ML13022A048
| ML13022A048 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/17/2013 |
| From: | John Stanley Calvert Cliffs, Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, EDF Group |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RR-ISI-04-08 | |
| Download: ML13022A048 (65) | |
Text
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby, Maryland 20657 CENG a joint venture of Energy o,
CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT January 17, 2013 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Document Control Desk
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-518 Proposed Alternative for Mitigation of Buried Saltwater Piping Degradation (RR-ISI-04-08)
During future refueling outages Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Calvert Cliffs) will be conducting required inspections of our buried Saltwater System piping on both Calvert Cliffs Unit I and Unit 2. The buried Saltwater System piping for both units are American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Inservice Inspection Class 3 systems. In case any of these future inspections identify defects requiring repair it is prudent that Calvert Cliffs submit a proposed alternative repair (RR-ISI-04-08) for Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval. The proposed alternative repair request is contained in Attachment (1).
Since much of the Saltwater System piping runs beneath our turbine building floor, replacement of the buried Saltwater System piping would be a hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety, therefore the proposed alternative repair is submitted for approval in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii). This proposed alternative would be applicable to the repairs of future defects identified in buried portions of our Saltwater System piping throughout the Fourth Ten Year Inservice Inspection Interval.
Calvert Cliffs requests that you complete approval of this alternative repair by August 30, 2013.
However, Calvert Cliffs will conduct inspection of Unit 2 Saltwater System buried piping during its upcoming refueling outage that starts in February 2013. Should this inspection identify the need for this alternative repair, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be contacted for an expedited approval.
kk-r
Document Control Desk January 17, 2013 Page 2 Should you have questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Douglas E. Lauver at (410) 495-5219.
V~qtruly yours, am J.Stanley Manager - Engineering Services JJS/KLG/bjd
Attachment:
(1)
Proposed Alternative for Mitigation of Buried Saltwater Piping Degradation (RR-ISI-04-08)
Enclosure:
1 Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies, Calculation 11-2357-C-003 cc:
N. S. Morgan, NRC W. M. Dean, NRC Resident Inspector, NRC S. Gray, DNR
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08)
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC January 17, 2013
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08) 10 CFR 50.55a Request ISI-04-08, Proposed Alternative In Accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ui)
- 1.
ASME Code Component(s) Affected 30 and 36 inch Inservice Inspection (ISI) Class 3 Buried Saltwater System ductile cast iron piping for Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2.
- 2.
Applicable Code Edition and Addenda
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, 2004 Edition, no Addenda. The original "Code of Construction" of the affected components is United States of America Standards (USAS) B31.1, 1967 Edition as supplemented by the requirements of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A21.1-1967/American Water Works Association (AWWA) C 101-67 and ANSI A21.50-1976 (AWWA C 150-1976).
- 3.
Applicable Code Requirement
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code,Section XI, Subarticle IWA-4300. Allowable activities under IWA-4000 for Class 3 piping involve either weld repairs or replacement. Weld repair is not possible because this buried Saltwater System piping is ductile cast, iron piping.
Replacement of the buried piping is a hardship that poses unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in quality and safety over the proposed alternative 'repair. It is recognized that the proposed alternative repair would fall under the provisions of IWA-4340, whose use is prohibited by 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv). However, the proposed alternative repair is significantly more comprehensive than the provisions provided by IWA-4340.
- 4.
Reason for Request
Calvert Cliffs routinely monitors and inspects Saltwater System components in accordance with the requirements of Generic Letter (GL) 89-13, Service Water Problems Affecting Safety Related Equipment. Calvert Cliffs is currently increasing the level of inspections of buried portions of the system consistent with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)-09-14, Guidelines for the Management of Underground Piping and Tanks. During the February 2013 refueling outage, Calvert Cliffs will inspect buried sections of Unit 2's 30 and 36 inch Saltwater System piping. The intent of these inspections is to supplement visual inspections that routinely occur from the inner diameter (ID) of the piping to determine if there are areas where internal or external degradation is occurring and have not been identified utilizing current inspection methodologies.
Calvert Cliffs will utilize a technology known as Broadband Electromagnetic (BEM) examination to perform these inspections of the piping. This inspection technology will identify potential areas of deterioration that when found can be further identified by nondestructive examination (NDE) methods to provide a more definitive characterization of the flaw.
At this time Calvert Cliffs has no reason to suspect that any conditions exist that do not meet the minimum wall thickness as defined in the design basis calculations of record for the 30 and 36 inch buried Saltwater System piping. However, it is prudent that a method to repair defects in the piping be identified in advance of any inspections, in the event deteriorated conditions are identified.
It should be noted that much of the buried Saltwater System piping to be inspected runs under the 3 feet thick steel reinforced concrete base mat of the Turbine Building. The base mat supports I
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08) numerous equipment and components that are located directly above the path of the buried piping.
In addition there are no welded type repair technologies that can be applied to ductile cast iron piping that are allowed by the original codes of construction USAS B331.1-1967, ANSI A21.1-1967 (AWWA C010-67) and ANSI A21.50-1976 (AWWA C150-1976), or ASME Code Section XI repair rules. As such the only alternatives to eliminate a defect are via direct replacement of the affected component or a mechanical repair.
The reason for this proposed alternative repair is to allow the use of a mechanical repair system to restore pressure boundary integrity for degraded conditions found during inspections. The specific limitations of the repair systems will be governed by conditions identified and those limitations discussed in Section 7.0 below. In general the proposed mechanical repair system will be utilized only for localized degradation in the piping. The direct replacement of this piping to correct relatively minor localized conditions is considered overly burdensome and costly and does not result in a compensating increase in the system's overall level of quality and safety when compared to the proposed mechanical repair alternative.
- 5.
Component Scope The scope of the repair alternative is limited to the buried sections of the 30 and 36 inch Saltwater System ductile cast iron piping. As such, this proposed repair alternative is not applicable for use on any gray cast iron section of the Saltwater System piping.
- 6.
Burden Caused by Compliance There are no approved methods or new technologies that provide an adequate method to weld ductile cast iron piping without adversely affecting the integrity of the base metal. The ductile cast iron Saltwater System is a bell and spigot pipe with fittings that connect to compress the joint gasket.
This consists of a loose flange or gland that is slid over the spigot section of the pipe prior to insertion into the bell. Once inserted into the joint, bolting is installed between the gland and the integrally cast flange on the bell section of piping. The bolting is then tightened to seat the "V" wedge type gasket and thus provide a leak tight joint.
Figure 1 below provides the general configuration of an ANSI/AWWA A2 1.10/Cl 10 style joint.
GbndarLooAwWhuu Used to Seat the Cmdet Figure 1 Repairs and modifications to ductile cast iron pipe must use similar methods of mechanical compression for connectivity. In some cases threaded joints may also be utilized.
2
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08)
The planned comprehensive inspection of the buried Saltwater System piping is being performed by Calvert Cliffs to assess and ensure the long-term integrity of the pipe. During previous internal inspections of the piping, areas of missing or deteriorated cement mortar liner have been identified and the mortar lining repaired. Areas where base metal deterioration has been noted have been minor and have not fallen below minimum wall thickness criteria. At this time Calvert Cliffs has no reason to believe that the integrity or reliability of the buried piping has been compromised. Nor are we aware of any specific areas that may be subject to accelerated degradation due to saltwater corrosion or areas of high stress concentration that could be prone to cracking or fracture. Regarding external corrosion of the pipe there is a protective coating on the piping outer diameter (OD) and this generally provides a barrier from external corrosion. The external condition of the buried piping is passive and is only exposed to low chloride level groundwater.
Therefore, the potential for deterioration on the pipe OD is considered to be negligible. Operating experience of this piping under similar conditions at older power stations has demonstrated good performance over many years.
The examinations to be performed utilizing BEM technology will provide a qualitative assessment of the cross-sectional pipe wall. This exam will identify potential areas of degradation that when found can be further characterized by localized NDE methods.
This intensity of examinations to be performed on the pipe is greater than that required during the original construction. There are no baseline comparisons available and original manufacturing defects may be identified that are inherent and acceptable to this type of piping material.
The construction cost, impact on outage duration, and operational challenges to replace a portion of the buried Saltwater System piping during an outage are substantial. The physical proximity of the Saltwater System piping and the constraints encumbered by interferences located in the Turbine Building make replacement very challenging.
Furthermore, since the Saltwater System is the ultimate heat sink, and replacement would affect both trains of that system it will likely require a full reactor core offload, aligning the unaffected unit to provide cooling to the spent fuel pool and establishing abnormal plant configurations for an extended period of time. Industry experience has shown that the type of degradation usually found in saltwater piping (external or internal) is localized pitting.
Considering the hardship and unusual considerations of a replacement, the proposed repair alternative described and as limited by the constraints below will preserve the structural integrity of the buried Saltwater System piping to an acceptable level of quality and safety.
- 7.
Proposed Alternative and Basis for Use Description of Repair/Replacement The repair/replacement alternative (Figure 2) is a sleeve assembly primarily consisting of a pressure retaining backing plate, an internal rubber gasket and four retaining bands.
The backing plate is made of AL6XN (UNS N08367), a single sheet of 16 gauge sheet metal 14" wide and designed to enclose the entire inside circumference of the 30" and 36" size pipe. It is placed directly over the degraded area on the inner diameter of the pipe to restore pressure boundary integrity.
3
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08)
The rubber gasket is made of Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM). It is factory vulcanized to form one continuous piece and designed to fit the piping inner surface. The gasket is 0.3" thick and about 20" long. The ends of the gasket have grooved ribs. It is placed over the backing plate completely enclosing the entire backing plate and extends beyond each end of the backing plate.
The retaining bands are also made of AL6XN (UNS N08367), 2" wide and 0.1875" thick and ring shaped. Two retaining bands are placed on each end of the gasket and two near the middle where the backing plate is located. To keep the backing plate and the gasket in place and held tightly against the pipe, the retaining bands are radially expanded by a hydraulic expander. The retaining bands are locked in place by wedges also made of AL6XN material. The two end retaining bands compress the groove ends of the gasket against the pipe inner circumference and provide a leak tight seal to prevent water intrusion past the gasket. The two middle retaining bands secure the backing plate in place.
The Saltwater System underground piping has 1/4" cement coating on the inside surface. Prior to installation of the sleeve, the cement coating of the degraded area and its surrounding area will be removed and repaired with an approved sealant. To prevent galvanic corrosion, the outer surface of the backing plate will be wraped with a 1/8" thick rubber gasket so that the stainless steel backing plate does not come in direct contact with ductile cast iron piping. Should water leak under the outer stainless steel retaining bands, it is possible, although unlikely, to have crevice corroison. Therefore, periodic inspections will be performed by disassemblying the sleeve assembly and checking for any detoriotion of the retaining bands, signs of leakage past the gasket, or any other degradation.
Backing Plate EPDM Pipe Gasket Retaining Bands Figure 2 This repair system has been designed consistent with the requirements of the original codes of construction (ANSI B31.1, 1967 Edition). The design calculation (Enclosure 1) qualifies the repair 4
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08) sleeve assembly for the loads applied during installation and operation. The calculation addresses the following:
- 1)
The repair sleeve assembly is capable of restoring pressure boundary of localized pipe wall thinning that can be contained within a 3" diameter area.
- 2)
The friction force created by the retaining bands between the repair assembly and the pipe is significantly larger than the hydrodynamic force of the flowing fluid and seismic loads, and will prevent it from being dislodged.
- 3)
The host pipe can withstand the pressure exerted by the retaining bands during installation, the system design pressure, and the pressure due to thermal expansion/contraction of the retaining bands.
The design calculation determines the following:
- 1)
Contact pressure between the retaining bands, EPDM elastomer seal and the pipe
- 2)
Hoop stresses in the host pipe due to retaining band loads
- 3)
Compressive stress in the retaining band
- 4)
Minimum wall thickness required by the host pipe based on resultant forces of retaining bands
- 5)
Thermal effects on the forces in the retaining band
- 6)
The minimum contact force between the seal assembly and the pipe wall
- 7)
Hydrodynamic loads on the seal assembly for all design basis flow conditions to ensure it stays in place
- 8)
Seismic loads on the sleeve assembly
- 9)
Abnormal loading condition
- 10) Maximum allowable through wall hole size on the pipe
- 11)
Thermal cycles for the retaining bands and the gasket.
5
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR-MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08)
Table 1 below provides a summary of the results from the design calculation.
Table 1 Calculation Results Summary Table for Ductile Iron Pipe
.30 inch Ductile Iron 36 inch Ductile Iron Maximum compressive stress of yield stress at installation in retaining band Required minimum wall thickness of the host pipe tosupport sleeve assemblies Minimum friction force available between the sleeve and the pipe wall to resist seismic and hydrualic loads follows Hydrodynamic load on the assembly with an impact of 2 Hydrodynamic load on the assembly with an impact of 2 at sleeve invert condition Axial direction seismic acceleration required to dislodge sleeve assembly Alternating stress dueto thermal fatigue Maximum flaw size at operating pressure
- cr chk
= 46:5-%
Sy tDI_30min = 0.326 in FfS D130 = 9l2.1bf I
FHYD-30 = 236.1bf FHYDb_ 30 = 305.lbf ASD130 = 82.8.g SALT_DI30 = 1941-psi dfl8w:= 3.09in
- r cit
--. c=
46.5-%
Sy tDI_36mi = 0.348.in Ff1 D136 = 91921bf FHYD_36 = 139-1bf FHYD,a 36 = 186.1bf ASD136 = 83.6g SALT D136 = 1959.psi dfla, = 3.09.in Results:
The calculation demonstrates this repair provides a mechanism to restore pressure boundary integrity by utilizing the reinforcing plate as the new pressure boundary for a locally degraded section of the piping.
This proposed repair system will be applied in cases where degradation has resulted in saltwater piping wall thickness falling below minimum design wall thickness values and is the result of corrosion initiated on the interior diameter of the saltwater piping. This proposed repair system will not be used in cases of discovered cracking or on corrosion that initiated on the external diameter of the saltwater piping. Should either of those cases be discovered, additional analysis would be performed and a separate proposed repair alternative would have to be submitted.
Reconciliation The original code of construction for the subject piping to be repaired is USAS B331.1, 1967 Edition.
However the guidelines provided by USAS B3 1.1 provide little guidance in the design of ductile cast iron piping. This code does allow ANSI/AWWA C115/A21.15 to be used as an alternative for ductile cast iron. The calculation of record for this piping utilizes design guidelines provided by the 6
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08)
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association that is consistent with the requirements of ANSI/AWWA C1 15/A21.15.
As a basis for design, AWWA Manual M 1I "Design of Steel Piping" was used in assessing pressure boundary integrity load conditions.
This code is consistent with the calculation of record that qualified the piping for its design basis conditions. This design code is consistent with the original codes of construction utilized in the design of the system. USAS B3 1.10-1967, the overall code of construction, provides no direct guidance for the design of buried piping and in this case defaults to AWWA requirements by inference.
Key attributes of the proposed repair system include:
- 1) High Strength ASME SB-688 (AL6XN) material is utilized for all load carrying components.
- 2)
ASME SB-688 is resistant to corrosion attack due to submersion in saltwater.
- 3)
There is no welding required for installation.
- 4)
There are no adverse affects to the systems hydraulic capacity.
- 5)
Installation of the repair system will be performed with controlled procedures.
- 6)
The repair system can easily be removed to allow inspection and monitoring of the deteriorated area.
The ASME Section XI, Appendix IX provides rules for the use of mechanical clamping devices and it is implied that these type mechanisms would be externally applied. However, the code does not consider modifications to non-steel piping systems currently in use in the nuclear fleet, for safety-related buried piping, such as Pre-Stressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe or ductile cast iron. The ductile cast iron piping utilized at Calvert Cliffs is currently not recognized by ASME Sections II, III, or XI and thus the owner must rely on guidance for repair and replacement activities from the original code of construction.
The style of the repair system to be used is similar to the compression style mechanical joints already in use in the piping system.
The ASME Section XI addresses mechanical clamping devices.
Mechanical clamps require that they be designed to resist the internal pressure by overcoming forces acting on the device. Components of a clamping device are subject to tensile forces as a result of pressure. The proposed repair system components are subject to more favorable compressive loads as internal pressures increases.
The proposed repair system is not considered a clamp and is therefore not considered subject to the rules of ASME XI, Appendix IX.
The following provides a summaryof the proposed repair systems:
- 1) The materials utilized in the repair system are non-corrosive when exposed to the saltwater in the Saltwater System.
- 2)
The maximum'size of the degraded area including projected growth will fit within a 3 inch diameter area.
- 3)
No additional supports are required for the repair system. The component to be utilized relies only on the ductile cast iron piping for structural and pressure integrity.
- 4)
The repair system has been designed for pressure boundary integrity only. The remaining non-degraded ductile cast iron pipe maintains full design structural capacity of the piping system.
7
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08)
- 5)
The repair system utilized considers all design basis loading requirements including seismic and ensures that it will continue to perform its intended function during all those type of events.
a)
The repair system design was evaluated for a design pressure of 50 psig and was assessed to consider the effect of prying actions due to system maximum flow. All stress levels were less than the allowable for Level A Service Limits.
- 6)
The repair system to be utilized is designed in such a manner so as not to damage or adversely affect the existing ductile cast iron piping.
- 7)
The intended use of the repair system is to repair localized degraded areas in the piping and is not designed to transmit longitudinal loads or a full circumferential severance of the piping.
- 8)
When degradation is identified in the ductile cast iron pipe it will be characterized to ascertain whether the degradation is ID or OD initiated and the characterization will be considered in the projected degradation growth.
- 9)
The evaluations conducted for this repair were completed in accordance with the original code of construction for the buried ductile cast iron Saltwater System piping, USAS B31.1, 1967 Edition as supplemented by the requirements of ANSI A21.1-1967 (AWWA C101-67) and ANSI A21.50-1976 (AWWA C150-1976).
- 10) The repair system will be installed in a piping that is continuously supported and the additional weight does not increase bending in the ductile cast iron pipe.
- 11) Any degradation identified that is due to erosion or corrosion of the thickness of the material at the load transfer area will be determined and checked against design criteria.
- 12) The constraining effects of the repair system have also been considered and there are no adverse effects from the installation of the repair system on the ductile cast iron pipe.
The internal mechanical seal (i.e., EPDM Rubber & Retaining Bands), upon which this design is based on, has been utilized as a corrosion barrier in numerous Class 3 systems throughout the industry for many years. These seals have ensured that the host pipe, in the area where they are installed, are isolated from the effects of the process fluid corrosive effects.
The installation of this proposed alternative repair is considered to arrest the growth of the corrosion since it will completely seal the degraded area from the corrosive fluid (saltwater). Calvert Cliffs will disassemble the first installed repair system and inspect the degraded area after two operating cycles. This inspection will include:
A check of the retaining bands and backing ring for corrosion A check of the liner under the sleeve for wetness A check for any damage of the liner The results from this inspection will then be used to determine if any change in the periodicity of this action is warranted. In case of multiple installations, only one of the proposed repair systems will be disassembled while the rest will be visually inspected every other refueling outage during conduct of our current preventive maintenance task to inspect Saltwater System piping.
All degradation identified will be assessed on a case by case basis. Depending on the defect size the pressure plate may be altered to provide adequate strength to account for degradation outside of the design basis calculation.
Appropriate changes will be made to the calculation to reconcile any changes to the pressure plate dimensions.
Defects where the repair system is utilized will be 8
ATTACHMENT (1)
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE FOR MITIGATION OF BURIED SALTWATER PIPING DEGRADATION (RR-ISI-04-08) characterized aind projections on growth will be provided to ensure that the defect will be contained within the specified limits of the repair system.
Subsequent inspections frequencies of the encapsulated degraded area will also be determined. Monitoring of the size of the degradation will be performed as required.
- 8.
CONCLUSION The installation of the proposed repair system provides a method to repair defects in buried Saltwater System piping that is not irreversible and allows the long-term monitoring of the degradation area.
The pressure boundary capacity of the repair system has been demonstrated by analysis and corrosion resistant components have been utilized to eliminate the potential for degradation. As discussed in Section 7.0 the manner of repair and connectivity to the piping system is consistent with the methods utilized at pipe joints.
The AL6XN material utilized in this repair ensures high resistance to saltwater corrosion and has been utilized in similar applications at other plants with no signs of deterioration. In addition this type of repair system has been demonstrated to function in service over ten years without issue.
Based on the above, Calvert Cliffs believes that the proposed repair system, when installed within the limitations of the design constraints, provides a reliable repair method that is consistent with the original code of construction. Also because the repair system can be easily removed and reinstalled it will allow for long-term monitoring of the defect condition as required and this capability addresses those concerns identified in 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxv). These requirements are applicable to the repairs of future defects identified in buried portions of our 30 and 36 inch ISI Class 3, Saltwater System piping.
9
ENCLOSURE1 Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies, Calculation 11-2357-C-003 Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, LLC January 17,2013
L Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies No. 11-2357-C-003 of 1
.UTIC
Report Record aLT Ran CalculationNo.:
11-2357-C-003 Rev. No.:
4 Sheet No.
2 QA Status: Quality Grade N, Commercial Grade --, Other E3 Total Sheets:
52
Title:
Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies Client:
Constellation Energy Facility:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Revision
Description:
Complete revision to incorporate changes in response to owner's comments. Removed references to gray cast iron pipe, which is out of scope.
Limitation of Warranties and Liability: Except for warranties expressly set forth herein, Altran Solutions disclaims all other warranties with respcct to the services and materials to be provided pursuant lo this Agrcement, whether express or implied, including, but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or any other agreement between Altran Solutions and you, Altran Solutions' maximum and cumulative liability arising out of or relating to the services and materials to be provided under this Agreement or any matter related thereto, whether based upon warranty, contract, tort or otherwise, shall not exceed the amount of fees paid by you to Altran Solutions under this Agreement during the prior twelve month period. In no event shall Altran Solutions be liable to you or any other party for special, incidental, exemplary or consequential damages, or for any claims or demands brought against you by any other party, regardless of whether Altran Solutions has been previously advised of the possibility of such damages, claims or demands. You shall not bring any suit or action against Altran Solutions for any reason whltsoever more than one year atler the milted cause of action bas accrued. This provision shall not be superseded by the terms of any purchase order of other document or agreement, regardless of the terms of such order, document or agreement.
Computer runs are identified on a Computer File Index:
Yes El N/A M Error reports are evaluated by:
Date:
Computer use is affected by error notices.
No r, Yes [] (if yes, attach explanation)
Or'ginator(s)
Date Verifier(s)
, D tte Jiui u,
P D.Al Cho6)
Verification: Verification is performed in accordance with EOP 3.4 as indicated below
[
Design review as documented on the following sheet or
[] Alternate calculation as documented in attachment or El Qualification testing as documented in attachment or APPROVAL FOR RELEASE:
PROJECT MANAGER:
Date:
Robert Hlmemn
Report Recorcl
,Calculat-on N6:
11"-2357-C-003 Rev. No:
0
- SheetNo, 2
SQA Ss Q
rad
, Commerci.al Grade, 0.
44 TiMl6:
Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies P Client:
Consellation Energy Facility:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant R
levision Descriptioln: Original issue.
Imimfafion *r WarmintlE nd L*Iability: Except Ibr warantles expressly s*at Wth herein, AJamn Solutions dl*alala all othar witentes vwtih respect to tth services end maturlal to be provlded ptunan' to wteh Ar
.nt. w~th~r axprea or Implied, Indudina, btnot lmited to, the want m
of mba w
tablilty or Anius, for a particular purpose. Notwihataexidng any other pAohion of eug Agreement or ao otc eo~nL br.wa.n Altn Bolutionm ons Altm.olutions? maxlmum iand cumulative li]ab~lfr a.*slng vat of a" roei'ng to jima aarvilcos and nmatarf am to bopiovided undar thln Agroemeni or any molfer rotated thartto whaihter bazsd apon wamimnt, coontr, tortaor "tharwisi% shale'not excecd th munat affa-paId Y
you to Ala 8olulono uder *th A m
dng te pror wlvo month p io In no Ivent shall Altran Solutions be flable to you or any other party for specfal, rddntal, oxempiay or onniqucntfal dam&cs., or ola.mn or denands brought nainatyou by any other pVriy, reWardloss ofwhtlher Altrn Solutions b bun previously adviard oftio p.ulbility of such damage, chat andj:Yoahal notbring any suit oratnlon agalnot Altmn Solutions for any reeson vhntsaov* er orobr thn
, y. afr the, rel-ate
. a~s of ti-t onh m 9*[.lhl a~*spebd the terms of any pu cbeSsq order of dther docuanentargrmeen~treaýdlssof a trmmn-swtuschow, oaum.,rt°r.a~rx'mwn*.
Computer runs are identified on a Computer Filo In IAYes
[]N/A Brrorreportb are evaluated by:
Date:
Computer use is affected, by error notices. ff ? N T [(yes, attach explanation) 0 At r( 'a)
Date Verifier(s)
Date
-u~'p-.
Willfign Me-brine, P. E.
Verification: Verification is performetd in accordance with EOP 3.4 as indicated below
[
Design review as documented on the following sheet or L"'Altemateo calculation as documented in attachment or O Qualiicationateting as documented in attachment or APPROVALFORRELEASE:
PROJECT MAN&GWER:
Date:
-Abe"!llq qt,-4q' an.**
er.
amelmannd
Report Record a LTRafl CalculationNo.:
11-2357-C-003 Rev. No.:
1 Sheet No.
2$
QA Status: Quality Grade [, Commercial Grade E], Other E]
Total Sheets:
46
Title:
Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies Client:
Constellation Energy Facility:
Caivert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Revision
Description:
Revised to add section 4.6.4 (sheet 35A); Modified conclusions and reference (sheet 41, 42 and 44). Updated sheets 6, 7, 10, 11, 24, 30, 33 and 34 due to customer comments. Also replaced cover sheet, report record (pg 2), verification sheet (pg 3), revision description (pg 4).
Limitation of Warranties and Liability: Except for warranties expressly set forth herein, Altran Solutions disclaims all other warranties with respect to the services and materia!s to be provided puisuant to this Agreement, whether express or implied, including, but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or any other agreement behvcen Altran Solutions and you, Altran Solutions' maximum and cumulative liability arising out of or relating to the services and materials to be provided under this Agreement or any matter related thereto, whether based upon warranty, contract, tort or otherwise, shall not exceed the amount of fees paid by you to Aitran Solutions under this Agreement during the prior twelve month period. lhi no event shall Altran Solutions be liable to you or any other party for special, incidental, exemplary or consequential damages, or for any claims or demands brought against you by any other party, regardless oft whether Altran Solutions has been previously advised of the possibility of such damages, claims or demands. You shall not bring any suit or action against Altran Solutions for any reason whatsoever more than one year after the related cause of action has accrued. This provision shall not be superseded by the terms of any purchase order of other document or agreement, regardless of the terms of such order, document or agreement.
Computer runs are identified on a Computer File Index:
Yes El N/A [
Error reports are evaluated by:
Date:
Computer' use is affected by error notices. No.*,atta'ch explanation)
Originator(s)
Verifier(s)
Date
- Al d W Chock[
Yu Gan, Ph. D.
'hc Elenz*
a r
Robei Haamnelmann Verification: Verification is performed in accordance with EOP 3.4 as indicated below
[
Design review as documented on the following sheet or E] Alternate calculation as documented in attachment or
[
Qualification testing as documented in attachment or APPROVAL FOR RELEASE:
PROJECT MANAGER:
D~ate:
w Robert W. Hammelmann
Report Record aLTRan CalculationNo.:
11-2357-C-003 Rev. No.:
2 Sheet No.
2C QA Status: Quality Grade Z, Commercial Grade [], Other []
Total Sheets:
- r4--
Title:
Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies Client:
Constellation Energy Facility:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Revision
Description:
Revised hoop stress and minimum wall thickness calculations to include system design pressure. Added CCNPP Civil and Structural documentation to allowable seismic axial acceleration calculation.
Cleaned up calculation.
Limitation of Warranties and LiabliUty: Except for warranties expressly set forth herein, Altran Solutions disclaims all other warranties with respect to the services and materials to be provided pursuant to this Agreement, whether express or implied, including, but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or any other agreement between Altran Solutions and you, Altran Solutions' maximum and cumulative liability arising out of or relating to the services and materials to be provided under this Agreement or any matter related thereto, whether based upon warranty, contract, tort or otherwise, shall not exceed the amount of fees paid by you to Altran Solutions under this Agreement during the prior twelve month period. In no event shall Altran Solutions be liable to you or any other party for special, incidental, exemplary or consequential damages, or for any claims or demands brought against you by any other party, regardless of whether Altran Solutions has been previously advised of the possibility of such damages, claims or demands. You shall not bring any suit or action against Altran Solutions for any reason whatsoever more than one year after the related cause of action has accrued. This provision shall not be superseded by the terms of any purchase order of other document or agreement, regardless of the terms of such order, document or agreement.
Computer runs are identified on a Computer File Index:
Yes [0 N/A [2 Error reports are evaluated by:
Date:
Computer use is affected by error notices.
No El, Yes El (if yes, attach explanation)
Originator(s)
Date Veriier(s)
Date ElenVtpierbert Hammelmann" Verification: Verification is performed in accordance with EOP 3.4 as indicated below I" Design review as documented on the following sheet or 1l Alternate calculation as documented in attachment or El Qualification testing as documented in attachment or APPROVAL FOR RELEASE:
PROJECT MANAGER:
Date:
Robert W. Hammelmann
Report Record a LT Ra l CalculationNo.:
11-2357-C-003 Rev. No.:
3 Sheet No.
2 QA Status: Quality Grade M, Commercial Grade [], Other LI Total Sheets:
48
Title:
Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies Client:
Constellation Energy Facility:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Revision
Description:
Revised hoop stress and minimum wall thickness calculations using max install pressure instead of long term contact pressure. Revised Sh.
Limitation of Warranties and Liability: Except for warranties expressly set forth herein, Altran Solutions disclaims all other warranties with respect to the services and materials to be provided pursuant to this Agreement, whether express or implied, including, but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or any other agreement between Altran Solutions and you, Altran Solutions' maximum and cumulative liability arising out of or relating to the services and materials to be provided under this Agreement or any matter related thereto, whether based upon warranty, contract, tort or otherwise, shall not exceed the amount of fees paid by you to Altran Solutions under this Agreement during the prior twelve month period. In no event shall Altran Solutions be liable to you or any other party for special, incidental, exemplary or consequential damages, or for any claims or demands brought against you by any other party, regardless of whether Altran Solutions has been previously advised of the possibility of such damages, claims or demands. You shall not bring any suit or action against Altran Solutions for any reason whatsoever more than one year after the related cause of action has accrued. This provision sall not be superseded by the terms of any purchase order of other document or agreement, regardless of the terms of such order, document or agreement.
V%
Computer runs are identified on a Computer File Index'NA Error reports are evaluated by:
Date:
Computer use is affected by error notices. No (ffyes, attach explanation)
/9 Originator(s)
Date erifier(s)
Date Eu.en~)wapner KoberE +/---ammelmann Verification: Verification is performed in accordance with EOP 3.4 as indicated below Z Design review as documented on the following sheet or FI Alternate calculation as documented in attachment or LI Qualification testing as documented in attachment or APPROVAL FOR RELEASE:
PROJECT MANAGER:
Date:
Robet k
tmlmn
I/
aLTRan Verification Calc. No.
11-2357-C-003 Rev.
4 Sheet 3
Verification Considerations (inaccordance with EOP 3.4)
Initials
- 1. The inputs come from an appropriate and controlled source, and are clearly referenced.
- 2. The inputs from uncontrolled sources or assumptions are properly justified and documented.
6q(1
- 3. The inputs or assumptions that are not adequately justified are identified for later confirmation.
- 4. Design, analysis, testing, examination, and acceptance criteria are specified and complied with.
- 5.
Appropriate interface control was administered during the process of this report.
- 6. The computer programs used are authorized for use and/or properly verified.
- 7. Applicable codes, standards, or regulatory requirements are properly specified and complied with.
Ld C,
- 8. The specified tests and examinations were performed by personneliwith appropriate qualifications.
- 9. All tests and examinations were performed in accordance with written procedures.
10 Specimens are controlled by identification number and their traceability is maintained.
1i The calibration of instrumentation is acceptable and properly recorded.
12 The instruments that are used are recorded by name and identification number.
13 The report is neat and legible and suitable for reproduction.
14 The formatting and technical requirements of applicable procedures are complied with.
15 Critical numerical computations have been checked in detail.
16 The endorsements of all originators and verifiers have been properly recorded.
17 Appropriate construction, operation, and/or maintenance considerations have been considered.
18 The conclusions satisfy stated objectives, and they are consistent with the input.
19 All material specified are compatible with their service environment.
20 Procedural requirements for report revisions and subsequent reviews are complied with.
Clarify significant comments:
All comments are resolved and incorporated into the report except as noted here:
Originator's Concurrence Date Ve Cfier Wdoncu'rren@)
/Ite
Revision Description a LTRan Caic No 11-2357-C-003 By: H. Lu Date: 3/9/12 Sheet:
4 Rev.: 4 Chk:
A.Chock Date.:
3/9/12.
Rev. No.
Revision Description 0
Original issue.
1 Revised to add section 4.6.4 (sheet 35A); Modified conclusions and reference (sheet 41, 42 and 44). Updated sheets 6, 7, 10, 11,.24, 30, 33 and 34 due to customer comments. Also replaced cover sheet, report record (pg 2), verification sheet (pg 3), revision description (pg 4).
2 Revised hoop stress and minimum wall thickness calculations to include system design pressure. Added CCNPP Civil and Structural documentation to allowable seismic axial acceleration calculation. Cleaned up calculation.
3 Revised hoop stress and minimum wall thickness calculations using max install pressure instead of long term contact pressure. Revised Sh. Minimum contact pressure calculations were revised to neglect, and not subtract, the design pressure. Updated sections include:
3.4, 4.1.5 & 4.1.6, 4.2.1 & 4.2.2, 4.3.2, 4.4.2 & 4.6.4. All conclusions updated with revised values.
4 Complete revision to incorporate changes in response to owner's comments. Removed references to gray cast iron pipe, which is out of scope.
Calculation Sheet aLTiRan Calc No.:
11-2357-C-003 By:
H. Lu Date:
3/9/12 Sheet 5 Rev:
4 Chk.:
A.Chock Date:
3/9/12 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Page...................................................................................................................................................
I Report Record..............................................................................................................................................
2 Verification..................................................................................................................................................
3 Revision D escription....................................................................................................................................
4 Table of Contents.........................................................................................................................................
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
6
- 1. 1 Background......................................................................................................................................
6 1.2 Purpose............................................................................................................................................
6 2.0 A SSU M PTION S AN D IPU T................................................................................
.............. 7 2.1 A ssum ptions......................................................................................................................................
7 2.2 Input 8
3.0 D ESIGN CRITERIA...........................................................................................................................
11 4.0 M ETH OD OLO G Y......................................................................................................
11 4.1 Loads on the Sleeve Retaining Bands at Installation....................................
11 4.2 Compute the Thermal Effects on the Forces in the Retaining Band.........................................
15 4.3 Calculation of Hydrodynam ic Load.........................................................................................
18 4.4 Check of the Sleeve U nder Seism ic Loads..............................................................................
23 4.5 Check of Seal for Abnorm al Loading Condition......................................................................
24 4.6 Check Backing Plate..........................................................................................
I............................ 28 S4.7 Cyclic Fatigue..................................................................................................................................
29 5.0 CON CLU SION.....................................................................................................
I............................. 30 6.0 REFEREN CES....................................................................................................................................
33 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Design Sketches Attachment B Miscellaneous Information Attachment C Email Correspondence Attachment D Miscellaneous Calvert Cliffs Documents
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 6 of 34 Report: 1 1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 Evaluation of Repair Sleeve Assemblies 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP) has safety related salt water supply piping in-service for over 35 years. In February 2012, there will be a comprehensive inspection of the piping utilizing a technology that will provide a cross-sectional assessment of the pipe wall.Plant management has requested that a repair method must be in place in the event that a defect(s) are encountered that exceed the minimum design basis requirements. As the pipe material is composed of ductile iron/gray cast iron, a welded repair is not possible. Therefore, the plan is to develop a non-welded mechanical repair, installed internally and can be completed within the existing service water header outage window.
[Ref.1]
Altran has developed a repair method that provides structural and pressure boundary integrity for all design basis loading conditions. This repair system consists of an EPDM intemal gasket, four (4) AL6XN retaining bands and pressure/structural overlapped load plate (non-welded AL6XN) as depicted in Attachment A.
The mechanical sleeve system is comprised of a rubber gasket that is factory sized and molded to fit the inside diameter of the pipe to be refurbished. A sheet of UNS N08367 stainless steel (AL6XN) is placed between the gasket and the inside pipe wall as a backing plate and act as pressure/structural load barrier. The entire assembly is held in place by a series of four (4) AL6XN bands that are expanded against the sleeve causing it to bear tight against the inside of the pipe.
The rubber gasket material is Ethylene Propylene Diamine Monomer (EPDM) manufactured in compliance with ASTM-D3900, D3568 and is designated as M4AA71OA13B13C12ZlZ2Z3 per ASTM-D2000 [Ref. 2]. The gasket is factory vulcanized to form one continuous piece. The ends of each gasket have grooved ribs which become compressible sealing points against the inside of the pipe. The sleeves are thus secured in place by the circumferential pressure exerted by the stainless steel retaining bands, which are hydraulically expanded and held in position by wedges made from the same material.
The backing plate is a single sheet of 16 gauge (.0598") UNS N08367 sheet metal 14" wide enclosing the entire inside circumference of the 30" or 36" Pipe [Ref 3]. After the backing plate has been placed over the degraded area, the balance of the mechanical sleeve assembly will be installed over the backing plate. Four (4) AL6XN bands will be used per sleeve assembly. For each assembly two bands will be installed at each end of the rubber gasket and two to secure the backing plate in position.
The sleeve, which is held in place with retaining bands, has ribs that contact the inside of the pipe to be repaired. As loads are transferred from the metal retaining bands to the sealing ribs, these restraining members control the cold flow of the elastomeric material so that the gasket remains in contact with the pipe to create a seal. The position of the "inside" bands assure a secure fit for the backing plate. The strength and resilience of the sleeve assembly will provide a durable and reliable protective shield inside the pipe against the erosive effects of water flowing at varying rates.
1.2 Purpose The purpose of this calculation is to
- 1) qualify the internal mechanical sleeve assembly as a contingent repair for the safety related service water supply piping at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant. The loading conditions considered include installation, seismic (SSE),
pipe movement, fatigue and normal operation. The assembly will be qualified for one abnormal loading condition, in which the upstream band is lost. Further, the backing plate has been reviewed to assess its effect on pressure boundary enhancement,
- 2) calculated the maximum flaw size based on the qualification.
C-
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 7 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 2.0 Assumptions and Input 2.1 Assumptions
- 1. The system design temperature is assumed to be 32 'F to 95 'F.;
- 2. The minimum fluid inlet temperature is assumed to be 32 °F
- 3. The coefficient of friction between the sleeve and the pipe wall is assumed to be:
0.32 This is based on a rubber belt on steel [Ref. 4, Table 12.2]
- 4. An impact factor of 2 was applied to the hydrodynamic loads to account for the rapid increase in Service Water supply flow during an accident, as shown in Section 4.3 and 4.5.
- 5. It is assumed that during the abnormal operating condition, the upstream retaining band will be lost and the sleeve will fold back on itself.
- 6. The weight of the sleeve assembly is assumed to be 110 Ibf.
- 7. Poisson's ration for AL-6XN is assumed to be 0.3.
- 8. Retaining bands on backing plate will be placed on a non-degraded area adjacent to the corrosion area.
- 9. DELETED
- 10. A maximum of long term stress relaxation of EPDM gasket is assumed to be 12%. During the repair sleeve installation, two expansions of retaining band to the hydraulic pressure will be made. After a minimum of 30 minutes holding following the first expansion, the EPDM gasket is assumed to have made the majority part of long term stress relaxation. [Ref. 2]
- 11. Ground water pressure on the outer diameter is assumed to be negligible.
- 12. The expansion pressure of hydraulic expander at the installation is assumed to be at the range of 2800-3500 psi, with an expansion cylinder bore diameter of 1.69 in. 3500 psi is the maximum pressure defined at the installation procedure [Ref. 10]. 2800 psi is an administrative low limit assigned by Altran (a conservative value used to ensure a minimum amount of "grip" for the gasket / pipe interface).
- 13. The installation temperature is assumed to be 70 *F.
- 14. This calculation qualifies the contingency repair method for ductile iron pipe only (Pipe/Service Class LC-2).
- 15. The postulate degraded condition for the calculation is a circular flaw.
- 16. Qualification assumes removal of the cement mortar lining in the area of the contingency repair prior to installation. Exposed ductile iron pipe surfaces shall be coated with Belzona, as a corrosion inhibitor in accordance with Spec. M-600, Class LC [Ref. 21].
- 17. The density of the material fill is assumed to be 120 Ib/W3 (from Ref. 3).
18.This qualification assumes that the seam of the backing plate is located on the other side of the circular flaw.
[ LT R *n Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 8 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 2.2 Input 2.2.1 System Piping Parameters - Pipe Specification for 30"136" Pipes 30in 36in Pipe Outside Diameter Pipe Wall Thickness Pipe Inside Diameter Do3:=32.00in Dpo_36 := 38.30in tp36 := 0.630in
[Ref.19]
[Ref.19]
Dpi_30 :=Dpo_30 - 2tp_3o Dpi_30 =30.90.in Dpi_36 = Dpo_36 - 2tp_36 Dpi_36= 37.04.in Piping Buried Location Earth Weight above Buried Pipe Hmax_30 := 11.4ft lbf Wearth := 120-ft 3
Hmax 36 := 11.7ft
[Ref.3]
[Ref.3]
Pipe Materials Ductile Iron: Class LC, USAS A21.51-1981[24]. Material ASTM A377, Joint Class 4 [16-18]
32 *F 95 OF Mean Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
- 6 in XD1o := 6.2.106 inF
- 6 in QDII := 6.2.106 inF
[Ref.19], Attachment B Written in vector form 6.2x 10-6) in
°
=DI 6.2 x 10-6) inF Yield Stress Sy_DI := 42000psi
[Ref. 23]
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 9 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 2.2.2 System Design Parameters Design Pressure Design Temperature Range (32 °F to 95 OF), Therefore the AT is:
AT = 32 IF - 70 °F = -38 °F AT = 95 IF - 70 oF = 25 °F Maximum System Flow Rate Pd := 50psi
[Ref.1 7]
The assumed installation temperature is 70 OF, Assumption 13.
[Ref.1 7]
(-38).
AT,, := (.25 F
qsys := 40000 gal min
[Ref.22 ], Attachment C Whs := 110-lbf
- 3 lb
[If_70F := 0.658. 10 ft sec lb Pwtr_70F := 62.3.-
ft 3
The weight of the sleeve assembly as assumed. Assumption 6.
This is the absolute viscosity of water at 70 OF, [Ref. 7]
This is the density water at 70 °F, [Ref. 7]
2.2.3 Internal Sleeve Parameters [Ref. 2, Attachment A].
EPDM Gasket Thickness EPDM Gasket Length Retaining Band Thickness Retaining Band Width Retaining Band Outside Diameter Thickness of the Push Tab Thickness of the Backing Plate (16 gauge) tws := 0.300in Lws := 19.79in trb := 0.1875in Wrb := 2.Oin Drbo_30 := Dpi30 - 2tws Drbo_36 := Dpi_36 - 2tws tpt := trb thkback :. 0.0598in
[Ref. 8], Attachment A
[Ref. 8], Attachment A
[Ref. 2], Attachment A
[Ref. 2], Attachment A Drbo_30 = 30.30.in Drbo_36 = 36.44.in tpt = 0.1875.in Attachment A
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 10 of 34 Report: I1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 2.2.4 Retaining Band and Backing Plate Material Properties Materials: AL-6XN (UNS N08367), ASTM B688 [Ref. 2, Attachment A]
Yield Strength SY := 45000psi Su:= 100000psi (2
1-Sh := min(3.YSy, 4 *)u 32 °F
-6 in Qrb0 :=8.5.10-in.F
[Ref. 20]
[Ref. 20]
Sh = 25000.psi 95 °F Mean Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
- rb1 8.5.10-6 in in.F
[Ref. 6], Attachment B Written in vector form (rb
= (8.5 x K8.5 x 10- 6) in 10- 6 in -F Modulus of Elasticity 6.
Erb := 28.3.10. si
[Ref.6], Attachment B Poisson's Ratio v := 0.3 Assumption 7 2.2.5 Hydraulic Expander Parameters Expansion Pressure (gage).
This is pressure applied by the hydraulic expander to each of the 4 retaining bands.
Expansion Cylinder Bore, Standard Enerpac
- RC 104 Expander HPi :=
b := 1.69in Minimum Assumption 12 Maximum
[Ref.10]
Assumption 12, Attachment C
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: I1 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 3.0 Design Criteria
- 2. ANSI A21.50, American National Standard for the Thickness Design of Ductile-Iron Pipe, 1967, 1976
[23].
4.0 Methodology This calculation qualifies the sleeve assemblies for loads applied during installation and operation. The analysis uses methods of classical mechanics. In addition, the applied hoop stress caused by the retaining bands on the host pipe was qualified. This calculation will also determine if the retaining bands are sufficient to hold the sleeve in place and qualify the backing plate that will repair the defect. This calculation will also determine if the retaining bands shall be sufficient for the 50 psig design pressure of the Service Water (SW) cooling system. In addition, the calculation will determine the maximum diameter of a postulated circular flaw in the ductile iron pipe based on the ability of the AL6XN backing plate to resist the internal pressure load.
4.1 Loads on the Sleeve Retaining Bands at Installation The AL6XN retaining bands are installed using a hydraulic expansion device to press the band tight against the sleeve. During installation, a force is applied in opposite directions to each push tab at the break in the band.
This force causes a compressive stress in the band and induces the required contact pressure onto the sleeve.
Once the retaining band is expanded to the required hydraulic pressure, a wedge is installed below the long push tab. The hydraulic pressure is then released. After a minimum of 30 minutes, a second expansion of the retaining band is performed to the expansion tool hydraulic pressure. The abutting edges of the retaining band press against the wedge maintaining the band and the wedge in compression. The forces in the retaining band cause it to conform to the shape of the host pipe.
4.1.1 Method for Computing Forces and Stresses in the Retaining Bands The hydraulic expander applies a compressive force to the retaining band at installation, and the area of the force applied on is the cross sectional area of the retaining band. This force causes a compressive stress that may be calculated via:
Force Area fc -
Eq. (1)
Where:
trb'Wrb fc = Compressive Stress (psi)
CB = Compressive Force Due to Hydraulic Expander (Ibf) trb = Thickness of Retaining Band (in)
Wrb = Width of Retaining Band (in)
aTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 12 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 In addition, the compressive stress in the band is related to the pressure imposed by the band on the pipe Pcontact using the hoop stress equation Pcontact" Drb Eq. (2) f 2-Eq.(2 2 "trb Substituting Eq. 2 for fc in Eq.1, then solving for Pcontact Where:
2 Pcontact =
wCB Eq. (3)
Drbo = Retaining Band Outside Diameter (in)
Drbo"Wrb Pcontact = Contact Pressure (psi)
Wrb = Width of Retaining Band (in) = 2.00 in.
CB = Compressive Force Due to Hydraulic Expander (Ibf) 4.1.2 Calculation of the Compressive Force in the Retaining Band at Installation The sleeve retaining bands are installed using the standard #RC104 expander with a 1.69" diameter hydraulic cylinder. The compressive force on the retaining band during installation, CB, is:
- 42)
[Reference to Section 2.2.5]
CBi :=
.b4.HPi CB is the hoop force imposed on the retaining band by the hydraulic cylinder during installation.
b = 1.69.in This is the expansion cylinder bore.
('6281" lb Force on band due to minimum hydraulic expander pressure (2800psi) 7851)
Force on band due to minimum hydraulic expander pressure (3500psi) 4.1.3 Calculation of Contact Pressure Between the Retaining Bands, EPDM Elastomer Gasket and the Pipe The contact pressure, Pcontact, at installation is calculated using Eq. 3:
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 13 of 34 Report: 1 1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 For 30 inch Host Pipe 2CB Pcontact 30 :=
30 Wrb.Drbo_30 (207"]
Pcontact_30 - p259) Psi Minimum Maximum The long term contact pressure is based on a maximum compression stress relaxation of 12%, (assumption 10).
PcontactLT_30 := (I - 12%).Pcontact_30 PcontactLT 30 =
- 18) s
( \\228)'
Minimum Maximum For 36 inch Host Pipe 2CB Pcontact _36 :=
Wr B Wrb'Drbo_36
=cnat3 ý I1
- 72) ps Minimum Maximum The long term contact pressure is based on a maximum compression stress relaxation of 12%
PcontactLT_36 := (1 -
12 %).Pcontact_'36 (152"]
PcontactLTY36 =
1 1 pSi
,(190)
Minimum Maximum
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 14 of 34 Report: 1 1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 4.1.4 Check of Compressive Stress in the Retaining Band The compressive stress corresponding to the maximum hydraulic expansion pressure is:
-CBI
'c~chk :
trb'Wrb O'c chk
_=
83.7.%
Sh,
o'c_chk = 20936.psi of allowable stress Maximum compressive stress in retaining band at installation
[sheet 10]
4.1.5 Determine the Host Pipe Minimum Wall Thickness The host pipe minimum wall thickness to sustain sleeve assembly loading is determined from ANSI A21.50-1976, Section 50-2.2 Step 2 "Design for Intemal Pressure" [Ref. 23]. tmin=(Ptotal*Dpipe)/( 2*Sypipe)
For 30 inch Ductile Iron Host Pioe 2(Pcontact 30o + Pd + IOOpsi + PTHI _D130).Dpo_30 tDI_30min :=
2 (syDI) tDI_30min = 0.326.in This is the minimum host pipe wall thickness for sleeve loading.
The host pipe is 30" with a design wall thickness of 0.550 inches.
For 36 inch Ductile Iron Host Pipe 2(Pcontact_361 + Pd + IOOpSi + PTH 1D136).Dpo_36 tDI_36min :=
2.(Sy DI) tDI_36min = 0.348-in This is the minimum host pipe wall thickness for sleeve loading.
The host pipe is 36" with a design wall thickness of 0.630 inches.
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 15 of 34 ZMnN/
Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 4.2 Compute the Thermal Effects on the Forces in the Retaining Band 4.2.1 Calculation of Thermal Expansion/Compression in the Retaining Bands Thermal expansion/contraction in the circumferential direction = Ax (assuming that the EPDM is fully compressed).
This is the difference in expansion between the degraded ductile iron pipe and the AL6XN band.
This calculation is repeated for the hot and cold thermal expansion moduli and the contraction and expansion from 70F to the minimum and maximum operating temperatures in the system. Refer to section 3.2)
For Ductile Iron 30 inch pipe AXcoldD130 :Orb0. rl.Drbo_30.ATsw - OLDI 0."T.Dpi30.ATsw (8.5 x 10 6
" 1 CI 6.2 x 10 -6
") 1 (Xrb =
.l 6 )"F tDI ="-
8.5 x 10- 6F(6.2 x 10- 6) F
= (-0.0079)
Contraction, AT=-38 'F AxcoldD130 0.0052 )"m Expansion, AT=+25 *F AXhotID130 := Otrb I* T. Drbo 30"ATsw - OVDI I"T"Dpi30.ATsw Axhot-D130
=
0.0079); in Contraction, AT=-38 'F 0.0052 )
Expansion, AT=+25 °F The thermal strain in the retaining band is:
AXcold_D130 The cold condition produces a slightly greater strain. This 7tD Drbo330 difference is negligible.
-8.27 x 10- 5)
Contraction EthmDI30 =5 5.44x 105 )
Expansion Thermal stress GTH in the retaining band due to relative circumferential expansion/contraction of the AL6XN retaining bands with respect to the pipe resulting from the temperature changes defined in Section 3.2 is:
, TTH D130 := EthmD130.Erb
(.THD130 =-2341).psi Contraction 1540 f Expansion where C'TH D130= thermal stress, Erb = 2.83 x 107.psi I
aLTRafn Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 16 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 Compressive force in the retaining bands due to relative thermal expansion/contraction:
CTH D130 := UTH D130'trb'Wrb
(-878)~
CTH-D130 = (57
)*.bf Contraction Expansion The change in contact pressure between the sleeve and the pipe wall due to thermal effects is:
2'CTH D130 PTHD130 :3 Wrb. Drbo_30 PTHIm_D130 := max(PTH D130)
PTHIDI30 19 psi Not cal terr PTHD130 =
29)*psi 19 )
PTH~m_0130 = 19-PSi
- e: this is a forced identity and should be checked with each culation that PTH1 = PTH1m This value is used above for the Long n operational hoop stress.
The minimum contact pressure between the sleeve and the pipe wall can be computed using the minimum long term contact pressure and the effects of thermal contraction neglecting the design pressure.
This pressure will conservatively compute the friction force holding the sleeve in place that will be compared to the hydrodynamic forces acting to dislodge the sleeve.
PcontactLT 300 = 182.psi PminD130 := PcontactLT_300 + PTHDI300 PminD130 = 153'psi For Ductile Iron 36 inch DiDe Sheet 13 AxcoldD136 := Otrb 0' tDrbo_3 6-ATs - QD10*7t-Dpi36*ATsw
(-0.0096)
Axcold0-136 0.0063 )
Contraction Expansion 8.5 x 10-6)
Otrb 6
8.5x 10- 6) 6.2x 10-6)1
.6.2x 10-6)F AXhotD136 := Otrb
- T-Drbo_36-ATsw-otDI 1* 7Dpi 3 6*ATsw
' (-0.0096).
AXhotD136 = ý 0.0063 ) in Contraction Expansion
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 17 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 The thermal strain in the retaining band is:
AXcoldDI36 EthmD136 :=
ltDr 36 T. D rbo_36 The cold condition produces a slightly greater strain. This difference is negligible.
-8.35 x 10- 5)
Contraction EthmD136 =
5.49 x 10-
)
Expansion Thermal stress GTH in the retaining band due to relative circumferential expansion/contraction of the AL6XN retaining bands with respect to the pipe resulting from the temperature changes defined in Section 3.1 is:
O(THD136 := Ethm_D136"Erb
°'TH-DI36 =
4 1555 )*psi Contraction Expansion Compressive force in the retaining bands due to relative thermal expansion/contraction:
CHD136 := (TH D136-trbWrb CTH-0136 =*(583 ). bf
,Contraction Expansion The change in contact pressure between the sleeve and the pipe wall due to thermal effects is:
P~THD136 :=
2 "CTH DI36 Wrb.Drbo_36 PTHIm_D136 := maX(PTH-D136)
PTHIDI36 =- l 6 psi Not cal terr PTH-D136 =
24 *psi
(-16 )
PTHIm 0136 = 16*psi
- e
- this is a forced identity and should be checked with each culation that PTH1 = PTH1m This value is used above for the Long n operational hoop stress.
The minimum contact pressure between the sleeve and the pipe wall can be computed using the minimum long term contact pressure and the effects of thermal contraction neglecting the design pressure.
This pressure will conservatively compute the friction force holding the sleeve in place that will be compared to the hydrodynamic forces acting to dislodge the sleeve.
PcontactLT 360 = 152.psi PminD136 := PcontactLT 360 + PTH_D1360 Sheet 13 Pmin D136 = 127.psi
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 18 of 34
,,oIVMNO Report: 1 1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 4.2.2 Calculation of Minimum Friction Force Between the Sleeve and the Pipe Wall.
The contact force between the sleeve and the pipe wall at each retaining band is:
For Ductile Iron 30 inch Host Pipe Pmin_D130 = 153.psi Sheet 16 Wrb = 2.00. in Drbo_30 = 30.30.in Sheet 9 FcminD130 := PminDl30"Wrb~rDrbo_30 FcminD130 = 29212'1bf The minimum friction force is:
FfminD130 := [t*Fcmin_D130 FfminD130 = 9348.1bf 36 inch Host Pipe PminD136 = 127-psi Sheet 17 Wrb = 2.00 in Drbo 36 = 36.44.in Sheet 9 FcminD136 :
Pmin_D136"Wrb'TrDrbo_36 Fcmin_D136 = 29159-lbf The minimum friction force is:
FfminD136 := P.'Fcmin_DI36 FfminD136 = 9331l-bf 4.3 Calculation of Hydrodynamic Load The sleeve is held in place by four retaining bands, located at both ends and adjacent to the corrosion area location.
The bands are forced against the sleeve via a hydraulic expander, and a wedge is set into the open gap to hold the retaining band against the sleeve/pipe. The retaining band expansion induces a uniform compressive pressure on the sleeve elastomer. This pressure creates a longitudinal friction force between the elastomer and the pipe. The longitudinal hydrodynamic shear force generated by the fluid flow across the sleeve assembly is opposed by the longitudinal friction force. The minimum friction force is computed in Section 4.2.2.
4.3.1 Hydrodynamic Load For 30 inch Pipe The pipe inside diameter is:
Dpi_30 = 30.90.in
[Ref. Sect. 2.1]
Conservatively taken as the pipe ID less the sum of the thickness of the sleeves retaining bands and push tab, DO_30 := Dpi_30 - 2(tws + trb + tpt)
The sleeve thickness is based on a layer of gasket material, the retaining band, and the push tab. Attachment A.
where, tws=thickness of gasket = 0.300 in
[Ref. Sect. 2.2.3, sheet 9]
trb-thickness of retaining band = 0.1875 in.
[Ref. Sect. 2.2.3, sheet 9]
tpr--thickness of push tab = 0.1875 in
[Ref. Sect. 2.2.3, sheet 9]
aLTRVan Report: 11-2357-C-003 Rev: 4 Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 19 of 34 Date: 03/09/12 Date:03/09/12 By: H.Lu Chk: A. Chock DO-30 = 29.55.in The average flow velocity in the orifice is:
VO~if_30 :-
qsys
()_
. DO 30)2 ft Vorif 30 = 18.7-f sec where, qsys=40000 gpm
[Ref. 22], Attachmfent C The average inflow velocity based on the pipe area is:
VpiPe3O.-
qsys (4.
(Dpi 30) ft Vpipe_3o = 17.1-f sec Determine the Reynolds number for the pipe:
Pwtr 70F"Vpipe_30'Dpi_30
-Repipe_30:=if70 W ~f70F Repipe_30 = 4.172 x 106 The pressure drop across the sleeve will be calculated by treating it as a thick edged orifice, per [Ref 11, page 87]
Attachment B, with a sleeve length of Lws = 19.79.in 0
FO_3 0 := Z.(Do30)2 cross sectional area 4 -
of the orifice.
Fpi_30 := -I.(Dpi30) Cross-sectional area of the pipe.
FO 0.915 Fpi_3 0
- .Do_30 Dh 30 = 29.55.in Lws LovrD_30 :='-
Dh 30 Use this ratio for the abscissa of the table in Diagram 15, [Ref 11].
The hydraulic diameter of the orifice This is the L/D ratio that is used in the ordinate of the table in Diagram 4-15, [Ref 11].
Note that in diagram 4-12 and 4-15 (as presented in Attachment B), Ko (the hydraulic loss) is represented by the variable ý.
LovrD_30 = 0.67
aLT Ran Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 20 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 From figure in diagram 4-12 of [Ref 11] T is found from LovrD.
From figure in diagram 4-12 of [Ref 111 T is found from Lab.
T 30 := 0.672 Hydraulic loss for sleeve, represented as a thick edged orifice 2
FO 30 (F K, 3 0 :=0.5 1 F
(-
+
0 I-
+Tr_30.
1-
.1-
~
Fi 3 0 F-
- 30) p13 F( _30)
[Ref. 11 diagram 4-15]
K,_30 = 0.067 To determine the pressure drop across the sleeve assembly, certain fluid properties are necessary. The viscosity and density of water at 70 deg F is:
f_70F = 6.5 8 x 10--4 lb ft-sec lb Pwtr_70F = 62.3.-lb ft3 I-'Lf 70F 1~wtr_70F :
Pwtr_70F
[Ref 12, T 3.3.3 & T 6.1.6]
The total pressure drop across the sleeve is 2
Vorif 30 AP_30 := Pwtr_70F'Ko_30 2
AP_30 = 0.157.psi The hydrodynamic drag on the sleeve assembly is therefore:
Fdrag 30 := A P _30.t.. (D p -o )
4 Fdrag_30 = 118Ilbf Since the flow rate increases rapidly in the event of an accident, an impact factor (dynamic load factor) of 2 will be applied to the hydrodynamic loads: (See assumption 4)
FHYD_30 := Fdrag30.2 FHYD 30 = 236.lbf The hydrodynamic load is much lower than the minimum friction force between the sleeve and pipe, see sec.
4.2.2. Therefore the 30-inch repair is acceptable for hydrodynamic loads.
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 21 of 34 Report: 1 1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 For 36 inch Pipe The pipe inside diameter is:
Dpi_36 = 37.04.in The diameter of the orifice (here the term orifice means the ID of the in place retaining ring) is:
tf := tws + trb + tpt The sleeve thickness is based on a layer of gasket material, the retaining band, and the push tab.
tf =0.675.in DO_36 := Dpi 36 - 2tf DO-36 = 35.69-in The average flow velocity in the orifice is:
V oif_36 :
qsys (V3 ).(Do_ 3 6)2 Vorif_36 12.8* ft
- 4) see' The average inflow velocity based on the pipe area is:
Vpipe36 qsys f
Vpipe-36W :=
qsl)
)2 Vpipe_36 = 11.9' ft
-(Dpi_
- 36) sec Determine the Reynolds number for the pipe:
Pwtr 70F'Vpipe_36'Dpi_36 Repipe_36 :
W-Lf70F Repipe_ 36 = 3.481 x 106 The pressure drop across the sleeve will be calculated by treating it as a thick edged orifice, per [Ref 11, page 87], with a sleeve length of Lws = 19.79. in Fo_36 := "i'(DO036)2 cross sectional area Fpi_36 := -T-.(Dpi_36)2 Cross-sectional area 4
of the orifice.
4 of the pipe.
FO 36
-= 0.928 Use this ratio for the abscissa of the table in Diagram 4-15, [Ref 11].
'Fpi_36
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 22 of 34 Report: 1 1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 D h _36 := 4.
F0 3 6 "iT. DO-36 Dh_36 = 35.69.in Lws LovrD_36 := -
Dh_36 The hydraulic diameter of the orifice This is the L/D ratio that is used in the ordinate of the table in Diagram 4-15, [13].
LovrD_36 = 0.554 From figure in diagram 4-12 of [Ref 11] T is found from LovrD.
-r 36 := 0.900 From figure in diagram 4-12 of [Ref 11] T is found from Lab.
Hydraulic loss for sleeve, represented as a thick edged orifice
(
F0 6 ) +
0=36)
+F
(,
K-36 := 0.511 1_
L F-36 T- - i-piF3 6)
(
pi36 F~pi_36 F0_36" Fpi 36)
[Ref. 11] diagram 4-15 K,_36 = 0.058 To determine the pressure drop across the sleeve assembly, certain fluid properties are necessary. The viscosity and density of water at 70 deg F is:
-4 lb
-f70F = 6.58 x 10f4 e
ft. sec lb Pwtr_70F = 62.3-l ft 3
[If_70F Vwtr_70F *= -
Pwtr_70F
[Ref 12, T 3.3.3 & T 6.1.6]
The total pressure drop across the sleeve is 2
Vorif 36 AP_36 := Pwtr70F.Ko_36.-2 AP_36 = 0.064.psi The hydrodynamic drag on the sleeve assembly is therefore:
Fdrag_36 := AP_36.tr.
4 4
Fdrag_36 = 69.lbf Since the flow rate increases rapidly in the event of an accident, an impact factor (dynamic load factor) of 2 will be applied to the hydrodynamic loads: (See assumption 4)
FHYD_36 := Fdrag_36"2 FHYD 36 = 139.lbf The hydrodynamic load is much lower than the minimum friction force between the sleeve and pipe, see sec.
4.2.2. Therefore the 36-inch repair is acceptable for hydrodynamic loads.
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 23 of 34 Report: 11 -2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 4.3.2 Check Hydrodynamic Loads Against Friction Force For 30 inch Ductile Iron Pipe FfminD130
= 39.6 FHYD_30 For 36 inch Ductile Iron Pipe
>>1 Therefore the sleeve will not be dislodged by flow induced forces.
FfminD136
= 67.3 FHYD_36
>>1 Therefore the sleeve will not be dislodged by flow induced forces.
4.4 Check of the Sleeve Under Seismic Loads The seismic load required to cause the sleeve to slip axially within the pipe during a seismic event is calculated below.
4.4.1 Friction Force Available to Resist Seismic Loading The friction force available to resist the seismic load: FfS.DI is calculated by subtracting the hydrodynamic load: FHYD from the minimum friction force: Ffmin_DI For 30 inch Ductile Iron Pipe FfminD130 = 9348.1bf FfSD130 := FfminD130 - FHYD_30 For 36 inch Ductile Iron Pipe FfminD136 = 9331-1bf FfSD136 := FfminD136 - FHYD_36 FfSD130 = 9112.lbf FfSD136 = 9192.lbf
aLTCaan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 24 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 4.4.2 Allowable Sleeve Seismic Axial Acceleration The allowable local acceleration at the sleeve is a function of the weight of the sleeve and the friction force available to resist the movement.
A= F/m For 30 inch Ductile Iron Pioe D130 FfSD30 Whs g
Whs = 110.1bf AS_D130 = 82.8-g sheet 9 For 36 inch Ductile Iron Pipe fSDI36 ASD136 :=
Whs g
AS D136 = 83.6.g These calculated allowable accelerations are greater than the maximum ground accelerations required for Class I structures in the design basis, CCNPP "Civil and Structural Design Criteria", Reference 15.
4.5 Check of Sleeve for Abnormal Loading Condition The abnormal configuration is assumed to occur if some of the retaining bands were to fail leaving the sleeve held in place by only one band. The worst case event would occur if one or more of the upstram bands failed, resulting in the sleeve folding back over the remaining downstream band. This would result in an increase in hydrodynamic drag with the potential for the sleeve to become dislodged and clog the pipe. The calculation conservatively assumes that the friction force from a single retaining band resists the hydrodynamic forces.
This condition is determined by first finding the hydraulic load.
For 30 inch Pipe The pipe inside diameter is:
Dpi30 = 30.9.in The diameter of the orifice created by the folded over sleeve is:
tfold := 2tws + trb + tpt tfold = 0.975.in Dab_30 := Dpi_30 - 2 tfold The folded over sleeve thickness is based on 2 layers of gasket material, the retaining band, and the push tab.
Dab_30 = 28.95.in
aLTRRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 25 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 r
By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 Fab _30 :=
-(D ab_30)2 4
Dhab_30 := 4. Fab-30 7tr Dab_30 L ab 30 :=
-b_
Dhab_30 Fpi_30 = 749.906.in 2
Dhab_30 = 28.95.in Cross-sectional areas of the folded section and the pipe.
Hydraulic Diameter of the folded section.
Lab_30 = 0.684 From figure in diagram 4-12 of [Ref 11) T is found from Tab_30 := 0.6384 Lab.
Hydraulic loss for sleeve, represented as a thick edged orifice [Ref 11]
Check applicability of formula:
check 1:= if (Lab_30 > 0.015, "formula applicable","out of bounds")
check 1 = "formula applicable" check2 := if(Repipe_30 > 105, "formula applicable" "out of bounds")
check2 = "formula applicable"
( Fab_30) +
a 30)~2
[
ab3F Fab3" Kabo_ 30 0.5. 1 Fpi-30)
Fpi-3
+Tab-30 1-Fpi_30 o Fpi-30)
Kabo 30 = 0.103 The pressure drop across the sleeve in the folded over condition is therefore:
Vpipe_30 a
APab30 Pw_70F.Kabo 30 APab30 = 0.203.psi The hydrodynamic drag on the sleeve for the abnormal condition is therefore:
FHyrD ab 30 := 2 "APab 30"1T' 4
FHYD ab_30 = 305.lbf Including an impact factor of 2.
The hydrodynamic load of is much lower than the minimum friction force between the sleeve and pipe, see sec. 4.2.2. Therefore the 30-inch repair is acceptable for abnormal hydrodynamic loads.
acTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 26 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 For 36 inch Pipe The pipe inside diameter is:
Dpi_36 = 37.04.in The diameter of the orifice created by the folded over sleeve is:
tfold := 2tws + trb + tpt The folded over sleeve thickness is based on 2 layers of gasket tfold
=0.975 in material, the retaining band, and the push tab.
Dab_36 :
Dpi_36 - 2 tfold Dab_36 = 35.09.in S
)2
- 3. 2 Cross-sectional areas of the folded Fab 36
(
Dab 36)
Fpi_36 = 1.078x 10 section and the pipe.
Fab 36 Dhab_36
- 4.
4 Dhab 36 = 35.09.in Hydraulic Diameter of the folded it Dab_36 section.
Lws Lab 36:=
Dhab_36 Lab_36 = 0.564 Tab 36 := 0.8764 From figure in diagram 4-12 of [Ref 11] T is found from Lab.
Hydraulic loss for sleeve, represented as a thick edged orifice [Ref 11]
Check applicability of formula:
check1 := if (Lab_36 > 0.015,"formula applicable","out of bounds")
checki = "formula applicable" check2 := if( Repipe_36 > 10,"formula applicable", "out of bounds")
check2 = "formula applicable" Kab0 Fab36 Fab 36)
Fab 36) 1 i
Fab_36 Fab_36"=
Kao_36 := 0.5.
1 Fp-3
+
1(
FI -6
+ Tab-36" p
p_6 K ab 36 pi 0.09 Kabo 36 =0.09 1
r'LTR~f Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 27 of 34 Report: 1I1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 The pressure drop across the sleeve in the folded over condition is therefore:
2 Vpipe_362 APab-36 := Pwtr-7 0F'Kab°-36 2
APab_36 = 0.086.psi The hydrodynamic drag on the sleeve for the abnormal condition is therefore:
SDpi_362 FHYD ab 36 := 2 -APab 36"7'"-
4 FHYD ab_36 = 186.1bf Including an impact factor of 2.
The hydrodynamic load of is much lower than the minimum friction force between the sleeve and pipe, see sec. 4.2.2. Therefore the 36-inch repair is acceptable for abnormal hydrodynamic loads.
For 30 Inch Ductile Iron Piie FfminD130
= 30.6 FHyD ab_30
>>1 no slippage will occur during system operation with the sleeve folded over.
For 36 inch Ductile Iron Pipe Ffmin D136
= 50.1 FHYD ab_36
>>1 no slippage will occur during system operation with the sleeve folded over.
aLTnRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 28 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By:
.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 4.6 Check Backing Plate 4.6.1 Critical flaw size calculated via membrane stress In as much as the backing plate extends beyond the edge of the flaw and is fixed by the retaining bands and operating pressure of the system, it is reasonable to treat the reinforcement as a fixed support. Using calculation of the critical flaw size in this manner yields the following result:
Pd'dflaw2'(1 + Vi) 2
-Pddflaw2 2
Mc =
-- 1.Ol6dflaw Mr 8-4 1.563dflaw 6'Mr 2
Therefore, amax
= 2622.45dfla thkback 2
for Omax < Sh it is required that, dflaw <
- 3.09in 2622.45 The critical flaw size is:
dflaw := 3.09in
aLTnRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 29 of 34 ReportV 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 4.7 Cyclic Fatigue The Stainless Steel type AL6XN retaining bands were evaluated due to the thermal fatigue over the design temperature range of the system (Section 3.1)
For 30 inch Ductile Iron Pipe StressRangeD130 := -THD1301 - (THDI300 StressRange_D130 = 3882-psi O'THD1301 -
(TTHD1300 SALTD130 :=
2 SALTD130 = 1941.psi Per inspection of the design fatigue curve (Fig. 1-9.2.1 Ref.13), the number of cycles for SALT D130 = 1941-psi is well above 10,000 cycles For 36 inch Ductile Iron PiDe StressRangeD136 := OTHD136 I-
'THD1360 StressRange_D136 = 3919.psi 1 UTHD1361 - (-TH 01360 SALT0I36 :=
2 SALTD136 = 1959.psi Per inspection of the design fatigue curve (Fig. 1-9.2.1 Ref.13), the number of cycles for SALT D136 = 1959.psi is well above 10,000 cycles Similarly the pressure cyclic range of 25 psi will induce negligible stress in the components and thus is also well within the Design Fatigue curve.
The EPDM rubber has an elongation of 350% per ASTM 412. This elongation of a non metallic material as well as its characteristic for high longevity due to its flexibility provide for the rubber gasket to have a fatigue life greater than the 10,000 cycles.
5.0
Conclusion:
This evaluation of the proposed sleeve assemblies indicates that the assemblies are acceptable for installation in the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear power station Service Water system noting the assumptions stated.
Also one retaining band is capable of resisting hydrodynamic drag loadstherefore 4 retaining bands are very conservative. The following summarize the results of the calculation.
the maximum compressive stress at the installation in the retaining band is:
ac chk = 20936.psi Oc chk This is
= 83.7.%
of allowable stress Sh The required minimum wall thickness of the host pipe to support sleeve assemblies, The host pipe is either 30" with a wall thickness of 0.55 inches or 36" with a wall thickness of 0.63 inches.
For 30/36 inch Ductile Iron Host Pipe tDI_30min = 0.326 in tDI_36min = 0.348.in The minimum friction force available force between the sleeve and the pipe wall to resist seismic and hydrualic loads follows. Note that this conservatively considers only one of the four retaining bands.
For 30 inch Ductile Iron Pipe FfS D130 = 9112.lbf For 36 inch Ductile Iron Pipe FfS-D136 = 9192.lbf For maximum system flow conditions, the hydrodynamic load on the assembly, including an impact of 2, is:
For 30 inch Pipe FHYD_30 = 236.lbf For 36 inch Pipe FHYD 36 = 139.1bf
aLTRan Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 31 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 If the sleeve inverts, the hydrodynamic load on the sleeve assembly. for this abnormal condition is:
For 30 inch Ductile Iron Pipe FHYD-ab_30 = 305.lbf FfminDI30- =30.6 FHYD ab 30 For 36 inch Ductile Iron Pipe FHYDab_36 = 186.1bf Ffmin D136
=50.1 FHYDrab_36 Therefore, since the hydrodynamic load on the sleeve assemblies is significantly less than the friction force between the sleeve and the pipe. Thesleeve will remain stationary for the evaluated scenarios.
Note that this conservatively considers only one of the four retaining bands.
The axial direction seismic acceleration required to dislodge the sleeve assembly is:
ASD130 = 82.8.g ASD136 = 83.6.g This is significantly greater than common peak spectra accelerations. Therefore the assembly is seismically acceptable.
The EPDM rubber gasket and retaining bands can withstand 10,000 cyclic movements.
Elongation := 350.%
At this elongation 10,000 cycles is not limiting ref ASTM D-412.
SALT_D130 = 1941.psi SALTD136 = 1959.psi This alternating stress is well below the endurance limit [Ref. 13]
aLTRanCalvert Cliffs Sheet: 32 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 Calculation Results Summary Table for Ductile Iron Pipe 30 inch Ductile Iron
.36 inch Ductile Iron Maximum compressive stress of yield stress at installation in retaining band Required minimum wall thickness of the host pipe to support sleeve assemblies Minimum friction force available between the sleeve and the pipe wall to resist seismic and hydrualic loads follows Hydrodynamic load on the assembly with an impact of 2 Hydrodynamic load on the assembly with an impact of 2 at sleeve invert condition Axial direction seismic acceleration required to dislodge sleeve assembly Altemating stress due to thermal fatigue Maximum flaw size at operating pressure
'c chk
= 46.5.%
Sy tDI_30min = 0.326.in Ffs1DI30 = 9112.lbf FHYD_30 = 236.1bf FHYD-ab_30 = 305.1bf AS-D130 = 82.8.g SALTD130 = 1941.psi dflaw := 3.09in Uc chk
--- -=
46.5.%
Sy tDI_36min = 0.348.in FfS1D136 = 9192.lbf FHYD-36 = 139.lbf FHYDab_36 = 186.lbf ASD136 = 83.6-g SALTD136 = 1959.psi dflaw = 3.09.in
aLTRano Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 33 of 34 Report: 11-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03/09/12 6.0 References
- 1. Altran Solutions Proposal No. P11-2357-00 Final Rev-1, "Contingent Repairs for the 30 Inch and 36 Inch Diameter Ductile Iron Pipe for the Safety Related Service Water System", September 27, 2011.
- 2. HydraTech Engineered Products, Typical Circumferential Cross Section, Drawing No. HT-STD-06A. (see Attachment A).
- 3. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, "Minimum Wall Thickness for Salt Water System Underground Piping Per AWWA Code", Cal. No. C-92-98, May 11, 1992.
- 4. M. Lindeburg, Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual, 8th Edition, 1990.
- 5. USAS B31.1 Power Piping Code, 1967.
- 6. R athGibson, Physical Properties of 6XN Alloys in the Annealed Condition at -20°F to +100°F, http://www.rathgibson.com/products-byalloy/super-austenitic/6xn.aspx. (see Attachment B).
- 7. F. Kreith, Principles of Heat Transfer, 2nded., Scranton Pa., International Textbook Co, 1965.
- 8. HydraTech Engineered Products, Hydratite Double Wide Seal, Drawing No. HT-STD-03. (see Attachment A)
- 9. Email conversation, From Mike Fox [1] to Hammelmann Robert,
Subject:
RE:
Hydraulic loading during installation., November 30, 2011 4:35 PM. (see Attachment C)
- 10. Altran Solutions Installation Procedure No. 11-2357-P-004 Rev. 1, "Installation Procedure For 30" and 36" Diameter Internal Sleeve Piping Repair Systems", December 2011.
- 11. Erwin Fried and I.E. Idelchick, Flow Resistance: A Design Guide for Engineers, 2nd Edition, Pages 87 and 85, 1989. (see Attachment B)
- 12. Marks Standard Handbook of Mechanical Engineers, McGraw Hill, 10th Edition, 1996.
- 13. ASME Section III, Appendices I, Figure 1-9.2.1., Design Fatigue curve,1989.
- 14. W.C. Young, and R.G. Budynas, Roark's Formulas forStress and Strain, 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002.
- 15. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, "Civil and Structural Design Criteria", ES-005, Rev 0.
- 16. CCNPP, "Specification for Salt Water System Pipe and Fittings", Spec. 6750-M-265, Rev. 3. Bechtel, 1969-11-21.
- 17. CCNPP, "M-601 Piping Class Summary Sheets", BG&E Document 92769, Rev. 49. (see Attachment D)
- 19. C IPRA, Cast Iron Pipe Research Association (CIPRA) Guide to Installation of Ductile Iron Pipe, 1972. (see Attachment B)
- 20. ASTM Standard B 688 - 96 (Reapproved 2004), Standard Specification for Chromium-Nickel-Molybdenum-Iron (UNS N08366 and UNSN08367) Plate, Sheet, and Strip, 2004.
- 21. CCNPP, "M-600 Piping Class Summary Sheets", BG&E Document 92767-A, Rev. 44.
aLT Ran Calvert Cliffs Sheet: 34 of 34 Report: 1 1-2357-C-003 By: H.Lu Date: 03/09/12 Rev: 4 Chk: A. Chock Date:03109/12
- 22. Email from E. Hussain (CENG) to R. Hammelmann (Altran) dated 2012-02-21, 15:53,
Subject:
"FW: Important message from Constellation Energy".
- 23. ANSI A21.50, American National Standard for the Thickness Design of Ductile-Iron Pipe, 1967, 1976.
- 24. ANSI A21.51, American National Standard forDuctile-Iron Pipe, Centrifugally Cast, 1981.
N
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment A: Design Sketches Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT A Design Sketches N
Altran Solutions Calculation No. I 1-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment A: Design Sketches Page 2 of 4 E XST MORTAR WM~INqPAIR RN1AIMIXG BAN PM-4)
KMH TAJ3. 2 VAU vvocGO. ~WIDE
ýG TO r THICKNTN TO MAC~1HI!ANESSIUBAG 6T0 ANTAJNINZ WNAND MhDXN 0-.'r)om k
mosr PIPE 1ACIONG PLATV,_
16 GA (AIAIANI TWK.¶ACA-22GAtG IT RETAINING BAND DETAIL NO SCALE LONGITUDINAL CROSS SECTION HOST PIPE 0o
- 32.
38W Host PIPE WALL THICKNESS 0
o5" l"
C-E3 RETAINING B3AND THICKNESS 0,187 GASKET THICKNESS:
,300 1, FORVERIFICATION OF CRITICAL DoIEENSIONS ONLY 2.,WORK WITH CLCULATION.1-236-1C-00O1
- 1. BACKING PLATEE OVERLAP SHOULD BE LOCATED ON OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE HOST PIPE FROM THE FLAW.
[ -
- a.
lff--,,
11 U
I iiI CLEN Lipp EJPP I RA SLEV REAI I.SYSTEM
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment A: Design Sketches Page 3 of 4 2222 24402 22242222222.
222A0#402#4O##22224#3t3233 4c2~N0 4' 322232,2.
.320212-42220.23220.0 02,204 F*0420222 02*022222 r~i 2212 2.03 2
I 2*222222 22222*02 2224202 2202 2222 22323
'tOm #10224224W 22 2*220212322132422 12 a#22242222
$313 122132122222302~
22 r2 20222. ~42#12o4 #2243 2220 222122.2~ 223313 220024
~2432 230343204 2222233*
2*2. 22*0 -
24.313 23 4242422220 2230 2222.
222 232242
- 023 322202023 C
224-222.22*00233312 220442234*020235 1222234.2#4*022#
~#0224 2*2.#12t 3#2fr22~
~
~02 222.2222*42.
322*22 $31023 I 22*021 0204300222220212020 3=02
- 23 22#323.3 243#2r22422 C ova in 2032 224 423* 302323
- 32 22442202212
- 2222212222222344224222 2222.23~
1222222 O
02 0~$~i 3
- 1* 242222 2222 2222 2222,2*4222442-2t22Mfl2~
2122233002402202*22*2 3222.02 22 ~4421224~222 03 022
- 022-2223322*23322220, 24¶2~~323 223222344.22 2023122022
-p CROSS SFC(YI§N 2o.202 2
- 22 2r...
- 2022022 22 22223 22022202012222222
- '~o02 222c~oeonr. 0222.002224 22=3=
42
- 22'22~
p42-.
~
2222
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment A: Design Sketches Page 4 of 4 J -;Jii.i I
)
I J
q~717 10O7394-DETAIL A
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment B: Miscellaneous Information Page 1 of5 ATTACHMENT B Miscellaneous Information
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11 -2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment B: Miscellaneous Information Page 2 of 5 aXN Physical Properties of 6XN Alloys in the Annealed Condition at -20'F to +100°F eXN N0837 8075 100,000, 690 100 48.000 310 46.30 28.3 8.6 118 Figure 1. AL6XN Material Mean Coefficient of Thermal Expasion from RathGibson.
(Reference 6: http://www.rath2ibson.com/products by alloy/super austenitic/6xn.aspx)
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment B: Miscellaneous Information Page 3 of 5 Standard Dimensions and Weights ofMcaiaqon DaeieIo Pie eost.
16-Ft Laying LnWgth 20-Ft Laj4ng Lcnath Wt. of W
of_
Sie, Thickness ThiOckness O*
Barrel We.t in.
Class in.:.
WPr Ft Wt Per Avg, Wt.
Wte Per Avg. Wt.,
--LWthe.j Per Ft:
IV,4t.
Per t§ IS lb lb l
18 1
0.38 19.SO 69.8 111:
1,365 76.0 1,505 75.4 38 2
0.41 19.50 75.2
'11.
1,465 81.4 1.615 80.8 18 3
0.44 19.50 80.6 111 1,560 86.8 1.725 86.2 18 4
0.47 19.50 86.0 111 1660 92.2 1.830 91.6 18 5
0.50 19.50 91.3 111 1,75S 97.5 1,935 9M.8 18 6
0.53 19.50 96.7 111 1.850 102.9 2,045 102.2 20 1
0.39 21.60 79.5 131 1.560 86.8 1.720 86.0 20 2
0.42 21.60 85.5
- 131 1.670 92.8 1.840
- 92.0 20 3
0.45 21.60 93.5
.131 1.780 98.8 1i960
.98.0 20 4
0.48 21.60 97.5 131 1.885 104.8 2,080 104.0 20 5
0.51 21.60
- 103.4 131 1,990 110.7 2,200 110.0 20 6
0.54 21.60 109.3 131 2,100 116.6.
2,315 115.6 24 1
0.41 25.80 100.1 174 1,975 109.8.
2.175 308.8 24 2
0.44 25;80 107.3 174 2,105 117.0 2,320; 116.0 24
.3 0.47 25.80 114.4 1174 2.235 124A1 2,460 123.1 24
.4 O.SO 25.80 121.6 174 2,365 131.3 2,!05 130.3 24 5
0.53 25.80 128,8 174 2,490 138.5 2,750 137.5 24 6
0.S6 25.80 135.9 174 2.620 145.6.
2;8190 144.6 30 1
0.43.
32.00 130.5 216 2,565 142.5 2,825 144.3 30 2
0.47 32.00 142.5:
216 2.780 154.5 3.065 153.3 30 3
0.51 32.00 154.4 216 2.995 166.4 3,305 165.2 30 4
0.55 3 22.00 165.3 216 3.210 178.3 3,540 177At 30 5
0.59 32.00 178.2 216 3.425
.190.2 31710 189.0 30 6
0.63 32.00 190.0 216 3,635 202.0 4.035 200.8.
36 1
0.48 38.30 174.5 o310.,450 191.7
- 3,80 190.o 36 2
0.53 38.30
.1924 310 3,775 209.6 4,160 207.9
- 36.
3 0.58 38.30 230.5
- 310 4,095 227.5 4515 225.8 36
- 41.
0.63:
38.30 228.1 310 4,415 245.35 4,870 243.6 36
.5 -
0.68 35.30 245.9 5310 4,735 "263.1 5,230 261.4 36 6
0.73 38.30 263.7 310 5,055
- 280.9, 5,.5V 279.2 42 1
A 053 44.50 224.0 405 4,5 244.2 42::
2 0.59 44.50 249.1 405 5.3 51 269.4 42'
.3 0.65 44.50 1274.0 405 m5s,815 29t.2
- 42 4
0.71 44.50 298.9 405 6,3185.
319.2 42 S
0.77 44.50 323.7 405 6810:
344.0 42 6
0.83 4450 384 405 7.375 368.6 48 1
0.58 50.80 280.0 505 6.1110 305.2 48 2
0.65 50.80 313.4 3505
.,775 338.6 48 3
0.72 50.80 346;6
- '505 7.435 371.8" 483 4
0.79 50.80 379,8 505 8m100 405.0 48 5
0.866 50.80 412.9 i505 8.765 438.2
.48 6
0.93.
30.80 445.9 SOS.
9.425 471.2 Toleran-ce of OD of, pgot end:.4-12 In, *:j0.06* i 14-24 Lt.,,q.os
-0.08 In.; 3D-48 In., +0.08 in..
-0.06 In.
1.The mechanical joint bell for 30-46-in. sizes of ductile-4ron pipe have thicknesses different from those shown in ANSI A2.Iig:(AWWA CIlI). which are based on gray.iron pIpe.. These reduced thicknesseseprovldealighter weight bell, which to compatible with the wall thicknesses of ductfle-Iron pipe, The internal aocket dlmensions,.
bolt cdrde, and bolt holes of the redesigned bell remainldentilcalto those specified in A21.11. (AWWA C111)to:
assure interchangeablilty of the joint..
Including bell; calculated weight of pipe rounded off to nearest 5 Ib, I Including bell; average weight per toot, based on calculated weight of pipe before rounding.
Figure 2. Standard Dimensions and Weights of Mechanical-Joint Ductile-Iron Pipe from Cast Iron Pipe Research Association (Birmingham, AL).
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment B: Miscellaneous Information Page 4 of 5 Thbelgeo~d ocilice (11D,,
> 0.015) fii a 31talihi~t lobr (Chaannel; fliagrar Ref=t,Dhv > 10' (13, 141 4-15 F1_t -
(
Dh1 FV)t Dj jt lF,\\,
t:\\'+D/r\\,.
whren r
(/1Dh), see tI*e table belo* oa graph a of Dlagrwm 4-12; e Chaptet 2 at, =0.02 fortheyglues of f, =flI/D 6 F*/Ft) mee thegraph WVues of Dh M
.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0;11 0.20 0.2S 0,30 0.40 0.50 0,60 0.70 (',80 0.00 1.0
.0 0.2
<0,4 10.6
- '1.0 1.4 2.0 3.0 4.0
- $.0 6.0 7,0 a0 9.0 10 1.35 7000 1670 730 400 24S 96.0 S.S 30.0 18,2 8.28 4;00 2.00 0.97 0.42.0.130 1.22 6600 1600 687 314 230 94.0 490 28.0 17.4 7,70 3.15 1.87 0.91 0.40 011 0,01 1.10 6310 2130 660 356 221 9.0 46.0 26.S 16.6 7.40 360 1.80 0.88 039 0
2, 1 0.02 0.84 0700 1300.$90 322 199 81.0 42.0 24.0 15.0 6.60 3.20 1,600,80 0.36 0,12 0101 042 4680 1130 486 264 164. 66.0 340 19.6 1222 5.50 2,70 1.34 0.66 04 J 0.21 0.02 0.24 4260 1030.443 240 149 60.0,31 0 1170 211. 6$00 2.40 1;20 0.61 0.29 0.12 0.02 0.20 3930 950 408 221 137. 5516 204 16,4 20.3 4.60 2.21 1:15 0:58 0.28 0.11 0.03 0.02 3770 910 391 2i2 24
- 20. 27.4 15.8 0.90 4.40 2,20 1.13 0.51 0,28 0.12 0.04 0
, 3765 9 01.392 214 122 130.271 1529 10.0 4050
.2 24 1.11 0.61 0.31 0:15 0.06.
0 2377 930 400 215.1M 53,1 27.7 16.2 10.0 4.60 T1%S 1.2010.64"+0,5 0.16 0.00 0
3800 936 400 220 133 856.
28.8 16.1 10.5 4,71 2.40 1.7 20.69 0.37 0.20 0.10 0
3810 940 400 222 132.S58 225. 16.6 100, 4.00 2.42
- .31 0.70 0,40 0,21 0;12 0
4000 950 401 230 135 55.9:29.0 27.0 10;9 C.00 23.0 1,38 0.74 0.43 0.23 0.14 0
4000 965 410 236 137 16.
30.0 17.2 1t.2 L
.Te0 S
.O 8 1.40 0.76 0.4O 0.2S 0.16 0
4080 981 420 240.140 17.0 30.0 17.4 11;4 $..30 2.62 1,0
.800 0.50 0.28 0.88 0
4110 2000 430 240 146 S9.7 31.0 18,2 11.0 1.40 2,80 1.57.0.49 0.13.0.32 0.20 Figure 3. Coefficient of Fluid Resistance (pressure loss coefficient) in Thick-edged Orifice in a Straight Tube, Reference 11.
'flck.edg;d orifipe (l*D, > U15) 0 nstl1til in a tra4sItIon iection; Ro = w.Dhl/v> 1011 [13,14]
Diagram 4-12 '
P/
D1 1-=4F.
r_
0.05o r F w,,F, A~jo r.&
'1PsOO F 0 \\(
PA2 )
/
\\+,.t wheye 7
-i-D F., h Dh for X.see Chapter 2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8.
v 1.35 1.22 1.10 0.84 0.42 40 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 K.
0.24 0.16 0.07 0.02 0
44
'10 x?
0zo/i Figure 4. Coefficient of Fluid Resistance (pressure loss coefficient) in Thick-edged Orifice Installed in a Transition Section, Reference 11.
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment B: Miscellaneous Information Page 5 of 5
_J~I
+
)
.I
.i.
~~~~~~~
.A INOIM AlioN.IL WEIGHTS (F "I1 It iOF llI IIN PI9(
AND CONII A 1 WAtt I 1 I Pi pe
________/1,_____~ol 111t)
Size 10 0
4 12 49 49 14 9"67
'16
,t8 18 I10 20' H
- 136,
- 24.
'i196 30
- 3. 07 36 Ai 22 42 2AI
- 601,
' 54 liN-19T B ased on Class 2 POFiiil,,ai i.,l "hu itoin pipe In 20 ft.
Based on nominal IpIY wiIt:.:
[i USEFUL IN"(i(4tM`AiION LINEAR I"XPANhION Oli(M V11111 IRON PIPE.
The coetficlent of iiiioi ar xauiilnui of ductile iron may paension or contract tion:
lit uimin t11iu will take place Inb taeas000(i2 iu ipuntItlrihi.TeC-in of i..
length wi iP ivWiia lIvi*i*tilwure changes Is'T shown in the Ioiowbil I ti.
.1."
0:
':I 1o I
~~~~..
I Temp
___L~nIFIINFE F
100 ism0 1000 5280 5
0.037 1
0,37 6
10 00 14 0
.l "
074
.93
- 20.
0, 14 9.
0.74 0.15
.7,86 30 0.2 22
".2 2.23 11.78 40 0.298 1/4:
1 2"98 15.71 50 0.372 I i116 3.72 19.64 60 0.4 46 j
'I 4.46 23.57 70 O0l 2
l 130 W
5.'20 27,50 80 0.595 2,1il 5.95-31.43.
90 0.6701 335 6.70 35.35 100 0.744
- 1. 7 7,44 39.28 120 03 4.46~
8.931 47.14
,'0 1.116 551 11.16-58.92 i--i
.72 Figure 5. Excerpt from CIPRA, Guide to Installation of Ductile Iron Pipe, Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, Oakbrook, IL, 1972, (Reference 19).
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment C: Email Correspondence Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT C Email Correspondence
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 1 1-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment C: Email Correspondence Page 2 of 3 From: Mike Fox rmailto: mike.fox@hydratechllc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 4:35 PM To: Hammelmann Robert
Subject:
RE: Hydraulic loading during installation
- Robert, The recommended expander pressure is 3500 psi (for both sizes)
The cylinder bore size is 1.69" (typical expander). Wedo have a smaller expander with 1.00" cylinder Based on the 1.69" cylinder and 3500 psi, the imposed pressure on pipe is estimated as follows:
Contact pressure on L.D of pipe for 30.4" = 260 psi Contact pressure on I.D of pipe for 36.54" = 215 psi Compression force on retaining band = 7850 psi Michael Fox HydraTech Engineered Products Office: 513.827.9169
'Mobile: 513.404.9701
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment C: Email Correspondence Page 3 of 3 Chock Alfred From:
Hussain, Eraran M <Emran.Hussain@cenglccom>
Sent:
Tuesday, FebrUary 21,'2012 3:53 PM To:
Hammeln'inn Robert Cc:
Drake, Andre S Subject.
FWM:
Important message from Constellation Energy Attachments:
ODocument.pdf Categories:
Blue Category
- Bob,
- 1. For pressure, use Document 92769, rev. 492., Flow, Rate use UFSAR rev; 43; Pump flow rate 2rx 20,000 gpm = 40,000 gpm which Is slightly higher than your number; Emran
.---Original Message -----
From: PRT4293 llto:PRT4293@ceg.corP.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:50 PM To: Hussain, Emran M
Subject:
Important message from Constellation. Energy Please open the attached document. This document was digitally sent to you using an HP Digital Sending device.
>>>This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do,not use the'Information in this e-.
mail in any Way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IPI.
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 1 1-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment D: Miscellaneous Calvert Cliffs Documents Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D Miscellaneous Calvert Cliffs Documents
Altran Solutions Calculation No. 11-2357-C-003 Revision 4 Attachment D: Miscellaneous Calvert Cliffs Documents Page 2 of 2
ýSRVC SERkICE DES(CRIgrIQNOP ASMEN I&F
ýQDE'ArN P
~~PSIG V0?
VsG
-F SIG F
LCAl Plunbingmadsanitarysrain(underpmnd 25 100 Non-Class 831.1 outside building to steatrmet plant)
Salt Water system (u.derground) 50 95 Note Class I11 B31.I N6:
- Ito,
)1i5 its LC-3 Waste process eflucent to circulating water 60 130 Non-Claws 3L.
discharge (Underground).
LC-4 Sewage treatment plant punp dischare
\\
5 0 110 15 80 Non-Class B31.1 LC-S 13.8 KV regulator Ot drains Atim 100 Atm.
100 Non-Class B31.1 NO~i~1S~Dhalslom D~e Wi~?69~LC
~
M-60I Piping Clas.Srwet
.ý~Kr~lif hi1&--
~
e{o!
4
~
~e~tosdn BGE Domest 92769 Page 47 of 87 Revision 49 Figure 5. Calvert Cliffs M-601 Piping Class Summary Sheet No. LC-1 for Salt Water System (underground) Design Rating.