ML14066A409
| ML14066A409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/2014 |
| From: | Gustafson O Entergy Nuclear Operations |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| PNP 2014-028 | |
| Download: ML14066A409 (91) | |
Text
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Palisades Nuclear Plant lizter 27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway Covert, MI 49043-9530 Tel 269 764 2000 Otto W. Gustafson Regulatory Assurance Manager PNP 2014-028 March 6, 2014 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
Supplemental Response to Request for Additional Information dated February 26, 2014, for Relief Request Number RR 4-18 Proposed Alternative, Use of Alternate ASME Code Case N-770-1 Baseline Examination Palisades Nuclear Plant Docket 50-255 License No. DPR-20
References:
1.
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter PNP 2014-015, Relief Request Number RR 4-18
- Proposed Alternative, Use of Alternate ASME Code Case N-770-1 Baseline Examination, dated February 25, 2014 2.
NRC Electronic Mail, Request for Additional Information
- Palisades
- RR 4-18
- Proposed Alternative, Use ofAlternate ASME Code Case N-770-1 Baseline Examination
- MF3508, dated February 26, 2014 3.
Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc. letter PNP 2014-021, Response to Request for Additional Information dated February 26, 2014, for Relief Request Number RR 4-18 Proposed Alternative, Use of Alternate ASME Code Case N-770-1 Baseline Examination, dated March 1, 2014
Dear Sir or Madam:
In Reference 1, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) requested Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval of the Request for Relief for a Proposed Alternative for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP).
PNP 2014-028 Page 2 Code Case N-770-1, as conditioned by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F)(1) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F)(3), dated June 21, 2011.
In Reference 2, the NRC issued a request for additional information (RAI). The ENO response to the RAI in Reference 3 stated that the calculations requested in RAI-1.13 would be provided in a supplemental RAI response letter.
This supplemental letter contains the calculations referenced in RAI-1.13 of Reference 3.
This submittal contains no proprietary information.
This submittal makes no new commitments or revisions to previous commitments.
Sincerely, owg/jse
Enclosures:
- 1. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Calculation 1200895.306, Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis and Circumferential Crack Stress Intensity Factor Determination, Revision 0
- 2. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., Calculation 1200895.307, Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Crack Growth Analyses, Revision 0
- 3. Structural Integrity Associates, Inc., Calculation 1200895.308, Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Limit Load Analyses for Flawed Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld, Revision 0 cc:
Administrator, Region III, USNRC Project Manager, Palisades, USNRC Resident Inspector, Palisades, USNRC
ENCLOSURE I Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. Calculation 1200895.306 Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis and Circumferential Crack Stress Intensity Factor Determination Revision 0 51 Pages Follow
ATTACHMENT 9.1 VENDOR DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS Sheet 1 of I Enteiy ENTERGY NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT MANUAL EN-DC-I49 VENDOR DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS FOR ACCEPTANCE Li FOR INFORMATION El IPEC El JAF PLP El PNPS
[I VY Li ANO El GGNS El RBS LI W3 El NP Document No.: 1200895.306 Rev. No.0 Document
Title:
Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis and Circumferential Crack Stress Intensity Factor Determination EC No.: 49590 Purchase Order No.N/A (N1A for NPJ STATUS NO:
1.
ACCEPTED, WORK MAY PROCEED 2.
El ACCEPTED AS NOTED RESUBMITTAL NOT REQUIRED, WORK MAY PROCEED 3.
El ACCEPTED AS NOTED RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED
- 4. 0 NOT ACCEPTED Acceptance does not constitute approval of design details, calculations, analyses, test methods, or materials developed or selected by the supplier and does not relieve the supplier from full compliance with contractual negotiations.
Responsible Engineer Brian Smith Print Name j
ignatur Date Engineering Supervisor Dave MacMaster
/ 1 Print Name Signature
ate EN-DC-i 49 REV 8
File No.:
1200895.306 aIIntegAssoates,Inc.
Project No.: 1400148 CALCULATION PACKAGE Quality Program:
Nuclear LI Commercial PROJECT NAME:
Evaluation of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle CONTRACT NO.:
10404220 CLIENT:
PLANT:
Entergy Nuclear Palisades Nuclear Plant CALCULATION TITLE:
Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis and Circumferential Crack Stress Intensity Factor Determination Project Manager Preparer(s) &
Document Affected Revision Description Approval Checker(s)
Revision Pages Signature & Date Signatures & Date 0
1
- 45 Initial Issue A-i
- A-5 Richard Bax RLB 03/06/14 Francis Ku FHK 03/06/14 Charles Fourcade CJF 03/06/14 Page 1 of 45 F0306-OIR1
StnicIureI integrity Associates, Thc.
Table of Contents 1.0 OBJECTIVE
.5 2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH 5
2.1 Material Properties 5
2.2 Finite Element Model for Weld Residual Stress Analysis 6
2.3 Finite Element Models with Circumferential Flaws 6
2.4 Welding Simulation 6
2.5 Heat Inputs 7
2.6 Creep Properties 7
2.7 Mechanical Boundary Conditions 8
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS 8
4.0 WELD RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSIS 9
4.1 Hot Leg Cladding 9
4.2 Boss Main Weld 10 4.3 IDPatch Weld 10 4.4 Post Weld Heat Treatment 10 4.5 Hydrostatic Test 11 4.6 Five Normal Operating Cycles (NOC) 11 5.0 RESULTS OF WELD RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSIS 12 5.1 Welding Temperature Contours 12 5.2 PWHT Temperature Results 12 5.3 Residual Stress Results 12 6.0 K CALCULATION FOR CIRCUMFERENTIAL CRACKS 13 6.1 Crack Face Pressure Application 13 6.2 Circumferential Crack Stress Intensity Factor Results 14 7.0 STRESS EXTRACTION FOR AXIAL CRACKS 14 7.1 Hoop Stress Extraction for Axial Crack Growth Evaluation 14
8.0 CONCLUSION
S 15
9.0 REFERENCES
16 APPENDIX A COMPUTER FILES LISTING A-i File No.: 1200895.306 Page 2 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OI RI
StnicIural Integrity Associates, kicL List of Tables Table 1: Elastic Properties for SA-5 16 Grade 70 (4 Thick) 17 Table 2: Elastic Properties for ER3O8L 17 Table 3: Elastic Properties for Alloy 600 18 Table 4: Elastic Properties for Alloy 82/182 18 Table 5: Elastic-Plastic Properties for SA-5 16 Grade 70 (4 Thick) 19 Table 6: Elastic-Plastic Properties for ER3 08L 20 Table 7: Elastic-Plastic Properties for Alloy 600 21 Table 8: Elastic-Plastic Properties for Alloy 182 22 Table 9: Creep Properties 23 Table 10: Circumferential Crack K vs. a Table 24 Table 11: Hoop Stress Table at 0° Azimuth for Axial Crack Growth Evaluation 25 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 3 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
SbucWraI Intigrity Associates, lnc.
List of Figures Figure 1: Finite Element Model for Residual Stress Analysis 26 Figure 2: Finite Element Model for the 0.13 Deep Circumferential Crack 27 Figure 3: Applied Mechanical Boundary Conditions 28 Figure 4: Weld Nugget Definitions for the Boss Main Weld 29 Figure 5: Weld Nugget Definitions for the ID Patch Weld 30 Figure 6: Applied Hydrostatic and Corresponding End Cap Pressure Loads 31 Figure 7: Predicted Fusion Boundary Plot for Cladding 32 Figure 8: Predicted Fusion Boundary Plot for Boss Main Weld 33 Figure 9: Predicted Fusion Boundary Plot for ID Patch Weld 34 Figure 10: Temperature Curve for PWHT 35 Figure 11: Predicted von Mises Residual Stress after ID Patch Weld at 70°F 36 Figure 12: Predicted von Mises Residual Stress after PWHT at 70°F 37 Figure 13: Residual Stress Comparison for Before and After PWHT 38 Figure 14: Measured Through-Wall Residual Stresses for PWHT 39 Figure 15: Predicted von Mises Residual Stress after Hydrostatic Test at 70°F 40 Figure 16: Predicted Radial Residual Stress + Operating Conditions (
5 th NOC Cycle) 41 Figure 17: Predicted Hoop Residual Stresses + Operating Conditions (5t NOC Cycle) 42 Figure 18: Transferred Radial Residual + NOC + Pressure Stresses (3.95 Crack Shown)..43 Figure 19: FEA Calculated Circumferential Crack K vs. a at Four Azimuth Locations Figure 20: Hoop Stress Extraction Grid for Axial Crack Growth Evaluation 45 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 4 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
StnicfliralIntgrlly AssocIat9s. Thc.
1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation package is to document the revised weld residual stress analysis and the resulting circumferential crack stress intensity factor determination for the hot leg drain nozzle at Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades).
The revised weld residual stress analysis is based on the latest methodology and process developed by Structural Integrity Associates (SI). The stress intensity factor determination is performed using finite element analysis (FEA) for a full circumferential crack in the nozzle-to-hot leg dissimilar metal weld.
2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH The finite element model is obtained from a previous project for Palisades [1] and the weld residual stress analysis repeats the steps in the previous weld residual analysis [2], but uses the latest weld residual stress analysis methodology and process developed by SI.
The circumferential flaws are modeled in this calculation package and evaluated by finite element analyses. Hoop stress results in the weld region, corresponding to the hot leg, from the weld residual stress analysis are extracted to evaluate axial flaws (i.e. flaws aligned with the hot leg axis), which will be performed in a separate calculation.
The finite element model includes all components in the post-nozzle installation stage because new elements cannot be added during an ANSYS FEA. Since all the weld elements need to be included in the initial model, the element birth and death technique in ANSYS is used to initially deactivate the weld elements, with elements corresponding to the active weld segment reactivated at the melting temperature, thus simulating the weld metal deposition.
2.1 Material Properties The revised weld residual stress analysis performed in this calculation uses the material properties specifically developed in a separate calculation package for weld residual stress analyses [3]. Per the material designation used in the previous project [1], the following materials are used:
SA-516 Grade 70:
Hot leg base metal ER3O8L:
Hot leg cladding (common weld metal for Type 304)
Alloy 82/182:
Boss main weld and ID patch weld Alloy 600 (SB-166):
Drain nozzle The material properties for those materials are tabulated in Tables 1 through 8.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 5 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
SbucIur8l hit,grlly Associates, k?c.
2.2 Finite Element Model for Weld Residual Stress Analysis The finite element model for the analyses was developed in a previous project for Palisades [1], which was created using a legacy version of the ANSYS finite element analysis software package [4]. The finite element model is recreated using that legacy ANSYS version and then transferred into the newer version ofANSYS [5] for the analyses in this calculation to take advantage of the solver and speed enhancements in the newer software release.
The base finite element model for the weld residual stress analysis is meshed with 8-node solid elements (SOLID 185) in ANSYS. This finite element model is shown in Figure 1.
2.3 Finite Element Models with Circumferential Flaws The intent of the residual stress analysis is to evaluate the fracture mechanics characteristics of postulated flaws through the nozzle boss weld. The stress intensity factors for a full circumferential flaw in the nozzle boss weld are determined by finite element analysis using deterministic linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) principles. As a result, seven fracture mechanics finite element models are derived to include collapsed crack meshing that represent full (3600) circumferential flaws surrounding the nozzle at various depths within the boss weld.
The circumferential cracks align with the interface between the boss weld and the nozzle. The modeled crack depths are: 0.13, 0.57, 1.21, 1.85, 2.49, 3.13, and 3.95.
The modeling of the flaws, or cracks, involves splitting the crack plane and then inserting collapsed mesh around the crack tips followed by concentrated mesh refinements that surround the collapsed mesh, and are referred to as crack tip elements. This step is implemented on a source finite element model without the cracks, which is referred to as the base model, and then the crack tip elements are inserted by an in-house developed ANSYS macro (see Appendix A for file listing).
For the fracture mechanics models, 20-node quadratic solid elements (SOLID95) are used in the crack tip region, while 8-node solid elements (SOLID45) are used everywhere else in the model. The mid-side nodes for the SOLID95 elements around the crack tips are shifted to the quarter point locations to properly capture the singularities at the crack tips, consistent with ANSYS recommendations. The finite element model for the 0.13 deep crack, with the crack tip mesh, is shown in Figure 2 as an example; the crack tip mesh for the other crack depths follows the same pattern.
The quarter point mid-side nodes combined with the extra layers of concentrated elements around the crack tips, as shown in Figure 2, provide sufficient mesh refinement to determine the stress intensity factors for the fracture mechanics analyses.
2.4 Welding Simulation The FEA for predicting the weld residual stresses is performed as a continuous analysis so that the load history from the cladding is carried over to the boss main weld and then the ID patch weld. Specifically, the residual stresses and strains at the end of a weld are used as initial conditions for the next weld.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 6 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
StnicIureIinhigrity AssoclWis, kic.
The procedures for this complex multi-step simulation are encoded in ANSYS Parametric Design Language (APDL) macros which utilize elastic-plastic material behavior and elements with large deformation capability to predict the residual stresses due to the various welding processes.
2.5 Heat Inputs The deposition of the weld metal is simulated by imposing a heat generation function on the elements representing the active weld, which is applied as a volumetric body heat generation rate. The amount of equivalent heat input energy, Q (in terms of kJ/inch), is determined from the welding parameters.
Since the welding parameters for the welds are not available, a typical heat input of 28 kJ/in, with an overall heat efficiency of 0.8, is assumed for all ofthe welds. The heat efficiency represents a composite value reflecting the concepts of arc efficiency, melting efficiency, etc., and is an optimum value to produce reasonable heat penetrations in the analysis.
The APDL macros automatically appropriate cooling time for the thermal pass to ensure that sufficient heat penetration is achieved, the required interpass temperature between weld passes is met, and a reasonable overall temperature distribution within the finite element model is achieved. The resulting temperature time history is then imported into the stress pass in order to calculate the residual stresses due to the thermal cycling of the weld elements using nonlinear, elastic-plastic load/unload stress reversal relations.
The following summarizes the welding parameters used in the analysis:
Interpass temperature
=
350°F Melting temperature 2500°F Ambient temperature 70°F Heat input for all welds 28 kJ/in Heat efficiency for all welds
=
0.8 Inside/Outside heat transfer coefficient 5 Btu/hr-ft-°F Inside/Outside temperature 70°F 2.6 Creep Properties Strain relaxation due to creep at high temperature is considered in the post weld heat treatment (PWHT) step. In general, creep becomes significant at temperatures above 800°F; thus, creep behavior under 800°F will not be considered in this analysis.
There are two main categories of creep: primary and secondary. The primary creep addresses the creep characteristics for a short duration at the early stages of the creep regime, while the secondary creep accounts for the creep behavior for a long duration usually more than 10,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />. Based on this definition, the PW}IT falls within the primary creep characteristics. However, primary creep rates for File No.: 1200895.306 Page 7 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StnicbjraI Integdty Assacieles, kic materials are difficult to obtain, so the conservative secondary creep rates are used since primary creep rate is typically an order of magnitude higher than that for secondary creep.
In general, the primary creep rate for the materials is governed by the equation:
d8=Au dt The creep data for the SA-5 16 Grade 70 hot leg material is based on carbon steel material [6]. The creep data for the Alloy 82/182 and ER3O8L weld metals are not available, so the creep properties for their base metals are used instead. The creep data for Type 304 (for ER3O8L) is provided in the same reference as the carbon steel [6], while the creep data for the Alloy 600 (for Alloy 82/182) is provided in a separate literature [7]. All the creep strengths, a, are provided at two creep rates [6, 7] for each temperature point.
When creep strength is provided at two creep rates at the same temperature point, as listed in Table 9, then A and n can be calculated as follows, where subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the creep data sets 1 and 2:
d6
= 6 Au di 6
1
=Au 1
11
- 6 2
=AU 2
t7
62 n
/
ln1-62 U2J ln
n lni-L A
62 2.7 Mechanical Boundary Conditions For the weld residual stress and all of the LEFM analyses, the mechanical boundary conditions for the stress analysis are symmetric boundary conditions on the symmetry planes of the model, and axial displacement couplings on the ends of the drain nozzle and hot leg piping, as shown in Figure 3.
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are used in the analyses:
The hot leg cladding material is assumed to be ER3O8L, which is a common weld metal for Type 304 stainless steel cladding.
The modeled circumferential flaws are assumed to align with the boss weld and nozzle interface, which represents a potential crack path of the susceptible material.
The welding interpass temperature is assumed to be 350°F, which is a typical parameter.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 8 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
StnicturaI hfligrliy AssociWs, fr The metal melting temperature is assumed to be 2500°F, which is the temperature point where the strength of the material is set to near zero [3].
The analysis is performed with an ambient temperature of 70°F.
The exposed surface of the model is subject to a typical ambient air cooling convection film coefficient of 5 Btu/hr-ft 2
-°F at a bulk temperature of 70°F. The exposed surface is defined as the external surface of the model excluding the symmetry planes and geometric ends.
The focus of this analysis is the residual stresses in the drain nozzle boss weld region, while the detailed interactions between the clad buildup and the hot leg base metal is secondary. Therefore, the clad is assumed to be fully deposited in a one-layer single pass process.
The boss main weld is represented by an 80-bead process, as shown in Figure 4, with each bead represented by a one pass bead ring nugget. This approach is a common and acceptable industry practice when information regarding the bead start/stop position and sequencing are unknown.
Similarly, the ID patch weld is represented by a 7-bead process, as shown in Figure 5, with each bead represented by a one pass bead ring nugget.
For modeling simplicity, the penetration hole is present during the deposition of the clad. This is acceptable since any localized stress that would have developed without the hole is relieved when the material is removed from the pipe.
For convenience, the modeled ID patch weld shares the same geometry as the backing ring for the main weld.
4.0 WELD RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSIS The weld residual analysis consists of a thermal analysis to determine the temperature distribution followed by a stress analysis to determine the resulting stresses. The analytical sequence described below is used in the finite element analysis, followed by detailed discussions of the steps:
1.
Deposit clad on hot leg pipe inside (ID) surface.
2.
Install drain nozzle, backing ring, and deposit boss main weld.
3.
Remove backing ring and deposit ID patch weld.
4.
Post weld heat treatment.
5.
Subject the configuration to hydro test.
6.
Impose 5 cycles of shake down with normal operating temperature and pressure.
4.1 Hot Leg Cladding The clad material is typically welded onto the inside surface of the hot leg pipe, and the nominal thickness of the clad is thicker than the typical thickness for a single weld layer used in the process.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 9 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StnicbiraI hitpgrlty AssoclWes, Thc.
However, the focus of this analysis is on the as-welded residual stresses, while the detailed interactions between the clad buildup and the base material during the many actual weld passes is not of interest.
Therefore, the clad is assumed to be fully deposited in a single pass.
At this step, only the hot leg pipe base metal and clad material are active; all other components are deactivated. At the end of the cladding application, the entire model is cooled 70°F before the application of the boss main weld.
4.2 Boss Main Weld The main weld connects the drain nozzle boss to the hot leg piping. As shown in Figure 4, the weld is composed of 80 nuggets deposited in 30 weld layers. In the absence of detailed weld fabrication information, a weld sequence is assumed based on standard welding practice at the time of fabrication.
In particular, for every layer, the first nugget is deposited on the hot leg side, the second nugget on the nozzle side, and the remaining nuggets (if any) are added in the radial direction from hot leg to nozzle.
At this step, the drain nozzle and backing ring are reactivated, and the boss main weld nuggets are reactivated sequentially to simulate the welding process. At the end of the boss main weld, the entire model is cooled 70°F before the application of the ID patch weld.
4.3 ID Patch Weld The final weld step is to add the ID patch weld, which replaces the backing ring. As seen in Figure 5, the ID patch weld is composed of 7 nuggets deposited in 2 layers.
At this step, the backing ring is first deactivated to allow the residual stresses to redistribute, and the ID patch weld nuggets are reactivated sequentially to simulate the welding process. At the end of the ID patch weld, the entire model is cooled 70°F before the application of the PWHT.
4.4 Post Weld Heat Treatment An important reason for performing PWHT is to relieve the residual stresses from welding. PWHT is assumed to be performed as per the following procedure outlined in Article 5, paragraph 1-731.3.1 -d of USA Standard B31.7 [8]:
1.
Heat welded piping component to 1125°F at a heating rate of 200°F per hour.
2.
Hold at temperature for approximately 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> (1 hr/in of weld thickness).
3.
Allow to cool to 600°F at a cooling rate of 200°F per hour.
4.
Air-cool from 600°F to ambient.
5.
A steady state load step is imposed at the end of the PWHT process.
During the PWHT, creep behavior is activated for time steps with the maximum temperature above 800°F. At the end of the PWHT, the entire model is cooled 70°F before the application of the hydrostatic test.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 10 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
fSbTicWr& hitugrity Assochiles. kic 4.5 Hydrostatic Test A hydrostatic test pressure of 3.125 ksi [9, page 9] is applied after the welding. The pressure is applied on the ID surfaces of hot leg pipe and nozzle. End-cap traction loads, Pend.capnozzle and Pend.caphl, are applied at the free ends of the drain line nozzle and hot leg piping, respectively. These are calculated based on the following expressions:
2 P
inside end-cap-nozzle
2 2
routside rinside
- where, P
Hydrostatic test pressure (ksi)
Pendcapnozzle
= End cap pressure on drain line nozzle end (ksi) rinside
= Inside radius of drain line nozzle (in) rou5ide
= Outside radius of drain line nozzle (iii)
- and,
- r Pend.cap-hI =
2 2
rourside hi rinside hi
- where, P
= Hydrostatic test pressure (ksi)
Pendcaphl End cap pressure on hot leg pipe end (ksi) rinsidehl
= Inside radius of hot leg pipe (in) routside_hl
= Outside radius of hot leg pipe (in)
The applied pressure loads on the model are shown in Figure 6.
4.6 Five Normal Operating Cycles (NOC)
After the hydrostatic test, the assembled configuration is put into service and subjected to 5 cycles of shake down to stabilize the as-welded residual stresses. This step involves simultaneously ramping the model from zero-load to steady-state conditions at normal operating temperature and pressure then back to steady-state at 70°F and no pressure five times.
The applied operating pressure is 2.122 ksi and temperature is 593°F [10]. The temperature is assumed to be uniform throughout the components and operating pressure is applied as an internal pressure on the ID surface, with corresponding end cap pressures calculated using the equations in the previous section.
The term P is replaced by the operating pressure in the expressions.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 11 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StnicIuraIhitpgrIIy Aciales. kic.
5.0 RESULTS OF WELD RESIDUAL STRESS ANALYSIS The ANSYS input files and computer output files for the analyses are listed in Appendix A.
5.1 Welding Temperature Contours The maximum temperature prediction contours for each weld are created using macro MapTemp.mac.
This type of contour plot is also called a fusion boundary plot because it provides an overview of the maximum temperature on each node throughout the thermal transient for each welding process. The plots are useful in visualizing the melting of weld metal and the extent of heat penetration.
The predicted fusion boundary contours for the cladding, main weld, and ID patch weld are shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9, respectively. The purple color in the plots represents elements at melting temperature; the plots show complete melting of the weld metal for each weld and slight melting of the base metal along the weld interface.
5.2 PWHT Temperature Results Figure 10 plots the inside surface temperature curve for the PWBT process. It shows the linear 200°F/hour heating rate, four hours (240 minutes) hold time at 1125°F, 200°F/hour cooling rate at temperature above 600°F, and the air cooling to room temperature of 70°F.
5.3 Residual Stress Results Figure 11 plots the von Mises residual stresses after welding is complete, but before PWHT. It shows extensive residual stresses of greater than 66 ksi in the weld material. However, as shown in Figure 12, after the PWHT the residual stresses in the weld have relaxed significantly, to below 41 ksi, but the residual stresses in the cladding remain essentially unchanged.
To further investigate the effects of the PWHT, before and after PWHT residual stresses are extracted along the two through-wall paths shown in Figures 11 and 12. The through-wall residual stresses are compared in Figure 13, and it shows that there is little to no stress reduction in the clad material, while there is significant stress reduction in the vessel base metal.
The PWHT results from the FEA trend comparably well with the data in EPRI report TR-105697 [12],
which contains a comparable through-wall clad residual stress distribution based on experimental measurements, as shown in Figure 14. The experimental measurements were for a low alloy steel vessel with a Type 304 stainless steel clad. The data shows tensile hoop stress through the clad thickness and the base metal near the clad interface, but the hoop stress drops rapidly to compressive values at farther distances from the clad.
Figure 15 depicts the predicted von Mises residual stresses after the hydrostatic test. It shows an insignificant reduction in maximum stress when compared to the post-PWHT step: 72.85 ksi (Figure 15) versus 73.75 ksi (Figure 12), while the overall stress contour remains essentially the same.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 12 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StnicftiraIIntigrliy Associates. Thc Figures 16 and 17 depict the combined weld residual plus operating radial and hoop stresses at the fifth stabilization NOC cycle, respectively. The stress results at this step are used in the fracture mechanics evaluations.
6.0 K CALCULATION FOR CIRCUMFERENTL4L CRACKS The stress intensity factors (Ks) for the circumferential cracks are calculated using the KCALC feature in ANSYS which is based on the LEFM principle. For the LEFM evaluation, only the elastic properties in Tables 1 through 4 are used in the FEA, the stress-strain curves and creep properties in Tables 5 through 9 are not used.
6.1 Crack Face Pressure Application In order to determine the Ks for the circumferential cracks due to residual stresses, the stresses on the boss weld-to-nozzle interface, at the fifth operating condition (at time = 3046 minutes), are extracted from the residual stress analysis and reapplied on the crack face as surface pressure loading.
Representative transferred residual stresses onto the crack face for the deepest circumferential crack of 3.95 are shown in Figure 18.
This approach is based on the load superposition principle [11], which is utilized to transfer the stresses from the weld residual stress finite element model onto the fracture mechanics finite element model that contains crack tip elements. The superposition technique is based on the principle that, in the linear elastic regime, stress intensity factors of the same mode, which are due to different loads, are additive (similar to stress components in the same direction).
The superposition method can be summarized with the following sketches [11, page 66]:
(a)
A load p(x) on an uncracked body, Sketch (a), produces a normal stress distribution p(x) on Plane A-B.
The superposition principle is illustrated by Sketches (b), (c), and (d) of the same body with a crack at Plane A-B. The stress intensity factors resulting from these loading cases are such that:
K 1
(b) = Kj(c) + K 1
(d)
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 13 of45 r(x)
P(x)
P(x)
(b)
(c)
(d)
F0306-OIR1
StnicturatIntegrity Associates, Thc Thus, K 1
(d) = 0 because the crack is closed, and:
K 1
(b) = K 1
(c)
This means that the stress intensity factor obtained from subjecting the cracked body to a nominal load p(x) is equal to the stress intensity factor resulting from loading the crack faces with the same stress distribution p(x) at the crack location from the uncracked body.
6.2 Circumferential Crack Stress Intensity Factor Results The radial stresses on the weld/nozzle interface, as shown in top of Figure 16, are transferred to the circumferential cracks as crack face pressure per the superposition principle described above.
Figure 18 depicts, as an example, the transferred radial stresses as crack face pressure for the 3.95 crack depth. During the crack face pressure transfer, the operating pressure of 2122 psi [101 is added to the crack face pressure to account for the internal pressure acting on the crack face due to cracking.
Each crack model is analyzed as a steady state stress pass at the operating and reference temperature of 593°F [101 in order to use the material properties at the operating temperature, but without inducing additional thermal stresses.
At the completion of each analysis, the ANSYS KCALC post-processing is performed to extract the Ks at each crack tip node around the nozzle. The K results are summarized in Table 10 for various crack depths a. The K vs. a trend at the 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° azimuths are then plotted in Figure 19. The results are also included in the Excel spreadsheet listed in Appendix A.
7.0 STRESS EXTRACTION FOR AXIAL CRACKS The axial cracks in the weld region will be evaluated in a separate calculation, designated as SI Calculation No. 1200895.307. That calculation will use the hoop stresses (corresponding to the hot leg) on the model symmetry plane at the 0° azimuth location, which represents the cross section with the most tensile residual stresses, as shown in Figure 17.
7.1 Hoop Stress Extraction for Axial Crack Growth Evaluation The stress extraction location for the axial crack is defined as a rectangular 2.06x3.75 grid located on the axial cut plane of the hot leg (i.e., at the 0° azimuth), as shown in Figure 20. The hoop stresses at the fifth NOC cycle (with operating loads) are extracted, which are output in terms of Radius, Height, and Stress.
The extracted hoop stresses are tabulated in Table 11 for use in the separate axial crack growth evaluation. The results are also included in the Excel spreadsheet listed in Appendix A.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 14 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
StnicIureIinfpgdty Associates, Inc
8.0 CONCLUSION
S Finite element residual stress and circumferential flaw analyses have been performed on the hot leg drain nozzle boss weld at Palisades:
The stress intensity factors for circumferential flaws along the boss/nozzle interface have been determined using finite element analysis at normal operating conditions combined with residual stresses; the stress intensity factor results are presented in Table 10 as a function of flaw depth and azimuth location.
Hoop stresses at normal operating conditions combined with residual stresses have been extracted on the hot leg axial cut plane and tabulated in Table 11. The hoop stress results will be used in a separate calculation to determine crack growth for axial cracks in that plane.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 15 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI
StnicbjraI Inh,gnIy Associ&les, kic.
9.0 REFERENCES
1.
SI Calculation No. 0801136.311, Rev. 1, Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Finite Element Model for Welding Residual Stress Estimation.
2.
SI CalculationNo. 0801136.312, Rev. 1, Hot Leg DrainNozzle Residual Stress Analysis.
3.
SI Calculation No. 0800777.307, Rev. 5, Material Properties for Residual Stress Analyses, Including MISO Properties Up To Material Flow Stress.
4.
ANSYS, Release 8.1 (w/ Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004.
5.
ANSYS Mechanical APDL and PrepPost, Release 14.5 (w/ Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc.,
September 2012.
6.
Pipe and Tubes for Elevated Temperature Service, United States Steel Co., 1949.
7.
Publication SMC-027, Inconel Alloy 600, Special Metals Corp., 2004, SI File 0800777.211.
8.
USA Standard B31.7, Nuclear Power Piping, 1968.
9.
Combustion Engineering Specification No. 0070P-006, Rev. 2, Engineering Specification for Primary Coolant Pipe and Fittings, SI File No. 0801136.206.
- 10. Palisades Document No. EC-LATER, Revision 0, Design Input Record, SI File No.
0801136.202.
- 11. Anderson, T. L., Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications, Second Edition, CRC Press, 1995.
- 12. EPRI Report No. TR-105697, BWR Reactor Pressure Vessel Shell Weld Inspection Recommendations (BWRVIP-05), September 1995.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 16 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI
StnicbiraIhitigrlty Associts, kic.
Table 1: Elastic Properties for SA-516 Grade 70 (4 Thick)
Mean Thermal Temperature Elastic Modulus Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Expansion
(°F)
(x10 3 ksi)
(x10 6 inlinl°F)
(Btulmin-in-°F)
(BtuIlb-°F) 70 29.5 6.4 0.0488 0.103 500 27.3 7.3 0.0410 0.128 700 25.5 7.6 0.0369 0.138 1100 18.0 8.2 0.0290 0.171 1500 5.0 8.6 0.0218 0.198 2500 0.1 9.5 0.0014 0.204 2500.1 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A Density (p) = 0.283 lb/in 3, assumed temperature independent.
Poissons Ratio (v) = 0.3, assumed temperature independent.
Table 2: Elastic Properties for ER3O8L Mean Thermal Temperature Elastic Modulus Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Expansion
(°F)
(x10 3 ksi)
(x10 6 inlinl°F)
(Btulmin-in-°F)
(BtuIlb-°F) 70 28.3 8.5 0.0119 0.116 500 25.8 9.7 0.0151
- 0. 31 700 24.8 10.0 0.0164
- 0. 35 1100 22.1 10.5 0.0189 0.140 1500 18.1 10.8 0.0212 0.145 2500 0.1 11.5 0.0292 0.159 2500.1 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A Density (p) = 0.283 lb/in 3, assumed temperature independent.
Poissons Ratio (v) = 0.3, assumed temperature independent.
Common weld metal for Type 304 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 17 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StnicIuraIhitigrily Associtus, kic.
Table 3: Elastic Properties for Alloy 600 Mean Thermal Temperature Elastic Modulus Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat
(°F)
(x10 3 ksi)
Expansion (xl 0.6 inlinl°F)
(Btulmin-in-°F)
(Btullb-°F) 70 31.0 6.8 0.0119 0.108 500 29.0 7.6 0.0147 0.120 700 28.2 7.9 0.0161 0.125 1100 25.9 8.4 0.0192 0.139 1500 23.1 9.0 0.0222 0.148 2500 0.1 10.0 0.0306 0.177 2500.1 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A Density (p) = 0.30 lb/in 3, assumed temperature independent.
Poissons Ratio (v) = 0.29, assumed temperature independent.
Table 4: Elastic Properties for Alloy 82/182 Mean Thermal Temperature Elastic Modulus Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat Expansion
(°F)
(x10 3 ksi)
(xl0 4 inhinl°F)
(Btulmin-in-°F)
(BtuIlb-°F) 70 31.0 6.8 0.0119 0.108 500 29.0 7.6 0.0147 0.120 700 28.2 7.9 0.0161 0.125 1100 25.9 8.4 0.0192 0.139 1500 23.1 9.0 0.0222 0.148 2500 0.1 10.0 0.0306 0.177 2500.1 N/A 0.0 N/A N/A Density (p) = 0.30 lb/in 3, assumed temperature independent.
Poissons Ratio (v) = 0.29, assumed temperature independent.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 18 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StnicturaI Integrity Associates, Inc.
Table 5: Elastic-Plastic Properties for SA-516 Grade 70 (4 Thick)
Temperature Strain Stress (F)
(in/in)
(ksi) 0.00128814 38.000 0.00187809 42.000 70 0.00257329 46.000 0.00381110 50.000 0.00600383 54.000 0.00113553 31.000 0.00142679 35.875 500 0.00183954 40.750 0.00261139 45.625 0.00415246 50.500 0.00106667 27.200 0.00132412 32.550 700 0.00166876 37.900 0.00228121 43.250 0.00354341 48.600 0.00116667 21.000 0.05116163 22.125 1100 0.05915444 23.250 0.06794123 24.375 0.07755935 25.500 0.00300000 15.000 0.16717493 15.125 1500 0.16992011 15.250 0.17268761 15.375 0.17547742 15.500 0.01000000 1.000 0.10961239 1.125 2500 0.12781277 1.250 0.14689940 1.375 0.16683167 1.500 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 19 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
SüucWraI integrity AssocIet&s, Inc Table 6: Elastic-Plastic Properties for ER3O8L Temperature Strain Stress (CF)
(inlin)
(ksi) 0.00203180 57.500 0.02471351 61.563 70 0.03107296 65.625 0.03861377 69.688 0.04747167 73.750 0.00140089 36.143 0.00714793 40.250 500 0.01065407 44.357 0.01558289 48.464 0.02233857 52.571 0.00132488 32.857 0.00477547 37.125 700 0.00743595 41.393 0.01143777 45.661 0.01727192 49.929 0.00121913 26.943 0.00264833 30.138 1100 0.00404100 33.332 0.00634529 36.527 0.01005286 39.721 0.00117995 21.357 0.05352064 21.563 1500 0.05610492 21.768 0.05878975 21.973 0.06157807 22.179 0.01000000 1.000 0.10961239 1.125 2500 0.12781277 1.250 0.14689940 1.375 0.16683167 1.500 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 20 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI
StnicIuralhitigrity Associates, Inc.
Table 7: Elastic-Plastic Properties for Alloy 600 Temperature Strain Stress (CF)
(inlin)
(ksi) 0.00157419 48.800 0.01 658847 55.300 70 0.02343324 61.800 0.03212188 68.300 0.04291703 74.800 0.00152069 44.100 0.01 539220 50.338 500 0.02210610 56.575 0.03072476 62.813 0.04153277 69.050 0.00152128 42.900 0.01634485 49.000 700 0.02334760 55.100 0.03227153 61.200 0.04338643 67.300 0.00155985 40.400 0.02275193 44.475 1100 0.03004563 48.550 0.03888203 52.625 0.04943592 56.700 0.00092641 21.400 0.08827666 22.475 1500 0.09785101 23.550 0.10796967 24.625 0.11863796 25.700 0.01 000000 1.000 0.10961239 1.125 2500 0.12781277 1.250 0.14689940 1.375 0.16683167 1.500 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 21 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI
Stnw1uralhitegrity Associates 1 mc.
Table 8: Elastic-Plastic Properties for Alloy 182 Temperature Strain Stress (CF)
(inhin)
(ksi) 0.00179032 55.500 0.03456710 60.113 70 0.04292837 64.725 0.05257245 69.338 0.06359421 73.950 0.00164483 47.700 0.02976152 52.313 500 0.03809895 56.925 0.04790379 61.538 0.05929946 66.150 0.00159574 45.000 0.02849157 49.538 700 0.03680454 54.075 0.04663682 58.613 0.05812078 63.150 0.00159073 41.200 0.03568855 44.488 1100 0.04402702 47.775 0.05360088 51.063 0.06449835 54.350 0.00106494 24.600 0.11812735 25.325 1500 0.12540227 26.050 0.13290814 26.775 0.14064577 27.500 0.01000000 1.000 0.10961239 1.125 2500 0.12781277 1.250 0.14689940 1.375 0.16683167 1.500 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 22 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StnicftjraIIntgrlfy Associates. mc.
Table 9: Creep Properties Material Temperature Creep Strength (ksi)
A n
(°F) c1 (O.0001%Ihr) 2 (O.00001%Ihr)
(ksilhr) 800 19.0 [6]
12.4 [6]
1.26E-13 5.40 SA-516 Gr. 70 900 9.0 [6]
6.7 [6]
3.59E-14 7.80 (Based on 1000 3.5 [6]
2.8 [6]
2.43E-12 10.32 carbon steel) 1100 1.4 [6]
0.8 [6]
2.50E-07 4.11 800 33.4 [6]
25.0 [6]
7.73E-19 7.95 ER3O8L 900 24.0 [6]
17.6 [6]
5.67E-17 7.42 (Based on 1000 17.6 [6]
11.5 [6]
1.82E-13 5.41 Type 304) 1100 11.5[6]
7.1 [6]
8.62E-12 4.78 Alloy 600 800 40.0 [7]
30.0 [7]
1.50E19 8.00 Alloy 82/182 900 28.0 [7]
18.0 [7]
2.87E-14 5.21 (Based on 1000 12.5 [7]
6.1 [7]
3.02E10 3.21 AIloy600) 1100 6.8[7]
3.4[7]
1.72E-09 3.32 File No.: 1200895.306 Page 23 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
Sbucfral ThtsgMtyAssos, Thc Table 10: Circumferential Crack K vs. a Table Azimuth K Table for Various Crack Depths (ksi-in0.5)
(deg.)
0.13 0.57 1.21 1.85 2.49 3.13 3.95 0
13.79 16.26 11.89 4.85 7.62 6.47 30.03 5
13.96 16.86 12.39 5.15 7.97 6.81 31.33 10 13.66 16.61 12.37 5.31 8.21 7.14 32.13 15 13.41 16.15 12.12 5.35 8.41 7.56 33.37 20 13.04 15.47 11.49 5.171 8.45 7.95 34.80 25 12.59 14.65 10.63 4.84 8.42 8.37 36.64 30 11.88 13.42 9.52 4.40 8.28 8.70 38.22 35 11.29 12.72 8.78 4.17 8.43 9.38 41.19 40 10.52 11.70 7.86 3.90 8.51 10.03 43.79 45 9.80 10.65 6.95 3.65 8.62 10.71 46.56 50 9.07 9.61 6.05 3.39 8.71 11.37 49.36 55 8.31 8.67 5.20 3.09 8.74 11.94 51.99 60 7.69 7.98 4.47 2.80 8.85 12.62 55.42 65 6.95 6.94 3.67 2.42 8.69 12.85 57.17 70 6.35 6.18 3.09 2.16 8.67 13.20 59.40 75 5.83 5.56 2.67 2.01 8.68 13.51 6109 80 5.51 5.15 2.43 2.00 8.78 13.81 62.43 85 5.32 4.95 2.31 2.05 8.89 13.96 62.98 90 5.36 5.20 2.34 2.15 9.17 14.41 64.85 Notes:
1.
The 0 azimuth is at the axial cut plane of the hot leg (see Figure 1).
2.
The 90° azimuth is at the circumferential cut plane of the hot leg (see Figure 1).
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 24 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
hztigrfly Assodatus. Thc Table 11: Hoop Stress Table at 00 Azimuth for Axial Crack Growth Evaluation tadiu leigh ifres ladiu eigh 3tres bdiu elgli
- ties, F adiw leigh tres adiw leigh fres adiw leighi tree
- ladle, leighl tree.
adler leighl tree:
- Mis, leigh:
tree edict I Ielghl treeu 0.00 0.00 5.62 0.23 0.00 3.69 0.46 0.00 416 0.69 0.00 6.09 0.92 0.00 5.95 115 0.00 10.75 1.36 0.00 12.90 1.60 0.00 19.19 1.93 0.00 14.37 2.06 0.00 9.40 0.00 0.09 0.55 0.23 0.09 4.66 0.46 0.06 9.20 0.69 0.09 9.69 0.92 0.09 10.91 1.15 0 59 12.29 1.36 0.09 12.10 1.60 0.09 14.16 I 93 0.08 13.51 2.06 0.09 9.09 0.00 0.16 6.02 0 23 0.16 9.17 0.46 0.10 5.64 0.69 0.16 9.20 0.92 0.16 12.36 1.15 0.16 13.63 1.39 0.16 10.22 1.90 0.16 11.75 1.93 0.16 14.92 2.06 0.16 9.61 0.00 ;;;- ;- ;;
0.23 5.74 0.46 0.23 6.12 0.69 0.23 9.95 0.92 0.23 13.57 1.15 0.23 14.01 1.39 0.23 9.36 1.60 0.23 9.26 1.93 0.23 6.79 2.06 0.23 2.36 0.00 0.31 7.03 0.23 0.31 6.46 0.46 0.31 7.07 0.69 0.31 10.71 0.92 0.31 14.05 1.15 0.31 14.66 1.39 0.31 10.77 1.60 0.31
-2.49 7.93 0.31
-4.94 2.06 0.31
-5.90 0.00 0.39 7.72 0.23 0.39 7.25 0.46 0.39 9.15 0.69 0.39 11.35 0.92 0.39 14.03 115 0.39 16.59 1.39 039 11.99 1.60 0,39
-0.75 1.93 0.39
-4.91 2.06 0.39
-5.71 0.00 ;;- ;; -;;
0.47 7.99 046 9.47 9.91 0.69 0.47 11.45 0.92 0.47 14.06 115 047 17.97 1.36 0.47 11.84 1.60 0.47 1.33 1.83 0.47
-3.49 2.06 0.47
-4.75
- - -
- - i; -;:;
0.46 0.55 7.92 0.69 0.55 10.99 0.92 0.55 14.11 1.15 0 65 15.91 1.39 0.55 11.78 1.60 0.59 3.99 1.83 0.55
-2.67 2.06 0.55 4.99 0.50 0.63 9.63 0.23 0.63 6.59 0.46 0.63 5.49 0.69 0.63 10.11 0.92 0.63 14.47 1.15 0.63 14.01 1.39 0.63 11.91 1.60 0.63 5.40 1.83 0.63
-2.09 2.06 0.93
-3.35 0.00 0.70 9.79 0.23 9.70 416 0.46 0.70 3.47 0.69 0.70 9.97 0.92 0.70 15.81 115 0.70 15.79 1.39 5.70 12.53 1.60 0.70 6.46 1.03 0.70
-1.54 2.06 0.70
-2.90 0.00 0.79 6.56 023 0.79 116 046 0.78 1.65 0.69 0.78 10.04 0.92 018 1740 115 018 17.53 1.36 0.78 14.17 1.60 0.78 7.64 1.03 0.78
-0.00 2.06 018
-2.25 0.00 0.88 3.90 0.23 0.90
-1.72 0.46 0.96 0.26 0.69 0.86 10.29 0.92 086 18.76 115 0.86 10.03 1.38 0.86 1545 1.60 0.06 8.63 1.83 0.96
-0.13 2.06 0.86
-1.65 0.00 094 1.08 0.23 0.94
-4.57 0.46 0.94
-0.95 0.69 0.94 10.67 0.92 0.94 19.70 115 0.94 18.39 1.36 0.94 1510 1.60 0.94 0.93 1.83 0.94 0.63 2.06 0.94
-1.01 0.00 1.02
-1.69 023 1.02
-6.27 0.46 1.02
-113 0.69 1.02 11.05 0.92 1.02 20.92 1.19 1.02 18.90 1.39 1.02 1445 1.60 1.02 11.00 1.83 1.02 1.43 2.06 1.02
-0.34 0.00 1.09
-4.26 0.23 1.09
-8.09 046 1.09
-2.85 0.69 1.09 11.26 0.92 1.09 21.69 1.15 1.09 18.56 1.38 1.09 19.89 1.60 1.09 13.74 1.03 1.09 2.29 2.06 1.09 0.39 0.00 1.17
-641 0.23 1.17
-9.31 040 1.17
-3.76 0.69 1.17 11.19 0.92 1.17 21.65 1.15 1.17 10.35 1.38 1.17 16.53 1.60 1.17 14.75 1.03 1.17 3.14 2.06 1.17 1.01 0.00 1.25
-8.04 0.23 1.25
-10.34 046 1.25
-4.95 0.69 1.25 11.18092 1.25 21.77 119 125 19.00 1.39 1.25 14.65 lOS 1.29 14.46 1.83 1.25 3.91 2.06 1.25 tog 0.00 1.33
-9.31 0.23 1.33
-11.06 0.46 1.33
-5.23 0.69 1.33 11.39 0.92 1.33 22.00 115 1.33 18.10 1.30 133 1347 1.60 1.33 15.05 1.83 1.33 4.50 2.06 1.33 241 0.00 1.41
-10.24 0.23 1.41
-11.79 0.46 1.41
-5.55 0.69 1.41 11.09 0.92 1.41 21.40 115 1.41 17.32 1.39 141 1293 1.90 1.41 15.94 1.03 1.41 0.34 2.00 1.41 3.12 0.00 1.48
-10.96 023 1.49
-12.07 046 149
-519 0.69 1.48 10.84 0.92 148 20.91 1.15 1.48 17.35 1.39 1.48 1241 1.60 lAO 1646 1.63 1.48 6.09 2.06 1.48 3.84 0.00 1.56
-illS 023 1.56
-12.36 GAO ISO
-5.85 0.69 1.56 l0.43 0.92 I.56 20.85 1.15 ISO 17.69 1.38 1.56 1322 1.60 1.96 16.76 1.83 1.56 6.57 2.06 1.56 4.56 0.00 1.64
-1121 0.23 1.64
-12.38 046 1.64
-6.38 0.69 1.04 10.92 0.92 1.64 21.10 hO 1.64 l0.23 1.38 144 12.96 1.60 1.64 17.41 143 1.64 7.29 2.06 1.64 5.27 0.00 1.72
-11.00 0.23 1.72
-12.14 046 1.72
-6.45 0.69 1.72 10.70 0.92 1.72 2146 1.15 1.72 l0.66 1.39 112 14.20 1.00 1.72 10.30 I.83 1.72 7.96 2.06 l.72 5.99 040 1.80
-10.01 023 ISO
-1140 0.40 1,80
-022 049 140 10.96 0.92 1.90 2116 115 1,80 19.01 1.39 1.80 1440 1.00 ISO 19.29 1.93 1.80 0.65 2.06 1.80 610 000 1.88 10.42 0.23 1.00
-1149 046 1.88
-620 0.69 1.88 1130 0.52 1.68 2240 1.15 140 2046 1.39 148 15.54 1.00 1.88 20.13 1.93 1.80 10.32 2.06 1.88 7.42 0.00 1.95
-0.94 023 1.95
-11.05 046 1.95
-542 0.09 ISO 1143 0.92 1.95 2317 1.l5 1.95 2l.03 l.36 1.95 1645 1.60 145 21.07 1.53 1.95 11.32 2.06 1.99 0.14 0.00 2.03
-9.50 023 2.03
-1549 046 2.53
-5.60 0.09 2.03 1215 0,92 2.03 24.05 1.15 243 2325 1.35 243 17.65 1,65 2,53 21.79 1.83 2.03 1245 2.09 2.03 8.04 0.00 2.11
-8.55 0.23 2.11
-10.11 040 2.11
-5.12 049 2.11 13.60 042 2.11 2520 1.15 2.11 24.82 1.30 211 19.15 ISO 2.11 22.30 1.83 2.11 1411 246 2.11 9.53 0.05 219
-925 023 2.19
-9.53 0.48 219 445 049 2.19 14.08 0.92 2.19 2644 1.15 2.19 2661 1.30 2.19 20.44 1.60 2.19 25.41 1.55 2.19 15.64 2.06 2.19 10.22 0.00 227
-7.70 023 227
-8.87 046 227
-3.94 049 227 15.90 042 227 27.94 1.15 227 2942 1.39 2.27 2319 1.60 227 25.07 143 2.27 1024 2.06 2.27 10.96 0.06 2.34
-6.97 0.23 2.34
-818 046 2.34
-326 909 2.34 16.90 0.92 2.34 29.53 115 2.34 32.47 l.39 2.34 29.09 too 2.34 2540 183 2.34 19.32 246 2.34 11.73 0.00 2.42
-6.16 0.23 242
-7.39 049 242
-249 049 2.42 17.78 0.92 242 30.57 1.15 242 3017 1.36 242 23.94 140 242 1819 143 2.42 20.36 249 2.42 12.61 0.00 2.50
-930 023 2.50
-654 0.46 2.50
-147 049 2.50 19.47 0.92 2.50 30.00 115 2.50 29.49 1.38 2.50 2349 1.50 2.50 20.82 I.93 2.50 2146 2.06 240 13.80 040 2.59
-435 023 256
-5.62 0.46 2.59
-0.98 049 2.58 1916 042 2.59 29.53 115 2.58 29.19 139 258 3019 1.60 2.55 2615 143 258 23.15 2.06 259 15.46 040 246
-341 023 2.66
-442 040 2.60 4.19 0.69 2.66 20.35 0.92 2.66 29.99 1.15 2.06 29.76 1.39 2.66 32.93 1.60 2.66 29.87 143 2.66 24.90 2.96 2.66 16.96 0.00 213
-242 023 213
-3.53 046 213 0.72 0.09 215 20.66 042 213 3012 1.15 213 30.83 138 213 33.97 140 213 29.57 183 2.73 2542 246 2.73 1806 0.00 2.81
-1.31 0.23 2.61
-246 046 2.81 2.19 049 241 20.41 042 241 30.66 1.15 241 3173 139 241 35.03 140 241 30.56 1.83 2.81 27.53 246 241 18.39 9.50 249 0.10 0.23 249
-l 27 0.46 249 242 049 2.89 20.91 0.92 249 31.62 115 249 33.44 1.38 249 3540 140 249 3113 143 249 2944 246 249 19.48 0.05 247 145 023 247 045 0.46 247 347 049 247 2140 042 247 32.88 115 247 35.22 138 247 3643 1.60 2.97 32.10 143 2.97 30.21 2.06 247 20.37 040 3.05 329 023 3.05 2.48 0.46 3.05 4.66 0.69 3.05 2229 042 3.05 3319 115 3.05 36.21 130 305 3711 1,60 3.05 32.39 143 3.05 3112 2.06 3.05 2135 040 3.13 441 023 313 4.32 046 313 5.48 5.09 3.13 23.13 0.92 3.13 34.05 I 15 3.13 37.61 1.58 313 37.75 1.60 3.13 33.12 1.83 3.13 32.84 2.06 3.13 22.17 0.00 320 650 023 329 5.04 0.46 320 712 049 3.20 24.75 042 329 35.98 115 320 38.37 130 320 3919 1.60 320 33.05 1.83 3.20 34.18 246 320 22.94 0.00 5.25 542 023 326 7.44 046 3.25 849 549 5.28 26.13 0.92 328 37.40 1.15 329 3041 130 328 39.48 140 328 33.98 143 3.28 34.76 246 328 23.63 0.00 336 949 023 326 905 046 336 10.50 049 336 27.75 0.92 3.36 39.72 1.15 3.36 4046 138 335 3946 140 3.36 3426 143 326 3523 2.96 330 2425 040 3.44 10.90 023 3.44 1042 046 3.44 1245 069 3.44 2941 042 3.44 39.65 115 3.44 40.71 138 344 35.28 160 3.44 33.99 143 3.44 35.34 2.06 344 2418 0.00 342 12.23 023 3.52 12.19 040 3.52 1420 0.69 352 30.68 0.02 3.52 40.54 1.15 3.52 4143 1.38 3.52 3840 1.60 3.52 33.42 193 3.52 34.71 246 3.52 2520 040 3.55 1340 0.23 3.09 1366 546 3.55 1646 045 3.59 31.91 0.92 349 41.97 1.15 3.59 42.10 1.35 3.59 39.05 1.60 349 33.15 1.63 3.59 34.50 249 3.59 25.42 0.00 3.07 14.55 0.23 3.67 14.93 0.46 3.67 17.61 0.69 3.67 32.69 0.92 3.07 45,26 1.10 3.67 42.70 1.38 3.57 45.56 1.60 3.67 33.83 1.53 3.67 53.65 2.06 3.67 27.55 0.00 3.75 1546 0.23 315 15.59 046 3.75 19.16 0.69 3.75 33.04 0.92 315 44.01 1.15 3.75 4249 1.38 3.75 4121 140 3.75 34.65 1.83 3.75 32.35 2.06 5.75 2742 Note:
1.
Stress (ksi) for each Radius (inches) and Height (inches) extracted per the grid shown in Figure 20.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page 25 of 45 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
Sbuclural h,t.grlly Assoclaf9s, kic Figure 1: Finite Element Model for Residual Stress Analysis Notes:
1.
The 00 azimuth is at the axial cut plane of the hot leg.
2.
The 90° azimuth is at the circumferential cut plane of the hot leg.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 26 of 45 F0306-OIRI
Figure 2: Finite Element Model for the 0.13 Deep Circumferential Crack File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 27 of 45 StnicIuraI,n,,gr,,y Assaci9les. kic F0306-OIRI
Sfrucftiral hitignTy Associles, kic File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 28 of 45 Figure 3: Applied Mechanical Boundary Conditions F0306-O1R1
StnicfrjreI Intigrity Assac8tes, kic File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 29 of 45 Figure 4: Weld Nugget Definitions for the Boss Main Weld F0306-O1RI
stnicwraI Integrity AssacJIes, kic File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 30 of 45 Figure 5: Weld Nugget Definitions for the ID Patch Weld F0306-OIR1
StnicIuraI Int.grlty ASSOCI8I&SI Inc.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 31 of45 T NUM Nozzle end cap pressure Internal pressure N.
Hot leg end cap pressure 1/
ksi 7.41713 _f4c:7 5.07443 2.73174 1
.389042 1.95365 Figure 6: Applied Hydrostatic and Corresponding End Cap Pressure Loads F0306-O1R1
StnicWraI hitegrlly AssocIal&s, mc File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 32 of 45 ZL cuyria 70 340 610 1150 1420 1590 Predicted fusion boundary plot (Pur1e
= nerature > Meitinc)
Figure 7: Predicted Fusion Boundary Plot for Cladding 2230 0
1960 2500 F
F0306-OIR1
StnjcturaIIntegrity Assocleles, Inc.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 33 of 45 70 340 510 880 1150 1420 690 Predicted fusion boundary plot (1>urple
= Temperature > ltinq)
Figure 8: Predicted Fusion Boundary Plot for Boss Main Weld 2230 1960 2500 °F F0306-O1R1
jstnicturai hitegrlly Associates, mc!
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 34 of 45 Figure 9: Predicted Fusion Boundary Plot for ID Patch Weld F0306-O1RI
StnwIuraI Integrity Assoc1tes, Inc.*
Note:
1.
Figure 10: Temperature Curve for PWHT PWHT temperature history is for an arbitrary ID node on the model.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 35 of 45 Temperature (F) 2125 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 2375 2625 2875 3125 Time (mm) 3250 F0306-O1R1
StnicturaIImsgrlly Associates, Inc.
Figure 11: Predicted von Mises Residual Stress after ID Patch Weld at 70°F Notes:
1.
In the hot leg coordinates, hoop residual stresses along path P1 and axial residual stresses along path P2 are extracted for before and after PWHT.
2.
The before and after PWHT through-wall residual stresses are compared in Figure 13.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 36 of45 FO3O6O1R1
Figure 12: Predicted von Mises Residual Stress after PWHT at 70°F Notes:
1.
In the hot leg coordinates, hoop residual stresses along path P1 and axial residual stresses along path P2 are extracted for before and after PWHT.
2.
The before and after PWHT through-wall residual stresses are compared in Figure 13.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 37 of45 F0306-O1RI 5StwcIuiI Intogrily AssocIofs, kic.
StnicftjraIInligrlly Associates, mc.
x
+As-Welded(P1)
D PWHT(P1)
+<
XAs-Weldecl(P2)
Q:
x z2sPWHT(P2)
+
A x
-Ill
+
x A
+
i:
% Clad interlace
+
+
X Figure 13: Residual Stress Comparison for Before and After PWHT File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 38 of45 80 70 60 50 40 30
. 20 V.,
V.,a)I I,
0
-10
-20
-30
-40 50
._I.I...I...
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Normalized Thickness (x/t)
F0306-OIR1
Sbiicnirwintegrity Associates. klc.
120
100 Clad Interface As-Welded 0
.)
Data from EPRI TR-1 01 989 Figure 14: Measured Through-Wall Residual Stresses for PWHT Notes:
1.
Figure is obtained from EPRI report TR-1 05697 [121.
2.
Measurements show little to no stress reduction in the cladding after PWHT.
3.
Measurements show significant stress reduction in the base metal after PWHT.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 39 of 45 (Inrce)
U, 00 U)
- 2 U,a, 0
80 60 40 20 0
. (Imeiface)
-20
-40 Thicker Clad Tests, Interface at Depth C) o 0
1 1
95132r1 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 Distance from Clad Surface (inches) 0.8 1.3 F0306-OIRI
Integrity Associates, Ix?
Figure 15: Predicted von Mises Residual Stress after Hydrostatic Test at 70°F File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 40 of 45 F0306-OIR1
Figure 16: Predicted Radial Residual Stress + Operating Conditions (
5 th NOC Cycle)
Note:
1.
Radial stresses in the nozzle axis.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 41 of45 F0306-OIRI SbucIuraIIntigrity Assoclaf Inc ksi 1.68722 10.9545 23.5963 36.238 8.00809 4.6336c 17.2754 9.917!
4.5589 raticq cycles
StnicturaI Intigrlty AssQci8les, kic.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 42 of 45 F0306-O1R1 Figure 17: Predicted Hoop Residual Stresses + Operating Conditions (
5 thI NOC Cycle)
Note:
1.
Hoop stresses in the hot leg axis.
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 43 of 45 StnwbiraIInlpgrlty AssocWes. kic Figure 18: Transferred Radial Residual + NOC + Pressure Stresses (3.95 Crack Shown)
F0306-OIR1
SIwcIuraIIntpgrlly ASSOCIW&S, Thc.
Figure 19: FEA Calculated Circumferential Crack K vs. a at Four Azimuth Locations File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 44 of 45 Circumferential Crack FEA K vs. a 70 O Deg 60 30 Deg 50 6ODeg Lfl 0
40 9ODeg 30 20 10 0
0 1
2 3
4 Crack Depth (inch)
F0306-O1RI
File No.: 1200895.306 Revision: 0 Page 45 of 45 tStnxwrui h*grlly Associates, mc?
Figure 20: Hoop Stress Extraction Grid for Axial Crack Growth Evaluation F0306-OIR1
SbvcIural hitegrity Associates, klc.
APPENDIX A COMPUTER FILES LISTING File No.: 1200895.306 Page A-i of A-5 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
StnjcfriraIInligrily Associates, kic Geometry Inputs Descri tion (Geometry_lnputs.zip) (1) p HL_Drain_MISO.INP Main geometry input file that uses all the files listed below MProp_MISO_PALS.INP (2)
Revised material property input file Deg9O_lines.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP Degl2O_lines.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP Degl5O_lines.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP Degl8O_lines.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP first3Ovol.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP second3Ovol.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain*.INP third3Ovol.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP lDpatch_volmesh.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP weldmesh.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP lDpatch_fix.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP butterlike_volmesh.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP cladnextto_lDpatch.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP volnextto_butterlike.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP boss.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*JNP pipeandclad.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP HL_Drain_COMPONENTSI.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HLDrain_*.INP clearfornewscheme.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP autoweld.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP movetheboss.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HLDrain_*.INP selection.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain*.INP newnugidpatch.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP selbutter.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP workontheboss.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain*.INP newpipeandcladparts.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP HL_Drain_COMPONENTS2.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP File No.: 1200895.306 Page A-2 of A-5 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
stnicwraIInt8grlty Associates, kic Notes:
1.
All files with the exception of MProp_MISO_PALS.INP are obtained from [1]
2.
This file contains the updated material properties, as listed in Tables I through 8.
File No.: 1200895.306 Page A-3 of A-5 Revision: 0 F0306-O]R1
Stwc1uraI Integrity Assocleles, mc Residual Stress Files Descri tion (Residual_Files.zip) p BCNUGGET3D.INP Weld pass and model boundary definition file THERMAL3D.INP Input file to perform the thermal pass of welding simulation THM_PWHT.INP Input file to perform the thermal pass of PWHT STRESS3D.INP Input file to perform the stress pass of welding simulation CBC NP Input file to apply mechanical boundary conditions and creep properties.
Read in STRESS3D.INP Processed thermal pass load steps for PWHT.
THM_PWHT_mntr.inp Read in STRESS3D.INP INSERT3D NP Input file to perform the stress pass of hydrostatic test and 5 NOC cycles.
Read in STRESS3D.INP WELD#_mntr.inp Processed thermal pass load steps for stress pass. # = 1-3
- .mac WRS analysis macro files required for analysis THERMAL3D.TXT Parameter input file for thermal pass of welding simulation STRESS3D.TXT Parameter input file for stress pass POST_AXIAL.INP Post-processing input file to extract hoop stress for axial cracks Hoop_O.csv Formatted hoop stress outputs for axial cracks File No.: 1200895.306 Page A-4 of A-5 Revision: 0 F0306-OI RI
StnicIureI Integrity Associates. Thc Circ Crack Files Description (Circ.Crack_FiIes.zip)
FM_STACK.INP Controller input file LEFM analysis files execution sequence Geometry input files to create circ. crack at specified depth. # = 0-6 Crack#.INP With 0 = 0.13, 1 = 0.57, 2 = 1.12, 3 = 1.85, 4 = 2.49, 5 = 3.13, 6 = 3.95 Crack_nodes#.inp Crack tip node inputs for fracture mechanics model conversion. # = 0-6 Macro to insert crack tip elements to the fracture mechanics model and AnTip8O.mac extract K results.
Crack#_COORD.INP Input files to determine crack face element centroid coordinates. # = 0-6 Crack#_COORD1.txt Crack face element centroid coordinate outputs. # = 0-6 Crack#_GETSTR.INP Input files to extract crack face stresses from residual stress analysis. # = 0-6 STR_FieldOper_#1.txt Extracted crack face stresses from residual stress analysis. # = 0-6 Input files to transfer stresses into crack face pressure (plus operating Crack#_IMPORT.INP pressure on crack face) and solve for solution. # = 0-6 AnTip8O_KCALC.INP KCALC post-processing input file Crack#_IMPORT_K.CSV Formatted K result outputs. # = 0-6 1200895.306.xlsx Excel spreadsheet containing creep data, PWHT comparison, and K results 1200895.306.ppt PowerPoint slides of selected figures and result plots File No.: 1200895.306 Page A-5 of A-5 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
ENCLOSURE 2 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. Calculation 1200895.307 Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Crack Growth Analyses Revision 0 13 Pages Follow
ATTACHMENT 9.1 VENDOR DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS Sheet I of I Entergy ENTERGY NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT MANUAL EN-DC-I 49 VENDOR DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS FOR ACCEPTANCE Li FOR 1NFORMATION Li IPEC Li JAF ll PLP Li PNPS Li W Li ANO Li GGNS U RBS U W3 Li NP Document No.: 1200895.307 Rev. No.0 Document
Title:
Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Crack Growth Analyses EC No. :49590 Purchase Order No.N/A (A for NP)
STATUS NO:
- 1. l ACCEPTED, WORK MAY PROCEED 2.
Li ACCEPTED AS NOTED RESUBMITTAL NOT REQUIRED, WORK MAY PROCEED 3.
Li ACCEPTED AS NOTED RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED
- 4. U NOT ACCEPTED Acceptance does not constitute approval of design details, calculations, analyses, test methods, or materials developed or selected by the supplier and does not relieve the supplier from full compliance with contractual negotiations.
Responsible Engineer Brian Smith
_-_.- 376//L(
Print Name I natur Date Engineering Supervisor Dave MacMaster
/
Print Name Signature Date EN-DC-I 49 REV 8
ZualIntegAssocias7nc ::z::°:::::
CALCULATION PACKAGE Quality Program:
Nuclear Commercial PROJECT NAME:
Evaluation of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle CONTRACT NO.:
10404220 CLIENT:
PLANT:
Entergy Nuclear Palisades Nuclear Plant CALCULATION TITLE:
Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Crack Growth Analyses Project Manager Preparer(s) &
Document Affected Revision Description Approval Checker(s)
Revision Pages Signature & Date Signatures & Date 0
1
- 12 Initial Issue
//z/
Richard Bax Dilip Dedhia 03/06/14 03/06/14 Charles Fourcade 03/06/14 Page 1 of 12 F0306-OIR1
StiucwraIhitsgrlly Assaci819$, kic Table of Contents 1.0 OBJECTIVE
.3 2.0 METHODOLOGY 3
2.1 Crack Growth Rate 3
2.2 Circumferential Cracks 3
2.3 Axial Cracks 4
3.0 CONCLUSION
S 5
List of Tables Table 1: List of Files 7
Table 2: Crack Depths at 60 and 100 years for the Circumferential Cracks 7
List of Figures Figure 1: FEA Calculated Stress Intensity Factors for Circumferential Cracks 8
Figure 2: Crack Depth vs. Time for the Growth of Circumferential Cracks 8
Figure 3: Finite Element Model for Residual Stress Analysis 9
Figure 4: Plane on which the Axial Cracks are Located 10 Figure 5: SmartCrack Axial Crack Modeling 11 Figure 6: SmartCrack Stress Intensity Factors for Axial Cracks 12 Figure 7: Crack Depth vs. Time for the Growth ofAxial Cracks 12 File No.: 1200895.307 Page 2 of 12 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
StnicfrjraIIntegrity AssocWes. kic.
1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation is to determine crack growth for a series ofpostulated cracks in the hot leg to drain nozzle boss weld in support of a Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking (PWSCC) susceptibility study at the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNPP). The PWSCC crack growth analyses are performed using extracted stresses and stress intensity factors for both circumferential and axial cracks.
All the files used in this calculation are listed in Table 1.
2.0 METHODOLOGY PWSCC crack growth analyses are performed for circumferential and axial cracks in the hot leg to drain nozzle boss weld.
2.1 Crack Growth Rate The default PWSCC crack growth rate in pc-CRACK [1] will be employed. This relation is based on expressions in Reference 2 and the resulting equation for the crack growth rate is as follows:
=Cexp _1 1
I (KKh) di T+ 460 T.
+460 J
ief
/
(1)
For times in hours, temperatures in °F, crack length in inches and K in ksi-Jin, the following values of the constants are used:
T 17° 1 ref J I I C
2.47x1W 7
= 1.6 Q = 28181.8°R Kh = 0 2.2 Circumferential Cracks Stress intensity factors (K) for a series of 360° inside surface connected, part through wall (0.13, 0.57, 1.21, 1.85, 2.49, 3.13, and 3.95) circumferential cracks, listed in Palisades.xlsx, were calculated using finite element analysis (FEA) in Reference 3. These K values, as a function of crack depth, were extracted at 0, 30, 60 and 90 degree locations around the nozzle and are shown in Figure 1. These K values were input into pc-CRACK to perform PWSCC crack growth analyses. The following are the additional parameters needed for the crack growth calculations:
Initial crack depth 0.1 Temperature = 593°F (operating temperature per Reference 4)
Wall thickness = 4.08 (the height of the weld, per Reference 3)
File No.: 1200895.307 Page 3 of 12 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
Stnicbiral Integrity Associates, kic The resulting crack depths, as a function of time, as calculated by pc-CRACK are shown in Figure 2.
The input and the output files are tabulated in Table 1.
The crack depths for 60 and 100 years of crack growth are listed in Table 2 at a series of angular locations.
2.3 Axial Cracks The hoop stresses (relative to the drain nozzle) at the weld and nozzle region are extracted from the stresses computed by FEA [3]. The rectangular region under consideration for the location of axial cracks (axial in this case indicating a nozzle radial crack aligned in the axial direction of the hot leg) is shown in Figure 4. The crack model of interest is a semi-elliptical crack with a fixed surface length and the depth varying from 0.1 to 3.5 inches. Since there is no stress intensity factor influence function solution available in pc-CRACK for semi-elliptical surface cracks for the range of crack shapes with bivariate stresses, the influence function solution for an elliptical crack available in SmartCrack [5] was used. Half of the elliptical crack was placed in the region as shown in Figure 5. The stresses on the other half of the ellipse, needed for computing stress intensity factors, were defined by reflecting the stresses across the ID of the hot leg, as shown in Figure 5. The cracked body can be sliced at this plane, with a semi-elliptical surface crack then being present. The crack face pressure of 2.122 ksi (operating pressure from Reference 4) was added to the FEA calculated stresses.
A new coordinate system is defined for inputting stresses into SmartCrack. The new X-coordinate is along the hot leg ID, except that the origin is at the center of the crack. The new Y-coordinate is along the weld depth with the origin at the center of the crack. The stresses in the new coordinate system are developed in Hoop_O_2.xlsm.
SmartCrack requires stresses along the X-direction to be defined for each depth (y). The stresses from Hoop_O_2.xlsm are reformatted and three SmartCrack input files are created corresponding to the total surface length of 0.5, 1 and 2, respectively. These files also contain the definition of the crack model.
These files were then run with SmartCrack and the output is listed in HOO-2-1. OUT, HOO-2-2. OUT and HOO-2-3.OUT, corresponding to the total surface length of 0.5, 1 and 2, respectively. The output files contain the echo of the input stresses and the stress intensity factors at the four tips of the elliptical crack for a range of crack sizes. The crack tip of interest is a3 in the SmartCrack output. The K values (see Figure 6) corresponding to the crack tip a3 were extracted for use in PWSCC crack growth evaluations using pc-CRACK. The following are the additional parameters needed for the crack growth calculations:
Initial crack depth = 0.1 Temperature = 593°F (operating temperature per Reference 4)
Wall thickness = 4.0 (the height of the weld, per Reference 3)
A review of Figure 7 indicates that the time to grow the crack from 0.1 to 3 (75% through wall) is 41 years for the case of 1 total surface length and 34 years for 2 total surface length. For the case of the 0.5 total surface length, the crack has not yet reached 3 after approximately 100 years.
File No.: 1200895.307 Page 4 of 12 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
StnicIuraI hitegrity Associates, Thc
3.0 CONCLUSION
S Stress intensity factors, K, for various 3600 part through-wall circumferential flaws in the hot leg drain nozzle-to-hot leg weld, resulting from weld residual stresses, were evaluated to determine circumferential flaw growth due to PWSCC. The results of these evaluations are tabulated in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2.
In addition, hoop stresses in the hot leg drain nozzle-to-hot leg weld and adjacent nozzle, resulting from weld residual stresses, were also evaluated to determine the axial flaw growth due to PWSCC. The results of these evaluations are shown in Figure 7.
File No.: 1200895.307 Page 5 of 12 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
SbucturiI IntugMty Assou4atos ft7c references 1.
pc-CRACK 4.1, Version 4.1 CS, Structural Integrity Associates, December 2013.
2.
SI Calculation No. 0801136.3 15, Rev. 0, Hot Leg Drain Crack Growth Projections.
3.
SI Calculation No. 1200895.306, Rev. 0, Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Weld Residual Stress Analysis and Circumferential Crack Stress Intensity Factor Determination.
4.
Palisades Document No. EC-LATER, Revision 0, Design Input Record, SI File No.
0801136.202.
5.
SI Calculation No. 0801136.3 13, Rev. 0, Hot Leg Nozzles Methodology for Development of Stress Intensity Factor.
File No.: 1200895.307 Page 6 of 12 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StwcIuraIIntegrity Assocleles, lnc.
Table 1: List of Files File Description Palisades.xlsx FEA-calculated K for circumferential cracks based on Ks from Reference 3.
CircCrackDeg 00.pcf pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file; K at 0 deg CircCrackDeg 30.pcf pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file; K at 30 deg CircCrackDeg 60.pcf pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file; K at 60 deg CircCrackDeg 90.pcf pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file; K at 90 deg CircCrackDeg 00.rpt pc-CRACK PWSCC growth output file; K at 0 deg CircCrackDeg 30.rpt pc-CRACK PWSCC growth output file; K at 30 deg CircCrackDeg 60.rpt pc-CRACK PWSCC growth output file; K at 60 deg CircCrackDeg 90.rpt pc-CRACK PWSCC growth output file; K at 90 deg Hoop_0 2.xlsm FEA calculated stresses for axial cracks H00-2-l.DAT SmartCrack K input file for crack surface length = 0.5 H00-2-2.DAT SmartCrack K input file for crack surface length = 1 H00-2-3.DAT SmartCrack K input file for crack surface length 2
H00-2-l.OUT SmartCrack K output file for crack surface length = 0.5 H00-2-2.OUT SmartCrack K output file for crack surface length = 1 H00-2-3.OUT SmartCrack K output file for crack surface length 2
Hoop-l.pcf pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file for crack surface length 0.5 Hoop-2.pcf pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file for crack surface length 1
Hoop-3.pcf pc-CRACK PWSCC growth input file for crack surface length = 2 Hoop-l.rpt pc-CRACK PWSCC growth output file for crack surface length = 0.5 Hoop-2.rpt pc-CRACK PWSCC growth output file for crack surface length 1
Hoop-3.rpt pc-CRACK PWSCC growth output file for crack surface length 2
Table 2: Crack Depths at 60 and 100 years for the Circumferential Cracks Crack Depth (inches)
Angular Location 60 years 100 years (degrees) 0 2.36 TW 30 2.09 TW 60 1.39 1.74 90 0.98 1.22 Note: Angular locations are based on the finite element model from Reference 3 and are shown in Figure 3.
File No.: 1200895.307 Page 7 of 12 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
DegOO Deg3O beg 60 beg 90 Figure 1: FEA Calculated Stress Intensity Factors for Circumferential Cracks 4
3 C
(3(a C) 1 0
beg 00 Deg 30 beg 60 beg 90 Figure 2: Crack Depth vs. Time for the Growth of Circumferential Cracks File No.: 1200895.307 Revision: 0 Page 8 of 12 Circ. K, FE StnicIura1 hitigrity Assochites, kic 60 C-40 U,
(a 20 0
0 Crack Depth (in) 2 3
4 PWSCC Growth, FE K, Circ Cracks 100 Time (yrs) 200 300 F0306-OIRI
StnicbiralIntegrity Associates, kic Notes:
Figure 3: Finite Element Model for Residual Stress Analysis 1.
Figure is reproduced from Reference 3, Figure 1.
2.
The 0° azimuth is at the axial cut plane of the hot leg.
3.
The 90° azimuth is the circumferential cut plane of the hot leg.
File No.: 1200895.307 Revision: 0 Page 9 of 12 F0306-O1R1
StnicIuraI Intpgrlly Associates, kic.
Figure 4: Plane on which the Axial Cracks are Located Note:
1.
Figure is reproduced from Reference 3, Figure 20.
File No.: 1200895.307 Revision: 0 Page 10 of 12 F0306-OIR1
Integrity Associ8198, kC Figure 5: SmartCrack Axial Crack Modeling File No.: 1200895.307 Revision: 0 Page 11 of 12 F0306-OIRI
StnicturaI Integrity ASSOCIateS, IIiC?
30 0
1 L =
L=1 L=2 a
C)
Cu C.)
Figure 6: SmartCrack Stress Intensity Factors for Axial Cracks L0.5 L=2 100 Figure 7: Crack Depth vs. Time for the Growth of Axial Cracks File No.: 1200895.307 Revision: 0 Page 12 of 12 E:NOld.2IIk.oIt 20
/
Crack Depth (in) 2 3
4 20 40 60 80 Time (yrs)
F0306-OIRI
ENCLOSURE 3 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc, Calculation 1200895.308 Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Limit Load Analyses for Flawed Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld Revision 0 22 Pages Follow
ATTACHMENT 9.1 VENDOR DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS Sheet 1 of 1 Entergy ENTERGY NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT MANUAL ENDC-1 49 VENDOR DOCUMENT REVIEW STATUS FOR ACCEPTANCE Q
FOR INFORMATION Q IPEC J JAF PLP PNPS Q VY Q ANO C GGNS 1j RBS 1j W3 Q NP Document No.: 1200895.308 fRev. No.0 Document
Title:
Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Limit Load Analyses for Flawed Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld EC No.: 49590 Purchase Order No.NIA (A
NP)
STATUS NO:
1.
ACCEPTED, WORK MAY PROCEED
- 2. Q ACCEPTED AS NOTED RESUBMITTAL NOT REQUIRED, WORK MAY PROCEED 3.
ACCEPTED AS NOTED RESUBMITAL REQUIRED
- 4. Q NOT ACCEPTED Acceptance does not constitute approval of design details, calculations, analyses, test methods, or materials developed or selected by the supplier and does not relieve the supplier from full compliance with contractual negotiations.
Responsible Engineer Steven Overway
/
C) 3(G/ij Print Name Si na ur (I
Date Engineering Supervisor Jacob Milliken
/47 4-b 3fjQJ51tf Print Name Signature ate EN-DC-i 49 REV 8
iiuraIInIeqiiAssocias,,nc l?ilo.:12OO8953O8 CALCULATION PACKAGE Quality Program:
Nuclear H Commercial PROJECT NAME:
Evaluation of Hot Leg Drain Nozzle CONTRACT NO.:
10404220 CLIENT:
PLANT:
Entergy Nuclear Palisades Nuclear Plant CALCULATION TITLE:
Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Limit Load Analyses for Flawed Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld Project Manager Preparer(s) &
Document Affected Revision Description Approval Checker(s)
Revision Pages Signature & Date Signatures & Date 0
1
- 18 Initial Issue A-1
- A-3 Gole Mukhim Richard Bax 3/6/14 3/6/14 6z 4-Charles Fourcade 3/6/14 Page 1 of 18 F0306-O1RI
StnicbiraIhitigrlty AssocItus, Inc Table of Contents 1.0 OBJECTIVE
.4 2.0 METHODOLOGY 4
2.1 Limit Load Criteria 4
2.2 Z-Factor of the Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld 4
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS / DESIGN iNPUTS 5
4.0 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL 5
4.1 Flaw Modeling 6
5.0 LOADING 6
5.1 Hot Leg Piping Interface Loads 6
5.2 Drain Nozzle Piping Interface Loads 7
5.3 Internal Pressure and Mechanical Boundary Conditions 8
6.0 LIMIT LOAD EVALUATION 9
7.0 CONCLUSION
S 9
8.0 REFERENCES
10 APPENDIX A ANSYS INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES A-i File No.: 1200895.308 Page 2 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
Stnictern! integrity Associetes, Thc List of Tables Table 1: Bounding Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Loads 11 Table 2: Material Properties
- Elastic 11 Table 3: Material Properties
- Limit Load Analyses 11 Table 4: Circumferential Flaw Depths for 60 and 100 Years 12 List of Figures Figure 1: Original Finite Element Model 13 Figure 2: Example of the Flaw Elements that are Killed from the Finite Element Model to Create the 100 Year Circumferential Flaw 14 Figure 3: Example of the Applied Pressure Loading for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100 Year Circumferential Flaw 15 Figure 4: Example of the Applied Pressure Loading for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100% Through-Wall Axial Flaw 16 Figure 5: Example of the Applied Mechanical Boundary Conditions for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100 Year Circumferential Flaw 17 Figure 6: Example of the Applied Mechanical Boundary Conditions for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100% Through-Wall Axial Flaw 18 File No.: 1200895.308 Page 3 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
hitsgrlly Assocl9tes. kic 1.0 OBJECTIVE The objective of this calculation is to perform a series of ASME Code Limit Load evaluations for a series ofpostulated flaw sizes and configurations for the hot leg drain nozzle at Palisades Nuclear Plant.
2.0 METHODOLOGY A series of postulated axial and circumferential flaws are defmed in a finite element model (FEM) of the hot leg drain nozzle. The flaws originate in the nozzle-to-hot leg dissimilar metal weld (DMW).
Operating loads are applied to the FEM and ASME Code Limit Load evaluations are performed to determine if the modeled flaw meets the Limit Load requirements for continued operation.
2.1 Limit Load Criteria Per Section III, NB-3228.l of the ASME Code [1]:
The limits on General Membrane Stress Intensity (NB-3221. 1), Local Membrane Stress Intensity (NB-3221.2), and Primary Membrane Plus Primary Bending Stress Intensity (NB-3221.3) need not be satisfied at a specific location fit can be shown by limit analysis that the specified loadings do not exceed two-thirds ofthe lower bound collapse load. The yield strength to be used in these calculations is 1 55 m
2.2 Z-Factor of the Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld The nozzle-to-hot leg weld metal is Alloy 82/182 [3, Section 5.0] and is assumed to be applied as a flux type weld. Since flaws will be included in the Limit Load evaluations, a load multiplier for ductile flaw extension, or Z-factor, should be included for the weld material. Per Section XI, Appendix C, C-6330 of the ASME Code [2]:
(a) For austenitic weldmentsfabricated by shielded metal-arc welds (SMA W) or submerged-arc welds (SAW), the load multzlier is given by:
Z= 1.30[1 + O.O]QNPS-4,)J where NPS is the nominalpipe size.
Calculation of the Z-factor is provided in Section 4.0.
File No.: 1200895.308 Page 4 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
StivcbiraI Int,g,#y Associates, kic.
3.0 ASSUMPTIONS I DESIGN INPUTS The FEM of the hot leg drain nozzle for Palisades Nuclear Plant was developed previously in Reference 3 and is shown in Figure 1. The model was originally developed using the ANSYS, Release 8.1, software package [4], however all Limit Load evaluations will be performed using the ANSYS, Release 14.5, software package [5].
Reference 6b (page 8 of 10 of the referenced document) indicates that, for the hot leg, the bounding thermal transient stress of 1.01 ksi is due to Thermal 002, the deadweight stress is 0.096 ksi and the friction stress is 1.056 ksi. Reference 6b (j3age 10 of 10 of the referenced document) indicates that these stresses are all axial stresses. However, there are no seismic stresses identified in Reference 6b.
Therefore, it was assumed that the Operational Basis Earthquake axial stress is equal to five times the deadweight stress or 5 x 0.096 = 0.480 ksi, based on the transmittal to Entergy in Reference 11.
Reference 7 tabulates the bounding nozzle loads for the hot leg drain nozzle, which are tabulated in Table 1 of this calculation.
Reference 6a (page 1 of 6 of the referenced document) indicates that the nozzle maximum operating pressure and mean temperature occurs during the Safety Valve Operation, during which the pressure is 2650 psi and the mean temperature is 598°F.
4.0 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL As indicated earlier in Section 3.0, the FEM was previously developed in Reference 3. Two changes are made to the FEM for the Limit Load Analysis.
The first change to the FEM is to remove the bottom portion of the hot leg drain nozzle where the nozzle connects to the hot leg drain piping. The region of the nozzle removed reached up to the thicker body of the nozzle (see Figure 1). The purpose in removing the lower portion of the nozzle is to guarantee that the flaw region will be limiting rather than the much thinner nozzle-to-drain piping weld location.
The second change to the FEM is the revision of the material properties to support the Limit Load analysis. All of the properties have been replaced with minimum elastic properties and the elastic-perfectly plastic material properties. The elastic properties are as shown in Table 2 and are based on Reference 8 for a conservative temperature of 600°F (normal operating temperature is 593°F [10]).
Per Section 2.1 the yield strength for the elastic-perfectly plastic material curves are based on the 1.5Sm.
The values for the design stress intensity, 5 m, are again based on Reference 8 for a temperature of 600°F.
For the Alloy 182, nozzle-to-hot leg weld metal, the yield strength of 1.5Sm will be reduced by the Z-factor defined in Section 2.2.
For this evaluation, the NPS value is defined as the diameter of the nozzle-to-hot leg weld, as taken from the outside surface toe of the weld, furthest from the nozzle. This maximizes the Z-factor and conservatively reduces the yield strength of the weld material. The diameter, File No.: 1200895.308 Page 5 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
Stnic1ura1 integrity Associates, kic measured from the finite element model [3], is approximately 8 inches. The Z-factor is then determined to be:
Z l.30[l + 0.010(NPS -4)]
l.30[l + 0.010(8-4)] = 1.352 Thus the yield strength of the Alloy 182 is now defined as 1.5Sm/l.352 = l.l095Sm. The yield strengths of all the materials are shown in Table 3.
4.1 Flaw Modeling A total of four separate flaw conditions were evaluated. Two involved circumferential flaws in the Alloy 182 nozzle-to-hot leg weld while the other two involved axial flaws that included the Alloy 182 weld and the Alloy 600 nozzle body.
Two circumferential flaws were modeled based on 60-year and 100-year flaw growth projections performed in Reference 9. The flaw depths for the two flaws are tabulated in Table 4. Note, that Table 4 has flaw depths whose total lengths range from 0 through 90°, and that the FEM is a 90° quarter model. Thus, the modeled circumferential flaws, due to symmetry, are affectively 360° around the weld. The flaws were simulated by selecting elements originally modeled in the Alloy 182 weld material and deactivating them via the ANSYS EKILL command. The deactivated elements have near-zero stiffness contribution to the structure. An example of the selected flaw elements is shown in Figure 2.
Two axial flaw cases were modeled based on a 75% part through-wall flaw and 100% through-wall flaw.
In both cases, the axial flaw includes the Alloy 182 nozzle-to-hot leg weld and a corresponding section of the Alloy 600 nozzle. For the 100% through-wall flaw, the flaw extends an additional 2 inches along the Alloy 600 nozzle. Since the model is a 90° quarter model, the flaws will be simulated by removing symmetry boundary conditions along both the 0° and 90° symmetry planes, effectively creating two flaws; one axial to the plane of the hot leg and one along the circumferential plane of the hot leg. See Figure 6 for an example of the modified boundary conditions, used to simulate the flaw.
5.0 LOADING 5.1 Hot Leg Piping Interface Loads The hot leg loads are provided in terms of stress and are applied as tensile pressure loads to the axial free end of the modeled hot leg. The total load is the combination of Pressure + Deadweight + Friction +
Thermal + OBE. The pressure load is based on the maximum pressure of 2650 psi per Section 3.0. The pressure load is determined as follows:
File No.: 1200895.308 Page 6 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI
StnicbiraIInt.grlty AssociWes. ft7c.
PID 2
2650.41.6262 Pendcap
=
= 6,290 psi = 6.290 ksi (0D2 _1D2)
(49.6262 _41.6262)
- where, Pendcap End cap pressure on hot leg free end (psi)
P Internal pressure (psi)
ID
=
Inside diameter of hot leg (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
=
Outside diameter of hot leg (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
Therefore, the final axial tensile pressure applied to the free end of the hot leg is:
P + DW + Friction + Thermal + OBE = 6.290 + 0.096 + 1.056 + 1.010 + 5
- 0.096 8.932 ksi 5.2 Drain Nozzle Piping Interface Loads The hot leg drain nozzle piping loads are provided in terms of forces and moments per Table 1. For this evaluation these loads will be converted to axial stresses and applied as tensile pressure loads to the axial free end of the modeled hot leg drain nozzle. The decision to use calculated axial stresses is because the existing model is a 90° quarter model and therefore, cannot be used directly for moment loading and the development of a larger model would result in additional time and effort, which was detrimental to the project timeline. The use of equivalent axial loads is conservative in terms of a limit load analysis as the tensile axial load puts the entire cross section into equal stress resulting in plastic collapse at lower stresses than the combination of tensile and compressive stresses that would result from actual moment loading.
The loads from Table 1 were combined by absolute sum and the axial force (Fy) used to determine the axial stress due to the force and the two moments (Mx and Mz), combined into a resultant moment, Mr, by the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) used to determine the axial stress due to the moment.
The stress due to the axial force is calculated as:
F 0.404l000 aforce =
=
= 33.3 psi = 0.033 ksi A
,z.(2.281252 _1.156252)
- where, aforce
=
Stress on nozzle free end due piping axial force (psi)
F Axial force (kips) due to DW + OBE + Normal Operation (from Table 1, Fy)
A
=
Area of nozzle free end 7t(0R 2 1R 2
), (in 2)
JR
=
Inside radius of nozzle (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
OR Outside radius of nozzle (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
File No.: 1200895.308 Page 7 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-O1RI
StnicbiraIint.griiy Associates. Inc.
The stress due to the resultant moment, Mr, is calculated as:
Mr*OR 4(19.905.1000).2.28125 amoment =
=
= 2285.8 psi = 2.286 ksi i
(2.281251.15625)
- where, amoment =
Stress on nozzle free end due piping moments (psi)
Mr
=
Resultant moment (kips)
Resultant moment for DW + OBE was determined separately from Normal Operation and the two added together (from Table 1).
I
=
Moment of Inertia (7t/4)(0R 4 1R 4
) (in 4)
JR
=
Inside radius of nozzle (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
OR Outside radius of nozzle (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
The pressure load is based on the maximum pressure of 2650 psi per Section 3.0. The pressure load is determined as follows:
PID 2
2650.2.31252 Pend-ca
=
=
=916 psi = 0.9 16 ksi 3
(cni _ID2)
(4.56252 _2.31252)
- where, Pendcap End cap pressure on nozzle end (psi)
P
=
Internal pressure (psi)
ID Inside diameter of nozzle (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
OD Outside diameter of nozzle (in) [3, Finite Element Model]
Therefore, the final axial tensile pressure applied to the free end of the drain nozzle is:
P + (DW + OBE + Operation)Force + (DW + OBE + Operation)Momeflt =0.9 16 + 0.033 + 2.286 = 3.235 ksi 5.3 Internal Pressure and Mechanical Boundary Conditions An internal pressure of 2.650 ksi was applied to all inside surfaces of the FEM including the crack face.
The cap load effects of the pressure on the hot leg and drain nozzle have already been discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. An example of the applied pressure, including the axial pressure loads applied to the ends of the lot leg and the drain nozzle (see Sections 5.1 and 5.2), for the circumferential flaw is shown in Figure 3 and for the axial flaw in Figure 4.
Symmetry boundary conditions are applied at the nozzle planes of symmetry and the circumferential free end of the hot leg pipe. The nodes at the free end of the hot leg pipe and the hot leg drain nozzle have their respective axial degrees of freedom coupled to simulate the resistance to moment loading similar to that of the un-modeled remainder of the hot leg piping or drain piping. As explained in Section 4.1, the axial flaws are simulated by removing boundary conditions at the location of the flaw. An example of File No.: 1200895.308 Page 8 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
Stnic1uraI Integrity Assacl8tes, klc.
the applied mechanical boundary conditions for the circumferential flaw is shown in Figure 5 and for the axial flaw in Figure 6.
6.0 LIMIT LOAD EVALUATION As indicated in Section 2.1, the limit load for the structure under evaluation must not exceed two-thirds of the lower bound collapse load. This can be restated as 150% of the operating loads are applied to the structure and if the structure does not plastically collapse (in terms ofANSYS finite element analysis, plastic collapse is equated with numeric instability) then the evaluation meets the acceptance criteria for the limit load evaluation. For all four analyses in this calculation, 200% of the operating load was applied. For the 60 year and 100 year circumferential flaw, 200% ofthe load was reached without plastic collapse. For the 75% through-wall axial flaw, 198.92% of the load was reached before plastic collapse and for the 100% through-wall axial flaw, 187.35% of the operating load was reach before plastic collapse.
7.0 CONCLUSION
S For a circumferential flaw based on 100 years of growth as defined in Reference 9 or a 100% through wall axial flaw, the hot leg, hot leg-to nozzle-weld and the main nozzle body remain structurally stable using the rules of ASME Code,Section III, NB-3228.1.
File No.: 1200895.308 Page 9 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-OIR1
StnwIuraIhitigrlty Assocletes, Inc
8.0 REFERENCES
1.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Rulesfor Construction ofNuclear Facility Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.
2.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section XI, Rulesfor Inservice Inspection ofNuclear Plant Components, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.
3.
Structural Integrity Calculation No. 0801136.311, Rev. 1, Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Finite Element Model for Welding Residual Stress Estimation.
4.
ANSYS, Release 8.1 (w/Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc., June 2004.
5.
ANSYS Mechanical APDL and PrepPost, Release 14.5 (w! Service Pack 1), ANSYS, Inc.,
September 2012.
6.
Email from Daniel J. Depuydt (Entergy) to Richard Mattson (SI),
Subject:
Palisades Primary Coolant Piping and Hot Leg Drain Stress Information, dated February 19, 2014, with attached files, SI File No. 1200895.2 18.
a) Pal Hot leg Drain Nozzle Structural and Fatigue Analysis from CENC-1115.pdf b) Pal PCS Piping WT and Thermal Expansion from CENC-1 1 15.pdf 7.
Structural Integrity Calculation No. 1000035.311, Rev. 0, Hot Leg Replacement Drain Nozzle Weld Repair Sizing Calculation.
8.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section II, Part D, Material Properties, 2001 Edition with Addenda through 2003.
9.
Structural Integrity Calculation No. 1200895.307, Rev. 0, Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Crack Growth Analyses.
- 10. Palisades Document No. EC-LATER, Revision 0, Design Input Record, SI File No.
0801136.202.
- 11. Email from Dick Mattson (SI) to William Sims (Entergy), Jamie Gobell (Entergy) and John Broussard (Dominion),
Subject:
RE: starting point, with attached file Nozzle3-2.pdf, dated February 20, 2014 at 5:36 AM, SI File No. 1200895.220.
File No.: 1200895.308 Page 10 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
hitigrlty As50c1810S, InC.
Table 1: Bounding Hot Leg Drain Nozzle Loads Load Case Forces, kips Moments,_in-kips Fx Fy Fz Mx My Mz Deadweight 0.002 0.123 0.008 0.006 0.036 0.532 Normal
-0.389 0.099
-0.062
-1.542
-1.332 12.358 Operation OBE 0.225 0.182 0.085 2.940 3.744 6.312 Notes:
1)
Loads are from Reference 7, Table 1.
2)
F is in the axial direction of the nozzle.
Table 2: Material Properties - Elastic Modulus of Component Material Elasticity, E, e3 Poissons ksi 3
Ratio, v Hot Leg SA-516 Grade 70 26.7 0.3 Hot Leg Cladding ER308L 25.3 0.3 Nozzle Alloy 600 28.7 0.29 Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld Alloy 182(2) 28.7 0.29 Notes:
1)
ER3O8L is a weld material designation and a base metal equivalent of Type 304 stainless is used.
2)
Alloy 182 is a weld material designation and a base metal equivalent of Alloy 600 is used.
3)
Properties are based on Reference 8 for a conservative temperature of 600°F (normal operating temperature is 593°F [10])
Table 3: Material Properties - Limit Load Analyses Yield Strength Design Stress, Yield Strength Component Material Criteria Sm, ksi 3
ksi Hot Leg SA-516 Grade 70 l.5Sm 19.4 29.10 Hot Leg Cladding ER308L 1
l.5Sm 16.6 24.90 Nozzle Alloy 600 1.5Sm 23.3 34.95 Nozzle-to-Hot Leg Weld Alloy 182(2) l.l095Sm 23.3 25.85 Notes:
I) ER3O8L is a weld material designation and a base metal equivalent of Type 304 stainless is used.
- 2) Alloy 182 is a weld material designation and a base metal equivalent of Alloy 600 is used.
- 3) Properties are based on Reference 8 for a conservative temperature of 600°F (normal operating temperature is 593°F [10])
File No.: 1200895.308 Revision: 0 Page 11 of 18 F0306-OIRI
StnicbiraI Integrity Assocleles, Thc.
Table 4: Circumferential Flaw Depths for 60 and 100 Years Orientation 60 years of Growth 100 years of Growth (Degrees)
(inches)
(inches) 0 2.36 Through-Wall 30 2.09 Through-Wall 60 1.39 1.74 90 0.98 1.22 Note:
1)
The 0 degree location is oriented along the axis of the hot leg with the 90 degree location oriented along the hoop direction of the hot leg.
File No.: 1200895.308 Revision: 0 Page 12 of 18 F0306-OIRI
StnicIuraIintigrlly Associates, mc.
Hot leg pipe Ftt Drain Finite Elennt ?bdei for Palisades Figure 1: Original Finite Element Model (Figure is reproduced from Reference 3, Figure 2)
File No.: 1200895.308 Revision: 0 Page 13 of 18 Hot leg clad F0306-OIR1
StnwWraIhit.grlay Assaciai&s. Inc.
Figure 2: Example of the Flaw Elements that are Killed from the Finite Element Model to Create the 100 Year Circumferential Flaw Note: Flaw is Located at the Nozzle-Weld Interface.
File No.: 1200895.308 Page 14 of 18 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI 1
ANSYS 114.5 FEB 24 2014 11:14:39 iar No.
1 L
Limit Analysis 4y 9o
StnicfrimIInt.grfly Associl&s 1 Thc.
Figure 3: Example of the Applied Pressure Loading for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100 Year Circumferential Flaw (Note: Units are in terms of ksi)
(Note: The loads shown are at 200% of the operating loads per Section 6.0)
File No.: 1200895.308 Revision: 0 Page 15 of 18 F0306-OIR1
StniclUral hit.grII)r Associates. kic.
Figure 4: Example of the Applied Pressure Loading for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100% Through-Wall Axial Flaw (Note: Units are in terms of ksi)
(Note: The loads shown are at 200% of the operating loads per Section 6.0)
File No.: 1200895.308 Revision: 0 Page 16 of 18 nNozz1e PPs Hot Leg 1
Cap Load Crack Face Pressure 17.863415.2897 12.716
- 10. 1423 7.56858 LI QQLIPi 2.42115 152568 2.72628 5.3 F0306-OIR1
StnicfriiI imgrlly Associates, mc Figure 5: Example of the Applied Mechanical Boundary Conditions for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100 Year Circumferential Flaw File No.: 1200895.308 Revision: 0 Page 17 of 18 F0306-OIRI
StnicwraIInt,grw, Assoclatus, kic.
Figure 6: Example of the Applied Mechanical Boundary Conditions for the Finite Element Model to Create the 100% Through-Wall Axial Flaw File No.: 1200895.308 Revision: 0 Page 18 of 18 F0306-OIR1
Stnicbiralintegrity Associates, kic.
APPENDIX A ANSYS INPUT AND OUTPUT FILES File No.: 1200895.308 Page A-i of A-3 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI
StwcWraI Integrity Associates, kic Files for Creating Basic Geometry from Reference 131 eometry Inputs 4 jscription /
HL_Drain_MISO.INP Main geometry input file that uses all the flies listed below.
MProp_MISO_PALSJNP Material property input file (Multilinear isotropic hardening behavior)
Deg9O_lines.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP Degl2O_lmes.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP Degl5O_lines.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP Degi 80_lines.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.1NP first3OvolJNP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP second3Ovol.TNP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP third3Ovol.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP IDpatch_volmesh.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP weldmesh.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*JNP IDpatch_fix.1NP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP butterlike_volmesh.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP cladnexttolDpatch.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP volnextto_butterlike.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP boss.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP pipeandclad.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain*.INP HL_Drain_COMPONENTS I.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP clearfomewscheme.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP autoweld.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP movethebossiNP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP selection.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP newnugidpatch.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*JNP selbutter.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file - HL_Drain_*.INP workontheboss.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP newpipeandcladparts.INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP HLDrainCOMPONENTS2INP Sub-Geometry file that is used in the main file
- HL_Drain_*.INP File No.: 1200895.308 Page A-2 of A-3 Revision: 0 F0306-O1R1
3stnwwrw Integrity Associates, Inc.
Files for Limit Load Analysis
$.fl Name V
Description lb 4Jidii ANSYS database file created by file listed in previous table, which is the HL_DrainMISO.db base file from which all flaws and loading are applied.
piping load stresses.xls Excel spreadsheet to calculate the hot leg drain nozzle loads.
ANSYS Input file to create 60 year circumferential flaw, apply 200% of Limit_60.inp operating load and perform elastic-perfectly plastic analysis.
ANSYS output file for 60 year circumferential flaw that documents time Limit_60.mntr history of results. Note that the total time represents the percentage of applied load.
ANSYS Input file to create 100 year circumferential flaw, apply 200% of Limit_l 00.inp operating load and perform elastic-perfectly plastic analysis.
ANSYS output file for 100 year circumferential flaw that documents time Limit_l00.mntr history of results. Note that the total time represents the percentage of applied load.
ANSYS Input file to create 75% through-wall axial flaw, apply 200% of Limit_AXL_75.inp operating load and perform elastic-perfectly plastic analysis.
ANSYS output file for 75% through-wall axial flaw that documents time Limit_AXL_75.nmtr history of results. Note that the total time represents the percentage of applied load.
ANSYS Input file to create 100% through-wall axial flaw, apply 200% of LimitAXL_l 00_2.inp operating load and perform elastic-perfectly plastic analysis.
ANSYS output file for 100% through-wall axial flaw that documents time Limit_AXLJ 00_2.mntr history of results. Note that the total time represents the percentage of applied load.
File No.: 1200895.308 Page A-3 of A-3 Revision: 0 F0306-OIRI