ML18295A546

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
CENC-1256 Tube Burst and Leakage Test (Palisades)
ML18295A546
Person / Time
Site: Palisades 
Issue date: 02/01/1976
From: Hayes J
Components Engineering Test Lab
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CETL-2-76(R1) CENC-1256
Download: ML18295A546 (112)
v • d • e


Text

    • ,__*

NOTICE -

THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE DIVISION OF DOCUMENT CONTROL. THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LINllTED TIME PER!OD AND l\\llUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH 016.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF ANY PAGE(S) FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSONNEL.

DEADLINE RETURN DATE TUBE BURST AND LEAKAGE.TEST (PALISADES)

CENC-1256 REGULATORY DOCKET fllE COPY RECORDS FACILITY BRANCH J. K. Hayes Lab Supervisor February 197(?

Components Engi~eering Test Laboratory Chattanooga, Tennessee CETL 76 (Rl)

DISTRIBUTION SHEET Mr. P. Anderson Mr. J. c. Ca~pbell Mr. T. Halvorsen Mr. w. Heilker Mr. F. Hill (5)

Mr. D. Sher Corporate Library - Windsor C<;>mponents Engineering Test Lab (9)

ABSTRACT

  • This* report documents the leak rate arid burst tests performed on ~*irgin, wasted, and wasted (with EDM cracks) tube speciments.. All tube specimens were acquired from one steam generator tube of Inconel 600 material having a yield strength of 40,000 psi, a tensile strength of 91,000 psi and an elongation of 49% in two inches.

The tube was nominally.750" O.D. X.048" average wall

  • thickness.

A total of 27 tube specimens were prepared for test purposes.

Selected tubes were machined to simulate uniform wastage (nominal 64% of tube wall removed) as shown on C-E Dwg. D-62676-003 which is located in this section of the report.

Approximately 1/2 of the. tube specim~ns were Rrepared with cracks.

The cracks were 1/ 4" *in length machined parallel to the axis *of the tubes.

The cracks were machined using 8:n Electric Discharge Machine (EDM).

A 1/4" X.005" silver solder electrode was used.

Since the electrode is always discharging as it progresses through the metal this provides a larger crack opening at the top than at the bottom.

In some instances a variation in crack width also occurred.

The crack width ranged from. 007" to a maximum of. 014'; at the bottom of the crack.

All crack measurements are documented in this report.

A brief discussion of the results of the various. tests is provided below:

Burst Tests - Both simulated wasted and virgin tubes were ruptured under water pressure at room temperature conditions.. Two of the wasted tubes were subjected to bendiag load such as to produce a maximum stress in the outer fiber equal to 35 ksi.

The burst test result~ are provided in Table 1 of this se~tion of the report.

  • Based on this data (2 tube samples of e_ach type) it may be concluded that the average burst pressure is reduced approximately as*foilows co'mpared to the yirgin specimen for the various conditions:
Spec. Config. No.

1 2

3 4

Description 1/2" wasted all around (. 017" MWT) 5/16" wasted all.

around with bending load (.017" MWT) 5/16" wpsted.all around (.017" MWT) 1/2" long dished wastage, one side

(.017" MWT)

  • Ratio of Specimen Burst Pressure To Virgin Tube Burst Pressure 65%

68%

69%

63%

Based on the preceding, each condition produces approximately the same drop in burst pressure with the 1/2" long wasted condition being slightly !ilore severe.

In inspecting the bursted test specimens the following types of failures were noted:

Spec. Config. No.

1.

2,3 4

6.

(Virgin Tube)

Type of Failure Bulged in wasted region.

Crack occurred transverse to tube axis for approximately 1/3 of circumference.

Tube failed by* complete circumferential seperation at wastage region.

Bulging and rupture of tube in local region of wastag~.

Bulging of entire tube occurred.

O.D. of tube increased from. 75" to

.9".

At failure tube split parallel to axis of tube.

Leak Tests -

Both virgin and wasted tubes with EDM cracks (essentially l/4" long) were leak tested with pressurized water under room temperature conditions.

As noted earlier the width of the cracks in the various specimens varied to some extent at the bottom of the crac~.

Two co three* specimens of each configuration were leak tested.

Plots of the leak rate (GPM) *versus pressure (psig) are contained in this report for each speci~en.

  • Two different piping arrangements were used with an MTS servo controlled system and an oil to wai:er intensifier.

The maximum pumping rate with.one arrangement \\.jas approximately 4 to 5 gpm and with the revised piping arrangement 14 gpm.

This test phase was terminated when the maximum pressure was attained -

that could be achieved by the hydraulic system.

A sununary data sheet showing the specimen number,. crack width, leak rate at two pressures, maximum differential pressure imposed on the tube, and firtal appearance of specimen is shown in Table 2 of this section of the report.

Figure 1 contained in this section of the report provides a plot of average flow rate versus pressure for each test.configuration.

In reviewing this plot the following conclusions may be reache~-:

(A)

At 12-00 psig pressure differential the leak rate did not exceed 3 gpm for all test ~onfigurations.

(B)

From the plots it may be concluded tha~ local bulging of the tubes, resulting in greater incr.ease in crack width opening, is starting to occur where the plots start deviating from a straigbt line.

However, it should be noted that this is not indicative of imminent tube failure as is apparent in the subsequent section.

Maximum Differential Pressure Test ~ Since the capacity of the hydraulic system could not exceed approximately 14 gpm.it was considered desirable to utilize a system which could impose a higher differential pressure on the specimens containing EDM cracks.

The piping arrangment shown on C-E Dwg.

C-626 76-004 was subsequently assembled. *With this arrangement-it was possible to pressurize both the l.D. and O.D. of the tube to the same pressure and then quickly vent the extern~l pressure such as to achieve a high differential pressure.

Sufficient volume existed on the primary side of the tube to allow.

flow through the crack for a very short interval.

It was decided to pressurize the specimens to a value not exceeding 5000 psig prior to the secondary side venting operation.

  • Differential pressures of-approximately 4600 to 4800 psig were subsequently measured* using a differential pressure cell and a strip chart recorder.

Measurements were made of the maximum crack opening at the end of the test and photographs were made.

This test data is summarized in Table 2 in this section of the report and the photographs are included in the appendix.

In reviewing the information contained. in Table 2 the following conclusions may be reached regarding the condition of the cracked tubes after being subjected to a pressure differential of 4600 to 4800 psig:

(A)

Some bulging of the tubes occurred in the wasted region in the vicinity of the cracks.

(B)' The cracks increas*ed increase in length.

not exceed 1/16 inch varied as follows:

Config.

No.

1 2

3 4

in width at the center but generally did not When the crack did increase in length it did at each end of crack.

The crack.openings 1/2" long wasted all around 5/16" long wasted all around 5/16" long.wasted all around 1/2" long dished wasted one side of tube Maximum Crack Width Opening

.050" to.085" (Max. pre~sure 4700 psig)

.025" to.027" (Bending load & pressure, maximum pressure of 4000 psig)

.044" to.059" (Max. pressure of 4800 psig)

.032" (Max. pressure of 4900 psig)

(C)

Based on'* (A).and* (B) it may be concluded that with this type wastage and size cracks catastrophic failure of the tubes will not occur at pressure differentials up to "4800 psig under the conditions

  • tested.

The crack width openings will -only increase to some e..f':tent resulting in increased flow rates.

Prepared by:

9Ktfela1M J. K. Hayes Task Investigator (Lab Supervisor)

Components Engineering Test Laboratory Accepted by:

4/:7.ltf/

F. P. Hill: Jr.

Manager Analytical Engineering Department Approved by:

~1{

al<-~-;-r.)V1

  • ..:Jt ; 0,~ ~-~.

T. Halvorsen Manager Engineering Services

A II 7

ti 3

1**

I i

2 A

. I c

1....,,,,.,,1 TE.ST COl-JF\\GURl>.TIDN I-JO. I

!. '5.PE..C........_EW'S

\\IJ\\Tl-l.

C.R""'-~

~ ~Pt..C.\\~EJ..IS \\IJl'f\\-10!.)T C.RA.C.K TE.ST CONFIGURl>.TIOt...\\

t-.10.:,

3 ~P'E.\\:.1M-.MS WITH c.~.-..c.K 3 S""-t.n..,,~.... ~ WIT'-'OtJT c.R~C."'-

________ _l_ ___ --------

T!;ST CO!-.IF\\GURl>.T\\0"1 IJ0.!5 s ~P£C.\\..,£.l.J'elo ll c

D I

D P'

C3 H

~)::.

II

~~=----- lt:1s'o.o.-...<>4a'

~C:::::.d \\:l:=====-===~"?r-!-"°"1====-========-;...: -=

--=> l_:\\,, _ - - - - - - - d

'"C:..ONIU. TIJK

'G.DM CR.'-t..C /Z/1' IL,L-.O~\\' '!.001' ~EMO\\IA\\.. OF' yJA.LJ..,

(Ml~ 'NIOT")/ --,

11 i

(.0\\1 1

M,..Ti!:ft.I~ \\..E.Fi')

  • ~...

TE.ST COIJFIGURl>-T\\ON IJO. Z 3 'S.PEC.IME..l>JS WITH C'.R.#tir.C.I(

!t SPIL.C.Ur*\\EUS WlntouT CR.\\C.1(

.4'4'

~

R.EF TF-ST CONFIGURll.TION NO. 4 "Z.

'El.P£C..\\ME.W~ WtTH CRAC.K

'2. SPE.c.1Me.t>tS W1l"Hol1T c.RN:.liC.

TE.ST COIJF\\GURll.TION IJO. '-

,_.gpE.C.IMENS.

f'

.15'0.a. **°'L tW.C.O~E.\\.. TUB&.

G 1~.

"'-"'..& \\"4,,.*,.'-

--* ** H. v-..i:tw-.\\.\\..

..... c....

cowa..11°.0.. 1...io,.,,. ""'4 llllC.

.... ::*c* cc....

....... *~* '"............. u. -

e...... -............... _........

I.:* "H"' ~ lh*-~* -

o***

        • t I*<&"' *~t*t **3* Ot;> *.-*
    • ***U~*,.* *'* 1*0.::.--... *

.......... 0-62 6 76-003-0 H

II 7

ti 5

Table 1 Tube Burst Tests

~Palisades)

Tube Size -.750"0.D. x. 048"W. T. *, Material - Inconel 600 Spe(!imen Configuration Brief Description Burst Pressure No.

'No.

of.Specimen i/2" long wastage 1-1 1

all around 7400 1/2 11 long wastage 3-1 1

all around 7450 5/16" long wastage j '

  • 1-2 2

all around

  • 7700 I

5/16" long wastage

  • 2-2 2

all around

  • nno l._

5/16" long wastage

  • I 4-3 3

all around 7800 5/16" long wastage

  • 1 C\\-1.
1.

~

"'1 l

,,.,..,~.. ~rl Rnnn

  • I 1/2" long dished i

3-4 4

side 7000 wastage *one l

1.

I 1/2" long dished 4-4 4

wastage one side ZSQQ 1-6 6

Virgin Tube f

]1.900 I

2-6 6

Vir2:in Tube f

11.100 i

I i I

.* Comments:,"Bending load applied such as to pro due*~ bending stress equal to 35 ksi.

See C-E Drawing C-62676-006 for test npparatus.

I Table 2.

Summary Sheet for Specimens With EDM Cracks S_I;l~-~-* _* --

Description Crack Width Leak Rate -

Max.

Final

. Config.

of Wastage at Bottom Pressure GPM Pressure Description Pif ferential of Specimen (PSIG) 1/2" long wastage 4

1 all around

.007" 1400 1.8 2400 3.3 4700 Crack opened to. 085" at the center.

t I

1/2" long wastage j

5 1

all around

. 008" 1400 2.6 1

I L

2400 5.0 I +3700 I Crack ooened

.050" to,_,

I to I

I

.010" I t

at the center.

I I

t 1/2" long wastage i

  • 11. 8
6.

1 all around i

.008". 1400 I

. t.

I 1*

I to 3560., 7. 2 f 4700 l Crack opened to.072" I

I

.009"

-1 l

I I at the center.

l I

I I

t I

I 5/16 11

  • long wastage I - I I

I

  • 3
  • 2 I

all around 1

  • 007" 1400 i 2.0 I

-J l

to I -2400 *I 3.*o I I

--I*

I I

. i I

.012 11 4000

6. 6 l 4000 I Crack opened* to. 02 7""

I

  • I*

I

(

I I.

the center.

l at I

i I

l

  • I
  • I l

I 5/16" long f

i..

I wastage I

4

  • 2 all around

.012" 1400 i-3. 2 t

I f

l

  • I I

I to 2400 l 4. 5 I

f

  • 013" 3950 3950 Crack opened

.025"

) 8. 3 I

to I

at the center.

I.

I

. I I

men ts:

  • These s2ecimens tested with hendi.ng load.such as to 2rocluce maximum stress e ual to vielcl stress at outer fiber. * *

+ Solenoid valve failed.

This was ]ast specimen tested.

I I

I I

._I!~_c; __ _

Config.

Table 2.

Summary Sheet for Specimens With EDM Cracks Description Crack Width Leak 'Rate Max.

of Wastage at Bottom.Pressure GPM Pressure if ferential PSIG) 5/16"' long wastage Final Description of Specimen 1

3 all around

.010 11 1400 3.1 2

3 1

2 to 2400 4.8 4800 I

Q.044"

  • 011" 3

I I

  • I l

4.1 I +4100 Crack opened to

  • 059" I

I I I l

I I

J I

i 5/16" long wast~ge i

i.

i 4

all around

~

. 008" 1400

~ 2. 2 c t

I I

. I 2400. ! 3. 0 I

I 4900 i I 1 Crack opened to *.032" at the center I

r I

t t

f s. o

~

3450 4gnn I

r.r:irk nn.ened tp_.J)~

I I l I

at the ceote". ~

+ Shims placed in cr~ck to increpse pressure.

Tube not t6sted in maximum differe~tial pressur~ device.

~ -

Table 2. *summary Sheet for SEecimens With EDM Cracks s.~;~fig~

Description Crack Width Leak Rate Max.

~

Final of Wastage at Bottom Pressure GPM

  • Pressure Description Differential of Specimen (PSIG)
  • 1 5

Virgin

  • 007"-

1400-2.7 to 3500 4.8 3500

.009" I

I I

b.~s 2

5 Virgin*

.008" 1400 3500 I

I

. t to I 3500

. 7.

I

.f I

1 I

.009 II 3

5

.1 to 4400

'1-. s I 5100 I

vicinit I

Very slight bu] gjpg in..

.009" I*

-I J

I I

  • !crack dimensions.

I I I.

I I

l

" I I

I I*

-*I

-i f

i I

i

  • 1

.. I i

I I I l

I I

i I

( -

l I

I l

l I

I I

I I

l I

I f

~ents:

5

~.

i i 400 Pressure - Psig Figure 1.

Average, Flow Rate Vs. }'res sure (Te.st Configurations 1 through 5)

I

A 8

7 6

4 3

2 1

A B

F'\\.ooR 1..1!.VEL..

'2.

1 SC~ 1<.0 PIPE.

W"-TE~ \\..~VE.I..

CO~iR.01... Vl..'1..VE s

c D

E "T'E.C:.T PIT F

G

~\\TROC'aEi.l Re.C':oUL.l>.TOR H

MITROGEIJ '!>OiTLE

,.0 MT~ SER.... O C.ONTRO\\.. svi:.,.EM

. r f *SO\\..E!-101'0... />..\\..'>IE.

TO f>RES~URE TRM~St>\\lC.ER..t2.

TO PRESSURE T'~ANS.Cl.lC.ER. 41.

\\'JASTEO Tl.lii.'E.<:. \\ll\\'T~

8 7

6

5.

4 Pll='ING P..R.R~~GEM'E."1T 1"0 SIMULA.TE STEl\\M GEN~R.t>-l'DR Mi\\1\\...1 STE~M Llt-!E t;:"J':>..\\L\\JR.E (C.CLD CONDITIONS Ot-JL"(

~OR. TEST)

C.Rr>-C.KS (t>-~TE~ \\..EM.

3

'T'a':>i"=>)

c D

I

.I E

F TMle O*...... IW') le ?MC,...,...._WTY 0#

cc... eUSTION l!:N<i1NC!:1'1HG. INC.

WINDSOR. CONN.

AHO t* HOT TO *t:

  • r~*oovcco oao u*1.o To,.Ylll"'lll*M..... T ""'"O*MATiOl'ol f'Ollll lllAllCllllG ~ D*&*11110* ()...,,,.,,.

llllATU8 l*CI" Wl>ll*C ~CKD Po-9

  • T AG*CCWl.HT WTTM aAtD CC)lilPAJO' DftAWIHG --C-62676-004-0

_.G H

2

CONTENTS ABSTRACT 1.0 PURPOSE 2.0 *OBjECTIVES

3.0 DESCRIPTION

OF TEST SPECIMENS 4.0 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESuLTS (A)

Burst Test Data (B)

Leak Rate Test Data (C)

Maximum Pressure Differential Test Data

5.0 DESCRIPTION

OF TEST FACILITY (A)

Burst and Leak Rate Test.Equipme~t (B)

Maximum Pressure Differential Test

  • 6.0 CON'cLUSIONS APPENDICES Appendix A*- Drawings of Test.Specimens* and Test Apparatus Appendix B - Tables of "As Built" Dimension of Specimens, Cracks and Test Data Appendix C - Plots of Test Data Appendix D - Photographs of Specimens Appendix E Mill Test Report for Tubing Appendix F - Engineering Request for Test Program
  • 1.0 PURPOSE The general problem is that of tube degradation and the allowable pressures for particular degradations.

The type degradations to be investigated are:

(A)

Uniform wastage - Nominal tube size.750" O.D. X.048" wall thickness.

Wastage shall be such as to reduce wall thickness to.017 inches.

(B)

Longitudinal through *wall cracks superposed upon the wastage.

1-1

2.0 OBJECTIVES The objectives of the tests are as follows:

(A)'

Determine burst pressures at room temperature for tubes. with no degradation and with simulated wastage degradation alone.

(B)

Determine leak *rates vs. pressure for tubes with no wastage degradation and through-the-wall cracks; and_ for tubes with wastage and cracks.

(C)

With tubes containing simulated wastage and cracks impose maximum differential pressure feasible (approximately 5,000 psi) and identify physical changes in the tube at the crack location.

2-1.

' 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TEST SPECIMENS All tubular test sp~cimens were cut from one steam generator tube to ensure there would be no variation in material properties.

The mill test report for this tubing is contained in Appendix E.

The fabrication drawing used f9r preparing the test specimens is provided in Appendix A.

Six seperate specimen configurations are identified with the desired simulated wastage' shown for each specimen.

The quantity of specimens with and without EDM cracks are also shown.

Throughout the test report the specimens are identified by two numbers.

The first number is the specimen number in a particular test configuration.

The

  • second number identifies the test configuration.

The test plan for the specimens is provided in Table lA of Appendix B.

The "as built" dimensions of the specimens are shown in Table 3 located in Appendix B.

The machined dimensions of the Em-r. (Electric Discharge Machine) cracks are also provid~d in Table 4 in Appendix B.

The cracks were machined with an Electric Discharge Machine (EDM) using a.005 silver solder electrode.

Since the electrode is always discharging as it progresses through the metal this provides a larger crack opening at this top than at the bottom.

In some instances a variation in crack width also occurred.

The crack width ranged from.007" to a maximum of.014" at the bottom of the crack as shown in Table 4.

3-1

4.0 DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS Burst Tests - Both simulated wasted and virgin tubes were ruptured under water pressure at room temperature conditions.

Two of the wasted tubes were subjected to bending load such as to p.roduce a maximum stress in the outer fiber equal. to _35 ksi.

The burst test results are provided in Table 1 of Appendix B.

Based.on this data (average of two specimens) it may be concluded that the average burst pressure *is reduced approximately as follows COI\\lpared to the virgin specimen for the various conditions:

Ratio of Specimen Burst Pressure Spec. Config. No.

Description To Virgin Tube Burst Pressure 1

2 3

4 1/2" wasted all 65%

around (. 017" MWT) 5/16" wasted all 68%.

around with bending load (.017" MWT) 5/16" ~asted.all around (. 917!' MWT) 1/2" long dished

  • wastage, one side

(.017"* MWT)

.69%

63%

Based on the preceding, each condition produces approximately the same drop in burst pressure with the 1/2" long wasted condition being slightly more severe.

In inspecting the bursted test specimens the following types of f&ilures were noted:

Spec. Config. No.

l*

2,3 4

. 6 (Virgin Spec.)

Type of Failure Bulged in wasted region.

Crack occurred transverse to tube axis for approximately 1/2 of circumference.

Tube failed by complete

  • seperation at wastage region; Bulging and rupture of tube in local region of wastage.

Bulging oJ entire tube. occurred.

O.D. of tube increased from.75" to

  • 9" *. At failure tube split parallel to axis of tube.

4-1

Photographs of the fqllowing specimens after the burst test are contained in Appendix D:

Photo Spec.

No.

No.

DescriEtion 1,2 1-1 1/2 11 wasted all around 3

3-1 5/16" wasted all around 18

  • 1-2 5/16" wasted all around 20 4-3 5/16" wasted all around 31,32 3-4 1/2" dished wastage, one side 33,34 4-4 1/2" dished wastage~ one side 40,41 1-6 Virgin tube 42,43 2-6 Virgin tube
  • J3urst Test with bending Leak Rate Tests -

Both virgin and wasted tubes with EDM cracks (essentially 1/4 11 long) were leak tested with pressurized water under room temperature conditions.

As noted earlier the width of the cracks in the various specimens varied to some extent* at the bottom of the crack..

See Table 4 in Appendix B for detail dimensions.

Two to three specimens qf each configuration were leak tested.

Plots of the leak*rate (GPM) versus pressure (psig) are contained in this report for each specimen.

These

_plots are identified as Figures 1 through 6 and are contained in Appendix C.

Figure 1 is.a plot.of the average flow rate versus pressure.

Tabular data of all leak rate tests is shown in Table 5 in Appendix B.

The leak rate_data.for the 1/2 11 long wasted (all around) tubes is shown in Figure 2.

It appears that crack widening. is starting to occur at 2400 psig since one of the curves starts to deviate from *a straight line.

In Figure 3 it can be readily seen that the bending load (crack on neutral axis) did slightly increase the leak rate for the 5/16" wasted (all around) specimens.

A good comparison between crack on the neutral axis and compressive side was not feasible since.the crack width varied between the two specimens.

Crack widening of the tubing apparently occurred at around 3200 psig.

In Figure 4 the leak rates for the 5/16 11 wasted (all around) tubes vary as would be expected in that the specimen with the largest crack width had the largest leak rate.

Apparently, crack widening of this tubing started occurring around 2000 psig.

4-2

In Figure 5 crack wfdening of the 1/4 11 long* dished (one side only) samples started to occur at around 2800 psig.

In Figure 6 it is apparent that no appreciable 'changes in the crack width occurred in the virgin tubes up to a pressure of 3600 psig.

Two different piping arrangements were used with an MTS servo controlled system and an oil to water intensifier.

The *maximum pumping rate with the first arrangement was approximately 4 to 5 gpm and with the revised piping arrangement* 14 gpm.

This test phase was terminated when the maximum pressure was attained that could be achieved by the hydraulic system.

A summary data sheet showing the specimen number, crack width, leak rate at two pressure, maximum differential pressu~e imposed on the tube, and final appearance of specimen is shown in Table 2 in Appendix B.

Figure 1 contained in Appendix c*pl;'.0vides a plot of average flow rate

)

versus pressure for each test config'uration.

In reviewing this plot the following conclusions may be reached:

(A). At 1200 psig pressure differential the leak rate did not exceed 3 gpm for all test configurations.

(B)

From the plots it may be concluded that local crack widening resulting in -greater increase i_n crack opening, is starting to occur where the plots start deviating from a straight line.

However, it should be *noted that this is not indicative of imminent tube failure as is apparent in the subsequent section.

Maximum Differential Pressure Test - Since the capacity of the hydraulic; syst~m could not exceed approximately 14_gpm it was considered ciesirable to utilize a system which could impose a. higher differential pressure on the specimens containing EDM cracks.

rhe test* arrangement discussed in Section 5.0 was utilized.

With *this arrangement it was possible to pressurize both the I.D. and O.D. of the tube tq the same pressure and then quickly vent the external pressure such as to achieve a high differential pressure.

Sufficient volume existed on the primary side of the tube to allow flow through the crack for a very short interval.

It was* decided to* pressurize the specimens *to _a value not exceeding 5000 psig prior to the ?econdary side venting operation.

Differential pressures of approximately 4600 to 4800 psig were subsequently measured usj_ng a:

differential pressure cell and a strip chart recorder.

Measurements were made of the maximum crack opening at the end of the test and photographs were made.

This test data is* summarized in Table 2 of Appendix B.

Photographs of the test specimens are included in Appendix D

  • 4-3

In reviewing*. the information contained in Table 2 the* following conclusions may be reached regarding the conditioa of the cracked tubes after being subjected to a pressure differential of 37-00 to. 4900 psig:

(A)

Some local puckering of the tubes occurred in the wasted region in the vicinity of the cracks in range of 3700 to 4900 psig for 1/2" long wasted (all.around) tubes.

(B)

Local puckering was barely visible for the 5/16" long wasted tubes up to 4000 psig.

More identifi~ble puckering was evident after pres5urization from 4000 to 5000 psig.

However, this puckering was less than for the 1/2" long wasted (all around) tubes.

(C)

The cracks increased in width at the center but generally did not increase in length.

When the crack did increase in length it did not exceed 1/16 inch at each end of crack.

The crack openings varied as follows:

Config.

No.

1 2

3 4

1/2" long wasted all around 5/16" long wasted all *around 5/16" long wasted all around 1/2" long dished wasted one side of tube Maximum Crack Width Opening

.050" to.085" (Max. pressure 4700 psig)

.025" to.027" (Bending load & pressure, maximum pressure of 4000 psig)

.044" to.054" (Max. pressure of 4800

. psig)

.* 0 3 pressure of 4900

  • i (D)

Based on (A), (B), and (C) above it may be concluded that with this type wastage and size cracks catastrophic failure.of the tubes will not occur at pressure *differentials up *to *t,800* psig under the conditions tested.

The crack opening (width) will only increase to some extent resulting in increased flow rates.

'~-4

~ -** --~* --* * **-*** '"'T ***-..-:-*--*-***-**-**--- *-~---*..... --**'"'-**- --* *** --..... ****~*.**,.........,......... -- ---

. I

\\.

5.0 DESCRIPTION

OF TEST FACILITY (A)

Burst and Leak Rate Test. Equipment

  • Equipment* for hurst and leak rate test consisted of an MTS closed
  • loop.hydraulic servo control system with a hydraulic power supply of 35 gpm at 3000 psi as shown on C-E Dwg. C-62676-005 shown in Appendix A.

A pressure transducer near the test specimen links the MTS system controls to the* desired pressure at the test specimen.

An oil to water intensifier is used to provide wate~ at elevated pressures for testing of the specimens.

The intensifier was used in two differ~nt arrangements, one provided higher pressures, required for burst testing, the other arrangement provided a great~r flow rate (but lower maximum pressure) used for testing of specimens requiring the higher flow rates.

The intensifier was filled with city water for each test.

Water flow was limited to approximately 3 gpm for the high pressure arrangement and approximately 14 gpm for the high flow rate arrangement.

For the leak rate tests a pipe to tube adapter and an outer pipe over the tube was used to contain and collect the water as shown on C-E Dwg. C-62676-005.

After the desired pressure was achieved for each leak rate test the water was collected for a specific time interval (stop watch used) and then the W?ter weighed and the flow rate calculated, tabulated in Table 5 in Appendix B and plotted.

For the leak rate tests in which bending was employed the test arrangement s_hm-m on c...,.E Dwg. C-62676-006 was utilized.

A copy of the drawing is contained in Appendix A.

The leaking water was

  • trapped in a-plastic tee with o-ring seals in the vicinity of the crack.

The water* leaking out of the branch of the tee was then collected and* weighed as discussed previously.

Prior to the leak rate test each wasted specimen was loaded to produce a maximum bending stress at the outer fiber of the wasted section of 35 ksi.

All burst tests were performed with the ~pecimens in the test pit as shown on C-E Dwgs.

C-62~76-005.and.C-62676-006.

The wasted specimens were loaded in the same manner in the test pit for the burst tests.

(B)

Maximum Pressure Differential Test As noted ear-lier the hydraulic system.had limited capacity. It was therefore decided* that to achieve the desired high pressure differential that the piping system showri on C~E Dwg. C-62676-004 should be assembled.

With the arrangement it was possible to fill the primary and secondary side o_f the* tubing with water and maintain an air reservoir of approximately the same volume over the water on.the primary side.

To achieve the desired pressure the_ 2" pipe was first pressurized with nitrogen to 2500 psig an.cl then the MTS 5-1.

system used to raise the pressure to 5000 psig.

A differential pressure transducer was piped to. connections 1 and 2 shown on C-E Dwg.

C-62676-004~A Heise gage was used to monitor the total pressure.

A strip chart recorder was also used to record the differential pressure reading versus time

  • When the desired test pressure was reached (generally 5000 psig) the strip chart.recorder was activated at 125 mm/minute and the solenoid valve energized.

This very quickly vented the secondary pressure resulting in ::i. pressure differential of 4600 to 4800 psig *(per strip chart).

The pressure differential then dropped in a few seconds as the reserve water flowed through the leak.

This system worked very satisfactorily.

5-2

. I

6.0 CONCLUSION

S

.1 The burst pressure of tubes with no through wall cracks*and with 64%

through wall wastage (remaining wall thickness =.017") is approximately 63% to 69% of*that for a virgin tube, the smallest burst pressure measured at room temperature being 7000 psi.

This would correspond to a burst pressure of approximately 6150 psi at 600°F..

This represents a margin against bursting of 6150/1380 = 4.46 for the specified operating conditions.

The reinforcing influence of tli.e unwasted portions of the tube accounts for the. difference from the 4140 p"si calculated burst pr:essure for the 64% wasted tube.

The tubes wit4 1/4 inch long machined through wall cracks at the 64%

wasted locations exhibited leak rates between 2 and 3.5 gallons per minute at 1380 psi, with the leak rates increasing to between 3 and 5.5 gallons per minute at 2500 psi.

The "bulge" pressure of these tubes was determined to be in the range 4600 psi to 4800 psi at which time the cracks had not propagated in the longitudinal direction* but had widened considerably.

This indicates that the tubes with through wall cracks will leak considerably beyond the leak detection levels at 1380 psi differential pressure, and that the leak rates at 2500 psi differential pressure will increase to only approximately twice those at 1380 psi.

The margin to the bulge pressure is up to approximately 4700 psi.

At 600°F the bulge pressure could be expected to be approximately 4100 psi.

Thus the leakage rates above the leak detection levels at operating pressures with a bulge pressure of more than 4000 psi indicate the

.leaks through cracks to be detected during operation with a margin against bu!ging and gross leakage up to in excess of 4000 psi.

6-l

  • APfEN.DIX A Drawings of Test Spetimens And Test Apparatus

()

e 7

!I 4

3 2

A B

. TE.ST COt-Jl'"IGURA.T\\DN

\\.JO. I

~ SPE.C.\\MEt.lS \\lJJT" CR~c.'I(. *

'?> Sf'E.CIMEJJS \\IJ\\T\\.\\OUT C.R1'.C.K c

~* !f

. I l, -

-1_1;::1 ~4:':_~o~ --------------HI'-'-'~=-~,,,_

I

.7510.D. 't(..,O... ~

INC.Ot.IEL. TUBE.

r A

EON\\ ~"'"'!(. /°/./I' l1' (Miil W10TH)./ -1~1* <

.,03"1' !,001' REMOVAL OF' WAI..\\...

t.on* M~i'E~\\"L LE.FT)

  • ~

"~

TE.ST CONl'"\\GURA.T\\ON ND. 0.

3 ~PEC.IME.tJS W*,.H C.~P..C.K 3 SPE.C.\\MEN.5 \\IJ\\T\\J.

00UT C.RAC.K TE.ST CONl'"\\GURl>.TI0"-1 N0.5 S SPE.C..llv\\E.NS B

c D

D

.~

E F

G H

[3--0_---~~----~----~ : --~~=~-------~~---~~===-\\-~~=-]t *;::~~~~~

e.oM cR1>.CK 1 l

.031' ~.001' REMOVAL oF WA.LL (MttJ 'NIDT\\.\\)

(.011' MPt..TE.RlA..'- \\..E.F"f)

~4 OEF TE.ST CONFIGURATION NO. '2.

3 'SPEC..IME.t.JS WITH CRP...C\\(

'3 SPE.C.IMEN.S Wrn.\\~IJT CRAC.K i* I

.os1 1

~.001' R'EMO\\lltr..\\.. OF """U....

(.0\\1 1 t"1ATER\\A.L LEFT)

~~~=~=~~=~4] '

-E~~-~ ~ =

~-~ ~ =t[ _:_ --~-= = = =

~---~ ~

=-=-=-=-+_,._~-~-":=-~:~~""*:=... -~-.;.~°,;"s"'a:-----~

E.DM C.'RAC.lt(.)

(Ml~ WlDT*)

_4')1(

REF TF_ST CON!=°\\GURJ>.TION NO. 4-

"Z. SP'E.C1ME.NS WITH C.RAC.K "Z. SPEC1ME.l>lS W1n-loi..tr CR.J:\\C,K

-f------------

JI + l' 10 -4

.. 1s'o.o..:..~e/

1\\J.t.OlJE.'- TUBe 8

7 II

!I 4

3 TE.ST CO\\.ll'"IGURl>.TION NO. i;.

"l. Sf'EC\\MEtJ,S.

-(PALASl>.\\DE.S TE.ST PROGR~M) 2 E

F G

  • c*"' I
  • I cu*,.u\\4,\\1"-R.NE.1..L taanD**

"'*cu'""o'""*OO't.,.,.or COMllUllTICl'ol ["'°l"'((Jll"IG.lNC.

WINCll.011. CCNl'ol.

'""o *OT 10 n *1*aoo.,c1c oa

""'"'""".'""'"""'c*.. n-

  • <>* *u**""" o* l)****,.<>*"o* ***&
      • .. 1uc1"*"U1**0.*"'"'""

l*&C*lf"l""Yo'.. 'OC-"*'"'

0

"'"'~"00-626 76-003-0 H

~ I

A

~IKD a

7 6

4 W1'.TER L'E.Vl!:.L.

. COt-JT'ROL. v/..1..ve.

3

  • 2 A

B c

D E

?..

1 SC.~ tr..O Pl~E. *

1-l\\"rROG.E~

Rs!:.<:.IJ L.P.."rOR H

NliROGE.N ~O\\TLE TO M-r~ SER.'10 Col'ITR.Ol. S't=>TE."'1 r SOLEN0\\0 './(>.LVE To PRESSURE TRl>.WSOUC.E.R.fz TO PRESSURE T"R.P..NSt>UC.ER '4<1

\\'JAsTED TU~EC:. ~1-r\\\\

a 7

6 5

4 Pl 'Pl l\\IG f>..RRJ>,~C:£MEhlT 1"0 SI MUL~TE 5TEf\\M GENEB.t>..TDR Mf>-1"1 C::.TE~M Ll"1E l="P...\\L\\JRE (C.OLO CONDITION$ Ot...lL'( FOR TEST)

C.Rl>.C.KS (1>.l=~R. \\..E~

3 IE':.i":.)

  • c D

F Pl

'°" P~L~Sfl.JDES TE.ST PROGRt>.M 9CALIE DAT&

  • ~

D*AWH OY \\.\\. v

,l>..R\\.lEI..\\..

CH<CK<D OY TNACllO*T COM!'. CODIE THIS D"AWING IS Tt41[

P'~l[RTT OP' COMBUSTION ENGINEl!!:RING. INC.

WINDSOR. COHN.

AND 19 NOT TO *t: ftllP'.ltODUCCO. Ofll U91:D TO P'U1tNl8H ANT INP'ORMA.TION

"'O" MAKING Of' D"AWIHO* 01111 A.... A..

RA.TU9 llXCIEl"'T WHUH. ~VlD&.a P'Ofl

  • T AOflll:Uill:NT WITH *AID COMPANY.

D1tAWINO "°;C~62676*004-0 G

H 2

A 8

7 6

!S

.4 3

2 A

MiS CLO~

LOOP C:.Z~~

co~~O\\.. -s~re:t.i E.\\.'1:.1:.T?.IC.

COKT~OL

. L11-l£ c

'!S. GPt.11 lh'DltNlLIC PO-..IE.lt. ~u~'i D.

~E.RllO COto.\\TROI..

\\lALIJES IE.ST t>-.R

~1-JGE.MEl-lT FO

~IRC.1.,i ANt> \\'J~-:.iEt:i Tl.l'e-E ':.PECIMl<.NS I

WIT}\\ E.t>ll'\\ C.R.f..C.K.

Lr°OU-ECT>ON TMK.

ARRt>.~GE.ME."1T. FOR LE.t:..K TESIS B

c

.D 0\\1.. 1'0 'IJ~TE.P.

llolTEtJ51~1ER

., /TO PRE.SS URE

'V TR,.,.lolSPUC.ER.

'lllRGl\\.l "'tolt> SIMUl-ATEt>

G

\\\\/11.~TE.D Tl)e.E.S (t-10 E.t>M CAAC."-5)

Tt:.C:.T Pli H

A.RRA.NGEME\\..l"i" FOR B\\J~ST TESTS E

F L P..K ~ D BUR.ST TE.ST SOIE.M/t..TI

""" PA.\\..t>..SAl'DES TEST PROGR"M 9C:AU. ~

DA.Tit -s-,,.

D**- ov \\.\\.\\JA.it.NELL.

CH<CK<D **

TMt* DRA.,.,ING t* TMll ~tn'T CW COMDUSTIC'I ENGINEE.. ING. INC.

WINDSOR. CONN.

ANO I* HOT TO a11 RllPftOOUc.sD. (Wt Ue&D TO PU"'"9ff ANY INP'OllMATIOH P'otl 111AalNG M Dl'AW1M0a 0..........

flATVS llXCI:" WHllJIS l"'llOW'fCKD Foti SY AOMllWP'T Wint a.t.10 COWPANY.

DRAWINQ HO.C-62676.. 005-0

~-. --

G H

8

.7 6

!S 4

3 2

a 7

6 5

4 3

2 A

B

~

R:Vla.ttC TC A

-_.qr,"'-"'lf'!!TI*:;;*~~ W1'.C:.TED TUBE

~--"----~ SPE.C.IMENS (l-10 !!.OM CR"'C.K5) 1<J.. *

--=~-* -*.__=_....;__:o~:._*~ L~

\\.TO PRESS~RE TRl'.\\..lS D\\JC.ER.

_..,.~

F -*

'.N-~:lt

~E>" 35 1000 PSI (M,,::J..)

ARRAl\\JGEME.t-JT FOR. BURST TE.Si TO PRE.SSL)Re.

iR.f>."-15 t:il)CER

,,~.J'- 1$.4.J

'\\i/

i!'B * ?>S,000 PSI (_ k1A'I. />.T \\\\/II.STEP AV..Ef>..')

  • A.R.RM*.:iGE.tv\\E.NT FOR LE.f>..K TESTS 8

c D

I

, I i;;:

PLti.':>T\\C. Tl:OE:

1-\\0SE

~~LLOCT*ON

~A II DETl\\ll,.... (C.-4)

F G

w:

SC.\\-\\EM SCALE -....,

DATE i... S-1Gt OOAWN.. 1-\\. \\JM~."1El..L CH<CK<O"'

TlltAC<<D llT A""lltOVl:O COMP'. CODIE THIS D"AWINQ 19 THE

""~El'ITY 0,.

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.

WINDSOR. CONN.

AND Ill HOT TO al: lltl:.. lltOOUCED. Ollt U!lltD TO l"U,.Nl8H ANY INl"OlltMATIO-.

l"Olt WAKIHQ 0#! OlltAWIHQS Ollt Af"PA.

lltATUO.l.XCIEl"'T WHl!CJll:'I ~1oao "°"

  • Y AGlltl:Uitl:NT W"'" aAIO COMPANY.

D!IAWINQ ~.C.. 62676-006.. 0 G

a 7

6 5

4 3

2 l i..

Pl

\\.

APPENDIX B Tables of "As Built" Dimension of Specimens, Crack, and Test Data

j TABLE lA TEST PLAN FOR SPECIMENS

--~ec.

Diff.

Test Crack Leak Press.

Burst No.

Config.

Description Req'd Test.

Test Test 1-1 1

1/2" long wasted No No No Yes 2-1 1

all around Reserve 3.;..1 1

(10" long)

No No No Yes 4-1 1

Yes Yes

  • Yes No 5-1 1

Yes Yes Yes No 6-1 1

Reserve 1-2 2

5/16" long wasted No No No

  • Yes 2-2 2

all around No No No

  • Yes 3-2 2

(18" long)

Yes Yes No No 4-2 2

Yes Yes No No 5-2 2

Reserve 6-2 2

Reserve 1-3 3

5/16" long wasted Yes Yes Yes No 2-3 3

all around Yes Yes Yes No 3-3 3

(10" long)

Yes Yes Yes No 4-3 3

No No No Yes 5-3 3

No No No Yes 6-3 3

Reserve

-4 4

1/2" dished Yes Yes Yes No 2-4 4

one side, only Yes Yes Yes No-3:-4 4

(10" long)

No No No Yes 4-4

.4 No No No Yes 1-5 5

Virgin*

Yes Yes No No 2-5 5

Tube*

Yes Yes No No 3-5 5

Yes Yes Yes No 1-6 6

Virgin No No No Yes

  • 2-6 6

Tube No No No Yes 27 specimens (TOTAL)

      • -.. ~.-~,. - - -*

~-

'I Table 1 Tube Burst Tests

~Palisades)

Tube Size -

  • 750"0.D. x
  • 048"W. T., Material - Inconel 600 Specimen Configuration Brief Description Burst Pressure No.

No.

of Specimen 1/2" long wastage 1-1

.1 all around 7400 1/2" long wastage 3-1 1

all around 7450 5/16 11 long wastage

  • 1-2 2

all around

  • 77nn 5/16" long wastage f
  • 2-2.

2

  • all around I
  • ]qOO 5/16" long wastage 4-3

-3 all around

~

7800

~

I 5/16" long wastage i*

c;_ ".\\

":\\

.,,-~.,,..,,-1 Annn

t.

f 1/2" long dished

~

3-4 4

wasta12:e one side J

7000 1/2" long dished 4-4 4

was*ta12:e one sirl~

i 7'100 i

1-6 6

I Vir1?:in Tube I

11 qnn A

. ~

.2-6 6

Vir1?:in Tube f

f ll.100 I

. I

~

omments: -*Bending load applied such as to "produce. bending stress equal to 35 ksi.

See C-E Drawing C-62676-006 for test apparatus.

I

Table 2.

Summary Sheet for SEecimens With EDM Cracks

. SJ.?~.~-,-~-***

Description Crack Width Leak Rate Max.

Final

. Config.

of Wastage at Bottom Pressure GPM Pressure Description iff erential of Specimen PSIG 1/2" long wastage I

4.

1 all around

.007" 1400 1.8 I I

I 13.3 I I

2400 4700 Crack 0 ened to.085" l

I I l at the center.

I i

I I !

1/2" I

I long wastage l

~

I 5

1 all around l

  • 008" 1400
12. 6 I

I I

i tO'_;

2400 I

+3ZQO Cr ad<: 012ened to.050" t5.0 I

(

l i

  • i l

.010" f

at the cen~er.

1/2" long wastage i

6 1

all around

.008" 1400 (1.8 i

J l

35.60.

I to 1 *

7. 2 4700 Crack. 012ened to. 0 7 2 11
1

. {

.009" at the center.

  • s/16"-long wastage l

.007 11 1400 3

-*2 all.around

12.o ;

~

~

l 2400

~ 3. 0 l to I

(

~

.012" 4000 ! 6. 6 '1:

4000 Crack 012ened to : 02 7 11 I

i t

l at the center.

~

l 5 16 long wastage

[!

l~

~'2

~

all around

i

. 012" 1400

3.

I

  • 2 j

(

~

1*

to l 2400 l* 4. 5 f

~

t t. 3950

~.

. 013"

,, 8. 31'.

3950 Crack opened

.025" I

)

to

  • )

t I

. ~

the

~

1 at center.

t.

.f These s:2ecimens teste'd with bend~ng load such as to 2rodtice maximum stress e ual to ield stress at outer fiber.

+ SQlenQid }a!.l:Y:e faik~l.

  • Ihi~ \\:,'.Q.S J.£iS k specimen.tested.

~-

1 3

2 3

3 3

1 4

2 Table 2. *Summary Sh.eet for Specimens With Emf Cracks Description of Wastage 5/16 11 long wastage l all around l

5/16" long wastage all around j

5/16" long wastage i

all around

  • l :

5/16" long wastage all around Crack Width at Sottom

.010" to

.011"

.013" to

. 014"

.008" to

.009"

.007" to

~.

11 l 5/16" long wastage all around

\\;

. 008"

. 008 11 Leak Rate Max.

Pressure GPM*r* Pressure ifferential Final Description of Spe.cimen i

f*

1400 2400 2400

\\ 1400 i

. ~

2260 1400 3.1 1 I

.1 I

I

  • t
  • , 4. 0

~

l l s. s (

I I

i l

12.1 !

i 4.1 !.

i

. ~.

. ~

  • ~

i

\\

t

.~

~

I, 2.o' I

l i

  • 2. 9.

i l

3500

~ 4. 5 j 1400

%50

~

)

. 2. 2 i t.

~

\\

I

~ 3. 0 j

~

~

~

\\ 5. 0 I PSIG) 4800 1 *~rack opened to. 044 11 at c1~;;ck npen,=>d t-a 054-'.:-

I 4800 i at the centpr

+4100 Crack o;,:>e;1ed to. 05Q 11 at the cente;*.

4_900 Crack opened to.03f 1 i

4900

  • i Crack opened lo. 032" Comments:

+ Shims placed in crack to increase pressure.

Tube. n,pt tested in m0x:imum

~--'---~~~~~~~

differential pressure device.

Table 2.

Sumriiary Sheet for Specimens With EDMCracks

,__.Sp~-~---

Description Crack Width Leak Rate Max.

~

Final Config.

of Wastage at Bottom Pressure GPM Pressure Description b.ifferential of Specimen (PSIG) 1 5

Virgin

.007" 1400.

2.7 I

to 3500

~.8 v;oo

.009" i

I I

2 I 5 Virgin*

t

.008" 1400 b. is 3500 I

  • I to I 3500 6.7 I l

I

.009" I 1

  • I I

I I

I I

I I

l 1

  • j Hnn nr; j 3

5 I

  • 00711 h

I I

t t

{ 44nn i

i I.

11 " l I

I I

to r; 1 nn lUa-..

~i;,-,.'h.- hn]gjno jr

' i I

I

. 1 I

t J

c

  • I I

! vicinity

--.i I

.009" l

of crack.

'~Q I

I

  • 1.

i f

I

. i I

i I

f

! anoarent c han_gs>..__j T' I

. I I

  • 1 !

I I

1

crack dimPnsions I

I I

i I l 1

.I

. *?

i I

I i I i

l l

I i

I l

I I

\\

i I

I i

I I

. ~

I I

I t

I I

I l

i

. ~

\\

I l

I.

f

1.

l I

I I

i I

i i

I I

I I

l I

l I

c

~

I

~

f I

i I

I t I

.. I I

I i

I I

I*

f I

I l

Comments~

i

~

Table 3.

"As Machined" Dimensions of Specimen*

cimen No.

5-2..

6-2 6-1 J.,-2

(.

I Configuration No.

2 1

2 I

I Length of Wasta e Conunents: * *All measurements are in machining.

j I

f I

j Norn.

Tube O.D.

inches.

[

I I I ;

All Tube Wall Thickness (Norn.)

  • Sf?.ecirneris J t i.

I

j.

Wasted Area Min. O.D.

were checked l l

~

~

l ;

I*

I Wasted Area Min. Wall Thickness after

Table 4 11As Machined" Dimensions of Cracks Crack Opening (in-:hes).

men Configuration Length Top_

Bottom

o.

No.

of Crack Left Center Right I Left Center Right 4-1 1

_ ?')Q

.009

.009

._009

.007

.007

.007 5-1 1

.244

.012

.013

.013

.009

.008

.010 I

I I

i 6-1 1

.250 I

. 012.

.012 I. 012

. 009

.OOQ I

nnR i I 3-2 f

-I 2

. 232

. 013

.020 n1 c; nrn ni?

i ni n i

I I

j 4-2 2

.255

.j

.014

.014

.019 I.012

.013 I - 011 j

i f

i l

I r

1-3 3

.2'11 0

nit.

n1~

f

~

n1 ".l n11 n11 n1n i

i I

I I

I 2-3 3

.265

. 015

.015.

.015 !

.014

.014

.013 I

~

I j

i I I

~009 l 3-3 3

.260

~

.013 l

.011 f

.009

.009

.008 I

I i

i I

I-i 1

~

I j

\\

I j

I i

i f

1-4 4

.240

.010

~

.010

.012

.008

.007

.007 I -

i

~

I I

i 2-4 4

I

.251

~

.015 f

.013

.013 j*

.008

.008

.008 I

'

Pressure 5/16 11 l<?ng wastage 3-2 all around 400

n. 7 I

~nn t --

1. n Nn 1 ~... rt I

i?nn I 1 ? f-I i

I Rnn 1 h

~

1200 1.9 1400 I 2.0 i I

1 1

. l t

I 1600 2.2

~ '*

l

~

I 1900 I

2.4. ~

l i

~-

I 2100 2.6

~

I

. f

~

I i '

2300

~

2.7 I

A

~

~

I 2500 3.0 t

i

~.

1 i

~*

i.

i c

I I

l 2700 f

3.1

~

~

I*

i cradk

~

2900

~

3.3

~No visual g/rowth of l

i

~

~

t

~

I 3.8 I

3300 I

i i

i:

I

~

~

3500 4.0 I

I

~

~

I 3800 r

5.8 r

f

~

(

I

~

4000 6.6

~

  • .027"
f.

i t

i.

I

~

I 5/16" long i

~

wastage "

t

)

4-2 all around-800 2.5 r I

1

) 200 I

2.9 1600.. I

3.5 Comments

  • Measured at center of crack.

0 0**

0 ******

N..... 0 0 -* '**--** __..

Specimen No*.

~

2-3 Table 5 Tube Burst and Leakage Tests (Palisades)

Brief Description Leak Rate Crack Opening of Specimen 5/16" long all around wastage Pressure GPM (Ped,., -

2000 4.2 nnn f

"- 'i 3200 '

c;_6 3600 I 7.2 3950 *I 3,3 1

I.

2000 f

3.6 l

2400 i 4.8 I!

4800

~

1200 I 3.6 4.4 2000

~

4.9 i

5.5

. j.

~

t l

g

? ~nn v

I.

  • .025
    • .044 I

t,.

I I I

Bulge Pressure t

I f1 ow rate reauired was i::rrea er than Comments:

Measured at center of crack.

.. J Sheet No.

4

.1 f

1

  • i I I Tube Failure Pre.ssure

~*-*~!1:=::.:.:..:::;*:::.=:~:..:::_-=::.:.:..::..=-:;.....::..:f::.__::::..::..::.:::::.:.:..:_-=.;~:-..::::.t:..t:.~*.::..:::.:~:___::~.::..!!_.:::;~~~~1.!.....~~~~~~~~~~~1

,~

easured at. center ci

  • crack.* Test aooaratus shown on C-E Dwg. C-626 76-004 used for this test.

cimen Brief No.

of 5/16" 3-3 around I

4 I

Table* s Tube Burst and Leakage Tests (Palisades)

Description Leak Rate Crack Specimen*

Pressure GPM Opening (Pd~)

4800

  • .054" long all t

wastaee 1240 1 q 1600

'} ?"i i l

I

)

2000 2.4 1*

2l1SO I 4.1. i I

2260 4.1 t "

I I

~

    • 4100 f.

I I

-t4400 l

. f i

  • 1 I

f

. ~

800 1.1*

L I

~

1200 1.8

~

j I

1650 r

~

I.

Sheet No.

5

~

Bulge Tube Pressure Failure Pressure i

I I

I

. I I

I 2.3 r

---'----ll-~~--t--------;,.-

~1_:_---------~-...:;:_~;____.___-=..;..:.-~------<;__------:.--------~

Comments:

  • Measuremcn*t at center of specim~Spccjmt>n tested in app:ir:itus shawD-OLL.C..-=E.

~-6267'.>-QQ;. used for tbJs test.

_OJO" instoll<'cl in rrnck in attempt ta incr,-.. 05*0 p~~_u.i;...,0---'(,_S_h_i_m_s_..;.) ____________

-1

-t+.No visual cnlnrgcmcnt of crack.

+-1+

Measurement at center of crnck. Sped.men tested in apparatus on C-E Dw*g. C-62676-0011.

. i

-.. ----*.---~*-----*********-- --

Sheet No.

6 Table 5 Tube Burst and Leakage 'Tests (Palisades)

~

Specimen Brief Description Leak Rate Crack Bulge Tube No.

of Specimen Pressure GPM Opening Pressure Failure f'P c:d c1\\

Pressure 2-4

,, 7 'l 2-1

, 600 I ?.4 I ?onn

?_7 I I 24nn !

1.n I I.

I

moo 1 ')

1 I

I 1200

!.i 1 f

-I I) i I

  • 3450 5.0 !

I I

l

{

I 4900 l

~

    • .032" I

I

~

i

  • 1 i

~ "

1200

~

2.4

?

~

i

~

I

~

1600 1

2.9 fr.

. I I

i I

i 2000 3.6 I

f l

I I

~

I 2300

~

  • 5. 3

~

l i

2400 f

3.7

~.

I f

~

~

~

/.

I I

2800 4.0 f;*

I J

i

~

3200 4.3 t

I

~

1

(

I

~

3400 j

4.3

~

I y -

(

I 3500 4.8 I

q I

l I

I i

I l

l I

.t.

2:...5 1200 2.0

~

t j

1 I

J 1600 2.3

~.

I

\\

  • Com..-nen ts :

,~

No visual enlargement of crack.

    • Measurement at center of crack.

Specimen te$ted in apparatu.s shown on C-E Dwg.

C-626 76-00!1.

Specimen Brief Table 5

  • Tube Burst and Leakage Tests (Palisades)

Description*

Leak Rate Crack Sheet No.

7 Bulge Tube Ne:>.

of Specimen Pressure GPM Opening Pressure Failure 3-5 (Peder) 2000 t

2400 '

2800 I 3200 I

I

  • 3500 I

I 1200

-I

-I I

I 1600 I

i i

i 2000 6

I I

2400

. i 2800 i

I 3200

~.

I I

i l

3600 f

t

~

l I

f 4000

! t I

G 4400

/. n i

~

~

    • 5100

~

I J

j J

2.6 2.9

3. 2' 3.5 i

3.7 i

1.5

i. '

1.8 i i*

2.0

~ ' l 2.3 f

~ '

2. 5
r.
1 2.6

~ r

~

2.9

~

~

~.

3.1

\\:

t

~

3.5

~

~

~

I I.

I I

. l I

l V Only slighJ bulging

~

generallvicinity Jin t

I t

Pressure i

I I

i I I r i

I I

i i

r

  • I,

I I I not~d of brack.

' i t

doeslno~

. J

~ Crack appear t6 have

'I

  • rincrease~ !n I

.. i width.

i i

5 I

I f

f

~.

t

.~

Conunents: *

  • No enlar'gcment of crack visually detectable.

S ecimen tested in device shown on C-E Dwg.. C-62676-004.

APPENDIX C Plots of Test Data

1 I -.. :*

l.. -. l 8.... '.

t... -

i 4

I

.. L

- - i ---- - ---

I i

.I I

I I 400 800 1200 1600 Pressure - Psig Figure 1.

Average Flow Rate Vs. Pressure (Test Configurations 1 through 5)

20

-~-*~---* -- -~~--

I 15 I

p...

C,!:)

Q) 10 l.J

("j

~

~

0

..-4

~

5 T

800 1200 Pressure Psig Figure 2.

Flow Rate Versus *Pressure, Test Config.uration No. 1

8 4

2 0

400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 Pressu.re - Psig Figure 3. Flow Rate Versus Pressure, Test Configuration No. 2

I.J. ' 1--.

l -+-: :+-

!. -l-**--*- 1.

I

~*-*-.-- -..-.-;.+--* ---*--***-

.. : I : :, :*

I f**:-~*-.:*-~ j ------*- ~--~-

- ; - *

  • Spec.
~-= :. l ~- ~-: :. ~N:..::o~*--=-=-=...'-=:___.:_.::.c....:.c:..-==-----.,~

I

  • ~----:---;- ~--, --~ 1-3

~ -,.,... 2-3 i

o

~=-~~--~=r:*..... :: 3-3 Length Width of Bottom: '

i 1/4"

.010" to.011" i*

r-.*

1/4"

.013" to.014" 1/4"

.008" to.009"*

600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 Pressure Psig Figure 4.

Flow* Rate Versus Pressure, Test Configuration No. 3*

6 -- -

I

. I

. i 5

1 Pressure.- Psig Figure 5. Flow Rate Versus Pressure, Test Configuration No. 4

5 i

I i.-1~~~-:-

1..... :

I

.... I.

l:,),

: :-** l *;

0

~. i Specimen No. 3-5

. -.. r~---. -, -:---:--*-=--****

. : :llitl

; -~: ~I,

.. ~

~-~ -~-~ H- ~ ~. I 1

t T

l I

1 t

I I

I I

I I

t j

  • :. * !. ' '. j., *
  • I I
    • l
  • *. I : ' ;

I'

! i i

400 800 1200 1600 2000 Pressure - Psig*

2400 2800 Figure 6.

Flow Rate Versus Pressure, Test Configuration No. 5 3600

APPENDIX D Photographs of Specimens

Photo No.

1,2 3

6,7 8,9 16,17 18 19 20 21,22 23,24 25,26 27,28 29,30 31,32 33,34 35,36 37,38 39 40,41 42,43 Spec.

No.

  • 1-1 3..:.1 4-1 5-1 6-1 1-2 3-2 4-3 1-3 2-3 1-3 2-3 3-3 3-4 4-4 1-4 2-4 1-5 1-6 2-6 List of Photographs Description of Pha~e of Test Shown After Burst Test After Burst Test After Leak Test After Leak Test After Maximum Differential Pressure After Burst Te~t (with bending)

After Leak Test (with bending)

After *Burst Test After Leak Test After Leak Test After Maximum Differential Pressure After Maximum Differential Pressure After Maximum Differential Pressure After BuLst Test After Burst Test After Maximum Differential Pressure After Maximum Differential Pressure After Maximum Differential Pressure After Burst Test After Burst Test

Photo l Test Configuration 1 After Burst Test Specimen 1-1 Photo 3 Specimen 3-1 Photo 2

Photo 6 Photo 8

(.

Photo 16 Test Configur~tion 1 (C~nt.)

After Leak Test Specimen 4-1 Specimen 5-1 Test Configuratio~ l"(Ccint.)

After Maximum Differential Pressure Photo 7 Photo 9 Photo 1.7

~nPf' i mPn h-1

Photo 18 Sue *

(Af, cimen 1-2 ter Burst Test).

Photo 19

(

Specimen 3-2 After L eak Test).

  • Photo 21*

Photo 23 Test Co~fi~~ration l After Burst Test Photo 20 Specimen 4-3 Specimen 3

~ t p

l'.

1' t J

I. t.

kf~;;.t;;fj\\Y:ci!

Specimen 2:....3 Photo 22 Photo 24

Photo 25 Photo 27 Photo 29 Test Configuration 3 (Cont.)

After Maximum Differential Pressure Specimen 1-3 Specimen 2-3 Specimen 3-3 Photo 26 Photo 28 Photo 30

Photo 31*

Photo 33 Test Confi~uration 4 After Burst Test Specimen 3-4

/

Specimen 4-4 Photo 32 Photo 34

Photo 35

't'.¥::, ~ ~:z~~- ~::~:..

t;;;.;-~;.. ;,~;,;,,.;'~~;;;~,;,.,-~
,'*,;;;";:;~.&s;~.~.:~~1."';":,**.
  • Photo 37 Test Configuration 4 (Cont.)

After Maximum Differential Pressure Specimen 1-4*

. i Specimen 2-4 Photo 36 Photo 38

After Photo 40 Test Configurati0n 5 Maximum Differential Pres;ure~

Photo 39 Specimen 1-5 Test Configuration 6 After Burst Test Specimen 1-6

~~

~,

~" ~µ ;:.:,:.;<'""'""""".. """""""0;;;*. >, -'°-"~d ~*l<~i.>~.dillifuti.l:i!.~~~~~~:~~~JJ:li.i;;~~*~~;.;;;:.t..:;;:::z..;.'.Jo:."O<:C'!'.~'""

Photo 42 Photo 43 Specimen 2-:-6

/'/ J. ) *D-:o

~

APPENDIX E Mill Test Report for.Tubing

  • ar**

Combustion Engineerint;,

it1 Chattanooga~ Tennessee

.o.

44-80079

mtract 72'1.70

)b No.

A-98098 M.O.

Lot Heat

>000-92 L-16-M NX6824 at Number NX6824 c Mn p

Ladle Analysis

.03

. 34

.009

IC\\1low Check

.40

.009 i'l.

.ysis CYCLOPS CORPORATIO~

Sawhill TµLu;Qr Dlvisi~n

  • Sharon,* Pa.

Southern California Ediso San Onofre III

  • Unit No. 2 Inc.

s

.003

.004 CERTIFICATE CF TESTS Date 11/5/75 Sawhill S.O.

60002

__.:....:.....;:_:__'-----'-~--~~~~--~~~~----~1 Size

.750" O.D. x.048" Ave. Wall Material Seamless Ni-Cr-Fe Allov Tubing ASHE SB-163-71 As Hodifi.ed By C.E.

Purchase Spec P4 3Il2 (h) 1'.n.d P. 0.

Spec~fication 44~80079 And Supplements

.750" 0.D. Tube Check Analyses For Carbon

.03 CHEHICAL A..N'ALYSIS Si Cr Ni Cu Ti Fe Al Co B

Mg

.16 15.35 74.13 *.30

.28 9.18

.17

.OS

.005

.15 15.60 73.63

.33

.34 9.00

.16

.OS

.002

  • 010 M.O.

Lot Yield Strength MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Tensile Strength Elongation in 2" Rockwell B

  • 0000-92 L-16-M 40,000 psi Lot I.G.A.

Long.

Tran.

0000-92 L,.-16-M

.001 max *. 001 max.

M.O.

Lot Surface Roughness 0""0-92 L-16~M 26 - 42 AA

  • 91_,000 psi Grain Size
  • Long.

Tran.

5-6 5-6 49%

Micro structure Long.

Tran.

75-75

  • (Photocic:

graphs SubmitteC:

Complete Complete

  • Information Only 11 t~bes vere flare tested on each ond in accord&nce with Sil-153.

11 tubes were eddy current tested in accordance*with Sawhill Procedure STP-21B, July 1, 1974.

11 tubes were ult:rasonic tested in two circumferential *directions in accordance with Sawhill Procedure STP-22D, Julv 1, 1974.

11 tubes were ultrasoni~ally tested for wall thickness.. in accordance wi*th Sawhill Procedure STP-24A, July 1, 1974.

.ny reconditioning was performed, when necessary, i~ accordance with Sawhill Procedure STP-23B, July 1, 1974.

11 tubes were bent in accordance* with Sawhill Bending Procedure, October 10, 1974.

11 tubes were hydrostatically tested in the bent condition at 3150 psi for 10 seconds ninimum *

. 11 tubes were tested for alloy identity.

Refer to lot number, mill order and heat number on attached packing list.

he ve materi3l has been inspected snd conforms to the a~plicable specifications to the best f

nowledge and belief.

d subscribed to before me ti. _2.th.:_day of November,

  • 1975 -
  • .ol!,Y/,z*c:.r'.:. c-A r.nrtL lRANICK, Not:irv p~~nc

. Whea!lan;I. Mercer Cuur.ty, P-.nnsylvlnia CYCLOPS *CORPORATION Sawhill Tubular Division c*.I

., v 11,,,-. l 7 n A. i.'1k::--__Ll__,__j_.LJ'L'1'1~----

?.,.__..,,.,....

~i"u-hn ri2~d Si on :i r-11,.,,

APPENDIX F Engineering Request for T~si Program

  • interoffice Correspondence

~PO\\VER

~L:J SYSTEMS

/

Mr. J. K. Hayes.

Tupe Burst and Leakp.ge Test (Palisades)

Analytical ~ngineerin~

cc:

Mr. P. Anderson Mr. W. Heilker AMG-76-015 January 29, 1976 This is to fulfill the requirements of Section 3.5.1 of the Design Quality Assurance Procedures for.establishing test require-

. ments for a test or development program.

3.5.i.5 (1)

Description of Design Problem -

~he ge~eral problem is that*of tube degradation and the allowable pressures for particular degradations.

The type degradations to be investigated are.:

a.

Uniform."Wastage" - Remaining wall thiekness =.017"

b.

Longitudinal through wall cracks superposed upon the wastage~

  • (2)

Detailed Objectives of Test The obJecti ves of the t.es ts are:.

a.

Determine burst pressures at room* temperature for tubes with no degradation, with wastage degradation alone, and with wastage and crack degradation at the same location.

b.

Determin*e. l.eak rates vs. pressure for tµbes with no wastage degradation and through wall cracks; and for tubes with wastage and cracks degradation.

(3)

Des*cription of Proposed Test Models ;..

-There are six (6) styles or types of specimens (.see attached drawing).

Mr. J. January 29, 1976 AMG-76-015

a.

6 specimens - Wastage simulation all around for a length of 1/2" -

th.e minimum wall thickness being

  • 017 11*

3 specimens to. be with 1/1+" longitudinal cracks at the location of wastage - 3 specimens without cracks.

b.

6 specimens -

Same as Type a except that th.e wastage length is 5/16" instead of 1/2".

c.

4 specimens - Local simulated wastage (~achined flat-dished on one side only) for 1/2" length -

minimum wall thickness.017"-.

2 specimens with simulated

.wastage and 1/4" longitudinal through wall crack -

2 specimens with simulated wastage only.

d.

3 specimens with no simulated wastage and l/lt" longitudinal cracks.

e. *2 specim_ens with no wastage and no cracks - virgin tubes.

.All spec*imens for Types a, b, c, d and e approximately 10" long_.

.f.

6 specimens like Type b except the tube length approxi-mately 18 11 *

(These are to -be loaded in bending and internal press~re.)

(4)

Acceptance Criteria -

Ac*curately determin~ and report required data lis*ted in Items (5) through (9) below.

(5)

Discussion of Tests to be Performed -

a.

All specimens for Types a through e shall be loaded with internal pressure (pressurized water) only.

  • 1.

Determine bursting pressure for tho~e specimens*

without cracks (for Types ~ through ~).

2.

Det~rmine leakage rate for those ~pe6imens with cra~ks (~or specimens a'. through e) ~

  • .The leakage rates should be determined as a function of pressure - -1200 psi, 1600 psi, 2000 psi, 2400 psi, 2soo*. psi.. ~. as high. as can be deter.mined.

The

Mr. J. January 29,, 1976 AMG-76-015

b.

0 failure mode will probably be local bulging with a widening of the crack and subsequent greatly increa'Sed leakage.

The failure mode is to be qualitatively determined by observation and a final burst pressure is to be determined.

Specimens of Type f These are to be loaded with internal pressure plus bending (4 point bending).

The bending should be of such magnitude to cause.a bending stress of approxi-mately Sy (yield stress) in the tube.

The loads will be larger for the unwasted tubes than for the wasted tubes since the moment of inertia.of the wasted tube is smaller.

The specimens without cracks are to be burst with internal pressure while the bending stress is present.

The leakage rate of the specimens with cracks shall be determined as a-fu,nc:tion of pressure while the bending str~ss is present.

One specimen should have the crack on the compression side,, one *on the tensile side and one -on the neutral axis.

(6)

Instrumentation and Readout Equipment -

That necessary to document vressures and leak rates.

(7)

Test Data -

A Specimens should be. identified as* to mater*ial_, mill. test prope~ties_, type degra~ation (wastage and cracks).

a.

Pressure vs leak rates *should be obtained for the cracked spe~imens to a~ high pressure as reasonably feasible_, then obtain burst pressure.

Plots ef pressure vs leak rates should be made.

The spe.cimen should be identified on

~he plot. sheet.

b.

Burst pressure should be obtained for uncracked specimens.*

(8)

Qualification Standards

. C' (Not applicable.)

Mr.

\\.

(9)

J. K. Hayes Test Repor*t..:..

January 29, 1976

.AMG-76-015 A test report should be produced.

The results should be close to the beginning of the report.

a.

Specimens should be complet~ly described (the size and type of degradation, physical properties_, size o:f crack, etc.).

Photographs of specimens i:f possible.

b.

Plots of leak rate and burst pressure :for the cracked specimens should be given.

c.

Eurst pressures for uncracked specimens should be given.

  • d.

A comparison of the following should be made:

1.

Burst pressure of* virgin tube (uncracked) (unwasted).

2.

Burst pressure.of 1/2 11 long*flat wasted tube (uncracked).,

3~

Burst pressure of 5/16 11 long all around* wasted tube (uncracked).

4.

Bt~rst pressure of 1/2 11 long all around wasted tube

( uncracked).

5.

Burst pressure of 5/16" long all aro.i nd wasted tube (uncracked) with bending stress-present.

6.

Burst pressure of unwasted tube with cracks with leak rates at varying pressures given.

7.

Burst pressure of 1/2 1' long flat wasted tube with cracks with leak rates at varying pressures given.

H.

Burst pressure of 5/16" long all around wasted.tube

  • with cracks with *leak rates.given at varying pres-sures.
9.

Burst pressure of 1/2" long all around wasted tube with cracks with leak rates given at varying pres-

10.

sures.

~urst pressure of 5/l6" long all around wasted tube with cracks with bending st~css present with leak rates at varying pressures given.

- --- --- -- -- ----. -- ________.:..._ __ ~-----*-- ---- ~-- -

_....:_ _______ ~- ----*~r-------

-~-------

~-**- --------

Mr. J. January 29~ 1976 AMG-76-015 A table is the preferre4 way to give these data.

An example.of the table is shown on attached* sheet.

f;f;,e}

F. Hill FH/lh

, Attach.

Consumers Power Company

  • Palisades Plant

. Presentation of Steam Generator Tube Eddy Current Inspection Results And Evaluation February 26, 19'(6

DENTING OBSERVED

. VERY MINOR IN. DEPTH -

1-JJ MILLS 4 MILL~ MAXIMUM.

VERY EXTENSIVE IN B HOT LEG.

MODERATE IN A HOT LEG, AT SUPPORTS *

. 2, 3.AND 4 AND NEP.R CENTER:

SLIGHT EXISTENCE OF DENTS IN A COLD LEG.

FEWER DENrS OBSERVED IN. B COLD LEG.

v

. -~--.. "

- ~!\\'TS HANDLED BY A~;;~m 10~~ To 1975 READIHG ~>-\\

AIID USING API'LICABLE PLUJGING CRITERIA OF 50 OR 55c/o.

WASTAGE OBSERVATIONS INCREASED WASTAGE OCCURRED ON SCT*lE TUBES IN THE A AND B GENEHA'l'ORS

  • WASTAGE INCREASES WERE 3**5°/o GREATER IN SELECTED AHEAS OF THE B GENERl\\.TOR
  • LARGE WASTAGE INCRE./\\.S:SS.OF. 2': 20-fo "WERE FOUND TO HAVE OCCUHHED MUCH LESS FREQUENTLY THA.ii" INDICATED BY THE DA'J'A.

MOD1"'RATE WASTAGE INCREASES OF 15-25Jo WERE FOUND TO HAVE OCCURRED IN A FEW INSTANCES.

THE PATTERN OF COHROSION ATTACK APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT *

' II.I I

MULTIPLES OBSERV}~D i

I 1

MULTIPLE INDICATIONS OBSERVED STUDY OF DATA REVH'....ALED NEARLY AIJ.i THESE INDICATIONS PRESENT IN 1975 i

i I

i SOME GROWTII IS INDICATED ON A FEW TU'.r3ES

. A AND B GENERATORS ALLOWANCE FOR OPERATION PLUGGING CRITEHIA MULTIPLE DEFECTS 353 = OPEHATING ALLO\\\\fAHCE 303 = PLUGGING CRITERIA

A - GENERATOR ALLOWAN'CE FOR OPERATION PLUGGING CRITERIA WASTAGE DEFECTS 10% = OPERATING ALLOW.AlWE *

~ 553 = PLUGGING CRITERIA B - GENERATOR AT SUPPORT PLATES 3 AI\\TJ) 4; AND WITHIN ROWS83-110, LINES 1-50,.QUADRANTS II AND III;

.. Alm WI1I'HDJ ROWS 39-71, Lil-:ES 24-58, QUADRAN'.I'S II AND III 15% = OPERATING ALIJOWAN"CE AT OTHER LOCATIO~~S 10% = OPERATING ALLOWANCE IN AREAS WIIBRE OPEH.ATING ALIJOWANCE = 15%, PLUGGING CRITERIA =

~50%.IF A CHANGE OF:'!=6% occuns, PLUGGIWG CRITERIA= :;:,.55cfo IN AREAS \\*fflERE OPERATING ALLOWANCE = 10-fo

~ 55°/o = PLUGGING CRITERIA

-.&..i;i~-...... :i...

A -. GENERATOR

.ALLOWANCE FOR OPERATION PI,UGGING CRITERIA DENTED LOCATIONS WITH WASTAGE 10-'fo = OPERATING ALLOWANCE 2: 45% IN 1975 = PLUGGING CRITERIA B - GEI\\'ERATOR WHERE A 10°/o OPERATING ALLOWANCE IS APPLIED PLUGGING CRITERIA== ?: 45cfo FROM DATA IN 1975

'WHERE A 15% OPERATING ALLOWANCE IS APPLIED PLUGGING CRITERIA =2:l~09o FROM DATA IN 1975

...... ~.~~

NUMBER OF TUBES PLUGGED A - GENERATOR 103 B - GENERATOR 603.

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Palisades Nuclear Plnnt EVALUATION OF STEAM GENERATOR EDDY CURRF;Nr TEST DATA February, 1976

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. HISTORY III.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.

Denting B.

Wastage C. Multiple Indications D.

Plugging Criteria E.

Effect of Plugging Criteria IV.

ENCLOSURES

1. Steam Generator Tube Eddy Current Inspection -

Final ~eport dated February, 1976

2. Results of Re-evaluation of large Incremental Wastage
  • and Multiple Indications

EDDY CURRENT INSPECTION OF PALISADES STEAM GENERATOR TUBES INTRODUCTION The purpose of th~s report is to describe*the results of the eddy current testing of the Palisades Steam Generators A and B which took place between January 23 and February 12, 1976.

The results of the testing permitted Consumers Power Company to apply an allowance for continued operation to the allowable tube wall thickness and, thus, arrive at a tube plugging.criteria.

This tube plugging criteria has been used to plug additional tubes in the steam generators in pre-

_paration for continued operation.

This report will discuss the results of the examination, *the determination of the allowance for continued operation, and the resultant plugging criteria.

II. HISTORY The last eddy.current test conducted prior to the current one was performed during January and Februa*ry of 1975.

Following determination of results, a plugging criteria of-50°/o for multiple and wastage type *indications 1'."as used.

The Plant began operations early in April and continued operating vith only minor interruptions through to the l~tter part of December.

Op*eration during this period of nine *months was conducted at approximately 8~ power. Early in the opernting perio~,. the flushing program was com-pleted. by stepping power up in incremental steps of lei and holding while observing chpmistry condltions.

A maxinium power rating of npproxlmn.tcly

2 92~ was achieved to complete the flushing program outlined in previous sub-mittals.

Throught the nine-!Ilonth operating period, a very slight steam generator leak existed.

The magnitude was approximately 0.001-0.004 gallons per minute.

The leak never increased in size, and because of the small magnitude, it is believed to have resulted from a leaking tube plug weld.

There was no indication of tube leakage at any time.

The previous test conducted in 1975 was performed approximately seven months.

after the next previous test in 1974.

There were, however, only nine effective full-power days of operation during this period.

The lack of significant operation during this period was* due to initiation of a compre-hensive flushing program and retubing of.the condenser to provide much greater asi::urance against jn-leakage of cooling tower water.

The most recent eddy current testing began on January 23, _1976, and was concluded on February 12, 1976 *. Eddy current testing was performed under the direction of the Consumers Power Company's LaQoratory Services NDT Section.

Equipment operation was performed by Con-Am Inspection and Zetec.

Data interpretation was performed by Zetec with 1000~ over-checking of results by other personnel 'fr_om Con-Am and Consumers Power Company.

Data handling, storage and analysis was performed by.Consumers Power Company with assistance from MPI\\ Associates, Inc.

Data was :received from the Plant in the company's corporate offices on standard key-punch forms. *rt was key-punched, checked several times for accuracy and entered into c~puter memory.

Following these activities, various data sorts, plots* and comparisons were performed to accomplish the analyses and confirm the results and reconnnendations contained in this report.

3 In fulfi.lling the requirements of the test, essentially loo3 of the hot leg tubes in the A and B Steam Generators were tested. A sample of cold leg tubes were tested in both generators to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.83 provisio.ns.

  • III.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.

Denting Denting was discovered :i.n both the A and B Steam Generator's hot leg sides.

The detection of these dents presents information similar to that reported on other steam generators with similar operating history on phosphate chemistry control followed by conversion to all volatile

~ater chemistry control.

In testing the hot leg sides, it was noted that denting was most extensive in the B Steam Generator. 1n the B Steam_ Generator, dents existed at nearly every support plate o~ the hot leg side except the egg crates.

In the A Steam Generator, dents did not exist at every support plate, nor did they exist on every tube.

In this generator, denting was* concentrated at Support Pla~es 2, 3 anq 4 away from the periphery of the generators. In the cold leg s~des, denting was_ found to be very minor in the A Generatqr, and was practically nonexistent in tpe B Generator. In conductii1g the cold leg inspection per the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.83; these slight dents do* not con-stitute injurious defects and were not counted as -defect indications.

Although denting was. extensive, it was very minor in depth.

  • i The severity of the denting in the Palisades steam generators was estimated by comparison of dent signals with ECT signals obtained from s~mple tubes with several different levels of local reduction 4

in diameter.

Figure A-1 illustrates standard dent signals used to make this evaluation.

This comparison indicates that the dents were small and nominally 1 to it mil~ in depth a~er operation for approxi-mately nine months at 80% power.

Maximum size dents observed were 3 to 4 mils.

  • The severity of the denting experienced is very minor in comparison to the magnitude of denting reported on other steam generators with similar operating history for comparable operating times~ The denting observed is not harmful to tube integrity.

However, it wa~ found that the denting in some cases masked or distorted indications of wastage which were present in the 1975 inspection.(See Figure A-2 for an example where the dent signal distorts an ECT indica.tion).

Accurate interpretation of EG'.r signals distorted by dents was not possible. Although numbers were assigned, they were not used in analyses of the corrosion rate.

In analyzing this group of tubes, the bas:i.c corrosion rate of lCY/o was add~d to the. 1975 reading, and the appropriate plugging criteria was utilized after applying the proper operating allowance of 10 or 153.

-. --"... ~*'

  • "l
  • ~*'

.: :**:.: :' ' :.*,*-~"-.~.*:*._:... -~*,<.. _~:.".. ; ".;.. !:*::.::~.... ~.'.. *.,:... *~.:'*)

.:.<:~.\\ '.

  • -~~.~ ~.:

.. ::~.:* ~~:* :.:* '

~. '.

-~

....... -~.~~,.*~-.-.-~~Jr.Z-.i...._.... ~~f..A.4 n* ** ~.-................

Hcr:1<!.rk:; *

--~~~-~~~-~----~*

_________ __;r.*

-;;1c~;;-*- dc:>ZO/>'°T/.'~-. 25~-;;-;-* S/ci--d/JL ZJ/s.r::;l.:'T/~*& /~)r}£T//G-E 5,,G/v/'.;L Iten A

Quad.

III Line 71 Rm*1

  • i~o wcation l.i.

Volt/Div.~~ V.P.

1 H.P.

  • 1 Defect Size 51~

Beel 41 Side 1

  • Ind.ex 21~8 Strip Chart Speed 5Mr~/Sec Vert. Sens..

100

-~-~----~--~

Hor7-. Sens.

200 Date

~----

1-1976

I !

1-h-:f--!.. *:.. :---*--**'

1-~:-*'*--l-~~: -:._;._:._ 1..

1 ~-

i---i-.!-

!.;.:.. :--: I--i-.. _1~-;..-*-,.-.~

t I

I

--y---.-----.--.

L 1

5 B. Wastage Results of the current ECT *examination indicates that some wastage corrosion took place in the Palisades Steam Generators during the most recent run.

The basic location and pattern of corrosion is consistent with the last and previous inspections on both steam generators.

The pattern is recognized and* has been identified.

In the A Steam Generator, the number and severity of indications is generally less than in the B Steam Generator and the ECT indications are more concentrated low in the steam generator in the vicinity of Support Plates 3 and 4.

In the B Steam Generator, a higher fraction of indfcations in the unit is at and above the egg*crate supports.

ExampJ.es of the differences between the A and B Steam Generators are shown on Figures B-1 thru B-4.

These figures show the distribution of indications 409b and above at Support *Plates 4.and 10. for both the A and B Steam Generators.

Because of the continuing evidence that the corrosion pattern and location are* consistent within each stea~1 generator, the corrosion is probably linked. to relatively stable accuunnulaisions. o;f sludge in the steam generators.

The apparent mean wastage and data scatter for the period from February 1975 to February 1976 are similar to resu~ts for the period between August, 1974 and January, 1975 which included only a fe!

days nt power.

The latest period included about nine months of power

. :u/

,/

operation at close to 80"/o power.

A mean was~age wri_~-~!.: __ :r_-~mains low for the period with much more operating time is an indicat_ion that the wastage corrosion may be tapering off.

The mean corrosion rates detennined as a result of the 1975 and 197b ECT examination are

  • summarized below:

Apparent Indication A Steam B Steam Increase Generator Generator Mean incremental ECT indication increase as re-sult of February 1975 in-spection

-.173

4. 37%

Mean incremental increase-as result of Febrµary 1976 inspection - Data points

. 2CY'/o excluded

-1.3 4.65 Scatter of the eddy current data was seen in this inspection and is similar and consistent with that seen in the last inspection even though a significantly longer period of time and power has been experienced. In order that the scatter_ in the data not have an impact on the allowance for continued operation, an exhaustive investigation has been undertaken to re-evaluate data from tubes with indicated

  • large increases in corrosion.

This re-evaluation included the viewing of both the 1975 and 1976 magnetic tapes of the ECT indication and det~rmining the apparent relative growth-of the indication. In the case of-the large (i.e

  • greater than 2o:/o increases), it was found thn.t these increases actually exist only very rarely as indicated by initic.i.l comparisons of 1975 and 1976 data.

Some of the variables of data interpretation which caused this to occur are distortion of the.signals by slight dents in 1976, small volume defects which were below the screening*criteria of 3 volts in amplitude in 1976 but increased in ampl.itude in 1976 and were read-able, interference by egg crates making an interpretation of very small volume defects difficult in 1975, and the presence of wastage sites both below and above the tube support plate causing one indi-cation (the largest volume to be read in 1975), and the other indication whose volume was increased to be read in 1976.

The conclusion reached from the detailed investigation of the data is that the large wastage increases on the order of 20 to 50% and

. more found in the data, exist only on a very small number of tubes.

7 Moderate wastage increases have been found to exist in a small number of cases.

The mean increase detennined by re-evaluation of the data points with apparent large increases was less than 12°/o.

The results of. the re-evaluation of data are described in Enclosure 2.

Except for Levels 3 and 4 in the A and B Steam Gene_rators, a pattern for wastage inc.rease was found to occur.

This pattern coincides with areas of previous steam generator tube _wastage and tube plugging.

The areo. with greater frequency of apparent wastage increases is within the three rectangles shown on Figure B-5.

These rectangles are within

.Rows 83 to 110, Lines 1 to 50, Quadrants II and III; and, also in Rows

  • 39 to 71, Lines 24 to 58, Quadrants II -and III
  • I.

'I In the B Steam Generator, the corrosion rate is judged to be 3 to 53 higher in these selected areas and at Support Plates 3 and 4 than is occurring elsewhere in B and in the A Generators.

The apparent corrosion rates were detennined for the A Steam Generator and sepa-rately for the two different areas of the B Steam Generator excluding ECT indications less than 20'1/o from the data base.

The results of this analyses are summaried below:

Results for Indications A Steam Generator B Steam Generator Greater than 2a% (1)

Overall Overall Area 1 (2)

Mean Incremental Increase of ECT Indications 1.3°/o 4.653 5.13 Mean Sta~dard Deviation 8.83 8~7~

8.5%

Number of Data Points 1828

.1347 890 NOTE:

(1)

The results in this Table are for apparent increase of ECT indications from February 1975 to February 1976, 8

(2) Area 1 includes all indications at Support Plates 3 and 4 and indications at all other.levels witpin three rectangles shown in Figure 5.

'ON 3.~'1 n

m

~-

  • ~

.J

9 As a. further evaluatio'n of the data, the apparent incremental corrosion was determined for tubes which were evaluated as having wastage of 30"% of the tube wall or grea~e:i: in the 1975 inspection.

Incremental

_wastage more negative than -15% were excluded from the sample on the basis that such a phenomenon is physically impossible.

This approach assumes that the larger the indication the greater the consistency in evaluating its size.

The results obtained for this analysis are summarized below:

Results for Indications A Steam B.Steam Greater than 30% in 1975 Generator Generator Mean incremental increase

-0.333 3.973 Mean standard deviation 7.131~

8.54%.J Number of data points 1211 913 C.

Multiple In(:lications Multiple indications were rigain detected ~n the.A and B Ste~m Generators.

Caref_ul resear~h of the 1975 data nnd subsequent re-evaluation has shown that nearly all of the indications present in the 1976 dq.ta

_existed in the 1975 dnta. In some cases, there has been a change in the volume and depth of these indi.cation*s.

The volu.me _changes are most significant and allow interpretation of the si_gnals, whereas, they were

D

  • io previously of such low vcslurne to be uni.nterpretable. **These multiple indications are small-volume defects and. are generally not thought to be of significant concern to safety due to the much larger rein-forcement effect which exists. They can be an operational problem, however, if the indication propagates through the wall* and causes leakage during normal operation. In order to take account of the groWth rate of these types of defects and the difficulty of detecting the maximum wall penetration from the eddy current signals, the plugging criteria for these types of defects.has been established at

. 30'/o.

As an indication of the conserv'atism in this.approach, the mean apparent increase in the size of multiple indications and t_he mean standard deviation were calculated for the re-evaluated multiple indications: *

  • Results for A Steam B Steam Multiple Indications Generator Genera.tor Number of points re-eval-uated 21 24 Mean apparent increase in indication si.ze 6.33 21.53 Mean standard deviations 10.43 20.9'-fo Plugging Criteria

. The plugging criteria used after the Februo.ry 1975 ECT examination of the Palisades steam generator tubes,wns that all tubes with ECT indi-cations r;reatc~ tho.n 5oc/o were plugged.

The steam generator operated for _npproxima.tc.ly nine months without a *tube lcu.~.

.A single primary i'

11 to secondary l~ak during this period of 0.001 to 0.004 gpm is believed.

to have been in a tube plug seal weld. Moreover, the evaluation of the data obtained during the current inspe*ction and the spot check re-evaluation of incremental increase in indications indicate that the plugging criteria of 503 is conservative and that there is a basis for revision of the criteria. Based on the considerations and eval-uations previously discussed the following criteria were developed for the Palisades Steam Generators:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Note:

Criteria for Plugging A Steam B Steam Generator Generator Multiple ECT Indic.at.ion 30%

30%

ECT indication other than multiple

-od(2) indication in zone of more signifi N/A

  • I~

)

/0 cant.increase in ECT indication ~i ECT indication other tha.n multiple indication in zone of less signifi 55%

. 55°/o cant increase in ECT indication(l)

Tubes with locations where dent precludes evaluation of ECT indi-cation which was reported in 45%

4(JJ/o February 1975 to be greater than criteria listed (1) The zone of more significnnt increase in ECT indication consists of all *tubes at Suppo_rt Plates 3 and 11 and tubes within the 3 rectani:sles shown on J.i'igure B-5 for all other levels.

'l'he zone* of less significant increase in ECT indication consists of all tubes outsiQ.e the three rec-tangles shown on Fi~ure B-5 for all levels other than Support Plates 3 and 4.

(2) If apparent increase in ECT indication is less than 7%,.

a.nd indication is less.than 5*53, plueging wtll not be required.

  • 12 The plugging cri ter.ia summarized above,.was based on the following considerations:

0 Structural evaluations indicate that a tube experiencing corrosion attack through 64% of the tube wall will meet all criteria.for a combined 11TJOCA" and safe shutdown earthquake.

As described below, an allowance for continued operation if applied to this allowable wall thickness to arrive at a.plugging cr:i.teria.

0 The data sununarized in Paragraph III~B indicates that a conservative

  • allowance for incremental wastage accounting for uncertainties in the inspection technique is 103 for the A and B Steam Generators excep~ that a vlue of 153 has been chosen as more-appropriate in certain localized areas of the B Steam Generator where.the
  • incidence of apparent increases ECT indicati~ns occu~red more frequently.

0 For dented tubes in *locations where ECT indicat'ions were present in the February 1975 inspection, an expanded allowance for incre-mental wastage was applied.

This makes a worst case assumption that the conservative corrosion attack occurred du-ring operation in 1975 and will also occur during the subsequent year's operation.

13 E.

Effect of Plugging Cri.terla The effect of the above plugging criteria results in the plugging of 103 tubes in the A Steam Generator and 603 tubes in the B Steam Gene-rator. The plugging of this number of tubes results in 1932 tubes being plugged in the A Steam Generator and 1738 tubes being plur;ged in the B Steam Generator.

There a.re 65~7 tubes in A Steam Generator and 6781 tubes in B Steam Generator remaining unplugged.

'l'he effect*

on flow and resultant Plant output plugging these additional numbers of tubes, is not believed to be significant.

However, with the additional tube plugging, flow has been* reduced below what has been previously analyzed.

The required analysis is expected in the near future.

RESULTS OF RE-EVALUATION OF LARGE INCREMENTAL WASTAGE AND MULTIPLE IiwICATIONS

i ~

Table 2.1 lists the tubes in the A Steam Generator for which the ECT indications from February, 1975 and January, 1976 were evaluated side-by-side to re-determine the incremental wastage.

.I

. Table 2.1 2 of' 3*

.I'.

RE-EVALUA'l'ED TUBE 1975 1975 1976 INCREMENTAL QUAD-LINE-ROW-ELEV INDICATION INDICATION UIDICATION WASTAGE II-43-50-lE

< 20 30 41 11 II-44-51-2E 0

39 41 2

II-47-26-1~

0 27 40 13 II-47-116-HLBCL 0

25 47 22 II-48-95-HLBCL 0

31 34 3

II-54-29-4

<20 33 41 8

II-60-63-4 0

36 36 0

II-66-25-4 0

30 42 12 II-69-26-4 0

30 38 8

III-2-91-4+4 0

37 68 31 III-4-109-2E 0

30 28

-2 II:,I:-5-86-iE 0

36 36 0

III-10~91-1EB2E 0

<20 51 36 III-10-95-2E 0

37 44 7

III-10-103-2E 0

21 44 23 III-10-127-HLBCL 0

62 60

-2 III-ll-100-2E 0

32 30

-2 III-13-90-2E 0

25 34 9

III-15-114-3 0

20 34 14 III-16-47-4 0

23.

36 13 III-19-96-3

<20 41 41 0

III-19-110-3 0

20 23 8

III-32-49-lE 0

38 47 9

III-33-118-6BlE 0

li2 34

-8 III-~5-54-2E 0

42 38

-4 III-36-55:-2E 0

42 37

-5 rrr:.31-54-2E 0

38 37

-1

. /I ~

Table 2.1 3 of 3 i

.* j';.

RE-EVALUATED TUBE 1975 1975 1976 INCREMENTAL QUAD-LINE-ROW-ELEV INDICATION INDICATION INDICATION WASTAGE II-23-1~4-4 30 30 50D II-56-25-l~

44 44 6oD II-65-46-10 30 39 52D III-9-74-3 34 34 69n III-23-108-3 42 42 60D III-71-40-4

. 37 37*..

.:* 5:4D I-48-59-4 0

32 32 0

II-13-116-3 0

.( 20 34D II-66-45-10

.::.20 20 43D II-67-46-10 0

20 40D III-3-100~4

<:20 20D 54D III-6-79-3

24.

24 47D III-8-139-HLBCL Not Tested 69 J,II-16-113-3 0

~ 20 31D

  • III.-18-109-3 0

24 47D

i Table 2.2 lists the Tubes in the B Steam Generator for which the ECT indications from February, 1975 and January, 1976 were evaluated side-by-side to re-determine the incremental wastage* *

  • i

Table 2.2 1 of 3 B STF,AM GENEMTOR Re-Evaluated Tubes - Dents not Included RE-EVALUATED REVISED TUBE 1975 1975 1976 INCREMENTAL QUAD-J,nrE-ROW-ELEV INDICATION. INDICATION INDICATION WASTAGE II-2-89-7 343 34%

513 173 II-2-89-11 30 45 52 7

II-4-87-2E 46 47 69 22 II-5-90-2E 37 52 59 7

II-6-95-lE 36 50 5!~

4 II-10-89-2E 44 52 67 15 II-13-100-2E 34 42 6o 18 II-14..:.111-HL 33 52 55 3

. rr.:.15-88-2E 45 53 71 18 lI-.20-87-2E 34 49 56 7

II-20-95-10 30 37 49 12 II-211-45-6 38 38 56 18 II-28-91-2E 44 44 "62 18 II-35-48-2E 30 28 49 21 II-39-62-HL 35 65 67 2

II-39-88-10 34 34 53

. 19 rr-43-911-12 30 34 49 15 II-44-95-10 35 38 6o 22 II-l15-96-HL 42 6o

~5 5

II-48-99-HL 31 33.

51

18.

II-2-83-2E 0

. 60 58

-2 II-2-85q1E 0

6o 6o 0

II-3-8l~-2E 0

33 33 0

II-4-85-2E 0

38 49 11

Table 2.2 2 of 3

()

RE-EVALUA'l 1ED REVISED TUBE 1975 1975 1976 INCREME:NTAL QUAD-LHl'E-ROW-ELEV INDICATION INDICATION INDICATION WASTAGE II-6-91-2E 0

45 50 5

II-8-87-2E 0

60 65 5

II-10-87-lE 0

7!~

56

-18 II-10-91-lE 0

41 47 6

II-11-90-lE 0

41 44 3

II-ll-90-2E 0

51 56 5

II-12-87-lE 0

51 61 10 II-14-89-lE 0

52 50

-2 II-49-91+-12 32 33 55 22 III-2-77-3 31 34 50 16 III-2-93-3

..:: 20.

23 23 0

III-2-115-HLBCL 3!+

39 55 11 III-4-89-2E 43 55.

67 12 III-6-93-2E 34

!+5 59 14

.III-9-90-12 31 34 49 15 III-10-103-HL 0

46

  • 54:

8 III-11-120-3 42 46 63 17 III-12-103-3

.L20 21 34 13 III-13-92-2E 37 52 72 20 III-20-95-2E 0

46 48 2

III-21-86-2E 48 70 70 0

III-21-96-10 30 41 51 10 III-211-49-lE 27 52 57 5

III.. 2li-91-2'.E 37

.56 55

-1 III-26-91-2E 30 42 49 7

III-29-!16-lE 30 lil 5!+

13.

III-43-50-2E 35 51*

  • 55
  • 4

. III-116-47-11 34 56 55

-1

i I RE-EVALUA'.CED TUBE 1975 1975 QUAD-LINE-HOW-ELEV INDICATION*

INDICA'l'ION

  • III-50-51-2E 35 49 III-56-51-10

!~6 46 III-61-78-3 31 31 II-6-71-CJJ 0

.Not Examined II-49-92-12 38 38 IJ-q.8-4 3 _:lE 0

Not Interpretable 1976 INDICATION 53 66 50 79 58D 52 Table 2.2 3 of 3 REVISED INCREMENTAL WASTAGE 4

20 19

v Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show the data for which re-

  • evaluation of multiple indications was made in the A and B Steam Generators, r:espectively.

..,_. :.. ~ ~.

Table 2.4 l of l B STF,AM cr-;NEHATOR Re-Evaluation of Multiple Indications

  • RE-EVAJ,UA'rED.

TUBE 1975 1975 1976 REVISED QUAD-LINE-ROW INTERPHETATION DATA INTERPRET1'1.TION WASTAGE II-2-89 0

52M

  • 6l~M 12 II-3-92 0

0 54M 51~

II-3-94 0

60M 42M

--18 II-6-97 0

40M 49M 9

II-6-101 0

4'-lM 5U1 7

II-13-100 0

0 53M 53 II-15-li.6 0

33M 43.1'1 10 II-20-45 0

20M 42M 22 II-23-88 0

48M 61+M 16 II-25-94 0

0 6Zr-1 62 II-25-98 0

~JM 4~Jl,1 18 IJ;-26-99 0

45M 64M 19 II-36-89 0

liOM 71.M

. 31 II-37-86 0

28M

  • 72H 1111 II-37-86 0

35M 67M 32

. II-37-88 0

55M 64M 9

11:..38-83 0

451~

7~M 29 II-38-89 0

0 61M.

61 II-40-89 0

~+3M 52M 9

II-40-89 0

42f:,1 55M 13 II-40-95 0

46M 33M

-8.

II-41-90 0

34M 5?.M 18 II-42-91

.. 0 5£1.1 56M 0

II-42-93 0

57M 70M l~

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18295A546&oldid=4954592"