ML20086R507

Indications Restrained from Burst (Ibrs) Summary Leak Test Rept

ML20086R507
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	07/31/1995
From:	COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20086R500	List: ML20086R498 ML20086R507
References
NUDOCS 9507310162
Download: ML20086R507 (139)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:v. p N P i e Indications Restrained fhun Burst (IRBs) Summary Leak Test Report July,1995 f l 9507310162 950721 DR ADOCK 05000454 PDR E V9prmetuuttp ops-July 23, 1995

y r IRB Summary 12ak Test Report Table of Contents r 1.0 Overall Test Conclusions 2.0 Test Data and Reduction Methods Test operation Data reduction 3.0 Data Evaluation Methods EPRI adjustment procedure Averaging of test data and exclusions for hysterisis effects Sources of uncertainty and methods of analysis 4.0 Test Evaluations Summary evaluation 12ak rate vs AP plots Test results, adjustments, adjusted values, averaged and deleted data points Dimensional measurements

• Test plan 5.0 Trend Analyses
• Leak rate dependence on crack length, crack opening area, offset area, etc.

Comparisons of tube to TSP interaction predicted by Belgian cmck opening diameter versus pn:ssure measurements with interaction infered from leak tests Comparison of total crack length at beginning and end of test including bladder pressurization to freespan burst pressure Flow area and crack offset considerations for influence on IRB leak rates Considerations of multiple throughwall cracks on leak rate 6.0 Isak Rate Uncertainty Assessment Uncertainty assessment Uncertainty on bounding leak rate i s Wuyrhrtarup wur4edy 22,1995 l L.

s 1.0 Overall Test Conclusions i l i. O IL --- -_ __ - __ ~ - - - - -, _ _ _. _ _ _ _ ~ - - - _ _

r IRB Leak Test Resulb Overall Conclusions i ? SLB leak rates including maximum TSP displacement at any tube location in a SLB event are bounded by < 5.5 gpm. 1 Summary of Bounding Leak Rate Measurement Uncenainty Assessment. I i The contributors to the leak rate uncenainty for the bounding measured leak rate of 5.5 gpm are: - Leak rate measurement uncenainty on test average leak rate: 3.1% - AP measurement uncenainty on leak rate: -10% Leak rate adjustment uncertainty: negligible Test loop oriface test measurement on leak rate: +9% (preliminary value) The combined effect of the AP measurement uncenainty and the loop calibration uncertainty is a factor of (0.9)-(1.09) or 0.98 for a net uncertainty of -2%. It can be concluded that the net uncertainty on the bounding leak rate of 5.5 gpm is on the order of +2%/-4%. The actual uncenainties are found as follows: The maximum uncertainty is obtained e [(0.9)-(1.09)-(1.031)-1] 100 cr 1.1%, with a 95% confidence bound of ~3.1%. - The minimum uncertainty is obtained as [(0.9)-(1.09)-(0.969)-1].100 or -5.9%. It can be concluded that the net uncenainty on the bounding leak rate of 5.5 gpm is acceptable small and an uncenainty adjustment to the bounding value is not necessary. The largest leak rate of 5.5 gpm obtained in the test pmgram was found for a upper bound 0.74" i thmughwall crack under flow pressurization to AP3t3 = 2560 psi. Indicatiom > about 0.5"thmughwall interact with the TSP prior to reaching AP and show no sts significant increases in leakage above the TSP offset leak rate at AP3t3 even after bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure at the offset condition. For thmughwall indications < about 0.5", which can be expected to bound indications at Bmidwood-1 and Bymn 1 following implementation of a 3.0 volt repairlimit, the crack openings do not interact with the TSP and the resulting leak rates are typical of free span leak mies. Leak Rate Dependence on TSP Displacement. SLB leak rates following bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure are approximately independent of TSP displacement within the limits of the maximum displacements with tube e expansion. - Test exceptions occur only for specimens with two TW cracks 180' apart j .w,n%.,,w u i-s

SLB leak rates for flow pressurization increased with TSP displacement (offset test condition) by 10% to 30% for only 3 of the 7 tests for which this difference could be evaluated. The test increases (3 tests) in leak rates between zero offset and offset conditions are attributable to the leakage being limited by the geometric flow area (confirmed for 2 of the 3 tests by estimates of the effective crack area and geometric flow area based on the test dimensional measurements) in the zero offset tests, such that an increase in leakage is expected for the offset condition. Bases for conclusion: Leak rates for IRBs are primarily dependent on the effective throughwall crack area (area not in approximate contact with the TSP hole ID) in comparison with the geometric flow area (area between opened crack edge and TSP hole ID). Crack opening areas that are less than the geometrical flow area would be expected to result in leak rates that are approximately independent of limited TSP displacements. A reduction in turning losses with TSP displacement, although expected to be small for small displacements, could also contribute to the leak rate increase in the offset condition. Based on crack length measurements currently available, there has been no significant (within about 0.025" for most specimem, maximum 0.097") crack length extension as a result of flow or bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure. An appropriate SLB leak rate methodology with tube expansion is free span analysis with an upper limit of 5.5 gym applied to any Monte Cado sample leak rate that exceeds 5.5 gym. Thus, the analyses performed for Bymn-1 and Braidwood 1, which explicitly considerIRB leak rates and do not employ a bound on the leak rate obtained from the Icak rate to volts conelation, are conservative. The bounding IRB leak rate, as obtained for a single crack, does not have to be adjusted for potential multiple throughwall indications. This conclusion is based on the high likelihood of finding a single dominant thmughwall indication and the very low likelihood that two thmughwall indications would be within 0.10"of the TSP edge. Leak Rate Dependence on Crack Length, Crack Opening Area, Offset Area, etc. SLB leak rates for IRBs are primarily a function of the throughwall crack length and crack opening area SLB leak rates do not increase linearly with the crack opening area, as would be expected for free span cracks, since the larger openings interact with the TSP hole ID to retard leakage flow from the largest crack widths near the center of the crack SLB leak rates for offset tests do not correlate with the throughwall crack length outside the TSP . The increase in leakage from cracks offset outside the TSP relative to the total crack within the TSP is a function of the crack opening area outside the TSP prior to but not after reaching the free span burst pressure of the indication. Flow Area and Crack Offset Considerations forInfluence on IRB Leak Rates. . The principal factors influencing IRB leak rates are: - The TSP limits the crack opening area for throughwall indications greater thar, about 0.5". s ppnvrtarp optimiy D. tw$

- The effective crack opening area is further reduced for long cracks (clearly from test results at > 0.6", which might conceptually burst in free span) by tube to TSP gap closure for some length (expect < 0.25" based on test results) along the length of the crack. - IRB leak rates are primarily dependent on the effective crack opening area with a modest (<30%) effect of limited TSP displacements on leakage. Upon contact of the crack opening with the TSP, leak rates have a modest or no increase in leakage with increased pressurization and tend toward smaller increases in leakage with throughwall cracks outside the TSP compared to the crack within the TSP. - Bases for conclusions o Leak rates for offset and zero offset tests fo; lowing bladder pressurization (constant effective crack area) are very similar and, in some cases, lower for offset than zero offset conditions. For bladder pressunzation tests, there is an increased likelihood for the leakage to be limited by the effective crack area rather than the geometric flow area and there is no correlation between the change in leak rate (offset minus zero offset) and the exposed throughwall crack area. The exception for Test 4-1 is attributable to multiple TW cracks 180 apart exposed by the TSP displacement and by diametral increases in the tube diameter. o Leak rates correlate reasonably well with throughwall crack length and with crack opening area. o For flow pressurized tests with the offset test run after (and at higher pressures) the zero offset test, the increase in leakage for the offset condition is less than that expected for the increase in the total crack area. The less than expected increase is attributable to blockage of the flow area near the center of the crack by the TSP which reduces the total crack area to an effective crack area for leakage considerations. An IPC of 3.0 volts with tube expansion is more conservative than a 1.0 volt IPC without tube expansion. . Tube burst is essentially eliminated with an insignificant tube burst probability (<1040) for tube expansion with " locked" TSPs The maximum SLB leak rate, irrespective of the likelihood of occurrence of the large bounding indications, is limited to < 5.5 gpm . w*, . rue 2um

Test Matrix for Indications Retricted from Burst (IRBs)- As Tested Thrmigimsli Crack length Free Crack to TSP Offse(" IMadder Press. Test Tube Specimen Span No. IMs.

Tyy, leak h Press.

IMadder Press. ogw2: No. Test" Othet .25.45 .45.60 .60.,75 0.0" 0.10" 0.15" 8.0" 6.10" 0.15" (-g l l-1 7/8 Corr 5atg. 0 62" H II H H IL C 0.15 8161G l2 7/8 Corr /Fatg. 0.62" H H H 11 11 C 0.15 8161E l-6 3/4 Comnion 0.74" H H H H H. C 0.10 2008E l-7 3/4 Corr 5atg. 0.60" H H H H 0.10 2051A 2-1 7/8 Corr 5arg. 0.515" H H H H H. C 0.15 8161A 2-4* 7/8 Corrosion H H 11, C C C,11 0.15 ,i 4C218 0.29" 2-7 3/4 Corr 5atg. C C H H H, C 0.10 2051E 0.577" 2-8 3/4 Laser Cut 0.55" H H II,C None IRB-If-2 2 10P) 3/4 Conosion 0.425" H H H, C H H, C 0.10 2051B 4-1 7/8 Conosion 0.24" C C 0.15 4B214 Notes: 1. H is hot test at operstmg temperatures, C is a room ternperature test 2. Test sequences include p ki.g with a bladder typically to the free span burst pressure. Test 4-1 includes iruu.s.;al increases in bladder pressure beyond that equivalent to a free span burst. Tests 2-4 and 2-10 include bladderr knions below and at the free span burst pressure. Bladder press. is performed to open the crack beyond that obtained within the pressure capability of the facility. 3. leak tests in small leak test facility prior to bladder pressuruation and large facility aRer pressuruation. All other tests in large leak test facility. ..wo-i.,.u, i. im

IRB Ieak Test Results Key Conclusions Test 1-6 This test of a 0.74" throughwall crack in 3/4" diameter tubing represents an upper bound leak test since throughwall lengths of this magnitude would not be expected even for the full APC repair limit with tube expansion of 10 to 15 volts - A repair limit of only 3.0 volts has been requested by Comed for implementation of tube expansion at Braidwood-l and Byron-1

• The SLB leak rate for corrosion cracks prior to or after bladder pressurization is bounded by 5.5 gpm including the maximum potential 0.10" TSP offset
• TSP constraint reduces the maximum SLB teak rate by more than a factor of three compared to free span conditions For this indication, the leakage results indicate that TSP interaction occured at about 2000 psi AP a

Thmughwall Com>sion Crack Lengths > About 0.5"- Tests 1-6,1-7,2-7 (3/4"): 1-1,1-2,2-1 (7/8") Indications with throughwall crack lengths greater than about 0.5" result in crack faces opening to interact with the TSP prior to reaching SLB conditions of 2560 psi AP and result in leak rates less than free span indications SLB leak rates resulting from flow pressurization to APsta are about 4.1,4.1 and 5.5 gpm for initial start of test throughwall crack lengths of 0.577",0.60" and 0.74", respectively, in 3/4" tubing. SLB leak rates resulting from flow pressurization to APsLB are about 1.7,3.2 and 3.7 gpm for initial start of test throughwall crack lengths of 0.515",0.620" and 0.620", respectively, in 7/8" tubing. Thmughwall Cmck lengths < About 0.5"- Tests 2-10 (3/4"),2-4 (7/8") Indications with throughwall crack lengths less than about 0.5" have leak rates typical of free = span indications and show no significant interaction with the TSP SLB leak rates resulting from flow pressurization to APsLB are about 0.37 and 1.7 gpm for initial throughwall crack lengths of 0.29" and 0.425", respectively Effects of Bladder Pnssudzation on Leak Rates SLB leak rates following bladder pressurization at the TSP offset condition are not significantly different from leak rates obtained by flow pressurization to 2560 psi for throughwall crack lengths > about 0.5 inch which result in interaction with the TSP prior to reaching SLB conditions For crack lengths < about 0.5", which do not interact with the TSP prior to reaching SLB conditions, bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure increases the leak rates above that obtained by flow pressurization but the leak rates remain less than those obtained with > 0.5" crack lengths Leak rates following bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure are approximately wwpnwtwerp wp1 July 21. Ivet )

independent of TSP displacements within the limits tested. Estimated changes in effective crack area and geometric flow area after bladder pressurization help to explain why there is less of a trend for increased leakage after pressurization than before pressurization. After bladder pressurization, the effective crack area tends to be reduced by the flattening of the crack opening near the center of the crack in contact with the TSP while the geometric flow area is less affected and there is an increased likelihood that effective crack areas rather than geometric flow areas limit the leakage.

• Bladder pressurizations above the free span burst pressure do not result in significant increases in the leak rate compared to that obtained following the free span burst pressurization.

Laser Cut Specimens Laser cut specimens are not an acceptable substitute for corrosion cracks for leak testing - Laser cut specimens result in a factor of 3 increase in free span leak rates as indicated by comparing Tests 2-8 and 2-7 results - The large widths at the tips of the laser slot result in non-representative leak rates for offset test conditions. The trends and effects of crack to TSP interaction can be demonstrated by laser slots although the leak rates are too high to be representative of corrosion cracks. l Accuracy of in-Process Dimensional Measurements j l I Destructive examination of the one specimen examined to date (Test 1-2) shows initial and final j throughwall crack length measurements in good agreement with the values obtained by the 1 measurement techniques used in the test program. l l l 1 l l l I w n=,.psuya ms

10 Test Data and Reduction Methods i l l l 1 l l

Test and Data Reduction Methods ' Test Methods i Primary pressure and temperature measured at spMmm . Secondary temperature and pessure measured in autoclave Leak rate measured as condensed volume versus time . General test operation - Primary and secondary pressures set up at approximately equal values at above the target pressure, water supply tank set up at desired not or cold conditions - Secondary pressure " instantaneously" vented to atmospheric pressure - Approximate steady state conditions obtained in order of about 10 to 40 seconds 4s-AE on the leak rate i o %e water volume in the secondary system must also be flushed by leakage volume prior to recording data - AP leak rate sample volume obtained and test tenninated Variations over test period - Primary pressure tends to decrease as water volume in supply tank deacases - Secondary pressure tends to increase, higher with larger leak rates, as a result of steam pressure on the secondary side - function of condensation rate - The crack pressure drop (&) is highest early in the test and tends to drop toward a more steady state value o Thus, some hysterisis exists in each test wherein the plastic opening at the higher & tends I to result in higher leak mtes at the lower & at which the leak rate is measured. His adds conservatism to the measured leak rates - Primary tempemture also tends to change over the test period. He water in the storage tank has some axial gradient and makeup water for large leak rates also tends to affect the - teigdure. An intermediate autoclave is used to reduce the ternperature variations but some remain in the tests o Due to these variations, the primary temperature cannot be tightly controlled for a given test. Between tests, temperatures may vary from about 605 to about 645 Test Data Reduction Test data is averaged over a time period after approximate steady state conditions are reached. De time period selected is as necessary to obtain an adequate leak rate volume and varies l between tests. Averages for leak rate, primary pressure and tuigsare, secondary pressure and temperature and & are reported J De maximum & for the test is also reported

• The standard deviation on the avemge leak rate over the analysis period is reported as the leak 1

rate uncertainty f. Crack length and Crack Opening Area Measurements

• Crack ID and OD dimensions following sample preparation are measured using dye penetrant with a silastic mold for the ID length Crack lengths following testing are measured with a toolmaker's mictuscope. Throughwall lengths and widths are measured using light penetration through the crack opening. Broughwall o

lengths < 1 mil wide may not be #wi by this technique. s WW% m9sM 22. IM ..a

Tube to TSP Gap Considemtions 12 Leak Test Pmgmm Test Objective for leak Test Establish diametral gap at 25 mils based on specimen diameter prior to leak testing Locate tube within TSP so that free to move or in contact with TSP at 180 from crack Tube to TSP Fixture Implemented Tube end held in a clamshell about 1" above TSP a Far tube end plugged and unconstrained about 4" below clamshell (-2.5" in clamshell) TSP attached to clamshell with two flat bars with slots / attachment screws that permit TSP to be = moved axially to locate TSP relative to the crack TSP hole centerline nominally aligned with centerline of clamshell Review of TSP Fixtum Generally expect tube to TSP gap at radial rather than diametral gap For tube diameters less than nominal a shim was included in clamshell to tightly hold the tube. - Assembly could result in misalignment of tube in TSP relative to nominally centered as indicated by resulting increases in crack diameters after pressurizing the specimen 3/4" tubes tested were generally less than nominal diameter and crack to TSP gap above nominal . Tube is very stiff at TSP elevation due to short distance below the clamshell such that lateral movement of tube relative to the TSP ID by hydraulic forces (impingement of leakage on TSP) is very unlikely and movement of tube by crack opening is also expected to be minimal - Stiffness of tube is demonstrated by bladder expansion results. The increase in tube diameter across the crack centerline was 1 mil or less except for 1 specimen with a 4 mil increase. Conclusions For specimens shown to interact with the TSP during flow testing, the crack diameter increase is a good measure of the crack to TSP gap - If crack opening could laterally displace the tube significantly, the diameters after bladder expansion should have increased but they did not show increases above a mil Estimated crack to TSP gaps based on the crack diameter increase are shown in the attached table Tests 1-6,2-4,2-8,2-10 and 4-1 have been performed to satisfactory gap requirements Tests 1-7 and 2-7 had close to desired gap but had undersized gaps by 5 and 3 mils

• Tests 1-1,1-2 and 2-1 (all 7/8" diameter tests) had significantly undersized gaps

- Specimen 1-2 has been destructively examined and cannot be retested a \\sevenwtmecep wp5 My 23,1W5

Summary of Crack Diameter Increases / Implied Gap Test Initial Diameter Crack AD after Comment Offset How Test 1 -6, 3/4" 0.745 0.027 Gap requirement satisfied 1 -7, 3/4" 0.747 0.020 1 -1, 7/8" 0.875 0.009 l-2, 7/8" 0.874 0.013 Specimen destructively examined 2-1, 7/8" 0.874 0.010 2-4, 7/8" 0.875 0.003 Gap large enough to prevent No TSP Interaction tube to TSP interaction 2-7, 3/4" 0.747 0.022 2-8, 3/4" 0.744 0.030 Gap requirement satisfied Larger AD on opening clamshell indicates elastic springback 2-10, 3/4" 0.748 0.001 Gap large enough to prevent No TSP Interaction tube to TSP interaction 4-1, 7/8" 0.876 0.025 Gap requirement satisfied a WpckprNeterrer wpS Aty 23. IW5

a 34*4 ..,,me,.ss,es-ms4Ms A , manl mn- --n,6+---+, G --m, a sm as _a ,as,2 ,,_n,,,m_&.am a e l l l g .~~... y I F

• l=

k I l k l f =5 l l t 4 1 4 I i i s ) l l l i 1 . m

-c ~ exjwagelok 4[ fitting sik ggj; ~ ,3 j >C Split Clamp ~ (shim asrequimn 7 Support Ertensions i -{ Specim W N y$ el Oversize ~ SplitIbbe 1 SupportPlate 2-Liter Autoclav \\Swagelok Fi n g i g b %2 d$$$bhs!,!hn l TypicalInstallation of Test Sample in Autoclave l f )

1 3.0 Data Evaluation Methods l ) i j l

Data Evaluation Methods Need for Data Normalization Leak rates are desired at SLB conditions of 615 F and 15 psi secondary pressure which cannot be tightly controlled in the tests Primary tcupuiure influences the saturation pmssure which is the effective secondary pressum when flashing to steam occurs (all cases near SLB conditions)for the primary water, the water density and the material propenies - Adjustments for flashing are typically the largest adjustments required to the test data. Saturation pressure increases significantly with temperature and many test results have temperatures and pressures higher than the reference conditions of 615 F and 15 psi Le EPRI leak rate adjustment procedure given in EPRI repon NP-6480-L, Volume 1, Revision 1, Appendix B is applied for the data nonnalization/ adjustments EPRI I2ak Rate Adjustment Procedure ne adjustment procedure includes three terms - the hydraulic factor (y) for the effective pressure differential which is a flashmg adjustment, the temperature factor ( ) which adjusts for density and material pmperties and the mechanical factor (ot) which adjusts for crack openmg between two different APs. He mechanical factor is not applied in this assessment and is not further discussed herrin. Hydraulic factor (p-C,p,)/Lp 3 (PSJ/5) where p is the primary pressure, p, is the saturation pressure at the primary temperature, op is the primary to secondary pressure differential, C, is a pressure coefficient to adjust for a non-isentropic process, subscript o represents the leak test condition and no subscript represents the target (reference) conditions. - CRACKFLO analyses in NP-7480-L indicate a range of.72 to.88 for C,he CR to improve agreement on ratios ofleak rates between the adjustment procedure and t results. Sensitivity analyses wem run on Test 6-1 for a range from.75 to.85 with no significant difTerences in the adjusted leak rates for the higher pressure tests and a value of .80 was selected for the analyses of this report. Higher values tend to decrease the adjusted leak rates for the test conditions. A higher value than 0.80 may be appmpriate for the larger crack sizes in the Sequence 1 tests and the higher test pressure differentials. The use of C, is most significant for tests in which the primary pressure is close to the saturation pressure at the primary temperature. In this case, the adjustment can become unrealistically large without including C. The need for this term occurs primarily for p pressures less than about 2200 psi and temperatures above about 620 F. . + m.,.* n im

i Data Evaluation Methods EPRI Leak Rate Adjustment Pmcedure

• Temperature Factor p

Eo o ro Po Ea S P-r where E is Young's modulus and of s the flow stress. i

• The hydraulic and temperature factors are applied to the test data to obtain leak rates at standard or reference conditions prior to further evaluation of the data.

Evaluation of cold to hot adjustment factor - Room temperature to operating temperature adjustments are applied to all room temperature test results in this report. The adjusted data vary from very close to above and below the hot temperature test results. The cold to hot adjustment factor is not further evaluated in this report. A more detailed study including sensitivity results will be included in the EPRI test report. Evaluation of Test Data Hysterisis effects a Some test points are obtained at a lower AP than a prior data point which introduces a hysterisis effect. This results in plastic opening of the crack such that the leak rate for the subsequent, lower pressure test is typically overestimated. For this analysis, data points more than about 40 psi lower than a prior test are excluded on the basis of hysterisis from the data plots and evaluation. The selection of 40 psi is a judgement that this change in AP and the resulting small increase in leak rate would not significantly influence the interpretation of the data and the resulting conclusions. Data points following bladder pressurization are not deleted for hysterisis effects since this step is specifically applied to maximize the crack opening and the bladder pressures substantially exceed the leak rate test pressures. Averaging of Data Points - Data points in the same test condition (offset, etc.) that are within about 40 psi of each other are generally averaged prior to plotting and evaluation. This process reduces non-physical fluctuations in the test data and tends to simplify interpretation of plotted data. All test data averaged or deleted for hysterisis effects are identified in the data sheets provided herein for each test.

• Terminology used in data analyses.

Crack opening area or crack area: the area of the TW crack as measured by light penetration through the crack after important test sequences such as offset tests, bladder pressurization, etc. - Effective crack area: the measured crack area reduced by the crack area associated with the crack length in contact with the ID of the hole as estimated from diameter measurements. It is assumed, based on diameter measurements, that the crack length within a radial distance of about I mil of the TSP hole ID does not contribute to leakage and the leakage flow must pass through the effective crack area. The 1 mil distance accounts for minor clastic springback of the crack flanks at low pressure. - Geometric flow area: for cracks within the TSP, the area between the opened or bulged crack .w%.m a ms

i and the TSP hole ID define a geometrical limit on the area that leakage must pass through. This area is determined as the integrated area between the bulged crack (using crack diameter measurements along the crack) and the hole ID and includes the area on both sides of the r crack opening. Limiting flow area: the smaller of the effective crack area and the geometric flow area. If the effcetive crack area is smaller than the geometric flow area, the leakage is limited by the crack area and moving the crack outside the TSP (offset tests) would not be expected to significantly increase the leak rate. If the geometric area is limiting, moving the crack outside the TSP in the offset tests increases the flow area to closer to the effective area and the offset i test would be expected to result in an increase in leak rate. These relations apply as long as the maximum crack diameter does not move outside the TSP which is the case in all tests and can be expected in all cases of limited TSP displacements (maximum tested is 0.15") Trend Analyses

• The trends for the leak rates as a function of measured parameters such as throughwall crack length, crack opening area, offset length, etc. are also evaluated and documented in this report.

I l i .I I i ) i a WptWpnhrp op3-July 23.1995

I2ak Rate Uncertainty Considerations Potential Sources of Uncertainty in the leak Rates Irak rate fluctuations during the test period This uncertainty is developed for each leak mte measurement as the standard deviation of the leak rate about the average value reported for the test. Maximum AP in test occurs prior to averaging data for reporting leak rates - This effect is evaluated for the bounding leak rate (Test 1-6) by adjusting the leak rates to the maximum AP in the test and comparing the n:sulting value at the SLB pressure diffen:ntial of 2560 psi with the value obtained for the reference analysis based on averaging the test data over a time interval. EPRI leak rate adjustment procedure This uncertainty has been reduced by applying the C,is is evaluated factor in the hydraulic factor of the adjustment procedun: to maximize the leak rates. Th for difTerent values of C, for the bounding leak mtes test (Test 1-6) Test loop calibmtions - All instnnnents used in the tests have updated calibrations and the important primary pressure and tcmrauture are measured at the test specimen. Thus the uncertainty for loop calibrations is negligible. To further evaluate the test loop accuracy, room temperature leak tests were performed for three orifices of difTerent diameters and the leak rates compared with analyses, which are considered highly accurate for an orifice. Future efforts will include hot tests of the orifices and an additional room temperature water calibration of the orifices at another facility. An Uncertainty Assessment for the Above Considerations is Included in This Report i s Wrrim%rtevttp wpr-My 22, IW5 i

4.0 Test Evaluations 1 l l l a W%.ps*h u, sws

Test 1-1: Summary of Test Resul'a Test Sequence

• Order of tests: zero offset, offset, freespan, bladder pressurization at 4250 psi with 0.15" offset, zero offset, offset and offset cold test.

- Data points deleted at end of offset test and beginning of free span test due to hysterisis effects.

• Test results show consistent trends with modest fluctuations in data - data appear reliable although the offset leak rate after pressurization lower than the zero offset leak rate is an unexpected result. The effective crack to TSP hole ID clearance for this test was 0.009" compared to the target 0.025" based on measurements of the crack diameter following the flow pressurization offset test.

I Summary of Test Results

• Shallow slope of leak rate curve above about 2000 psi indicates interaction with the TSP. None of the test points show slopes typical of free span indications.

- Pressurization up to about 2130 psi with zero offset opened the crack width to a maximum of 1 0.004". l - With the larger target gap of 0.025", interaction with the TSP would be at a somewhat higher i pressure than obtained for the 0.009" gap in this test. o Based on estimates in Section 5, the geometric flow area is slightly smaller than the. effective crack area and some increase in leakage for the offset condition would be ) expected.

• Maximum leak rate is 4.3 gpm (3.7 gpm at 2560 psi) at 2600 psi for offset conditions The initial increase in leakage after TSP offset is small (about 15%)

For this test, the leak rate continued to increase at a modest slope in the offset condition with a larger step at 2600 psi. The measurable throughwall crack length increased from 0.494" to 0.595" and the width increased from 0.004" to 0.011". It is expected that the' increasing leak rate is attributable to increases in the crack area and breaking of ligaments as the pressure increased.

• The free span leak rate at 2480 Psi is about 60% higher than the offset leak rate. This is a relatively small reduction'in the free span leak rate compared to other tests of long crack lengths.

This would indicate that the crack has not interacted with the TSP over a significant length of 1 the crack (estimate of about 0.1" in Section 5).

• Following bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of about 4250 psi, the leak rates are about the same as the offset leak rates obtained with flow pressurization. The offset leak rate following pressurization was lower than obtained with zero offset.

- The bladder pressurization resulted in a modest increase in the maximum TW crack width from 0.011" to 0.012" and no change in the throughwall length. It is expected that the bladder pressurization resulted in increased crack length interacting with the TSP so as to reduce the effective crack area. - The lower leak rate with crack offset is not expected although the flow area assessments of Section 5 would indicate that the leak rate following bladder pressurization should not increase for the offset condition.' Test records were reviewed for a possible reporting error i but the records clearly documented the appropriate test condition. t a hrckprnwbemp op5. July 23. lWS

Overall Conclusions The SLB leak rate for this 0.6" TW crack is limited to about 3.7 gpm prior to and following bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure. - The effective crack to TSP clearance for this test was 0.009" based on measurements of the crack OD following the flow pressurization offset test. j - The leak rate for this 7/8" specimen is similar to that found for 0.6" TW cracks in 3/4" tubing (4.1 gpm of Test 1-7). Interaction of the crack face with the TSP at about 2000 psi is consistent with other tests of > 0.5" 1W cracks Bladder pressunzation to the fme span burst pressum did not increase the leak rate over that obtained in the prior offset tests l l s %*Wpri'wtsvurp upJuly R IWS

Test 1-1 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (as measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) j I 10.0 I Note: f ree span leakage at the test system limits; high leakage resuhs in higher secondary l side back pressure (293 to 345 psia). Data l includes hyssensis effects smce op were less l than the maximum op in the precedag tests. I l c-nf i -.--on.n.m ( r,.,,____.___- L ~~ + F, s, wr l e i g - G _ Ofh.s 0.15.HT.4250 3 4 __a _. _ et .m y f~ 1.0 1800 1900 2000 2l00 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 Ap (pol) Test 1-1 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to Tp=615'F and ps=15 psia Conditions) L 10.0 Notes: Free span leakage at the test system .. limas; high leakage resuhs an higher secondary side back pressure (29) to 34$ psia). Data mcludes hystensis effects since ap were less than the maximum op in the preceding tests. . _._ I. l l 2 { A

cem s.ur l

l a i __._on . n. m f j' " * -- - _ g As.,,- * * #

Fm uf

.r i J, - ,i = 3 . c-ur. 23. w.-- o { l l - e - oth.: 015. HT. 4250 i

1. ~

I _4 - Ofhst 0 i$. RT,4250 1 - r-n, I l r l i i i i I l.0 1800 1900 2000 2l00 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 op (psi) 1

l a vf.J.<l= ' .t.' .~ ,. g y ':py: ,c *]". v aane or'.**4, ..] Ki Ys'e e w..'9.' .a y'k* -(, F

y. -

.~ s. w '.m -

%c..f.,,, d . >...;r ...s.- ., 4d my > si.:.;- '..'.! w , x. m -,r. ~ w ,:: v m... y ..-y -.u 4 g ..a -...;... ?.: ,c.... ;:- s.*

.'s 4,

p ..g,g ^- l '!

.~

n..

>Q .~ W :a.'O. i ' b ~- !g. .(. ,1,, .a + j p"y _..4:_ c.: 2 f t-r ~. - 9, ~ =.**t-

Au.:r: f A.-

~ s ' T*-. -. :.

, - m.', J -

c. VO. '!.? ^ b .,i. .: S.~$. ?

p.4_.=_.:..g,.

...au. l 5:-',..% ( Q-a e b.5W ;'n. st f,;., .4.: x.is 2,. -ZI,.':p:- 4., w,.. m ; L. ,, $ q* -.. 1 ds? $$st b ~ s.1 2: w.y WiW

3., a

.r.v ?, E 5 0 ]:s ;J f 1 Th~'~:xnt *+ y - EMYJN-E .dt >.i8.el~l..l.$. ?,?- lp's'.%. i. >%w. +.g - ..3.. ~ l 5 ,.'Y.'T.:.'mg:w.3:. x yj.4,x,,. w

v w

.-.3:s'A:.p%_. r- .a. '.ha: h Testi-lb. After Offset Leak Test i f. F' i l ..., y p l . r: ..w. Y ..] ~ g n s w, i. '. 7 -.' f i ~ g l. j s, \\ 1;.' \\} ~ l _ j~L fj':f.- 1 s. -i.t. j. . (* A 2 E W., w.. us n.. 1 1 ~e;. 4 3 i T 1 g-r1 ? }. - ) ?, '.i' h c l r i. l 4.__ t l j i 1 [.'i.... 5:. ! i

l I

i Test 1-Ic. After Bladder Pressurization to 4250 psi and Leak Testing 4 4 - h ~.. _ _ _ _,.. _. _. _ _, _ Test 1 - 1 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 8161Go Tube Diameter = 0.875", Gap = 0.026" Evatuated Test Averages Adjusted Test Averages Evaluation foe Plots Measured g Aversee Lenk Adjusted for Average Test Settes: mr. P-P ap T-g Rate Sequeme No AP,(psi) ,p,,, ,p,g, (pul g3 Rate (RT) (gpm) (gym) (gpml 1-1 A t two 1%7 89 1878 611 1 28 0 27 1 01 1 09 i di 1 65 Amage ef 1. 2 A 3 Watlwn TSP 2 1892 1957 88 1869 610 1 43 0 27 1 01 1 08 1 56 3 2n25 les 80 1828 ell 2 07 0 17 I(U 0 95 19? 4 2074 2092 99 1953 631 I 66 0 16 1 01 1 07 I 79 1.67 Averageof 4 & 5 5 2'e9 2nel 101 19to 6t3 1.7 0 08 8 00 0 91 1.55 6 2258 2173 110 2141 625 1 87 G.22 1 01 1 00 8 88 1 79 Average of 6 & 7 7 2297 2153 116 2035 603 1 99 0 11 0 99 0 86 I 70 8 2Wr2 2245 123 2124 617 I 98 0 16 I(U 0 94 1 86 I #6 lIC 4 2328 2263 129 2134 622 2 12 0.25 8 04 0 96 2 05 2 28 Awrage cil & 2 Offwt o l5" 2 2146 2321 134 2187 633 2.25 0 37 1 01 l os 1 37 3 2487 2406 160 2286 617 2 68 02t 8 00 0 93 2 49 2 49 4 2526 2503 169 2134 631 2 71 0 t7 1 01 100 2.74 2 10 Averste of 4 & 5 5 2540 2529 170 2359 643 2 59 02 1 02 1 08 2 85 6 2656 2678 210 2461 624 3 34 0 17 1 01 0 95 3 20 3 20 7 2678 2742 219 2523 638 3 32 0.16 0 98 1.01 3 29 3 29 -8..-- -.2769 _ 2829 . 229-- -2fdU.- 651- - - 1 97 --.0 26- -. - 0 99 -1 08-- 4 26 4 26--- IlE I Bad Deta FweSpm 2 2312 2142 293 2049 633 46 0 21 0 98 0 93 4 18 Delese - Hysierens 3 2103 2351 M4 2047 612 S il 0 24 0 96 0 82 4 02 4 2528 2655 322 2333 637 5 04 0 27 0 98 0% 4 72 4 77 Average of 4,6 & 7 _3 -2 5 _512 ___ 7 2985 2676 345 2331 626 5 48 0 15 0 97 0 90 4 77 llH I 2176 2130 183 8947 630 2.35 0 25 1.02 0 98 2.34 2 34 Empendal 2 2255 2227 185 2042 643 2 74 0 17 1 04 1.50 3 13 3 13 4250 poi 3 2%8 2%I 204 2157 613 3 41 0.22 l00 0 88 3 00 3.01 Average of 3 & 4 Wethin T5P 4 2381 2396 199 2197 619 3 28 0.16 1 00 0.92 3 02 5 1529 2508 2nB 2VD 612 34 0 12 1 00 0 89 3 03 3 18 Average of 5.6 & 7 6 2553 2497 201 2296 610 3 16 0.22 1 02 0 98 3 85 7 2577 2537 204 2333 639 3 19 0 16 1 03 1 03 3 38 1 -i l i 2447 2392 151 2239 618 2 48 0 15 3 00 0 94 1.33 2.33 Espended 2 2473 2394 151 2243 628 2 39 0 13 1 02 0 99 2 41 2.34 Averageof 2 & 3 4250 pai 3 2590 2434 154 2280 609 2.54 0 15 0 99 0 90 2.27 Orfwt 015* 4 2599 295 157 2349 621 2 45 0.33 1 01 0 95 2 35 2 35 1II I 2348 1867 17 1850 70 3 58 0.1 0 81 0.51 8 46 1 46 Expanded 2 2382 1926 I7 1909 70 3 68 0 08 O SI 0 53 1 59 1.59 4250 pai 3 2479 2086 17 2149 70 3.74 0.1 0 88 0.58 8 77 1.79 Amageof 3 & 4 Offset 015* 4 2493 2101 i7 2084 M 38 0 08 0.88 0.59 I 81 RT 5 2588 2254 18 22 % 70 3% 0It O8t 0 62 2 00 2.03 Averageof 5 & 6 6 2fot 2269 18 2251 70 4 04 0 11 0 $1 0 61 } 05 TESTt-t XLS l-I Tem 7/23/89 499 Pts s-. m t'- =*- = g- .v- --- + t Test 1-1. Summary of Test Dhmensional Measurement Resists Specimen 8161G, Tube Dia. = 0.875", Gap = 0.026" Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. M m. Pressure Oft' et Temp. Angle Creek N N N N Dia. Dia. s i (P'i) (in.) Condition Imagth length Arts length Area (ie.) (im.) (ie.) (Max. (ie') (Max. (im') Note 1 width) N) i fin.) Ga.) None 0.0 Initial O' O.620 O(P 0.620 IIP N.A.m 0.0 N.A.m 0.879 0.876 Steps A, B Dim. 0.6269 0.875 liot 0* 0.6269 0.49f9 0.0020 0.0 N.A. 0.880 0.875 (0.004W) 0.876 None 0.15 Hot 0* 0.63349 0.595(9 0.0045 0.147 0.00074 0.889 0.880 Steps C, D (0.01iW) (0.007W) 0.875 None Free Span Hot No change Steps E, F i 4250 0.0 Hot 0* 0.633 0.595 0.0052 0.0 0.0 0.888 0.881 Steps G, II (0.012W) 0.875 i i 4250 0.15 Hot 0* 0.633 0.595 0.0052 0.147 0.00074 0.888 0.881 Step 1 (0.012W) (0.007W) 0.875 4250 0.15 Cold O* O.633 0.595 0.0054 0.147 0.00088 0.888 0.876 Step 3 (0.012W) (0.008W) 0.874 Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the two edges of the 'ISP. Diameters greater than the initial 0.875" diameter i

indicate bulging of the tube at the edges of the TSP as a result of the tube pressurization.

2. Cracks are tight Ibr specimens not presswined with a bindder and 'IW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths from dye penetrant tests.

1

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope. Minimum measurable 'IW crack opening -0.001" 4

e eye \\spuWebeekt opSJuly 19,1999 T2st Plan f:rIRBs Test 1-1 General Test Infonnation Utilize large leak test facility testing Test 7/8" diameter, corrosion plus fatigue specimen 8161G Silastic mold dye penetrant - 0.62" OD with 0.62" ID Leak test at 615*F except as noted. Testing at > 615 F is acceptable. Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset i from TSP Test Sequence A. Hot (615'F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at edge of TSP at 1900 and 2050 and 2335 psi AP I B. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thmwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). C. Hot (615*F) leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335,2560,2700,2800 psi AP up to facility limit D. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thruwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). E. Perform hot (615 F) free span leak test at the highest AP reached in the Step C test. Care must be excercised in performing this test such that higher APs are not applied to the specimen due to the potential for significant tearing of the crack. Although the test results would not be valid, start testing at a AP about 100 psi lower than the highest AP from Step C and terminate testing if the measured leak rate is about a factor of 3 (factor of 5 for a cold test) or more higher than the largest leak rate obtained from Step C. F. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thruwall lengths / width) and evaluate l crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). l G. With the crack tip 0.15" offset outside the TSP, pressurize to 4150 psid with a bladder. If following pressurization, the corrosion crack tip is more than 0.15" outside the TSP, adjust the specimen to obtain 0.15" cf the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step G. Measum the total crack length, the through wall length / width, the exposed throughwall length / width and the tube { diameter across the crack flanks including at least 5 points along the crack plus the locations of the 3 edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.15" offset and at the edge of the TSP. l Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization. H. Hot (615 F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP I. Hot (615 F) leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP J. R.T. leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP K. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. l l . s.r.m m n im l Test 1-2: Summary of Test Results i Test Sequence Order of tests: zero offset, offset, freespan, blamer pressurization to 4080 psi, zero offset, offset and cold offset - One data point in the initial zero offset test was deleted as the AP was about 90 psi lower than a prior test result. Test results show consistent trends with modest fluctuations in the data - no basis to question data %=cy. He effective tube to TSP hole ID for this test was 0.013" ccniycusi to the target 0.025" based on the measured crack OD following the flow pressurization offset test. The specimen used for this test has been destructively examined (only specimen to date) to provide curyarisons of crack lengths and depths made using the test methods with destructive exam results. Summary of Test Results The shallow slope of the leak rate curve above about 2250 psi shows interaction with the TSP reduces the leak mies. - The pressure causing interaction with the 1SP would likely increase slightly if the crack to TSP gap was increased from the 0.013" test value to the target 0.025",

• The zero offset test up to 2160 psi shows no clear interaction with the TSP and is typical of free span behavior. A slight change in slope at 2160 psi could be indicative of near interaction but the changes are too small to draw conclusions.

Maximum leak rate is about 3.2 gpm for the 0.15" offset test at SLB conditions prior to and after bladder pressurization - The plastic diametral increase at the center of the crack was 13 mils at the end of the test indicating that the tube to TSP at the crack was about 13 mils - There is essentially no increase in leakage as a result of the TSP offset condition o Based on estimates given in Section 5, the effective crack area is about equal to the j geometrical flow area available for leakage within the TSP and leakage would be expected to be limited by the effective crack area. - The otTset test exposed 0.145" of TW crack with a maximum width of 0.009", i.e., almost the entire offset was TW i - The measurable TW length increased from 0.574" to 0.666" during this test phase and the maximum crack width increased from 0.005" to 0.014" t o The crack opening area increased by almost a factor of four over this test phase while i leakage was essentially constant. This implies that the crack opening resulted in increased interaction with the 1EP along the length of the crack such that the effective crack area was nearly a constant over the test phase. The measurements of the crack diameter along the crack length indicates that the crack diameter was nearly constant for about 0.2" following this test which is consistent with the effective crack area for leakage being less i than the total crack area. Free span leak mte of about 8 gpm at 2150 psi, although includes hysterisis effects at this lower pressure, is almost a factor of three higher than for offset test, which clearly demonstrates the ) benefits of'ISP restraint. 1 Bladder pressurization tests have leak rates slightly lower than obtained with flow pressurization and also show negligible difference between zero offset and offset test results. j .wwm%n = Results consistent with expectations when cmck opening ama is less than the geometrical flow area for the emck within the TSP Crack dimensions by fmetography following destmetive examination of the specimen Crack at start of leak testing was a unifonn 0.645" thmughwull (0.383" by corrosion, remaining by fatigue) compared to dye penetrant measurements of 0.640" OD, 0.620" ID Final crack after bladder pressurization and leak testing was 0.675" uniform throughwall compared to 0.688" measured by toolmakers microscoped based on light penetration through the crack - Crack growth from all testing was 0.030" compared to 0.028" measured fmm in-process test measurements - Results for this specimen demonstmte that measumment techniques applied during the test phase am adequate Overall Conclusions The SLB leak rate for a 0.645" thmughwall crack at the start of the test (0.675" 1W at end of test by destmetive exam) is limited to about 3.2 gpm in the offset or zem offset conditions prior to and after bladder pressurization. 'Ihe effective crack to TSP clearance for this test was limited to about 13 mils as indicated by the increase in crack diameter at the end of the test Destmetive examination of the specimen following all testing demonstrates that the rocasumment techniques applied for crack dimensions before and during the test am adequate . w%.i.* n im Test 1-2 indications Restricted From Curst Lmk Rate Tests (as measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10.0 !... j _ _ _ _.L _ _ l_ __ _._.] _ _ I j l l Noses: f ree span leakage at the test system lunits; l l t high leakage results in high secondary side back pressure (442 psia). Data includes hyssensis ! l See Notes l l effects smce Ap was less than the maximum Ap in h pronous suk m l l l ..~.; = c ae.o., g - e - onesto.1s.HT I a F'esapen ett M N ,.a m 'W + canaped.HT,4cto

.. D D

::c,*

e a o Onnetois.wr.4oso 8 .1 o, ~,o'. - < - onest 0.15. RT 4000 l 1 1.0 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 op(psi) Test 1-2 indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to Tp=615'F and ps=15 psia Conditions) 10.0 l l l l 4 Note; iree span leakage at the test system lunns; -._ d___ _ __ high leakage results in high secondary side back ,1 8 pressure (442 psis). Data includes bystensis effects ^ j See Note l since op was less than the maximum Ap in the l prpious subtest senes. { -____.____.j

camine.nr I

3 -O--08est o.15. HT A 4 Freespan. HT o L :aan._L.., f l y, l o com m.nr.*ono g f

• O Onnet c 1$. Mr.40eo d

_,..k ***.,.. ,3, l 1 Onnet c.15. RT. 40to l 6 i 1 i l 1.0 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 Ap (psi) 1 \\ ... M ', \\; > ~,... - - g, ..y- . - ~ 4 t t i 1 1 / I { s l. g)' c 4 I 4 l 1 w;. ~ l ^ .1,.k' l 4 J l 1 Test 1-2a. Prior to leak Testing l L l %, f :; / ;; '; s.,4.' ~~' -u j , n.. l i j 3

s.. n-...,.; y:

f_.

. ;. r e ' -

.... > '... 2...,.; ...t 3,

W,..

.... ~.... i -.e~.4, . v !:., ', ?_1 ~~ y ' t.f. . _.. A f. 3 e'..l*:.a.Ji'b~Q t . f _ f -tf l

• n

's 4 l _ c l -2.- s p ~

,1 t.

fg .c g. I '. Q. \\ t i 6 l 3 ~ I e i t 1 j ( 4< t j.- t.- i g a ' ~ )j -e c, f 4... -f_G.' a ..3

a..

J.d I t)- r~- jw g 37:, 4 i l l Test 1-2b. After Offset Leak Test l l d'

• .m....

4.,,u,a.4,,_ n s Qk,".f ~'*.s' 1 .,_ y;, .**j, e9 p. e . } Y. s r ,f. O d ) 4 e w. m 7-4 E,,: i. J.., 2 + z O .., -gp h . l* : f f t Iy :f,.. I l' 'fa i B ) n<.- .N ,r 3 1 4 ' \\# l h'f*hfhhkh;.jih; l 3 : ?, - 3:.'\\ < ' &<g '!"J) A. .{-;,y, ff. l l." 4.,~. .:t 4 ' : ~~ ip W;, in,

~ T..

' l (.-)*.k

• l

. H, !.f'.1 ,,0,.'.;if I j

g e7 * *,

y,g -..P 's A' 8 i , j,NE 1, N l 4 h, *, I .5 s ,-:7 l ,f } 4:-. y ~ e 'e 2 5 iE Test 1 - 2 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 8161 E, Tube Diameter = 0.874", Gap = 0.027" l Evaluated Test Averages AdjustedTest Averages Evaluation for Plots Measured '^ = leak Average Adjusted for Average Test Sutxest Max. P P T Rate m m g p T temp. & teak Rate Comments . Sequence No. AP.,(psi) gp,;gy gp,;g3 (psi) gy) "U NsWM (spm) Rate (RT) I8P*) (Erm) f-ni 12A i 1892 1%I 89 1872 622 1.24 0.13 1.01 0.98 1.22 1.37 Average of I & 2 Within TSP 2 1931 2005 93 1912 627 1.46 0.13 1.01 1.03 t.52 3 1869 1909 89 1820 612 1.55

0. ll 1.00 0.89 138 138 Delete Hysteresis 4

2022 2071 116 1955 627 1.93 0.17 1.01 I.01 1.% l.89 Average of 4.5 & 6 5 2%8 2048 122 1926 607 2.1 0.12 0.99 0.86 1.79 6 2072 2073 125 1948 619 2.05 0.1 1.00 0.93 l.92 7 2288 2213 173 2040 610 2.85-0 08 1.00-0.87 2 46 2.46~ ~I 62I - 3.21 0.12 -~.~00 0.9i~ 2.% 2.% 8 2324 2283 194 208 1 9 2337 2356 1% 2160 636 3 13 0 04 1.02 1.02 3.24 3.24 l-2C I 2312 2412 193 2219 637 3.18 0.11 1.02 1.03 332 332 Offset 0.15* 2 2346 2464 206 2258 628 2.% 0.1 1.01 0.% 2.88 3.15 Average of 2 & 3 3 2517 2528 235 2293 621 3.72 0.15 1.00 0.92 3 43 4 2665 2614 184 2430 631 2.85 0.08 1.01 0.99 2.87 2.87 5 2720 2728 198 2530 625 3.11 0.22 1.01 0.% 3 01 3.09 Average of 5.6 & 7 6 _2780 _ 2740 _ 197 -._ _ 2543 _ 639 2.99 0.18 1.02 1.03 3.13 I-2E I 2387 2591 442 2149 646 7.21 0.44 1.03 0.94 6.98 6.98 Free Span 1-2H I 2374 2326 150 2176 635 2.6 0.24 1.03 1.04 2.77 2.77 4080 psi 2 2374 2404 152 2252 646 231 0.25 1.04 1.13 2.71 2.71 Expanded 3 2643 2565 174 2391 621 2.74 0.22 1.01 0.95 2.62 2.62 Within TSP 4 2659 2649 172 2477 636 2.58 0.17 1.03 1.02 2.71 2.71 1-21 1 2379 2368 158 2210 634 2.49 0.11 I.02 1.03 2.62 2.62 Expanded 2 2397 2426 158 2268 645 2.4 0.22 1.04 1.11 2.77 2.77 4080 psi 3 2672 2537 179 2358 616 2.85 0.15 1.00 0.92 2.64 2.64 Ofhet 0.15" 4 2677 2624 175 2449 632 2.69 0.15 1.02 1.00 2.75 2.75 l-21 1 2358 2228 21 2207 70 3.93 0.04 0.81 0.62 1.97 1.97 RT 2 2377 2281 21 2260 70 3 98 0.06 0.81 0.63 2.03 2.03 Expanded 3 2673 2509 22 2487 70 4.34 0.07 0.81 0.67 236 2.37 Average of 3 & 4 4080 psi 4 2678 2544 22 2522 70 431 0 05 0.81 0.68 237 Ofhet 0.15" TESTI-2.XLS I.2 TaNe 7/23?95 4-M PM Test 1-2.' Summary of Test Dimensional Measuresnest Results Specimen 816IE, Tube Dia. = 0.874", Gap = 0.027" Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. M s. Pressure Ofbet Temp. Angle Crack TW 'IW TW ~IW Dia. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition length length Area Imagth Area (ie.) (ie.) 2 (in.) (Max. (ia ) (Max. (in') Note 1 Width) Width) (in.) (ia.) None 0.0 Initial 0 0.650 OD') 0.620 ID') N.A.* 0.0 N.A.m 0.876 0.873 Steps A, B Dim. 0.645") 0.874 flot 0 0.673") 0.574") 0.0017 0.0 N.A. 0.879 0.873 (0.fh5W) 0.874 None 0.15 llot 0* 0.735") 0.666*) 0.0065 0.145 0.00087 0.887 0.882 Steps C, D (0.014W) (0.009W) 0.875 None Free Span flot No change Steps E, F 4080 0.0 !!ct 0* 0.735 0.666 0.0073 0.0 0.0 0.887 0.873 Steps G, II (0.015W) 0.874 4080 0.15 Ikx 0* 0.735 0.668 0.0078 0.085 0.00051 0.888 0.882 Step I (0.015W) (0.007W) 0.874 j 4080 0.15 Cold 0* 0.735 0.668 0.0079 0.085 0.00055 0.888 0.880 Step 3 (0.015W) (0.008W) 0.874 Notes:

1. Diameters given are wva.aly the values at the two edges of the TSP. Dumeters greater than the initial 0.874" diameter indicate bulging of the tube at the edges of the TSP as a result of the tube pressurization.

2. Cracks are tight for specimens not pressunzed with a bladder and TW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths from dye penetrant tests.

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope. Mininnan measurable TW crack opening -0.001"

.wwww.u-ps+a n. im r ~.. Tcst Plan f:rIRBs Test 1-2 General Test Infonnation Utilize large leak test facility testing = . Test 7/8" diameter, corrosion plus fatigue specimen 8161E Silastic mold dye penetrant - 0.64" OD with 0.62" ID Leak test at 615 F except as noted. Testing at > 615*F is acceptable. = . Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset from TSP Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall contact the TSP hole at 180* from the crack being leak tested. Test Sequence A. Hot (615*F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at edge of TSP at 1900 and 2050 and 2335 psi AP B. Measure crack opening length, diameter, arca (total lengths and thmwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). C. Hot (615 F) leak test with crack tip 0.10' offset outside TSP at 2335,2560,2700,2800 psi AP up to facility limit D. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thruwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). E. Perform hot (615*F) free span leak test at the highest AP mached in the Step C test. Care must be excercised in performing this test such that higher APs am not applied to the specimen due to the potential for significant tearing of the crack. Although the test results would not be valid, start testing at a AP about 100 psi lower than the highest AP from Step C and terminate testing if the measured leak rate is about a factor of 3 (factor of 5 for a cold test) or more higher than the largest i leak rate obtained from Step C. F. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thmwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). G. With the crack tip 0.15" offset outside the TSP, pmssurize to 4080 psid with a bladder. If following pressurization, the corrosion crack tip is more than 0.15" outside the TSP, adjust the specimen to obtain 0.15" of the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step G. Measure the total crack length, the through wall length / width, the exposed throughwall length / width and the tube diameter across the crack flanks including at Icast 5 points along the crack plus the locations of the edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.15" offset and at the edge of the TSP. Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization. l H. Hot (615 F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP I. Hot (615 F) leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP J. R.T. leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP K. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. l l e \\apr\\epnhaltspot oplLJuly 23,1996 Test 14f Summary of Test Results and Evaluation Test Sequence

• Order of tests: zero offset, offset 0.1", fmespan, bladder pressurization to 3220 psi, zero offset and offset 0.1". All tests are hot tests.

- Freespan test, performed at lower & than prior tests, includes hysterisis effects - test gfonnsi only to demonstrate magnitude of difference in leak rate between free span and crack within EP - Data points below maximum & of 2439 psi were deleted in zero offset test at end of test sequence and offset test at beg 6Jng of sequence Leak test results show consistent trends with modest fluctuations in data - no basis to question data @y. De crack to TSP clearance for this test was 0.026" cump ui to the target 0.025" as supported by the crack diameter measurement showing an increase in the crack diameter of 0.027" fo!!owing the flow pressurization offset test. Summary of Test Results Shallow slope ofleak rate versus & curve above about 2000 psi indicates interaction with EP and reduced leak rates - All slopes of leak rate curve are less than typical of free span slope - Pressurization to 2439 psi with the crack within the EP opened the plastic cmck width to a maximum of 0.024" Leak rates at SLB pressure differential with 0.10" offset are bounded by about 5.5 gpm prior to l and after bladder pressurization - Bis test. r rformed with a 0.026" tube to TSP gap, resulted in the widest crack openings of all tests uformed (except subsequent bladder pressurization for this specimen) with maximum crack opening widths of 0.044" inside the EP and 0.024" outside the EP his specimen was the only crack that was tight in the EP collar following flow o pressurization to about 2500 psi - ne crack opening visible by light through the crack was 0.724" of the total 0.750" crack length and was more than 0.019" wide for > 0.6" length - Plastic defonnation increased the crack opening diameter to the ID of the tube over about 0.25" at the center of the crack leak rate increased fmm about 3.1 gpm for zero offset to 5.5 gpm at completion of the offset test with the crack tip 0.10" outside the BP. His range of leak rates includes increased l crack opening due to higher &s. At comparable &s, the offset leak mte was about 30% higher than found for zero offset. I Consistent with detectable (visible light through crack) increases in TW crack length o (0.619" to 0.724"), maximum crack width (0.024" to 0.044") and crack opening area (factor of 2). o Based on estimates in Section 5, the geometric flow area is less than the effective crack area for this test and an increase in leakage for the offset condition would be expected. Leak rates for the crack within the EP and offset 0.1" following bladder pressurization to the fire span burst pressure of about 3220 psi at 0.10" offset are approximately equal to that obtained for 0.10" offset prior to bladder pressurization. Le leak rate following bladder . w~n -,.m u. m t pressurization is approximately independent of the EP offset position. ' 'Ihe bladder pressurization had no significant influence on the leak rate even though the maximum plastic width increased frorn 0.044" to 0.050". However, the increased bladder pressurization did not significantly open the orack width at the ends of the cmck 'Ihe measured is+ leak rate of 13.1 gpm (facility limit) at a AP of 1495 psi following prior testing at 2530 psi is substantially higher than the 5.5 spm obtained for the crack cwooded by the TSP even though the pressure differential is much lower 'Ihe measured leak rate at 1495 psi is high due to hysterisis effects. Overall Conclusions 'Ihis tat of a 0.74" throughwall crack, s an upper bound leak test sin throughwall lengths of this magnitude would not be expected even with the full APC repair limit with tube' expansion of 10 to 15 volts - A repair limit of only 3.0 volts has been Pad by Comed for implementation of tube expansion at Braidwood-1 and Byron-1 A 0.74" TW length is larger than would ever be expected in field scavice even for a renair l: limit of about 15 volts as shown by European experience The SLB leak rate prior to and after bladder pressurization is bounded by about 5.5 gpm at 2560 psi including the maximum potential 0.10" EP offset condition EP constraint reduces the maximum SLB leak rate by more than a factor of three compared to free span conditions I. For this 0.74" TW indication prior to leak testing, the leakage results indicate the EP interaction occunxi at about 2000 psi AP t S WW W& N IW Test 14 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (t6a measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 100.0 -Nets 1: Pganspan lenhageat See. as.e.teygtem.og' y _sineteshs.meeiise~ @,--) t ^ g j l i l l i l l I I l 1 ( l l

Camered HT g

l i --e>--Offue 010. HT j 10 0 a: =c . r HT .w l oo CenaeredHTJ220 D.- -O**

• • • T O Offsei 0.10 HT.3220

- e - Offset 0.10. RT 3220 im E I l 1.0 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 Ap(pel) i Test 14 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to Tp=615 oF and Ps =15 psia conditions except as noted) 100 0 Noe6: Iha dem a6one is moramaand so prunary-suna j ._ _. and semperomre of 2250 pois and 615 des F. l 1

• Pacavely.

Nees 2 Error bands represent

• I e f standard deverieel i

I N I Centered, HT 3 Deces 1 l I O

0. HT 10 0 <

f. a Freespan. HT O yj o Centered.HT.3220 n... -0. e s W.**Q " '

• T O - Ofhet 010.HT 3220 t

- e - Offsec o lo, RT. 3220 lI l F i 10 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 ap (psi) .y.... . o - y,*

• y. ;. e., -.=.*.* *M...,

T..N ESf'~t h(. 25 5 f{e, h*h k }V g - w g.,r. w,4*-Y $ h J.'.~. ka.9,n Ct.. $f hg;**;~':p<. ? a:,.~. go*.w' m. .--... :an t f'"'.. ~.- w; i c., J. ,y, ;.'.. ,y*4 s ,.. ",.,:

• ej.%. ; *.

. fr h *, W"*3' N.*) #* D.* N t. .%?v J= **W.%.e y W.7. 4.A ~

• u...

f we ~. $ 'g. j.-

• 4.-

a er r? '. ~ '-Wp "'i s a

• m i*;

Lv 'v k jff ee.. N Yr * *'* _, yj r i,.'

• T:

+:.,,..w~~~. ~.'e _Q. af G* ' *** ' ~. O h... d. D. '.., N .g 4

• m.

.T ~es,'g.!g-as , (9 .*^f'.*~ ,a;f .s M.. ~ e h. i

• I &

p *. ,.m-y, ,..M fws g~ g-

tty

• 5

- G,J.;z -Q k g j-f, .~. .O h 1 r l n. { m'.'.~ .} T *,. [ 2** A. a,, OM~f ~ R

p.d.

~ p. . ? h'- 1 ~ ?%.M..t-M- ,. -, ~ ~ a --- e. -...... ne. _.4,;- q * 'g ===a-p' 7, C. W'. 4 ?,b',' .k;+ .~' u

, zw.

,..+, * = ',...

. ns y D*sts.7*. , E,* w-b5 .d., ..h.;j d* Q' ki 'W'.5L: s Q > '

L.

.<? u

• ?x.'s f,

s , % *., t.. f' p%=w ~ e l

• T S
• .J 4 5.L

,....,,, fx: y + - .m-4 "S gs .. #1;,., -. :. 'l ., e p :

• w..'

. I Sg$.[' I. '.' ft ',, (3

,.N J., '*

-.s.E***-**- ..h ,I.E e i t Test 1-6. After Bladder Pressudzation to 3320 psi and leak Testing l i n Test 1 - 6 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 2008E, Tube Diameter = 0.745", Gap = 0.926" EvaluatedTest Averages Adjusted Test Aveenges Evehsetion for Plots - Measured teak Test Subiest P P.,o.a., Ap T,,, Average Leak Raec y Ad W Amage p" m (P50

epsig, gpugy (ps0 g)

Rate (RT) Uncertainty M& Wase h Sequence No. (gpin) (gp,,) Pres 5mre@$ (8 pen) (apen) I4A I 1848 t946 109 1837 630 1 69 0.19 1.08 1.06 1.81 1.81 WitlWe T5P 2 1928 2045 125 1920 638 1.89 0 17 1.02 l.I3 2.18 2.23 Averageof 2 & 3 3 1930 2041 126 19I5 639 1.% 0.12 1.02 I.14 2.29 4 2044 2167 138 2029 639 2.06 0.18 1.02 l.10 2.32 2.46 Averageof 4 &5 5 2050 2172 146 2026 645 2.16

0. I2 1 03 1.18 2.61 6

2258 2409 173 2236 655 2.44 0 06 1.04 1.21 3 07 3.07 7 2478 2650 211 2439 630 2.% 0.23 l.01 0.98

• *2 2.92 8

2364 2461 204 2257 632 3.20 0 12 1.01 0.99 _9.._. 2388 _ __ 2447 _ _ 212 _ 2235.. _ 611 _ _ 3.53 0.21 _ l.00 _ 0 98 _ _,,. lu_ Delese-Hysterents Delese - Hysseresis,_ to 2370 2493 220 2273 623 3 45 0.12 1.01 0 93 3.23 Delese "^, ___ _ 148 _I_ _2272 . _ 2511 _ _ 252 _ _2259 _. _64 8 _. _ 3.85 0.36 1.03 l.07 _ 4 25 _Deleer - Hyveeresis Offut 0.tr ._.__2,,_ 2294. _ _25 29..,._ _ _254 _2270_, __661_ _ 3 45 0.49 ,135_,,,,,,,_ ,_I 25___ 4._54_ _Delese - Hysserests_ 3 2326 2493 287 2206 631 4.78 0 71 1.01 0.94 4 53 Delete-Hyneerents 4 2554 2692 290 2402 648 4 66 0.53 i G3 1.04 4 99 4.95 Average of 4 & 5 5 2568 2736 316 2420 629 5.23 0.93 1.0I ~ 0.93 4.9 t 6_. _ J732.,,,.,,,js7L 333 _,_2533__ _6 3 5 _,.,_ jp4 a!2 1.02 . _,,,_0M__._ 5.46 5.42 Averageof 6 & 7 7 2710 2868 347 2521 630 5 74 0 71 1.01 0 93 5.39 14C I 4520 2397 902 1495 646 13.05 1.51 1.03 8.65 22.16 22.I6 .l l 14F i 2272 2490 253 2237 650 4.37 0.77 1.05 1.09 4.99 4.57 Average of 1,2 & 4 Expamled 2 ._2}92_ _ _2518 284 _2234_ _646_ 4.10 0.44 1.04 j.03_ 4.42 3220 psi 3 2386 2446 298 2148 622 4.72 0 80 1.01 0.88 4.19 4.19 Witina TSP 4 2396 2509 296 22I3 631 4.53 0.56 1.02 0.93 4.38 5 2524 2563 306 2257 616 4.89 0.43 1.00 - 0.87 4.24 4.28 Averageof 5 & 7 6 2582 2702 299 2403 634 4.70 0.80 1.02 0.96 4.60 4.60 7 25 % 2579 315 2264 613 5.07 0.06 1.00 0.85 4.32 1-60 1 2iO6 2245 265 1980 639 4.19 0.21 I.03 0.99 4.29 4.17 Average of I & 2 Espended 2 2226 2305 277 2028 626 4 46 0.12 I.01 0.90 4.05 3220 psi 3 2362 2387 292 2095 636 4.37 0.14 1.03 0.% 4.28 4.28 Offset 0.IO" 4 2370 2464 305 2159 618 4 95 0.16 1.00 0.86 4.27 4.27 5 2580 2610 310 2900 _ 633 4.94 0.07 1.02 0.94 4.76 4.66 Averageef 5 & 6 6 2560 2636 327 2309 681 5.41 0.11 1.00 0 85 4 57 14H I 2285 2I09 $5 2054 75 8.14 0.23 0.81 0.58 3.82 3.82 Expandrd 2 2416 2187 58 2129 75 8.34 0.18 0.81 0 60 4.05 - 4.05 3220 psi 3 2374 2323 62 2268 75 8.46 0.26 0 81 0 63 4.32 4.31 Averageof 3 & 4 Offnes 010", ItT 4 2576 2325 61 2264 75 8 42 0 32 0.81 0 63 4.30 mr:4 xts i4 ten wws a si Poe i Test 1-6. Summary of Test Dimensional Measurement Results Specimen 2008E, Tube Dia. = 0.745", Gsp = 0.026" INadder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. Min. Pressure Ofhet Temp. Angle Crack TW DV BV DV Dia. Dia. j (psi) (in.) Condition Erngth length Arra length Area (in.) (in.) 2 r (in.) (Max. (in ) (Max. (in ) Note 1 Width) Width) (in.) (in.) None 0.0 Initial 0* 0.735 OIP 0.760 IIP N.A.m 0.0 N.A.m 0.746 N.A m Steps A, B Dim. 0.738 Ilot 0 0.738 O.619*) 0.0118 0.0 N.A. 0.760 0.743 (0.024W) 0.747 None 0.10 Ilot 0* 0.75I") 0.724") 0.0249 0.070 0.0013 0.772 0.765 Steps C, D (0.044W) (0.024W) Tight in 0.741 collar None Free Span flot Not iraul Steps E, F l 3220 0.0 llot C* 0.750 0.726 0.0257 0.004 0.000012 0.773 0.752 Steps G,Il (0.050W) (0.003W) Tight 0.755 3220 0.10 ilot 0* 0.756 0.726 0.0262 0.070 0.0016 0.772 0.765 Step I (0.052W) (0.025W) Tight 0.742 3220 0.10 R.T. Not measurrd Step J Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the two edges of the 'ISP. Diameters greater than the initial 0.745" diameter indicate bulging of the tube at the edges of the TSP as a result of the tube pressuruation.

2. Cracks are tight for specimens not pn:ssunzed with a bladder and TW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths from dye perdu 4 tests.

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope Minimum measurable TW crack opening -0.001" e pr\\*rri\\a+aed2*r51=ly 17.1"5 w-___-

-__-_________-----__-_.__-__s Test Plan f;r IRBs Test 1-6 General Test Information Utilize large leak test facility testing Test 3/4" diameter, specimen 2008E - Corrosion (no fatigue) crack length: Silastic mold dye penetrant - 0.735" OD with 0.76" ID Leak test at 615 F except as noted. Testing at > 615 F is acceptable. Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset from TSP Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall contact the TSP hole at 180' from the crack being leak tested. Test Sequence A. Ilot (615 F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at edge of TSP at 1900 and 2050 and 2335 psi AP B. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thruwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). C. Hot (615"F) leak test with crack tip 0.10" effset outside TSP at 2335,2560,2700,2800 psi AP up to facility limit D. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thmwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). E. Perform hot (615 F) free span leak test. Care must be excercised in performing this test such that higher APs are not applied to the specimen due to the potential for significant tearing of the crack. Although the test results would not be valid, start testing at a AP lower than the highest AP from Step C and terminate testing if the measured leak rate is about a factor of 3 or more higher than the largest leak rate obtained from Step C. F. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thruwall lengths / width) and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). G. With the crack tip 0.10" offset outside the TSP, pressurize to 3200 psid with a bladder. If following pressurization, the conosion crack tip is more than 0.10" outside the TSP, adjust the specimen to obtain 0.10" of the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step H. Measure the total crack length, the through wall length / width, the exposed throughwall length / width and the tube diameter across the crack flanks including at least 5 points along the crack plus the locations of the edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.10" offset and at the edge of the TSP. Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization. 11.110t (615 F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP I. Ilot (615 F) leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP J. R.T. leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP K. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. j l . w.mr.e- -,m, n. nm 1 Test 1-7: Summary of Test Results Test Sequence Order of tests: zero offset, offset, bladder pressurization at 2970 psi with 0.10" offset, offset and zero offset. All tests are hot tests. - Initial data point in offset test deleted due to AP below prior test at 2382 psi. Leak test results show consistent trmds with modest fluctuations in data - no basis to question data wie?-y. However, the effective crack to EP hole ID clearance for this test was 0.020" l based on the crack diameter at the end of the flow pressurization offset test rather than the target 0.025". Summary of Test Results Shallow slope ofleak rate versus AP curve above 2200 psi shows interaction with EP reduces leak rates - Initial slope ofleak rate curve up to 2030 psi test point is more typical of free span slope - Pressurization to 2380 psi with zero offset opened the plastic crack width to a maximum of O.011" Maximum leak rate is 4.1 gpm for offset condition at SLB conditions prior to and after bladder i pressurization - Initial increase (20% to 30% at overlapping pressures) in leak rate after 0.10" offset may indicate reduced TSP restriction on flow after offset. The higher temperatures (650 to 690 F) during the offset test resulted in larger data adjustments (leak rate increases) to the reference conditions, which may introduce some uncertainty in the data adjustment. o Based on estimates in Section 5, the effective cmck area should be smaller than the geometric flow area for the offset test and the offset test leakage would not be expected to be significantly higher than the zem offset leakage. For tests that can be couv iwi, Test I-e 7 is the only test for which the more limiting of the effective crack area or geometrical flow area may not be consistent with the difference in zero offset and offset leak rates. - The maximum AP of 2800 psi resulted in a maximum arack width of 0.014" i Following bladder pressurization to 2970 psi (under the free span burst pressure of about 3900 i psi), the leak rates are approximately independent of the crack offset condition and about the - same as obtained with zero offset prior to bladder pressurization and less than the maximum 4.2 gpm leak rate - Leak rates decreased following bladder pressurization even though the crack width increased from 0.014" to 0.022". This effect indicates that the effective crack area is less than the total area, likely due to interaction of the crack with the TSP over some length of the crack (diameter measurements indicate about 0.2") - The lack ofleak rate dependence on the cmek offset position indicates that leakage is more dependent on effective crack area than on gestnical flow restrictions. This is expected since the crack area is less than the geometrical flow area. Ovemli Conclusions The SLB leak rate for 0.6" TW crack at start of test (0.613" at end of test) is limited to about 3 4.2 gpm prior to and after bladder pressurization ws.n.,.u m r - - Ihe effective crack to 'ISP clearance for this test was 0.020" based on the crack diameter at the end of the offset flow test. Large (> about 0.5") throughwall cracks interact with the TSP to limit leak mies including conditions with a 0.10" 'IW crack outside the 'ISP - For this 0.6" TW crack, interaction with the 'ISP is indidad at about 2200 psi and higher SLB leak rate following bladder pn:ssurization are less than that obtained for the 0.I0" offset i condition with rior flow pressurization and are essentially independent of the 'ISP offset I position t i i l i s WWatsvirp ayr My 22,1995 Test 1-7 Indications Restricted From Curst Leak Rate Tests (as-measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10.0 .1_. _ I I i l i l

cm.m A

b --.-ow o io. m ., ~f.am N ~ - c - ons s o,o. m. nm 3 l ..: ' r~,, . c .. =7. p*."N 1 I I a i' 1.0 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 AP(Poi) Test 1-7 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to Tp=615'F and ps=15 psia Conditions) 10.0 I ( l I l I t [ .g __.. i L.. _ I l I I l l_.. _. j i i I 4 f, O -l-g A, l i 1 I 4 _.....t.. .7 I I -+- =*'o* p.m _ _,, o i i, -____.__i t._.. l / @ *,,, _ _., - C - ors.t 0.10. HT 2970 i'. e - o-c w. m.as m .as 3 l f l l / i i 4 i l l l i i i I i i. 3 i j i 1.0 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2l00 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 AP (Pol) ~.. l. r-J* * .7 i ,y 4 . du 4 1 s 3... 7[.f 27yg,,. %Kcf ~~ 4 %s.r.- w- .j y' ir. m-ytz 1 .y ,, 3.,, f _ ,u z.,> r:a. - k,. h ~l p:. ~b ~ r = Q-2 9 si g:. h h.; .. -d .? ~ .w-1 c e-sr p* K"% g' % 4 i,,, ST t.- --

p. 4 h ;"5-2..

f. ?M ~1@ j']*: GEN _^ -? g n- ,a r c, ::rc.. W. n,..n.-. .t ~ s - ~ j'i;* g': ,g uy ~y am c; I K i? .'=.:.... ... c i i Test 1-7. After Bladder Expansion to 2970 psi and Leak Testing Test 1 - 7 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 2051 A, Tube Diameter = 0.747", Gap = 0.026" Evaluated Test Averages Adjusted Test Averages Evaluation for Plots Measured bak Average Leak Adjusted Average Test Subtest Max. P-P% Apw T,, Rate g p y for temp. & M Rate e-. Sequence No. AP (psi) (M s) (WE) (Psi) (F) Uncertainty Pressu @ @) i Rm @ f enm) (gpm) l-7A I 1948 1976 134 1842 635 1.99 0.18 1.02 I.09 2.21 2.35 Averageof R & 2 _ Within TSP 2 1898 2027 139 1888 636 2.23 0.28 1.02 1.09 2.48 3 2024 2170 I5I 2019 647 2.48 0.19 1.03 1.20 3.07 3.06 Average of 3 & 4 4 2048 2192 152 2040 647 2.48 0.23 1.03 1.19 3.05 5 2284 2424 169 2255 650 2.65 0.17 1.03 1.15 3.16 3.16 6 2392 2521 139 2382 664 2.22 0.09 1.05 1.31 3.07 3 07 l l-7B ..- I.- -2162 - 2343 .210- -2133 - -_641-- 3.6 0.37 1.02 .- 1.05 3.86 Delete - Hysterests 3 2370 2584 236 2348 670 3.29 0.19 1.06 1.31 4.60 4 2482 2684 239 2445 648 3.79 0.51 1.03 1.% 4.16 4.16 5 2614 2769 215 2554 658 3.18 3.18 1.04 1.14 3.77 3.% Average of 5 & 6 6 2602 2782 223 2559 669 3.16 0.22 1.06 1.24 4.15 7 2824 2924 212 2712 677 2.99 0.3 1.08 1.29 4.14 4.14 8 2836 3001 201 2800 690 2.43 0.21 I.13 1.44 3.% 3.96 1-7F I 2348 2471 217 2254 652 2.31 0.27 1.05 1.13 2.76 2.83 Average of l & 2 Expanded 2 2322 2409 198 22tl 641 2.67 0.33 1.03 1.05 2.90 2970 psi 3 2632 2613 212 2401 636 2.86 0.45 1.03 1.01 2.95 3.04 Average of 3 & 4 t Offset 0.10* 4 2622 2602 206 23 % 631 3.12 0.1 1.02 0.98 3.13 5 2598 2666 197 2469 638 2.99 0.5 1.03 1.02 3.15 3.15 1-7G I 2130 2328 236 2092 639 2.35 0.13 1.03 1.01 2.46 2.46 2970 psi 2 2338 2344 126 2258 649 2.595 0.19 1.05 1.18 3.21 3.28 Average of 2 & 5 Expanded 3 2304 2334 139 2195 623 2.7 0.09 1.01 0.97 2.64 2.64 Within TSP 4 2544 2565 139 2426 640 2.65 0.12 1.03 1.07 2.92 2.92 5 2542 253I 249 2282 622 3.65 0.14 1.01 0 91 3.35 TESTI-7.XLS l.7 T.Ne 7/23/95 4 44 PM ~ _ _ _. _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ l 7 1 == - ~ - - l Test 1-7. Sununary of Test Dinwnsm>aal Measurement Results l Specimen 2051 A, Tube Dia. = 0.747", Gap = 0.026" IMadder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Expmed Max. Min. l Pitssure Offset Temp. Angle Crack DV DV TW TW "m*. Dia. 9 (psi) (in.) Condition Irngth Irngth Area length Area (in.) (in.) 2 (in.) (Max. (in ) Max. (in') Note 1 Wdth) Width) (in.) (in.) None 0.0 Initial O' O.60 ID* 0.58 OIP N.A.m 0.0 N.A.m 0.748 0.747 Steps A, B Dim. 0.748 Ilot O' O.6099 0.530'9 0.0043 0.011 0.000055 0.759 0.749 (0.0llW) (.005W) 0.748 None 0.10 Ilot O' O.621 0.602 0.0071 0.091 0.00064 0.767 0.755 Steps C, D (0.014W) (.007W) 0.745 2970 0.10 llot 0 0.625 0.613 0.0087 0.100 0.00087 0.766 0.756 Steps E, F (0.022W) (~.011W) 0.747 2970 0.00 llot 0 0.625 0.613 0.0090 0.0 0.0 0.764 0.748 Step G (0.022W) 0.746 Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the two edges of the TSP. Diameters greater than the initial 0.747" diameter indicate bulging of the tube at the edges of the 'ISP as a result of the tube pressun2ation.

2. Cracks are tight for specimens not pressunzed with a bladder and TW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths from dye penetrant tests.

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope Minimum measurable TW crack opening -0.001" n=\\,es - -rnvnim

Tcst Plan f;r1RBs Test 17 General Test Information ] Utilize large leak test facility testing j = Test 3/4" diameter, specimen 2051 A - Corrosion plus fatigue crack length: Silastic mold dye penetrant - 0.58" OD with 0.60" TW . Leak test at 615'F except as noted. Testing at > 615'F is acceptable. j Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset i from TSP Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall contact the TSP hole at 180* fmm the crack being leak tested. Test Sequence A. Hot (615'F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at edge of TSP at 1900 and 2050 and 2335 psi AP B. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thruwall lengths / width) and evaluate I crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). C. Ilot (615 F) leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335,2560,2700,2800 psi AP up l to facility limit l D. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area (total lengths and thruwall lengths / width) and evaluate I crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). l E. With the crack tip 0.10" offset outside the TSP, pressurize to about 3035 psid with a bladder. If following pressurization, the corrosion crack tip is more than 0.10" outside the TSP, adjust the specimen to obtain 0.10" of the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step G. l Measure the total crack length, the through wall length / width, the exposed throughwall length / width and the tube diameter across the crack flanks including at least 5 points along the crack plus the locations of the edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.10" offset and at the edge of the TSP. Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization. F. Hot (615 F) leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP G.110t (615 F) leak test with crack inside the TSP and crack tip at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP

11. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth pmfile.

l e \\apr\\esm\\telrepec wp54uly 23.1996 Test 2-1: Summary of Test Results Test Sequence Order of tests: zero offset, free span, offset, offset cold, bladder pressunzation at 4500 psi with 0.15" offset, offset, zero offset, offset cold. One data point in the offset flow test was deleted due to AP below prior test at 2266 psi. leak test results show consis'ent trends with modest fluctuations in the data - no basis to question data adequacy. However, the effective crack to EP hole ID cleamnce for this test was 0.010" based on the crack diameter at the end of the flow pmssurization offset test rather than the target 0.025" clearance. Summary of Test Results Shallow slope ofleak test results above 2300 psi shows interaction with the TSP reduces leak rates. - Interaction with the TSP occurred between 1900 and 2300 psi but cannot be further refined as free span leak rates were performed between these two pressures. - ne small crack to EP gap of 0.010" for this test likely resulted in crack intemction with the EP at a lower pressure than would have been obtained with the bounding 0.025" gap. Le offset condition resulted in a SLB leak rate of about 1.7 gpm at 2560 psi for this 0.52" throughwall crack at the start of the test. Pressurization to 2624 psi in the flow offset test opened the plastic crack width to a maximum of 0.010" - ne offset leak rate at 2300 psi is about equal to the free span leak rate at 2150 psi, which demonstrates that the TSP reduced the leak rate significantly compared to that expected for a free span indication. Following bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of about 4500 psi, the SLB leak mte increased fmm about 1.7 gpm prior to bladder pressurization to about 3.1 gpm and the leak rates are approximately independent of the crack offset condition. - Even though the offset test exposed a 0.132" TW crack, there is no significant difference in leakage between the leak rates for the offset and zero ofis 1 tests following bladder pressurization. From the trend analyses of Sect on 5, the effective crack area is slightly i smaller than the geometric flow area following bladder pt :ssurization and no significant differences between leak rates in the offset and zero offse condition would be expected. - Bladder pressurization increased the effective crack openir.g area by 15% compamd to the flow offset test which is less than expected for the mom significant increase in leak rate. Overall Conclusions ne SLB leak rate for this 0.52" TW cmck at the start of the test is limited to about 1.7 gpm prior to bladder pressurization and 3.1 gpm after bladder pressurization. - This is the only test showing intemction with the TSP under flow pressurization conditions that n:sulted in an increased leak mte after bladder pressurization. This 0.52" TW cmck demonstrated interaction with the EP between 1900 and 2300 psi. l However, the cmck to EP gap was only 10 mils and intemction with the TSP for the bounding 0.025" gap would be expected to occur at higher pressure differentials. . w %.,. e ms I Test 2-1 j indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rete Tests (aseessured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10.0 L.-4 ,,-. -... 7. W 7 ~~ i*= Test Seguense ^ y r~ m y a# a - o-. r em m ~ 1.0 --* -omm asam --o--omm asaser -o-ommass.w.asse

• * + rw m.agen

-. - camm ais. wr. ass 0.1 1700 1800 1900 2000 2l00 2200 2300 2400 2500 2400 2700 ay(peg Test 2-1 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests peonnettessi to Tp= 6157 and ps = 16 pela Condisons) 10.0

s....... e._.. %

.e. - TestSegmanse e.

c=amme. m

~ E / 5 P - o-. w m i { 10 --4--onem ais. m g ,,5 m 3 a I J#, -.- ona m.asse l I .....e - m.a se -.- oem ais. m.asse i, 0.1 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2m 5 00 2m 2M 4,(pen m.av.s.e.g._ea. p,a.> -a ..as-~--- 4 CJ l l 1 l l' y 1l \\, l

• 1 i, '.E 9

1 I l l t + s I e 1 I i i, I I i. 'l t r j i a a 1 l 4 ) I 4 h Test 2-la. After Zero Offset Leak Test l 3 l t i i s t . - ~, _. -, _.. _..,. _, _,. _.... -., _ - _ _...... _,,,. _ _ _ _ - _,, _. _.. _...... _ _. _... 1 l t s.i'.'*T ?.* .:. ;1 ...;A .g t i l i + ~ f

I l

i j i 3 i I i Test 2-Ib. After Fn:e Span Leak Test 'l j i ) l e 6 l ^ ...,,-y ~ .x 5 7. .w Gi

4 f*

'h h.1.. .- ?... *,. ~ . ' ~y., :.. - c.;,J.: s- +-:. I so. -. (...

• f v

9 .6 A

f., '

hti.w%, -9..,-

.. *9 L1 '. :"Jg.:'.- t ?.... '. ^ I j..j., .s.. ry" :. P.3 s, 3 Ig'..;E. = a e.J? i-W % :'W.5.. F i. ?: [8 '.T-. i* - 4..u y&. i 4 s-P' '* w *. ut.; - x. '4.,., l .y....:: - -- e,.. ?f-g,;;-' ~~ l ~, i r.- q, i t.

i e

,, r gr-C5r F9 ? M".y' c,s - b .~...&. M.~ .'.h.. [ T et NA s- *, e g;. e g

s..*f

-91 ~u a, r.y - m

• *;17
• 1dM

- l.'6. 4,. ?T.. '<... pG{.yq.,W t;9:... 4' ,x .- sc. y 2[f.i.. < .;.5l$... '.; : l, . * ?... :.... :. w.. =..1 -

.~.

Test 2-Ic. Afkr Offset Flow Test Test 2 - 1 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 8161A, Tube Diameter = 0.874", Gap = 0.027" Evaluated Test Averages Adjusted Test Averages Evaluation for Plots. 4 Measured g teak Adjusted Average a T y for temp. & Average Tes Subtest max. P-P, r m trak S Sequence No AP (psil gpsigt (pegl (ps0 (O Pressureth Leak Raee Comments Rate (RT) (gpm) (spm) (gpm) (gpm) 2-I A i 1872 1877 22 1855 605 0.38 0 06 0.99 0.90 0.34 0.38 Average ef t. 2 & S Within TSP. HT 2 1872 1863 17 1846 606 0 44 0.03 0 99 0.91 0.40 3 1839 1710 13 1697 6n0 0.43 0.02 0.99 Delete. Hysteresis 4 1916 1917 17 1900 608 0.48 0 19 1 00 0 93 0 44 0.44 5 1903 1859 17 1842 594 0.48 0.06 0 99 0 83 0.39 6 2006 1981 23 1958 608 0.50 0 05 1.00 0 93 0.46 0.48 Averageof 6 & 7 7 2018 2022 25 1997 6l4 0.5I 0.12 1.00 0 97 0.50 2-1B I 2152 2822 39 2083 590 0 80 0.33 0.98 0.85 0 67 0.67 Average of I & 2 flee Span. HT 2 2167 2098 36 2062 607 0.7) 0.16 0.99 0.9) 0 67 3 2338 2216 63 2153 608 1.36 0.07 1 00 0 91 1.07 1.25 Averageof 3 & 4 4 2322 2216 63 2153 619 I 45 0 17 1.00 0 99 I 43 2-IC i 2335 2333 67 2266 618 1.14 0.14 1.00 0 98 1.12 1.24 Average of I & 3 Otiset 015". HT 2 2326 2222 60 2I62 630 1.05 0 13 1.01 1.07 1.13 Delete. Hysteresis 3 2334 2402 84 2318 612 1.44 0.15 1 00 0.95 1.36 4 2578 2490 94 23 % 623 1.53 0 08 1.01 0.99 1.53 1.5 % Average ef 4. 5 & 6 5 2725 2528 99 2429 609 l.62 0 07 1.00 0.93 1.51 6 2763 2582 93 2489 619 1.54 0.07 1.00 0.98 1.51 7 2972 2724 120 2604 607 1.98 0.1 _ 0.99 0 93 8.83 1.87 Average ef 7 & 8 8 2946 2749 125 2624 619 l.98 O il 1 00 0.97 1.92 2-ID I 2946 2433 12 2421 75 3.28 0.08 0.98 0 66 2.12 2.13 Average ot t.2.3 & 4 Offset 0.I5*. RT 2 2994 2440 12 2428 75 3.30 0.1 0.98 0.66 2.13 3 3145 2420 13 2407 75 3.33 0.11 0.98 0.66 2.14 4 3086 2419 14 2405 75 3 34 0.11 0.98 0 66 2.15 2-10 1 2189 2260 183 2077 63E 2.75 0.2I 1.02 0.99 2.78 2.78 Espended,4500 2 2321 2439 183 2256 652 2.68 0.21 1.05 1.16 3.28 3.04 Average of 2 & 3 Offset 0.15*, ffT 3 2334 2430 192 2238 619 3.03 0.14 1.00 0.92 2.81 4 2544 2628 198 2430 632 3.00 0.17 1.02 0.99 3.04 3.10 Average of 3 & 4 5 2562 2655 188 2467 649 2.75 0.16 1.05 1.10 3.17 2-lH I 2348 2524 - 195 2329 662 2.42 0.38 1.07 1.25 3.24 3.28 Average of I & 4 Espended. 4500 2 2324 2422 204 2218 638 3.22 0.21 1.02 0.98 3.22 3.26 Average of 2 & 3 Centered HT 3 2372 2472 203 2269 641 3.06 0.17 1.03 1.05 3.3I 4 2544 2588 228 2360 618 3.64 0.25 1.00 0.91 3.33 5 2573 2652 219 2433 632 3.33 0.16 1.02 0 98 3.34 3.34 2-11 1 2352 2063 31 2032 75 5.25 0 09 0 81 0.57 2.44 2.43 Average of I & 2 Espended,4500 2 2343 2089 31 2058 75 5.16 0.07 0.88 0.58 2.43 Offset 0.15*, RT 3 2595 2256 33 2223 75 5.38 0 04 0.81 0.62 _ 2.71 2.74 Aurage of 3 & 4 4 2610 2299 33 2266 75 5 41 0 06 0 88 0 63 2.77 TEST 2 t Jtis 2-1 Tsue 7/2v95 4 33 PM e L -.....,,-,..n., ,-+--- n~-, Test 2-1. Summary of Test Dimensional Measurement Results Specimen 8161 A. Tube Dia. = 0.874", Gap = 0.027" Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. Min. Prrssure Offset Temp. Angle Crack DV DV BV TW Dia. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition Irngth Irngth Area Irngth Arts (in.) (in.) 2 2 (in.) (Max. (in ) (Max. (in ) Note 1 Width) Width) (in.) (in.) None 0.0 Initial 0 0.640 OD4 0.515 ID" N.A.m 0.0 N.A.m 0.877 0.875 Step A Dim. 0.522"' O.874 Ilot O' O.522") < 0.001W 0.0 N.A. 0.877 0.875 0.874 None Free Span Ikt 0 0.575"' O.230* 0.00058 0.879 0.871 Step B (0.003W) 0.876 None 0.15 Ilot 0 0.586 0.504 0.0033 0.134 0.00060 0.884 0.879 Step C (0.010W) (0.006W) 0.876 None 0.15 Cold 0 0.588 0.504 0.0033 0.134 0.00060 0.885 0.881 Steps D, E (0.010W) (0.006W) 0.876 4500 0.15 Ilot 0 0.588 0.504 0.0038 0.132 0.00073 0.885 0.880 Steps F, G (0.011W) (0.007W) 0.875 4500 0.00 llot 0 0.588 0.509 0.0041 0.0 0.0 0.886 0.874 Step iI (0.011W) 0.875 4500 0.15 Cold 0 0.619 0.509 0.0041 0.137 0.00082 0.886 0.881 Step I (0.011W) (0.007W) 0.876 Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the two edges of the TSP. Diameters greater than the initial 0.874" diarneter indicate bulging of the tube at the edges of the TSP as a result of the tube pressunzation.

2. Cracks are tight for specimens not pressunzed with a bladder and TW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths fmm dye penetrant tests.

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope. Mininuun measurable TW crack opening -0.001" wwww.uer* zz. ms

h Tcst Plan fsr DCs Test 2-1 i i General Test Infonnation

• Utilize large leak test facility testing I
• Test 7/8" diameter, corrosion plus fatigue specimen 8161 A,

.. Silastic mold dye penetrant - 0.62" OD with 0.515" ID i Leak test at 615'F except as noted. Testing at > 615"F is ac_ceptable.

• . Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset from TSP
• Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall

) contact the TSP hole at 180' from the crack being leak tested. i l Test Sequence A. Hot (615'F) leak test with simulated crack inside TSP and crack tip at edge of TSP at 1800,1900 and 2000 psi AP I B. Hot (615*F) free span leak test at 2000,2150 and 2335 psi AP C. Hot (615"F) leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335, psi AP (adjust, if necessary, to - the same AP as last test of Step C),2560,2700 psi AP and another higher AP at facility limit D. ' Leak Test at R.T. with 0.15" offset starting from the highest AP obtained in Step C and increase to facility limit E. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). F. With the crack tip 0.15" offset outside the TSP, pressurize to 4,450 psid with a bladder. If following pressurization, the corrosion crack tip is more than 0.15" outside the TSP, adjust the - specimen to obtain 0.15" of the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step G. Measure the total crack length, the thmugh wall length / width, the exposed throughwall length / width and the tube diameter across the crack flanks including at least 5 points along the crack plus the j locations of the edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.15" offset and at the edge of the TSP. i Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization. G. Hot (615'F) leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP H. Hot (615"F) leak test with crack tip located at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP 1. R.T. leak test with crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP J. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. i .s.~,.-,. \\ Test 2-4: Summary cf Test Results Test Sequence Order of tests: Small leak test facility - zero offset, free span, offset, offset cold; large leak test facility - bladder pressurization to 4125 psi, cold offset, cold zero offset, bladder pn:ssurization to fn:e span burst pressun: of 5550 psi, cold offset, cold zero offset, hot offset. - No data points were deleted from the data base. Leak mtes show consistent trends with modest fluctuations in the data and the test data are acceptable. The consistency of the data, even though testing was divided between two leak test facilities, tends to support comparable leak rates between facilities. Since this test shows no tube to EP intemction (behaves as a free span test), the flow pressurization test results are independent of the actual cmck to TSP gap. After bladder pressurization to the flee span burst pressure of 5550 psi, the crack diameter inen:ased by 0.022" which is reasonably close to the 0.025" target and these test n:sults are considenxi acceptable since they do not influence the bounding leak rate assessment. Summary of Test Results Irak rates for the cmck at edge of TSP, fme span and offset 0.15" result in leak' rates typical of free span behavior 'lhe flow pressure increases extended the length of the initial TW crack to 0.33" and opened a second TW crack of 0.12". High slopes ofleak rate versus AP indicate ligament tearing up to about 2200 psid - Maximum tube diameter of 0.878" after test also indicates a low likelihood of tube to TSP contact at test conditions - Small slope of room temperature tests up to 2716 psid may be due to hysterisis effect on i 2534 psid measurement since this test AP is 37 psi lower than the prior pressurization Bladder pressurization to a AP of 4125 psi did not result in crack faces contacting the EP ID and leak rates are significantly lower (about factor of 2) than obtained with bladder pressurization at the estimated free span burst pressure of 5550 psi - Test 4-1 results show that further increases in bladder pressurization above the free span burst pressure do not result in increased leakage For this indication, the leak rates following bladder pressurization to 4125 psi with the crack inside the TSP are only slightly higher (0.76 vs 0.53 gpm for comparable room temperature tests) than obtained prior to bladder pressarization For 0.15" offset and bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of 5550 psi, the leak rates at SLB conditions are about 1.8 gpm and about 50% higher than with the crack inside the EP and the crack tip at the edge of the EP Pn:ssunzation opened the longest throughwall crack to 0.382" (> 1.0 mil wide) with an average TW width of 0.010" and the second TW to 0.284" with an avemge TW width of 0.004". A TW length of 0.076" with an average wMh of 0.010" was exposed outside the TSP. The larger than expected increase in offset vs a:ro off: set leak is likely influenced by the two TW cracks in this specimen 180 apart which share closure of the crack to EP gap. , v,em.,,n wm l Overall Conclusions

• Initial 'IW crack lengths of about 0.29", OD = 0.60" (Average length = 0.445") do not result in interaction with the EP ID at SLB conditions and the leak rates for the indication inside the TSP behave as free span indications with an SLB leak rate < 0.4 gpm
• Although this indication would not burst at SLB conditions, bladder pressurization tests wen:

i performed to bound the leak rate at pn:ssun:s of 4125 psi and 5550 psi (estimated free span burst pressure for this indication)

• Bladder pressurization to 4125 psi resulted in a leak rate approximately the same as the free span leak rate for the indication inside the EP and about 0.76 gpm with the crack 0.15" offset outside the EP

+ Bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of 5550 psi resulted in SLB leak rates of about 1.2 gpm with the crack inside the EP and about 1.8 gpm with the crack offset 0.15" outside the TSP t t' i k 7 6 I b k f t f f 5 %WW WNY U 1% Test 2-4 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to 615 F and 15 psi Secondary Pressure) 10.0000 __y__ Specimen 4C218 Crack Length ~ ~ \\\\.N as 7'8 - ~~ OD ID Time in Test 1.0000 0.60 0 29 Start of Test $h1-- -4 "^ 0 61 0.33 After 0.15" Offset y 5-- - - ~ - 0 61 0 29* After 4125 Pressure f r,;,r A I Z 0 62 0.38* After 5550 Pressure f y-0 58 0 28* After 5550 Pressure -- [__ __- Test Mme ~ N Ceniered,iiT k 0.1000 >..pprox.imacr.ckopeng 'g'_ - G- - Freespan. IIT g / --*-Offset O.I5 lit E' ]@ -Ofrset 0.15.RT 0.0100 ~ g + - + - Ofrset 0.i5. RT 4 25 d e' - C - Centered, RT,4125 i / [ --IE--Ofrset 0.15. RT,5550 / - tr- - Centered, RT,5550 0.M10 Note 1; Specimen previously unaixpanded h - o. - Ofrset 0.is. irr.5550 Note 2: Pre-press. with bladder to 4125 psid Note 3: Pre-press. with bladder to 5550 psid 0.0001 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 AP (Psi) SMRS WM Ch Norm Test 2-4 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (as-measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10.0000 Spocemen 4C218 Crack Length OD ID Time in Test A- -M f-MM 0 60 0 29 Start of Test --~ mig ea r-- 0.61 0 33 After0.15 offset 1.0000 0 61 0 29* After 4125 Pressure f _ 7 0.62 0.38* After 5550 Pressure 0.58 0.28* After 5550 Pressure rowvm A J' -Y Test Muence . _. _ ~ , y, \\

• >= spprox.1 mil crack opening

's - G- - Freespan,IIT _13 "/ + Offset 0.15 HT g --G-OfTset 0.15,RT g A lq OfTset 0.15 RT,4125 -~ y g - C - Centered. RT,4125 J --M--OfTset 0.15, RT,5550 - Centered. RT,5550 [ - e- - Ofhet 0.15,117,5550 Note 1; Specimen previously un-expanded j Note 2 Pre-press. with bladder to 4125 psid Note 3: Pre-press. with bladder to 5550 psid 0.0001 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 AP (Psi) TEST 2-4.XLS 7/12195 ChRow = d $@T's s't 2;,;e Q Q ' % y . $ ymVk'. L-1;Tg:..;;:', g.. ,[.'. .-.c f:..y;- Qgyj+... y3 4 0 4, N. A '.J >jiy" , k :. ** ~. 2 l7,,, iWMV 3*:,. f-5 4p ,.,.,~,q1 e. .c +- vg/,,.. i t' y. s- .,. s : A .s t <.. ^ .; l 'e 's E5. s, t c

t., ;*,

h A-mg.. ..a... g- .c i ~ l

;, ' 't 4

9' r ;- , t',. N .w e, 7 y h,_ w. ,x y t..

c. a p

1 t r i 3 t$ I.Ee

1...D :/

...y. ' 7 j. .v ~ -,j.. [ ;- e' y, ; wr ? &. ;s

'?

~. -f;['/:1,., i., .fhyf ~~ I t \\

• .i l lL:

w

p

-t -

.g, y $ f ' ff i k %,k.. ~ .,f. l ~ ~

r u

l $ 14 .') i r,; < 2 l l j g. I i4 E.:- r l l l-l 1 i Test 2-4a. 270* After Crack After Bladder Pressurization to 5500 psi and Leak Testing t p..:.w.~;..~...:.::.g..,,,.p.%n:s 3 .t u, . 'l: ._ ;~ ..,. } ..?,,

• n 4.ly

  .-

ry y cr :.: - 1 r .n..n .m a;. 'c I 5 2. M-

L.T'd.P'

?+, t~ 5% ^ "f .. o ).2* .. n t .. s.,

c. m..

w .. W' k, 'j ffi f 42 .j,j.pF g%.. A ?! ~ > ~ i 'f p y..; ) m vb, .g ~.

$. n. 9.,.

l w. M.' ;,

g. :

-@i. s.. - (.q.a... M.* ~ ,.. :A - j g' b*. a.. 'f 's,., c. a s-1 3 'd} l 5 j i i. g.; t, i 4;"" U JA 6.i% .: in. n. w gy:t,.;a# ' n a..- e.,.- ... h,i! y ..+ ~ v.t. y~'. .{ saw ; .~..,.. ) . ' *r.3P.. 4l ,"$!!%.m. v, - -t . i. s.n ;.: , c;.gr - 5,yf,%.,,

• {%s :. g & ;i. gA.'

m,3. -:1::. m;;y, ?.i.;d:, g t./ y.

• .b it

. v u q.; g.u.:..y. f.;Til: 'yl* q) 3,;- i. : ,q1.i e, 9'.'.g?J

.n.'d, :;....

'.n~;g.:.

.e;\\p.. m b i t.';

r..

,,,,-;/. - s... _ a. Test 2-4b. 90 Crack After Bladder Pressurization to 5500 psi and Ixak Testing Test 2 - 4 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 4C 218, Tube Diameter = 0.875", Gap = 0.26" EvaluatedTest Averages AdjustedTest Averages Evaluation for Plots Menured Test Subtest Max. P-P T ^**E' y Adjusted Amage Rate m M IM temp. & trak Rate Comments Sequence No. AP.,,(psi) (psig)

epig, (psi)

(p) Uncertainty Rate (RT) Pressure (Pf) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) .I 24A 1 n/a 2270 766 8504 613 0 0009 n/a 1.00 0,98 0.0009 0.0009 l Wrthin TSP 2 n/a _2220 575 1645 Sit 0.0033 n/a 0.94 0.74 0.0023 0.0023 Average value from 2 runs l 3 n/a 2475 5 34.5 1940.5 5695 0 0245 n/a 0 97 0 62 0 0147 0 0147 Average value from 2 runs 24B I n/a 2490 522 1968 590 0.052 n/a 0 98 0.67 0.034 0.034 Average valae from 2 runs Free Span 2 n/a 2730 492 2238 559 0.212 n/a 0 97 0.69 0.141 0.141 3 n/a 2910 480 5 2429.5 567.5 0 337 n/a 0 97 0.74 0.241 0.24i Average value from 2 ruas 2-4C I n/a 2870 389 2488 547 0.39 n/a 0 96 0.73 0.28 0.28 Average of I & 2 Offwt015" 2 n/a 2840 363 2477 555 0.40 n/a 0.% 0.75 0.29 ffT 3 n/a 2870 321 2549 561 0.47 n/a 0.97 0.77 0.35 036 Average of 3 & 4 4 n/a ~ 2880 309 2571 564 0.49 n/a 0.97 0.78 0.38 2-4D i n/a 2460 52 2408 88 0 68 n/a 0.98 0.66 0.44 0.44 Offwt 0.15" 2 n/a 2005 71 2534 89 0.81 n/a 0.98 0.68 0.53 0.53 RT 3 n/a 2790 74 2716 91 0 87 n/a 0.98 0.71 0 60 0 60 24G I n/a 2325 0 2325 70 1.25 n/a 0.88 0.64 0.65 0.65 Expanded,4125 2 n/a 2535 0 2535 70 138 n/a 0.81 0.68 0.76 0.76 Offset 015* RT 24H I n/a 2345 0 2345 70 0.56 n/a 0.81 0.65 0.29 0.29 Expanded,4125 2 n/a 2548 0 2548 70 0.93 n/a 0.81 0.68 0.51 0.51 Centered, RT 24 J,L i n/a 2253. 0 2253 70 3.11 n/a 0.81 0.63 1.58 1.58 Expanded 5550 2 n/a 2453 0 2453 70 337 n/a 0.81 0.67 I.82 1.82 Offset o.15", RT 2-4 3 L l 1 2348 2408 77 2331 633 1.24 0.15 1.02 1.06 135 1.53 Averase of I & 2 Expanded,5550 2 2346 2405 79 2326 655 1.26 0.12 1.06 1.28 1.70 Offset 0.15*. lfr 3 2520 2487 84 2403 632 2.05 0.29 1.02 1.05 2.20 2.20 4 2590 2607 81 2526 636 1.72 0.16 1.03 1.07 1.89 1.88 Average of 4 & 5 5 25 % 2610 77 2533 650 1.53 0.18 1.05 1.17 1.88 24K I n/a 2258 0 2258 70 8.% n/a 0.81 0.63 1.00 1.00 Expanded,5550 2 n/a 2473 0 2473 70 2.18 n/a 0 81 0.67 1.18 1.18 Centered RT TEST 24.XLS 24 TsNe 7/2395 4.2a FM .. - - - -. - - _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _. _ _ - - - - Tcst 2-4 Summary of Test Dinensional Measumnent Results Specimen 4C-218, Tube Dia. = OE75", Gap = 0.026" Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. Min. Primure Offset Temp. Angle Cock DV TW DV 'IW Dia. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition length length Area length Area (in) (ia.) (in.) (Max. (in') (Max. (in ) Note 1 2 width) Wulth) (in.) (in.) i None 0.0 Initial 270* 0.W" 0.29m N.A.m 0.0 N.A.m 0.875 N.A.A 99 A un l Ilot Test 0* 0.W" 0.0 l l l None Free span llot Not measured l SgB None 0.15 Ilot Not meastmed Step C None 0.15 Cold 270* 0.61im 033* Tight 0.0 0.0 0.878 0.877 90* 0.570A 0.12m light 0.0 0.0 4125 0.15 Cold 270* 0.609*5 0.286*) 0.00086 0.032 0.00009 0.881 0.879 Steps F,G (0.003W) (0.003W) 0.875 90* 0.570* Tight Tight 0.0 4125 0.00 Cold 270* Same as above for 4125 psi bladder 0.881 0.875 Step 11 pressure with 0.15" offset 0.875 emp\\c\\irwd1=s&p ty m ms __._ ~ ___ _ _ ___ _ - -_____--.__ - -. Test 2-4 Summary of Test Dimessional Messurriment Resuhs Specinien 4C-218, Tube Dia. = 0.875", Gap = 0.026" Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. M a. Pressere OfEset Temp. Angle Crack 'IW 'IW TW TW Din. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition Imagth length Ares length Area (ie.) (in.) 2 2 (in.) (Max. (in ) (Max. (iss ) Note 1 Width) Width) (in.) (ie.) 5550 0.15 After 270* 0.617 0382 0.00382 0.076 0.00076 0.897 0.885 Steps bladder (0.010W) (0.010W) 0.876 90* 0.588 0.284 0.00114 0.0 0.0 (0.004W) After 270* 0.617 0351m 0.0035 0.067 0.00067 0.897 0.885 Step L (0.010W) (0.010W) 0.876 Ilot & CoM Tests 90 0.588 0.247* 0.00099 0.0 0.0 (0.004W) 5550 0.0 Cold 270* Same as above for 5500 psi bladder pressure with 0.15" offset 0.897 0.875 Step K 0.876 Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the two edges of the TSP. Diameters greater than the initial 0.875" diameter indicate bulging of the tube at the edges of the TSP as a resuk of the tube pressurization.

2. Cracks are tight for specimens not pressunzed with a bladder and TW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths from dye rewG-a tests.

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's mkiw. Minimum measurable 'IW crack opening -0.001".

5. Smaller final measurements likely more accurate based on using light inside tube to improve measurements.

EMMMYNEN ~ -. - - _- =. r. Test Plan farIRBs j Test 2-4 l f i General Test Infonnation

• Utilize small leak test facility followed by testing in large leak test facility
• Test 7/8" diameter specimen 4C 218

- Crack length: Dye Penetrant - 0.60". with 0.29" TW: UT - 0.62" with 0.40" TW

• - Leak test at 2 615'F except as noted
• Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall cosact the TSP hole at 180 from the crack being leak tested.

i Test Sequence A. Leak test with crack centered at 1500,1700 and 2000 psi AP B. Free span leak test at 2000,2335 and 2560 psi AP C. Leak test with crack 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2560 and 2720 psi AP (facility limit) Move tube by 0.15" relative to the TSP i D.- Leak test at R.T. with 0.15" offset starting from the highest AP obtained in Step C and increase to i the facility limit E. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). Decontaminate the specimen l The following tests are to be performed in the large leak test facility with a collar that provides a 25 mil diametral gap relative to the tube diameter prior to any of the above leak testing: F. With the crack tip 0.15" offset outside the TSP, pressurize to about 4000 psid with a bladder. If l following pressurization, the corrosion crack tip is more than 0.15" outside the TSP, adjust the specimen to obtain 0.15" of the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step G. For each crack (2 expected), measure the total crack length, the through wall length / width, the j exposed throughwall length / width and the tube diameter across the crack flanks including at least 5 points along the crack plus the locations of the edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.15" offset and at the edge of the TSP.

• Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization.

l G. R.T. leak test with corrosion crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP l H. R.T. leak test with crack inside the TSP and the crack tip located at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP 1. Repeat Step F with a bladder pressurization of 5500 psid i J. R.T. leak test with corrosion crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP K. R.T. leak test with crack inside the TSP and the crack tip located at the edge of the TSP at 2335 l and 2560 psi AP L. Hot (615'F) leak test with corrosion crack tip 0.15" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP i M. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. i i 6 i e s pes.pnwar.p.e,pww ss. ases ,..a v - ---- y Test 2-7: Summary of Test Results Test Sequence Order of tests: cold zero offset, cold freespan, offset, bladder pressurization to free span burst = pressure of 3700 psi, zero offset, offset, cold offset.

• One data point in the flow offset test was deleted due to hysterisis due to being 400 psi lower L

than the prior free span test at 2228 psi. = Leak test results show consistent trends with modest fluctuations in the data. The zero offset flow measurement at 1970 psi has a significantly lower leak rate than the prior data point at 1878 psi with no interaction with the TSP at this pressure indicated by the data set and this test result is assumed to be a bad data point. p< = The 0.022" crack to TSP hole ID clearance, based on the crack diameter at the end of the flow pressurization test, is only slightly below the target clearance of 0.025". The test results can be expected to differ only slightly from that expected for the target clearance, such as a slight )' reduction in the pressure for interaction of the crack with the TSP. Summary of Test Results = The flattening of the leak rate slope above about 2300 psi AP indicates interaction of the crack face with the TSP ID. - Leak rates below 2300 psi are typical of free span leak rates. Due to the large pressure differential of 2210 to 2650 psi between the highest flow offset data points, interaction with the TSP could have occurred anywhere in this pressure range. The offset condition resulted in a maximum SLB leak rate of about 4.1 gpm (0.577" TW crack at the start of the test) both before and after bladder pressurization. - The normalized test results for the flow offset test show an increase in the leak rate above the prior free span test at comparable pressures. The free span test was mn as a cold test and the ] leak rate adjustment procedure has resulted, in some cases, in the adjusted hot leak rate being below the comparable hot test result. Thus, the higher leak rate for the offset test may be the result of an overestimate in the cold to hot adjustment factor. An evaluation of the cold to hot adjustment factor will be included in the final EPRI report for this test program. - Pressurization to 2544 psi in the flow offset test resulted in a maximum crack width of 0.020" compared to 0.003" after the free span test. The TW crack length measured by light penetration increased from 0.515" after the free span test to 0.636" after the flow offset test. Even though the crack opening increased significantly in the offset test, the leak rate shows l essentially no increase from start to fm' ish of the offset test due to interaction of the crack l with the TSP. j l There appears to be no significant increase in leakage as a result of the crack offset (0.088" l l TW outside TSP) for this test since the leak rate is approximately free span prior to the start l of the offset test and did not increase after crack opening interaction with the TSP. From the analyses of Section 5, it would be expected that the effective crack opening area was less than I the geometric flow area for this test and no increase in leakage with crack offset would have l l been expected for this test. l j Bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of about 3700 psi did not significantly ) = affect the leak rate from that obtained by prior flow pressurization I Following bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure, the leak rate with the crack inside the TSP is essentially the same as for the offset test before and after bladder pressurization. l a wpepnbeken:rp wp5 My 23. lWS - The negligible difference (within measurement uncertainty) between the bladder pressurized zero offset and offset leak rates is consistent with the leak rate limited by the effective flow l area as expected based on the Section 5 analyses. I Overall Conclusions

• Flow pressurization to about 2300 psi AP resulted in interaction of the crack face with the TSP ID and resulted in an upper bound leak rate of about 4.1 gpm both before and after bladder i

pressurization.

• After crack face interaction with the TSP at about 2300 psi, the leak rate did not further increase including subsequent leak rate tests after bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of l

about 3700 psi.

• The test results for this test indicate that throughwall cracks of about 0.58" in 3/4" diameter tubing can be expected to interact with the TSP prior to reaching SLB pressure differentials.

l Since the crack to TSP gap for this test is only 3 mils less than the target 0.025" gap, no significant difference in the contact pressure would be expected for the target gap. l 1 i f t b i i s a v verwtaur.r wy22.sws s -. + Test 2-7 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (as-measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10 L I i ... ~ _......- I I Test Sequence i g

Cenessus. RT y

l l w O m a p.

• 9

--* -ORest 0.10.HT g g O Cenesses.HT.3700 e J

• + + Oeset 0.10. HT. 3700

- e-

• ONest 0.10. RT. 3700 i

i i l A uma sea osia poinil / i. u I400 1600 i 00 2000 2200 2400 2600 2:00 Ap (psi) Test 2-7 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Leak Rate Test Data Normalized to 816*F and 15 pel Secondary Pressure) Z Elevated Flow Rate Due to Hysteress i 4 from Pnor Higher Pressuruston \\.^ a.-o /J...e... + !'~i l b- ,- o - {

Censored. RT E

e' Assurnea Bad Data Point - *--Onnet 0.10.HT -o--Freespen, RT

• q I.0 E

A .. o..Cenleved.HT.3700 i le' f ~... -. d . _ e( \\ d' i i i 1 + 0 Meet 0 :0 HT 3700 i ~ - ~ - - - .z.. OMeet 010. RT.3700 I i I I, i l l I i 0.1 i 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 AP (Psi) .~ i V*w*

• asOtdessa**v wa e0>erygyrjsr; e A

> +::,,;.. ~ C....' a.. 07 ~;; . s1 l.,b $?i f ( k$ y'f'jpa ~~ Th. _. ? q:,.:... - . ce

m *. s.

_,.y v~:{ ; .. i:.u,,, o ~. ,:]t'k & 44% e o a..' 'v,.,,, 1 74.s I W #.,F., ^. 4 '.f55*p;'E .sv.. .J* a ( {A Tg '? i. .- :Y'.z,.. h .a. 3 ts**

4. % eM. ~

k. *E 3 76** 2.- I-E' p'.= y;. 1. ;.; 4***' .i t

9. ' y

)Y' k$

, '..1-s,.g N .a f.' %4'. N4 h [N....- w w

w.X b

ik

[:??

m . u;; .pe se .dt, [f .. 3; p %d$4 -r ; Mo.u. r j,* C .e g a..w.c. . m.. r -~ e i ?= Q Q 7.).. ..r.,y %-%.}g_.... .x. .;l ~ Jjf}: .q. ~ g ., x:- 1w.: +g "a.~%[:t:t+. .c s

m..

H

-m a.-

iM)' w -c.V,..4M'.~})I . M. J. O if 4 u -a n.. . g y :-.

,

r:

- c-m fi un-i t ? e. .' x g; '.., l '. 3. %.'f:*) ~ .a =, -: ..x ~- , :.-.a n:= ~- hy,*, '.: '32.6 , ~y. MkNidre;..$ +4

4. :e:.n crg;;. e::-

.y;. r r . : c' s..:., n 5 n, -L iri g.4", Q'%E';.? %,*. r;,? "9 3 ~.. g=6 9 4 f",,' .,. > ~ - m..,~.- c;., <a. c - e.. .., e.- \\ - rv:: - Ay._y,m2,, -.. w ~ g ,s ~yr

r.

-.. 4:. ~-

c.....

r < cy. r'

,1 .23 ~. .x . 3,..<;. a y, 4; ..r Y, '. " f..;i '. 9 ...,f. s.,.;;x. t, tn.,x ~g.- ,.wf - =

.... -. m:

.-; c--w:.. y, ., ~. m. a

. : c.

J W :.: $ $_r.,. - $1. i i Test 2-7. After Bladder Pressurization to 3700 psi and Subsequent Leak Testing j l ..i-- y Test 2 - 7 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 2951E, Tube Diameter = 0.747", Gap = 0.026" EvaluatedTest Averages AdjustedTest Averages Evaluation for Mols Measured Ap T A""8' trak Adjusted Test Setnest Max. P,,,,,,, P Rate T fortemp & A wrage Sequence No. AP (psi) gp,;gy gp,ig, p} (p) 9 Pressure (P$ lealt Race Comments Rate (RT) (gpm) (gpm) (gym) 2-7A 1 Wa 1775 0 1775 70 1.30 Wa I.00 0.48 0.62 0.62 Wittun TSP.RT 2 n/a 1878 0 1878 70 1.45 n/a 1.00 0.52 0.76 0,76 3 n/a 1970 0 1970 70 1.04 Wa 1.00 0.55 0.58 0.58 2-7B B n/a 1945 0 1945 70 1.99 n/a I.00 035 I.09 1.09 Free Span. RT 2 n/a 2085 0 2085 70 2.62 n/a 1.00 0.59 1.54 1.54 3 n/a 2228 0 2228 70 4.44 n/a 1.00 0 62 2.76 2.76 2-7C I 2032 2094 259 1835 640 2.27 0.29 1.02 1.01 2.34 Delese-Hpeereses Offset o.10". in 2 2324 2489 352 2137 649 3.24 0.59 1.03 l.02 3.40 3.40 3 2490 2585 409 2176 652 3.68 0.29 1.03 1.00 3.82 3.82 4 2360 2414 207 2207 656 3.50 0.12 1.04 1.20 436 436 5 2900 2855 176 2679 658 332 0.41 1.04 1.14 3.95 3.84-Average of 5 & 6 6 2840 2800 156 2644 668 2.80 0.I6 1.06 1.25 3.72 2-7F i 2412 2583 216 2367 655 2.98 0.23 1.06 1.14 3.60 3.60 Expanded.3700 2 2478 2650 211 2439 668 2.95 0.21 1.09 1.27 4.08 4.08 Centered 3 2624 2828 222 2599 672 3.11 0.35 1.10 1.26 4.29 4.25 Average of 3 & 4 IR 4 2622 2797 227 2570 674 2.97 0.33 1.10 1.29 4.21 2-73 i _2228 _ _ 2395 _ 1% Expanded.3700 2 2278 2320 197. J99_ 643_ 2.84 0.08 1.04 _ l.07 3.16 3.16 Average of I & 3 2123 633-3.23 0.16 1.02 I.00 3.29 335 Offset o.10" 3 2360 2392 199 2193 642 3.23 0.09 1.04 1.06 3 55 IIT 4 2356 2460 204 2256 620 3.51 0.15 1.01 0.92 3.26 3.26 5 2452 2545 210 2335 633 3.45 0.21 1.02 0.99 3.49 3.49 6 2582 2647 227 2420 621 3.84 0.18 1.01 0.93 3.59 338 Average of 6 & 7 7 2592 2700 246 2454 630 3.64 0.22 1.02 0.% 3.57 2-7h I _2333 _210 _8 19 2089 75 __438 0.1 0.81 0.59 2.09 2.10 Average of I & 2 Expanded.3700 2 2367 2136 19 2117 75 438 0.12 0.81 0.60 2.12 Offset (kl0* 3 2562 2291 21 2270 75 4.67 0.13 0.81 0.63 239 2.39 RT 4 7 591 2332 24 2308 75 4.72 01 0.81 0.64 2.45 2.45 TEST 2 7)tt.3 2-7 TaNe T/23MS 4 22 PM Ted 2-7. Summary of Test Diniensionni Measureement Resuhs Specinien 2051E, Tube Dia. = 0.747", Gap = 0.026" r Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. M m.- T. __.. Offset Temp. Angle Crack 1W W TW TW Dia. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition length length Aren length Area (ie.) (im.) (in.) (Max. (in') Max. (la ) Note 1 2 Width) Width) ~ (ia.) (im.) None 0.0 Initial Dim. 0" 0.66') 0.577') N.A.m 0.0 N.A.m o,749 - 0.748 Step A Cold Test 0.648 O.748 None Freespan Cold 0* 0.667*) 0.515) 0.00090 0.756 0.748 i Step B (0.002W) 0.749 s None 0.10 llot 0 0.67I .636 0.0085 .088 .00048 0.769 0.757 Steps C, D (.020W) (0.007W) 0.747 i 3700 0.0 Hot 0* 0.672 0.637 0.0092 0.0 0.0 0.766 0.748 i Steps E, F (.020W) 0.748 3700 0.10 llot 0 0.674 0.637 .0095 0.087 .00052 0.766 0.758 Step G (.020W) (0.008W) 0.748 1 3700-0.10 Cold 0* 0.674 0.637 .0104 0.087 .00070 0.765 0.759 Step H (.021W) (0.011W) 0.746 l Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the tvm edges of the 1SP. Diameters greater than the initial 0.747" diameter indicate bulging of the tube at the edges of the TSP as a resuk of the tube pressurization.

2. Cracks are tight for specimens not pressurized with a bladder and TW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths from dye r. ;..i tests

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope. Minimum measurable TW crack openmg -0.001" T-serr\\es=t\\i.% kiwp5 July 22.195

[ Tcst Plan f:r DCs .) Test 2-7 General Test Information . Utilize large leak test facility testing . Test 3/4" diameter, corrosion plus fatigue specimen 2051E - Original corrosion crack length: Silastic mold dye penetrant - 0.66" with 0.577" TW -- Specimen fatigued to obtain ID TW length Leak test at room temperature with selected 2: 615 F tests.- Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset from TSP - . = Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall contact the TSP hole at 180' from the crack being leak tested. Test Sequence A. 'R.T. leak test with simulated crack inside TSP and crack tip at edge of TSP at 1800,1900 and 2000 psi AP B. R.T. free span leak test at 2000,2150 and 2335 psi AP 1 C. Hot (615"F) leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335, psi AP (adjust, if necessary, to the same AP as last test'of Step C),2560,2700 psi AP and another higher AP at facility limit D. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). E. With the crack tip 0.10" offset outside the TSP, pressurize to 3650 psid with a bladder. If following pressurization, the corrosion crack tip'is more than 0.10" outside the TSP, adjust the specimen to obtain 0.10" of the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step G. Measum the total crack length, the through wall length / width, the exposed throughwall length / width and the tube diameter across the crack flanks including at least 5 points along the crack plus the locations of the edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.10" offset and at the edge of the TSP. Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization. F. Hot (615 F) test with crack tip located at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP G. Hot (615 F) leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP H. R.T. leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP I. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. s ) . som.m er n. im N Test 2-10: Summary of Test Results Test Sequence Order of tests: Small leak test facility - zero offset, free span, offset, cold offset: large leak test I . facility - bladder pressurization to 3850 psi, zero offset, offset, bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of about 4960 psi, zero offset, offset, cold offset.

• The lowest pressure data point in the cold, flow offset test was deleted from the data base due to hysterisis effects since the test pressure differential was about 300 psi lower than the prior hot offset test.

Leak rates show consistent trends with modest fluctuations in the data and the test data are acceptable. Le consistency of the data, even though testing was disided between two leak test facilities, tends to support coirywable leak rates between facilities. Since this test shows no tube to EP interaction (behaves as a free span test), the flow pressurization test results are independent of the actual cmek to EP gap. After bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure of 4960 psi, the crack diameter increased by 0.010" which is less than the 0.025" target. Dese test restdts are considered acceptable since the testing prior to bladder pressurization is the most important objective for this test and the test results do not influence the bounding leak mte assessment. Summary of Test Results I De slope of the leak rate versus AP curve indicates essentially free span leak mtes with no EP 1 l interaction up to the maximum AP of 2300 psi tested under flow pressurization conditions. 1 - De maximum leak rate tested is about the limit of the small leak test facility used for diis l test. - Le absence of crack to TSP interaction is demonstrated by the continuous leak rate trend between the offset, fire span and offset tests. l Le maximum measured hot flow pressurization leak rate for this 0.425" TW indication was l about 0.65 gpm at 2240 psi which would extrapolate to about 1.7 gpm at 2560 psi. } - The plastic crack width following the flow pressurization tests was not measureable by light penetration which would indicate a width < 1 mil. Bladder pressurization to 3850 psi at 0.10" offset resulted in leak rates at SLB conditions of about 1.9 gpm in the offset condition which exceeded the leak rate in the zem offset condition. - De plastic crack width following this bladder pressurization step was also not measureable by light penetration. Following bladder pressurization at 0.10" offset to the free span burst pressure of 4960 psi, the SLB leak rate at the 0.10" offset condition was about 1.5 gpm with no significant difference l from the zero offset condition. - De increase in leak rates following bladder pressurization is typical for indications which do not show interaction with the TSP under flow pressurization conditions. - Le plastic crack width following this pressurization to the free span burst pressure was 0.011". A 0.081" TW crack of maximum width 0.006" was exposed outside the TSP for the offset test. Overall Conclusions he initial TW crack length of 0.425", OD = 0.551" (Avenge length = 0.488") for this test does not result in interaction with the TSP ID at SLB conditions and the leak rates for the indication inside the TSP behave as free span indications with an SLB leak rate of about 1.7 gpm. .w w *n= .J

• Although this indication would not burst c.t SLB conditions, bladder pressurization tests were l

performed to bound the leak rate at pressures of 3850 psi and 4960 psi (estimated free span burst i pressure for this indication). . The SLB leak rate for the 0.10" offset condition following blamer pressurization to the free span burst pressure was about 1.5 gpm and essentially the same as obtained for the crack within tlx: TSP. l Bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure resulted in SLB leak rates higher than obtained by flow pressurization at pressures below SLB conditions, which is typical for the shorter indications for which the crack faces do not interact with the TSP under flow pressurization conditions, but essentially the same at SLB conditions due to the small leak rate 1 dependence on pressure following bladder pressurization. f I r i I t .l I ? f i t h i i i I i r . we %,* =. ms i Test 2-10 indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (as measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10.0 .or_, i i i i f ..__4_. ... i _ - i l i i I l I l l ..._.f.-..-..be Test sequense E i l C=amed. HT o. i I ~~_~, .e O

• ,.A

$"" "~I I O - O- = Freespan, HT j l.0 .~ -Onesio.,0.Hr a: i .sc .- r _.. -r - * - Ones 0.10.RT i i .w o g i .m ,,J l ' = cenewed. Hat.3000 F*- i = * + + Onnot 0.10.HT,3000 = &

• Cantosos. HT,4050 I

+oNest 0.10.HT.4000 v - e - Ommet 0.10. RT,4900 l 1 0.1 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 Ap(psi) Test 2-10 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to 615'F and 15 poi Secondary Pressure) 10.0 -- -i - i q ] i 4 i . _ _ _.; _..._... _ J I I + i l f _ L,._ _ i o.~j l l i.o l ...-.4-..- -- 5,g t i 1 Test i --

x... -

i [ Cent.es. HT _ m a t i i - o-Frecepen, MT S i i i oN -e--ons 0.io.HT g - F * -l-l I l --o--onse 0.10.RT i s l - * - Co HT, n.0 0.1 - + = ONest 0.10, HT. 3000 Centesed. HT. 4MO .i. 1..._. ', i t l j i - e - ORest 0.10.HT,4000 l l l - e - Onast 010. RT. 4990 l i I r 00 1700 1800 1900 2000 2l00 2200 2300 2400 2500 AP (P*ll ,~, . ' 'l*.2X* ';'. ZQ' TrW]!R?' 'y' g 4 ... t. f* 7,;g;;[,-s%?.*s v s. se ~.' . ~.,. V., ' y ?..,..s.*,.*;

• e.

a ~ ;; >~ w. ~~, ~.. r.., ~ fM ^5 l .. ' *,,, e - , w w, .c M s*4 d%.,.. ?f;G: W 9.... n.G i a .?ht %; y i i. b. -,EN: ?, .....J. "26 '.t- .c n.;r,s .'g 3., # t w:%- .. Q.. +. ... z .e ...:L;. -. . ~,. v. ..w ' n.i.e..:, w .,. s 9 I ~.

• _ in f.'.

v ~,;.,, 3- ]% '*;i-yy g~_ i.;( . 935f v ~ 4.

• .f.;

g a. j .,: n., i g. y t. l W l .Y.- i l

• ~.

--A p I ~ ^ ^ * 'Qa. w ~ '~=Q: ((= - ' _ 4 t---..:. ~ q ---T %m ..,. w. -..., w a .5 a z'. ~.. ww a 1 sw L.. c w'" e732, W bye,.; . 4-. - I, D., ~. t ' *. jr. - f. i,';J,e'.T'-l'., (.-('.- Q'T

s..1~. '=,.,.{**:t 'C * ?, 4 s g. 4.lw"? *,.? 7....

.t:" '.:..:. V bt'.'.'.:.,a _, j 's ~. sf, ' *.* l t Test 2-10. After Blamer Pressurization to 4960 psi and Leak Testing 1 L Test 2 - 10 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 2051 B, Tube Diameter = 0.748", Gap = 0.025" Evaluated Test Averages AdjustedTest Averages Evaluation for Plots Measured Leak Leak Adjusted An,. Tm Average trak Rare 7 h temp. & Average Test Sukest Max. P-P Sequence No, AP,. (psi) (ps,gj (psig; (psi) (p) Rate (RT) Unwrtamry hM Leak h h (gpm) (gpm) IIP"O I8E8) 2-10A I n/a 2270 510 17eo 540 0.19 n/a u% 0 51 0.09 0.09 Wittna TSP. HT 2 n/a 2350 528 1822 559 0.27 n/a 0.96 0.56 0.14 0.14 3 n/a 2440 553 1837 561 0.35 n/a 0 97 0.58 0.20 0.20 4 n/a 2470 546 1924 560 0.4 n/a 0 97 0.59 0.21 0.21 2-10B -._ I _ _._n/a .2458_.. 488 _ 1963 _ 553 _ 0.42.._ n/a 0.96 0.61 _ 0.25 __ 0.25 3 n/a 2732 530 2202 584 0 84 n/a 0 98 6.71 0 58 0.58 210C I n/a Othet o l0~, MT i-~ Va~~~ ~2708 510 2198 584 0.84 n/a 0 98 0.72 0.59 0.59 278i ~ 539 2242 3R6 0 91 n/a 0 98 0.72 0 65 0 65 2-10D I n/a 2058 131 1927 75 1.13 n/a 0 98 0.54 0 60 iklete - Hysteresis OfTset 0.10*, RT 2 n/a 2350 196 2154 75 1.35 n/a 0.98 0 61 0 80 0 80 3 n/a 2554 266 2288 76 1.56 n/a 0 98 0 63 0% 0% 2-10G I 2362 2329 43 2286 634 0 84 0.04 1.02 1.10 0 95 0.95 Empended 3850 2 2358 2385 48 2337 648 0 85 0.12 1.05 1.22 1.08 1.08 Centered HT 3 2540 2533 73 2460 629 139 0.15 1.02 1.04 1.46 1.53 Average of 3& 4 4 2346 2531 81 2450 642 138 0.18 1 04 I il 1.59 2-10H I 2%6 2336 38 2298 634 0.74 0.13 I.02 1.10 0.83 0.84 Average of I & 2 Expended. 3850 2 2352 2356 48 2315 639 0.73 0.08 1.03 1.14 0 86 OfYset 0.10*. HT 3 2564 2486 47 2439 620 0.95 0.82 1.01 1.00 0.% 0.% 4 2578 2518 46 2472 630 0.91 0 08 1.02 1.05 0.98 0.98 2-IOJ l 2308 2213 67 2146 632 1.29 0.14 1.02 1.08 1.42 1.39 Average of I & 2 Expanded. 4960 2 2348 2243 65 2178 636 1.18 0.11 1.03 1.11 135 Centered, HT 3 2340 2419 79 2340 619 137 0.09 1.00 0.98 135 t.40 Average of 3 & 4 4 2%7 2444 78 2%6 629 1.37 0.1 1.02 1.04 1.44 l 2-10K I 2270 2223 76 2147 632 1.23 0.08 1.02 8.07 135 1.42 Average of 1,2 & 3 Expanded.4960 2 2500 2210 68 2142 639 1.35 0.13 1.03 1.15 1.60 l Offset 0.10*, HT 3 2380 2273 75 2198 611 1.40 0.18 1.00 0.94 131 4 2600 2421 75 2346 689 1.50 0.11 100 0.98 8.48 1.31 Average of 4 & 5 5 2N10 2445 79 2366 606 1.24 0.1 0 99 0 93 1.14 2-10L I 23 % 2131 9 2122 75 2.30 _ 0.09 _ 0 81 _ _ 0 60 _

l. I I_

l.10 Average of l & 2 Espended.4960 _2 23 % 2155 9 2146 75 2.24 0.06 0.81 0 60 1.10 Offset 0.10', RT -4 2595 2344 12 2332 75 7.38 0 06 0 81 0 64 7 34 3 2585 2337 11 2326 75 2.40 0 07 0 81 0 64 1.25 1.25 Average of 3 & 4 l TEST 210 KL3 240 TsNe 7/23M5 4 24 PM l Test 2-10. Summary of Test Dhsu=da==I IWe===reuseet Itesults Specimen 2051B, Tube Dia. = 0.74", Gap = 0.025" Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. Mm.. Pressure Olbet Temp. Angle Crack N N N N Dia. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition length length Arun Imagth Aria (im.) (in.) r (in.) (Max. (im ) (Max. -(is') Note 1 M) Whith) Ga.) On.) 4960 0.0 llot O' .562 .492 .0031 0.0 0.0 .755 .746 Steps I, J (.010W) .746 4960 0.10 Ilot 0* .575 .492 .0038 .081 00048 0.756 .752 Step K (.011W) (.006) 0.746 4960 0.10 Coki Amv.uu-iely same as aAer Step K 0.10" offset test b Notes.

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the two edges of the TSP. Diameters greater than the initial 0.746" diameter exhcate bulging of the tube at the edges of the TSP as a result of the tube pressuruation.

2. Cracks are tight for specimens not pressurized with a bladder and TW area is not applicable.

3. Crack lengths from dye m;.-ii tests

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope. Minimum measurable TW crack opening -0.001" I

l earc\\'r'i\\hhL1=vH=ly 22. **5 + b1_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ - - _ -.. - - _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - - - P Test Plan f:rIRBs 'i I Test 210 General Test Infonnat'on Utilize small leak est facility followed by large leak test facility testing Test 3/4" diameter, corrosion specimen 2051B - Crack length: Silastic mold dye penetrant - 0.551" OD with 0.425" TW . Leak test et 2 615* with selected room temperature tests i

• Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset from TSP -

Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall -l contact the TSP hole at 180 from the crack being leak tested. l . Test Sequence A. Hot (615') leak test with simulated crack inside the TSP and the crack tip at edge of TSP at 1800, 1900 and 2000 psi & l B. Hot (615') free span leak test at 2000,2150 and 2335 psi & l C. Hot (615*) leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335, 2560 and 2750 (or facility limit) psi & Note: If at any time during this test it appears that the facility limit for measuring leak rate is being approached, increase the & to about the facility limit and terminate testing in the small loop. Testing will than be continued in the large loop. D. Leak test at R.T. with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at the 2750 & psi or highest pressure. obtained in Step C and increase the & to the highest & obtainable at room temperature. E. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion [ crack length). Decontaminate the specimen for later testing in large loop facility l F. With the crack tip 0.10" offset outside the TSP, pressurize to 3800 psid with a bladder. If following j pressurization, the corrosion crack tip is more than 0.10" outside the TSP, adjust the specimen to obtain 0.10" of the corrosion crack outside the TSP prior to the leak testing of Step G. Measure the total crack length, the through wall length / width, the exposed throughwall length / width and the tube diameter across the crack flanks including at least 5 points along the crack plus the locations of the l edges of the TSP with the crack tip 0.10" offset and at the edge of the TSP. Report whether the tube is tight or loose in TSP following pressurization. Move specimen to the large leak test facility for the following tests. Either the hot test sequence or the cold test sequence (lined out) are acceptable and selection of hot or cold testing should be based on most efficient completion of the tests. G. Hot (615 F) test with crack tip located at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi & H. Hot (615'F) leak test with 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP j I. Repeat Step F with a bladder pressurization of 4920 psid J. Hot (615'F) test with crack tip located at the edge of the TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP { K. Hot (615"F) leak test with 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP L. R.T. leak test with 0.10" offset outside TSP at 2335 and 2560 psi AP M. Measure cormsion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. j i i i a \\ ape \\eprHistrapse wp6 July 23,1996 l Test 4-1: Summary cf Test Results Test Sequence Order of tests: All bladder pn:ssurization tests - at about free span burst pn:ssure of 5800 psi l inside the EP with zero offset leak test, at 6000 psi with 0.15" offset and offset leak test, 6800 l psi with 0.15" offset and offset leak test, 8900 psi with 0.15" offset and both zero offset and offset leak tests,10120 psi with 0.15" offset and offset leak test, and 11350 psi with 0.15" offset at which time the specimen ruptured like a free span indication outside the EP. Room temperature leak tests were performed for all tests. Note that only the initial and 8900 psi steps had both zero offset and offset leak tests. No leak test results were excluded from the data base. Irak test results show consistent trends with modest fluctu:eions in the data and there is no basis to question the data adequacy. However, this specimen had four cracks, one throughwall at the l start of the test. After the first bladder pressurization step, three cracks were throughwall including two cracks 180 apart. Throughwall cracks 180 apart influence the difTerences in leak mtes between zero offset and offset tests due to competition between the two cmcks to occupy the clearance between the tube and the tube hole. Offseting the crack fium the TSP exposes two i throughwall cracks in this test. l - Due to the multiple cracks in this specimen, the tube was intentionally centered in the tube for the initial bladder pressunzation tests as there was no obvious preferred orientation to maximize the leak rates. The initial bladder pressunzations expanded the two 180 cmck l openings to close the 0.023" tube to TSP diametml gap for this test. It is believed the test results are fully representative of limiting leak lates expected for multiple TW cracks following bladder pn:ssurization with the offset leak rate difTerences increased by exposing two TW cmcks 180 apart. ) Summary of Test Results Irak mtes with the crack within the TSP decrease significantly (about 2.4 gpm at 5800 psi bladder pressure to about 1 gpm after 8900 psi after extrapolation to SLB AP = 2560 psid) with increasing bladder pressure as the increasing pressures progressively close the tube to TSP gap due to plastic deformation of the tube while crack opening an:as only modestly increase. - Afler pressurization to 8900 psi, the crack faces contact the EP ID over close to 0.5" of the 0.626" TW length, lhe two largest cracks are 180 from each other and both are bulged such that the gap flow area within the EP is reduced for both cracks leak rates with the crack offset 0.15" outside the TSP do not significantly change (slight decrease) with increasing bladder pressure Ixak mtes with 0.15" offset are about 4 gpm at SLB conditions or about 60% higher than for the crack within the TSP - Two throughwall cracks are exposed outside the TSP and contribute to the higher leak rate with the 0.15" offset 7/8" diameter specimen with 0.24" TW,0.67" OD by dye penetmnt at start of test - Afler pressurization to appmximately the free span burst pressure of about 6000 psi, the l specimen includes three BV cracks oflengths 0.606, 0.567 and 0.388 inch with maximum emck openings of about 0.020,0.015 and 0.007 inch. After pressurization to 8900 psi, the three TW lengths are 0.626,0.603 and 0.408 inch with a gurpwrtwetrp op4uh 22.1995 L maximum crack openings of 0.022,0.018 and 0.009 inch. The maximum tube diameters inside the TSP have nearly closed the entire tube to TSP gap. - After pressurization to 10120 psi, almost the entire tube has expanded to close the tube to TSP gap. The 90 cmck burst like a fire span crack outside the TSP at 11350 psi with the crack 0.15" outside the TSP (0.142" TW). The bun;t resulted in about a 1" fishmouth opening extended away from the edge of the TSP. - This burst pressure for a TW cmck 0.14" outside the TSP is approximately equal to the free i span burst pressure of an undegraded tube and is mom than 3000 psi higher than the WCAP-14273, Figure 9-2 bunit correlation (after adjustment to the 7/8" tube size of this test) for throughwall cracks extending outside the TSP. i Overall Conclusions SLB leak rates for this indication with multiple throughwall cracks up to 0.61" TW after bladder pressurization to about the fme span burst pressure are bounded by about 4.2 gpm with 0.15" offset and about 2.5 gpm for the crack within the TSP. Cmck opening areas are limited by the tube to TSP gap following contact of the emck face with the TSP ID and the associated areas are less than the minimum geometric flow area formed by the gap. WCAP-14273 model overestimates the flow area and leak rate. Bladder pressurizations above the fire span burst pressure do not n:sult in inemasing leak rates - Therefore, it is was not necessary to include bladder pressurizations above the fire span burst pressure in tests following Test 4-1. - The principal effect of further increases in bladder pressure is to close the tube to 'ISP gap within the TSP along the cmck opening due to plastic deformation and to expand the overall tube diameter to close the gap. lhe 90* crack burst like a free span crack outside the TSP at 11350 psi with the crack 0.15" outside the TSP (0.142" TW). This burst pressure is more than 3000 psi higher than the WCAP-14273, Figure 9-2 burst correlation for throughwall cracks extending outside the TSP. . n m,u, = m Test 4-1 Indications Restrained From Burst Leak Rate Tests (as-measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10 l I I "' j = q Teet t --- __ ~ Cenemed. HT,5000 --e--08eet 0.15. RT. 4000 5 r --+--ORest 015. RT. 0000 = ORest 0.15. RT,7725 l --o--Onnet 0.15. RT,8000 J --o--Conteses. RT,3g00 .e-

• ONast 0.15. RT.10120 oo I

I 1800 1900 2000 2I00 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 i Ap (psi) i Test 4-1 Indications Restrained From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to Tp=615'F and pe=15 pela Conditions) 10.0 1 m: ~~' e Test Sequence e s Cenewed. HT.5000 o 1.0 - _ _.. ~. . og-.. -e-- Onnet 0.15. RT. 8000 I i i .3 i - Onnet 0.15. RT,7725 i i j I --o-Osset 0.15. RT,8000 ly_ -- O --Centred. RT,9900 l - e- = OMeet 0.15. RT.10120 0.1 1800 1900 2000 2l00 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 AP (P*i) Test 4 - 1 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results Specimen 4B-214, Tube Diameter = 0 876", Gap = 0.023" Evaluated Test Averages Adjusted Test Averages Evaluation for Plots Leak M* Leak ^" Adjusted for T,=-r Rate temp. & Average fest Subies Max. P-P AP (ps7) %4 pressore(py) teak Race comments teak A Y Sequence No. AP.,,(psi) (psig) (psig) m Rate (RT) (gpm) ) (Epm) 4-ID I Wa 2175 0 2175 70 3 86 n/a 0 81 0 61 1 91 1 81 Average of I & 2 Bladder 5800 2 n/a 2160 0 2160 70 3 49 n/a 0 81 0 61 l.72 Wahin TSP, R1 3 n/a 2270 0 2270 70 3 91 n/a 0 81 0 63 2 00 2 02 Average of 3 & 4 4 Wa 2345 0 2315 70 3 91 n/a O SI 0 64 2 03 4-lE I n/a 2005 0 2005 70 5.76 n/a 0 81 0 56 2 64 2 64 Bladder 6000 2 n/a 2155 0 2155 70 6 21 n/a O SI 0 61 3 05 3 05 Offset 015*, R1 3 n/a 2350 0 2350 70 6 82 n/a 0 81 0 65 3.58 357 Averageof 3 & 4 4 n/a 2350 0 2350 70 740 Wa O SI 0 65 3 57 4-Ill(i) I n/a 2175 0 2175 70 5 95 n/a 0 81 06l 2.94 2% Average of l & 2 Bladder 6900 2 n/a 2190 0 2190 70 5 99 n/a 0 SI 0 61 2.98 OfTset 015*, R1 3 n/a 2390 0 2390 70 6 72 n/a 0 81 0 65 3.57 3 41 Average of 3 & 4 4 n/a 2380 0 2380 70 6 15 n/a 0 81 0 65 3 26 4-Ill(ii) I n/a 2160 0 2160 70 6 04 n/a 0 81 0 61 2 97 3 01 Average of I & 2 Bladder 7725 2 n/a 2160 0 2160 70 6 20 Wa 0 81 0 61 3 05 OfTset 015*, R1 3 n/a 2350 0 2350 70 6 59 n/a 0 81 0 65 3 46 3.43 Average of 3 & 4 4 n/a 2350 0 2350 70 6 48 n/a 0 81 0 65 3 40 4-lil(iii) I n/a 2210 0 2210 70 5 99 n/a 0 81 0 62 3 00 2 99 Average of I & 2 Bladder 8900 2 n/a 2210 0 2210 70 5 95 n/a 0 81 0 62 2.98 OfTset 015*, RT 3 n/a 2395 0 2395 70 6 15 n/a 0 81 0 66 3 27 3.29 Average of 3 & 4 4 n/a 2410 2410 70 6 20 n/a 0 81 0 66 3 31 4-17 I n/a 2525 0 2525 70 1.75 n/a 0 81 0 68 0% 0% Bladder 8900 2 n/a 2540 0 2540 70 1.73 n/a 0 88 0.68 0 95 0 95 Within TSP, RT 4-IL I 2343 2076 42 2034 70 6 82 0.17 0 88 0.57 3.17 3.21 Average of I & 2 Bladder 10I20 2 2294 2092 43 2049 70 6.94 0.17 0 81 0 58 3 25 Offset 0.15*, RT 3 2532 2253 46 2207 70 7 13 Oli 0 81 0 62 3.57 3.59 Average of 3 & 4 4 2532 2275 46 2229 70 7.17 0 15 0 81 0 62 3 62 4-6 XLS 4-1 febk 745N14 SC PM Test 4-1 Samniary of Test Diniensional Measuresnest Resuhs Specinien 4B-214, Tube Dia. = 0.876", Gap = 0.023" Bisdder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed Max. M m. Presure Offset Temp. Angle Crack W TW W W h Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition h egth hugth Area hugth Ana (ie.) (in.) (ia.) (Max. (im') (Max. (im') - Note I width) Width) (ie.) (im.) 5800 0.0 Initial 90* 0.65## 0.0 Tight 0.0 0.0 0.901 0.875 270* 0.67## 0.24(# Tight 0.0 0.0 0* 0.610 # 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.893 0.882 180* 0.590l* 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cold Test Crack lengths following bladder pressumation are 0.0 0.0 approximately the same as those measured after 0.15" offset test 6000 0.I5 Cold 90* 0.665 0.606 0.0099 0.099 0.0011 0.901 >0.875 Steps D, E, F (0.020W) (0.013W) ' O.871 270* 0.676 0.567 0.0067 0.112 0.0008 (0.015W) (0.009W) 0* 0.606 0388 0.0022 0.0 0.0 0.893 >0.882 i (0.007W) 0.881 180* 0.583 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6800 0.15 Not Measured i Steps G1,111 1 i 7725 0.15 Not Measured Steps G2,112 l i s spe\\epef\\kthek1@)=ly 14199 -w a--. _-,.._-.._.--4n ,-. _ - - __ _ _, -,e __,e -a n ,., _., +.,.., _ m Test 4-1 Summary of Test Dimensional Measurement Results Specimen 4Ik214, Tube Dia. = 0.876", Gap = 0.023" Bladder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Expmed Max. Min. Pressure Offset Temp. Angle Crack DV DV TW DV Dia. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition Length length Area length Area (In.) (in.) 2 r (in.) (Max. (in ) (Max. (in) Note 1 Midth) Midth) (in.) (in.) 8900 0.15 Cold 90* 0.668 0.626 0.0125 0.133 0.0017 0.901 0.898 Steps G3, IB, I (0.022W) (0.013W) 0.877 270* 0.680 0.603 0.0090 0.122 0.0010 (0.018W) (0.010W) 0* 0.608 0.408 0.0030 0.0 0.0 0 195 0.895 (0.009W) 0.888 180* 0.583 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8900 0.0, Step J Cold 90* Same as for 8900 psi bladder 0.0 0.0 0.901 0.879 pn:ssure with 0.015" offset 0.880 0* 0.0 0.0 0.898 0.889 0.888 180 0.0 0.0 10120 0.15 Cold 90* 0.673 0.658 0.0138 0.142 0.0033 0.904 0.904 Steps L1, M (0.026W) (0.026W) 0.886 270* 0.684 .6 w/lig. 0.0130 0.100 0.0016 (0.025W) (0.016W) J 0.608 0.408 0.0030 0.078 0.00047 0.900 0.901 (0.010W) (0.006W) 0.8% 180 0.582 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sarc\\vi\\=waz pMy 4196 i Test 4-1 Summunry of Test Dianessional Measuressent Results Specismen 48 214, Tube Dia. = 0.876", Gap = 0.823" Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Exposed - Max. lWan. Pressure OfIliet Temp. Angle Crack N N N N-Dia.' Dia. (pui) (ia.). Condition Imagth length Area Imagth Area (ie.) (ie.) (im.) (Max. (im') (Max. (im') Note 1 Width) Width) (ie.) - (im.) l! I1350 0.15 N/A Tube burst outside 1SP at the 90" crack with about a 1" crack eearing extension Step L2 t i 1 Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximmeely the values at the two edges of the 13P. Diameters gresser than the initial 0.876" diameter ir=hr*

l bulging of the tube at the edges of the 13P as a result of the tube pressuruation. 2. Crack lengths from dye re a measurements prior to bladder pressuruation.

3. Crack lengths fium toolmaker's microscope. Minimum measurable 1W crack opeang -0.001".

f I. earc\\er \\iMedzwySp.sy n ise - w .-m -... - ~. ~ Test Plan ferIRBs Test 4-1 General Test Infonnation 4

• Utilize large leak test facility i
• Test 7/8" diameter specimen 4B 214 l

- Crack length: Dye Penetrant 0.67" with 0.24" TW; UT - 0.74" with 0.50" TW Leak test at room temperature except as specifically noted i

• Tube to TSP diametral gap of 0.025" except per adjustments noted
• Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall l

contact the TSP hole at 180* from the crack being leak tested. i Test Sequence A. Pressurize to 5800 psid with a bladder l If tube is loose in TSP following pressurization, replace TSP to obtain about 0.001" diametral i clearance between the maximum diameter of the crack opening and the TSP hole. This requirement i applies following all bladder pressurizations of this test sequence. B. Room temperature leak test at 2335,2560 psi AP C. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond cormsion crack length). Estimate corrosion throughwall length. - D. Move crack to 0.15" outside TSP and pressurize to the same pressure as step A Move tube by 0.15" relative to the TSP E. Room temperature leak test at 2335,2560 psi AP. If high temperature facility is available, repeat leak test at 615 F. i F. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and r., valuate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion i crack length). G. With the 0.15" crack position, pressurize with a bladder (and foil if necessary) to about 1000 psi ( above the prior pressurization step ,H. Room temperature leak test at 2335,2560 psi AP L Repeat steps G and H with increases in bladder pressure of 1000 psi increments until bladder / foil pressurization of about 9000 psi is achieved J. At bladder pressurization of about 8900 psi, also perform R.T. leak test with crack centered in the [ TSP K. At bladder pressurization of about 8900 psi, perform hot (L>615+F) leak test with crack tip 0.15 inch [ offset from the edge of the TSP

• j L. Continue bladder pressurization increases in about 1000 psi increments (initially about 9900 psi) and perform either room temperature or hot leak tests (option to increase facility efficiency) at 2335 and 2560 psi with 0.15 inch offset following each pressurization step. Terminate testing when the 1

indication bursts outside the TSP.

M. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond

' corrosion crack length). Measure throughwall corrosion length and corrosion depth verus length profile. Test performed prior to acceptance of hot leak test facility and data not included in evaluations, i sTape\\epnuetrupbt wWuly 23.1996 } i Test 2-8: Summary of Test Results Imser Slot Specimen Test Sequence Order of tests: zero offset, fimpan, offset, cold offset. No bladder pmssurization tests wem performed for this test. This test required 10 data points to be deleted because of hysterisis effects resulting fmm tests under flow pressurization that a mn at lower pressure differentials than prior tests. The leak rate measumments show consistent trends and modest fluctuations such that the data are considered adequate test data for a laser specimen. However, the larger crack opening areas for a laser slot, especially at the crack tips, result in high leak mies that are not protypic of corrosion cracks as discussed below. The crack to EP gap of 0.027" for this test, as demonstrated by the increase in crack diameter, is consistent with the target gap of 0.025". Summary of Test Results The shallow slope of the leak rate curve above 1900 psi and the large increase in leak rate for free span conditions clearly demonstrate that interaction with the EP significantly reduces leak I mtes. - The effects of crack to TSP interaction are similar to that for corrosion cmcks although the lake rates are too high to be representative of corrosion cracks. The maximum SLB leak rate for this laser cut specimen is about 6.1 gpm in the offset condition. - The maximum crack width for this specimen increased from an initial about 1 mil width to 0.007" after the zero offset test, 0.021" after the freespan test and 0.035" after the offset test. His crack width exceeds the corrosion cmck widths for specimens tested up to 0.62" throughwall and is exceeded in this test program only by the 0.044" width found for the 0.74" TW cmck of Test 1-6. 1he large width of this specimen at the tips of the laser slot result in the laser slot bemg an unacceptable specimen for testing leak rate effects of EP offset. The non-prototypic, large TW areas of the laser slot exposed by offsetting the EP result in unrealistically large leak rates for offset tests. - Photographs of the post-test laser cut specimen show well rounded and wide openings at the tips of the laser slot that are not typical of corrosion cracks (compare laser slot after offset test to photographs for Tests 1-7 and 2-7 which have comparable crack lengths). - The crack opening TW area outside the EP for the laser specimen offset test of 0.0021 in is 2 60% higher than the largest corrosion specimen in Test 1-6 (0.74" TW vs. 0.55" for laser slot) The leak rates for the 0.55" TW laser slot are significantly higher (factors of 3 to 4 in free span) than obtained for the 0.577" 7W corrosion crack of Test 2-7. - De laser slot shows interaction with the EP at lower pressures than the Test 2-7 corrosion specimen even though the crack to EP gap was 0.027" for the laser slot and 0.022" for Test 2-7. When the test pressure drops are adjusted to the maximum AP at the start of the leak test as compamd to the average pressure drop used for reporting test results, the trends related to interaction with the EP and the SLB leak rate are not significantly changed although the test pressures are increased by about 200 psi. .w.m a,~ I l Overall Conclussons . Laser cut specimens an: not an acceptable substitute for corrosion cracks for leak testing Laser cut specimens result in a factor of 3 increase in free span leak rates as indicated by cm, wing Tests 2-8 and 2-7 results - The large widths at the tips of the laser slot result in non-representative leak rates for offset test conditions. The trends and effects of crack to TSP interaction can be demonstrated by laser slots although the leak rates are too high to be representative of corrosion cracks j 1 l i 1 I

• =pt t=rp-p wy n tws

m. Test 24 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (as measured, without adjustment to reference conditions) 10 i I i ,./ _ _i -a i i i j l l .I I / !/ I 1 1.e. n / g I / l' ~ C"emed HT 5 i d i w - &

• FemenestMT I

I - e-on.eLo 1o.HT a t - e - on.mosr. n i i 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2000 Ap (pol) Test 24 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Leak Rate Test Data Normailred to 415T and 15 poi Secondary Pressues) 10 i e i e i i i i l i j l I l l u '/ N Test seguence i j f k 4 emme nr 1 2 { - e.F - wt E l --o --on.eto.so.Mt j 3 i l i - - on oir.nt A g I 4 f i j l l i 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 Ap(pel) Comparison of Data for Tests 2-7 and 2-8 indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Leak Rate Test Data Normalized to 615'F and.15 psi Secondary Pressure) 10.0 _.._. __ - T_l_ 1 "-~~~ _ _. _ _ _ys---------- ,_g____ (Y ,a Test Sequence [ "M / - + - Centered, HT, Test 2 7 ~ G. W 3 s Free Span, HT, Test 2-7 ~ ~ - O - ORset 0.10, HT, Test 2-7 M I ^'s --+--Centered HT, Test 2-8 ^^ y j - ~ - - ' - + Freescan, HT. Test 2-8 v --S--Onset,0.10. HT, Test 2-8 0.1 l 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 AP (Psi) Ch2-7&2-8 TEST 2-8.XLS 7/16/95 Test 2-8 Comparison of Leak Rates Based on Average and Max. Dp indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Leak Rate Test Data Normalized to 615'F and 15 psi Secondary Pressure) 10 _ JB % __ / O Test Sequence l _l. [ / d >t " ~ 0 Centered, Max. Dp ,/ A Free Span. Max. Op e --G--Offset 0.10*, Max Dp _. - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --lE--Offset 0.10*, RT, Max. Op j Centered, Avg. Dp a Free Span, Avg. Op - G-Offset 0.10. Avg Dp 'O - 4(- Offset 0.10", RT, Avg. Dp / 4 1 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 AP (Psi) Ch_ Avg-vs-MaxDp TEST 2-8.XLS 7/23/95 e Y Q 2 3. g ~ -. girp, i.O -c m - ,g

...s

t.- -~

2. 2 7. I, ? -:i ~ C. f n ~ - ~ _ _ y,. ' s ~ ~ -s l 5< .v. 4 l

t. -th h.. ;0 J

g... ;;~...- E ; - }; u. g.- c. - 7, c:' ..s s c. .sr.+ 4 9 Am y Q:

r.a=

a.,

4. A

.c 3 ice. \\ l i f Test 2-8a. 12ser Slot Prior to I.cak Testing L__________._____ .'.%2. F5.2[y..,. u.

l f..

W,. ~ e ~.a. .c 4c,., ~4 -- c.; _ - - t, ;; q ).'. ,,.~* ^ 7._. _...WW:fsEKr k. ...a,,.., ,7 L.,.. 2. $~,., :e. m..... - m ~- ~ .e ,.,T' !4 1, h .!'J : e D* j .. M.:.' w A .".a% _. n1.. h,..

v. ; ;. -~~. ~

T.* TV' . ~, ,h.

• 'il".

) . y-a 'e na,.n.- @ J,F +d.',a'%; p. ? ? a .g e r- - 1 ,'3 ... e ,n 2 5, .?ff s. ,.m

r y QF :

z.

.s - .a: i

m,.C.

4 y.,. i - i** r#" @ T.r 1,.difl ~4'IM s i.. :w .a n m.. -.,. n $1.. - .,4 <,c.,hi. iTh'.. y l li~ M T -- s egh: F r.. ..? ~m...: s- . x. 4. -(.....~ i t.. 4 g - 4; - :.e ,' d .gh p ~ s.. p y x:y ! q a 3*

• _, Cg:y?w:...

y;4% hinm e i 6 f. '4% y e 1

k

q. -

'. *c T .. g ^ g* 5. . ~ '.=irr;x5. '. . i.f., 1 { I l i i t i Test 2-8b. Laser Slot After Test with Zao Offset l l l l ) .... - - - ~ -... .. - =, l l! - haf,ll N' ... v,.,a i - ' b,T T. y , P %; y. (', ,( 5:? f n I l ,T

p 4

i; ' ). A 4 .c 1 {

• :n y

1 kk. 5 s. -? t~ f.. t t ;"y :

. ;~

g:-- i v - i' $;,p,.. l t. 2_ Q's t.o.. ' ).3 - .s. I - :~~g..;: '~ . ?f.: :Q-(= pg. y

y,.

.:. [ ;f -.ii e. g.y A -r u.- 1 i i I Test 2-8c. laser Slot After Leak Test in Offset Condition 3 I, I Test 2 - 8 Summary of Leak Test and Analysis Results i Specimen LC-2, Tube Diameter = 0.744", Gap = 0.025" Evaluated Test Averages Adjusted Test Averages Evaluation for Plots Leak Irak Adjusted for Test Subtest Max. P-P T- ^{*'*se Comrnents Rate temp. & ] k Sequence No. AP (psi) (psiB) (M B) (Psi) (F) Uncertainty Pressure (St) i Rmm (gpm) (gpm) %) 2-8A 1 1766 1828 97 1734 616 I.65 0.15 1.00 0.90 1 48 1.48 Within TSP 2 1818 1912 1% 1806 630 1.75 0 09 1.01 1.06 1.89 1.92 Average of 2,4 & 5 j i HT 3 1804 1805 102 1703 611 1.97 0.17 1.00 0.84 1.65 Delete - Hysteresas 4 1886 1938 114 1824 628 2.07 0.14 1.01 1.03 2.I4 t 5 1885 1914 112 1802 618 1.87 0.18 1.00 0.92 1.72 6 1988 2045 119 1926 632 1.89 0.lb I.01 1.06 2.03 1.95 Average of 6 & 7 7 2010 2017 114 1903 619 1.99 0.12 1.00 0.94 1.87 s 8 2055 2084 107 1977 632 l 1.70 0.1 1.01 1.07 1.84 I,84 2-8B I 1832 1939 195 1744 612 3.10 0.1 1 00 Free Span 2 1933 2002 206 1796 621 3.28 0.18 1 00 .0.79 2.45 Delete - Hywresis 0.86 2.85 Delete-Hysteresis HT 3 1997 1921 224 1697 604 3.75 0.13 0 99 0.71 2.65 Delete - Hysteresis 4 2012 2037 225 1812 613 3.73 0.16 1.00 0.80 2.99 Delete - Hysteresis 5 2068 1977 255 1722 5% 4 47 0.21 0.99 0.67 2.% Delete - Hysteresis 6 2118 2150 309 1841 607 5.24 0.2 0.99 0.74 3 87 Delete - Hysteresis 7 2127 2244 315 1929 604 5.30 0.23 0.99 0.76 3.98 3.98 8 2195 2399 3% 2003 622 6.46 0.24 1.01 0.81 _ 5.28 5.90 _ Average of 8 & l0 9 2259 2350 455 1895 604 8.04 0.3 0.99 0.70 5.56 Delete - Hysterests 10 2325 2516 491 2025 615 8.62 0.48 I 00 0.76 6.53 2-8C 1 2196 2409 243 2166 640 3.70 0.07 1.02 1.02 3.53 4.23 Average of l & 2 OfTset 0.10" 2 2317 2405 245 2160 655 3.84 0.19 1.04 1.16 4.63 HT 3 2304 2326 273 2053 602 4.67 0.25 0.99 0.80 3 68 Deicte Hysteresis 4 2585 2269 352 2269 620 5.84 0.37 1.00 1.03 6.03 6.16 Average of 4 & 5 5 2610 2270 382 2270 605 6.67 0.28 0.99 0.95 6.29 6 2590 2799 383 2416 631 6.05 0.32 1.01 0.91 5.59 5.59 2-8E I 2576 2305 33 2272 75 6.68 0.16 0.98 0.63 4.12 Delete - Hysteresis Offset 0.10* 2 2054 2387 36 235; 75 6.78 0.11 0.98 0.65 4.29 430 Average of 2 & 3 l RT 3 2662 2404 38 2366 75 6.78 0.18 0.98 0.65 431 4 3124 2744 51 2693 75 7.42 0.24 0.98 0.70 5.09 5.02 Average of 4 & 5 5 3115 2748 53 2695 75 7.20 0.2 0.98 0.70 4.94 t 4 TEST 2 8.XLS 2 4 TaNe 7mM5 5.20 Phi ,.i.- -.w y,'--.- er n .-v- -w-e+- * ,w +w '.v.--'.r+ 'wr--vvvw 'wt-- 'w-w --e-ve--y r-w+w w .w-v+'= s'- + e .w<--w7* 'w* v w'. * - w w Test 24. Senunary of Tat Dhnensionni Messertsment Raults Specisnen IRB.LC2, Tube Dia. = 0.744", Gap = 0.025" BIndder Tube Test Total Total Total Exposed Frpn-I Max. M s. Pressure Ofliset Teenp. Angle Crack TW 1W TW 'IW Dia. Dia. (psi) (in.) Condition Emigth Imagth Area Imagth Ann (ie.) (in.) 2 2 (ia.) (Max. (in) Max. ' (im) Note I Width) m) (ie.) (ie.) None 0.0 Initial Dint O' O.5579 N.M.m -0.00053 0.0 0.0 0.744 0.745 Step A 0.744 Hot Test O' O.5579 0.525'* 0.0029-0.0 0.0 0.748 0.744 (0.007W) 0.744 None Freespan Hot 0* 0.554'* 0.5479 0.0093 0.764 0.742 Step B (0.021W) 0.743 None 0.10 Hot 0* 0.565 0.558 0.0164 0.104 0.0021 ~ 0.774 0.763 Steps C, D (.035W) (0.025W) 0.745 None 0.10 Cold O* O.569 0.558 0.0164 . 0.097 0.0020 0.7 73 0.760 Steps E, F (.035W) (0.025W) 0.744 Notes:

1. Diameters given are approximately the values at the two edges of the TSP. Diamesers girater than the initial 0.749" diameter indicase bulging of the tube at the edges of the 'ISP as a result of the tube pressurimetion.

2. Not measurable. Irregular light penetration through slot. Maximum measurable width oflaser slow - 0.0015".

3. Crack lengths from dye penetrant tests

4. Crack lengths from toolmaker's microscope. Minimum measurable TW anck opening -0.001" marc \\w\\hw 62Wiely n we.

.. _ _. _ _...... ~. _ _.. _ -... _ _ _.,...,.. m i Test Plan fsrIRBs Test 2-8 Geneml Test Infonnation f Utilize large leak test facility testmg j

• - Test 3/4" diameter, laser cut specimen IRB-LC-2: 0.55" TW 3
• - Leak test at 2: 615'F with selected room temperature tests.
• Locate specimen relative to the TSP per requirements for crack locations within TSP and offset from TSP
• Tubes shall be free to move within TSP during pressurization or, as a minimum, the tube shall f

contact the TSP hole at 180* fmm the crack being leak tested. Test Sequence ' - A. Hot (615"F) leak test with simulated crack inside TSP and crack tip at edge of TSP at 1800,1900 and 2000 psi & B. - Hot (615'F) free span leak test at 2000, 2150 and 2335 psi & C. Hot (615*F) leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP.at 2335, psi & (adjust, if necessary, to the same & as last test of Step C),2560,2700 psi & and another higher & at facility limit i D. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length), E. Room Temperature leak test with crack tip 0.10" offset outside TSP at the highest & obtained in the Step C testing and another higher & at facility limit i F. Measure crack opening length, diameter, area and evaluate crack tearing extension (beyond corrosion crack length). G. Measure corrosion throughwall length and length versus depth profile. I h [ f 1 . som%.my sum l i 1 N 10 Tmnd Analyses I i Trend Analyses leak Rate D* on Crack length, Crack Opening Area, Offset Area, etc. Method of analysis - all leak rates adjusted to 2560 psid based on linear extrapolation of log leak rate versus pressure data plots. Crack lengths and open areas obtained from dimensional measurements for each test. Leak rates correlate well with throughwall cmck length - Good agreement between conelations for zero offset and offset leak mtes - Except for laser slot used in Test 2-8 which has twice the leak rate found for throughwall cracks of comgsible length Leak rates correlate reasonably well with total crack opening area - Slope of conelation decreases (does not follow linear mlation typical of free span cmcks) with increasing area indicating tube to TSP interaction reduces leak rate and effective crack area for large crack opening areas - Good agreement between conelations for offset and zero offset data - Some spread in the data about the regression curve can be expected due to uncertainties in the throughwall crack area measurements Offset test leak rates show no correlation with the offset throughwall length and only a weak conelation with the offset TW area outside the TSP The differences in leak rates between offset and zero offset crack locations correlate reasonably with the offset flow area outside the TSP for tests prior to bladder pressurization but not for tests following pressurization to the free span burst pressure The leak rate trends for the laser slot of Test 2-8 are distintly different than that for corrosion i cracks. 'Ihe leak rate is about twice that of conosion cracks of compamble throughwall lengths. and the crack opening area is more than three times that found for corrosion cracks of comparable lengths. Thus laser slots are not an adequate simulant for corrosion cracks in leak rate testing. Summary conclusions SLB leak rates for IRBs are primarily a function of the throughwall crack length SLB leak rates do not inen:ase linearly with the crack opening area, as would be expected for free span cracks, since the larger openings interact with the TSP hole ID to retard leakage flow from the largest crack widths near the center of the crack. The increase in leakage from cracks offset outside the TSP relative to the total crack within the TSP is a function of the cmck opening area outside the TSP prior to reaching the flee span burst pressure of the indication. a ww=rp.puy 22, tws i m Summary of SLB Leak Rates (2560 psid) and Crack Length / Area Data r Flow Pressurization Tests l 2560 poi 2560 poi i Inital Lengths Total Offset Leek Rate Total Leek Rate l Test Specimen Total TW TW Length TW Area TW Length TW Aree gpm TW Length TW Aree gym F2-4 7/8,4C218 0.600 0.290 0.330 0.000330 0.000 0.00000 0.37 N.M. N.M. 0.37 F2-10 3/4,2051B 0.551 0.425 0.425 0.000425 0.000 0.00000 1.70 N.M. N.M. 1.70 F2-1 7/8,8161 A 0.640 0.515 0.504 0.003300 0.134 0.00060 1.65 0230 0.00058 0.93 j F2-7 3/4,2051E 0.660 0.577 0.636 0.008500 0.088 0.00048 4.10 0.515 0.00090 N.R.(2) F2-8 3/4,lRB-L62 0.553 0.550 0.558 0.016400 0.104 0.00210 6.10 0.525 0.00290 2.30 F1-1 7/8,8161G 0.626 0.620 0.595 0.004500 0.147 0.00074 3.70 0.494 0.00200 2.30 F1-2 7/8,8161E 0.645 0.620 0.666 0.006500 0.145 0.00087 3.20 0.574 0.00170 N.R. F1-7 3/4,2051 A 0.600 0.600 0.602 0.007100 0.091 0.00064 4.10' O.530 0.00430 3.20 F1-6 3/4,2008E 0.760 0.740 0.724 0.024900 0.070 0.00130 5.50 0.619 0.01180 3.40 F4-1 7/8,4B214 0.670 0.240 0.606 0.009900 0.999 0.0011 N.M.# 0.606 0.00990 N.M. i l Bladder Pressurization Tests l Offset Test Zero Offset Test 2560 psi 2560 poi i Inital Lengths Total Offset Leek Rate Total Leak Rate Test Specimen Total TW TW Length TW Area TW Length TW Area opm TW Length TW Aree gpm B2-4 7/8.4C218 0.600 0.290 0.382 0.0038 0.076 0.00076 1.90 0.382 0.0038 1.3 B2-10 3/4,2051B 0.551 0.425 0.492 0.0038 0.081 0.00048 1.60 0.492 0.0031 1.6 B2-1 7/8,8161 A 0.640 0.515 0.504 0.0038 0.132 0.00073 3.10 0.509 0.0041 3.2 B2-7 3/4,2051E 0.660 0.577 0.637 0.0095 0.087 0.00052 3.70 0.637 0.0104 42 B2-8 3/4,lRB-L62 0.553 0.550 N.M. B1-1 7/8,8161G 0.626 0.620 0.595 0.0052 0.147 0.00074 2.40 0.595 0.0052 3.5 B1-2 7/8,8161E 0.645 0.620 0.668 0.0078 0.085 0.00051 2.80 0.666 0.0073 2.7 B1-7 3/4.2051A 0.600 0.600 0.613 0.0087 0.100 0.00087 3.30 0.613 0.0090 3.2 B1-6 3/4,2008E 0.760 0.740 0.726 0.0262 0.070 0.00160 5.00 0.726 0.0257 4.8 B4-1 7/8,48214 0.670 0.240 0.606 0.0099 0.099 0.00110 4.20 0.606 0.0099

2.5 Notes

l (1) Approximate leak rates at 2560 psid based on linear extrapolations of log leak rate vs. delta P plots. (2) N. R. = Estimate not reliable due to low pressure tested in zero offset condition. (3) N. M. = Not measured. Test not performed. TP071495.XLS: Crack Length & Area Data Table:7/23/95 l .~

Offset Leak Rate vs. Throughwall Crack Length 100.00 k 10.00 / / o i / 1 h A a t x 1 0 l CL E g3 o 1.00 0.10 0.100 1.000 TW Length -+- F24 -G-F2-10 --er-F2-1 --O-F2-7 -*- F2-8 -G-F1-1 -*- F 1 -2 -#- F1-7 N F1-6 82-4 B2-10 -e-B2-1 B2-7 -E-B1-1

81-2 81-7

--M-81-6 84-1 Regreselon Fisueledder TP071495 XLS:TW Length-7/17/95

Zero Offset Leak Rate vs. Throughwall Crack Length 10.00 / X 0 s. I ,t., + 1 I 1 a: j 1.00

---

g - -'

J 3c. 3M 0.10 0.100 1.000 Within TSP TW Length ^ --*-- F2-1 --+- F2-8 -G-F 1-1 F1-7 33 F14 --*- 82-4 - - O 10 -e-B2-1 --O-B2-7 -E-B1-1 81-2 B1-7 -M-814 --*>- B4-1 Reyeesion FleuWBeneder TP071495.XLS: TSP TW Langet7/1785

Comparison of Offset and Zero Offset Leak Rates vs. TW Length Regression Results 100 1 / = 3 E .ac e e _J .s y CL o ep eft j ,.=**. e 9 g O O*, y y ,e

• y 0.1 l

0.1 1 l TW Length Reyeeskm Oftest Flameendder TW Longm - - - - Reyeeston Zero Offset Flameledder TW Lange i l l TP071405AS.Compertson of TW & TSP TW Lgk7/1725 ___w

Offset Leak Rate vs. Total Crack Opening Area 7.00 6.00 f--- - I - - - - /' 5.00 l 1 -- x - - - - - e c 4.00 -- * - *- -- j - - -- i .5 a 3 3.00 - =- n. + h a 2.00 8 AD 1.00 - e 0.00 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 Total TW Area l ** F2-8 F2-4 -G-F2-10 -*- F2-1 -*- F2-7 -G-F1-1 -*- F1-2 -O-F1-7 E F1-6 82-4 -D-B2-10 -e-B2-1 -O-B2-7 -E-B 1-1

81-2 81-7

-M-01-6 -+- 84 1 Reposehn Flameledder TP07140SXLS: Tales TW Arse 7/17516

t i i i 4 0 l l l 4 l l i 2 l

x l

l [ %8E n 1 g E I i l l' i 4 i o o<i = i 4 I l I ce i C { l ) o I i e i o I l i E $$$n I [ y E "f" h Oh g i i o l l I 3 i E x I . x t h o, 2%3~ wmed t a o i o e l i l l 6 o o11 e i t i I 1 +l O { 5 I h N M 2 8 ei l 6 l -949 i UCEE 8 l <in It l g i 4 g 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S So d 4 4 5 d a d J e a 6 g and6 eseg geol tsd oggg g iri 8c E

1 Comparison of Offset and Zero Offset Leak Rate vs. Total Crack Area Regression Results 7 4 6 b 5 g - - t on e li 4 a: .= a -...1,--- E 3 a. k 2 ,. ~- . - ~. 0 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 Total TW Area Regroselon Offset Fkm4Nedder Todel TW Aree - - - - - Regreselon Zero Offset Flammedder Wuhin TSP TW Aree TP071495.XLS: Comp Total & WRhiri TSP TW Aree:7/17/95

j Offset Leak Rate vs. Throughwall Length Outside TSP l 7.00 6.00 n 5.00 -- ---x--- 4- -- - k. l4_oo

• e

-. _- - _L - - .g O E 2 -8 A 3 3.00 A a. + M X 2.00 3 A 1.00 0.00 4 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 Offset TW Length -e-F2-1 --*- F2-7 -*-- F24 -G-F1 1 -e-F1-2 -*- F1-7 E F14 -4>- B2-4 82-10 -er-821 -O-B2-7 -E-B1-1 81-2 81-7 -M-B14 --0-- 84-1 TP071495I'XOffset TW Lengtit7/17195

Offset Leak Rate vs. Cracking Opening Area Outside TSP 7.00 6.00 f-n 5.00 p - - --- - - - --- 1. $ 4.00 - - - f4 - f-- 'o l-a E .00 3 3 8 / n x 2.00 d A 1.00 - 0.00 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 Offset TW Area -er-F2-1 F2-7 --*-- F24 --e-F 1 -1 1 F1-2 F1-7 E F14 -*- 82-4 B2-10 -e-B2-1 --O-82-7 -E-51-1 B1-2 B1-7 -M-B14 --@- B4 1 Regresolon Flaus90ndder TP071495.XLS Offset TW Arse 7/17/95

Leak Differences Between Offset and Zero Offset vs. Offset TW Area Outside TSP 4.0 / 3.0 / 2.0 I e I g a m l E 1.0 A a o i e X $ 0.0 : ~ O 7 g O i .3 -1.0 g -2.0 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 0.0025 Offset TW Area F2-4 - F2-10 -e-F2-1 --+- F2-8 --G-F1 -1 -O-F1 7 -S-F1-6 -o-B2-4 B2-10 -O-B2-7 -X-B 1-1

B1-2 B1-7

-M-B 1 -6 -@- B4-1 Regression: Flow Data Only TP071495.XLSieek Rate Changes:7/23/95

Trend Analyses l 1 Compadsons of Tube to TSP Interaction Predicted by Belgian Crack Opening Diameter Versus Pressure Measurements with Interaction Inferred fmm Leak Tests i Belgian measurements of crack opening diameter as a function of the ratio of the applied AP to the free span burst pressure provide an estimate of the AP at which contact of the crack face (at center of crack) would contact the ID of the TSP hole.

• The leak rate tests can be used to infer interaction with the TSP by the leak rates becoming weakly dependent on AP, as compared to free span behavior for which leak rates increase significantly with AP due to increased crack opening widths.
• Interaction with the TSP as inferred from leak rate trends is consistent with that obtained from the Belgian data. In general, the leak rates imply interaction at somewhat lower APs than the Belgian data.
• Seven of the nine specimens tested by flow pressurization (excludes 4-1 which had only bladder pressurization to expand the crack) resulted in leak rates reduced by interaction with the TSP.

Only the two shortest crack lengths tested (Tests 2-4 and 2-10) did not result in interaction with the TSP. 'Ihmughwall Crack Lengths Outside the TSP for Offset Tests Leak tests were performed for the crack tip offset from the edge of the TSP for both flow and bladder pressurization tests

• The throughwall length measurements are based on measuring the length of light visible through the crack. The width of the crack must be about one mil wide for light to be visible. These measurements may underestimate the throughwall length since the crack width at the tip of the crack may be less than a mil wide. For some tests (Tests 1 -1, 1 -6, 2-1 ), the ID crack length at the start of the test, as measured by dye penetrant with silastic molds, is larger than the throughwall length at the end of testing.
• For the 3/4" tubing tests with the crack tips offset by 0.10", the throughwall lengths outside the TSP at the end of the offset test ranged from 0.005" to 0.104" with flow pressurization and from 0.007" to 0.100" with bladder pressurization. Except for the shortest crack length tested (Test 2-10), the throughwall lengths outside the TSP exceeded 0.07" out of the 0.10" offset.

- The offset throughwall lengths for the four largest cracks are equivalent to or exceed the maximum TSP displacements at the most limiting tube location for the lowest four TSPs which include 98% of the TSP indications at Braidwood-l and Byron-l. t - Without the conservative factor of two applied to TRANFLO loads for the TSP displacement analyses, the throughwall lengths outside the TSP exceed the maximum TSP displacement of < 0.05" for all tube locations on all plates It is concluded that the TSP offset distance of 0.10" used for the IRB tests and the resulting TW lengths outside the TSP provide a very conservative assessment of the effect of TSP displacement on the leak rate.

• For the 7/8" tests with a 0.15" offset of the crack tip outside the TSP, the TW lengths outside the TSP range from 0.134" to 1.147" for three of the four tests under flow pressurization conditions.

It is concluded that the TSP offset distances for the 7/8" tests also provide a very conservative assessment of the effect of TSP displacements on the leak rate. . w %,s w a m

~i Esdensed Prussens for Crack Fisce se T5P Comenet i Spechnen Crack Imagth-in. Preacted Imak Test j Test How Stress Burst Crack Face to hupiled ksi Prussere

• ISP Costect Tube to *I3P f

Nuadier Dinaireer OD ID Iui Imeeraction loch bei lui r 3W DImmneter Spechness t 1 16 2008E 0.745 0.735 0.76 78.2 3.061 2.1 - 2.0 l

)

I-7 205IA 0.748 0.58 0.60 30.5 3.981 2.7 - 2.2 i 2-7 205IE 0.747 0.66 0.577 80.5 3.800 2.7 > 2.2, < 2.6 2-8 IRB-If2 0.750 0.55 0.55 72.5 3.822 2.7 - 1.9 i 2-10 2051B 0.746 0.551 0.425 80.5 4.700 33 > 23 max. seseed 7W " & 1-1 8161G 0.875 0.62 0.62 76.6 4.141 2.4 - 2.0 1-2 816iE 0.875 0.64 0.62 76.6 4.084 23 > 2.1, < 23 2-1 8161A 0.875 0.62 0.515 76.6 4.462 2.5 > 1.9, <23 i 2-4 4C218 0.875 0.60 0.29 783 5.470 3.1 > 2.6 max. teseed 4-1 4B214 0.876 0.67 0.24 81.9 5.635 3.2 Not tested l l 1 l l j .en-e n. we i - ~ ~ ~. .----....-.______-.~...,__.___.4.. . -.--,..~ ~..----_ _ _ _ __. _ ___ _

Compadson of Total Crack Length at Beginning and End of Test including Bladder Pnssudzation to Fnespan Burst Pnssure Total crack lengths prior to initiating leak testing were measured by dye penetrant tests. Lengths ) following leak tests were measured by visual observations with a toolmakers microscope. Although the latter measurement would br expected to be less accurate and typically shorter for comparable conditions, the measurements after leak testing follow pressurization of the tube j which tends to open the cracks and facilitate visual observation. . With the exception of the specimens for Tests 1-2 and 2-1 (both 7/8" specimens), the growth in measured crack lengths including picssurization to the free span burst pressure is less than 25 mils, which can be considered negligible. Crack tearing for a free span burst exceeds 250 mils.

• The crack length measurements for Tests 1-2 and 2-1 indicate an increase in length of 90 and 64 mils following flow pressurization to 2540 psi. The length increase for 1-2 was associated with the opening of a branch crack at the side of the main crack. It is likely that this branch crack existed prior to testing but was too tight for detection. The brar.ch crack was not throughwall following pressurization to the free span crack length. The length increase for 2-1 was associated with opening of two, non-throug wall microcracks in-line with but not continuous with the main macrocrack identified at the stan of the test.

It is concluded that the crack extension for cracks inside the TSP is negligible for pressurizations as high as the free span burst pressure of the indication. Flow Ana and Cmck Offset Consideratiom forInfluence on IRB Leak Rates

• The leak tests following bladder pressurization show almost no differences in leak rate between the offset and zero offset conditions. This would be the expected result if the crack opening area is less than the geometrical flow area such that leakage is limited only by crack area. If limited by crack area, only differences in flow tuming losses between the crack inside the TSP and offset would result in a difference in leak rate and this effect would generally be small.

However, some of the tests performed prior to bladder pressurization show an apparent increase in leak rate with the crack offset from the TSP. These tests are further evaluated below. - Tests 4-1 and 2-4 were the only tests that showed an increase in leak rate for the offset condition following bladder pressurization. In Test 4-1, the indication was pressurized to about 10% above the calculated free span burst pressure (all other tests were expanded at the free span burst pressure or lower) and the leak rate increased from about 2.5 gpm with 0.0" offset to about 4.2 gpm with 0.15" offset. However, this test included three throughwall cracks of 0.606",0.567" and 0.388" and pressurization increased the diameter of the tube. The significant increases in the tube diameter (not across crack opening) occur only at high burst pressures (5800 psi for 4-1) and would not be present in a burst at SLB conditions. The two largest TW cracks were 180* apart from each other such that, within the TSP, the ID of the hole could restrict leakage from one or both of these cracks. When offset, these two cracks had exposed lengths of 0.099" and 0.112". Therefore, for Test 4-1, it is believed that the combination of multiple long throughwall cracks 180* apan and the diameter changes were the cause of the increase in leakage for the offset condition. Test 2-4 also had two throughwall cracks 180 apan although only one throughwall crack was exposed in the offset condition. It is believed that the combination of multiple TW cracks and diameter changes at the higher bladder pressurization were the cause of the increase in leakage for the offset condition for this case as well as Test 4-1. In WCAP-14273, a geometrical model is developed to define the maximum flow area for a = a #wpefurtwwrp wpS Aly 13. tww5

throughwall crack within the TSP based on the assumptions that the crack widths are very large and that the crack diameter increases linearly from the crack tip to the center of the crack. Both of the assumptions are conservative. The maximum geometrical flow area is the crack length times the tube to TSP gap. For the largest throughwall crack of 0.726" (Test 1-6) in the test 2 program with a 0.026" gap, the maximum geometrical flow area is 0.0189 in. However, the actual geometric flow area is the area available between the edge of the open crack and the TSP ID. This can be significantly lower than the maximum area due to closure of the gap along some length about the center of the crack and due to curvature of the edge of the crack. The actual geometric flow area can be approximated from the crack diameter measurements made following the leak tests. The attached figures show the measured plastic crack diameter increases (measured after test diameter minus initial tube diameter) following the flow pressurization offset leak test and following bladder pressurization to the free span burst pressure with the subsequent offset leak test. The diametral increases show a range less than the target 0.025" diametral clearance even for leak tests that demonstrated tube to TSP interaction. As discussed elsewhere in this repon, for tests that had tube to TSP interaction, the diametral increases represent the crack to TSP clearance present in the test. The attached figures comparing the diameter increases before and after bladder pressurization show the increased width of the maximum diameter at the center of the crack following bladder pressurization. This increased width tends to decrease the effective crack area and helps to explain the reductions in leakage for most tests following bladder pressurization. For tests performed prior to bladder pressurization, the offset tests followed the tests for 0.0" offset and the increases in leakage for the offset tests include increases in the crack opening area as well as the effect of moving the crack outside the TSP. In all tests for which throughwall areas were measurable and for which the 0.0" offset leak rates could be reasonable extrapolated to 2650 psi AP, the ratios of the crack area after the offset test to the crack ama after the zero offset test were significantly larger than the leak rate ratios (see table). The lower leak rate ratios in the attached table were obtained at comparable APs between the two tests and should include little additional crack opening for the offset tests. These ratios (1.1 to 1.3 for Tests 1-1, 1-6,1-7) represent the increase in leakage with TSP offset that requires funher evaluation. The larger ratios result from increases in the crack opening area. The increases in leakage for the offset tests is further evaluated below based on estimating the effective crack opening area and the geometric flow area from the dimensional measurements. From the dimensional measurements for crack area, crack diameter proGles and estimates of the crack length in or near contact with the TSP from the diameter measurements, the effective crack area and the geometric flow area can be approximated. While the dimensional measurements do not have enough detail or precision for precise area calculations, the approximate crack and geometric areas can be used to estimate the effective crack and geometric Dow areas to assess the likelihood of a leakage increase with offset of the through wall crack from the TSP. If the effective crack area is less than the geometric flow area, no increase in leakage would be expected for the offset test since leakage is limited by crack opening rather than the geometry of the crack opening within the TSP hole. The attached table shows the estimated effective crack area, the geometric How area and whether or not the test leak rate increased for the offset test compared to the zero offset test. For the offset tests performed prior to bladder pressurization, the geometric flow area is limiting for 5 of the 8 tests evaluated. Of the 8 test results,3 showed an inemase in leakage,2 cannot be reliably estimated due to the large pressure difference between the zero offset and offset tests (although both would be predicted to show an increase with offset) and 2 showed no increase in leakage. Only for Test 1-7 is the prediction that the crack area would be limiting inconsistent with the test result. Given the approximate estimates for the areas, these results support the expected trend that leakage for cracks within the TSP is dependent upon the more limiting of the effective crack 5 $WprNr,mecep opt jul, D. IW3

area and the geometric flow area. For large crack openings (Tests 1-6 and 2-8, for example), the geometric flow area becomes limiting and the leak rate can be expected to be bounded by the geometic dow area of the TSP as well as the effect of the TSP on limiting the crack opening area. While cracks having leakage limited by the geometric flow area will show an increase in leakage for offset throughwall cracks, the net effects of the geometric flow area and constrained crack opening limit the increase in leakage with crack offset to the 10% to 30% range indicated by the test results. It is shown below that the changes in effective crack area and geometric Dow area after bladder pressurization help to explain why there is less of a trend for increased f leakage after pressurization than before pressurization. That is, after bladder pressurization, the effective crack area tends to be reduced by the flattening of the crack opening near the center of the crack in contact with the TSP while the geometric Dow area is less affected and there is an increased likelihood that effective crack areas rather than geometric areas limit the leakage. . The attached table also shows the estimated effective crack area and geometric flow area after bladder pressurization. After bladder pressurization, the effective flow area is limiting for more tests than found prior to bladder pressurization and the associated leak rates show less dependence on offset of the throughwall crack. . These results, together with the above trending results that show leak rates are primarily correlated with crack length and effective crack area, indicate that crack length / area as limited by the TSP are the principal factors influencing the leak rate and offsetting the crack outside the TSP has a secondary inDuence on the leak rate. Overall conclusions - The principal factors influencing IRB leak rates are: o The TSP limits the crack opening area for throughwall indications greater than about 0.5" o The effective crack opening area is further reduced for long cracks (clearly from test results at > 0.6", which might conceptually burst in free span) by tube to TSP gap closure for some length (expect < 0.25" based on test results) along the length of the crack. o IRB leak rates are primarily dependent on the effective crack opening area with a modest (<30%) effect of limited TSP displacements on leakage. - Upon contact of the crack opening with the TSP, leak rates have a modest or no increase in leakage with increased pressurization and tend toward smaller increases in leakage with throughwall cracks outside the TSP compared to the crack within the TSP - Bases for conclusions o Leak rates for offset and zero offset tests following bladder pressurization (constant effective crack area) are very similar and, in some cases, lower for offset than zero offset conditions. For bladder pressurization tests, there is an increased likelihood for the leakage to be limited by the crack opening area rather than the geometric flow area and there is no correlation between the change in leak rate (offset minus zero offset) and the exposed throughwall crack area. The exception for Test 4-1 is attributable to multiple TW cracks 180 apan exposed by the TSP displacement and by diametral increases in the tube diameter. o Leak rates correlate reasonably well with throughwall crack length and with crack opening area. o For How pressurized tests with the offset test run after (and at higher pressures) the zero offset test, the increase in leakage for the offset condition is less than that expected for the increase in the total crack area. The less than expected increase is attributable to blockage of the flow area near the center of the crack by the TSP which reduces the total crack area to an effective crack area for leakage considerations. t WswpriWtuurp wpt le D,1993

Considerations of Multiple Throughwall Cracks on I2ak Rate Following Tests 2-4 and 4-1, which used specimens prepared under another program and included multiple thmughwall cracks, the specimens wue prepared with single deep cracks to more closely represent field experience showing a single donunant crack for large indications and to facilitate interpretation of the test data. This section discusses whether or not the bounding leak rate should be adjusted for the potential of multiple throughwall cracks. Pulled tubes and model boiler specimens in the EPRI ARC database with significant voltages have generally shown a single dominant crack, such as the Braidwood-1 and Byron-1 pulled tube indications at 10 to 11 volts. When secondary throughwall indications are found, the throughwall length is much shorter than the dominant crack. Since leakage increases exponentially with throughwall crack length (free span and within TSP), the leak rate for an indication is almost entirely due to the longest crack. Thus based on morphology considerations for prototypically prepared indications, leakage from secondary cracks can be ignored. - A partial exception to the above is Plant S, pulled tube R42C43 which had throughwall cracks 0.50 and 0.41 inch long in a 22.9 volt indication. The calculated leak rate for the longer crack is about three times the leakage of the smaller crack. Thus, even for this exception to a single dominant crack, the leak rate is principally due to the longest crack. Burst tests of pamllel EDM slots have also shown that the dominant crack is the crack that bursts and the burst pressure correlates with the dominant crack and has little influence from the other indications. Similarly, for an indication restricted from burst by the TSP, the dominant crack would have the dominant crack opening contributing to leakage. Based on the above leakage and burst dependence on the dominant crack, expected multiple throughwall IRBs would have leakage dominated by the dominant crd when the crack is within the TSP. De additional case of offset throughwall cracks is dmissed below. Pulled tube examinations show that the throughwall part of a crack is located away from the edge of the TSP. Of 16 throughwall indications on pulled tubes with I to 16 volt indications having suflicient data to locate the end of the throughwall crack relative to the edge of the TSP, only 1 throughwall crack was within 0.1" of the edge of the TSP and 12 were > 0.2" from the edge of the TSP including the Braidwood-l and Byron-1 indications. Thus, only a small fiaction (about 6%) of the indications are likely to have throughwall lengths exposed by maximum TSP displacement of 0.10" (TEP displacement analyses show a maximum of 0.094" displacement in a small region of one TSP with a factor of two conservatism applied to the TRANFLO loads). Herefore, the liklihood of two throughwall cracks exposed by the 0.1" maximum displacement would be very small and can be ignored for defining the bounding leak rate for IRBs. - Specimens 2-4 and 1-4, as discussed above, had multiple throughwall cracks exposed by the TSP offset of 0.15" with an apparrnt influence on increasing the offset leak rate. However, this is unique to the method of specimen preparation. The doped steam specimens are prepanxi by slightly ovalizing the tube to increase the stresses and enhance crack initiation and growth for the accelerated tests. His process results in cracks 180 apart which increases the offset leakage compared to cracks more randomly located around the tube. Within the TSP, the cracks at 180 apart reduce the effective flow area for cach crack due to interaction with the TSP. Bus, these results do not affect the conclusion that the liklihood of exposing two throughwall cracks is negligibly small. Overall, it is concluded that the bounding IRB leak rate, as obtained for a single crack, does not have to be adjusted for potential multiple throughwall indications. His conclusion is based on the high liklihood of finding a single dominant throughwall indication and the very low liklihood that two throughwall indications would be within 0.10" of the TSP edge. s wewionrcry.pauly 22, les

Summary of TW Iengths Outside 13P and Crack Extension TW Outside TSP at 0.10" Offset Crack Extension - inch Test SLB & Freespan SLR & Freespan Burst & Burst & 3/4" Diameter Specimens 1-6 0.070 0.070 0.0016 0.021 1-7 0.091 0.100 0.021 0.025 2-7 0.088 0.087 0.011 0.014 2-8 0.104 0.012 i 2-10 0.005 0.081 0.003 0.024 1 7/8" Diameter Specimens l l-1 0.147 0.147 0.013 0.013 1-2 0.145 0.085 0.090 0.090 2-1 0.134 0.132 0.064 0.097 2-4 0.0 0.076 0.011 0.017 3 4-1 0.099, 0.112 0.015 ..%%u#, e n. im I l

I i Ratios of Offset to Zero Offset I*=bge and Crack Opening Areas Flow Pressurization Tests Test 12akage Ratio Approximate Total Throughwall Area Ratio 2-1 1.8m 57 2-8 2.6m 5.7 1-1 1.1 to 1.6m 2.3 1-2 - 1.0 3.8 1-6 1.3to1.6 2.1 1-7 1.2 to 1.3

1.7 Notes

1. Tests noted have free span tests between zero offset and offset test sequences such that significant crack opening occurs between these tests.

The remaining tests have small or no pressure difference between the highest zero offset test and the lowest offset test.

2. Lower leak rate ratios apply where AP values between zero offset and offset tests overlap. Larger ratios are based on leakage at 2560 psi AP.

l iw=wiwt==pw M ntws

I Summary of Effective Crack Areas and Geometric How Area for How OKset Tests 3 l Test Crack to Total Crack Crackfl3P Effective Geometric Unniting Test Imk f 'ISP Gap

• Openi Contact Crinck Arts How Area Mew Area Rate (inch)

Area (in I2ngth (in.) (in ) (y,2) y,c,,,,, g, 2 OKset Test Before Bladder Piissurization 1-1 0.009 0.0045 0.10 0.0034 0.0030 - Geometric Yes, -10% ll l-2 0.013 0.0065 0.12 0.0050 0.0050 No difference No l l-6 0.026 0.0249 0.25 0.014 0.0098 Geometric Yes, -30% 1-7 0.020 0.0071 0.05 0.0065 0.0084 Crack Yes,-20%P 2-1 0.010 0.0033 0.10 0.0024 0.0020 - Geometric Not Rel.* 2-7 0.022 0.0085 0.05 0.0075 0.0102 Crack No 2-8 0.027 0.0164 0.25 0.014 0.0062 Geometric Not Relm ARer Bladder Pressurization 1-1 0.013 0.0052 0.20 0.0029 0.0058 Crack No,dcu s 1-2 0.014 0.0078 0.20 0.0050 0.0056 - Crack No 1-6 0.026 0.0262 0.28 0.013 0.0080 Geometric Yes, small 1 i I l-7 0.019 0.0087 0.05 0.0079 0.0072 - Geometric No 2-1 0.012 0.0038 0.10 0.0027 0.0030 - Crack No 2-7 0.019 0.0095 0.10 0.0075 0.0084 - Crack No, decrease Notes

1. Gap implied fium increase in crack diameter (bulge at crack center)

2. It would be expected that the offset test would show no increase in leakage if the effective crack area is less than the geometric flow area. This test result is the only flow pressurization test that does not follow this expectation.

3. No reliable estimate can be made since the zero offset test was run at much lower pressures than the offset test and the test results can not be directly compared to determine if the leak rate increased for the offset test I

s W myr-My 22.1995 ~ . ~ . ~ -.

E a" nwn-ne an n e ---e l ][ ll 4> ll d 1 i N

[-

( l I i 1 1 ll4 l l i 1 i i l I / l i. Q 8 e i l I l U I e = a. l .I l l s, i f l ] n n {, + A i .E I t i a= I E. i S o 4 b 1 .w g i l g o i i o s E o k I L 1 l l l / .f.. .g 5 0 o o o o o o o 9 q (gpuk!P essenui seasono opseld

2 { A. -99e-4 e e e e nn = W 4> ll dlllll4> "~ l =

k

^ e 1 l i I R 1 o l e 3 i i Ei i s i i n 6 a I i t. 8 i l I E I S 6 3 d o i .w 0 i I h 8 O l l 1 M* i l i n N E 0 o o o o o o o y a3 1 (W 6*sessuipasmoxiansend i l

l l l t I i Test 1-1 Crack Diameter increase After Flow Pressurization Offset Test ~ ff

: =;

i

n. g j { _o.ee -

e 0 Before de er [ Length Along Crack-in ll AfI'I ' ~ ~ ] I I I I I Test 1-2 Crack Diameter increase After Flow Pressurization Offset Test o.02 ~ 8 II 0'01 _ -- W-E E E-0 "" ^ I $ $ k.0,01,, l l 7 + Befom oe o, o3 e After Length Along Crack-in um M Test 1-6 Crack Diameter increase After Flow Pressurization Offset Test 0.03 $ $ $ I 0.02 __+.- Before 3 $ j i 0.01 - $$k-0.0 I "m

v. m

o.,

ei .o o o v-Length Along Crack-in TP001JJS 7/18/95 5:41 PM

i i i i i Test 1-7 Crack Diameter increase After Flow Pressurization Offset Test ^ 0.02 oj E j0.01-0 Before $,E k 0 O-l = After M -0.01 "m

• m "v

N o o o Length Along Crack -in i i i i i i Test 2-1 Crack Diameter increase After Flow Pressurization Offset Test 0.015 0.01 - E j _g 2p 0.005 0 Before l ,_ N After 6 d d e Length Along Crack -in Test 2-7 Crack Diameter increase After Flow Pressurization Offset Test o 3 $,0.03 0 Before m-e .02 - = After j 6" d* 68 em I [ Length Along Crack -in j l TP001JJS 7/18/95 4:54 PM l ~

6.012ak Rate Uncertainty Assessment i 1 1 1

Leak Rate UneortalWy AssGssment Potential Leak Rate Uncertainty Contributors Evaluated r

• Fluctuations of leak rate during the test period, maximun AP in test versus average for reported leak rates, EPRI leak rate adjustment procedure and test loop calibrations Leak Rate Measurement Uncertainty - Leak Rate Fluctuations During Test Period
• The data reduction procedure for the leak rate tests average the measured leak rates over a period of time. There are some fluctuations in the leak rate over this time period and the standard deviation of the fluctuations about the average is determined for each test data point.

This value defines the leak rate measurement uncertainty for the test.

• The Test 1-6 data point at 2532 psi AP defines the bounding IRB leak rate of 5.5 gpm at 2560 psi. Thus, the test uncenainty for this data point is of primary interest for the uncertainty assessment. This data point is an average of two data points differing in integrated leak rate by only 0.1 gpm and having test uncenainties, i.e., standard deviations, of 9.2% and 12.4%. Since these are from independent samples, they each represent an estimate of the standard error of the underlying population for which the pooled estimate of the standard deviation is obtained as the root-mean-square average of these uncertainties, i.e.,10.9%.
• The standard deviation of the measurements was obtained from data sample sizes of 12 in each case. The estimated standard error of the integrated leak rate is then obtained from the standard error of the individual measurements by dividing by the square root of tne sample size. Thus,

{ the standard error of the average leak rate is 3.1%.

• Thus, the leak rate measurement uncertainty on the bounding leak rate measurement of 5.5 gpm i

is 3.1 %. The overall test program uncenainty on the leak rate measurement can be assessed by developing the mean and standard deviation of the individual leak test uncenainties. This is developed separately for hot and cold tests since the uncenainty is smaller for cold tests. Attached plots show the percentage standard deviation as a function of the leak rate magnitude. The results show a leak rate measurement uncenainty of 8.2% with a standard deviation of 5.6% 3 for the hot tests and 2.4% with a standard deviation of 0.8% for the cold tests. If the hot test uncertainty is limited to the leak rate measurement range of primary intemst (1.5 to 6.5 gpm) for this test program, the hot measurement uncertainty becomes 7.2% with a standard deviation of l 3.8%. These msults show that the uncertainty on the bounding leak rate measurement is about 3% higher than the average for all data. { AP Measurement Uncertainty - Maximum AP in Test Versus Average for Reported Values The maximum AP applied in the test occurs prior to the collection of the test data. The test AP is reponed as the average value over the data collection period and is lower than the maximum applied to the test specimen. It would be expected that the maximum AP adds plastic crack opening above that expected at the average AP for the test data. Thus, it is expected that the leak rates would be slightly high for the test condition. This potential source of uncenainty was evaluated for the limiting Test 1-6. - The test leak rates were adjusted to the maximum AP conditions by applying the hydraulic . em.,, u, u. m,

i \\ . factor of the EPRI leak rate adjustment procedure assuming the primary pressure drop,' as i typical of most tests, was the dominant pressure drop between maximum AP and the average l AP. There would only be small differences in the adjusted leak rates if it was also assumed that the secondary pressure was lower at the time of maximum AP. l The differences between maximum AP and average AP tend to be the highest for the largest i leak rates, thus, evaluation of Test 1-6, which defines the bounding leak rate, is the J appropriate test for evaluation.

• The differences between maximum and average APs are 150 and 186 psi for the two test data points with 0.10" offset for Test 1-6.
• The SLB leak rates at the SLB 2560 psi are 5.0 gpm for the maximum AP case and 5.5 gpm for -

the average AP case. The average test leak rate of 5.5 gpm should be reduced to 5.0 gpm or a 10% reduction to account for the maximum AP crack opening. a Thus, the uncertainty on the bounding leak rate of 5.5 gpm due to AP measurement uncenainty is -10%. .j i Leak Rate Adjustment Uncertainty - EPRI Leak Rate Adjustment Procedure Assessment for limiting leak rate test: Test 1-6 at 2532 AP psi I The evaluated test point is an average of two data points differing in the measured leair rates. by only 0.1 gpm. The measured leak rates are adjusted by a maximum factor of 0.94 for the two data points. The adjustment is due primarily to the higher primary pressure difference l above saturation in the test compared to the reference conditions due to the test secondary l pressure of 347 psi versus the desired 15 psi. The hydraulic adjustment factor for this data point is independent of the value used for C in the analysis. The test temperature was 630*F p compared to the desired 615 F. - Based on the leak rate adjustment being only 6% since the test conditions are close to the i reference SLB conditions, it is concluded that the uncertainty on the bounding leak rate of 5.5 l gpm is negligible for the EPRI leak rate adjustment procedure and would be a maximum of a few percent. i I Test Loop Flow Rate Orifice Test Measurement. l 1 The test loop uses calibrated instruments such that the uncertainty for instrument error can be considered to be negligible. l Room temperature leak tests were performed for three orifice sizes to compare the measured leak I rates with calculated leak rates. The orifice sizes correspond to leak rates of about 0.4,1.6 and j 6.7 gpm which span the range of leak rate measurements in the test program. - Future effons include calibration of the orifices at a room temperature orifice calibration . facility and hot leak tests with the orifices for additional comparisons with analytical i predictions.

• The calculated orifice leak rates are 9% higher than the measured leak rates with test and i

analysis in excellent agreement on the AP dependence of the leak rate. i - The orifices tested are not " classical" sharp edge orifices and the analytical uncenainty cou d account for a large part of the difference between test and analysis. Pending completion of the orifice calibration tests, an uncenainty of +9% is assigned to the measured flow rates for the loop calibration uncenainty. IMM Q%$ I

. _ ~ - -~ Summary cf Uncenalaty AssIssment .l

• The contributors to the leak rate uncertainty for the bounding measured leak rate of 5.5 gpm are:

) - Leak rate measurement uncertainty: 3.1% - AP measurement uncenainty on leak rate: -10% .l - Leak rate adjustment uncenainty: negligible - Test loop oriface test measurement on leak rate: +9% l

• The combined effect of the AP measurement uncertainty and the loop calibration uncenainty a a factor of (0.9)-(1.09) or 0.98 for a net uncenainty of -2%.

. It can be concluded that the net uncenainty on the bounding leak rate of 5.5 gpm is on the od:: of +2%/-4%. The actual uncertainties are found as follows: The maximum uncertainty is obtained as [(0.9)-(1.09)-(1.031)-1] 100 or 1.1%, with a 95% confidence bound of ~3.1%. The minimum uncenainty is obtained as [(0.9)-(1.09)-(0.%9)-1] 100 or -5.9%. I t ? t i ~l .wm,.ps 2 3,22. ives

Unsereatney b teammmed Imk Rahn for list Team wtan Emmemes hassess 8.8 med M Grat Indiametams tamartmend trem Berse Imak mass Tsues 2em Mamm ummuummmy = 7J% 13 % . Samend Dessmese = 33% o g im 14 % I 8 tm 1 ._f som .. >t. ;. t 7. 4. m .k.

8. _ a g

..qq w ** .,v s --

m..

e7 ano,.8 =, 4% ..e q 4 m

• e.

8 1 2 3 4 6 1 thus edEmmesme Umsareatmer to besammmed lash amas der AE Ems Tome leemmemma Romeresend Deus Burue 50 % 4N m um.mme.m, = ] 3m Duetname= SAE i-25 % 20% ~ a s Im e .-4' f,..... e

1. ~

Mg,,-p .? m M 0 2 4 6 8 90 E-M thus Ed Emma Sammderd de.tmalme at tesammond lamk Rees ter As cold Temas tediameless assertsend tem Desse 40% 35% 30% 1 j 2* = l 20% 'l 3 15% ' Muss bemarcammy - 24% 10% g s.,q p,,,m . g 7pg ^ e g$% 00% a i 4 5 6 7 8 a

Test 1-6 Comparison of Leak Rates Based on Average AP and Maximum AP Indications Restricted from Burst Leak Rate Tests Leak Rate with Max. Ap (gpm) Leak Rate with Avg. Ap (gpm) gg gp g,3p (psi) Test SLB (pel) Test SLB Conditions Conditions Conditions Cordtions 1-6A i 1837 1.69 1.81 1848 1.71 1.82 Centered 2 1920 1.89 2.18 1928 1.90 2.19 3 1915 1.% 2.29 1930 1.99 2.31 4 2029 2.06 232 2044 2.08 2.33 5 2026 2.16 2.61 2050 2.20 2.64 6 2236 2.44 3.07 2258 2.47 3.09 7 2439 2.% 2.92 2478 2.99 2.95 8 2257 3.2 3.20 2364 330 331 9 2235 3.53 3.10 2388 3.64 3.25 10 2273 3.45 3.23 2370 3.53 333 1-6B 1 2259 3.85 4.25 2272 3.87 4.26 Offset Test 2 2270 3.45 4.54 2294 3.50 4.58 0.10" 3 2206 4.78 4.53 2326 4.57 5.17 4 2402 4.66 4.99 2554 5.10 4.88 5 2420 5.23 4.91 2568 5.39 5.07 6 2543 5.64 5.46 2732 6.01 5.49 7 2521 5.74 539 2710 5.89 5.63 1-6C I 1495 13.05 22.16 1520 13.17 22.12 Freespan 1-6F l 2237 4.37 4.99 2272 4.44 5.05 Expanded 2 2234 4.1 4.42 2292 4.19 4.51 3220 3 2348 4.7I$52 4.19 2386 4.97 4.53 centered 4 2213 4.53 4.31 23 % 4.74 4.57 5 2257 4.89 4.24 2524 5.12 4.57 6 2403 4.6971 4.60 2582 4.88 4.80 7 2264 5.07 432 2536 5.29 4.66 1-6G I 1980 4.19055 4.29 2l06 4.46 4.56 j Expanded 2 2028 4.45764 4.05 2226 4.74 ~4.40 i offset 3 2095 436554 4.28 2362 4.75 4.72 l 4 2159 4.94577 4.27 2370 5.17 4.59 5 2300 4.94 4.76 2580 5.25 5.12 6 2309 5.41 4.57 2560 5.61 4.89 l-6H I 2054 8.14 3.82 2285 8.59 4.42 Expanded 2 2129 834 4.05 2416 8.88 4.75 offset. RT 3 2261 8.46 432 257I 9.02 5.01 4 2264 8.42 430 2576 8.93 4.99 TSTI.eMX.XL5 AvsDp ys ManDp 7/17.9512 06 PM l

c Test 1-6 Indications Restricted From Burst Leak Rate Tests (Normalized to Tp=615 oF and Ps =15 psia conditions 10 d e T _. - - y w l ~ [ 0 Centered. IIT a I -*-Offm 0.10, HT 2. p 5 - e - Offset 0.10, HT, MaxDP W i I 1800 1900 2000 2l00 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 Ap (psi) Ch Avg-vs-Max DP TST1-6MX.XLS 7/16/95 i -

Lorp Fl w Rate Orifles Tcsb Purpose

• To verify loop flow rates against a well known correlation for flow rate as a function of pressure drop Approach
• Leak rates through drilled holes, with well defined geometry, were measured over a range of pressure drops from 1400 to 2500 psi i

The LEAKAGE Code was used to predict flow rates. This code contains the following a flow / pressure drop model. f \\ I P P, - P, = Kt r where: P, & P, Primary & secondary pressures = K Orifice loss coefficient = tV = Velocity through orifice The code, used for sentinel plug design, also contains a two phase flow model for cases when there is a phase change. For the present cold flow leakage tests this model is not invoked. . The table below shows the test sample characteristics Nominal Measured Length Loss ID - in ID - in in Coefficient 0.020 0.019 0.135 1.5 0.040 0.039 0.135 1.5 0.080 0.081 0.135 1.55 The loss coefficients, for the sudden contraction and expansion of the drilled holes, were taken from Idel'chik, Section IV, Diagram 4-11 for a thick edged orifice. i I Results The attached figure shows the comparisons between the measured and predicted leakage rate. ) The agreement between measured and predicted is gocd with the predicted values 8% to 9% i higher than the test values at the higher pressure drop conditions. Pending calibration of the orifice in an orifice calibration loop, these results would indicate that the test results should be increased by about 9%. a kWeprAstheecep wp3 July 23.1991

I l i Loop Calibration Tests l Predicted / Measured Leak Rates 10 a A l a g An man A Measured Leak Rates E O O-S e& 1 m Q O W 16 1-E xm g h E U Nominal Hole ID (Open Symbols Calculated) -M- 0.02" S 0.04' A 0.08' O.1 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 Pressure Drop - psi l 1 l l l l L

Test Plan for tha wi& Rastrained Burnt (IRBs) Imop Ortilee Calibration Test (Rev.1, 7/11/95) General Test Infonnation 'Ihree orifice plates in the form of swagelock fittings and tube with pressure tap provided by NSD are to be used for the test Pressure fmrn pressure tap on tube as well as standard prissure, temperature instmmentation for leak j testing are to be recorded for the tests Tests at multiple prissure differmtials for both hot and cold tests are to be perfarned 'Ihe test sequence give below can be modified to nm either the hot or cold tests first 1 Test procedures and data rdv+ inn for the ori6ce tests me to be the same as used for the IRB anck icek tests. l l Test Sequence A. Small orifice, cold test, minimum of six pressure differentials tw 1400 and 2700 psid, including as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. B. Middle size orifice, cold test, minimum of six pressure differentials between 1400 and 2700 psid, including as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. C. Iarge size orifice, cold test, minimura of six pressure differentials between 1400 and 2700 psid, including as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. D. Small onfice, hot test with primary ternperature in 610 to 620 *F range, minimum of five pressure differatials between 1400 and 2700 psid, includmg as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. E. Small orifice, hot test with primary termperature in 630 to 645 *F range, minimum of five pressure diffcrentials between 1400 and 2700 psid, including as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. F. Middle size orifice, hat test with primary temperature in 610 to 620 *F range, minimum of five prwsure differmtials between 1400 and 2700 psid, including as close to 2335 and 2560 paid that ( can be attained. G. Middle size orifice, hot test with primary ternperature in 630 to 645 *F range, minimum of five pressure differentials between 1400 and 2700 psid, including as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. H. Imrge orifice, hat hat with primary ternperature in 610 to 620 F range, minimum of Sve pressure differmtials between 1400 and 2700 psid, including as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. Test to highest pressure diffczatial within facility limits. I. Iarge orifice, hot test with primary temperature in 630 to 645 F range, minimum of five pressure differentials between 1400 and 2700 psid, ire!=iing as close to 2335 and 2560 psid that can be attained. Test to highest pressure diffaential within facility limits. J. Measure orifice sizes for all three orifices. Mansurements to determine hole dis-ter and shape as accurate'y as practical. The primary side of the orifice plate has a large, conical shape due to drilling of swagelock fitting. This shape should be dimensionally charaderized as well as any radius on the secondary side of the hole. Report dimensions to NSD. 'Ihe orifices and fittings are not to be damaged by these measurements. K. Retum orifices to NSD for further laboratory calibration of the flow rate as a function of the f Mt a. I l e\\apr\\erri\\etrupac.wpMedy 19, 1985 C- . _ _ _ _.}}