ML20072M047
| ML20072M047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1983 |
| From: | Menta H, Ransamath S GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072M044 | List: |
| References | |
| DRF-#137-0010, DRF-#137-10, RSFA-#83-75, NUDOCS 8307140299 | |
| Download: ML20072M047 (24) | |
Text
. ..
l l
. l R$FA #53- M DRF #137 4010 i
l
,/_---.,. ;
' FRACTtstE ECHMlCS EYM.tMTION
[' OF CilqQSFDtENTIAL llelCATIONS
\
AT WELD 10-0-06 IN PEACH BOTTUpt 2 l IMt SUPPLY LINE i !
J .-/,) JtRE 1915 3
PREPMED BY:
H. S. EHTA, SENIOR ENGIEER WCMMfCs MhLYSES 1
APPROVED BY: M\-~,^? b- -
p s. mwmam, mmmm wenmucs mn.rsts GENERAL $ ELECTRIC OEM EW COwANY* 175 OAT? tit AW e w g pyg g 8307140299 830701 I PDR ADDCK 05000277 i P PDR l
, - . . _ _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . ,____ __ _ ._ . . _ . ~ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ - _ .
1 CONTENTS DIE
- 1. INTRODUCTION 1 i
- 2. RNr EVN.UATION 8ETHDDOLOGY 2
- 3. EVALUATIG4 0F StBJECT RNfS 4 l l
3.1 Operating Stresses 4 i
, 3.2 Residuel Stress 4 l 3.3 Selection of Crack Grow % Rate ReiatIonshIp 5 )
3.4 Crecte Greuth CaIculetIons 6 )
3.5 Cousperison vlw Allow ela Flaw Slza 7 l
- 3.6 Discussion of flesults 8 4 CONCt.ljsIONS 10 i
i
- 5. REFERENCES 11 1 '
i l
1 5
I 1
l l
(
3 - s
- - .. -- --- - ----.Ty--ww ,,,-.gey, ypy -.-w-- gw-
F
{ f.
Y e
1 INTRODUCTIGt This report docmonts the evaluation of UT-detected circunferential Indications et the veld fM of Peach Sotte 2 INR supply line. The naminal pip 9 dieneter in 20 inches and it is a pipe to ella butt veld. Figure 1 shows the crack profile on both the pipe end the elbow side.
A fracture mechenics evaluation of these Indicottons was performed according to the procedures specified in the recently approved #Lppendix X to section XI of the ASE Code D3, and the new peregraph 114-3640, "Acceptanco Criteria ft;r risws In Austenttic Stainless Steel Piping." This avaluation procedure, developed by General Electric under EPRI sponsorship, vos approved by tha $ection XI Hala Cbsoitteo at tog April 190 smarting.
Str:ce a refueling c<rtags is scheduled for OctcsNe 19?J, tho evaluetten trac perfomed for en Inspection triterval of 6 months.
- From ihls evaluation It was concluded that the subject circumforer;tlet ficus satisfy the requirements of the recently apprcnod paragraph (W8-350 of Sectico XI.
Thus, continued operation without repair can bo jus 11 fled (cr #c next 6 wenths.
4 1
___ _ J
g.. u .s.m._...-- .u. . .
- 2. F1.Alf EVALUATI98 IE1H0001.0BY A schematic diagran describing h flaw evaluation meModology is shown in Figure 2. It involwas the fofIowing steps:
- fles characterization
- flar growth evaluation considering IGSCC and/or fatigue es appropriate untif the res:t inspection interval
- determination of allowable flaw sizes based on applied stresses
- fiar acceptance evaluation by comparing the end-of-inspection period f f or size with the allowable value
- If flaw is wit acceptoble, reduce inspection interval period or repelr.
i The flaw charactertzstico and the crack growth evaluation are descritted in detail in W next section. The deterutnation of allowable flew size in this methodology is based on the not section collapse approech and has been erscribed in
[2]. The mahd assumes the pipe is at the point of incipieto collapse when a plastic hinge is dereleted at h location of cracking under the applled loadtts (Figure 3). Using this critecton, the combination of flaw pecenters (depth anc.f length) which define h failure locus can be plotted for the given iceding .
cencitions. Figure 4 shows such a failure locus (dashed !!ne) for ttie esse of P,.a = 0.05 Sm and Pm + Pb = 1.0 So, where Sa = 16.9 Ks! et 5500F, The flow strtss was assw.cd equoi to 3 Sa, Note that Pap h primary ment:rans stress, typically includes
& axist stress due to pressure loeding and Pb, the primary bonding stress, incitrdss stresse s due to such toedings as welght, sef smic interie, waite hancer, etc. Figure 4 also shoes a curved solid line which incorporates W minimum safety mergin Inheret in the A$'4 code. For the essumed oppt led stress, it is seen hat through=
- wsil crack of up to 20% of h circunference can be tolerated without violatlog the .
ec43 safety sergins. The ellevable flaw sites f fret described in [3] and inciud9d in :
the recently apprwed Article IWB-360 of $s tion XI 1s shown in Figure 4 bf the 3
- c!!d f ire bordering the'hntthed 4res. The hatch 66 cree in Figure 4 schocaticcity
(
2 er=w-*---=*ywe w-vv-wiw- 'u*-ww-- 'w'wwy - ~
4
.s
. - - , - , . . . . . -m - _ __ i l
. l l
represords the expected cred growth durlog the' selected inspection laterval. Th.as, the dashed Ifne at the lower end of the hatched area schematically nepresents ite flar acceptance !!nm for the present stro of h fine.
An frportarrt faattire of this ficz evaluation achdology is Met it enes the l stress and material proporties Information that is readily avellable tre the (S!E 1 code stress repo.-t of %e piping systes in which he flew is detected.
e 3
- -r -- e.y,wy y-yyw-.,--w-ywe .s-g-y,.-mevgww wgwe.-we.ey=y w%iv
~~~ _ _
\
l l
- 3. EVM.UATICH W S(BJECT RMI Based on %e flaw evaluation methodology outlined in Me preceedingansection ,
evaluation of the observed circumferential indications is nor presented.
3.1 OPERATING STRESSES in order to perfore %e crock growth calculations and to deterstne %e ecceptable flar sizes, it is necessary to know me stresses at he subject pipe to eibow wel4 1ocatIca.
Frca the IHt supply iIne sfross repwf* [43, %e fofIasIng operating stresses were derived:
Pressure taxlel 5.8 kul valght 1.6 kal Thermal expansion 5.7 ksl Eartfquake (EE) 2.1 ks! '
The above stresses have been adjusted for difference befireen the essened thickness at the subject in veld,the stress report (0.775 In.) and me actual pfpe %Ickness (0 9 i .
The only other stress needed for % e crack growth evaluation in the residmet stress.
The selection of appropriate magnitude and distrlhetton of the residual stress for this evaluation Is described in he next section.
3.2 RE$100Al. STRESS Since the subject weld was not solution annealed, the rwsidual stresse vicinity of Mis weld are expected to be present.
Character! ration of he througA.
wall axial restdual stresses In the vicinity of the butt welds between eseter larg (approximately 216 inches) pipes have been performed bynvestigators. several I Figure Sa derived free (2] presents the date from veld residual m stress (ex neosureamts on large dianster pipes reported by Genment Electric (GE)
, Argonre National Laboratcry (ARL), and Southwest Research last(tute (SWRI) .
The GE and M6 data In Figure 5s are for 20 and 26 inch dlaatter pipes and the SWRI d t 28 Irch diar.ciw pipt. a a are from a One characteristic feature of the residual stress data s in Figure 5a is that the reasured stresses start out as tensile et the In id s e surface
(
4 va--y-w w m- e-a w - rmw-ww --v^r --en--w -C--- ----g -e n- ap-- e wp vN-w- +-*-w----wwt---wee'Wemeww - n e e=wem--wevmrw+'*-Tw---wp-e eer-wewemt+ N'*e*=r'--M-
and then cross over to the compressive side between 10 to 20% of the well thickness. l The magnitude on ha compressive side is as high as the yield stress. This is in contrast to he typical weld residual stress (axial) distribution for a 4-Inch pipe which starts out as tensile at teh Inside surface end then crosses over to the cmpressive side only around 50% of Me wall Mickness. This dif ference in the through wall axial residual stress distribution between the smell and the large dianster pipes is probably due to the dif ferences In the flax!bility essoctaMd with through-walI bending.
The axlel residual stress used for %Is evaluation is she;rn in Figure $b. It can be seen that the assunto distributton is not as compressive as, eM %us mara conservative than, the $3fRI data on larger pfptng (20-Inch and greater).
3.3 SELECTION OF CRACK GR0rfm RATE PI.I.ATI0t!Si!P Figure 6 shcus crack growth rate data freta Horn et af [2] on Type 304 stainless steel under IGscc conditions. The crede grmth rates were obtatand in en oxygereted water environment et 550F at two orfgen levels - 8 ppe and 0.2 ppa under constant loed. The naturial was given Iso %ernal heat treeteent to simuista different sensitization levels - furnece sensitized and weld sensitized steintess steel. The data In Figure 6 fall lato thres broad clasms - (I) the Icwor fire corresponding to weld sonstttzed material in 0.2 ppe or/pneged water at 5509F, (11) the afddle Ilme representing furnace sensitized stelniess steel (FSSS) In 0.2 ppa water (heet 035W was found to be severely sensitized based on MRT tests as well es A262E onslic meld etch tests and was considered equivalent to furnace sens12fted asterici), (!!!) tive upper bound line representing furnaco sensitized materfel in 8 ppa artgenated water et 550T.
l Crack growth dato using WOL spe::Imens, pipe tests, and CCRT tests harte shorn that f urnece sensizited Type 304 s+cinless steel is more seisceptible to IGSCC fce l
both crack initiation and crack growth. Stellarly, IGSCC crmk grown rates in 8 pya oggensted water ero significnatty higher than in 0.2 ppm wcter.
Data corresponding to furnacs sensltlzod sis!altss steel (line S in Figure 6) was used in this analysis for weld sensitized interial in 0.2 p;m oxygsmted meter.
(
1 5
l
__ = === __ m _-
w This is conservative since furn6ce sensitized satselet is worse than veld sensitized material under IGStr.
This conservatisa in using h FSSS data providos margin to account for fluctuations in water cheelstry and higher oxygen during startup. The pretsace c4 load fluctuations under operating conditions is not expected to af fect (GSCO crect grow % rates signIfIcantly,
).4 CELE GR0ttTri CN.(2R.AT!0N3 The crack growth generally results from IGSCC and fatigue mechanisms. The f agitue crack growth comes frem the cyclic stres545 and h driving force fcr the IGSCC-caused crack growth is sustained stress. The only significent cycIIc stress et tre subject locaticm cones from h system pressurization cycles. Slece its her of hse cycles is expected to ha small during a typical refueling laterval and since the stress Infunsity produced by cycIlc Iceds 15 eivo small, M f atigan crad.
grorth is expected to be insignificant. Therefore, only h IG5CC cairsed creek growth due to sustelned stresses was considered in this evaluation.
t The souroa of sustained extal stresses at teh subject wald are: pressure (5.6 ksi), weight (1.6 ksi), %ensal (5.7 ksi), and the residual stress. Thus, the sudaf ned stresses, except for the residual stress, totsi 1o413 kst and were assuced es uniform throcgh h wal1.
The stress Intensity factors were evaluated trf conservativsly assuming a f ulIy ciretraferential flar. The calculations were pertonned using the ce? trier pecyra GCRACK based on Reference [53. Figure 7 shows e plot off K otal (I.%s K j3ksi +
Kr osid) as a function of dt, he ratto of crd depth to section %fckness, it is seen thet he K values initially rise very rapidly to 21 ksiJ In. and then remain levet up to 40% of the thickness. The Initial rapid rise in K is due to the feet ht both h 13 kst uniform stress and the residual stress are tonsile In the beginning. The slight decrease In the K t otsi resulis only af tur the reciavat stress distribidion crosses over to h compressive sido.
Cro k grow % calculatices can rar be perforced using the K values ras shtnn In
(
6
~
\
-,_-~
3 Figure 7 and the assumed crack growth rate relatiottship shown in Figure 6. An Initial flaw of 33% of the ttdeknest, was assumed. The calculations are shosn in Table 1. Based on hsa crack growth calculations, the final flaw size, af, at the end of 6 months ( 4000 hours0.0463 days <br />1.111 hours <br />0.00661 weeks <br />0.00152 months <br />) Inspection intervat, can be deteralred for arry asswed Initial flaw site.
The assumed inttini cradk depth of 0.3 lech (oM = 33% of the thickrwss) represents a reasonable but conservative nature of the averego crack depth. This depth was exceeded only at two Isolated locations of 2 inches (depth C.4 Inch) and 3 inchas (depth 0.35 inch) out of a total ctrcumference of 64 Trches. The ellcweble flee sizes in Appendix X,Section XI are based ca o Iim!t Iced treatment of the crack sectico which is strongly dopondent upon the crackod aree rcther ihrn h Iccal maxlmta deptfi.
From Table 1 and Figure 8 f t is seen that a 33% thickness deep flow is pre!!cted to grew to 42% of the thickness in 4000 hours0.0463 days <br />1.111 hours <br />0.00661 weeks <br />0.00152 months <br />. Tha atlosinble fiss size onwas calcutafed next.
( 3.5 CCW/ARI$0N WITH A!.l.0tfleti FIJlt SIZE The allowable flw sizes for circumferential crecks are a function of h ratio (Pm + U b }/Sm. Only the rei end upset condition prinary touts veo constarod in detwmIning the allouable flaw sizes because thast fler sizes were ucre Ilmiting then those based on the faulted condition Iceds. The prf acry wenbrace plus heding stressas are produced tr( pressure, weight and seismic looding. Bezed on the oxroting stresses given in Subsection 3.1, N (Fm+P) b is calculated to be 9,5 ks i . The $m ts 16.9 ksi. Therefore, m (P + P )/Sm b retto is 0.56 crc 0.0.
Ptgure 9 shors h flaw acceptance diagra corresponding to this ratio. Thece ellowable flaw si:es are h see as those giveri In Table IN3-3641-1 of tMr revised Section XI (bdo. Also shown in Figure 9 are h initial and h finet fim si::es.
Clearly, & predicted final flaw sizes for 6 sonth f espection is vsfl belcw the cliceable value. Therefore, based on 1his conMrvativo evaluatico it cas i:o concluded that as-Is operation is justified for 6 months.
(
7
In f act, a crack deptfi of up to 0.44 lach could sti!! be Justifled for continued operation up to 6 months. This is about 50$ higher then the reported erarage depth.
3.6 DISCllS510N OF RESifLTS A listing of the conservatisms tecluded in the flar evetection peccedure is presented here:
- a. The ellowable flaw slaos htYo been d9iWrBInSd USIDg 4 TOCior of s4ffiY of 2.0 This safety sorgin is essentially the same as that required h %e code for uncracked compotents thus assuring that me tr/m -it code sergins are always saaltrialnad,
- b. The crack grarh rete relationship (k vsh) used in this evaluetton oss com-servative sinos it was based on %e data on ne test
- specimen which wors furnaca sen.sitized. Th!s sensitization is more severe (and thus results In higher observed crack grwth rates) %mn the typical sonstt!zation seen la the heat af fected zone of a veld.
- c. The assumed residual stress distributton is conservative with respect to Me measured data on large dlaneter pipes. If mean residual stress data wre used in the aralysis, st nifIcant 2 reduction in crack growh or even track ercest may be predicted.
- d. The sustained operating stresses other iban those due to pressure are essentially bending type. in thf s evaluetton, Mese stresses were conservctively assumed as uniform axial stresses. The presence of tending stresses also fevors preferential crock grown in Me radial dinretton ehtch would lead to laak-bofore4reak,
- e. The crack grmth calcutation rssults shown in Table 1 con etM be used to l
address the uncertainty in (JT chero:terization of the crack depth, it is eeva
(
8
__,,wm,-- ,-e--em-ew.'+-'tN7
feca Table 1 #st ttw crack depth could be as much cs 0.44 Inch average of I eround the circunference and still vill be within the ecceptable Italts. In other weeds, the depths of the cireveferentlaf Indicatires at weld 10 '.r-05 can be off by as amt as $0% and st!II the fiat would meet the ecceptance erItorIa.
Bosed on the proceeding dtscussion, It Is cofcluded ihet the finw eva! cotton results presented here ore very reason 4ble and includs several ecoserystinnts.
l i
l l
l 9
1
_ _ _ . . , _ _ , _ . , , - , - - -- - - - ' ' ' ~ ' " ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ' - ~ ~ ~
)
h' ------------
i n
( 4. 00NC1.U51(MS Based on the fracture mechanics analysis fotlowing the procedures of me ;
recently opproved Appendix X SEction XI ASIE Code, following concclusions can to ande.
o Continued operation of Peach Battum 2 with as-is conditlen at RHR wpply line weld 10-0-M ca be justifled for the next 6 months, o The inherent code safety acrgins can be maintelnad even with consideratie uncertainty in the IH chorectertzstion of the fisss.
l l
(
... l
,e ..
c 5. REFERO G 5
(
AN Bolfor and Pressure Vacual Code. sectlen Xf 1980 Edition including the Appendix X, ' Acceptance crf teria for flaws in austenttle piping,' approved ter h Section XI Subcasalttee in February 190.
- 2. "The Growth and Stability of Siress Corrostco Cracks in large Diamorter BMT Piping,' prepared by the General Electric Ccepony, EPRI NP-2472 Final R.v,crt, July 19S2, Electric Poser Research Institute, Felo Alto, Caf f forr.la.
- 3. Ranganeih, S.,
" Acceptance Criteria for Flees in Ausienttic Sival Piping Ccapenents,a Go:eral Elociric Ceepany, Proposal suomItied to Sectton XI Jacnusry 1953.
da. Letter, A. R. Diederich to T. L. Chepman, Februsq 18,190, *Peech Botica Atom!c Porer Station, Unit 2 & 3, induction HSating Stress leiprovesent (IR$1) Prorfen Wolght and Tirarmal Stress Analysis ter 20 inch IWt Shut &nsn Ccoling Suctlen Piping, Hod. No. 945-liGI Phase ll-Performsnco Phase.'
I
- 45. Letter, A. R. Diedorich to R. J. Bentch, May 12, t 9CG, " Perch ec9 ten Atcole Power 5tation, Unit 2 & 3, laduct!on Heating Stross leprcvonent (ISHI) Prcg as Seismic Analysis for 20 loch FJiR Shutdown Cooling Suction .*Iping, itM. No. 945--lH31 Fheso iI%rf::reanco Fhosa,a
- 5. Bu%alet, C. B. and Samford, W. H., "Stre:s intensity Factor Solvtlens fer Ocntit:uous surfece Flaws in Roacter Pressure Yessols,* )kchanics_of frMt_f@r ASTM STPM 7mrican So:;lety foe Testing end Maturf als,1975 l
l
~ __ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ -- -- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - ~ ^ - ~ ~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ - ~ " -~~
1
(
TABl.E 1
- ****** ** e sesit****s***
- st******* **s s s**s as******gssss as*** ****s s **********sss3
- PtAOf BOTTOM 2 UtG PIPE RESIDUAL STRESS 8 s tas******sas s*******s***s**st******** stss*********sss**s******sn****e++ tert Cit 4CK 8ROWTN s
PIPE THIC10ESS (!NCHE8): 0.900.T/R=0.1 frPE: CIRCUTERDff!A4, TIME INCREMENT ORS): 1000.0 SENSIT!7At!ON! LP BOUND W TIME 4 A/T K B4/97 34 HKS. IW.
IMM MILS
- 0. 0 300 0.3333 20.21 0.1?E-04 19.32 1000. 0.31t 0.3548 20.23 0.lfR44 19 34 2000. 0.339 0.3763 20.27 0 194t 44 19.43 3000. 0.358 0.3979 20.40 019E44 4000. 19 40 ;
0.378 0.4197 20.57 0.1?ft-04 19.04
$000. 0.398 0.4417 20.80 0 20K44 6000. 20.20 0.418 e.4442 21.10 0.207t44 7000 20 44 0.438 04FM 21.48 0 2tX44 8000. 21 23 0.460 0.5107 21.95 0 219E-M 21 93 ,
?000. 0.482 0.5351 22 32 ' O.230E44 23.05 10000. 0 505 0.5407 23.22 0.294E44 24.44 11000. 0 529 0.5878 24 04 0 262E44 24.1'#
12000. 0.355 0.4!69 25.18 0 292-04 29.31
a..
a- - _. _ . - ~ s .e-- - a a a_a - -- - - - - ..-
_ _ _ . . - -- ' ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' '
l J. .
E t c ~
e o' m x,py~.s's G l 1 %
t 7 w -g 7
. i a /
/
/4
~
- n -b 1
=n@.g
'. 4, j , 7f/A4 . -
i e i , $ -
32 i*
t 2
1 t n
- l -
c I.5 . I 5 3 3 e" l *+' ' 9 s - !! 3 3 i // ,E -
= aa /
8 ::.g !
i'a
/
/ 3, y/ -) ;
C * / o fA .
A -4 sit / 7 J/
'#I
== 5 r, u 7 n.
mo -
4
/ .
U h
//
,i .
/ h.
s e a
4
. '7
- 5 s d _s -
1 3 % ~
g W > 4 -
- E u i $
/
j -;. k. -
l L,
. g i
a e W h Ng -
d .
s -
- fY h ,$
FICURE 2
~
FLAW EVALUATIDW METHODOLOGY i IMITIAL 1
FLAN SIZE a
4 FATICUE _
CMCK GROWTH M g Horsel JfLAW EROWIH' PIPE Condittees
- stALY515 STRESSES Ems w y IG5CC & Faulted liRDWTH ~ Conditions
. INSPECTION ,
SAFETY i
i n INTERVAL FACTOR l
REDUCE IM5PECTION FINAL FLAN SIZE
- h5 .
INTERVAL , a f
a ,- normal condittons
,a' - anargency &
faulted condittent n .
ACCEPTA?KE
.k,-
CRITERIGM
=
< a , < .,,
" f < *e JQ
-< CONT!.%'ED U AI8/ , OPE!!ATION E M ACE ggggp;p,$tg
.=..a.... . . . . ..:.._.__. ..
4 i
9 e
mamanusmus awas vmenaces sect 104 er spE
%+
g
(.
\
uS==
,,., (-----.~ -_
a w, g l i , ,
, \l/
,/
k l ~
)
J
- v. ' 8 , Ag '
e i f 1 5 , A a.lg i j
+
\4 i f
r t
, t, L m 1
+ i
- i E Axa og* twur3Tanna
,g %
smm unemmm a 1TM StAdrftaOffhCes At TN4 Mgest 98 CtMAME Pm
- Applied mesbrana stress in uncracted sectica.
Pb = Applied bending stress in uncrecked section.
l l
d i (
Fi? n 3 5:htratic $.%eing Stress Distrhted is Cn:1.e8P{pe at the Foir.t of Collapse 1
l ..
1 . . - . .. . .. . .. - . -.
~
y.. . .. _..._,__m f g I
g pena h
- Sun WOf.AA892 688183 W _
I -
Eo 1
- Pn* 4 e1.773$sur
\ i
- $ ,\ sa.stTV Fet9ft
- 2339 f
1 amtop noes von attossaka fuwr a2 L ' 1 F . m.st h .,
!l #s
- En Il u
__f
_r _1 I g_ -
'u
, ~~
0; a a m t.n 1.4 wAgboes D9 ORCu'**tsNCE. 4 FIGURE 4
~~
HEJ E7ALUAT10ft DIAC?M 70R CI*motTIAL . ,
( caAc",S In STA17.'.7.55 STEEL Pl?I E -
W
t l
l l
l l
40 7 00HBINED RESULTS OF CE/A:fi,/GWRI l
i
.. i '
) ,
J 20 ,-
/l- '
I 2
y 0'
'g t
l'* % ~ --*j InU -
j
- [
( M \
il
~
\
',\ % '
k '
\ \i
_s j
.( .
k
, \
\
h
\
s' /,
\
\
-40
-M -
w-- ____ _
i.d. DEPnt/THICrJESS o.d.
FIG.5a WR0lMH WALL AXIAL WCLD RESIDUAL STRt5$
MEA 3UPJ2iCf75 ON LAF.CE DIAMETER PIPES.
k O
=e
(
i
. s 40 -
20 "
0 i
- 2 .4 '
.6 ,e m
6m m
U ~
r m
-20
-40 L
-60 I d-DEPTH / THICKNESS o.d.
FIG. Sb RESIDUAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION USED IN ANALYSIS
( -
s a . . .. . -. . . . . -..
. e f ___.
~
l i 1 CL9VC A
- / *
/
O CW.VE B (9
O USED IM AMA!.YSIS
- /,y
'g
- y3%s_grn,220.AY.t.ie.d'
., aft. 5.,2 gueen 3
44 & estuerTi21 W AT 1199f f.2IL:8.7 esse e g runsacepec4-vtmu g /
! g_c L f Q arautmrao At U$f d"?,M tg a
tot arma O 8 905 .T116H 9 -
/
g -
g/ 7 y Q esesmuosevmo.azze==os sar - m e.sie se g
( 5 , 7 # o emenm at ttes"f.xm.sar.
$ V T Q on-rtet CtGVE C e cu.m-sem o sowa==- ==
n - $ aanwm-sur40ssG.
seaiwiei.as
@ w.-
sta e setoaan ur w 4 sevah:so av wnu ws..'.m av ser.nasuc,augs m pyt _
e ,
- t. e i i _ ,.
s es a_ ao ao se es n l
reursniventtv,s erv$a e
Figure 6 5,;ntary of Cmstant trad Crsck Gre.eth D$ta (temt am mistfoa
, curver.) Cita c=11ect.ed in 0.2 77a 20 and 6 na 02 I#*
.tiffart.s le,vels of untitfution ew2fes4.
. - - - . . = .
4 Figure 7 Stress Intensity Factor vs. Non-Dimensional Crack Depth (Large Pipe Restdoel Stress + 13 KSI Appifed Stress) 1
(
l M* _ _ .
l 40000.
9 5 *
( O 3
.?. 30000.
g - --
C iiz / l 1f 3 20000. - -
E u
'd i
10000.- =
I
'l I
. c. -
0.0 , J ,, ,, ,, t,e CRACK OEPIN / THIODd:$$
PtnCH DOTTON 2 IHt Ftjat, i
4- . ..
e - - -
m-f~ __
k l
Figure 8 Crack Depth vs. Time; Weld Sensitiagd fenterial :l Crack srowth Data (Curve 1 la Figure 3); i (Large Pipe Residual Stress + Applied stress = 13 K51) i, t.
I
.54 -
i'
.53 -
. f 3 .
7 5 .
= . _.
iE El -
.43 g
.N ,
i
.33 l O. 2000. 4000. 0000. 9000. 10000. 12000. <
. T!!E tlCLAS)
IUDI 90TTON R 858t FUB8 .
(
l i l
V 6
i l
l l
Figure 9 End-of-Period Flaw Size After 4000 Hours A = 0.42 on the Failure Otagraa f/t t
1.0 --
. ( Colla pa t.ine W
9 A
( .-
, .a A11amable I law r
Pa *E b b= 0.6 g s. '
t/t=0.42 f .g f K = =+hei l
w z
o O
g
.2 o.o 0.0 . 2 . 4 .8 .e 3.0 Ntw Dinustossa. Lticm - vitsPlean PEEM 80110ft 2 RHR FLM.
( ,
+ - w e --a---- ---w- -r--e ,e a, e,er ---'-emg-,---w -- w _ -- ----w,--- - , , - -g- -tw'+-------me-wrew-w-e-e -- --ve