSURGE i

n..,,P!*PG T'OP PPIPE

/

OTTPEOM l

SOTTM OUT5URGE Figure 5-3. Typical I/O/stratification Transient Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 5-8 F

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-3. RCS Transients for Hot Leg Surge Nozzle 60-Year Projected Condition Plant Event Cycles Normal RCP startup and shutdown RCS Heatup 110 RCS Cooldown 108 Unit loading/unloading between 0 and 15% of full power Plant Loading at 5% Power/Minute 214 Plant Unloading at 5% Power/Minute 150 Reduced temperature return to power Step Load Increase of 10% Power Step Load Decrease of 10% Power Large Step Load Decrease (with steam dump) 14 Steady state fluctuations Boron concentration equalization Feedwater cycling Refueling 37***

Upset Loss of Load 0

Loss of Power 4

Partial Loss of Flow 0

Reactor Trip at Power with No Cooldown (A) 114 Reactor Trip with Cooldown and No SI (B)

Reactor Trip with Cooldown and SI (C)

Inadvertent RCS Depressurization 0**

Inadvertent Auxiliary Spray Actuation 0**

Control rod drop 80**

Excessive feedwater flow 30**

Operating Basis Earthquake 0**

Test Turbine Roll Test 2

Primary Side Leak Test 48 Primary Side Hydrostatic Test 2

This transient is judged to be negligible.

- From the surge line stratification analysis [18].

- - From cycle projections performed by SI [20, Table 9].

- - - - Included with Reactor Trip A.

Report No. 0900090.40 1.RO 5-9 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Tablei5-4. I/O/stratification Cycles for Pre-MOP Period Cycles Label per 200 HC per 58 HC ATstrat, OF TPZR, OF TRCS, OF Exceedance 2

0.6 334 455 140 Exceedance 2

0.6 331 455 140 Exceedance 4

1.2 321 455 140 HC1 60 17.4 304 455 140 HC2 105 30.5 285 455 140 HC3 108 31.3 275 455 140 HC4 27 7.8 250 455 140 HC5 225 65.3 200 455 140 HC6 273 79.2 175 455 140 HC7 2202 638.6 150 455 140 HC9 1200 348.0 150 653 550 Table 5-5. I/O/stratification Cycles for Post-MOP Period

%of Total Heatup 21%

34%

36%

9%

Cycles 21.8 35.4 37.4 9.4 AT, 'F 210 197 177 164 TPZR, OF 440 440 440 440 TRCS, OF 230 243 263 276 Cooldown 14%

14.6 210 451 241 33%

34.3 197 451 254 33%

34.3 177 451 274 20%

20.8 164 451 287 Grouped 106.1 210 451 241 101.9 177 451 274 Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 5-10 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-6. Summary of All 11O/stratification Transients Type Transient Cycles ATstrat, OF TPZR, OF TRCS, OF Pre-MOP P10334 1

334 455 140 P10331 1

331 455 140 P10321 2

321 455 140 P10304 18 304 455 140 P10285 31 285 455 140 P10275 32 275 455 140 P10250 8

250 455 140 P10200 66 200 455 140 P10175 80 175 455 140 P10150 639 150 455 140 P10150H 348 150 653 550 Post-MOP P10210 107 210 451 241 P10177 102 177 451 274 5.2.3 Transient Lumping To simplify the fatigue usage analysis, selected RCS transients were grouped based on nozzle temperature, temperature ramp rate, and pressure. The bounding transient has nozzle temperature range, ramp rates, and pressure maximum and minimum values that bound all transients in the group.

The following transients were analyzed separately due to large temperature or pressure changes, or rapid temperature change:

0' 0

0 0

Plant Heatup Plant Cooldown Inadvertent RCS depressurization/inadvertent auxiliary spray Primary leak test Primary hydro test Refueling The following transients, although not severe, are analyzed separately due to the large numbers of cycles:

0 0

Plant loading 5%/minute Plant unloading 5%/minute Repor t No. 0900090.40 1. RO 5-11 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

The following transients all begin with a sharp temperature rise, followed by a moderate to rapid cooldown, accompanied in most cases by a significant pressure drop.

S S

0 0

S 0

0 0

Large step load decrease Loss of load Loss of power Partial loss of flow Reactor trip A Reactor trip B Reactor trip C Control rod drop Excessive feedwater flow Turbine roll test A bounding transient was constructed by combining loss of load, excessive feedwater flow, and turbine roll test.

A'summary of all transients that were analyzed after lumping and adjusting numbers of cycles for conservatism is shown on Table 5-7.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-12 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-7. Summary of All RCS Hot Leg Surge-Nozzle Transients to be Analyzed Event Cycles RCS Heatup 110"*

RCS Cooldown 110"*

Plant Loading at 5%/o Power/Minute 214 Plant Unloading at 5% Power/Minute 150 RCS Group 244 Inadvertent RCS Depress./Aux Spray 1"***

Refueling 87***

Primary Side Leak Test 48 Primary Side Hydrostatic Test 2

Operating Basis Earthquake 1****

P10334 1

P10331 1

P10321 2

P10304 18 P10285 31 P10275 32 P10250 8

P10200 66 P10175 80 P10150 639.

PIO150H 348 P10210 107 P10177 102

- Bounding value used for heatup and cooldown.

- - This number is increased to include the zero pressure time points of leak test and hydrotest events.

- - - Increased from 0 to 1 cycle to bound possible future cycles.

5.2.4 Heat Transfer Coefficients Heat transfer coefficients were not provided in the sources of information that were used to derive transient definitions. Conservative values were calculated by SI based on the temperatures and flow rate histories. For the hot leg and charging piping and nozzle, the following equation was used for turbulent flow in tubes, which is also bounding for stratification conditions.

Nu = 0.023 Re0 8 Pr° 4, where Report No. 0900090.401.R0 5-13 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Nu = Nusselt number = hD/k Re = Reynolds number = VD/v Pr = Prandtl number, non-dimensional h

= heat transfer coefficient D = inside diameter k

= thermal conductivity V = velocity, ft/sec = Q/(tD 2/4)

Q = volumetric flow rate v

= kinematic viscosity For conditions where there is little to no surge line flow, there is swirl penetration from the RCS hot leg such that forced convection equations are appropriate. Guidance was taken from the EPRI MRP document MRP-132 [13] and MRP-146S [14]. The Reynolds number is calculated

,based on swirl velocity, 92(x), which is given by:

n(x) = (2U/D)[fŽoD/(2U)]/[1 + (x/D)/(Lo/D)]O, where 9oD/(2U) = 0.63(D/DR)

Lý21D = 3.2 P =1.4 U = RCS flow velocity D = branch inside diameter DR = RCS diameter x = axial distance from the RCS inside surface The equation simplifies to:

2(x) = 9o/[1 + (x/D)/(3.2)]

, where Qo = 1.26U/DR The formulae for Reynolds number based on the swirl flow and heat transfer coefficient are as follows:

1 *D 2 Re-2 v

h = 0.023Re°08 Pr°'* (k/D)

(for Re> 10,000)

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-8 summarizes all heat transfer coefficients that will be applied for the thermal transient analysis of the nozzle.

Table 5-8. Summary of RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Heat Transfer Coefficients, Btulhr-ft2-°F Transients Surge Thermal Hot leg Inadvertent RCS depress./RCS group 15,169 16,864 6,411 All others 1,447 1,962 6,411 5.2.5 Piping Interface Loads 5.2.5.1 Branch Piping Stratification and thermal expansion moments were taken from the NSP/WPS surge stratification fatigue analysis [21, p. 14 of 26]. The moments reflect the surge line bottoming out at whip restraints, which were subsequently repositioned. Using these past values for the life of the plant is conservative and bounding.

OBE moments are taken from the same analysis [21, p. 7 of 26]. The values listed for OBE are conservative for all points in the surge line. Table 5-9 lists the piping interface loads described above.

Table 5-9. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Piping Interface Loads, in-kips Loading Mx My Mz 00F stratification

-389 9

367F stratification

-37

-1447 90 203'F stratification 884

-1033

-186 320'F stratification 1673

-618

-529 Surge pipe at 653'F

-95

-1625 1

OBE 600 200 200 OBE was specified to have 1 occurrence (60 year projected) with 50 cycles each. OBE was conservatively assumed to occur simultaneously with any transient, up to the total number of OBE events.

Report No. 0900090-401 -RO 5-15 U

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

5.2.5.2 Run Piping Conservative run piping interface loads for thermal expansion and OBE loading conditions were developed [26]. These loads at the branch nozzle location were not specifically tabulated in the available design input. However, interface loads were available at other sections of the same runs of piping. Standard structural analysis methodologies were utilized to calculate bounding interface load values at the location of interest. SRSS values were computed and assumed to be applied in the worst case orientation, as shown on Figure 4-3, to maximize the fatigue usage for conservatism.

The KPS replacement steam generator project contained the latest piping analysis of record for the RCL. Piping interface loads for thermal expansion and seismic loading conditions were contained in this report and were calculated based on a piping model of the RCL. Seismic OBE values are one half the seismic SSE values.

The thermal expansionvalues for the hot leg were assumed to represent conditions going from a stress-free temperature of 70°F.to a design basis temperature of 606.8°F. The SRSS thermal moment for the RCS hot leg surge nozzle was calculated to be 2320.456 in-kip. Based on the temperature of the hot leg, THOT, the thermal run piping moment at the hot leg surge nozzle, Mhlsrgthm, may be calculated as:

Mhlsrgthm = (THOT-70)/(606.8-70).2320.456 in-kip The OBE run piping moment at the hot leg surge nozzle was calculated to be 522.390 in-kip, and can reverse direction in equal magnitude.

5.3 Thermal and Mechanical Analyses 5.3.1 Methodology Overview ANSYS [8] FEA was used to compute transient and static stresses for input to the fatigue calculations [25]. In computing transient (time-dependent) stresses a thermal analysis was first performed to compute temperature distributions throughout the model over time. The temperatures were then used to compute thermal stresses using standard, linear elastic FEA Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-16, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

11 methodology. The following is a summary of the overall process used to perform the thermal and mechanical analyses.

Apply bulk temperatures and heat transfer coefficients on defined convection surfaces to compute temperature distributions over time for all thermal transients.

Perform stress analyses using temperature distribution results with the thermal sleeve (non-structural attachment) and water annulus (non-structural) removed.

Perform stress analysis of unit internal pressure load case with thermal sleeve attachment and water annulus removed.

Perform stress analyses of piping interface loads with thermal sleeve attachment and water annulus removed.

Review stress results and select analysis sections ("paths") along discontinuities and with high stress intensities.

Extract linearized stresses at selected paths.

5.3.2 Boundary Conditions 5.3.2.1 Thermal Boundary Conditions Due to symmetry, thermal transients were analyzed using a quarter model, as shown on Figure

5-1.

Convection surfaces were defined in the loads calculation package [22] for the piping, thermal sleeve and RCS header regions. ANSYS macro files were created to apply temperature and film coefficients to the various convections surfaces, which are shown on Figure 5-4.

5.3.2.2 Mechanical Boundary Conditions Symmetry and displacement boundary conditions were applied to the cut surfaces of the quarter model, as shown on Figure 5-5.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-17 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

The edges of the surge piping and the hot leg piping were coupled in the axial (longitudinal) direction to prevent gross distortion of the cross sections and simulate the connected piping. The coupled conditions are shown on Figure 5-5.

1 MAT NUM CxJNV-HCrE

.002791

.004919

.007047

.009175

.011303

.003855

.005983

.008111

.010239

.012367 HOT LEG SURGE NOZZLE FOR KEWAUNEE Figure 5-4. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Convection Surfaces Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-18 V

Structrl Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc=

U CP EDT LEG STGE NO-72LE FOR Figure 5-5. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Mechanical Boundary Conditions Report No. 0900090.401.R0 5-19

-V $hvL~r#1 I grI

-41.,

nc, Ic.

5.3.3 Internal Pressure Analysis A unit (1 psig) internal pressure analysis was performed so that results could be scaled to any internal pressure condition, based on linear elastic analysis. The pressure surfaces are shown on Figure 5-6. Cap loads were applied on the surge piping and the hot leg piping, based on multiplying the unit pressure by the ratio of the fluid cross sectional area to the metal cross sectional area. Values are negative to simulate tensile stress.

1 ELI=ANSYS PRFNCP PLOT N*O

-2.273

-1.545

-. 818183

-. 09091

.636363

-1.909

-1.182

-. 454547

.272727 1

CHARGINGI NZZL Y

FMR KEWAUNEE

8. 1A1 1

Figure 5-6. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Unit Internal Pressure Application Report No. 0900090.401.R0 5-20 V

Sin8teural Integrity sia*tes, Inc. Inc.

5.3.4 Piping Interface Loading Analysis 5.3.4.1 Branch Piping Table 5-9 lists branch piping interface loads for thermal and OBE conditions. For the stress analysis the loads were transformed into a coordinate system consistent with that of the FEA.

In order to apply these asymmetric loads, a full model was created from the quarter model using symmetry commands in ANSYS. The model is shown on Figure 5-7. A pilot node was created at the neutral axis of the surge piping along with a defined contact surface to apply the loads on the model.

I MAT NUM U

M CP HCr LEG3 SEJ1E NOZZLE FCR KEWALZ=E Figure 5-7. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Full Finite Element Model Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-21 V

Stnctural Int*rily Associates, Inc. Inc.

The boundary conditions were similar to the quarter model, except that the edge of the surge piping was not coupled in the circumferential direction in order to allow rotation of the pipe due to bending. The cut surfaces of hot leg piping had symmetry boundary conditions applied, the longitudinal direction of one edge of the hot leg piping had rollers applied, and the other side of the hot leg piping was coupled in the longitudinal direction to allow expansion but prevent gross distortion of the cross section to simulate the connected piping.

A benchmark analysis to verify proper application of the pilot node methodology was also.

conducted in [25] using a unit moment. The FEA computed axial stress was compared to that computed using a standard structural mechanics equation. The ANSYS result matched the hand calculation to within 1% and was considered to be more accurate, as it reflected the effects of gross structural discontinuities in the overall structure. Therefore the FEA methodology was confirmed to be appropriately executed.

5.3.4.2 Run Piping Run piping loads were evaluated using the same methodology described in Section 4.3.4.2.

5.3.5 Thermal Transients The thermal stress analyses were performed by ANSYS using the temperature distributions computed in the thermal analyses for various time steps of each defined transient.

5.3.6 Selection of Analysis Sections (Paths)

Seven stress linearization paths, PATH 1 through PATH7, were chosen for fatigue analysis.

Stress paths are defined around regions of discontinuities and at areas of high stress. The paths are shows on Figure 5-8 through Figure 5-11.

Report No. 0900090.401.R0 5-22 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

1 M4AT NqUM At 41 Degrees Counter-Clockwise from X-Axis aIl-HOT LEG SURGE NODZZLE FOR KEWAUNEE Figure 5-8. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH 1 and PATH2 Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-23 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

I ELEP=~]T MAT NUM PATH 4 9603 110799 PATH 3 53 HOT LEG SURGE NCYZZLE E(CR KEWAUNEE In X-Y Plane Figure 5-9. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH3 through PATH5 Note:

The two faces shown are 90 degrees out-of-phase.

The inside node is located on the inside face of the nozzle/piping for all paths.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-24 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

MK\\T NUM PATH 6

->21 frLEG SURGE NOZZE FC KEEWAUEE Figure 5-10. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH6 Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-25 v

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. Inc.

MAT NJU Figure 5-11. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Linearization PATH7 5.3.7 Summary of FEA Analyses Table 5-10 summarizes the various ANSYS thermal and mechanical analyses and post-processing operations performed to support the fatigue evaluation of the KPS hot leg surge nozzle.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-26 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-10. Summary of RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle ANSYS Load Cases Report No. 0900090.401.R0 5-27 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

C

5.4 ASME Code Fatigue Calculations 5.4.1 Fatigue Calculations 5.4.1.1 Stress Calculations Fatigue calculations that credit water solid operation into the future and utilize 60-year projected cycles were performed in the Reference [24] calculation package using the methodology summarized in Section 3.1 of this report. In the first phase fatigue analysis [23] that conservatively assumed modified steam bubble method of operation for the entire history and design cycle counts, the bounding fatigue was determined to be located at PATH 1, 2, 6, and 7, which are all located at the nozzle to surge piping field butt weld. Note that this is the same critical region as that identified for the "Older Vintage Westinghouse Plant" in NUREG/CR-6260 [2, Section 5.4.3].

For these selected paths, FSRFs were applied to the membrane plus bending (M+B) stress components. These FSRFs were conservatively applied to all six components (three normal, three shear) of the stress tensor. The following factors were chosen by taking guidance from the local stress indices (K indices) from NB-3600, as follows [1, Table NB-3681(a)-1]:

Pressure: 1.2 Moment: 1.8 Thermal: 1.7 In addition, the peak thermal stress components (PEAK) were added back into the total stress to capture the peak stress due to nonlinear radial temperature gradient, as required by Table NB-3217-2 of the ASME Code [1], as follows:

P+Q+F = (ANSYS M+B)FSRF + (ANSYS PEAK)

The loads package [22] provides temperature parameters and pressure for the specified thermal transients. Unit pressure stresses were scaled by the ratio of gage pressure to the analyzed unit pressure of 1000 psi. For branch piping moments, unit stresses are scaled based on moment magnitudes, surge piping temperature, and stratification magnitude. Moments were converted from the Westinghouse coordinate system to the ANSYS coordinate system.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-28 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

5.4.1.2 Load Sets Transients that consist of both stress peaks and valleys are split so that each successive peak or valley is treated as a separate load set. Table 5-11 shows the transients as input to VESLFAT.

Each pressurizer insurge outsurge (1/0) event consists of three outsurge load sets and one insurge (steady state) load set.

Table 5-11. Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Load Sets as Input to VESLFAT 60-Year Load Projected Sets*

Event Abbreviation Cycles 1

RCS Heatup Heatup 110 2

RCS Cooldown Cooldown 110 3 -5 Plant Loading at 5% Power/Minute PIntLoad 214 6, 7 Plant Unloading at 5% Power/Minute PintUnload 150 8-10 RCS Group RCSGRP 244 11, 12 Inadvertent RCS Depress./Aux Spray InadvRCSDep 1

13-16 P10334 P10334 1

17-20 P10331 P10331 1

21-24 PI0321 P10321 2

25-28 P10304 P10304 18 29-32 PI0285 P10285 31 33 -36 P10275 P10275 32 37-40 PI0250 P10250 8

41 -44 PI0200 P10200 66 45-48 P10175 PIO175 80 49-52 P10150 P10150 639 53-56 PIOI50H PIOI50H 348 57-60 P10210 P10210 107 61-64 P10177 P10177 102 65 Refueling Refueling 87 66 Primary Side Leak Test LeakTest 48 67 Primary Side Hydrostatic Test HydroTest 2

68 Operating Basis Earthquake OBE I

For events with multiple temperature or pressure peaks and valleys, events are split into multiple load sets based on a review of the combined stress magnitudes, so that each significant stress peak or valley is a separate load set.

5.4.1.3 Material Properties Table 5-12 lists the temperature-dependent material properties used in the analysis, and Table 5-13 lists the fatigue curve for stainless steel materials [1, Appendix I, Tables 1-9.1 (Figure I-9.2.1) and 1-9.2.2 (Curve C)]. At welds, the material that has lower Sm values is used.

VESLFAT automatically scales the stresses by the ratio of E on the fatigue curve to E in the analysis, for purposes of determining allowable numbers of cycles, as required by the ASME Code.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-29 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-12. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Material. Properties for Fatigue Analysis Material T, OF E..,g., ksi Sm, ksi TP316SS 70 28,300 20.0 200 27,600 20.0 300 27,000 20.0

.400 26,500 19.2 500 25,800 17.9 600 25,300 17.0 650 25,050 16.6 700 24,800 16.3 Table 5-13. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stainless Steel Fatigue Curve for Fatigue Analysis Number of Cycles Sa, ksi 10 708 20 512 50 345 100 261 200 201 500 148 1,000 119.

2,000 97 5,000 76 10,000 64 20,000 55.5 50,000 46.3 100,000 40.8 200,'000 35.9 500,000 31 1,000,000 28.2 2,000,000 22.8 5,000,000 18.4 10,000,000 16.4 20,000,000 15.2 50,000,000 14.3 100,000,000 14.1 1,000;000,000 13.9 10,000,000,000 13.7 100,000,000,000 13.6 5.4.1.4 Results Initial fatigue calculations were made for' all four selected paths, to determine the one with the highest CUF.

Table 5-14 summarizes the initial fatigue usage results at the inside surface.

Report No. 0900090.40 1.RO 5-30 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-14. Charging Nozzle Fatigue Usage Results (no OBE)

Path CUF 1

0.040 2

0.110 6

0.126 7

0.123 Since paths 6 and 7 are bounding, they were selected for more detailed analysis. For the second fatigue usage analysis at the bounding locations, OBE is combined with one of the load sets [13, P103340UT] in the load set pair that has the highest Salt value. Table 5-15 and Table 5-16 present the detailed results for the second runs, showing each load set pair for each run that contributes to the total fatigue usage.

Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 5-31 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-15. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for PATH6 (+OBE)

Load Set A 13 PI0334OUT 17 P10331OUT 21 PIO321OUT 25 PIO304OUT 29 PIO285OUT 33 PIO275OUT 37 PIO250OUT 41 PIO200OUT 45 PIO I75OUT 49 P1O 150OUT 57 PIO2IOOUT 61 PIOI77OUT 8 RCSGRP 3 PlntLoad 3 PlntLoad 53 P0I150HOUT 15 P103340UT 19 P1033 lOUT 23 P10321 OUT 27 PIO304OUT 31 P10285OUT 35 PIO275OUT 39 PIO250OUT 43 PIO200OUT 7 PlntUnload 7 PlntUnload I Heatup I Heatup 6 PlntUnload 6 PlntUnload 2 Cooldown 4 PlntLoad 68 OBE 11 InadvRCSDep 5 PlntLoad Load Set B S., psi 14 P103340UT 65236 18 PIO331OUT 63946 22 PI0321OUT 63601 26 PIO304OUT 63021 30 PIO285OUT 62382 34 P10275OUT 62050 38 P10250OUT 61233 42 PIO200OUT 59667 46 P101750UT 58922 50 PIOI50OUT 58210 58 P10210OUT 49075 62 PIO1770UT 44013 9 RCSGRP 35727 12 InadvRCSDep 31510 54 PIO I50HOUT 30395 54 PIO 150HOUT 30227 53 PIO150HOUT 29497 53 PIO150HOUT 29372 53 PIO150HOUT 28959 53 PIOI50HOUT 28258 53 PIOI50HOUT 27477 53 P10I50HOUT 27067 53 PIO150HOUT 26043 53 PIO150HOUT 24010 53 PIO 150HOUT 23554 65 Refueling 22054 7 PlntUnload 20540 4 PlntLoad 19731 59 PIO2IOOUT 15721 47 PIO1750UT 15206 4 PintLoad 18571 47 PIO175OUT 14820 68 OBE 15939 47 P101750UT 14193 47 PIO175OUT 13693 Ke Sajt, psi 1.558 100410 1.481 93391 1.460 91592 1.426 88594 1.388 85340 1.368 83666 1.319 79604 1.226 72033 1.181 68536 1.139 65250 1

48984 1

44194 1

38095 1

33369 1

32665 1

32461 1

30817 1

30691 1

30269 1

29555 1

28758 1

28340 1

27295 1

25219 1

25012 1

17865 1

17131 1

16663 1

16421 1

16085 1

15442 1

14834 1

14345 1

14054 1

13759 n

N 1

1779 1

2306 2

2481 18 2811 31 3235 32 3485 8

4201 66 6207 80 7587 639 9250 107 37604 102 64538 244 145017 1

315711 213 360657 135 375044 1

522115 1

538118 2

595403 18 709225 31 866326 32 964513 8

1112200 66 1439600 54 1478800 87 5973400 9

7690100 101 9086800 107 9923600 43 11937000 110 17314000 3

28845000 1

47691000 1

169530000 33 5052300000 Total =

Usage 0.000562 0.000434 0.000806 0.006403 0.009582 0.009182 0.001904 0.010634 0.010545 0.069085 0.002845 0.001581 0.001683 0.000003 0.000591 0.000360 0.000002 0.000002 0.000003 0.000025 0.000036 0.000033 0.000007 0.009046 0.000037 0.000015 0.000001 0.000011 0.000011 0.000004 0.000006

'0.000000 0

0 0

0.126436 Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 5-32 C

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-16. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for PATH7 (+OBE)

Load Set A 13 P103340UT 17 PI033 lOUT 21 PIO321OUT 25 PIO304OUT 29 PIO285OUT 33 P102750UT 37 P10250OUT 41 PIO200OUT 45 PIO 175OUT 49 PIO 150OUT 57 PIO210OUT 61 PIO177OUT 8 RCSGRP 3 PlntLoad 53 P1O150HOUT 12 InadvRCSDep 15 P103340UT 19 PI0331OUT 23 P10321OUT 27 PIO304OUT 31 PIO285OUT 35 PIO275OUT 39 PIO250OUT 7 PintUnload 7 PlntUnload 4 PlntLoad 1 Heatup 6 PlntUnload 4 PlntLoad 6 PlntUnload 5 PlntLoad.

2 Cooldown 11 InadvRCSDep 5 PlntLoad 68 OBE Load Set B 14 P103340UT 18 P1033 1OUT 22 P10321OUT 26 PIO304OUT 30 P102850UT 34 P102750UT 38 PIO250oUT 42 PIO200OUT 46 PIO 175OUT 50 PNO 150OUT 58 PIO210OUT 62 PIO 1770UT 9 RCSGRP 54 PIO 150HOUT 54 PIO 150HOUT 53 P1O150HOUT 53 P1O150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 P1O150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 65 Refueling 65 Refueling 4 PlntLoad 43 PIO200OUT 59 PIO210OUT 55 PIO150HOUT 59 PIO210OUT 55 PIO150HOUT 55 PIO150HOUT 47 PIO175OUT 68 OBE S., psi 68831 64236 63863 63238 62545 62186 61299 59592 58777 57994 49240 44152 34890

30574, 30433 30354 29192 29061 28622 27879 27048 26613 25524 23167 22533 21682 19860 15731 16228 15270 15363 17456 14124 13564 14898 Ký 1.772 1.498 1.476 1.439 1.397 1376 1.323 1.221 1.173 1.126 1

S.It, psi 120357 94909 92952 89706 86166 84348 79932 71689 67871 64276 49146 44330 37242 32847 32669 32150 30513 30380 29933 29176 28331 27886 26777 24619 18405 17817 16791 16588 16319 16115 15467 14267 13960 13634 13408 n

N 2

18 31 32 8

66 80 639 107 102 244 214 134 1

1 1

2 18 31 32 8

120 30 57 110 66 47 84 60 110 1

80 1

965 2171 2347 2683 3120 3381 4137 6328 7891 9828 36982 63459 163939 348360 360375 398326 561411 579769 646111 779576 966759 1037200 1184000 1557200 4994200 6070000 8677400 9337800 10461000 11735000 17063000 55943000 501190000 45204000000 infinite Total =

Usage,

0.001037 0.000461 0.000852 0.006710 0.009935 0.009466 0.001934 0.010430 0.010138 0.065017 0.002893 0.001607 0.001488 0.000614 0.000372 0.000003 0.000002 0.000002 0.000003 0.000023 0.000032 0.000031 0.000007 0.000077 0.000006 0.000009 0.000013 0.000007 0.000005 0.000007 0.000004 0.000002 0

0 0

0.123186 To reduce excess conservatism, Sm averaging was applied to those load set pairs with K. > 1.0 and for which secondary stress is due only to temperature transients or restraint of free end deflection; in accordance with Note 3 of ASME Code Figure NB-3222-1. Since Pair 1 includes OBE, and Pairs 11 and higher have Ke = 1.0, Sm averaging was applied to Pairs 2 through 10.

The following apply to all of these pairs:

Sm used in VESLFAT = 18628 psi Maximum temperature = 455°F Sm at 455°F = 18485 psi Minimum temperature = 140'F Report No. 0900090.40 1. RO 5-33 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Sm at 140'F = 20000 psi Average Sm = 19242.5 psi Table 5-17 and Table 5-18 show the revised KI, Salt, and usage calculations. Note that K, before Sm averaging was recalculated as a check.

Table 5-17. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed Fatigue Results for PATH6 (+OBE & Sm averaging)

Previous Refined S., psi K-K.

Load Set A 13 P103340UT 17 P1033 lOUT 21 PIO321OUT 25 P10304OUT 29 PIO285OUT 33 PIO275OUT 37 P10250OUT 41 P10200OUT 45 PIOI75OUT 49 PIO 150OUT 57 PIO210OUT 61 PIO177OUT 18 RCSGRP 3 PlntLoad 3 PlntLoad 53 PIO150HOUT 15 P103340UT 19 P1033 1OUT 23 PIO321OUT 27 PIO304OUT 31 P102850UT 35 PIO275OUT 39 PIO250OUT 43 PIO200OUT 7 PlntUnload 7 PlntUnload I Heatup I Heatup 6 PintUnload 6 PlntUnload 2 Cooldown 4 PlntLoad 68 OBE 11 InadvRCSDep 5 PlntLoad Load Set B 14 P103340UT 18 P10331OUT 22 PI0321OUT 26 PIO304OUT 30 PIO285OUT 34 PIO275OUT 38 PIO250OUT 42 PIO200OUT 46 PIO175OUT 50 PIO150OUT 58 PIO210OUT 62 P101770UT 9 RCSGRP 12 InadvRCSDep 54 PIOI50HOUT 54 PIO I50HOUT 53 P0I150HOUT 53 P10I50HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 65 Refueling 7 PintUnload 4 PintLoad 59 PIO210OUT 47 PIOI75OUT 4 PlntLoad 47 PIO175OUT 68 OBE 47 PIO175OUT 47 PIO175OUT 63946 63601 63021 62382 62050 61233 59667 58922 58210 1.4809 1.4603 1.4257 1.3876 1.3678 1.3191 1.2256 1.1812 1.1387 1.3591 1.3392 1.3057 1.2688 1.2496 1.2024 1.1120 1.0690 1.0279 S&t, ksi n

N Usage 0.000562 85.709 1

3183 0.000314 83.993 2

3434 0.000582 81.134 18 3911 0.004602 78.032 31 4528 0.006846 76.436 32 4894 0.006539 72.565 8

6025 0.001328 65.353 66 9191 0.007181 62.024 80 11648 0.006868 58.897 639 14981 0.042653 0.002845 0.001581 0.001683 0.000003 0.000591 0.000360 0.000002 0.000002 0.000003 0.000025 0.000036 0.000033 0.000007 0.000046 0.000037 0.000015 0.000001 0.000011 0.000011 0.000004 0.000006 0.000000 0

0 0

Total =

0.084777 Report No. 0900090.40 LRO 5-34 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-18. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Detailed CUF Results for PATH7 (+OBE & Sm averaging)

Previous Refined S_, psi K.

Ke I

Load Set A 1

13 P103340UT 2

17 P10331OUT 3

21 PIO321OUT 4

25 PIO304OUT 5

29 PIO285OUT 6

33 PIO275OUT 7

37 PI0250OUT 8

41 P10200OUT 9

45 PIO175OUT 10 49 PI0150OUT 11 57 P10210OUT 12 61 PIO177OUT 13 8 RCSGRP 14 3 PlntLoad 15 53 PIO150HOUT 16 12 InadvRCSDep 17 15 P103340UT 18 19 P10331OUT 19 23 P10321OUT 20 27 PIO304OUT 21 31 P10285OUT 22 35 P102750UT 23 39 PIO250OUT 24 7 PlntUnload 25 7 PlntUnload 26 4 PlntLoad 27 1 Heatup 28 6 PlntUnload 29 4 PlntLoad 30 6 PlntUnload 31 5 PlntLoad 32 2 Cooldown 33 11 InadvRCSDep 34 5 PlntLoad 35 68 OBE Load Set B 14 P103340UT 18 P10331OUT 22 PI0321OUT 26 PIO304OUT 30 PIO285OUT 34 PIO275OUT 38 PIO250OUT 42 PIO200OUT 46 PIO 175OUT 50 PIO 150OUT 58 PIO210OUT 62 PIOI77OUT 9 RCSGRP 54 PIO I50HOUT 54 PIO I50HOUT 53 P0I150HOUT 53 P10I50HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 P1O150HOUT 53 P1O150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIO150HOUT 53 PIOI50HOUT 53 P0I150HOUT 65 Refueling 65 Refueling 4 PlntLoad 43 PIO200OUT 59 PIO210OUT 55 PIO150HOUT 59 PIO210OUT 55 PIO150HOUT 55 P1O150HOUT 47 PIO175OUT 68 OBE 64236 63863 63238 62545 62186 61299 59592 58777 57994 1.4982 1.3758 1.4759 1.3543 1.4386 1.3182 1.3973 1.2782 1.3759 1.2574 1.3230 1.2062 1.2212 1.1077 1.1726 1.0606 1.1259 1.0154 S,,,, ksi n

N Usage 0.001037 87.158 1

2989 0.000335 85.291 2

3242 0.000617 82.195 18 3725 0.004832 78.819 31 4361 0.007109 77.086 32 4740 0.006750 72.877 8

5922 0.001351 65.025 66 9379 0.007037 61.391 80 12244 0.006534 57.969 639 16183 0.039485 0.002893 0.001607 0.001488 0.000614 0.000372 0.000003 0.000002 0.000002 0.000003 0.000023 0.000032 0.000031 0.000007 0.000077 0.000006 0.000009 0.000013 0.000007 0.000005 0.000007 0.000004 0.000002 0

0 0

Total =

0.082292 The total CUF of 0.085 at the bounding location (PATH6) is below the ASME Code allowable limit of 1.0.

5.4.2 EAF Calculations The EAF evaluation was performed using the Integrated Strain Rate method described in MRP-47, Rev. 1 [7, p. 4-14]. The stress intensity for the total stress from the combined stress Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-35 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

results was calculated for each time step, using the six stress components. Strain values in terms of percent strain were computed from the signed stress intensity values based on:

100

aSl E

The value of Young's Modulus, E, was taken as the E of the stainless steel fatigue curve.

An environmentAlly-assisted fatigue factor (Fen) was calculated for each time step with increasing strain (becoming more tensile) in both the dominant stress direction and the total stress intensity, according to the methodology described in Section 3.2. In this process, the strain rates and strain contributions of each time step were also calculated. To determine the overall Fen for each transient, the summation of all tensile strain contributions for each time step was performed. Then the Fen for each time step was multiplied by the difference in strain amplitude between the current and previous time steps. The results of this product were summed. The Fen for the entire transient was calculated as follows:

F (t (Fe(idiidl)

) Al )

FZA Where:

Fen(individual) = the calculated Fen for each time step.

Ar = the difference between the strain amplitude (%) of the current time step and that for the preceding time step, calculated for each time step.

YAc = the sum of the strain amplitude (%) contributions for each time step.

The level of dissolved oxygen in the environment was assumed to be less than 0.05 ppm, which corresponds to a low oxygen environment with an 0* equal to 0.260. As described previously, this is the conservative choice; as shown in the equation for the Fen in Section 3.2 of this analysis, the value for s

will always be negative or zero, which means that a larger value for 0* will result in a larger Fen.

The effects of Ke are conservatively not considered in the calculation of the Fen. The inclusion of K, in the Fen calculation would increase the strain rates for the transients for Report No. 0900090.401.RO 5-36 U Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

which K, is greater than 1.0. However, since the environmental effects are more severe for slow transients than for fast transients, the exclusion of K, in the Fen calculation is conservative. The effects of K, are incorporated into the analysis as part of the cumulative fatigue calculation.

Using the results for the load sets for the load pairs in the fatigue table shown in Table 5-18,-

the Fen for each transient was calculated. Fen values were only calculated for the load pairs with a reasonably significant normal fatigue contribution (i.e. fatigue usage values> 0.0 01).

These load pairs account for roughly 97% of the cumulative fatigue usage for this location.

For all other load pairs, the Fen was taken to be 15.35, which is the maximum value for a stainless steel material. The calculated Fen values for/each of these load pairs are shown in Table 5-19.

Table 5-19. EAF Factors (Fen) for RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle PATH6 Load Set # ANSYS Transient Start (sec) Finish (sec)

Tensile Strain (A~e)

Fn x AE (Fen X AE)/Ee 0,"

25 7

0.001 752.5 0.049 0.726 14.67 26 7

842.5 3254.6 0.141 0.716 5.08 29 7

0.001 752.5 0.049 0.726 14.67 7.69 30 7

842.5 3254.6 0.136 0.701 5.15 33 7

0.001' 752.5 0.049 0.726 14.67 7.76 34 7

842.5 3254.6 0.133 0.693 5.20 41 7

0.001 752.5 0.049 0.726 14.67 8.34 42 7

842.5 3254.6 0.114 0.635 5.58 45 7

0.001 752.5 0.049 0.726 14.67 8.56 46 7

842.5 3254.6 0.107 0.616 5.75 49 7

0.001 752.5 0.049 0.726 14.67 8.80 50 7

842.5 3254.6 0.101 0.597 5.92 57 9

0.001 1330.8 0.055 0.813 14.86 9.67 58 9

1346.5 3597.9 0.408 0.756 7.03 37 7

0.001 752.5 0.049 0.726 14.67 38 7

842.5 3254.6 0.127 0.674 5.31 61 10 0.001 725.5 0.034 0.497 14.76 62 10 815.5 3488.7 0.096 0.747 7.76 8

5 1

1042.4 0.040 0.508 12.65 9

5 1044.8 1665.1 0.082 0.971 11.80 The fatigue table from the fatigue calculation was appended to include the Fen results to determine the EAF results for each load pair. The summation of the EAF results for the individual load pairs represents the cumulative EAF for the RCS hot leg surge nozzle for plant operation. The total EAF was divided by the total CUF (cumulative fatigue usage without Report No-. 0900090.401.RO 5-37 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

environmental effects), resulting in the overall effective Fen for the hot leg surge nozzle. This calculation is shown in Table 5-20.

The CUF for the KPS hot leg surge nozzle, without environmental effects, as calculated in the fatigue analysis is 0.085. When the fatigue usage for each row in the fatigue table was multiplied by individually-calculated Fen values and summed, the resulting EAF is 0.7467, which is below the allowable limit of 1.0. The KPS hot leg surge nozzle EAF is therefore acceptable for the period of extended operation if plant cycle counts remain within the limits presented in Table 5-7.

Report No. 0900090.40 1.R0 5-38 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Table 5-20. RCS Hot Leg Surge Nozzle EAF Results for Bounding PATH6 I

Load Set A Load Set B Sn, psi 1

13 P103340UT 14 P103340UT 65236 2

17 PIO331OUT 18 PIO331OUT 63946 3

21 P10321OUT 22 PIO321OUT 63601 4

25 PIO34OUT 26 PIO304OUT 63021 5

29 PIO285OUT 30 PIO285OUT 62382 6

33 PIO275OUT 34 PIO275OUT 62050 7

37 PIO250OUT 38 PIO250OUT 61233 8

41 PIO200OUT 42 PIO200OUT 59667 9

45 P1OI75OUT 46 P1O 1750UT 58922 10 49 PIO 150OUT 50 PIO150OUT 58210 11 57 PIO210OUT 58 PIO210OUT 49075 12 61 P1O 1770UT

`62 PIOi77OUT 44013 13 8 RCSGRP 9 RCSGRP 35727 14 3 PlntLoad 12 InadvRCSDep 31510 15 3 PintLoad 54 PIO150HOUT 30395 16 53 PIOI50HOUT 54 PIO150HOUT 30227 17 15 PIO334OUT 53 PIO150HOUT 29497 18 19 PIO331OUT 53 PIO150HOUT 29372 19 23 PIO321OUT 53 PIO150HOUT 28959 20 27 PIO304OUT 53 PIOI50HOUT 28258 21 31 PIO285OUT 53 PIO150HOUT 27477 22 35 PIO275OUT 53 P1O150HOUT 27067 23 39 PIO250OUT 53 PIO150HOUT 26043 24 43 PIO200OUT 53 PIO150HOUT 24010 25 7 PintUnload 53 PIO150HOUT 23554 26 7 PlntUnload 65 Refueling 22054 27 1 Heatup 7 PintUnload 20540 28 1 Heatup 4 PintLoad 19731 29 6 PlntUnload 59 PIO210OUT 15721 30 6 PlntUnlad 47 P1O1750UT 15206 31 2 Cooldown 4" PintLoad 18571 32 4 PlntLoad 47 P1O175OUT 14820 33 68 OBE 68 OBE 15939 34 11 InadvRCSDep 47 P1O175OUT 14193 35 5 PlntLoad 47 PIO175OUT 13693 Ke Salt, ksi n

N Usage F,.

EAF 1.56 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 100410 1

1779 0.000562 85.709 1

3183 0.000314 83.993 2

3434 0.000582 81.134 18 3911 0.004602 78.032 31 4528 0.006846 76.436 32 4894 0.006539 72.565 8

6025 0.001328 65.353.

66 9191 0.007181 62.024 80 11648 0.006868 58.897 639 14981 0.042653 48984 107 37604 0.002845 44194 102 64538 0.001581 38095 244 145017 0.001683 33369 1

315711 0.000003 32665 213 360657 0.000591 32461 135 375044 0.00036 30817 1

522115 0.000002 30691 1

538118 0.000002 30269 2

595403 0.000003 29555 18 709225 0.000025 28758 31 866326 0.000036 28340 32 964513 0.000033 27295 8

1112200 0.000007 25219 66 1439600 0.000046 25012 54 1478800 0.000037 17865 87' 5973400 0.000015 17131 9

7690100 0.000001 16663 101 9086800 0.000011 16421 107 9923600 0.000011 16085 43 11937000 0.000004 15442 110 17314000 0.000006 14834 3

28845000 0

14345 1

47691000 0

14054 1

169530000 0

13759 33 5052300000 0

Total =

0.084777 15.35 0.0086 15.35 0.0048 15.35 0.0089 7.57 0.0348 7.69 0.0527 7.76 0.0507 7.94 0.0105 8.34 0.0599 8.56 0.0588 8.80 0.3755 9.67 0.0275 9.57 0.0151 12.07 0.0203 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0091 15.35 0.0055 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0004 15.35 0.0006 15.35 0.0005 15.35 0.0001 15.35 0.0007 15.35 0.0006 15.35 0.0002 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0002 15.35 0.0002 15.35 0.0001 15.35 0.0001 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0000 15.35 0.0000 Total EAF=

0.7467 Total Fen=

8.807 5-39 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO

6.0 CONCLUSION

S ASME Code fatigue calculations for the KPS charging and RCS hot leg surge nozzles (two of the NUREG/CR-6260 sample locations) were performed, using the results of detailed, 3-D FEA.

The fatigue calculations for these analyses used the methodology of Subarticle NB-3200 of Section III of the ASME Code. In evaluating primary plus secondary and peak stresses for use in the fatigue calculations, no single stress term simplifications were made. All six, unique components of the stress tensor were used throughout the evaluation to determine alternating stress intensities per the general procedure of ASME NB-3216.2 that considers varying principal stress directions.

The bounding 60-year CUF for the charging nozzle was 0.0302 using design numbers of design-severity cycles and for the RCS hot leg surge nozzle was 0.085 using 60-year projected design-severity cycles. All values are less than the ASME Code allowable value of 1.0, and are therefore acceptable for the current licensing basis if plant cycle counts are maintained within the limits analyzed herein.

60-year EAF analyses were. also performed for the two nozzles per the rules of NUREG/CR-5704 [6] for austenitic stainless steels. The bounding EAF for the charging nozzle is 0.4636 using design numbers of design-severity cycles and for the RCS hot leg surge nozzle is 0.7467 using 60-year projected numbers of design-severity cycles. All EAF values are less than the allowable value of 1.0, and are therefore acceptable for the period of extended operation if plant cycle counts are maintained within the limits analyzed herein.

Considering the results of this detailed analysis using NRC approved methodology, the concerns expressed by the NRC staff in RIS-2008-30 are addressed and eliminated for the KPS charging and RCS hot leg surge nozzles.

Report No. 0900090.401 RO 6-1 V

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Inc.

7.0 REFERENCES

1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.

2. NUREG/CR-6260 (INEL-95/0045), Application of NUREG/CR-5999 Interim Fatigue Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components, March 1995.

3. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2008-30, Fatigue Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Components, December 16, 2008. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

4. NUREG-1801, Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, Revision 1.

5. VESLFAT, Version 1.42, 02/06/07, Structural Integrity Associates.

6. NUREG/CR-5704 (ANL-98/3 1), Effects of L WR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves ofAustenitic Stainless Steels, 1999.

7. EPRI Technical Report TR-1012017, Guidelines for Addressing Fatigue Environmental Effects in a License Renewal Application (MRP-4 7 Revision 1).

8. ANSYS Mechanical, Release 8.1 (w/Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004 and ANSYS/Mechanical, Release 1.0 (w/Service Pack 1), ANSYS Inc., Aug 2007.

9. SI Calculation Package, Charging Nozzle Finite Element Model, Revision 0, October 2009, SI File No. 0900090.301.

10. SI Calculation Package, Loads for Charging Nozzle, Revision 0, October 2009, SI File No. 0900090.302.

11. Kewaunee Document CN-SMT-02-29, Revision 1, Kewaunee RTSR / 7.4% Uprating -

Reactor Coolant Loop (RCL) and Pressurizer Surge Line Evaluation, November 2003, SI File No. 0900090.201.

12. Westinghouse Document No. WCAP-16040-NP, NSSS andBOP Licensing Report, February 2003, SI File No. 0900090.201.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 7

Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

13. Materials Reliability Program: Thermal Cycling Screening and Evaluation Model for Normally Stagnant Non-Isolable Reactor Coolant Branch Line Piping with a Generic Application Assessment (MRP-132), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2004. 1009552. EPRI licensed material (PROPRIETARY).

14. Materials Reliability Program:'Management of Thermal Fatigue in Normally Stagnant Non-Isolable Reactor Coolant System Branch Lines - Supplemental Guidance (MRP-146S), EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2008. 1018330. EPRI licensed material (PROPRIETARY).,

15. SI Calculation Package, Stress Analysis of Charging Nozzle, Rev. 0, October 2009, SI File No. 0900090.303.

16. SI Calculation Package, Charging Nozzle Fatigue Analysis, Rev. 0, November 2009, SI File No. 0900090.304.

17. SI Calculation Package, Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Finite Element Model, Rev. 0, October 2009, SI File No. 0900090.306.

18. Westinghouse Document No. WCAP-12841, Structural Evaluation of the Kewaunee Pressurizer Surge Line, Considering the Effects of Thermal Stratification, March 1991, PROPRIETARY, SI File No. KPS-06Q-201.

19. Westinghouse Document No. WCAP-14950, Mitigation and Evaluation of Pressurizer Insurge/Outsurge Transients, February 1998, PROPRIETARY, SI File No.

0801125.206P.

20. SI Calculation Package, FatiguePro Analysis of Plant Data for Kewaunee Power Station

- through July 2006, Revision 0, SI File No. FP-KNPP-301.

21. Westinghouse Calculation Note No. WPS-07-32, NSP/WPS Surge Stratification Fatigue, SI File No. 0900090.201.

22. SI Calculation Package, Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Loads, Reanalysis, Revision 0, April 2010, SI File No. 0900090.321.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 7-2 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

23. SI Calculation Package, Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Fatigue Analysis, Revision 0, December 2009, SI File No. 0900090.309.

24. SI Calculation Package, Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Fatigue Analysis, Reanalysis, Revision 0, April 2010, SI File No. 0900090.323.

25. SI Calculation Package, Hot Leg Surge Nozzle Stress Analysis, Reanalysis, Revision 0, April 2010, SI File No. 0900090.322.

26. SI Calculation Package, Reactor Coolant System Run Piping Interface Loads for Charging and Hot Leg Surge Nozzles, Revision 0, November 2009, SI File No.

0900090.311.

27. Westinghouse Systems Standard 1.3.F, Nuclear Steam Supply System, Reactor Coolant System Design Transients for Standard Plants with Model F Steam Generators, July 1978, PROPRIETARY, SI'File No. PI-05Q-229P.

28. Westinghouse Systems Standard 1.3.X, Nuclear Steam Supply System, Auxiliary Equipment Design Transients for All Standard Plants, September 1978, PROPRIETARY, SI File No. PI-05Q-229P.

29. Kewaunee License Renewal Project Technical Report KLR-1302, Metal Fatigue of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Aging Management Program, Revision 2, July 3, 2009.

Report No. 0900090.401.RO 7-3 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

ML101610286

Text

SUMMARY

Title:

SUMMARY

2.0 BACKGROUND

6.0 CONCLUSION

7.0 REFERENCES

2.0 BACKGROUND

6.0 CONCLUSION

7.0 REFERENCES

Navigation menu

Search