ML20012D381
| ML20012D381 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1990 |
| From: | Swamy S WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19293A285 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-12219-S02, WCAP-12219-S2, NUDOCS 9003270255 | |
| Download: ML20012D381 (60) | |
Text
'*
l- r 9' # '
r
- , e a .
T .
, . . v.y*e $
g/ .agsp ,
. .' W .- , .- f. g
_, ' k' =
y d ' * -
.:e Y ' ' ' *
, g
~
J f 'hy L, [ '
^ ~
4 -
4 .
=t'-
a, , .
- f. .
M' :=
g
- a. .- -
y
*g. W . i b5 # ,' '
. ' e Q .
m P'
- j
- - .m ^,
- __ y .e ? '
p O
9 , - A.
'"I.
g ,
^
4 W
+~'.,4
a , _,
e
'b <? ,k I
N p-E a .:
,t ;
s a 9',
.6. '
. i 1
) +
%'s"
,,-ge 4.
,., + * *'
'a 1
[E
, _g = +
e g ,
p . -
y
" em " '
~.
f .
a
., A-b 5
. s .
g: .
, g k
M 4' ... .. .
V ~
OJ
, . .k..
-m e s * .5
~
[. .
y . ,
, a .
s Y m' 4
. ~
.c
- ~
.' 3
.s' 's . ?
4
,* t .
Y 4 . \
N y g:
- a
+ b
, , s .
m '
.-Da 9 . --
gi p
Y
- (
N'
-g 4
e'
.j - , e *-
] , '_ N - , .* *-
- em 3
5 '#'
+-
+
h ~
. , g
= . .. .- .. *
., d p.
r 0
) a- r a
. j
- g .. ~ .
e e_ t_ .--
.* ,I a,
, . + e g
s ',* 4( 7
-.-.e
. - . .a .
4
, 'l h- , 4 . * ' *i
'W
- f. 'h ' '
e s, .
s 9 t " *@. , ., . , ,
..A .y % '
y J
4
. . A g' * ' w,
- s -
A. .
. g.
+ ~
' ' ~ , ,
'.w , ;
g
, .4 8
E aP
- * . ~_.,, ~.9
~f -
<y , ,, y, N'*
. . 'a'
. a %
,' ?
W
- s. ,
.i 5
ESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3- a
, 1 WCAP-12219-. , l l-1 Supplement 2'- 1 1 .
l 1
l I
1 A SUPPLEMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF LEAK-BEFORE-- :
BREAK FOR THE PRESSURIZER SURGE LINES OF V0GTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 j
March 1990 F. J. Witt L. M. Valasek .
Y. S. Lee E. L. Cranford ,
.. B. J. Coslow T. H.-Liu 1
l' Verified by: 4&#M 7 .
5.A.Swamy] t l,
Approved by: / d' /%
- 5. T. Palusamy, Ma~ nager. ,
l- Structural Mechanics and Diagnostic Technology Work Performed Under Shop Order GDDP2115A ,
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division P.O. Box 272B L Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-2728 1
o e 1990 Westinghouse Electric Corp.
4200s/030000 10 l',
u _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - _ . . _ . _ - . _ . . . .
m 5
[4 <r ~4?
s
, -TABLE OF CONTENTS
.Section.
Title Page-c .
SUMMARY
.ix a:
1.0 BACKGROUND
AND INTRODUCTION 1 .l -
L'
- 1.1L. Background 1 ;
1.2 Introduction 3 L
2.0 l LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL 3 t
FAULTED LOADINGS j
.2.1 Introduction 3 2.2 . Loading. Conditions 4 ';
2.3 Loads- 4.
l2.4 Leak Rate Calculations 5-l .
2.5 Stability Evaluations ~5 2.6 Margins 5 -~ :
-l l: ' 3.0 DISCUSSION AND~ CONCLUSIONS 5 i l :-
! 4.0- REFERENCES 6- :
t
) .
~ APPENDIX A COPY OF VIEWGRAPHS DISCUSSED WITH THE NRC ON A-1 ,
FEBRUARY 26, 1990 i
h eN/0m.10 jjj L
p '
1 i
. d, ' ,4 . ,
yl, l 1
L l' ~ LIST OF' TABLES l
L ;
pm -<
Table' Title- P a ge -- :1 11' Types of Loading! 7-2: Normal and Faulted Loading Cases for Leak-Before-Break 8~ l Evaluations j
. 2:
!3 Associated Load Cases for Analyses .9. l
~4 Summary of Loads and Stresses.at Node 2900 10- .
5' Load Cases and Temperatures Considered for Leak-Before-Break 11 g,- Evaluation at Node 2900
- 6- Leakage-Flaw Sizes, Critical Flaw Sizes and Margins'at 12 Critical Node Location-2900 I
. 4
{
l- -
l- l I :
I I l
.i l
4200s/0M000:10 y
(
ceu D <
[i '
a-
"' ' 'r LIST OF FIGURES:
l' l.
l .. Figure Title Page 1
l 1- Sketches of_Vogtle-Unit 1 and Vogtle Unit 2 Surge Line 13-l~- Configurations 1
1 1 .
l-
-m-
'i' i
l
.l l
i i
1 i-4300s/030000 10 yjj i
I
o .. .
SUMMARY
u Thermal stratification integrity evaluations have been performed for the. '
pressurizer surge _ lines of Vogtle Units 1 and 2. The Nuclear Regulatory
-Commission suggested that additional leak-before-break margins be demonstrated by evaluating higher temperature differences under fsulted conditions. Prior calculations considered temperature differences up to ( )**C. In this ]
report the temperature difference is taken as ( Ja.c.e. the loads from u
, which are, in' addition, combined with safe shutdown earthquake loads for the stability evaluations.
Leak-before-break evaluations were carried out for the new load combinations.
Margins (critical flaw divided by leakage flaw) were shown to be well in excess of 2.
The conclusions of the prior work are reaffirmed. Specifically, thermal L stratification has limited impact on the integrity of the pressurizer surge
' lines of the Vogtle Units 1 and 2 nuclear power plants. The forty year design life is not impacted.
l l
l
'l l
l l
l .
L j 1
I j 4200e/0313010 jy
4
1.0 BACKGROUND
AND INTRODUCTION ,
i 1.1- Background ;
-The pressurizer of 'a' Westinghouse type pressurized water reactor maintains and controls pressure in the reactor coolant system (RCS) via the pressurizer surge line which connects to a hot leg of the primary loop. The pressure is reaintained such that boiling is suppressed and departure from nucleate boiling l is prevented. l l
The pressurizer vessel contains steam and water at saturated conditions with the steam-water interface level between 25 and 60% depending on the plant I operating conditions. From the time the steam bubble is initially drawn during the heatup operation to hot standby conditions, the level is maintained j
at approximately 25%. During power ascension, the level is increased to I approximately 60%.
Recent investigations ~of primary coolant water flow into and out of the pressurizer have_shown that significant temperature differences may exist in the surge line from and-to-end and from top-to-bottom during heatup or L cooldown. Unanticipated large surge line pipe displacements have been
! experienced and temperature differences exceeding 270'F in a pipe cross section have baan noted. Thermal stratification (layering of different temperature water) has been measured over significant time periods.
Thermal stratification in the pressurizer surge line is the direct result of the difference in densities between the pressurizar water and the generally
- cool.er hot leg water. The lighter pressurizer water tends to float on the cooler heavier hot leg water. The potential-for stratification is increased as the difference in temperature between the pressurizer and the hot leg increases and as the insurge or outsurge flow rates decrease.
At power, when the difference in temperature between pressurizer and hot leg is relatively small (less than 50*F) the extent and effects of stratification l have been observed to be small. However, during certain modes of plant heatup l and cooldown, this difference in temperature can be as large as 315'F end-to-end, in which case the effects of stratification must be accounted for.
-**"'" 1 l
)
- O During a period of stratification the magnitudes of the pipe disp 1acements and temperature differences may exceed those defined in the design transients. l suggesting that thermal design transients should be updated to incorporate the effects of the stratification. Such an update together with the structural j response was performed and documented in WCAP-12218 for Vogtle Unit 2 l
(Reference 1). Specifically, design transients were appropriately redefined j with particular emphasis on heatup and cooldown events. Extensive stress I analyses were performed. Fatigue usage factors were obtained. The effects of thermal striping were evaluated. Fatigue crack growth was assessed. The l existing leak-before-break analysis was reconfirmed for the pressurizer surge i line ander stratification loading.
In summary, based on the.then current understanding of the thermal stratification phenomenon, it was concluded in WCAP-12218 that thermal stratification has limited impact on integrity of the prassurizer surge line of the Vogtle Unit 2 nuclear power plant. The forty year design life was not impacted.
i 3 l Georgia Power Company submitted WCAP-12218 to the Nuclear Regulatory )
Commission (NRC). The NRC reviewed and accepted the conclusions of WCAP-12218. l I
Thermal stratification was addressed for Vogtle Unit 1 in WCAP-12218, I Supplement 1 (Reference 2). Analyses were presented for the first three years
- of operation of the Vogtle Unit 1 surge line which, for that period of time, I l
l differed from that of Vogtle Unit 2 by having two rigid supports instead of )
one. Fatigue usage factors, stripping and fatigue crack growth were evaluated ;
for the service conditions of Vogtle Unit 1. Leak-before-break was also established for Vogtle Unit 1 in WCAP-12218, Supplement 1.
l The NRC reviewed WCAP-12218 Supplement 1 and suggested that additional !
margins for leak-before-break be demonstrated by evaluating the surge line for I higher temperature differences under faulted conditions. A( Ja c.e j temperature difference in combination with safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) i conditions is provided herein to satisfy the NRC request and concerns.
2
.i
.o, e,
)
\
A presentation was made to the NRC on February 26, 1990, to address the above f NRC concerns. There was agreement to document the leak-before-bfeak analyses f
for the new loading conditions and to provide the viewgraphs presented at the March 26 meeting. This Supplement 2 to WCAP-12218 provides the agreed upon l analyses and information.
i 1.2 Introduction i Additional leak-before-break evaluations are presented to address higher !
system temperature differences under faulted conditions as a supplement to the evaluations previously performed in References 1 and 2.
Information required for the evaluat'ons of this report which are found in ;
References 1 and 2 are, in general, not repeated.
Leak-before-break evaluations are presented at the critical location associated with higher system temperature and faulted conditions. The system temperature difference is ( )"'C in combination with safe shutdown earthquake (SSE). Viewgraphs of the March 26, 1990, meeting with the NRC are ,
presented in Appendix A.
2.0 LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK ASSESSMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FAULTED LOADINGS 2.1 Introduction {
The methodology, material properties and margins established in WCAP-12218 (Reference 1) and WCAP-12218, Supplement 1 (Reference 2) are unchanged for this evaluation. New scenarios for stratification are presented which address the new faulted condition. Loads are established for the new faulted condition and critical locations are identified. Leak rates and stability evaluations are presented. Conclusions are drawn.
om,ano io 3
l 2.2 Loading Conditions The loading states in Table 5-5 of Reference 1 is given as Table 1 ;
supplemented by the new faulted condition ([ )"'C stratification in ,
combination with SSE). From Table 1 various normal and faulted loading cases ;
can be combined for leak-before-break evaluations. The combinations which ,
have either previously been evaluated in Reference 1 (see Table 5-6) or are !
evaluated in this report are given in Table 2. The new normal load case is Case C and the new faulted load case is Case G.
CaseCisaheatuporcooldowncaseattemperaturesbetween[ ,
Ja.c.e. In Case G an SSE is assumed to occur l while at the condition of Case C. Considering the coincidence of SSE and Case C conditions, the probability of Case G is judged to be a low probability event. As seen later, Cases A B, and C as normal conditions each are combined with Case G as a faulted condition. The combination of Cases A and B with Case G are also judged to be low probability events.
With Cases A, B and C being normal conditions and Cases E, F and G being faulted conditions, the various load cases are given in Table 3. The first four cases were evaluated in Reference 1. The remaining three cases are to be ,
evaluated herein. It is noteworthy that these three cases are all low probability events.
2.3 Loads The [ j"'C stratification loads are based on the low flow conditions as summarized in Appendix A. The load combinations were evaluated at the .
various nodes. Normal loads were determined using the algebraic sum method whereas faulted loads were combined using the absolute sum method. Node 2900 at the pressurizer nozzle-surge pipe weld was determined to be the critical location for Case G loading conditions. The loads at Node 2900 are given in Table 4. Figure 1 contains sketches of the surge line for both Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2. In this figure, Node 2060 is the critical location for the 4
f standard leak-before-break evaluation, Node 2720 is the critical' location
- under high flow conditions and Node 2900 is the critical locations for low flow faulted conditions. Conditions at Nodes 2060 and 2720 were addressed in References 1 and 2.
2.4 Leak Rate Calculations The load cases and temperatures censidered for the lenk-before-break
- evaluations are given in Table 5.
Leak rate calculations were made for Cases A B and C of Node 2900 using the same methodology as in Reference 1. The resulting leakage flaws (flaws giving a leakage of 10 gpm) are given in Table 6.
2.5 Stability Evaluations The stability evaluations were made ucing the procedures of SRP 3.6.3 (Reference 3). This procedure uses the limit load methodology with a correction factor (Z-Factor) related to the type of weld, in Figure 1, the weld at Node 2900 is GTAW; thus by Reference 3 the Z-Factor is 1. The flaw sizes for instability at Node 2900 are also given in Table 6, 2.6 Margins The margins (critical flaw divided by leakage flaw) are also given in Table 6. Margins well exceeding 2 are seen for all three cases, insummary, leak-before-breakcriteriaaremetatthecriticallocation(Node 2900) for the ( )"'C temperature difference in combination with SSE.
3.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS As suggested by the NRC additional margins have been demonstrated for higher ter@erature differences in combination with SSE. The cases considered are all judged to be low probability events.
. m .4 m ee w 5
r i
l The conclusions of WCAP-12218 (Reference 1) and WCAP-12218, Supplement 1 ,
(Reference 2) are reaffirmed. Specifically, thermal stratification has '
limited impact on the integrity of the pressurizer surge lines of the Vogtle :
Unit 1 and 2 nuclear power plants. The forty year design life is not impacted.
4.0 REFERENCES
- 1. R. L Brice-Nash et. al., Evaluation of Thermal Stratification for the '
Vogtle Unit 2 Pressurizer Surge Line, WCAP-12218 March,1989. (PRoPAe7ARy]
- 2. B. J. Coslow, et. al., Supplementary Analysis to Address Thermal Stratification for Vogtle Unit 1 Pressurizer Surge Line, WCAP-12218, Supplement 1. December,1989. (PROPme7 Alt O ,
- 3. Standard Review Plan; Public Comment Solicited; 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation Procedures; Federal Register /Vol. 52, No. 167/ Friday, August 28, 1987/ Notices, pp 32626-32633. ,
i l
l 1 .
no,emo io l- 6 l .
c .
TABLE 1 TYPES OF LOADINGS r
Pressure (P)
Deadweight {DW) ;
Normal Operating Thermal Expansi.n (TH) -
Safe Shutdown Earthquake and Seismic Anch.r M.ti.n (SSE)a I
" ~l a,c.e l
m SSE i. ..ee t. ,e<e, t. h. ab..,u,e . . ., t,e.e i.adi.g.. ;
P l
?
b 9
i 420De/0M00010 7
is
e <
, i
- l. !
- .o
)
TABLE 2 L. NORMAL AND FAULTED LOADING CASES FOR LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK EVALUATIONS CASE A: This is the normal operating case at 653'F consisting of the
. algebraic sum of'the loading components due to P, DW and TH.
- . a c.e ,
CASE B:
CASE C: t t
t l
CASE 0: This is the faulted operating case at 653'F consisting of -
the absolute sum (overy component load is taken as ;
positive)ofP,DW,THandSSE. ,
a,c.e CASE E:
1 L
l CASE F:
l 1
l CASE G:
l l' m noe.meo ,o g
i e TABLE 3 ASSOCIATED LOAD CASES FOR ANALYSES ;
A/D This is here-to-fore standard leak-before-break evaluation. !
l, 5
A/F a.c.e f 4
i B/E i l
B/F ,
l i
f A/Ga t t
- 5 l :
B/G' L
l l C/Ga 1
- These are judged to be low probability events, no maneio ,
9
. ~ . - -- . _-___._ _ _-- _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ .
I TABLE 4
SUMMARY
OF LOADS AND STRESSES AT NODE 2900 Force Stress Moment Stress Total Node Case F(1bs) op (psi) M(in-lbs) eM(psi) Stress (psi) b 876590 6045 10960 2900" A 242544 4915 b - - a,c.e 2900 B b
2900 C C
2900 G a -Dimensions: 0.D. - 14 in., minimum wall thickness = 1.23 in, b Loads based on algebraic sum load combination procedure c Loads based on absolute sum load combination procedure no anoin 10 ,
p p
TABLE 5 LOAD CASES AND TEMPERATURES CONSIDERED FOR LEAK-BEFORE-BREAK EVALUATIONS AT NODE 2900 4
Temperatures (*F)
Case Leak Rate Stability
- 9 a,e,e A/G B/G C/G -
l l
i I
l on a e io i1
o g
i TABLE 6
! LEAKAGE FLAW SIZES, CRITICAL FLAW SIZES AND MARGINS AT CRITICAL NODE LOCATION 2900 Critical Flaw Size Leakage Load Flaw Case (in) (in) Margin a
~ ~
A/G 8'C
B/G C/G -
l.
- Critical flaw divided by leakage flaw i
2 u m 4 m 10 12
. . _ . . n.--- ....a.....- . . - - . . . . ..x..-. .- -~~.-..a...-.~..~-a . . . - . . _ _- -
1 i
[
L i entssut!!ta l 2900 b !
Vogtle Unit 1 l l
Not a g e& :
& s' ages a l '
l e ;
e
&: Critical Locations e: GTAW Wela j e $4AW Weld !
$ MAW weld repair was asee. e: SAW Weld l t
I patssua:Ita -
l 2900 \l* ,
i Vogtle Unit 2 !
not ae ageo e& .
(
o Figure 1. Sketches of Vogtle Unit 1 and Vogtle Unit 2 Surge Line Configurations no ,em.o io 13
I l
t r
APPENDIX A COPY OF VIEWGRAPHS DISCUSSED WITH THE NRC ON FEBRUARY 26, 1990 t
e D
l l
l l
4200s/030000.10 ,
l
I 4 PRESSURIZER SURGE LINE THERMAL STRATIFICATION Presentation to the USNRC February 26,1990 Rockville, Maryland Westinghouse NATD o m x.on m io A-2
g
.. 4 l
1 1
TODAY'S MEETING !
1 PURPOSE:. ;
- Discuss Profiles 1 High Flow Low Flow e Discuss Application To >
i Vogtle Unit 1. Surge Line Stratification l
Analysis !
e LBB -
5 I
f
(.
I I
r l
r i
9 4
~i 0247x422490:10 2 b t
w-,---
1 . . !
i VOGTLE UNIT 1 SURGE LINE STRATIFICATION j
. l o Background '
i e Comparison of Surge Line of Vogtle Units 1 and 2 ;
o Comparison of Surge Line Analysis- Units 1 and 2 e Unit 1 Evaluation Summary 1
e Transients l
! e High Flow Profile o Low Flow Profile o Unit 1 Analysis e LBB Evaluation 0247x 022490.10 3 A-4
l i
BACKGROUND i
UNIT 2 ANALYSIS (WCAP-12218) l l
e Profile (Section 1.2.5)
High Flow and Low Flow Discussed !
Worst Case (High Flow) Used (Figure 1-18) l 1
e Pipe AT '
Up To And including 320 F i UNIT 1 ANALYSIS (SUPPLEMENT 1) !
e Purpose ;
Two Rigid Vert Supports (Past) !
i Historical Records t 3
i 4
' omx ona.,u A _ .
COMPARISON OF VOGTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 l Same Physical Pipe Configuration i
e Mirror Image Layout l
e S-D Bends e Reducer e Material Type e Slope !
Supports '
o Unit 1 i
2 Vert Rigids (Past) '
1 Vert Rigid (Future) .
e Unit 2 1
1 Vert Rigid ^
i t
Same Operating Procedures 0247x422490:1M
l l
COMPARISON OF VOGTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 i STRATIFICATION ANALYSES Thermal Stratification Loading !
e Same for last approx. 37 years life e Different for first approx. 3 years life !
Historical records for Unit 1 -
Monitoring database increased I Reduction in conservatism possible Unit 2 Loading i
e ,
e -
Unit 1 Future Loading _ ,,,,,
e ,
e e
l Unit 1 Past Loading e .....
( e o
e 4
owx onesosi A-7
r . .
l 1
UNIT 1 EVALUATION l
(
Same Methodology as for Unit 2 o ASME 1986 '
Stress Fatigue i Results e Stress: Eq.12 < 35m !
i h
L o
- Fatigue i CUF < 1.0 (Total: Past + Future) l l i l
l l
?
l
~
I i
5 0247X422490:104 A-8 !
l
. i I
TA8LE $1 1 HEATUP/C00LD0WW TRAN$1ENTS FOR PAST OPERATION OF UNIT 1 l 1
(PIPINGTRANSIENTS) ;
Heatup- I Cooldown seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesms emessessessessenessessessessessese j
- v. 8 Transient Cycles Systen Delta T Transient Cycles System Delta T j eseessessessenes nossessenesses ease.coesses...e sensessessesso ,
- a c.e j i
I-5 I >
b 9
I M
mime >
A-9
_ _ ~ _ _ __
.I l
l I
TABLE $1-2
[RCP START /$TOPja.c.e TRANSIENTS FOR PAST OPERATION OF UNIT 1-(RCSN0ZZLETRANSIENTS) l Heatup Cooldown [
Transient Cycle System Delta T Transient Cycles System Delta T
- - a.c.e 7
G i
\
1
= i A-10
1 i
V0GTLE' SURGE LINE {
AXIAL STRATIFICATION PROFILES
- 4,C,0 .
I I
I 1
1 1
1 i
o i
l I
l 1
i e
1 6
l
\ +
o 1
.I y
A-H
l HIGH FLOW AND LOW FLOW PROFILES l e
Two different stratification conditions observed in i Vogtle Unit 2 monitoring data One called low flow l
One called high flow I Typical of Vogtle type layout _
l o Conditions characterized based on thermal :
monitoring data
( .
l 9
L i
l HIGH FLOW AND LOW FLOW PROFILES
- Max pipe AT at Vogtle was_
, ,,, _ observed with low !
flow profile during system AT l
~ ~
R = ATp/ATs =
_ _ t e Shortly afterward, high flow profile was observed
'" i with pipe AT of _ _
o R = ATp/ATs = i t
For past heatups and cooldowns including
- ~
conservatively use low flow profile for pipe AT ;
\ . .. .
i _ __
l e
For past heatups and cooldowns, conservatively use .
high flow profile for pipe AT "* '
1 e For future use high flow profile, 4
~
= 0247X 022490:10 9
o HIGH FLOW AND LOW FLOW PROFILES a
4 ml e
A-14
AI\ 4 3,,
=
+
1 GEOMETRY CONSIDERATIONS
__ O.C t
+
'M I
4 i
6 a.se i-5 0244R 0.*JJM to: A-16
- c . - . . 4 ._
k
'b
,- g-
:; ; -I i
j
, .- g ' e. '$ -
-?
r : T'<
u y s
y
'e' t
b l_ l
,b s !
1
-}
/* g 6
}
= 4,C.0 i
--. :)
'?
s k
i
~
$ h k
J k
-3 3
t
. i.
- V
(
i 4
e
=
s *1
, . ?
r
.6
- h 4
[. I.I
\
1 4
. I i
.1
.: m. -p a
i h f 1-.
+
'\
i 4
l .- . ,
I
( ', -. i
, 2 4
- i. i i 1
i j'
( -2 a
i i
l ;.
I I
l
\:
l l
l:
i i
I I
L' . .-omx.omew A-17 '
?;' :g>.
( ,' d'
\, y} '
j;*.
>=
.H W.
h.
'. ag, 5.
. j$
n ae l .M E l
t w
- .- m l-5-
w
- g.
m..
>=
' g3 I,;
w L
1 L..
I Y.
L I l 1
A-18 1
4 n % &M4 mrd-' 4 m -K
'l .,
. 1 s, .
5
-f i
i fn '
A. g, ' ) ' (
.s.,
,. . ..?.
Icji
.-i
- t i
a o
e
. I: k_.
11 r
+
A .
4 5
'.)
3
, o r
i l
-l I L # ,, A-19 o
I: y
7 _ - , . -r-- -- ' d **m- * *
- r +
J f
}
l i d l< '
p h
L-b f
i- t c
$k - ,
ae :
hY N ;
s g. 22g:
.t w w(
c'
$ ~
12 5 k 5,8 g ar
=
i r l 9
l l
1 l
l l
A-20
y-, ,
s 4
' 41:
M.L' 1
7; q
, : s, . %.
i 5 i
i t
4 4
1
.I h j 1
)
J N'
~ 0.Ca6 i
A B
% l I
J h
4 9
P t
m M F
t
, % P t
i I
i hi t
P f
r E
02=x42nso:iu A-21
4 4 a,' .<.#A,Ma--m A e da n , _ _ _
. i
' ..a rs .
-e',
i.. .
4-
'l
/l I
b r
? ?
.f '
I N. .
H.
'u .[
E
- - V !
'W
.C
'b W ,J E'
-w .
EA-W~
.M
= A
- O w-EA
-3H W
w .t w
i
. g-w E-W .
E f
t l
t i 1
. . _ _ _ _ __________ _ A-22
.<r --.4-A a md.-EM# e- -.4 -av J- ,A J. / s5 - -- .m -
ed.uJi-t_w,_a w-u 4eJ4 ,re.A h
1 r L
l 4
I 1
.f m
i*
1 7
..r 9
Y r
g -
11 i.
l i _
s l-
-i l
I l
t.
(
(i L
- t l
l i
l l
P A-23
).,'+u- yw.= 1 p -- - - .~n s. - _ m 4
-4
,1
- -j \
y 4
1 P 0.7 RULE > l
~
(HIGH FLOW COND)
O f
""" 8,C.G .
(; -t l'
l g 3
+
5
% i o ;
k
?
1 +
j.
1 l -.
1 l e
( ', }
l 1
t 1
l 1 i l.
I i
.i r .- musuun I-e )
'['
i 1-f i
I ounxsumss A-24
t :.
'>l
, j i
b
'1
.s e.
l
=.
'i
.i
'1
-1 1
1 1
J
-l
!) '
l l
. i t
i
,W r d .
M
'8- -
i
.. W
,W i
M
- l. > .
l .' ..W-l l
.5--
L.- .g-
., w W $
l I
_-.A-25_
" +
)~ S y ,
'g '
s.f,
.3 4
TEST DATA FROM HIGH SLOPE LINES C
+
i l.,
1 1
1 i
l-l L
i l
4
?: e L
P i
le
" g A-26 :
1
. .7., -)
+ . :,;
l
')
J u
- l '
s
~ GLOBAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS:
- Vogtle Surge line layout- :
.o Thermal loading on structural configurations ;
- o. Confirmation of thermal profile I
STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS t
l . e: ASME Code equation (12) e- Cumulative fatigue usage factor r
^
i n
0247X422490'1010 A-27
3 9
i GLOBAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ;
i i
- Vogtle surge line layout -
2 rigid support configuration- ;
.1 rigid support configuration 4
b a
1 F
4 1
h.
L l :.
- 0247X42249010-11 43
- a ,-.. ,
k.' , ;'f'.' e w . -. -, i 4 ' :
?
')
(e , . ,
- r. . .
h r
h e
t
'(
h
+
I i
i r
l '
l ..
i l.-'
1.
i lw I.
i l
i 1
t I
A-29
- J e 1
GLOBAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS e Thermal loading on structural configurations-i 9
m 02cx422m Si2 A-30
a --, + s.- ..n.. a.a .g..-- - - a. --.n ..-...s.s.- ...m... ..a ., - . + - .- - . ., s a
.,y.-
- g -
(l l
. .i i
?
1
[ -
a L
Z >
- 4m .,
0-3 WZ
,bh w 1 a: .
WD .
Ok n ;
72
- 1.d ,
[' .
L J b
O O
- l-A-31
- a - -n .. ~.
- a-a.-
h7 A .
- *r
- e. g ,
' ^
.l e i v
< u.
't. ** -k ' ' .
4 j" . t i , '
h s
.r 1 j
I l
' GLOBAL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS u I
-4 1
- . - e.c.e ;
2 i
I, li F
l l
i,'.-
b- ,
l :.
s I.
.i s
e
?
e
- 0247x 022490,1013 g 4 ** Ww-+- w -- e ae-e- Y
, ed_ _ -
i VOGTLE SURGE LINE ANALYSIS '
COMPARISON;.0F PROFILES BETWEEN MONITORED AND ANALYSIS DATA: .- .
t 6
I i
d' ,
l
! P '
Bi t
P k
4 . t
- m> t 4
~
_ . , , _ . , , ., . . _ , _ , ...._..,,_,.,_..-,A. . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ __ . . . . _ _ . . . , _ . .._
N # m k b
- y. ,
h VOGTLE SURGE LINE ANALYSIS: ~ '
LOW FLOW PROFILE DELTA T OF -230 DEG F 5
l i
+
i i
W >
I a
r i
g
, e
.m 4 9
~- - - , . , . . . . . . , c -,4+
e --w - .-s , , - v e, , - y , ,-. ,_ve- . . , .-.-_- .r__ .
.__2=_m-__m- -
't . .g 'k VOGTLE SU RGE HIGH FLOW PR&lLE. DEL(A T OF 180:DEG F-INE w AN T,
t t
i e
?
?
01
.l I
t 5
l m
.e
., 1.. _
1
- l. ,
1 L -1 STRESS ANALYSIS
[,; e Stress analysis results
\
1 ASME Code Ea. (12) Cumulative Usaae Factor Reducer RCL Nozzle L.
l' P
I
COMPARISON OF HIGH FLOW l AND LOW. FLOW CASE G LOADINGS AT STRATIFICATION CRITICAL LOCATIONS I Axial Bending Total. .
Critical Condition Stress Stress Stress-Location of Flow (psi) (psi) (psi) f l+
l l
l
I
, . 1 VOGTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 1 REVISED STABILITY EVALUATIONS -
B ASED ON IWB-3640 q r .
f Load Critical- Critical: Leakage Case Location- Size (in.)- Flaw (in.) _
Margin - ,
b l
i b
9 A-38
, .o ~ .
er '
- paglsemitta b2900 Vogtle Unit 1 Not 9 ee
& s' sees- a e
l
- e e
& t Critical Locations e : STAW Weld
. ethe weld is STM but 4 e : SM W Weld SMm weld repair was ende.
99tSSURl!!R l e 2g00 Vogtle Unit 2 met 89 ae goes ,,
o Comparison of Vogtle Unit 1 and Vogtle Unit 2 Surge Line Configurations
. A-39
a ;
i- .
9 ;
t ..
_]
1 SUl44ARY OF LOADS AND STRESSES AT THE CRITICAL LOCi r Force Stress Noment Stress Total i, Node Case F(1bs) op(psi) N'(in-Ibs) oN(psi) Stress (psi) 8 2060 A 327870 5057 3721112 17109 22165 2060 [.
Ja.c.e ;
-2060 D 333810 5148 6189649 28458 33606 b
2720 A 214374. 4344 354061 2442 6786 2720 [ - '
Ja.c.e
'2720' [
Ja.c.e
" Dimensions: 0.0. = 16 in., minnum wall thickness = 1.415 in.
I b
Dimensions: 0.0. = 14 in., minimum wall thickness = 1.23 in.
"StratificationATis[ )***
A-40
y M: '
h 4
I h
t-LEAKAGE FLAW SIZES, CRITICAL FLAW $1ZES AND MARGINS Location of Smallest - Critical Flaw Lead Critical Flaw Size size Based On Case Based on !WB 3640 Calc. !WB 3640- Leakage Flaw Margin -
M 2060a. 7.96 2.90 2.7 I- . a,e.e
[
ja.c.e I
ja',c.e
~
\ ', '
'SNAW Weld
'U GTAW Wald e
A-41