ML102871091
| ML102871091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/2010 |
| From: | Progress Energy Co |
| To: | Office of Information Services |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2010-0116 | |
| Download: ML102871091 (53) | |
Text
CrysMalRvrc 3, i
201 March 3, 2010 Garry Miller
~ Progress Energy
Agenda o Root Cause-Analysis (RCA) Update o Design Basis Analysis (DBA) Update o De-tensioning Analysis o Repair Activities o Questions o Appendix Slides o SGR Opening Sequence & Identification of Delamination o Condition Assessment Results o CR3 Design Features Graphics O CR3 Dome Repair Historical Photos Think Ret Progress Energy 2
SGR Opening Showing Delamination Boundary SGR Opening Dimensions
@ Liner 23' 6" x 24' 9"
@ Concrete Opening 25' 0" x 27" 0" 3
Eniern
& Reai Wor Flow v" Indicates Completed Task SGT Engineering &
Construction Input (Repair Preparations)
/"
IMPR Calc on LODHR (fuel load)
MPR Tendon Analysis Sequence EC Modl Phase 5 t
Re-Tensioning EC 75221 I
Io~~*
& Concrete
& Post-Repair Placement Testing I
I Permanent Repair
~Pm~esEnery 4
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA)
I UPDATE
&Progress Energy 5
RotCas Anayi o 75 potential failure modes considered o Failure Mode Categories Included:
" Design &Analysis
" Concrete Construction
" Use of Concrete Materials
" Shrinkage, Creep and Settlement
" Chemically or Environmentally Induced Distress
" Concrete - Tendon - Liner Interactions
" SGR Containment Cutting
" Operational Events
" External Events
'7N, iUFW t Progress Energy 6
Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition o Impulse Response (IR) Scans o Boroscopic Inspections o Core bore holes o Inside the delaminated gap o Visual Inspections o Delamination at SGR Opening o Larger fragments from concrete removal process o Containment external surface
.0nkFe.
Progress Energy 7
Root, Cause Analysis Field Data Aýqqyisition (continue o Nearby energized tendons lift-off (vertical and horizontal) o Containment dimension measurements o Strain gauge measurements o Linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) gap monitoring o Building natural frequency ThA q Progress Energy 8
Root Cause Analysis Field Data Acquisition (con tinueo) o Core Bores Laboratory Analyses o Petrographic Examination o Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio o Density, Absorption, and Voids o Compressive Strength, Splitting Tensile Strength, and Direct Tensile Strength o Accelerated Creep Test o Accelerated Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) Test o Chemistry and Contamination Test o Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Examination of Micro-Cracking Q C'FRt.
Progress Energy v
Technical Root Cause Analysis Insights o Design is acceptable for normal operations o Design is acceptable for emergency operations o Original construction is in accordance with design o Containment has not been affected by any historical operational events or external events o Containment has not been affected by any long term chemical and/or environmental distress, ground movement or settling o Delamination occurred as a result of SGR related activities to create an opening in Containment I~~~~
ThnPmet.gress Energy
Tehia otCueAayi o 75 potential failure modes investigated o 65 failure modes have been refuted by PII o Remaining 10 Failure Modes were combined for Root Cause Analysis (with 3D Fracture Analysis and Various Special Tests) to determine their significance (if any) o Failure mode categories already refuted include:
o Concrete Construction o Chemical or Environmental Distress o Concrete -Tendon - Liner Interactions o Operational Events O External Events Tk Progress Energy 11
Ro -ot Cause Anallysmis FEA Modeling 2D MERLIN Code o Originally developed by University of Colorado under an EPRI grant for fracture mechanics analysis of concrete dams o CR3 model is a 2-D vertical slice through centerline of the delaminated "hourglass shape" o Includes stresses from differential creep relaxation effect o Includes "concrete damage plasticity model" for fracture propagation analysis Allows fractures to proceed based on calculated stresses, estimated fracture energy, tensile capacity, and dilation angle I TnkFee*t Progress Energy 12
Root Cause Analysis FEA Modeling - Abaqus-31) Code o CR3 model first developed in NASTRAN and then migrated to Abaqus-3D o CR3 detailed modeling represents 1/2 of delaminated area with symmetry to remaining 1/2 (180 degree model)
" Tendons are explicitly modeled in bay (or panel) 3 - 4 o Remaining bays modeled with global averaged properties o Includes temperature dependent long-term creep o Includes stresses from differential creep relaxation effect o Includes "concrete damage plasticity model" for fracture propagation analysis Allows fractures to proceed based on calculated stresses,
-estimated fracture energy, tensile capacity, and dilation angle NA het Progress Energy 13
3D Abaqus FEA 1800 model 1/2panel 3-4 The layer that appears lighter in shading is the mesh layer that the fracture criterion is applied to, and the mesh is allowed to crack (separate) z 14
Root Cause Analysis FEA Modelinq - Abaqus-311) Code o Abaqus 1800 model was later refined based on improved boundary condition results available from a detailed global 3600 supermodel Global supermodel developed for repair de-tensioning analysis Global supermodel explicitly models all tendons around containment Created new full panel for bay 3-4 (not just 1/2) as new sub-model o Model then refined further to incorporate actual tendon forces during the SGR activities versus design values Based on actual lift-offs measured during tendon surveillance activities Pk Progress Energy 15
Root Cause Analysis FEA Modeling - Abaqus-3D Code (continued) o Model must match 7 real damage conditions:
o Crack opening gap distance & pattern after delamination o Delamination timing occurs before any significant material removal ("mock-up" area) o Delamination occurs in Panel 3 - 4 o No Delamination in Panel 6 - 1 o No Delamination in Panel 2 - 3 o Existing (benign) crack length from high pre-stress o Creep relaxation stress induced crack length
- kFr Progress Energy 16
DRAFT QSGR opening activities cause:
- Stress re-distribution during de-tensioning Additional internal stresses introduced by creep relaxation effect To a lesser extent, hydro-demolition causes further reduction in certain concrete properties (such as fracture energy) due to increased linkage of existing micro-cracking 25' x 27' x 42" concrete removal causes further changes in the wall strength and contributes to the final state of delamination damage Result is localized forces exceeding the fracture criterion, and existing benign non-active small cracks begin to propagate CPWn,s~n 17
DRAFT
- Small (typical -0.4") benign non-active cracks exist at horizontal tendon conduits
" Likely occurred during the initial tensioning Result of pre-stress design values with localized stress concentration
- Long Term Thermal Effects
" Thermal stress and thermal fatigue Southern facing exposure
" Contributes to increased micro-cracking QPmW= Eney 18
DRAFTI
- Containment wall design does not include radial reinforcement except at ring girder and foundation connections Not required for normal or emergency operations w Concrete mix design Florida limestone coarse aggregate Tensile strength and fracture energy Cement % yields higher long term creep Pro~es Enrwgy 19
Horizontal Tendon Conduit Local Stress Analysis - MPR FEA Model External Liner Surface 20
Horizontal Tendon Conduit Local Stress Analysis - MPR Results Maximum Principal Stress Type: Maximum Principal Stress - Top/Bottom Unit: psi Liner Time: 1 1/19/2010 11:16 AM External Surface 1041.3 Max 856.27 671.22 486.16 301.1 116.04
-69.015
-254.07
-439.13
-624.19 Min Containment wall cross section showing two horizontal conduitsI
22
Coarse aggregate Fine aggregt Air bubble IMicrrack The terml "mricro-cracking" refers to very small cracks that fo~rm in coceebut are not visible to the naked eye. Some micro-crackicng occurs as a natural part of the cement hydration process, but it also occurs as compressive loads are applied. Bond cracks form where the coarse a and the cement meet.
n2 fes Eeg 23
Osere ditibto of micro-crackin 60.00 50.00 40.00 0 30.00 2.2 20.00 10.00 0.00
-4Core 35
--*- Core 18 Core 25 0
2 4
6 8
10 12 Depth, Inches 14 16 18 20
% Micro-cracks is a relative parameter determined by overlaying all micro-cracks lengths in one direction compared to the total length viewed in that same direction (at 15 X magnification)
P r U FU S-6 Energ 24
Sequence of Events Summary Flow Initial Construction
& Tensioning I4 Long-Term Effects I
Localized high stresses at hoop conduits form small cracks during initial tensioning On occasion, thermal stresses (when hot outside, cool inside) contribute to additional small crack development II Stress re-distributior and concentration from:
" De-tensioning
" Creep relaxation
- Concrete removal (hydro-blasting to a mu lesser extent)
I Dlus I
Effects of SGR Activities Crack Initiation and Propagation I
I I
U ch Crai Prc De U
q I
F, Thermal stress (hot outside, cool inside during SGR activities) ck Initiation,
)pagation &
lamination AA M
k I
4 Localized micro-cracking propagation from hydro-blasting No Radial Reinforcement
DESIGN BASIS ANALYSIS My Mgm esEnerg 26
Design Basis o Reinforced Post-Tensioned Concrete Structure o Live and Dead Loads o Wind (11 Omph @ 30' increasing to 179 mph @ 166'10')
o Tornado Wind (300 mph) o Tornado pressure (external pressure of 3 psig) o Tornado Missiles (35' utility pole or I ton car @ 150 mph) o Seismic (OBE - 0.,05 and SSE - 0. 10) o Temperature Loads o Accident Pressure (55 psig) o Accidental Containment Spray Actuation Press (- 6.0 psig)
I hikFRet Progress Energy 27
IVIPR Design Basis Analysis Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Model Details Meshat Rir IModeling of Tendons Composite FEA Moele
- i!i*ii!i0 Z 15 vi**!i~q' iil lo W9o.n Mesh at Foundation connection 28
.M..PR Design Basis Analysis Modeling Steps
- Existing Design Cases for Comparison
" Gravity (.95 G)
- Internal Dead Load (200 psf)
Tendons (1635 kips / tendon) 0 Include losses Internal Pressure (55.0 psi)
Wind Pressure (0.568 psi)
Seismic Accident Thermal
- Planned Analysis Steps 0 Dead Load + Tendons Remove Hoop + Vertical Tendons in SGR Opening I
Remove SGR Opening Delamination(1 )
L -
Remove Additional Hoop &
Vertical Tendons Replace the SGR plug and membrane Re-tension Tendons SAVE Path Dependent Model for Starting point to Run 5 Controlling Design cases (1)Analysis considers timing of delamination and specific concrete properties from the root cause analysis Pmg=s Enery 29
MPR Design Basis Analysis
-D-esi-gn Basis Contro -Ili -ng L -oad Steps o Restart the Re-tensioned Model and solve the following Controlling Load Steps (for acceptability at return-to-service and end-of-life)
O 1.5 Internal Pressure + Accident Thermal o Initial results are included in de-tensioning MPR calculation, but will be superseded in final re-tensioning MPR calculation O 1.25 Wind + 1.25 Pressure + Accident Thermal o 1.25 Earthquake + 1.25 Pressure + Accident Thermal o 2.0 Wind + Pressure + Accident Thermal O SSE Earthquake + Pressure + Accident Thermal o MPR results are incorporated into a Progress Energy EC Modification with a 50.59 review
- k-0 T.
Progress Energy 30
MPR Design Basis Analysis Examples of Modeling for De-tensioning Tendon Scope Detensioned State - Vertical Tendons Hoop Tendons Detensioned State Scope depicted:
Red - Energized tendon 150 Horizontal Blue - De-tensioned tendon 32 Vertical 0
Dome N
Progess Energy 31
MPR Design Basis Analysis Examples of De-tensioned and Re-tensioned Stress Analysis ANSYS II.OSPI JAN 19 2010 12:10:58 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=16 SUB =1 TIME=7 SY (AVG)
TOP RSYS=5 DMX =2.228 SMN =-4712 SMX =3720
-4712 1800
-1400
-1000
-600
-200 0
443 800 Section 1
, Section 7 Section 9
- Section 8 ANSYS 11.0SPI JAN 19 2010 14:52:59 NODAL SOLUTION STEP=16 SUB =1 TIME=14 Sl (AVG)
TOP DMX =2.086 SMN =-956.353 SMX =7733
-100 522.222 55.556 133.333 211.111 288.889 366.667 444.444 S522.222 600 Detensioned State -
Hoop Stress Thermal Accident + 1.5*Pressure Analysis of stresses while de-tensioned with SGR opening and delamination removed (preliminary results for hoop stresses)
Analysis of stresses after repair and upon completion of rn-tensioning (preliminary results for 1.5 x LOCA pressure plus Acient Thermals)
Scope depicted:
150 Horizontal 32 Vertical 0
Dome
ý P m-A-FU s Biemg 32
DE-TENSIONING ANALYSIS QProgress Energy 33
De-tensioning Analysis Summary of-Changes resultin ' g from ---
P1111 -C -ross-Check o MPR proposed scope from Design Basis Analysis (DBA) o 150 horizontals o 32 verticals o 6 passes = H, V, H, V, H, H o Revised scope (option 1OE) after PII de-tensioning cross-check o 155 horizontals... but some specific tendons were added, and other specific tendons deleted o 64 verticals o 10passes= V, H, V, H, H, H, H, V, H o Option 10 F under development o Incorporates 11 passes o Applicable MPR calcs being revised, followed by EC revision for revised tendon scope / sequence STket.
Pmgress Energy 34
GlblSu per
- .*l Su
-Mode Fe
- r o Global Model is a tendon-by-tendon model, which provided 360 degree detailed stress analysis o NASTRAN - 30 million degrees of freedom o Detailed Fracture Sub-Model Models tendon-by-tendon, but only covers a panel (1/6 of containment cylinder wall) o Abaqus o Calculates margin to fracture
~nk~ekCZ Pmagress Energy 35
0_ý%
ANIk R Peet Global supermodel is used to run proposed tendon sequence/scope cases. The output results are then migrated to the various Abaqus panel sub-models for fracture margin analysis.
C rmgrm Enemy
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-0: Un-deformed 8, INL PrnckuI (Mua: 75W I 16.670101
+3.399+01
-LODG+I
-1.1330+02
+U.
UI(d
+0.0=~0
+0 000+00
+O.00Om4+00
+to000100+0
+0.0001+o0 I~umdVr:
U Odbam*Mon Swim Fmctr: +1.000@-02 n IPW~s Enery
%8w~yVw
, MaZ. Mncd Ddamm Vr: U Z.nnm=a Solm Fatm~: +1A000m402 37
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-1: Current Condition SPb. Pr IndkuI (Ava: ISM
+1.3a*+02 II 1.00I 102
-L0000+02
-1Wi+I U, U1 CbdtuI)
S-UzS.-ui
-4.*ak-0l 4h23a9-0l
-8.2780-01
-13238+00G
-1A918+0O
-1.5wu6+00
-1 m3ab+0
-1.9604+00 DaiVý:
UDb vi& a Swi F@mbX: +1.aGO.+02 Mdmwy Wr. U, UlALdwd),
r mda Vir: U Sau o
lo Swi bm r: +1.0008-02 Rog=s Energ 38
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-2: Pass I S. Iez. hinckni
(~Av: 73W I 1.000a 102
+6.6670+01
-0.6570+01
-Loooc+02
-I ZTh~+(
U, U1 (lad Wi)
-4.79141-01
-7 01-O
-126086+00
-1A4710+00l
-1.9210+00 X;I U, U1
~r~
r: U
+.00C Wnr Vi:. Max. Pnclpd DdanadVa: U DakrnuUa Sula Facbm: +1.0006+02 C'm,,
o Enevy 39
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-3: Pass 2 (Avg: 73W
+Lma I L.00001 02
-i33v+U1
-0.0076+01
-LODODm+0 U, U1 CRedlol)
-4.U.I-01
-4.17OL-01
-1.2276+00
-1.50170+00
-1.Y(VPh+0fl
-1A60+00 D~nndVr: U OdnAmtu~n Sok Ibct: 4-1.000&-02
~Mmd r': U"D~nb.Uat 8=16 Fa~ta: +1M000.-0 Q -m), snergy-40
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-4: Pass 3 S. IL dnCkuII (Avy: IMM
+L.336+02
+1.0000+02
+G.17a01+0
-3J33+01
&66.76+O1
-L0002+02 U, U1 (Radbi)
-7.583-01
-1.a686+00
-1.3IU+00
-1 h7c)P+OO 1A226+00 Pr1,r abap Mme Mi.:.
M~uu DealdVir:j U D~m.Ua Swim RtAr: i-1=08~+02
=ILr:
U DIbfamdton &min Fbctr: +1.000a-02 Ir-s EnErvy
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-5: Pass 4 U, U1 (Radili)
-SAIUIS-01
-4.1OL~-01
-7.73f-01
-12398+00
-LS4Sm+00
-1.71M1+00
-lM08+00 Dd'armm Va Lu Dd abnk SmIm uc: +1.0001+0 Mm1.,
Stop U
1
=,%medVr: UU69fl Scale~o 1mb tr: l1.U000m-02 PmW=es Enegy
-7 Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-6: Pass 5 S. NIL Mnculw
+LJ3.8+0a 111.0000102
-2.0074+01 Ddarm~V SWr:
U k
1.nUnSwmFcr +.01 U, U1 Cbdbl)
-3.7408-01
-4.9902.-O
-L.000u+00
-1.1256+00
%,mdVir:Ul t~A%=ItUn Swim FacW: +1.0001-CM r mgess Enery 43
Example of Sub-Model Ana*lys*is- (Opt*io 10] E)
S. Max. PRilcld (fM: 75%)
1-1.Sh-0wt-1 1.000. I12 3-SA3lm+01
-0.0.7.I-01
- Lo0a0+=
-1.vltl'O 18081 U, U1 CbdlIl)
-2.43-01
-9*N4101 iLIM 100
-1.22.+00
- t*8 4
Primry Wr: A, MNo. Pnnimd Odarmad Wr U Ddrnml Siale Factfr: +I.000&e-02
=
W:r.
U, lG 1
1 Scal. FI:tr: +1.0002-02 c m~ssney 44
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-8: Pass 7 S. NIL. MucrId (ftg 7W4b 4+-666704.01
-CLOO0.+02 DdrvmdVr. U DbnaSmim Fmctir: +1.000&4.02 U. U1 (PbdMl)
-3ASY.-01
-1oGG6.+00
~nnd Vr: U 9ann on Soki.
dmr: +1.000@-02
- CPlo, Eevy 45
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-9: Pass 8 U. U1 (Radial)
-2.573L-vma
-7.0259-01
-1.15.4.00
-1.4~ppaon
-1.258+00 PI~r ~r:R, MY.. Mnm*ud SmmdWr: U Ddam~tion Swim Fmtcbr: +lA000.402
~E1, ma Tlme -
1 amyr U, U Pdd D~nmd r: U Ddbmwt~on Swms Faftr: +1.000a-02
-ors Energy 46
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61,, Step-10: Pass 9 CAwa: 73W I 1.000M 102
+5."764.0l
-0.007m4+01 1Th+IM U, U1 (Rodlul)
-2.170!-al
-6410.-al
-1.oqlp+0o 101 pang
~4a U. UI LRndho D~ome Vr: U Odtmidbn Sole a lcm: +1.000a-02
%=W~dVa:
U DeftinuUa Sole Fbcr: +1.0(10+0 ProgressPmW Enery 47
Example of Sub-Model Analysis (Option 10 E)
Panel 61, Step-11: Pass 10 U, U1lCRodki)
+L7431-01
+4A66.-O2 G0.22k-Oi
-7.3168-01 4.6.10.-0l 87hps Piriry MAr:, A mix. Mnar~vd DafamudYou. U DwrintoWN 8whi Fbctr: +1AO00v+02 Xj ftwv WnVr: UI =1o Sale Fact~r: +1.000a-02 I; rognpss Energy.
48
Stress psi Stenth Panel 56 Pass 10 78 psi 61%
H30 Panel 12 Pass 10 87 psi 57%
H28 Prlogress Energy 49
REPAIR ACTIVITIES Progress Energy 50
Engineering & Repair Work Flow V Indicates Completed Task SGT Engineering &
Construction Input (Repair Preparations)
I MPR Calc on LODHR (fuel load)
ReinforcementkRe-tensionIng
& Concrete
& Post-Repair Permanent Repair WD r%----
r---
rrogmss CFMq.
0 v
51
Repair Execution De-tensioning 1-.1-.--.I.--
--I Hydraulic detensioner on a horizontal tendon I Horizontal tendons requiring temporary roof opening to access I
I
~Pro~sEnrKM 52
Questions 53