ML11188A195

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Calculation S0VESSELM035 (SIA File No. 1100566.301), Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Weld Flaw Evaluation, Rev. 00.00
ML11188A195
Person / Time
Site: Nine Mile Point Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/28/2011
From:
Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, Nine Mile Point
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML11188A195 (22)
v • d • e


Text

ATTACHMENT NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1 CALCULATION SOVESSELM035 (SIA FILE NO. 1100566.301)

REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL HEAD FLAW EVALUATION REVISION 00.00 Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC June 28, 2011

ATTACHMENT 2, CALCULATION CHANGE NOTICE (CCN) COVERSHEET A. INITIATION (Use separate form for each product change) Page 1 of 21 SITE (CHECK ONE): CCNPP: El NMP: [ REG: El CCN No.: ADC-1 1-000418-CN-001 Revision No.: 00.00 SOVESSELM035-00.00 Calculation IQ: SOVESSELM035 Revision No. 00.00

Title:

Add Flaw Evaluation for Head Flange Circ Weld RV-WD-001 ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE: El Civil El Instr. & Controls [E Nuclear El Electrical 0 Mechanical El Other Unit: 0 1 El 2 El COMMON Safety Class 0 SR El AUGMENTED QUALITY El AQ B. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES:

THIS CCN ADDS ANOTHER FLAW EVALUATION TO THE EXISTING CALCULATION FOR HEAD FLANGE WELD RV-WD-001.

C. JUSTIFICATION:

THE FLAW EVALUATION FOLLOWS A SIMILAR APPROACH USED IN THE FLAW EVALUATION CURRENTLY CONTAINED IN THE PARENT CALC FOR Rv-WD-005. THE FLAW EVALUATION IS PERFORMED PER THE RULES OF ASME CODE SECTION xi, 2004 EDITION.

D. AGGREGATE REVIEW:

Number of Open Change Notices against the Calculation: 1 Conclusion on Aggregate Impact: No aggregate impact because the flaws are in different welds El YES

  • No Should the Calculation be revised to incorporate all AS BUILT CCNs? If Yes, initiate a Calculation to revise it. Tracking ID: If No, provide Justification below:

Justification: Allowed up to 5 CCNs per procedure and this is the first.

E. REVIEW AND APPROVAL:

Responsible Engineer: S.S. Tang (SIA) 4-20-11 (Printed Name and Signature) Date:

Is Design Verification Required? El Yes 0 No If yes, Design Verification Form is El Attached El Filed with:

Independent Reviewer: D.G. Dijamco (SIA) 4-20-11 (Printed Name and Signature) Date:

Approval: G.A. Miessi (SIA) 4-20-11 (Printed Name and Signature) Date:

V StructuralIntegrity Associates, Inc. Project File No.:No.: 1100566 1100566.301 CALCULATION PACKAGE Quality Program: 0 Nuclear El Commercial PROJECT NAME:

NMP 1 RPV Closure Head Flaw Evaluation CONTRACT NO.:

7722769, Rev. 0 CLIENT: PLANT:

Constellation Energy Nine Mile Point Unit I CALCULATION TITLE:

Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Flaw Evaluation Document Affected Project Manager Preparer(s) &

Revision Pages Revision Description Approval Checker(s)

Signature & Date Signatures & Date 01 -20 Original Issue S. S. Tang G. A. Miessi SST 4/20/11 GAM 4/20/11 D. G. Dijamco DGD 4/20/11 Page 1 of 20 F0306-O1R1

5s ucur lategrity Associates, Inc.

Table of Contents 1.0 IN TRODU CTION ..................................................................................................... 4 2.0 M ETHOD OLOGY .................................................................................................. 4 3.0 IND ICA TION D ESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 4 4.0 A SSU MPTION S ....................................................................................................... 5 5.0 CALCULA TION S ................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Geom etry and M aterials Com parison ................................................................ 5 5.2 Stress Comparison ........................................................................................ 6 6.0 RESULTS OF AN ALY SIS ...................................................................................... 7 6.1 Flaw Characterization ................................................................................. 7 6.2 A llowable Flaw Size .................................................................................... 7 6.3 Projected 60 years End of Life Evaluation ........................................................ 8 6.3.1 End of Life FractureToughness ................................................................... 8 6.3.2 Considerationof Crack Growth to End of EvaluationPeriod.................... 8 7.0 CON CLU SION ........................................................................................................ 9 8.0 REFEREN CES ....................................................................................................... 10 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 2 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-01RE

jral Integrity Associates, Inc?

List of Tables Table 1: Closure Head Stress from Reference 3 ..................................................................... 11 Table 2: Closure Head Stress from Reference 5 ................................................................ 12 Table 3: Comparison of Closure Head Stresses ................................................................ 13 Table 4: Revised Head Tensioning Stresses at Cut 5 ........................................................ 14 Table 5: Comparison of BoltUp Stresses ............................................................................. 14 Table 6: Allow able Flaw Size (in) ...................................................................................... 15 List of Figures Figure 1. Sketch of Indication in RPV Closure Head Weld RV-WD-O0 1............ ........... 16 Figure 2. NMP I Closure Head Weld Identification [91 ................................................... 17 Figure 3. Stress Analysis Model in Reference 5 ............................................................... 18 Figure 4. Cut Line Location [6] ......................................................................................... 19 Figure 5. Closure Head Circumferential Flaw Acceptance Diagrams .............................. 20 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 3 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI:

mructura lategrfiy Assocates, Inc?

1.0 INTRODUCTION

During the 2011 spring outage, reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head examination, an indication was observed in the circumferential weld RV-WD-001, between the head flange and the closure head in Nine Mile Point, Unit I (NMP1), [1]. The indication is located in the segment from azimuth 0' to 120'.

The objective of this calculation is to perform a flaw evaluation of the observed indication to assess the structural integrity of the RPV closure head.

2.0 METHODOLOGY The evaluation is based on the methodology presented in Reference 2. Reference 2 performed an evaluation of the indication which is located in the vicinity of meridional weld RV-WD-005 of the closure head. The evaluation in Reference 2 made use of the results from the Flaw Acceptance Handbook for Oyster Creek [3].

The use of Reference 3 is justified in Reference 2. Thus, in this evaluation, the allowable flaw size calculated in Reference 3 for the RPV closure head circumferential weld is used.

The flaw evaluation is performed per the rules of ASME Code Section XI, 2004 Edition [4]. The Oyster Creek flaw handbook was performed using the 1989 edition of ASME Code Section XI. However, the flaw evaluation equations implemented between the two Code editions have not changed.

3.0 INDICATION DESCRIPTION The reported indication is shown in Figure 1 [1] with the dimensions as follows:

Wall thickness t, at the indication section: 5.4783 inches Clad thickness, tclad: 0.2136 inches Closure head radius, r: 106.5016 inches [10]

Indication depth: 1.2319 inches Indication length: 79 inches The section thickness, t, where the indication is located is calculated as 3.2144+2.2639 =5.4783 inches.

It should be noted that the closure head radius is listed for information only. It is not used in any calculation in this analysis.

The indication is in the circumferential weld RV-WD-001, Figure 2 [9], started from RV-WD-004 and stopped at RV-WD-005, View 1A-1IA in Figure 2.

File No.: 1100566.301 Page 4 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI:

j fcturaI Intgriiy Associates, Inc?

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are used in the flaw evaluation:

1. The flaw is assumed to be elliptical in shape.
2. Failure mode is assumed to be linear elastic fracture mechanics.
3. The plastic zone correction factor is assumed to be negligible.
4. The fluence at the top head is assumed to be negligible.

5.0 CALCULATIONS The flaw handbook for Oyster Creek Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) [3] was used to evaluate the indication in the circumferential weld between the closure head and the upper flange of NMP1 due to the availability of a detailed finite element model for Oyster Creek, since the RPV of the two plants are nearly identical.

The validity of using the Oyster Creek RPV flaw handbook was based on the comparison of the associated RPV geometries and stresses as documented in Reference 2.

5.1 Geometry and Materials Comparison The detailed geometry and materials comparison was documented in Reference 2. A summary is reproduced here for completeness:

"A comparison of the two RPV geometries and materials was performed and is summarized below:

" Vessel closure head materials, SA-302 Gr. B, are the same for both plants.

  • The limiting RTndt for the top head material (for Region B) for Oyster Creek is 45 0F. Per Reference 11, the limiting RTndt for the top head material for NMP1 is 40'F.

" The dimensions of the Oyster Creek finite element model are shown .... These dimensions are identical to those found on the final machining drawing applicable to NMP 1.

Based on the above, the Oyster Creek flaw handbook results are applicable and bounding for application to NMP 1 from a materials and geometry point-of-view."

The allowable bolt-up temperature for NMP 1 has been revised to 70'F whereas the flaw Oyster Creek flaw handbook was based on 90'F and 546°F bolt-up conditions. However, the allowable stress intensity factor used in the flaw handbook is appropriate for application to the NMP 1 closure head circumferential weld based on the following:

File No.: 1100566.301 Page 5 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI.

!7WrUcr I tegri/y Associates, Inc?

1- As stated above, in the flaw handbook, the RTND- used for the closure head region is the bounding value of 450 F, which corresponds to the torus shell. The limiting RTNDT for NMP 1 closure head is 400 F. Therefore, for NMP1, KIa would be 46.0 ksi-inA0.5 at 70'F vs. 49.0 ksi-inA0.5 at 85°F used in the handbook. This relatively small difference is not expected to significantly impact the results of the analyses, in light of other conservative assumptions used in the flaw evaluation.

2- Kia was used in the flaw handbook. Since the technical basis 2005 PVP paper for revised flaw acceptance criteria [13], Ki. is being used instead of KIa, as coded in the 2007 edition of the ASME Code. K1 r is larger than KIa and, if it had been used, it would yield larger allowable flaw sizes.

3- The wall thickness used in the flaw handbook is smaller than the actual thickness at the circumferential weld location (4.3" vs.5.5"). The thicker weld would have larger allowable flaw sizes.

5.2 Stress Comparison A comparison of the stresses for the two RPVs was performed. Table 1 presents the stresses in region B of the closure head from Reference 3. In Reference 3, Region B includes torus axial weld, closure head torus, torus plate/closure flange weld and closure flange forging. Table 2 presents the stresses in the closure head from Reference 5. Table 3 summarizes the comparison on the axial stresses between NMP 1 and Oyster Creek. For Oyster Creek, the stress results in Reference 3 are presented for each stress component from individual load cases. For NMP1, results are presented for primary and secondary stress categories for each service condition. Element 2-Cut 2 in Table 2 was selected based on the description of the model in Reference 5, Figure 3. This element-cut is judged to be the most representative for the circumferential weld between the head and flange forging.

In general, the stresses are comparable. This can be shown in the bolt-up load cases from Oyster Creek versus the preload cases from NMP1 listed in Table 3. The results presented for NMP1 in Table 3a are component stresses for load combinations identified as "Primary+Secondary" in the heading of the original stress results table (Table 2). The stresses in the Oyster Creek column are component stress for individual load cases from the flaw handbook report [3]. Table 3b shows that the bolt-up axial stresses from the original stress reports for Oyster Creek and NMP- 1 are the same and smaller than those used in the Oyster Creek flaw handbook.

In addition, for the emergency condition, Oyster Creek had a higher temperature rate compared to NMP 1.

Therefore, the secondary stress from Oyster Creek analysis is higher. Thus, the use of Oyster Creek stresses in the evaluation of the indication in NMP1 closure head circumferential weld indication is conservative.

From Reference 6, it is shown that Cut 5, in Figure 4, is at the junction between the head dome and the head vessel flange. Thus, the stresses (from Case Half High/Half Low) at this cut were obtained from the revised tensioning procedure as shown in Table 4 and compared to the maximum stress from the design case.

A comparison to the stresses from Reference 6 for the revised bolting procedure of the vessel head is performed and summarized in Table 5. For the revised tensioning processing, the maximum, minimum and File No.: 1100566.301 Page 6 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-01R1

Vj amnftni finteg*f Associates, Inc?

average stresses from the stresses at different azimuth locations are presented. Since the indication is rather long, the average meridional membrane and bending stresses are more appropriate for the purpose of comparison. It is shown that the stresses at this cut are lower than the design case and the bolt-up case from the Oyster Creek flaw handbook evaluation shown in Table 3.

The primary stress limits were considered in the development of the flaw handbook [3]. Thus, the local area reduction of the pressure retaining membrane that is equal to the area of the characterized flaws is already accounted for in the acceptance diagrams.

6.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS 6.1 Flaw Characterization Per Figure IWA -3320-1 of ASME Code Section XI [4], an indication can be characterized as subsurface flaw ifS > 0.4a. From Figure 1, the indication depth 2a is 1.2319 inches. The edge of the indication is S=1.9846 inches from the base metal surface, with 0.4a = 0.4*(1.2319/2) = 0.2464 inches. Thus S is larger than 0.4a. The indication can be characterized as subsurface flaw per Section XI rules.

The eccentricity is calculated as t/2-(S+a) = 5.4783/2 - (1.9846+1.2319/2) =0.1386 inches. Thus, e/t is 0.1386/5.4783 = 0.0253.

The other subsurface flaw parameters are calculated as follow:

Crack depth 2a = 1.2319 inches Crack length I = 79 inches Crack aspect ratio 2a/l = 0.0156 Per Table IWB-3510-1 of ASME Code,Section XI, with S/a = 1.9846/(1.2319/2) =3.2 leading to Y =1 per Note (4) of Table IWB-3510-1, the allowable flaw for examination is 2% of the wall thickness. The indication size has a/t = 1.2319/5.4783 = 0.23 (23%). Thus, the indication is not acceptable per acceptance standard for examination.

6.2 Allowable Flaw Size The allowable flaw sizes for the subsurface circumferential flaw in the RPV closure head for e/t = -0.04 and 0.08 are obtained from Reference 3 and presented in Figure 5.

The allowable flaw size for a crack aspect ratio of 0.0156 and crack eccentricity e/t of 0.0253 are obtained from Figure 5 and summarized in Table 6. To account for the uncertainty of whether the resultant stress is tensile or compressive on the inside surface under different load combinations, the allowable flaw sizes in File No.: 1100566.301 Page 7 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI:

V&Wt ifitegrdiyAssocates, lncW Table 5 are presented for both e/t = 0.0253 and -0.0253. The allowable flaw size of 2a is interpolated to be 1.99 inches and 2.15 inches for e/t = 0.0253 and e/t = -0.0253, respectively.

The current inspected indication size is 1.2319 inches which is less than the minimum allowable flaw size of 1.99 inches.

6.3 Projected 60 years End of Life Evaluation 6.3.1 End of Life FractureToughness For the RPV closure head, the fluence is negligible. Hence, the fracture toughness Kia at the circumferential weld in the vessel closure head would remain essentially the same through the remaining operational life of the plant. In addition, the limiting RTndt of the NMP 1 top head material is lower than the RT.,dt of the Oyster Creek top head material. Thus, the fracture toughness used in the Oyster Creek flaw handbook evaluation is applicable to NMP 1 for an end of life of 60 years.

6.3.2 Considerationof Crack Growth to End of EvaluationPeriod The crack growth for the end of evaluation period is calculated based on conservative estimate. For low alloy steel, the upper shelf fracture toughness is typically taken as 200 ksiiin [8]. For normal operating conditions, the safe factor is /10 for the acceptance criteria based on applied stress intensity factor per IWB-3612 [4]. Thus, the applied stress intensity factor K could not be larger than 200/4f10 = 63.25 ksi/in.

From Reference 7, it is shown that the additional operating cycles for 46 EFPY (projected end of life value for 60 years of operation) is 463 cycles.

Per A-4300 of Appendix A [4], for a subsurface flaw, the air crack growth law is:

da/dN = Co(AK)n where n 3.07 C.= 1.99x10'°S S= 25.72*(2.88-R)"3 7 Assuming a R ratio of 0.9 with a AK at the allowable Kia of 63.25 ksiNJin the crack growth based on the Reference 4 crack growth rate in air is:

Aa = 1.99xl 0"1*[25.72*(2.88-0.9)-3°7] *(63.25)3-07 *463= 9.84xl 0-2 in Therefore, the end of evaluation period crack size af is File No.: 1100566.301 Page 8 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI

ankr.l [dteg* Associates. Inc?

af = 1.2319+2*9.84x102 = 1.43 inches The end of evaluation period crack size of 1.43 inches is still less than the allowable flaw size of 1.99 inches. Thus the indication is acceptable.

7.0 CONCLUSION

A flaw evaluation was performed for the indication in NMPI RPV closure head weld RV-WD-001 per the acceptance criteria in Reference 4. The evaluation follows the similar approach used in Reference 2. The end of evaluation period of 60 years was used. The allowable flaw depth for the circumferential flaw in the RPV closure head weld was calculated to be 1.99 inches.

It is shown that the final crack size at the end of evaluation period is still below the allowable flaw size.

Thus, the indication is acceptable for continued operation.

File No.: 1100566.301 Page 9 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI:

jwncMI Infetj Assciates; Inc?

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Inspection Reports
a. Condition Report, 'UT Flaw Detected in RPV Closure Head to Flange Weld,' No. CR-201 1-003409, 4/7/2011, SI File 1100566.201.
b. Supplement Report, Report No. ISI-UT-l1-011, SI File 1100566.201.
2. Structural Integrity Report, 'Nine Mile Point Unit 1 RPV Closure Head Flaw Evaluation,' SIR 036, Rev. 0, July, 2003 (NMP Calc. No. SOVESSELM035).
3. Structural Integrity Report, 'Flaw Acceptance Handbook for Oyster Creek Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell-Weld Inspections,' SI Report No. SIR-00-109, Revision 1, SI File No. GPUN-27Q-402/NMP-05Q-114.
4. 'Rules for In-service Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components,Section XI, 'ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, 2004 Edition, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
5. Combustion Engineering Report No. CENC- 1142, 'Analytical Report for Niagara Mohawk Reactor Vessel,' SI File No. NMP-05Q-210 (NMP Calc. No. SOVESSELM026).
6. Dominion Engineering Inc., Document Number R-3661-00-1, Revision 0, February 2003, 'Reactor Vessel Tensioning Optimization Stress Report Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generation Station Unit 1,'

SI File No. NMP-05Q-213 (NMP Calc No. S0.ORXVESTUD02).

7. Structural Integrity Letter Report, 'Flaw Proximity Assessment for Nine Mile Point RPV Flaw Evaluation,' SI File NMP-05Q-406.
8. Cipolla, R. C., Wichman, K. R., 'Technical Basis for Revised Flaw Acceptance Criteria Under IWB-3610 of ASME Section XI,' Paper No. PVP2005-71718, Proceedings of PVP, ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Denver, CO.
9. Niagara Mohawk Drawing, 'Weld Map Reactor Vessel,' Drawing # F-45183-C, 3-N2.1-M83.6, 28, SI File NMP-05Q-210.
10. Niagara Mohawk Drawing, 233-575-3, SI File NMP-05Q-210.
11. Niagara Mohawk Specification, 'Reactor Pressure Vessel,' Specification No. 21A1 104, Rev. 0, 1/22/1964, SI File No. 1100566.202.
12. Combustion Engineering Report No. CENC-1 143, 'Analytical Report for Jersey Central Reactor Vessel,' SI File No. NMP-05Q- 116.
13. PVP2005-71718, Proceedings of PVP2005, 2005 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, "Technical Basis for Revised Flaw Acceptance Criteria under IWB-3610 of ASME Section XI," July 17-21, 2005, Denver, Colorado USA.

File No.: 1100566.301 Page 10 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRIl

j njftcral IItegriy Assoc/ates, Inc.!

Table 1: Closure Head Stress from Reference 3 Region B - Closure Head Torus Hoop Stress Through-Wail Pressure, Bo/tup Thennal Transient(KSI) Transient Temperature CF)

NODE Distance 0 0 in. I Load KSI (90'F)KSI Heatup (546jF1 (100 F/hr) C14

(-I00down F/hr) E9m. Blowd7wn

(-1056-F/hr) Heatup C9down Emergency Blowdown 342 0.000 9.291 2.081 2.328 -19.462 19.462 27.658 537.3 98.7 370.1 361 0.560 9.298 3.754 4.199 -17.062 17.062 19.525 528.9 107.1 372.2 360 1.111 9.313 5.367 6.003 -14.889 14.889 12.845 521.2 114.9 374.2 359 1.672 9.326 6.941 7.764 -12.895 12.895 7.394 514.0 122.1 376.2 358 2.223 9.337 8.491 9.497 -11.084 11.085 3.024 507.3 128.7 378.1 357 2.773 9.348 10.033 11.222 -9.459 9.458 397 501.3 134.7 379.9 356 3.334 9.362 11.576 12.948 -8.021 8.021 -2.992 495.9 140.1 381.7 355 3.885 9.377 13.119 14.674 -6.774 6,775 -4.870 491.2 144.8 383.3 354 4.445 9.394 14.664 16.403 -5.737 5.737 -6.117 487.2 148.8 384.8 353 4.996 9.424 16.240 18.165 -4.942 4.942 -6.798 484.1 151.9 386.0 352 5.556 9.443 17.590 19.675 -4.411 4.412 -6.969 482.2 153.8 386.8 Axial Stress I Through-Wall Pressure Boltup Thermal Transient (KSI) Transient Temperature (F)

NODE Distance Load KSI Heatup Cooldown Em. Blowdown Heatup Cooldown Emergency 7 m. KSI 1 (90-F (546°F (00Fhr) / (-I0°F/hr) (-1056F'/hr) Blowdown 342 0.000 9.668 -24.1 -26.9 -4.445 4.444 20.357 537.3 98.7 370.1 361 0.560 9.674 -18.7 -20.9 -3.082 3.082 13.084 528.9 107.1 372.2 360 1.111 9.667 -13.7 -15.3 -1.918 1.919 7,254 521.2 114.9 374.2 359 1.672 9.632 -90 -10.0 -0.910 0.910 2.635 514,0 122.1 376.2 358 2.223 9.578 -4.4 -5.0 -0.060 0.060 -0.918 507.3 128.7 378.1 357 2,773 9.504 0.0 0.0 0.603 -0.603 -3.510 501.3 134.7 379.9 356 3.334 9,412 4.6 5.1 1.060 -1.060 -5.245 495.9 140.1 381.7 355 3.885 9.317 9.3 10.4 1.287 -1.288 -6.224 491.2 144.8 383.3 354 4.445 9.254 14.6 16.3 1.253 -1.252 -6.528 487.2 148.8 384.8 353 4.996 9.284 20.4 22.8 0.961 -0.961 -6.287 484.1 151.9 386.0 352 5.556 9.309 25.2 28.2 0.739 -0.738 -5.752 482,2 153.8 386.8 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 11 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-01RI

~i1 00

('I

-J ________

I C

I ~ ~

4, 1

, I ____________

~I.

'I 0

r eD eD "I

SE, eo w

a' ~

f"D 01 eD m

eD (A

¶ q

0 0 0 0

C>

jV craIt ldegrity Associates, Inc?

Table 3: Comparison of Closure Head Stresses (a) All Load Cases NMAIa Oyster Creek Axral SAxial Stress from Surface Stress (r) Individual Load Case P+Q (ksi) (ksi)

Pressure Inside n/a 9.668 Outside n/a 9.309 Design Inside -0.8 n/a Outside 23.0 n/a Bolt Up (90'F) Inside n/a -24.1 Outside n/a 25.2 Bolt Up (546°F) Inside n/a -26.9 Outside n/a 28.2 Preload Inside -20.9 n/a Outside 21.7 n/a Steady State Inside -4.5 n/a Outside 22.3 n/a Heat Up (100lF/hr) Inside -17.8 -4.445 Outside 37.9 0.739 CoolDown(100°F/hr) Inside -11.7 4.444 Outside 10.8 -0.738 Em Blowdown (-1056°F/hr) Inside n/a 20.357 Outside n/a -5.752 E.C.(300°F/hr) Inside -3.0 n/a Outside 3.9 n/a (b) Boltup Axial Stresses NMP I CE Oyster Creek Oyster Creek Dominion Head Tensioning Stress Report CE Stress Flaw Handbook Report [6] (at Cut Line 5)

Reference [5] (at Cut II) Report [12] (at [3] (Region B, Cut H) 90-F) Design Case Revised Process Inside Surface Axial Stre -20.9 -20.9 -24.1 0.6 7.6 Axial Stress (ksi)II Outside Surface 21.7 21.7 25.2 16.69 14.03 Axial Stress (ksi) 2 2 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 13 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI:

V5 w , Integrity Associateso 1ncY 1in Table 4: Revised Head Tensioning Stresses at Cut 5 Document No.: R-3661-.O-1 Document Section: Apndix E Revision No.- 0 Attachment Page: 13 of 26 Level I Elongation Tolerance Results - Cut Line 5.

AX/MER AX/MER HOOP HOOP LINE # LIN. NEM. LIN. BEND LIN. MEM. LIN. BEND I. -3528. 14030. 8490. 4842.

2. -3521. 14020. 8482. 4848.
3. -3498. 14000. 8458. 4865.
4. -3458. 13960. 8416. 4895.
5. -3398. 13910. 8352. 4939.
6. -3313. 13840. 8263. 5002.
7. -3198. 13730. 8139. 5085.
8. -3040. 13590. 7971. 5200.
9. -2824. 13390. 7740. 5355.
10. -2521. 13120. 7417. 5570.
11. -2088. 12720. 6958. 5877.
12. -1449. 12140. 6287. 6331.
13. -477. 11280. 5274. 7027.
14. 1031. 9971. 3717. 8118.
15. 3287. 8054. 1401. 9758.
16. 6043. 5719. -1410. 11740.
17. 7641. 4346. -3085. 12790.
18. 6451. 5164. -2013. 11680.
19. 3887. 7028. 476. 9489.
20. 1668. 8550. 2639. 7616.
21. 163. 9544. 4084. 6343.
22. -799. 10150. 4998. 5518.
23. -1421. 10530. 5579. 4977.
24. -1832. 10760. 5958. 4615.
25. -2113. 10920. 6212. 4368.
26. -2308. 11030. 6388. 4197.
27. -2447. 11110. 6511. 4076.
28. -2547. 11160. 6600. 3991.
29. -2617. 11210. 6663. 3931.
30. -2667. 11230. 6707. 3890.
31. -2700. 11250. 6736. 3863.
32. -2718. 11270. 6753. 3848.
33. -2724. 11270. 6758. 3843.

Table 5: Comparison of BoltUp Stresses Head Tensioning Stress (ksi) Design Case Revised Process (Cut 5)

Maximum Average Maximum Minimum Meridional 0.6 -1.0 7.6 -3.53 Membrane Meridional 16.69 11.03 14.03 4.35 Bending 1 File No.:' 1100566.301 Page 14 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI

j WMj 1ra ltegrity Associates, Inc.?

Table 6: Allowable Flaw Size (in)

Eccentricity e/t Crack Aspect Ratio (2a1/) -0.04 0.08 0.0253 -0.0253 0 2.2 1.8 - --

0.1 2.2 1.85 -- --

0.0156 2.2 1.81 1.99 2.15 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 15 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI

-0 Supplemental Report Report No.: ISI-UT-11-011 Page: B of 8 Summary No. 034800 Examiner: Serth, Joseph Level: II-PDI Reviewer: Downs, Bill, Level III Date: .7-j Examiner: NWA Level: NIA Site Review. Peterson. Patrick, Level III Date: 4 )711 Other: NIA Level: NMA ANII Review. Rose&Charles Date:

i ........

Commenits:

Sketch or Photo: S:TCornrrQI-NDEOII-NDE*U RFO'stNIR21Dtasheet Scanned ImagesMRV-WD-O01ASUPP3.aM L=77 Slating at Stud Hole 14.

Figure 1. Sketch of Indication in RPV Closure Head Weld RV-WD-001 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 16 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-01RL:

.0-* b VankuctrapiIntegrity Associates, Inc!

0

%70' viLw IA-IA (CLOSURG HEAD WELD SEAMS) 002

-SECTION~ 2-2 Figure 2. NMP1 Closure Head Weld Identification [9]

Page 17 of20 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 17 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI:

V amrucoru lategrif Associats, Inc?

.... "----c *.=*n * ,i*>"*

5."-o M O-" 7"*# ,

. C:,*;..-&AI-,*'f6w ... . ., .*.* *_ ... i 3""-

  • .; ~ -&e.* r.,,,

0~~ . 'Adm-v

-: l

/-, rr , "*ld

). . -. * ...-.

    • ) ,,* -. .. m,,,

" .c e. .- ,. -

Q.17 Figure 3. Stress Analysis Model in Reference 5 File No.: 1100566.301 Page 18 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRl:

!jwnCftud" I te uiif Associates, Inc?

384,, 3648 8I -i 361 8284 281 264 9 266 ,

6 /\K 249 17' ~241 \ . /219 Si31* P 7i31- -139 71- F7:

2 2

.5 1 1 11 {Itk 15 NMP1 Reactor Vessel Tensioning I Figure 4. Cut Line Location [6]

File No.: 1100566.301 Page 19 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI:

11, 1 i 0 VjjwnicrwI wnegzily Associates, Inic?

Subsurface Circumferential Flaw [e/t = .0.04]

-4*-IWB-3500 --D-Combined IWB-3600/Max Allowable 1.50 i 1.00 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Flaw Aspect Ratio [2a/ll Subsurface Circumferential Flaw [elt = 0.08]

I--*- IW-350--Combined IWB-3600/Max Allowable]

2.50 2.00 - -

S 1.00- -____

0.50 0.00 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Flaw Aspect Ratio [2a/I]

Figure 5. Closure Head Circumferential Flaw Acceptance Diagrams File No.: 1100566.301 Page 20 of 20 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML11188A195&oldid=2548972"