ML20070R230
| ML20070R230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1983 |
| From: | Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT |
| To: | Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| HQ:S:83:193, NUDOCS 8301270349 | |
| Download: ML20070R230 (4) | |
Text
_
O Department of Energy.
Washington, D.C. 20545 Docket No. 50-537 HQ:S:83:193 JAN 2 61983 Mr. Paul S. Check Director CRBR Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Check':
-ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - PRIMARY HEAT TRANSPORT SYSTEM (PHTS) HOT LEG PIPING CODE' EVALUATION
References:
1)
Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Preliminary Safety Analysis Report, Section 5.3, PHTS
- 2) CRBRP-ARD-0185, "CRBRP; Integrity of Primary and Intermediate Heat Transport System Piping In-Containment," October 1977 The purpose of this _ letter is to provide additional information to supple-ment the PHTS hot leg piping code evaluation contained in References 1 and 2.
The primary piping is designed and analyzed as an ASME Class 1, Seismic Category I nuclear component in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code, Sectiun III, RDT Standard E15-2NB-T, Class 1 Nuclear Components, RDT Standard F9-4T, Requirements at. Elevated Temperature, and ASME Code Case 1592-7, Design for Elevated Temperature Components (see Reference 1). Code Case 1592-7 provides for the use of either elastic analysis or inelastic analysis to satisfy rules for strain, deformation and creep-fatigue damage limits.
~
Inelastic analysis is generally required to provide a quantitative assess-ment of deformation-controlled code limits. However, elastic methods of analysis may be used for obtaining an upper bound estimate of ratchetting strains and creep-fatigue damage. Since these elastic rules and procedures conservatively approximate many of the complexities of the creep 'ratchetting phenomenon and the possible interactions involved, they are often excessively t
conservative. Nonetheless, the use of these rules does show code compliance
. at most of the components in the piping loops.
In Reference 2. Section 4.1, the initial evaluation of the primary piping using elastic analysis is given. For the primary hot leg piping, the assess-ment of ratchetting and creep-fatigue based on elastically calculated gl 8301270349 830126
~
' PDR ADOCK 05000537 4
A PDR
2 stresses does not show that code limits are met at the highly stressed elbows. Since the Piping Integrity Report was prepared, an inelastic analysis of the PHTS 24-inch hot leg has been completed, and the results show that the code limits for strain and creep-fatigue are satisfied for all the components within the piping loop.
The enclosed Table 1 is a summary of the inelastic ratchetting and creep-fatigue check.for the PHTS 24-inch hot leg. Table 1 shows that the maximum ratchetting strain occurs at the middle of elbow 1 and the maxi-mum creep damage occurs at the girth weld between the primary pump nozzle extension and elbow 1.
The calculated strains and creep-fatigue damages are well within Code Case 1592-7 limits. Hence, the analysis results reported in the Piping Integrity Report (Reference 2), when supplemented by these inelastic analysis results, substantiate the compliance of the hot leg creep-fatigue values with the ASME code limits.
If you have any questions concerning this transmittal, contact D. Robinson (FTS 626-6098) or D. Edmonds (FTS 626-6157) of the Project Office Oah Ridge
-staff.
Sincerely, J n R. Longe ker Acting Director, Office of Breeder Demonstration Projects Office of Nuclear Energy Enclosure cc: Service List Standard Distribution Licensing Distribution
ENCLOSURE TABLE 1 PHTS 24 INCH HOT LEG INELASTIC ANALYSIS - Su MARY'0F RESULTS-FOR CRITERIA CHECK i
TOTAL STRAIN
-STRAIN-CREEP-FATIGUE.
TOTAL DAMAGE ELB0W N0.1 ACCUMM. (%)
LIMIT (%)
DAMAGE -
DAMAGE-DAMAGE LIMIT i
INSIDE SURFACE 2
1 B,E (a WELD) 0.446 (PEAK) 2.5 (PEAK) 0.367 0.120 0.487-0.84 IM 1.29 2.0 (LINEAR) 0.214-0.000 0.214 1.0 SM 2 f3 2.0 0.202 0.000 0.202 1.0 6 (117*)M
'i ^
2.0 0.091 0.001.
0.092 0.9987 2
6 (195*)M 1.31 2.0 0.217 0.000 0.217 1.0-1 I
OUTSIDE SURFACE SM 0.50 2.0 0.000 0A14 1.0 6M 0.50 2.0 0.347 0.000 0.347
1.0 NOTES
(1)
SEE ATTACHED FIGURE FOR LOCATION OF ELBOWS.
(2)
B, M AND E SIGNIFY BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END 0F ELBOW, RESPECTIVELY.
ATTACHMENT FIGURE 1 PHTS 24-INCH HOT LEG PIPING LOOP ANALYSIS MODEL dY M N, >>-
A S 201
/p, S 202 51 5 l.
"E
[D V S 203 pg ag q.y 3
b h
S 210'gU@
S-206 o
r N
s 7
94 6 (p 'l S2M TM (p
/
S 208 S 209 12 5
sD-O
@j,)
/
n S 2GF
\\
63 5 233 IHX o
- 1. ELBOW NUMBERS hAE 10FNTIFIED BY@
- 2. ALL ELBOWS.9fm 06") R (d
% SNUB 8ER LOCATION
" ss t
4
-