ML20092C183
| ML20092C183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000605 |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1992 |
| From: | Recasha Mitchell GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Pierson R NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| EEN-9214, MFN-029-92, MFN-29-92, NUDOCS 9202110324 | |
| Download: ML20092C183 (85) | |
Text
I lhs) GE Nect~ r Emru 6L. , * - . - . - ?- N ~.'. - -. - ...___....... _.._.. . _.._.-- _._..._. _,.._._._
. i. A.
February 3,1992 MFN No. 029-92 Docket No. STN 50 605 EEN 9214 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Robert C. Pierson, Director Stt.ndardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate
Subject:
Leak liefore Ilreak issue - Decmeber 9 10,9991 GE/NRC Meeting O Enclosed are thirty-four (34) copies of the GE response to the subject issue.
It is intended that GE will amend the SSAR with this response in a future amendment.
Sincerely, G.c'h k &
R.C. Mitchell, Acting Manager Regulatory and Analysis Services M/C 382, (408) 925-6948 cc: F. A. Ross (DOE)
N. D. Fletcher (DOE)
C. Postusny, Jr. (NRC)
R. C. Berglund (GE)
J. F. Quirk (GE) a (
M 9202110324 920203 1 PDR ADOCK 05000605 3(
A PDR
ABWR l
g,;, /o ca zwimse 9andard Plant A uv A -
/N 3.6 PROTECTION AGAINST DYNAMIC 1oseri A - see F s s - t a.
- S ubsection-Se 4escribea- t he-im plein ent ati V
i EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE af leak before break (LBB) evaluation e-POSTUIATED RUPTURE OF PIPING fores permitted by the broad scope ame dmen :
o General Design Criterion 4 (ODg.47 published This Section deals with the structures, a Reference \The piping systems that aru systems, components and equipment in the ABWR lemonstrated by th procedsres to qualify fo s Standard Nuclear Island. he LBB behavior ( 'ees 3E and 3F) art act postulated to break ~ he design and evalu-Subsections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 describe the ation that are req 1Eired t(o be performed, ir design bases and protective measures which ensure accordance w that the containment; essential systems, compo. i he poten31af'iWSubsections dynamic effects frokpostulatec 3.kkand 3.6.2 neats and equipment; and other essential struc- piping,bfcaks. However, such piping systsps are tures are adequately protected from the conse- e vahrated for pipe crack effects in accordance quences associated with a postulated rupture of 4h Si:dx 3.6.2.1.5 ;;d 3.6.2.1.6.2. '
high energy piping or crack of moderate energy piping both inside and outside the containment. 3.6.1 Postulated Piping Fallures In Fluid Systems Inside and Before delineating the criteria and assump. Outside of Containment tions used to evaluate the consequences of pip-ing failures inside and outside of containment, This subsection sets forth the design bases, it is necessary to define a pipe break event and description, and safety evaluation for determin-a postulated piping failure: ing the effects of postulated piping failures in fluid systems both inside and outside the con-Pipe break event: Any single postulated tainment, and for including necessary protective piping failure occurring during normal plant measures.
operation and any subsequent piping failure and/or equipment failure that occurs as a direct 34.1.1 Design Bases Os consequence of the postulated piping failure.
34.1.1.1 Criteria Postulated Piping Failure: Longitudinal or circumferential break' or rupture postulated in Pipe break event protection conforms to 10CFR50 high energy fluid system piping or throughwall Appendix A, General Design Criterion 4. Environ-leakage crack postulated in moderate energy fluid mental and Missile Design Bases. The overall system piping. The' terms used in this definition design for this protection is in general compli-are explained in Subsection 3.6.2.
ance with NRC Branch Technical Positions (BTP)
ASB 31 and MEB 3-1 included in Subsections Structures, systems, components and equipment 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, respectively, of NUREG.0800 that are required to shut down the reactor and (Standard Review Plan).
mitigate the consequences of a postulated piping failure, without offsite power, are defined as MEB 31 describes an acceptable basis for essential and are designed to Seismic Category I selecting the design locations and orientations requirements. of postulated breaks and cracks in fluid systems piping. Standard Review Plan Sections 3.6.1 and The dynamic effects that may result from a 3.6.2 describe acceptable measures that could be postulated rupture of high energy piping include taken for protection against the breaks and missile generation; pipe whipping; pipe break cracks and for restraint against pipe whip that reaction forces; jet impingement forces; compart- may result from breaks.
reent, subcompartn.ent and cavity pressurizations; decompression waves within the ruptured pipes and The design of the containment structure, com-seven types of loads identified with loss of ponent arrangement, pipe runs, pipe whip re-coolant accident (LOCA) on Table 3.9 2. straints and compartmentalization are done in Amendment 1 361
__. _ _ - . . _ .._ ~ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ , _ . - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _
INSERT "A" FOR PACE 3.6-1 O Subsection 3.6.3 and Appendix 3E describe the implementation of the leak before-break (LBB) evaluation procedures as permitted by the broad scope amendment-to General Design Criterion 4 (CDC 4) published-in Reference 1. It is anticipated, as mentioned in Subsection-3.6.4.2, that a COL applicant will apply to the NRC for approval of LBB qualification of selected piping by submitting a technical justification report. The approved piping, referred to in this SSAR as the LBB-qualified piping, will be excluded from pipe breaks, which are required to be postulated by Subsections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, for design against their potential dynamic effects, llowever, such piping are included in postulation of pipe cracks for their effects as described in Subsections 3.6.1.3.1, 3.6.2.1.5 and 3.6.2.1.6.2. It is emphasized that an LBB qualification submittal is not a mandatory requirement; a COL applicant has an option to select from none to all technically feasible piping systems for the benefits of the LBB approach. The decision may be made based upon a cost benefit evaluation (Reference 6).
O 3.6-la
ABM u4cout Standard Plant nry n standards such as AISC, ACl, and ASME Code 3D.4 Guard Pipe Assembly Design A Section Ill, Division 11, along with
.() appropriate requirements imposed for similar Tbc ABWR primary containment does not require loading events. These components are also guard pipes.
designed for other operational and accident loadings, seismic loadings, wind loadings, and tornado loadings.
The design basis approach of categorizing components is consistent in allowing less stringent inspection requirements for those components subject to lower stresses.
Considerable strength margins exist in Type 11 through IV components up to the limit of load 3MJ Material to be Supplied for the capacity (fracture) of a Type I component. Operstleg ucesse Retiew Impact properties in all components are considered since brittle type failures could See Subsection 3.6.4.1 reduce the restraint system effectiveness, 3.6.3 14ak.Befort. Break In addition to the design considerations, Evaluation Procedures MaM" '"8 r strain rate effects and other material property variations have been considered in the design of Per Regulatory Guide 1,70, Revision 3, the the pipe whip restraints. The material safety analysis Section-3.6 has traditionally properties utilized in the design have included addressed the protection measures against one or more of the following methods: dynamic effects associated with the non-mechanistic or postulated ruptures of piping.
(1) Code minimum or specification yield and The dynamic effects are defined in introduction ultimate strength values for the effected to Section 3.6. Three forms of piping failure C'g components and structures are used for both (full flow area circumferential and longitudinal V the dynamic and steady state events; breaks, and throughwall leakage crack) are postulated in accordance with Subsection 3.6.2 (2) Not more than a 10% increase in minimum code and Branch Technical Position MEB 3-1 of NUREG .
or specification strength values is used 0600(StandardReviewPlan) Gr er %W5 *' ** 4 when designing components or structures for * * * """'"' *' ' '"" '
the dynamic event, and code minimum or Meweets. !e acceedwe wi'k 'ka = ls g, ,,
specification yield and ultimate strength Ge tal Design Criterion 4 (GDC 4} tQ@ %
values are used for the steady state loads: mecha tic leak before break approac)(LBB),y 4 justified appropriate fractur ,dechanici (3) Representative or actual test data values techniques, is n acceptabl< A~
are used in the design of components and procedure to excluw (Reference) design,aga inst the dynamic 8" h W2 structures including justifiably elevated :ffects from the post, ffon of breaks in high<
. strain rate affected stress limits in excess :nergy piping. Described this subsection arc of 10%; or .he criteria andprocedures for LBB approach which are 4tilized to qualif iping for (4) Representative or actual test data are used :xclusjad'from postulation of breh This for any affected component (s) and the subsection is based on proposed (Refere 4) minimum code or specification values are Iction M3 ef NUR.EG - O!m used for the structures for the dynamic and the steady state events e-T4+-1.SS-eppree+h-is-::: :::d :: :::!:d: -
-postulation-ofaracksand-assocists&sif+cswa a-Amendment 7 .
36U f.
-g g l
i JESIAT "A" FOR FACE 3.6 21 O However, in accordance with the modified General Design Criterion 4 (CDC 4),
effective November 27, 1987, (Reference 1), the mechanistic leak before break (LBB) approach, justified by appropriate fracture mechanics techniques, is recognized as an acceptable procedure under certain conditions to exclude design against the dynamic effects from postulation of breaks in high energy piping. The LBB approach is not used to exclude postulation of cracks and associated effects as required by Subsections 3.6.2.1.5 and 3,6.2.1.6.2. It is anticipated, as mentioned in Subsection 3.6.4.2, that a COL applicant will apply to the NRC for approval of LBB qualification of selected piping. These approved piping, referred to in this SSAR as the LBB qualified piping, will be excluded from pipe breaks, which are required to be postulated by subsections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2, for design against their potential dynamic effects.
The following subsections describe (1) certain design bases where the LBB approach is not recognized by the NRC as applicable for exclusion of pipe breaks, and (2) certain conditions which limit the LBB applicability. Appendix 3E provides guidelines for LBB applications describing in detail the following necessary elements of an LBB report to be submitted by a COL applicant for NRC approval: fracture mechanics methods, leak rate prediction methods, leak detection capabilities and typical special considerations for LBB applicability. Also included in Appendix 3E is a list of candidate piping systems for LBB qualification. The LBB application approach described in this subsection and Appendix 3E is consistent with that documented in Draft SRp 3.6.3 (Reference 4) and NUREG 1061 (Reference 5).
O I
' 3. 6 - A a m l
ABWR m-Standard Plant en e p
(j ee# 4 a eee- wit h-6 vbs ec t io n sM&h!--o g d ution-thereof)4s evolvated witb-tjbr# Wm
- 16. .Q 2. / :onsideratI6nt irradditionstT~deterministi; p K ,/
The LBB approath is notypplicable to pipinc 4Bw&isiitTQtetedwee-of4vbM5W s ystems where operatiiig e(erience has indicated (1) Degradation by erosion, crosion/ corrosion particular suspptibility todailure from the and erosion / cavitation due to unfesorable i ffects ofJdergranular strhgorrosion, flow conditions and water chemistry is i
racking {fG5CC), water hammer, thermDiatig examined. The evaluation is based on the or-+% ion. industry caperience and guidelines. Addi.
tionally, fabrication wall thinning of el.
r-ThoLB B-a ppe en b46-ees-e-e epleetmeet 4e/ bows and other fittings is considered in the sting regulations or criteria pertaininpo o purchase specification to assure that the the esign bases of emergency core cooling ntlem code minimum wall requirements are roet.
Rep;tve wm % ion 6.3), containment system (SuMeetion These evaluations demonstrate that these me.
g (Sub%or L2) tquiptaent qualification (Sybsection chanisms are not potential sources of pipe 3.11). Ho\eser, benefits of the LBILprocedure L rupture A :o ibese arekwill be tsken and the' subsection see tg< *ill be revise.d as the regula'tions will be (2) Tbc ABWR plant design involves operation
'cisted by the hRC. For cla'rity, it is noted below 7000F in ferritic steel piping and D'
bat the LBB app'rqach is odt used to relax th e below 8000F in austenitic steel piping.
th/ primary containmen .
This assures that creep and creep. fatigue lesign
.ystem thatrequirements't(hf includes t primary containmen
- are not potential sources of pipe rupture.
nessel (PCV), vent,Afyhems (vertical flov' channels and borizontal ven discharges), drywell (3) The design also assures that the piping nones, suppressioi chamber getwell), vacuun. material is not susceptible to brittle breakers, PCV/enetrations, ah( drywell head, cleavage. type failure over the full range of (9 : foweser, in designing for loads pe Table 3.9 2, system operating temperatures (that is, the
'"' #' # ')
(/ sbich does foi apply to these PCV bsys, tems , material is on tbc upper shelf). . -
i be seveniypes of design loads ident ied witi ,$.,3) c[,h'Y,}
LOCAdoduced dynamics of suppression ool or (4) The ABWR plant design specifies u of thield wall annulus pressurization are exckdec austenitic stainless steel piping m 'dc of if Jbey are a result of LOCA postulated in tii si material (e.g., nuclear gra fe or low arson jriping 4 b at-me el-t he4,B B-c eit eria . type) that is recognizedjas resis ani to IGSCC. Tbc material offpiping in snuoefyl,D, Appsa41m4E4baractstius4sactun-4auhaap. coelaat-preswsoboundasy i(ferritic steel, e
propqties of piping materials and anal), sis tne. g.*Jt g L' p thods inela ing leakage calculation nintfiods, a L (5)Ag* gp [Sfon4f systems evTIu t ,potentiaI)w,'yy/r*g{
ate me.
required e criteria of t)is'subse.ction. hammer is made to assure that pipe rupture Following NRC' 'ew and approval, this appen .
due to this mechanism is unlikely. Water
~j :lix will become appro?cy.@,B methodology for app hammer is a generic term including sarious Lication to ABWR Standard 'Pla t piping. Appendin unanticipated high frequency hydrodynamic l 3F appliesjkde properties ud melbods to '
events such as stesta hammer and water l 5pecifi,c pi~ ping to demonstrate tkQeligibi- slugging. To demonstrate that water hammer f exclusion under the LBB approathQci is not a significant contributor to pipe 6 b6wsio: 3M2 for insulace-uq"ir- * - rupture, reliance on historical frequency of water hammer events in specific piping systems coupled with a review of operating procedures and conditions is used for this
- evaluation. Tbc ABWR design includes l features such as vacuum breakers and jockey l .3--3*it-General baluation- pumps coupled with improved operationa'l l
procedures to reduce or climinate the pot.
,- m b-The-high.negy-piping-sy+sm gr anal aable t ential for water bammer identified by past l R e p t o c ,. M+h Tevi 3
- - , n ,. w n -
JREM " A" FOR PAGE 3.6-12 O 3.6.3.1 Scope of LBB Applicability The LBB approach is not used to replace existing regulations or criteria pertaining to the design bases of emergency core cooling systeta (Subsection 6.3), ,
containment system (Subsection 6.2) or environmental qualification (Subsection 3.11). -However, consistent with modifled CDC 4, the design bases for dynamic qualification of mechanical and electrical equipment (subsection 3.10) may exclude the dynamic load or vibration effects resulting from postulation of breaks in the 1.BB qualified piping. This is also reficcted in a note to Table 3.9-2 for ASME components. The LBB qualified piping may not be excluded from the design bases for environmenta1' qualification unless the regulation permits it at the time of LBB qualification. For clarification, it is noted that the LBB approach is not used to relax the design requirements of the primary containment system that includes the primary containment vessel (pCV), vent systems (vertical flow channels and horizontal vent discharges), drywell zones, suppression chamber (vetvell), vacuum breakers, pCV penetrations, and drywell head.
INSERT "B" FOR PAGE 3.6-23 3.6.3.2 conditions for LBB Applicability The LBB approach is not applicable to piping systems where operating experience has indicated particular susceptibility to failure from the effects of intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC), water hammer, thermal fatigue, or erosion. Necessary preventive or mitigation measures are used and necessary analyses are performed, as discussed below, to avoid concerns for these effects.
Other concerns, such as creep, brittle cleavage type failure, potential indirect source of pipe failure, and deviation of as built piping configuration, are also addressed.
o
- 3. 6 ,2 3 a.
td M nAsim.e prV A S11Ddard Plant experience. Certain anticipated water ' se the -fracture-mechanics and 4he-leaje n hammer events, such as a closure of a valve, te computational methods that are acce -
Q are accounted for in the Code design and analysis of the piping.
by the NRC staff, or are demonstra ic urate with respect to other accept {:-
- o putational procedures or it h (6) The systems evaluation also addresses a po- :xp timental data, tential for fatigue cracking or failure from v thermal and mechanical induced fatigue. 9) Ident fy the types of materials a d ma-Based on past experience, the piping design ;erials pecifications used for bas metal, avoids potential for significant mixing of weldm ts and safe ends, and pr ide the high , and low temperature fluids or material,s properties including t ughnesi mechanical vibration The startup and sad tensbe data,long term effe such s i preoperational monitoring assures avoidance hermal s'g ing, and other limits ons, of detrimental mechanical vibration. p- \
Q) Specify the type and magnitude of the loadp (7) Based on expericace and studies by Lamence Lpplied (forces, bending d torsiona,1 Livermore Laboratory, potential indirect moments), tbt ir source (s) d method c4 sources of indirect pipe rupture are remote :ombination.\ For each p pc sire in th :,
causes of pipe rupture. Compliance with the functional syst'em, identify he location (sb inubber surveillance requirements of the abich have theleast favor, ble combinatic a technical specifications assures that of stress and material properties for bas e snubber failure rates are acceptably low. betal, weldments and sale ends, d 3 /
(8) Initial LBB evaluation is based on the MJ Postulate a throughwall flaw at the design configuration and stress levels that locatioa(s) specified /in (3) above, The are acceptably higher than those identified size of the flaw should be large enough so by the initial analysis. This evaluation is that the leakage is ahured detection with reconciled when the as built configuration sufficient margin ulihg the installed leak p is documented and the Code stress evaluation detection capabili(y when the pipes ark.
Q is reconciled. It is assured that the hubjected to norpal dyerating loads, if as built configuration does not deviate auxiliary leak detection tystems are relied si6nificantly from the design configuration bn they shoulal be des 9tibed. For tb4 to invalidate tbc initial LBB evaluation, or 'stimation e of lepage, the normal operating a new evaluation coupled with necessary loads (l.c., deadweight, thermal crpansion'.
configuration modifications is made to and pressure) Are to be combined based on assure applicability of the LBB procedure. the algebraic um of individual values.
(Nufucie atl y-renable,-redunda str4seno Using fract te mechanics stability analysi 6 in'lhepsitive leak detection systejns4 or limit lo/d analysis based on'(11) beloM stovided'for onitoring of leakMbe systen and normal plus SSE loads, determine the bat is relied up to prodfiit the through kritical ' rack size for the p6,stulate wall flaw used in rministic fracturi throug all crack. Determine ack sitt -
nechanic uation i fficient!! marginj y comparing the selecte akage d sensitive to justify argit size grack to the critical cra k size, eflia hWea k'68-p *""I^-
de-en-t Demonstrate that there is a margIp of ?
betv/cen the leakage and critical'yracl :
% 2 Determialstic.It-N=Haa Nmim size /. The same load combination myhoo selected in ($) below is used to deterrein n d e4ellowing determin!9 r analyth %d 1 Lb5 critical crack size.
ovaluation re perfotmed as_an NRCq@pi~cised /
Determine margin in terms of applied loa y method for thc ABWR1ltlisitard-Nuc! car Island to ($)
. [NerifyTp'pEabilky4f-the4BB-censept.
ra -tra cie-st a bility-s n alysis --Demonst ra t S o s e c 4-h 3 . 4. . g . a. i,5 ev w bb s e c 4< u n p Amendmem I \Qg ,- i- ,- x- - ,p AppenJ;X 3E s
M g Au 4_1u, - a
ABWR mima Standard Plant uv3 rm \heHbc leakago i1cace unstable site crack cracks growth if 1.4will not expc.-
times strate that adequate..a the generic datadetermination.is base represep made ind
('-) the pormal plus SSE loads are applied. De- the range of plant materials to be evalui monstrate that crack growth is stable and ated. This determination is based on a/comi the fi'nal crack is limited such that a parison of the plant material prop'erties double coded pipe break will not occur. The identified in (2) above with those of the dead weight, thermal expansion, pressure, materials used to develop the gpderic data
- SSE (inertial), and seismic anchor motion base. The number of material heats and weldk (SAM) loads arg combined based on the same procedures tested are adequa ( to cover the method used for the primary stress evalu- strength and toughness rang)e of the actua'l ation by the ASME Code. The SSE (inertial) plant materials. Reasona6le lower bound and SAM loads are'yombined by square root- tensile and toughness pr'operties from the of.the sum of the squh(es (SRSS) method. plant specific generic / data base are to be
\ used for the stability analysis of indiwi A6) The piping material toughness (J R curves) dual materials, unlels otherwire justified. l
/
a nd t e n sile (s t r e s s 'st r ain curve s) properties are determined k temperatures Industry generie data bases are reviewed to jnest the upper range of ' normal plant provide a rea(onable lower bound for thh?
operation. \ population of' material tensile and toughntf-y properties' associated with any individua'l f) The specimen used to generate J.R ~ curves is specification (e.g., A106, Grade B), materia'l assured large enough to provide'\cracle type (c'.g., austenitic steel) or weldinh extensions up to an amount consistent \with p r o c e'd u r e s , !
J/T condition determined by analysis for'the /
application. Because practical specimen Th'e number of material heats and weld proc ;
size limitations exist, the ability to Aures tested should be adequate to cover the p
fobtain the desired amount of experimental range of the strength and tensile propertiep
/ \ crack extension may be restricted, in this/ sexpected for specific material specifick d case, extrapolation techniques is used as' described in NUREG 1061, Volume 3, or in t' ipos or types. Reasonable lower bound tensile and toughness properties from the NUREG/CR 4575. Other techniques can bc used industry generic data base are used for the ifadequatelyjustified. / stabilhy analysis of individual materials.
/
- 38) The stress strain curves are obtained over if the data are being developed from an the range from the proportional limit to archival heat of material, three stressL
- maximum load. / strain curve (and three J resistance curves from that one heat of material is sufficient.
p Preferably, the materiaJa[ tests The should tests should be t(e conducted at temperaturge 9 conducted using archiv i materials for the near the upper ' range of normal plant s
pipe being evaluated If archival material operetion. Tests sh Id also be conducted at 9'a not available, ply t specific or industry a lower ternperature, hich may represent h
'fwide generic material data bases are plant condition (e.g., ho standby) where pipe dssembled and us'ed to define the required break would present safety oncerns similar t6 thaterial tensi}i and toughness properties. normal operation. These sts are intendep only to determine if there is ny significan)
Test l
materi[al(acludes base and dependence weld metals, of toughness on tern crature ovet the temperature range of interest. The lowe r f0) To provide an acceptable level of reli- toughness should be used in th fractur a'bility,' generic data bases are reasonable :
tp'wer. bounds for compatible sets of material mechanics evaluation. One J R curve nd one
.Aeos[le and toughness properties associated stress strain curve for one base me I and wXh materials at the plant. To assure that weld metal are considered adequa to
,de-plant-specific generic-data-base-is--determineaemporants dependeac
/N Amendment 1 3O
, - - ~ . - - . . . . . - - . . ~ . . ~ ~ . - . . - - - . .
M 23A6100AE nry A
$ta- N Plant (1 )-Thero-are-certa!n limitations that-currently Whe n ahe.-m ast es-4ur ve -is-eenottiretethr t preclude generic use of limit load analyses Eqs, (1), (2), and (3) or (5), the allow n p evaluate leak before break conditions circumferential throughwall flaw length bt Q erministically. However, a modified 11 it load analysis can be used for determined by entering the master curf at t streu index (SI) value determined from the aust?ealtic steel piping to demonstrate. loads and austenitic steel piping aterialof-accept) le margins as indicated below: interest. The allowable flaw size etermined from the master curve at the propriate SJ -
Construct a inester Curve where a stress index, value can then be used to determine if thi SI, given by requited matgins ate met. MI'owable values of 6 are those that result S being greatee Si = S + M Pm s (1) than ad(5). The flow is plotted as a function of postulated total stresszero used from Eqs. (3)the master curve and to construe circumferential thro' hwall flaw length, L, the definition of Si ed to enter the mastep defined by -
curve are defined I each material category as follows: '
L =2 e R (2)
Base Metal and TIG Weldg where The flow ress p/ used to construct the maste r S = 2.gr ( 2 sin # . sin 0], (3) curve is/
w
' or = 0.5 (ay + ou)
- { ,.
- = 0.5 [(x . e) . w (Pm/of)] (4)
/ when the yield strength, ay, and the ulti
/ 0 = half angle in radians of the posta. ste strengthe au, at temperature ar :.
lated throughwall circumferential\ known. C-f f the yield and ultimate strengths at temperr R = pipe mean radius, that is, the avet- a'tpre are not known, then Code minimum values age between the inser and outer at 'ttmperature can be used, or alternatively radius, if \
!P m =the combined membrane stress,
\
(SD 2.5,then I including pressure, dead 4eight, and 17M seismic components, \
or = Si ksi, or M- = 1.4,' the margin astociated with the load combinationjn'ethod selected for if the analysis, pe ' tem (5).
(SD > 2.5, then 7g = flow stres. for austenitic steel 17M pipe ma}/ rial categories.
/- .
of = 45 ksi.
If e + $ from Eqs. (2) and (4) is greater than w,then . The value of SI used to enter t master cuts :
for base metal and TIG welds is 3 (5)
= 1.Ef) sins]
SI = M (Pm + Pb) (7) w/
Rvhere where 4(Pm/*f). (6) Pty-- =4hs-combinedgiaasy4sadiag4s:s4
- . - , n l
ABWR u-c nrv B Slandard Plant including deadweight-and4SynedeQ (1) A summary of the dynamic analyses
[] applicable to high energy piping systems (f components.
in accordance with Subsection 3.6.2.5 of g ihiddsd_ Metal Are (SMA%S and Submerced An Regulatory Guide 1.70. This shall
\(SA%1 Welds: include:
The flow stress used to construct the aster (a) curve is $1 ksi Sketches of applicable piping systems showing the location, size and orientation of postulated The _value of SI used to enter : emaster pipe breaks and the location of pipe whip curve for SMAW and SAW is restraints and jet impingement barriers.
SI - M (P m + P b + P e )Z (8 (b)
A summary of the data developed to select where postulated break locations including calculated stress intensities, cumulative usage factors and Pb stress ranges as delineated in BTP MEB 31.
- the combined primary bending stress, including deadweight and seismic componen:s. (2) For failure in the moderate energy
' g~ piping systems listed in Table 3.6-6, M =
Pe cornbined capansion stress at normal descriptions showing how safety related systems are protected from the resulting 5
7 operation.
i/ jets, flooding and other adverse e nvir ontn e nt al e f f ect s. 6r tent N
ecWon Z = 1.15 [1.0 + 0.013 (OD' 4)] for SMAW, (3) Identification of protecti ' measures
~
[9) f'i provided against the effects of n V K = 1.30 [1.0 + 0.010 OD-4)] for SAW, postulated pipe failures each of the 3 (10) systems listed in Tables 3.61 3.6 2, JLand 33 ' a~L and i (4) The details of how the MSIV functional OD= ,/ capability is protected against the @
3 pipe outer diameter in inches. \ effects of postulated pipe f:ilures.
\
When the allowable flaw length is determineb (5) Typic al e xa m ple s, if a ny, wh e r e from the master curve at the appropriate SI protection for safety related systems value, it can be used to determine if the and components against the dynamic req 6 ired margins on load and flaw'5ize are effects of pipe failures include their rt mit using the following procedure. enclosure in suitably designed $
/ structures or compartments (including for the method of load combination des ibec any additional drainage system or in item (5), let M - 1.4, and if bc equipment environmental qualification allowable flaw length from the master cu vc needs).
is at least equal to the leakage size fla -
- hen-the-mngis eu ' ed n wi. (6) The details of how the feedwater line check and feedwater isolation valves 3.6,4 Intetfaces functional capabilities are protected I against the effects of postulated pipe 3.6.4.1 Detal!s of Pipe Break Analysis Results failures.
l sad Protection Methods 3.6.4.2 Leak.Before Break Analysis Report l
!p) Tbc following shall be provided by the ccL applicant eeforwQthe-ABWP h<ign-(Scr As required by Reference 1, an LBB analysis 3 Subsection 3.6.2.5):
Amendment 17 3M7 l
- Standard Pimmt :
m6im REY D
~
es uwslpn report shall be repared for the piping systems
. proposed for from the analyses for the dynamic effects due to their failure. The report ,e A '.n * *w r/
- nu
- shall letted; n!y- at-pipieg+me-e**1Ms a y,e p *'*^
rad f- S: pip;;i .yhtrurmtyret aird wh *u 0 * * '*
- 8 I**".f. %
- nan al 6 g ate o L.
3 c , r A.
e:;::::3 6: ' " i: A;;;:S g ;,, g;;; . g;; ;, g,,, j 3, % mr f o f- "fI'**' '
th' 'Le i p p!?248+MM-weMbMhmst g' ,w '
u.
l**+1**wned4a4ppendis4F-(See-Sebste. -
ties-3+:3) .
3.6.5 References -
- 1. Alodification of General Design Criterion 4 Requirements for Protection Against Dynamic Effects of Postulated Pipe Rupture, Federal Realiter. Volume 52 No. 207, Rules and Regulations, Pages 41288 to 41295, October 27,1987
- 2. --'RELAP 3, A Computer Program for Reactor Blowdown Analysis,~ IN.1321, issued June
_1970, Reactor Technolony TID.4500,
- 3. Moody, F. J., Fluid Reactor and impingement Loads, Vol.1 ASCE Specialty Conference ou Structural Design of Nuclear Plant.
A. Facilities pp. 219 262 , December 1973.
Q-
- 4. Standard Review Plan'; Publicl Comments Solicited, Federal Renister. Volutne 52, No.-
167, Notices, Pages 32626 to 32633, August -
28, 1987.
e, f ~ Pc,b Mint 5, ' NO A E(a- 10 61, MlUm e 3, Evak aco n U.S. N R C- -
fo r P. y e thre as , It e yo u of s k a-(%cvse a c. ~ t t < e , o vve &c - 'n>-
?,p n 3 6 . M ea t n , H .s. ,. Pcd e\, M. 1.-- oW.L - C a n n.tN $ . , Ap ys cu w%
e r w . L _ d . c4 n - w ,< appm a % we
" Pe ,a e r Ro,. g .
I 4 fin Idofore rJ P-a n n i , Elu snc
+ a:a p.s. m , c~, w ~ <m.
s l
L i
I f
36411
' Amendment 17 '
_m.- m _ - .a-4h$4A---a,ar A4sd,AAhh,. w#,L.,4#-. ,us4,*,.4_4 e "a..M..GAf- ,.J.s,hu.h2-,4,L_S$a,,4.g 4 s we ,-e - aA da m A.4 ..a.m= %,2.h_4M2_.,a__2umu_J%m._J u. ...%._
O APPENDIX 3E GUIDELINES FOR LBB APPLICATIONS O
O
ABWR mame
. Standard Plant nry A A APPENDIX 3E TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 31Llt Eagt guide Li rJ E S FOR L 3'8 A PP l 1 C AT: o tJ 5 LEAK-RATE .
3E FRAGTURE-MECHANIGSk-DETECTION GALGUh4T4GNAND-L-EA METHOOS 3E.1 INTRODUCTION ,
3E.1 1 3E.2 MATERIAL FRACTURE TOUGifNESS CHARACTERIZATION 3E.21 3E.2.1 Fracture Toughnen Characterization 3E.21 3E.2.2 - Carbon Steels and Associated Welds 3E.2 2 3E.23 References 3E.2 5 3EJ FR ACTURE MECilANIC METIIODS - 3E31 3E3.1 Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics or
'(J/T) Methodology 3E31 qf,.)-
V- 3E3.2 Application of(J/T) Methodology to Carbon Steel Piping 3E.3 3 3E.33 - Reiereaces 3E3 3 3E.4 LEAK R ATE CALCULATION METIIODS 3E.41 3E.4.1 1.cak Rate Estimation for Pipes Carrying Water 3E.41
- 3E.4.2 Flow Rate Estimation for Saturated Steam - 3E.4 2 3E.43 References 3E.4-4 3EJ LEAK DETECTION CAP ABILITIES 3E.5 1 -
3L. G GO DE LINES F o R, PREfARAT1W ,
oF AN- 16B 4 6 P o n.T 3 E . G. I M nin G + c n en Pi p mj 30 ' ' '
E m o m p t e.
3 e .= (, x FeeA h4 e r P to n,3 Ewample r -- %_ 3E.ii ,
,.....a
% mt.,
4~.a. l . n e oe.,.,
si. o-Amendment 1 3 (;, .1. E } g { e , m , n , g .p ,* g E y alu A 4.Vn
. . . - . . - - . . . . . . . . - . . . - - . . - . ~ -.... -.-
i l
SECTION 3E.1 CONTENTS 4
S.cetion Iltl.e Eage i
i 3E.1.1- -Material Selection Cuidelines 3E.1-lb 3E.1.2 Deterministic Evaluation Procedure 3E.1 Ic TABLES.
Iahic 5
Title Par.e
'3E.1-1 Leak-Before Break Candidate Piping 3E.1 1f Piping Systems b
s 3E .1 - i i
ABWR nuime
~ Sandard Plant nry 4 n
t,J~ A ume u ws.s APPENDIX 3E ro a. t-sw Avvucwnour F"dCTURE MEC:iANICS LEAK "dTC CALCULAT;ON
-AND LEAK DETECTION ".ET!!ODS 3E.1 INTRODUCTIONgu g ,,, j, , ,,,, , -
As discussed in Subsection 3.6.3, this appendix ebre:L.'::: the fracture mechanics properties of ABWR piping materials and analysis methov., inc!uding the leak rate calculation methods. 4e-A;;: d!: 3F, :b:: p::;::S; ::.d:
7 -9 & r: epp!H te ; :$ p!;i:;; :;&r ::
,,_4 ,.---...p t ,itoikitieu rm, .t. vn qu!!ent!::r e the(% , b 's..-
t, as.. m a.
Piping qualified by LBB would be excluded from the non. mechanistic postul tion requirements of double. ended guillotice break (DEGB) specified in Subsection 3.6.3. The LBB qualification means that the through. wall flaw lengths that are detectable by leakage monitoring systems (see Subsection 5.2.5) are significantly smaller than the flaw lengths that could lead to pipe rupture or instability. -
p) x-
- Section 3E.2 addresses the fractwe mechanics properties aspects required for evaluation in accordance with Subsection 3.6.3. Section 3E.3 describes the fracture mechanics techniques and methods for the determination of critical flaw lengths and evaluation of flaw stability.
Explained in Section 3E.4 is the deter:nihation of flaw lengths for detectable leakages with margin ' Fish brief discussion on the leak detection capabi ities is presented in Section 3E.5. _ Gwan^vB s u p, g , ,, ,3 mm e j 't
\] .
, f
- V Amendment 1 3E. l.1
()
V INSERTS FOR PAGE 3E.1-1 Insert A
..provides detailed guidelines for applicant's use in applying for NRC's approval of LBB for specific piping systems. Also included in this appendix are ..
Insert B Tabic 3E.1 1 Sives a list of piping systems inside and outside the containment that are preliminary candidates for LBB application. As noted on Table 3E.1 1, most candidate piping systems are carbon st.cel piping. Therefore, this appendix deals extensively with the evaluation of carbon steel piping.
(~'s, .
V s e .1 - 6 2
) -INSf,RT FOR PACE 3E.1-1 Insert.C Finally, Section 3E.6 provides general guidelines for the preparation of LBB justification reports by providing two examples.
Material selection and the deterministic LBB evaluation procedure are discussed in this section.
3E.1.1 Material Selection Guidelines The LBB approach is applicable to piping systems for which the materials meet the following criteria: (1) low probability of failure from the effects of
,_s corrosion (e.g. , intergranular stress corrosion cracking) and (2) adequate i 1
( ) . margin before susceptibility to cleavage type fracture over the full range of systems operating temperatures where pipo rupture could have significant consequences.
The ABWR plant design specifies use of austenitic stainless steel piping
- made of' material-(e.g., nuclear grade or low carbon type) that is recognized as resistant to ICSCC. The carbon steel or ferritic steels specified for the reactor pressure boundary are described in 3E.2.2. These steels are assured to have adequate toughness to preclude a fracture at operating temperatures. A COL applicant is expected to supply a detailed justification in the LBB evaluation. report considering systta temperature, fluid velocity.and environmental conditions.
u 3E.t-lh
3E.1.2 Deterministic Evaluation Procedure m The following deterministic analysis and I T evaluation are performed as an NRC approved L/ method icHh: ^ F"'" 5:eederd S';;.: !* r.d to justify applicability of the LBB concept.
(1) - Use the fracture mechanics and the leak rate computational methods that 9 accept-ed by the NRC staff, or are demt,nstrated accurate with respect to other acceptable cornputational procedures or with e xr e tirn e nt al data.
(2) Identify the types of materials and ma.
terials specifications used for base metal, weldments and safe ends, and provide the rosterials properties including toughness and tensile data,long term effects sv ' as thermal aging, and other limitations.
(3) Specify the type and magnitude of the loads applied (forces, bending and torsional moments), their source (s) and method of combination. For each pipe size in the functional system, identify the location (s) which have the least favorable combination of stress and material properties for base
,m metal, weldments and safe ends.
(') (4) Postulate a throughwall flaw at the location (s) specifica in (3) above, The size of the flaw should be large enough so that the leakage is assured detection with sufficient margin using the installed leak detection capability when the pipes are subjected to normal operating lords, if auxiliary leak detection systems are relied on, they should be described. For the estimation of leakage, the normal operating ,
loads (i.e., deadweight, thertnal expansion,
~
and pressure) are to be combined based on the algebraic sum of individual values.
Using fracture mechanics stability analysis * , $pt or limit load analysis based :: (") b:': -
and normal plus SSE loads, determine the critical crack si;c for the postulated throughwall crack. Determine crack size margin by comparing the selected leakage size crack to the critical crack size.
Demonstrate that there is a margin of 2 between the leakage and critical crack sizes. The same load combination method selected in (5) below is used to determine (n)
'w the critica! tack size.
(5) Determine margin in terms of applied loads by a crack stability analysis. Demonstrate
.- c.o n + in u e A ne x r P g c. 3E 1- ic
\
that the leakage sire cracks will not cape. adequate, a determlnation is made to demon.
(_) tience unstable crack growth if 1.4 times strate that the generic data base represents the range of plant materials to be evalu.
U the normal plus SSE losds are applied. De.
monstrate that crack growth is stable and sted. This determinatioh is based on a com.
the final crack is limited such that a parison of the plant material properties double ended pipe break will not occur. Tb6 identified in (2) above with those of tbc dead. weight, thermal expansion, pressure, materials used to develop the geheric data SSE (inertial), and seismic anchor motion base. The number of material heats and weld
($AM) toads are combined based on the same procedones tested are adequate to coser the method used for the primary stress evalu. strength and toughness range of the actual ation by the A$ME Code. The S$E (inertial) plaat materials. Reanonable lower bound and SAM loads are combined by square root
- tenille and toughness properties from tbc of the sum of the. squua.s (5R$$) method. plant specific generic data base are to be used for the stability analysis of indivi.
(6) The piping material toughness (J.R curves) dual materials, unless otherwise justified.
and tensile (stress. strain curves) propertus are determined at temperatures Industry generic data bases are reviewed to near the upper range of normal plant provide a reasonable lower bound for the operation, population of material tensile and toughness properties associated with any individual (7) The specimen used tc generate J.R curves is specification (e.g., A106, Orade B), material assured large enough to provide crack type (e.g., austenitic steel) or welding extensions up to an amount consistent with procedures.
J/T condition determined by analysis for the application. Because practical specirnen The number of material beats and weld proce.
size limitations exist, the ability to dures tested should be adequate to cover the obi 8i tbc desired amount of einerimental range of the strength and tensile properties p) crau trension may be restrict'ed. In this case, atrapolation techniques is used as espected for specific material specifica.
tions or types. Reasonable lower bound des:ribed in NUREO.1061, Volume 3, or in t.asile and toughness properties from the NUREG/CR 4575 Othertechniquescanbeused industry generic data base are used for the ifadequatelyjustified. stability analysis of individual materials.
if the data are being developed from an (6) The stress strain curves are obtained over archival heat of material, tl.ree stresc.
the range from the proportional limit to maximum load, stralh curves and three J.realstance curses frorn that one beat of materialis sufficient.
(9) Preferably 3 the materials tests should be The tests should be conducted at temperatures conducted using archival materials for the near the upper tange of normal plant pipe being evaluated if archival material operation. Tests should also be conducted at is not anilable, plant speelfic or industry a lower temperature, which may represent a wide generie material data bases are plant condition (e.g., hot standby) where pipe assembled and used to define the required break would r esent safety concerns similar to material tensile and toughness properties. normal operation. These tests are intended Test materiallaciudes base and weld metals. only to determine if there is any significant dependence of toughnes: on temperature oser (10) To provide an acceptable level of rell- the temperature range of interest. The lower ability, generic data bases are reasesable toughness should be used in the fracture lower bounds for compatib!c sets of material mechanica evaluation. One J R curve and one tenslie and toughness properties associated stress strain curve for one base me;al and with materials at the plant. To assure that weld metal are considered adequate to the plant specific generic dats base is deteraine temperature dependence.
7m
)
-cow ~ x ne,r t.-
3E , el
\j (11) Thece are certain limitations that currently preclude generic use of limit load analyses to evaluate leak.before. break conditions deterministically. However, a modified limit. load analysis can be used fct auntsaltic steel piping to demonstrate acceptable margins as described in JL. 3.3. .
L) o)
(.
3 C.1- 1 e
i TABLE 3E.1-1 LEAK DEFORE DREAK CANDIDATE O- PIPING SYSTEMS System Location Description Diameter (mm)
Hain Steam PC RPV to RCCV 700 (4 Lines)
Feedwater PC RPV to RCCV 550/300 (2 Lines /6 Ripers) l RCIC Steam PC MS to RCCV 150 HPCF PC RPV to first check valve 200 t
RHR/LPFL PC RPV to first check valve 250 RHR Suction PC RPV to first closed gate valve 350 CUW PC RHR suction to RCCV 200 Main Steam Steam RCCV to turbine building 700
( 's) (4 Lines) Tunnel-Feedwater Steam RCCV to turbine building 550 (2 Lines)- Tunnel RHR Div. A Steam FW line A to check valve 250 Suction Tunnel RCIC Steam SC RCCV to turbine shutoff valve 150 RCIC Supply SC FW to first check valve 200 CUW Suction SC RCCV to heat exchanger discharge 200 CUW Discharge SC Heat exchanger discharge to 200/150 FW suction Note: -(1)-All piping in primary and secondary containment (including steam tunnel) are carbon steel piping, except the in-containment lCUW piping which is stainless steel.
Legend: PC:-Primary-containment SC2 Secondary Containment FW: Feedwater O
_ . ~ .. -. _ . . . . , . _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ ._. ._. .
ABWR nuime Standard Plant arv 4 SECTION 3E.2 l
CONTENTS Section Ikig Egge 5i.'.2.1 fInclure Ton =hness Characteriaallna 3E.21 3EJ.2 Carbon Steels and Associa.d Welds 3E.2 2 3E.2.2.1 Fractwe Toughneu TcSt Program 3E.2 2 3E.2.2.1.1 Chupy Tests 3E.2 3 3E.2.2.1.2 Stress Strala Tests 3E.2 3 3E.2.2.1.3 J.R Curve Tests 3E.2 4 3 E.2.2.2 Material (J/T) Curve Selection 3E.2 4 3E.2.2.2.1 Material (J/T) Curve for $50'F 3E.2 4 3E.2.2.2.2 Material (J/T) Curve for 420'F 3E.2 5 S t. . A . 3 - s h.ab a s u . i s . .- ( Ass.< 8 4 useld8 H 96*
3EJJ Referunces 3E.2 5 r W TABLES Iable Ihle Eage 3E.21 Electrodes and Filler Metal Requirements for Carbon SteelWelds 3E.2 7
- 3E.2 2 Supplier Prodded Chemical Composition and MechanicalPropertic 1r.brmation 3E.2 8 ,
3E.2 3 Standard Tension Test Data At Teniperature 3E.2 9 3E.2 4 Summary of Carbon Steel J.R Curve Tests 3E.210 A
t E
O 3E.2.il Amendment t y y.-.1- .
, , .y+..gv_ .,y,, .,.,...,,4%, ,, _.- ,.-,..,-.,.,,_..,,,,.,,-,,._.,_,,v..-y.7_., ,.w_. ..m.,, .,.,y am...,y -
MM -
23A6100A!!
Standard Plant MYA SECTION 3E.2 h Figure Ill.USTRATIONS Iula IMgt 4
3E.2 la Sr. hematic Representation of Material J lategral R Curve 3E.211 3E.21b Schematic Representation of Material J.T Cunt 3E.211 3E.2 2 Carbon Steel 7ese Specimen Orientation Code 3E.212 3E.2 3 Toughness Anisotropy of ASTM 106 Plpe (6 in Sch. 80) 3E.213 3E.2-4a Charpy Energies for Pipe Test Material as a Function of Orientation and Temperature 3E.214 3E.2 4b Charpy Energies for Plate Test Material as a
- Function of Orientation and Temperature 3E.215 3E.2 5 Comparison cd Bane Metal, Weld and HAZ Charpy
- Energies for SA333 GR 6 3E.216 3E.24a Plot of $50'F True Stress True Strain Cunts for SA333 GR.6 Carbon Steel 3E.217 3E.2 6b Plot of $50'F True Stress True Strain Cunts for SA516 GR.70 Carbon Steel- 3E.218 3E.2 6c Plot of 350'F Truc Stress True Sirsin Cunts
. for SA333 Gr. 6 Carbon Steel 3E.219 3E.2-6d Plot of 350'F True Stress True Strain Curves
- for SA516 Gr.70 Carbon Steel 3E.2 20 -
3E.2 7 Plot of $50'F Test J.R Cunt for Pipe Weld . 3E.2 21
[
3E 2 8 Plot of $50'F Jmod,Tmod Data From:
Test J.R Curw -
3E.2 22 3E.2 9 Carbon SteelJ.T Cunt for 420'F . 3E.2 23 - i r
4 O , , , . .,
Amendment 1
I DAsimAl' i St18Ad ard Plant _
pry 4
] t 3E.2 MATERIAL FRACTURE TOUGH. The crack growth inuriably involves some Os NESS CHARACTERIZATION elastic unloading and distinctly nonproportional plastic deformation near the crack tip. J.
This subsection describes the fracture integrat is based on ibe defortnation theory of ;
toughness properties and flow stress evaluation plasticity [4,5) which inadequately models both for the ferritic materials used in ABWR plant of these aspects of plastic behavior. In order piping, as required for culuation according to to use J. integral to characterire crack growth (i.e. to assure J. controlled crack growth), the i Section M.h3OI. A .
following sufficiency condition in terms of a 3E.2.1 Fracture Toughness condimensional parameter proposed by liutchinson Characterization and Paris k], is used; When the elastic. plastic fracture mechanics u. b.#>>3 (E.2 2) l (EPFM) me.thodology or the J T methodology is used J da to evaluate the leak.before break conditions with postulated through wall flaws, the material Where b is the remaining ligament. Reference ,
toughness property is characterized in the form 7 suggests that u>10 would satisfy the of J. integral resistance curve (or J.R curve) [1, J. controlled growth requirements, liowever,if 2,3]. The J.R curve, schematically shown in the requirements of this criteria are strictly Figure 3E.2.la, represents the material's followed, the amount of crack growth allowed resistance to crack extension. The onset of would be very small in most test specimen ;
crack catension is assumed to occur at a critical geometries. Use of such a material J.R curve in value of J. Where the plane strain conditions J/T evaluation would result in grossly are satisfied, initiation J is denoted by JIC. underpredicting tbc instability loads for large Plane strain crack conditions, achieved in test diameter pipes where considerable stable crack specimen by side grooving, generally provide a growth is expected to occw before reaching the lower bound behavior for material resistance to lastability point. To overcome this difficulty, O' stable crack growth. Ernst (8) proposed a modified J. integral, Jmod, which was shown to be effective esen Once the crack begins to extend, the increase when limits on w were grossly violated. Tbc of J with crack growth is measured in terms of Ernst correction essentially factors.in the slope or the condimensional tearing modulus, effect of crack extension in the calculated T, capressed at: value of J. This correction can be determined experimentally by measuring the usual T=Eg (E.21) parametero load, displacement and crack length. l 0i' de I
Tbc definition of Jmod S:
The flow stress, at, is a function of the yield and ultimate strength, and E is the clastic Jmod
- 3 + -
da modulus Generally, at si assumed as the J'oElfDlpl6 a da avera e of the yield and ultimate strength. The (E.2 3) i slope of the material J.R curve 13 p function l of cra extension Aa, Generally, u decres. Where ses with crack extension thereby givi$$ a convex J is based on deformation theory of L upward appearance to the material J.R curve in plasticity Figure 3E.2.la.
l G is the linear clastic Griffith
- To evaluate the stebility of crack growth, it energy release rate or clastic J.
L is convenient to represent the material J.R curve Jel, in the J.T space as shown in Figure 3E.2.lb. The resulting curve is labeled as J.T material. 6pl is the norlinear part of the m Crack instability is predicted at the intersec. load point displacement, (on tion point of the J/T material and J/T applied simply the total minus the elastic curves.
3W A n nemesi
ABWR mim en n Standard Plant b
V displaceme nt). treatment which refines the grain structure and, (2) a charpy test at .50'F with a specified s.
o are the initial and current crack minimum absorbed energy of 13 fi Ibs.
lengths respecthcly.
Tbc electrodes and filler metal requirements For the particulat case of Ibc compact tension for melding carbon steel to carbon or low alloy specimen geometry, the preceding Equation and the steel are as specified in Table 3E.21. A correspondmg rate take the form comprehensi e test program was undertaken to characterire the carbon steel base and weld a material toughness properties. The next section 1.da describes tbc scope and the results of this Jmod
- J o+7 [a (E.2-4) progtam.
wbere J pi is tbe oonlineai patt of Ibc 3E.2.2.1 Frscture Toughness Test Prvgram deformation tbcory J, b is the remaining ligament and 7 h Tbc test program consisted of generating true stress true strain curves, J. Resistance curves y =
(1 + 0.76 b/W) (E.2 5) and the charpy V notch tests. Two materials were sclert.d : (1) SA333 Or. 6.16 inch Consequently the modified material teating diameter Schedule 80 pipe and (2) SA516, Gr. 70, modulus Tmod can be defined ast 11/4 inch thickness plate. Table 3E.2 2 shows the chemical composition and mechanical property Tmod = Tmat + E 2 .Jpl test information provided by the material af 8
b (E.2 6) supplier. Tbc materials were purchased to the same specifications as those to be used in the Since in most of the test J.R curves the ABWR applications.
w=10 limit was violated, all of the material (mV) J.T data were recalculated in the Jmod Tmod To produce a circumferential butt weld, the for m at. The Jmod, Tmod calculations were pipe was cut in two pieces along a performed up to crack extension of on=10% of circumferential plane and welded back using the the originalligament in the test specimen. The sbleided metal are process. Tbc weld prep was J.T curves were iben extrapolated to larger J of single V design with a backing ring. The values using tbc melbod recommended in NUREO prebest temperature was 200'F.
1061, Vol 3 [9).
The plate material was cut along the 3E.2.2 Carbon Steels and Associated longitudinal axis and welded back using the SAW Welds process. The weld prep was of a single V type with one side as vertical and the other side at The carbon steels used in the ABWR reactor 45'. A backing plate was used during the coolant pressure boundary piping sie: SA 106 Gr welding with a clearance of 1/4 inch at the D, SA 333 Or. 6 and SA 672, Gr. C70. The first bottom of tbc V. The laterpass temperature was specification covers seamless pipe and the second maintained at less than 500 F.
one pertains to both seamless and seam. welded pipe. The last one pertains to scam. welded pipe Both the plate and the pipe welds were for which plate stock is specified as SA 516. Or. X rayed according to Code [11] requirements and
- 70. The corresponding material specifications were found to be satisfactory.
i carbon steel flanges, fittings and forgings W for are ab h . WpecifkationitW It is well known that carbon steel base l ey,ue s n me t.r. M W i" * *. materials show considerable anisotropy in While the chemical composition requirements fracture toughness properties. The toughness for a, pipe per SA 106 Gr. B and SA 333 Gr. 6 are depends on tbc orientation and direction of i
7
' identical, the latter is subjected to two propagation of the crack in relation to the additional requirements: (1) a normaticing best principal direction of mechanical working or
(% ))
l Amendment 7 E22 i
l I
AmW rueirat m..s d Plant ny A y) gale flow. Thus, the selection of proper orien. Figures 3E.2 4a and b it is clear that esen at tation of charpy and J.R curve test specimen is room teroperature the upper shelf conditions base important, rigure 3E.2 2 shows the orientation been teached for both the materials.
code for rolled plate and pipe specimen as given in ASTM Standard E379 (12). Since a through wall No sueb anliotropy is espected in the weld circumferential crack configuration is of most metal since it does not undergo any mechanical laterest from the DEOD point of view, tbc L.T worklog after its deposition. This conclusion specimen in a plate and the L.C specimen in a is also supported by the available data in the pipe provide the appropriate toughness properties technicalliterature. The weld metal charpy for that case. On the other band, T.L and C.L specimen in this test program were oriented the specimen are appropriate for the trial flew cue. use way u the LC or LT orientations in rigure 3E.2 2. The ll AZ charpy specimens were also Charpy test data are reviewed first since Ibey oriented similarly, provide a qualitative measure of tbc fracture toughness. Figure 3E.2 5 shows a comparison of the charpy energies from the 333 Or. 6 base metal, 3E.2.2.1.1 Charpy Tests the weld metal and the HAZ. In most cases two specimens were used. Conalderable scatter in The absorbed energy or its complement, the the weld and HAZ charpy energy values is seen.
lateral espansion measured during a Charpy V. Nevertheless, the average energies fro the meld notch test provides a qualitative measure of tbc metal and the itAZ seem to fall at or abose the material toughness. For example,in the case of average base metal values. This indicates that, sustenitic stainless steel flus weldments, the unlike the stainless steel flus weldments, the observed lower Charpy energy relative to the base fracture toughness of carbon steel weld and ilAZ, metal was consistent with the similar trend as measured by the charpy tests,is at least r observed in the J. Resistance curves. The Charpy equal to the carbon steel base metal.
(' tests in Ibis program were used as preliminary indicators of relative toughness of welds, HAZs The preceding results and the results of the and the base metal, stress strain tests discunfjllp the next section wm'used as a be is to chooie IMeii The carbon steel base materials embibit the base and the weld metal properties for considerable anisotropy in the Charpy energy as in the J.T methodology esaluation.
Illustrated by Figure 3E.2 3 from Reference 13.
This anisotropy is associated with development of 3E.2.2.1.2 Strws. Strain Tuts grain flow due to mechanical working. The Charpy orientation C in Figure 3E.2 3 (orientations LC The stress strain tests were performed0
and LT in Figure 3E.2 2) is the a apropriate one three tergperatures: Room temperature,350 F for evaluatlag the fracture res stance to the and $50 F. Base and weld metal from both extension of a lbrough wall circumferential the pipe and the plate were tested. The weld flaw. The upper shelf Charpy energy associated specimens were in the u. welded condition. The with axial flaw catension (orientation A in standard test data obtained from these tests are Figure 3E.2 3) is considerably lower than that summarized in Table 3E.2 3.
for the circumferential crack extension.
An cumination of Table 3E.2 3 shows that the A similar trend in the base metal charpy measured yield strength of the weld metal, as energies was also noted in this test program. espected, is conalderably bigber than thatff Figures 3E.2 4a and b show the pipe and plate tbc base metal. For example, the $50 F material Charpy energies for the two orientations yield strength of the weld metal in lable 3E.2 3 '
as a function of temperature. Tbc tests were ranges from $3 to $9 ksi whereas the base metal conducted at six te9eratures ranging from room yleid strength is only 34 ksi. The isnpact of temperature to $$0 F. From the trend of the Ibis observation in the selection of appropriate Charpy energies as a function of lemperature in material (J/T) curve is discussed in later 73 L) i l Amendment t E24
ABWR mm SandudEant uv o s sections. shows that 5 tests were conducted at $50'F.
Two tests were on tbc weld metal, two were on s
d) Figures 3E.2 6 a through d show the plots of the bue metal and one was on the beat alfected the $50'r and 350'T stress stain curses rone Figure 3E 2 8 shows the plot of material for both the pipe and the plate used in the Jmod, Tmod values calculated jrom the J.t a test. As espected, the weld metal stress. strain values obtained from the $50 F tests. The curse in estry case la bigber than the correspon. value of flow stress, af, used in the dios but metal curve. ne Ramberg Osgmd format teating modulus calculation (Equation E.21) was characterization of these stress strain curves is 52.0 ksi based on data shown in Ta l glien in Section 3E.3.2 where appropriate values To convert Ibc deformation salves J an of a and e is also provided, d obtained from the J.R curve into Jmo'd, Tmodi Equations E.2 4 and E.2 6 were used Only the JE.2.2.1.3 J.R Curve Testa data from the pipe weld (Specimen ID OWLC.A) and the plate base metal (Specimen ID DMLI.12) are The test temperttures selected for the J.R shown in Figure 3E.2 8. A few unreliable data curge tests were: room temperature,350'r and points were obtained in tbc pipe base metal 550 F. Both the weld and the base metal were (Specimen ID OBLC.2) J.R curve test due to a included. Due to tbc curvature, only the IT plan malfunction in the instrumentation. Therefore, cornpact tension (CT) spedmens nre obtained from the data from this test were not included in tbc the 16 loch diameter test pipe. Both IT and 2T evaluation. Tbc J.R curves from the other two plan test specimens were prepared from the test 550'F tests were evaluated as described in plate. All of the CT specimens were side grooved the nest paragraph. For comparison purposes, to produce plane strain conditions. Figure 3E.2 8 also shows the SA106 carbon steel Table 3E.2 4 shows some details of the J.R J.T Gudas data obtained l14). The curve from tise also J.R curve includes report curve tests performed in this test program. The extrapolation to bigber J values based on the J.R curve in the LC orientation of the pipe base method recommended in NUREO 1061, Vol. 3 [9).
f metal and in the LT orientation of the plate base metal represent the material's resistarce to The Jmod .Tmod data for the plate weld crack extension in tbc circumferemt!al direc. metal and the plate HAZ were evaluated. A tion. Thus, the test results of these orienta. comparison shows that these data fall slightly tions were used in the LBB evaluations. The below those for the plate base metal shown in orientation effects are not present in tbc weld Figure 3E.2 8. On the other hand, as noted in metal. As an caarnple of the J.R curve obtained Subsection 3E.2.2.1.2, the yield strength of the in the test program, Figure 3E.2 7 shows the plot weld metal and the HAZ is considerably higher of J.R curve obtained from specimen OWLC.A. Iban that of the base metal. The material stress. strain and J.T curves are the two key 3E.2.2.2 Material (J/F) Curve Sdection inputs in determining the lastability load and flew values by Ibc (J/T) methodology.
The normal operating temperatures for most of Calculations performed for representative the carbon steel piping in the reactor coolant through wall flaw sires showed that tbc higher pressure boundary in the ABWR generall yield strength of the weld metal more than com.
two categoriest $28 550'F and 420'y F. The faillato pensates for the slightly lower J.R curse and, latter temperature corresponds to the operating consequently, Ibc lastability load and flaw temperature of the feedwater piping system. Tbc predictions based on base metal properties are selections of the appropriate material (J/T) smaller (i.e., conservative). Accordingly, it curses for these two categories are discussed was concluded that the material (J.T) curse osat. shown in Figure 3E.2 8 is the appropriate one to use in tbc LBB evaluations for carbon steel 3E.2.2.2.1 Material J/T curve for 550'F piping at 550'F.
- A review of the test matrix in Tabic 3E.2 4
\
l v Amendme nt 1 3r}4
ABWR nArnst.
ElkildkLdhlttt __
RLv A 3EJ.2.2J Material J/T Cune For 420'r 4. Rice, J.R., 'A Path Independent Integral and the Approximate Analysis of Strann O Since the Itst tttnyttatute of 3$0'F can bt Concentration by Notches and Cracks,').
considered reasonably close to the 420'F, the Appl. Mech., 35, 379 386 (1968).
test J.R curves for 350'F were used in this case. A review of the test matris in Table 5. B e gley, J. A., and La nde s, J.D., 'Th e /
3E.2 4 shows that tbree tests were conducted at Integral as a Tracture Criterlon,' Fracture 350'F. Tbc Jmod, Tmod data for all three Toughness, Proceedings of the 1971 National tests were reviewed. The flow stress value used Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part 11, in the tearing modulus ralculation was 54 ksi ASTM STP 514, American Society for Testing based on Table 3E.2 3. Also reviewed were tbe Matcrials, pp. 1 20 (1972),
data on SA106 carbon steel at 300'F reported by Gudas (14), 6. Ilutchinson, J.W., an d Pa ris, P.C.,
' Stability Analysis of J. Controlled Crack Consistent with the trend of the $50'F Growth,' Elastic Plastic Fracture, ATSM STP data, the 350'F weld metal (J.T) data fell 668 J.D Landes, J.A. Degley, and G.A.
below the plate and pipe base metal data. This Clarke. Eds., American Society for Testing probably reflects the slightly lower toughness of and Materials,1979, pp. 37 64.
the SAW weld in the plate. The (J/T) data for the pipe base metal fell between the plate base 7. Kumar, V., German, M.D., and Shih, C.F.,
metal and the plate weld metal. Based on the 'An Engineering Approach for Elastic.
considerations similar to those presented in the Plastic Practure Analysis,' EPRI Topcal previous section, the pipe base metal J.T data, Report NP.1831. Electric Power Research although they may lie above the weld J T data, Institute, Palo Alto, CA July 1981, were used for selecting the appropriate (J T) curve. Accordingly, the curve shown in Figure 8, Er nst, H. A., "Af aterial Resistance and p 3E.2 9 was developed for using the (J.T) methodology _in evaluations at 420* F, instability Beyond J. Controlled Crack Growth,' Elastic Plastic Fracture: Second
= A M C ses t . u . a. - b. Symposium, Volume I. Inlastic Crack
4 Gudas, Eds., American Society for Testing
- 1. Paris, P.C., Tada,11., Zaboor, A., and Ernst, and Materials,1983, pp.1 1911213.
H., 'Th e Th eory of in stability of th e Tearing Mode of Elastic Plastic Crack 9. Report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Growth,' Elastic Plastic Fracture ASTM STP Commission Piping Review Committee, 668, J.D Landes, J.A. Begley, and G.A Clarke, . NUREG 1061, Vol.3, November 1984 Eds., American Society for Testing Msterials, ' 4* d 1979,pp.$ 36. 10.[Atattrials and Process Specificatoon .
ABWR,* General Electric Report No. 22A7014
- 2. ' Resolution of the Task A.li Reactor Vessel ev.BcSept.1982._f Materials Toughness Safety issue,'
NUREG 0744, Rev.1 October 1982. 11. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section
!!!, Division 1, Nuclear Power Plant
- 3. Paris, P.C., and Johnson, R.E., 'A A(ethod of Components, American Society of Mechanical Application of Elastic Plastic Fracture Engineers,1980.
Afechanics to Nuclear Vessel Analysis,'
Elastic Plastic Fracture, Second bymposium, 12, ASTM Standard E399,' Plane Strain fracture Volume Il Fracture Resistance. Curves and Toughness of Afetallic Afarerials.'
Engineering Application, ASTM STP 803, C.F Shib and J.P. Gudas, Eds., American Society 13. Reynolds, M.B., ' failure Behavior en AS TAI for Testing and Materials,1983, pp, A106B Pipes Containing A.tial Throu& Wall 1151140. Flo ws,' G e ne ral Electric Re port No.
c w .w . x <- p. u . 2. t.
Amendment 1 4 55 St.a-f
I Insert A for Pa$ c sc.A-5 O 3E2.3 Stainless Steels and Associated Welds The stainless steels used in the ABWR reactor coolant pressure boundary piping are either Nuclear grade or low carbon Type 304 or 316. These materials and the associated welds are highly ductile and therefore, undergo considerable plastic deformation before failure can occur. Toughness properties of Type 304 and 316 stainless steels have been extensively reported in the open technical literature and are, thus, not discussed in detail in this section. Due to high ductility and toughness, modified limit load methods can be used to determine critical crack lengths and instability loads (see Section 3E.3.3).
O O
so- s ~
ABWR urum^c Standard Plant av ^
r GEAP.5620, April 1968.
(
\'
14 Oudas, J.P., and Anderson, D.R., *//.R Curve Charateristics of Piping Material and li'clds,' NUREO/CP-00:4, Vol. 3, Much 1982.
l l
I rr U
[
Nwl Amendment 1 3E.24
ABWR m mc Standard Plant nty. A O
1 TAHLE 3E.21 j ELECTRODES AND FILLER METAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CARBON STEEL WELDS ,
Electrode or Tiller Metal Ban Material P.No. Process SpectScallos Classincation Carbon Steelto P 1 to SMAW SFA3.1 E7018 i
Carbon Steel or P.1, P.3 :
low Alloy Steel P-4 or GTAW SFA 3.18 E70S 2, E70$.3 P3 PAW GMAW SFA 5.18 E70S 2,E70S 3,E70S4 SFA 5.20 E70T 1 -
SAW SFA 5.17 F72EM12K, F72EL12 P
b O .
Amendment 1 3E21
k ABWR '
mume ;
Standard Plant P1Y A O
TABLE 3E.2 2 ,
SUPPLIER PROVIDED CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND MECilANICAL PROPERTIES INFORMATION I
I Material Product Chemical Composillon Mech. Property forse C Mn P S St S3(bi) Su(bl) Elongation .
("< > [
SA 333 0r.6 16 In. 0.12 1.18 .01 .026 0.27 44.0 67.$ 42.0 i Heat #52339 Sch.80 i Pipe SA 516 0t.70 1.0In. 0.18 0.98 0.017 0.0022 0.25 46.5 70.5 31.0 i l{ cat #E18767 Plate Note: (1) Pipe was normalized at 16500F, lield for 2 his. and air cooled, (2) Plate was normalind at 17000F for one hout and still air cooled.
Amendment i W
~
, -,r, h--,'+y---- - - m w% r--Eh,- .,-c--, ,,w.. -- -.",--,r- ,3.w -- --,,--%.rr, ,'+-,.r--,- r ,e --r-vr, - -.- ,9-m y+- '.
ABM usimse RV A Standard Plant f I
O l TABLE 3E.2 3 ,
STANDARD TENSION TEST DATA AT TEMPERATURE ,
SPEC. MATIRIAL TEST OJ% YS UT1 Elons. RA f' NO. TEMP M M Lil 5-r OW1 PIPE WELD RT 66.1 81.6 32 77.2 i OW2 P!PE WELD 550F 59.0 93.9 24 $6.7 ITWL2 P1 ATE WELD 550F $3.0 91.4 34 $1.3 ;
IBl.1 P1 ATE BASE RT 44.9 73.7 38 $1.3 IBL2 PLATE BASE 350F 37.9 64.2 34 68.9 i IBL3 PLATE BASE 550F - 34.1 69.9 29 59.4 i 67.8 i OB1 P!PE BASE RT 43.6 68.6 41 i
0 82 PIPE BASE 350P 42.2 74.9 21 55.4 0 83 PIPE BASE $50F 34.6 78.2 31 55.4 O !
'k R'
I i
-[
+
4
' AlsttDdm4BI I
ABWR m.me ,
Standardflint MEA kJ TAllLE 3C.2 4 sUMMARLoECAR110XnEEL JdLGlRVE Tens Na S m iran _lu She Dutrauen Irma (1) 0%1C A IT Pipe Weld 5500F (2) OllCL 1 IT Pipe Bue C L Orientation RT (3) OllLC2 IT Pipe Due L C Orient;3on 5500F (4) OBLC3 il IT Pipe 13ne L-C Orientation 3500F (5) BMLJ IT Fla:e Due Me al, L.T Orieatation RT (6) DML414 2T Plate Due Metal, L T Orientation RT (7) UML2-6 2T Plate Due Metal, L T Orientation 3500F (8) BMLt.12 2T Plate Duc Metal, L T Orientation 550of A
!j (9) WM3 9 2T Plate Weld Metal RT (10) XWM111 2T Plate Weld Metal 3500F (11) WM25 2T Plate Weld Metal 5500F (12) IIAZ (Non- lleat Affected Zone, Plate RT standard)
Width = 2.793*
(13) OWLC 7 IT Pipe Weld RT Notes:
- 1. Pipe base metal, SA333 0:.6
- 2. Plate base metal, SA516 Gr,70
- 3. Pipe weld made by shielded metal are welding.
- 4. Plate weld made by submerged are welding.
O Amendment 1 1EL110
ABWR . 2mimAr Standard Plant REVJ O
J j
- =
dJust MATE RI AL SLOPE
~
O ~ .
f A* T 870202 87 592 03 Figure 3E.2-la SCHEMATIC Figure 3E.21b _ SCHEMATIC 3 REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION OF M ATERIAL OF MATERIAL J-lNTEGRAL R CURVE J-T CURVE Amendment 1
ABMR iM6KCAE Standard Plant _ uv4 O
V* p
- , 7, Y RL s
s 2 >)L-CR ACK PLANE ORIENTATION CODE FOR BAR AND HOLLOW CYLINDER N/
\ N/
+, % # S4 N sg,p##gS .
o
/
CRACK PLANE ORIENTATION CODE FOR RECTANGULAR SECTIONS P? 692 04 l
l l
Figure 3E.2-2 CARBON STEEL TEST SPECIMEN ORIENTATION CODE Amendment 1 3g ;,g
ABWR '
u^umu Standard Plant RIV A O
i
<s;&&D - -
,EO -
i 8
D .
i A
200 -
SPECIMEN 0RIENTATION k
E
$150 -
Y p "
-( a:
8 .
100 -
-C 50 -
B
^
4
.poo
\ I 100 0
- l 100 l
200 300 TEMPE R ATURE ('F) ,,,,,7,,
Figure 3E.2-3 TOUGHNESS ANISOTROPY OF ASTM 106 PlPE (6 in Sch,80)
Amenostat ! 30$13
i I
MN 84'N i
?
Standard Plant luty 4 i
t l
t
/
k 260 - }
SA 516 GR,70 BASE MATERI AL 6 ORIENTAtl0N LT i O ORIENTATION TL ,
i i
200 -
r E t g 150 -
W f l
< 6 1 A t 3 A i
-5 100-- l 1
i c
50 -
D O O O g C a
.o i I 'l- l 1- [
0 100 -200 300 400 600 .
TEST TEMPER ATURE ('F) 87 592-os - .
. Figure 3E.2-4a ' CHARPY ENERGIES FOR PIPE TEST MATERIAL AS A FUNCTION OF
(: - ORIENTATION AND TEMPERATURE' Amendment 1 3E214 i.
i N 23A61%At '
mandard Plant sur A i
1 i
i I
t 260 t
i
^
~
.200 l
$A 333 OR. 6 8ASE MATERIAL !
A ORIENTATION LC a ORIENTATION CL l 4 .
5 150 -
. 1 E
O 100 -
Q_
a a a a s a ;
i 50
-a o- U '
-o- o a l
i 1 l l I I 0 .100 200 300 400 500 600 TEST TE MPE R ATURE (* F) 87 592 07 r
Th Q - Figure 3E 2-4b CHARPY ENERGIES Fort PLATE TEST MATERIAL. AS A FUNCTION OF ORIENTATION AND TEMPERATURE
. Amendmeat 1- 4313
. - 2._-, - - . . . . . . . . -
. . . _ , - _--.,-,-._.__,.,,..-:~,-.._..,-..,-_.-.._i.
MM 23A6HoAt Standard Plant Riv A 4 BASE METAL g 260 O WELD METAL 0 HAZ
.. ) ..
O 200 -
O v
s a
~ ~ " "
160 -
E w
Tv
( ).
100 ..
50 ,
MATERIAlt SA 333 GR,6 SPECIMEN ORIENTATION LC 0
0 -100 190 -300 400 500 600.
TEST TEMPE R ATURE (*F) s74er ce 9
1
" Figure 3E.2-5 ' COMPARISON OF BASE METAL, WELD AND HAZ CHARPY ENERGIES O- FOR SA 333 GR,6 -
30216 I-ggg 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , __ l ABWR 33mme Standard Plant sur 4
<s (j
l l
l l
6A 333 GR 6 PIPE l
100 -
\
80 -
- BASE METAL f
~ /
A
@ /
/ TEMPERATURE 650'F i
i K 60 /
O 5
?
w /
/
/
/
40 -1 s
M 20 -
l I I I I I I I I o
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 TRUE STRAIN 87 692 09 ;
s
.,3 b Figure 3E.2-6a . PLOT OF 550'F TRUE STRESS-TRUE STRAIN CURVES-FOR SA 333 GR. 6 CARBON STEEL Amendiment 1 30 2-17
ABWR .
muut ElMdlId.UMI __
RW O
SA 616 O R. 70 TEMPERATURE EBO'F 100 -
WELD METAL BO ~
e**
'a
/s' y ,,
/ BASE METAL h f
= w -
^
/
g i :.
/ 'l
/ .
<0
,J :
I f
T 20 -
, I I I I I I I I I 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.i B 0 20 TRUE STR AIN eMe2 to Figure 3E.2-6b PLOT OF 550'F TRUE STRESS-TRUE STRAIN CURVES FOR SA 516 OR. 70 CARRON STEEL Amtndment 1 3 Ell 8
i i
ABWR nA61%AE Standard Plant Rfv p, ,
O 1
i i
t 100 80 -
"I !
A i l'4 w
" 60 -
t 40 - ;
20 ' -
t l l I I I I I I l !
a 0.02 0.04- 0.06 0.08 0,10 0.12 0,14 0,16 0,18 TRUE STRAIN eMett1 ;
Figure 3E.2-6c PLOT OF 350'F TRUE STRESS-TRUE STRAIN CURVES FOR SA 333 GR. 6 CARBON STEEL Anwndanni t SE2.ie
MM 21A6100AE
$(ggdp , _. nl RTV A l I
O i 100 80 -
} 60 t1 E
- f} ;
$ 40 t
20 -
i 0 I I I I I I l l 0,02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0,10 0.12 0,14 0,16 - 0.18 TRUE STRAIN 67 69212 e
O Figure 3E.2-6d- PLOT OF 350*F TRUE STRESS-TRUE STRAIN CURVES FOR SA 516 GR. 70 CARBON STEEL .
. Amendment 1 3y,;o
, , - - . . , . , -+-,. ,. , , -n.. . - - - - - - an ,--,-e, -,,..,,,e e
11A6M10AE Ria=dard Plant gyi ;
^
)
4000 9
e !
e 3000 ,
e t
' 8 i
- e 2000 l i !
.. l e
e' 1000 p
OWLC WELD 560A *F K Juaremen {
. O J..e i i
. i i i o._ ,
0.24 0.28 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.16- 0.20 D E LTA - o (in.)
af.ser.u !
t P
~
Figure 3E.2-7 PLOT OF 550* F TEST J-R CURVE FOR PIPE WELD JE221 Amendment 1 i
.a c . n ,. . . , - - ...:-n, s--.. ,,-n.:,,-,--.',n-n.,,_,------<wn,-rn--,.-,'. ..
ABWR mumt
$tandard Plant ny4
()
C/
5000
~
A GUDAS DATA 9 CARBON $ TEEL WELD DATA 4000 -
A A
A
- A A
e A 3000 A
i . A i
.s ; A
'd A 2000 A
A 1000 ,
LOWER BOUND MATERIAL J-T CURVE FOR CARBON STEEL AT $bO'F
, I I l- 1 I I I O 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 TEARING MODULUS T
-87 592 14
'v/ Figure 3E.2-8 PLOT OF 550' F Jmod, T,,, DATA F ROM TEST J-R CURVE Amendment 1 3E222
MNN HA6100AE W'A
$1mndard Plant l"
+
\
i tcg , +.
4000 C
k e 3000
.<- 1 T . '
2000 1000 N
I l l 0
100 200 300 400-TEARING MODULUS, T -
e7 se2 st
.I -.
M Figure 3E.2-9 CARBON STEEL J-T CURVE FOR 420*F 3E.2.H gem g .
l- - .. __m, , . - , _ _. .
ABWR utiman.
Standard Plant Rrv A r'J CONTENTS Sedian Iltle Eage 3EJ1- Elastic Plastle Fracture Mechanics or (.!M Methodology 3EJ.1 3EJ.1.1 Basic (J/T) Methodology 3EJ,1 3EJ.1.2 - J Estimation Scheme Procedure 3EJ-1 3EJ.13 Tearing lastability Evaluation Considering Bcth The Membrane and Bending Stress 3EJ 2
- 3EJ.2 Anolication of (.Im Methodolony to Carbon Steel Piping 3EJ 3
- 3EJ.2.1 Determination of Ramberg Osgood Parameters For 550*F Evaluation 3EJ 3 3EJ 2.2 Determlaation of Ramberg Osgood Parameters For 420'F Evaluation 3EJ 3
- O A_/
- 3EJJ References 3EJ 4 e
3EJ-il Amendment 1
-ABWR msime Standard Plant nov 4 SECTION 3E.3 ;
ILLUSTRATIONS
- .c Figure M East 3E31 Schematic 111ustration of Tearing Stability -
Evaktion 3E3 6 353-2 - A Schematic Representation ofinstability Tension ,
and Bending Stresses as a Function of Flaw Length 3E3 7 3E3 3 SA 333 Gr 6 Stress Strain Data at 550'F in the Ramberg Osgood Format 3E3-8
- 3E3-4 ' Carbon Steel Stress Strain Data at 350'F in the ~
Ramberg Osgood Format 3E3 9 I
U 9-3E3-iii Amendment 1 -
- +-
ABWR 2.1A6100AE
- Standard Plant av 4 Q 3E.3 FRACTUREMECHANI 1ETHODS latersection poir.t of the material and Q This subsection deals with the h acture applied (J/T) curves denotes the instability point. This is mathematically stated as mechanics techniques and methods for th: follows:
determination of critical flaw lengths and lastability loads for materials used in ABWR. Japplied (a,P) = Jmat (a) (3E3 2)
.These techniques and methods co'nply with Criteria
- (5) through (11) described in Section 3.6-3)n. Ls. Tapplied < Tmat(stable) (3E3-3) 3E.3.1 Elastic Plastic Fracture Tapplied > Tmat(unstable)
Mechanics or (J/T) Methodology The load at instability is determined from Failure in ductile materials such as highly the J versus load plot also shown schematically tough ferritic materials is characterized by in Figure 3E.31. Thus, the three key curves in considerable plastic deformation and significant the tearing stability evaluation are: Japplied amount of stable crack growth. The EPFM approach ve rsus Tipplied, Jmat versus Tmat and outlined in this subsection considers these Japplied versus load. The determination of aspects.-- Two key concepts in this approach are: appropriate Jmat versus Tmat or the material (1) J integral [1,2] which characterizes the (J/T) curve has been already discussed in
- intensity of the plastic stress. strain field subsection 3E.2.1. The Japplied Tapplied surrounding the crack tip and (2) the tearing or the (J/T) applied curve can be easily instability theory [3,4) which examines the generated through perturbation in the crack stability of ductile crack growth. A key length once the Japplied versus load advantage of this approach is that the material information is available for different crack fracture toughness characteristic is explicitly lengths. Therefore, only the methodology for factored into the evaluation. the generation of Japplied versut load information is discussed in detail, o b,V . 3E3.1.1 Basic (J/T) Methodology 3E.3.1.2 J Estimation Scheme Procedure Figure 3E.31.' schematically illustrates the J/T methodology for stability evaluation. The The Japplied or J as a function of load was material (J/T) curve in Figure 3E.31 repre- calculated'using the GE/EPRI estimation scheme seats the material's resistance to ductile crack procedure [5, 6]. The J la this scheme is extension. Any value of J falling on the mate- obtained as sum of the clastic and fully plastic rial R curve is denoted as Jmat and is a func- contributions:
tion solely of the, increase in crack lengthaa.
Also defined in Figure 3E.31 is the ' applied' J, J = Je + Jp (3ES-4) which for given stress strain properties and overall component geometry, is a function of the The material true stress strain curve in the applied load P and the current crack length, s. - estimation scheme is assumed to be in the Hutchinson and Paris [4] also ' define the Ramberg Osgood format:
following two nondimensional parameters:
n (3E3 5)
E . 8Japplied #E I Tapplied " o'? Ja 4'0/ [E0j+
(
- o # 0[
(3ES 1) w h e r e,8 o is the material yield stress, 50
_E,,_. Smat =fo , and a and n are obtained T rnst "ar2 da by fitting the preceding equation to the material true stress strain curve.
- where E is Young' modulus and a g is an appropriate flow stress. The estimation scheme formulas to evaluate
..p]
Q,.
Amendment t 3E.3 t 4
, -_ . - ~. . .. _. . . - - . - _~ . --
MM- 23A6100AE nrv. x
' Standard Plant -
- f i - the J.lategral for a pipe with a through wall This aspect is addressed next.
l circumferential flaw subjected to pure tension or
\ ; pure bending are as follows - 3EJ.13 Tearing Instability Evaluation Considering Both the Membrane and Bending Tension Stresses (3E3-6)
J = fte (a , tB)E'E+ n+1 Based on the estimation scheme formulas and the tearing instability niethodology just-a 'e 8 o c (a) ht (.a n, E) 'E ' outlined, the instability bending and tension b b t ,Po, stresses can be calculated for various through wall circumferential flaw lengths.
where, Figure 3E.3 2 shows a schematic plot of the lastability stresses as 4 function of flaw fg (a, n,8) . a F8 a, n, E) length. For the same stress level, the b t t allowable flaw ler.gth for the bending is 4 x R' t' expected to be larger han the tension case.
Po = 2 'o Rt [x y . 2 are sin When the applied stress is a combination of (1 sin y)] the tension and bending, a linear interaction 2 rule is used to determine the instabil;ty stress or conversely the critical flaw length. :The Bendmg application of linear interaction rule is (3E3 7) certainly conservative when the instability load J = fte (a , E) M8 + is close to the limit load.
t E n+1 o 'o f o.e (a) h1 , n, E) M The interaction formulas are following: (see t ,M o. Figure 3E.3 2)
. where, - Critical Flaw tznath (3EJ 6)
- It (a, n, E) . wa (E)* F' a=(#c _t. ) ac,t' + ( #b,) ne,t b t I ag+ab # t+ 0b (a, n, E) b -t where:
M, , M [cos o (2) sin'(y)] 't = applied membrane stress
'b = applied bending stress
- The nondimensional functions F and h are given in Reference 6 - ae,t = critical flaw length for a tension stress of (at +'b)
While' the calculation of J for given a, n,
'o and. load' type is reasonably straight. ac,b = critical flaw length for a bending forward, one issue that needs to be addressed is stress of ('t +'b) the tearing instability evaluation when the
-loading includes both the membrane and the InstabilityBenda= Stress bending stresses. The estimation scheme is , (3E3-9a) capable of evaluating only one type of stress at b a time. S " (1 -f 't t) o'b I
l%J *
.*mendment 1 ~
D2
ABM DAM %AC Standard Plant RfY A where: that a limit load approach is feasible; D)
M' However, test data at high temperatures
= instability bending stress for flaw specially involving large diameter pipes are
-Sb length, a,in the presence of membrane currently not available. Therefore, a (J/T) stress, at. based approach is used in the evaluation. 1 og- = applied membrane stress 3E.3.2.1 Determination of Ramberg Osgood Parameters for 550'F Evaluation ag = instability tension stress for flaw length,a. Figure 3E.2 6a shows the true stress.true
~ strain curves for the carbon stects at c'b = instability bending stress for flaw 550'F. The same data is plotted here in length, s. Figure 3E.3 3 in the Ramberg Osgood format. It is seen that, unlike the stainless steel case, Once the instability bending stress, Sb , in each set for stress strain data (i.e. data the presence of-membrane stress, ag, is derived from one stress strain curve) follow determined, the instability load margin - approximately a single slope line. Based on the corresponding to the detectable leak size crack visual observation a line representing a = 2,
-(as required by LBB' criterion in Section 3.6.3) n = 5 in Figure 3E.3 3 was drawn as representing ran be calculated as follows: a reasonable upper bound to the data shown.
Instability Load Margin,a + S (3E.3 9b) The third parameter in the Ramberg Osgood t b format stress stain curve is 'o, the g
yield stress. Based on the severalinternal GE '
"It is assumed in the. preceding equation that data on carbon steels such as SA 333 Gr 6, and the uncertainty in the calculated applied stress SA 106 Gr.B, a reasonable value of-550'F p is essentially associated with the stress due to yield strength .was judged as 34600 psi o a u,,au t applied bending loads and that_the membrane summarize, the following values used in ua mg b 2 stress, which is generally due to the pressure loading,is known with greater certainty, This this report of carbon forasthe stects 550(J/T)F: methodology evaluation be method of calculating the margin against loads is also consistent with _the definition of load margin employed in Paragraph IWB 3640 of Section a =2.0 XI[7].
a =5.0 3E.3.2 Application of(J/T)
- Methodology to Carbon Steel Piping ao = u600 psi
- From Figure 3E.2 3, it is evident that carbon E = 26x10' psi stects exhibit transition temperature behavior marked by three distinct stages: lower shelf, 3E.3.2.2 Detensination of Ramberg-Osgood transition and upper shelf. The carbon steels- Parameters for 420 F Evaluation
- generally exhibit ductile failure mode at or above upper shelf temperatures.- This would Figure 3E.3-4 shows the Ramberg Osgood (R 0) suggest that a net section collapse approach may format plot of the 350*F true stress stain -
be feasible for the evaluation of postulated data on the carbon steel base metalJ Also shown flawiin carbon steel piping. Such a suggestion in Figure 3E.3-4 are the CE data a SA 106 Grade was also made in a review report prepared by the B at 400 F. Since the difference between .- -;
Naval Research Lab [8]. - Low temperature (i.e. the ASME Code Specified minimum yield strength i less than 125 F) pipe tests conducted by GE at 3 50
- F a n d 420" F is s m all, t h e
[9] and by _Vassilaros [10] which invcived 350'F stress strain data were considered
, circumferentially cracked pipes subjected to applicable in the determination of R.O
~ bending and/or pressure loading, also indicate parameters for evaluation at 420* F.
Amendment 1 3E3-3
. ABWR u w man-prv n Slandard Plant A review of Figure 3E.3 4 indicates that the 668, J.D La n d e s, J. A. Be gley, an d rnajority of the data associated with any one test G.A. Clarke, Eds., American Society for i
= can be approumated by one stra:ght line. Testing and Materials,1979, pp. 3744.
It is seen that some of the data points 5. Kumar, V., German, M.D., and Shib, C.F.,
associated with the yield point behavior fall 'An Engin eering Approach for along the y axis. However, these data points at Elastic Plastic Fracture Analysis,' EPRI low steja level were not considered significant Topcal Report NP 1831, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA July 1981.
and, therefore, were not included in the R O fit.
The 350* F__ yield _ stress for t he base 6. ' Advances in Elastic-Plastic Fracture material is given in Table 3E.2 3 as 37.9 ksi. Analysis,' EPRI Report No. NP 3607, August Since the difference between the ASME Code 1984. .
specified minimum yield strengths of pip'e and plate carbon steels at 420'F and 350 F is 7. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, roughly 0.9_ksi, the_ 'o value* for use at Section XI. Rules for In service Inspection 420- F are chosen as (37.9 0.9) or 37 ksi, of Nuclear Power Plant Components ASME.
In summary, the following _ values of R O parameters are used for evaluation of 420 F:
- 8. Ch a n g, C.I.,e t al,
- Piping inelastic d
o_ s %,000 psi Fra ctu re M e c h a n ics A n alysis,'
N U R E G / C R 1119, June 1980.
o = $.0
- 9. ' Reactor Primary Coolant System Rupture n = - 4.0 Study Quarterly Progress Report No.-14,
- C.th A 3 Su ' p . 36 "O 4 a July September,1968,* GEAP-5716, AEC O Jt .JA _ References
- 1. - Rice, J.R., 'A Path Independent Integral and _
Research and Development Report, December 1968.
the Approxirnate Analysis of Strain 10. V a s sila t o s M.G., e t al, *1-in tegral
- Concentration -by Notches and Cracks,' Tearing instability Analyses for 8 Inch J, Appl. Mech., 35, 379 386 (1968). Diam eter -A S TM A 106 Steel Pipe,'
NUREG/CRi3740, April 1984
- 2. B egley, J. A.,- a n d - La n d e s, J .D., "Th e 1 Integral as a fracture _ Criterion,' Fracture 11. Harris D.O., Lim, EY., and Dedbla, D.D.,
Toughness,-Proceedings of the 1971 National ' Probability of Pipe FractureJin- the ,
- Symposium on Fracture Mechanics, Part II, Primary Coolant Loop of a filR Plant. Volume
- Materials, pp. 1 20 (1972).
Analysis,* U.S. Nuc1 ear ReguIatory CommissionReportNUREG/CR 2189. Volume 5 ,
- 3. Paris, P.C., Tada, H., Zahoor, A., and Ernst, Washington,DC,1981.
H., *The Theory of instability of the
- Tearing Mode- of Elastic-Plastic Crack .12. Buchalet, C.B., and Bamford, W.H., ' Stress Growth,' Elastic Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP . Intensity Factor Solutions for Continuous 668, J.D Landes, J.A. Begley, and G.A Clarke, Surface Flaws in the Reactor Pressure Vessels,' Mechanics of Crack Growth, ASTM Eds.,~American Society for Testing Materials, 1979, pp.5 36. STP 590. American Society for Testing Materials,1976, pp. 385 402,
- 4. H utc hinson, J.W.,= a nd P aris, P.C.,
' Stability Analysis of J-Controlled Crack 13. H ale, D.A., J.L. Yuen and T.L. Gerber,
~ Growth,' Elastic Plastic Fracture,'ATSM STP ' Fatigue Crack Growth in Piping and RPV cenbha l ce f 'sC. t O 3tL3 Amendment 8
Insert A for Pye. 3c .3 - 4 3E.3.3 Modified Limit Load Methodology for Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping Reference 16 describes a modified limit load methodology that may be used to calculate the critical flaw lengths and instability loads for austenitic stainless steel piping and associated welds. If appropriate, this or an equivalent methodology may be used in lieu of the (J/T) methodology described in 3E.3.1.
O G
J 3 E 3 - 4 <t.
ABWR m owat Standard Plant nov $
eq Steels in Simulated BilR li'ater Environmnent '
L j General Electric Report No. GEAP 24098, January 1978.
- 14. It ale, D.A., C.W. J e we tt an d J.N. Ka s s,
' Fatigue Crack Growth Behavior of Four Structural Alloys in High Temperature High ,
Pu rity Oxyg e n a t e d 11'a t e r, ' J o u r n al o f Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol.
101, July 1979.
15,11 ale, D.A., et al,
- Fatigue Crack Growth in Piping and RPV Steels in Simulated BilR li'ater Environment Update 1981,* General Electric Proprietary Report NEDE 24351, July 1981.
]' , Standa.d- Review Plan; Public Comments Solicited, Federal Rechter. Volutne 52, No.
167, Notices, Pages 326 6 to 32633, August 25,1987.
<~
~.
./"&
's Amendment 1 3EJ5
e h
r . -
L ABM usu,y '
Standard Plant - m4 l'
p; y%
'y i
I J J f INSTABILITY POINT
'" - - - - - - . .. -. V (Jm.i. L. )
lNSTASILITY ' . - 1 l l Si AEM JR LOAD-
I:
.t. - (J.pp, T.op)-
's ,
STRESS OR LOAD - LT 87,592'16
, ti T
O - -
1
= Figure 3E.3-1 SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATION OF TEARING STABILITY EVALUATION
- Amendment 1-: 3E 34
'. 'jr
, , - -,.,,n--=nL -~ n .,.,L-,.-,
6 L ABWR . . mu ..
-fi standard Plant arv A- ,
O I I
barR -
d
. o, . . .
- l,-
1 I TENSION
{ g, . ._.
f, . BENDING w :I
- o, + a. .
i
.i .
i 1-l :
I-l-
~
-l l1 l lJ- 4--
i i i as ' ne,t . ah c
FLAW LENGTH 87 592 17 P
(/ _ Figure 3E.3-2 :. A SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF INSTABILITY TENSION AND . =
BENDING STRESSES AS A FUNCTION OF FLAW STRENGTH
. Amendownt 1 - 3E3 s w er., tv - .c,..
, -.n, n , - - , , , . . . - , - , + - r, -- , - - , - - -.V1
- . . . = _ . .- - -
MN 23^61 NAE Standard Plant Rrv s
/%
s .
100 -
O a - 2. n 5 0 2
A
- A O O O A O to O g O
lO O 8
- '%.)
D-to -
O A /d O 6
.'O 5 6 ~O 4
.D
., 3 2
I3 I I I I I I I I I l l 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80.9'1.0 1.1 LOGE 87-592 18 l
O Figure 3E.3-3 SA 333 GR. 6 STRESS-STR AIN DATA AT 550* F l
lN THE RAMBERG-OSGOOD FORMAT Amendment 1 3E38 i
1 ABMR 2miw4e Standard Plant REV A l
l l
STRESS-STRAIN DATA AT 350'F PIPE SA 333 GR6 PLATE SA 516 GR 70 PlPE SA 106 GR B (CE DATA) 100 -
n I a = 4.5, n = 4.7 a = 5.0, n = 4.0 12 -
l l
10 l 9
1 8
\ .
1 10 -
6 a = 2.2, n = 3.5 5 4
3 2
1 l l l l l l l l l l l 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 LOGE 87 $9219 Figure 3E.3-4 CARBON STEEL STRESS-STRAIN DATA AT 350*F IN THE RAMBERG-OSGOOD FORMAT Amendment 1 3C39
ABWR mame
- Standard Plant gry A
-: SECTION3EA CONTENTS
' Section Ihlt Eggg 3 E.4.1 Leak Rate Estimation for Pines Carrytns Water 3E.4 1 3E.4.1.1 Derciption of Buis for Flow Rate Calculation 3E.4-1 3E.4.1.2 Basis for Crack Opening Area Calculation 3E.41 3E.4.1.3 Comparison Verification With Experimental Data 3E.4-2 3E.4.2 - Flow Rate Estimation for Saturated F**a= 3E.4-2 3E.4.2.1 Evaluation Method 3E.4-2 3E.4.2.2 Selection of Appropriate Friction Factor 3E.4 2 3E.4.2.3 Crack Opening Area Formulation W.4 3 3 E.4.3 Refertasta 3E.4-4
.D
~G TABLES Table Iult East 3E.4-1 Mass Flow Rate for Several ft/Dh Values 3E.4-5 3E.4-il
. Amendment 1
+
e ,
,4*;
ABWR zwiwu
- Standard Plant nrv 4
= SECTION 3EA ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Thlt East
- 3E.4-1 Comparison of PICEP Predictions with Measured Leak Rates 3E.4-6 3E.4-2 Pipe Flow Model 3E.4 7 3E.4 3 Mass now Rates for Steam / Water Mixtures 3E.4 8 3E.4-4 Friction Factors for Pipes 3E.4 9
=
0
+
C 4
C d
O - 3E.4-iii
- Amendment 1 f
--,w .+. - a+. . . ,
ABWR umme Standard Plant nry a n 3E.4 LEAK RATE CALCULATION For given stagnation conditions and crack V METHODS geometries, the leak rate and exit pressure are calculated using an iterative search for the Leik rates of high pressure fluids through exit pressure starting from the saturation cracks in pipes are a complex function of crack pressure corresponding to the upstream geometry,' crack surface roughness, appiled temperature and allowing for friction, stresses, and inlet fluid thermodynamic state, gravitational, r.ccelesation and area change
- Analytical predictions of leak rates essentially pressure drops. The inertial flow calculation consist of two separate tasks: calculation of the is performed when the critical pressure is crack opening area, and the estimation of the lowered to the back pressure without finding a fluid flow rate' per unit area. The first task solution for the critical mass flux.
requires the fracture mechanics evaluations based on the piping system stress state. The second A conservative methodology was developed to task involves the fluid mechanics considerations handle the flow of two. phase mixture or in addition to the crack 'gcometry and its surface superheated steam through a crack. To make the roughness information. Each of these tasks are model continuous, a correction factor was now discussed separately considering the type of applied to adjust the mass flow rate, of a fluid state in BWR piping. saturated mixture to be equal to that of a slightly subcooled liquid. Similarly, a 3E.4.1 Leak Rate Estimation for correction factor was developed to ensure Pipes Cartying Water continuity as the steam became superheated. The og ke, superheated naodel was developed by applying EPRI-developed computer code PICEP [1) pef thermodynamic principles to an isentropic__
used in the leak rate calculations. 'The basis expansion of the single phase steam.
for this code and comparison of its leak rate predictions.with the experimental data is The code can calculate flow rates through b described in References 2 and 3. This code was fatigue or IGSCC cracks and has been verified M mb ::::::!y used in the successful application against data from both types. The crack surface of LBB to primary piping system of a PWR. The roughness and the number of bends account for basis for flow rat'e and crack opening area the difference in geometry of the two types of calculations in PICEP is briefly described cracks. The guideline for predicting leak rates first. A comparison with experimental data is ' through IGSCCs when using this model was based shown next._ on obtaining the number of turns that give the
-+ _ _
best agreement for Battelle Phase !! test data 3E.4.1.1 Description of Baalt fsr Flow Rate of Collier et al. [#f.f For fatigue craeks, it Calculation is assumed that the crack path has no bends.
The thermodynamic modelimplemented in PICEP 3E.4.1.2 Basta for Crack Opealog Area computer program assumes the leakage flow through Calculation pipe cracks to be isenthalpic and homogeneous, but it accounts for non. equilibrium " flashing
- The crack opening area in PICEP code is
). transfer process between the liquid and vapor calculated using the estimation scheme phases. formulas. The plastic contribution to the -
displacent la computed by summing _the Fluid fr!ction due to surface roughness of the contributions of bending and tension alone, a walls'and curved flow paths has been incorporated . procedure thas underestimates the displacent
'in the model. Flows through both parallel and from combined sension and bending. However, the convergent cracks can be treated. Due to the plastic contribution is expected to be complicated geometry within the flow path, the . insignificant because the applied stresses at model uses some approximations and empirical normal operation are generally such that they do j factors which were confirmed by comparison not produce significant plasticity at the against test date, cracked location.
T Other methods (e.g. , Re ference 4) may be used for leak rate estimation L at the descretion of the applicant.
l Amendment t 32.4 1
ABWR msima prv A Standard Plant O
h 3E.4.!J Comparison Verification with Experimental Data effective surface protrusion height to hydraulic diameter, were relied upgn in this case. Figure 3E.4 4, from ReferenceX traphically shows such Figure 3E.41 from Reference 3 shows a a relationship for pipes. The e/Db ratio comparison PICEP prediction with measured leak for pipes generally ranges from 0 to 0.50.
rate data, it is seen that PICEP predictions are flowever, for a fatigue crack consisting of rough virtually always conservative (i.e., the leak fracture surfaces represented by a few mits, the flow rate is underpredicted). roughness height e at some location may be almost as much as 6. In such cases, c /Dh 3E.4.2 Flow Rate Estimation for would seem to approach 1/2. There are no data Saturated Steam or any analytical model for such cases, but a crude estimate based on the extrapolation of the 3E.4.2.1 Evt.luation Method results in Figure 3E.4 4 would indicate that f may be of the order of 0.1 to 0.2. For this The calculations for this case were based on evaluation an average value of 0.15 was used the maximum two; phase flow model developed by with the modification as discussed next.
Moody [ Reference /f. This model predicts the flow rate of steam water mixtures in vessel For blowdown of saturated vapor, with no blowdown from pipes (see Figure 3E.4 2). A key liquid present, Moody states that the friction parameter that characterized the flow passage in factor should be modified according to the Moody analysis is fL/Dh, where, f is the coefficient of friction, L, the length of the (3E.4-1) flow passage and Dh , the hydraulic diameter. . 1/3 The hydraulle diameter for the case of flow f=fGSP g
d through a crack is 26 where 6 is the crack "E
~
p opening displacement and the length of the flow where passage is t, the thickness of the pipe. Thus, fg = modified friction factor tg the parameter ft/D h ni the Moody analysis was interpreted as ft/26 for the purpose of this fosp = factor for single phase evaluation.
d = liquid / vapor specific volume Figure 3E.4 3 shows the predicted mass flow "8 ratio evaluated at an average rates by Moody for fL/Dh of p and 1. Similar static pressure in the flow path plots are given in Referenc&for additional IL/Db values of 2 through 100. Since the' steam This correction is necessary because the in the ABWR main steam lines would be essentially absence of a liquid film on the walls of the saturated, the mass flow rate corresponding to flow channel at high quality makes the two phase the upper saturation envelope line is the flow model invalid as it stands. The average appropriate one to use. Table 3E.41 shows the static pressure in the flow path is going to be mass flow rates for a range of fL/Db values for something in excess of 500 psia if the initial a stagnation pressure of 1000 psi which is pressure is 1000 psla; this depends on the roughly equal to the pressure in an ABWR piping amount of flow chpking and can be determined system carrying steam. from Reference /.#However, a fair estimate of (vf/vg) 1/3 is as 0.3, so the friction A major uncertainty in calculating the leakage factor for saturated steam blowdown may be taken rate is the value of f. This is discussed next. as 03 of that for mixed flow.
3E.4.2.2 felection of Appropriate Friction Based on this discussion, a coefficient of Factor friction of 0.15 x 0.3 = 0.045 was used in the flow rate estimation. Currently experitnental Typical relatuships between Reync!ds' Number data are unavailable to validate this assumed and relative roahness e /D h, the ratio of value of coefficient of friction.
(Of-)
M Amendment t
ABWR ummin Standard Plant P.IN A
,y 3E.4.2.3 Crack Opening Area Formulation
(' ') The crack opening areas were calculated using A h = 'b .,w . R 2 , (3 . cos g) g,(p)
(3E.4-4)
LEFM procedures with the customary plastic rone E 4 correction. The loadings included in the crack opening area calculations were: pressure, weight where, and thermal expansion Ob -bending stress due to weight and The mathepatical expressions given by Paris thermal expansion loads and Tada [@re used in this case. The crack opening areas for pressure (A p) and bending e is half erack angle stresses (Ab ) were separately calculated and then added together to obtain the total ares, (3E.4-5)
A c.
It (8) = 2d' 'l + */'
For simplicity, the calculated membrane !
stresses from weight and thermal expansion loads l8.6 13.3 1 + 24 (i f, were combined with the axial membrane stress, L * \*/
a p, due to the pressure. ,
J22.5 7 + 205.
The formulas are summarized below: I 247.5 + 242 1* *I Ap=# (2nRt) Op (A) (3E.&2)
(0 < # < 100')
'; where, (V The plastic zone correction was incorporated ap = axial membrane stress due to by replacing a and # in these formulas by a e pressurc, weight and thermal andde which are given by expansion loads.
E = Young's modulus a 8cif " 8 + ,
(3E.4-6) t = pipe thickness af = de.R A = sle!! parameter = a//Rt The yield stress, 'y, was conservatively assumed as the average of the code specified a = half erack length yield and ultimate strength. The stress in t ensity f act or, K tot al, in clud e s (3E.4 3) contribution due to both the menabrane and Gp(A) = A2 + 0.16 A4(osA11)
= 0.02 + 0.81 A2 + 030 A3 4
- 0.03 A (11 A A 5) Ktotal " K m + Kb (3E.4 7)
?
v Amendment t 3fL M
ABWR - uxsimse Standard Plant REV A M where, 7/r. Daughterly, R.L and Franzial, J.B., ' fluid Mechanics with Engineering Appitcationd,'
Km = #p fa . Fp (A) McGraw. Hill Book Company, New York 1965.
Fp(A) = (1 + 0.3225 A' )) 6 J. P,C, Paris aand H. Tada, '9e Application of Fracture Proof Design f ostulating
= 0.9 + 0.25 A (osA11) Circumferential Through Wall Cracks,' U.S (11A15) Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR 3464, Washington, DC, April 1983.
Fb (#) = 1 + 6.8 */*
13.6 * / * + 20 /8 (01#1100')
The steam mass flow rate, M, shown in Table 3E.41 is a function of parameter, ft/26. Once the mass flow rate is determined corresponding to the calculated value of this parameter, the leak rate in gpm can then be calculated.
3E.4.3 References
(~~N
%,/ 1. Norris, D., .B. Cheral, T. Griesbach. 1987.
PICEP: Pipe Crack Evaluation Program, NP 3596 SR, Special Report, Rev.1, Electrie 4 " Evaluation and Pe finement o f Power Rescasch Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Leak Rate Estimation Models,"
- 2. Chexal, B. & J. Horowitz. A Critical Flow '
Model for Flow Through Cracks in Pipes, to be presented at the 24th ASME/AICHE National Heat Transfer Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsyvania, August 9 12, 1987
- 3. B. Chexal & J. Horowitz, 'A Crack Flow Rate Model for Leak - Before . Break 2 ~~ Applications,' Sf4RT-9 Transachoir Vol. G, pp. 281285 (1987).
t
$A. Colliet, R.P., et al, 'Two Phase Flow Through Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracks and Resulting Acoustic Emmision,' EPRI Report No. NP 3540 LD, April 1984.
(, .E Moody, F.J.,
- Maximum Two Phase Vessel Blowdown from Pipes,' J. Heat Transfer, Vol.
88, No. 3,1966, pp. 285 295.
b \
w)
Amendment 1 3E.4 4
LABWR umma Standard Plant - prv A O
TABLE 3EA.1 MASS FLOW RATE FOR SEVERAL ft/Dh VALUES n/% MASS FLOW RAM, Ibas/sec fL' M
0 3800 1 2200 2 1600 3 1150 4- 920
$ 800 10 580 20 400'
- 50 260
!100 185-O
- - Amendmer 1- IE &5
,,~ , ;k , . - . , , . . . - , - . . - - , , . . . . , . .- .... . - . , - - - .. . . . . . . . . . . .
'ABWR
- 246ioore Standard Plant REVJ - ,
a
+
20 i . >
g g
g
. . i ,
- BCL MACHINE i; -
BCLIGSCC * -
i BEREKLEY $ LIT -
j L15 -- CANADI AN - MAX. N -
o . CANADI AN - AVG. -[ .
-C .-__ CREC DATA m/ ,, ,
Q- ,- WYLE DATA ,
-E .
IHIDATA~ .
g --
8 -
. , ;f -,
/
l- ;- y,
-g: . .
O . il m - .
g xM/*1 I , 4 l i i . . l . , , 'l . . , i 0- .
5 10 - -15
- 20 MEASURED LEAK RATE (GPM) ,
87 592 21.
I Figure 3E 4-1' COMPARISON OF PICEP PREDICTIONS WITH M- MEASURED LEAK RATES Amendment 1 3E44 .
i
ABWR -
useimxe Slandard Plant MVA Q.)
ENTRANCE PROPERTIES EXIT Pi PROPE RTIES g Xi p2
',g S1 X2 Y,\ G G Gu
\ ho LIQUID ho STAGNATION Nww3.1 I
/ VAPOR i.
I
~3 PROPERTIES 8 e'
x,_,Y PO O '
h
,,p 3:
,0 ,-
[
f ISENTROPIC : : L :g
-ENTRANCE i e e 1 :
STATION 1 STATION 2 87 592 22
/
\' Figure 3E.4-2 PIPE FLOW MODEL Amendtnen 1 3E.4-7
0
- MM 2M6100AE Standard Plant p1v 6
\
- / ~~
k .. ,
fLD=0 gh SATURATION ENVELOPE j ~ ~ } ~~
%r 1000 -- [ N i
-.{
O' @ h .goo P 5 .
g
.g 500 "!
] li g
k g'
O l/. -
h MAX FLOW RATE Gy (Ibu sec ft 23 f ---INLET STATIC PRESSURE P (psia) i 0
' ' ' ' ' I O 1000 2000 3000 INLET STAGNATION PRESSURE Po (psia)
(a)
O V _
fLD=1
~
8 ((,, SATURATION ENVELOPE 3
, 1~ / 'T
_'., l l ;
5.1000 --[
I _
O 4
[ 40 0 1
@*p N
f .. ,
. "i ..
I #p h .,
A '
't#
.5 , - E g # # -
500 ' '/l . -
2
$ MAX FLOW RATE Gu (Ibu sec ft 3 lyg ---lNLET STATIC PRESSURE P t(psial a.
I I i t i I i ' ' ' '
O O 1000 2000 3000 INLET STAGNATION PRESSURE Po (psia)
X (b) s7 592 23
-(
Figure 3E.4-3 MASS FLOW R ATES FOR . STEAM / WATER MIXTURES Amendment 1 3E44
~ ~~
[
ABWR **^[
Standard Plant -
{
-V VALUES OF (0"V) FOR WATER AT 60'F (DIAM IN inches a VELOCITY IN fps)
- Nm/6.839 0.10.20.4 1 2 4 10 20 43 100 200 400 1000 2000 4000 10.000 VALUES OF (D"Vi FOR ATMOSPHERIC AIR AT 60'F 4 6 -10 20 40 60 100 200 400 ION) 2000 400010.000 40.000 100.000 -
2 I
09 [, ,3!,',fe hyg 0.08
.ghpfn y.covett-'t, Ton su,LINCE , ROUGH P!*E5 d
. ..-2 q. 9 ,
0.05 0.07 dd -._ s ,' g , ,
i L 0.00 T '-- --
!' I' .
N s ['
i '-
_._ )sj { l 'N l l .
5 0.0 -- --
\ '
O.01 -w
' Nj ---
s s
~, 0.008 z
/\
0-()-
e ~
2 0.03 -- -
0.004 sy l
\ l %[ g,
,h ' ' L 0.002 w i
s t >
-h '
' i
' l ' O.001 2 0.02 0.0008 <
9- -
i -
wooTH Pief i 7 -i
% L
, ^ ,
g q, 0.0006 d y . L
^
s 0.0004 m
-@ 0.015 .
q ~
O.0002
- % '\
f % s ,
0.0001 A 'A _' O.00005 0.01 .4.,opgqap3 g , ,,_
,q
, l . l l f A Ti W O MR ' O.00001 ,
6 103 ' 2 34~0 1 0 4
2 34 6 10 5234 6 jos 2-34610? 2 3 4 6 jos REYNOLDS NUMBER N DVN (D. ft; V, fps; y, ft8Aec) 87 502 24 O-V Figure 3E.4-4 FRICTION FACTORS FOR PIPES 3g 4.g Amendment 1
ABWR z wim^c
- Standard Plant nrv n e 3E.$ LEAK DETECrl0N CAPABILITIES X^ )' -
1A complete description of various leak .
detection systems is provided in Subsection 5.2.5. The leakage detection system gives r separate considerations to: leakage within the ;
drywell and leakage external to the drywell. The limits for reactor coolant leakage are described -
in Subsection 5.2.5.4 in me .h s well ,
The totalleakage3 consists of the identified Icakage and the unidantified leakage. The identified leakage is that from pumps, valve stem packings, reactor vessel head seal and other seals, which all discharge to the equipment drain sump. The technical specification limit on the total reactor ' coolant leakage rate is 25 gpm.
,-Theweidentified-lesh-rate-it-the pwn "
- IhYtotalleakage received in the' drywell -
that is'not, identified as previously4fscribed The licensichtechnical specifiestion) limit occ_
anidentified leik' rate):'I spm.- To covei ancertainties in leak 4ctection capability, lesh
- ates of 5 and,10Tpm are usedja the leakage f" law size, calculations performed in' Appendix 3F
- Q] . o e shiate the margins against unstable (lag 44+eeleg4esteMiity !::d. N The unidentified leak rate in the drywell.is the portion of the total leakage received in the
-dryvell sumps that is not' identified as previously described.- The licensing (technical -
specification) limit-on unidentified leak rate is 1 spm. To cover uncertainties-in leak. detection capability, although it meets Regulatory Guide 11.45 requirements, = a ar.rgin factor of 10 is required per Reference 16 of Subsection 3E.3.4 to determine a reference leak rate. A reduced margin factor may be used if accounts can be made ,
of effects of sources of uncertainties such as c . plugging.of the leakage crack with particulate-material overftime,_ leakage' prediction, measurement techniques, personnel and frequency of monitoring._ For the piping-in drywell, a reference-leak rate of 10 gpm may be used, unless a1 smaller. rate can be justified.
The sensitivity and reliability _ of leakage detection systems used outside the drywell must
~be demonstrated to be equivalent to Regulatory
'Cuide.l.45 systems. Methods that have been shown LD to be_ acceptable include local leak detection,
!- V for example, visual observation or I instrumentation. Outside the drywell, the gi P -leakage _ rate deteetion and the margin _ factor depend upon the design of_the leakage detection N, systems.
O Af SECTION 3E.6 CONTENTS ,
licetion Title Enge ,
-3E.6.1 Main Steam Piping Example 3E.6 2 3 E . 6 '. 2 Feedwater Piping Example 3E.6-6 TABLES Table Title fagn 3E.6-1 Stresses in The Main Steam 3E.6-8 Lines (Assumed for Example) 3E 6 2 Critical Crack Length and Instability 3E 6 8 Load Mergin Evaluation For Main Steam Lines (Example) 3E.6 3 Data For Feedwater System Piping 3E,6 9
-h:-: (Example) 3E.6 4 Stresses in Feedwater Lines 3E.6 9 (Assumed for Example) 3E.6-5 -Critical Crack Length and Instability- 3E.6 Load Margin Evaluations For Feedwater Lines guxample)
ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Title East t
3E.6 1- Leak Rate As a Function of Crack 3E.6 11-Length-in Main Steam Pipe (Example) ,
.m 3 E. (, ii ,
Y
3E;6- GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION H'
-v.J-Some of the key elements of an LBB evaluation report for_a high energy piping. system are:
'~
=
system description. evaluation of. susceptibility to water hammer and thermal fatigue, material specification, piping geometry, stresses.and the
.LBB margin-evaluation-results. Two examples are presented inlthe following subsections to provide guidelines and illustration for preparing an LBB
-evaluation report..
-3E.6.1
. Main-Steam Piping Example 3E.6.1.1 System Description
-- Continued-next page -- i rl s
_l (k .
}
'p 4
U 3C.6 I F
v - - .--ee m . m n - n - ,
, g,, ,1 ,o re.-
m y, s s e t m5l e **#
l ABWR ummy Standard Plant _ uv n n %. 6.t
( ') 3F2 MAIN STEAM PIPING E X AM PLE end of the discharge piping sobmerged in the v 3 E . 6. l.1 suppression pool. Pressure waves traveling 3F*1 System Description through the discharge piping following abe
<a* Uro '*) relatively rapid opening of the SRVs causes the The four/m.t ain steam s (MS) lines carry steam discharge piping to vibrate. This in turn
" '"" j ', from abe reactor to the turbine and auxiliary produces time dependent forces that act on the systems. The reactor coolant pressure boundary main steam piping segments.
(portion of each line being evaluated ig this.'
section%kdee a flow restrictorMOi There are a number of events / transients /
designed to limit the rate of escaping steam from postulated accidents that result in SRV lift:
the postulated break in the downstream steam li n e. The restrictor is also used for flow a. Automatic opening signal when main steam measurements during plant operation. The anfety system pressure exceeds the set point relief valves (SRVs) discharge into the pressure for a given valve (there are different suppression pool through SRV discharge piping. set points for different valves in a The SRV safety function includes protection given plant).
against over pressure of the reactor primary system. The main steam line A has a branch b. Automatic opening signal for all valves connection to supply steam to the reactor core a s aig n e d Io Ibe automatic isolation cooling (RCIC) system turbine. depressurization system function on
" *
- M8*as receipt of proper actuation signal.
his section addresses the MS piping system in the jam memDwhich is designed and c. Manual opening signal to valve selected constructed to the requirements of the ASME Code, by plant operator.
Section Ill, Class 1 piping (within outermost isolation valve) and Class 2 piping. It is The SRVs close when the main steam system f,) classificd as Seismic Category I. It is pressure reaches the relief mode rescat pressure v inspected according to ASME Code Section XI. or when the plant operator manually releases the 3 E. 4 .t. A opening signals.
SF.2d Susceptibnity toWaterHammer it is sisumed (for conservatism) that' all Significant pressure pulsation of water hammer- SRVs are activated at the same time, which l cffect in the pipe may occur as a result of produces simultaneous forces on the main steam opening of SRVs or. closing of the turbine stop piping system.
valve. A brief description of these phenomena e ;
follows. These two transients are cessidered in 59Fihil Turbine Stop Valve Closure Transient the main steam piping system design and fatigue Description analysis. These events are more severe than the opening or closing of a main steam isolation Prior to turbine stop valve closure, saturated j valve or water carry over through main steam and steam flows through each main steam line at nuc-SRV piping. Moreover, the probability of water lear boiler rated pressure and mass flow rate.
carry over duritg core flooding in case of an Upon signal, the turbine stop valves close rap-accident is low. idly and the steam flow stops at the upstream f , side of these valves. A pressure wave is crea.
,7-3Fatt Safety Relief Valve Lift Transient ted and travels at sonic velocity toward the re-Description actor vessel through each main stream line. The flow of steam into each main steam line from the SRV produces momentary unbalanced forces reactor vessel continues until the fluid compres-acting on the discharge piping system for the sion wave reaches the reactor vessel nozzle.
period from the opening of the SRV until a steady Repeated reflection of the pressure wave at the discharge flow from the reactor pressure vessel reactor vessel and stop valve ends of the main to the suppression pool is established. This steam lines produces time varying pressures and p period includes clearing of the water slug at the velocities at each point along the main steam V
Amendment 7 M 3 C . (, . A
ABWR msme mn Standard Plant _
lines. The combination of fiuid momentum Evaluation of the ensuing effects are ,
changes, shear forces, and pressure differences considered as a normal de:Ign process for the cause forcing fu'ictions which vary with position main steam piping system. The peak pressure and time to act on tbt main steam piping system. pulses are within the design capability of a i
l The fluid trsorlent loads due to turbine stoppiping design and the piping stresses typical
! vahs closure is considered as design load for and support loads remain within the ASME Code upsti condition. allowables.
MUbsic Fluid Trossleet Concept it is concluded that, during these water l hammer type events, the peak pressures and Despite the fact that the SRV discharge and segment loads would not cat.e overstressed the turbine stop valve closure are now.statting conditions for the main steam piping system. ,
sid flow. stopping processes, respectively, the SC.6.I.3 concepts of mass, momentum, and energy conserve. MM 'liermal Fatigue tion and the differential equations which represent these concepts are similar for both No thermal stratincation and thermal fatigue problems. The particular solution for either of are espected in the main steam piping since ,
the problems is obtaine.d by incorporating the tijere is no large source of cold water in these appropriate initial conditions and boundary MM.' A small amount of water may collect in conditions into the basic equations. Thus, the near horirontal leg of the main ste<ra liac relief valve discharge and turbine stop valve due to steam condentatloa. However, a 4epe of closure are seen to be specific solutions of the 1/8 inch per foot ul main stesta pip;ng is more general problem of compressible, non steady piovided in each main steam line. Water drain fluid ficw in a pipe. Lines are provided at the end of slope to drain out the condensate. Thus, in thir case no The basic Huld dynamlc equations which are significant thermal cycling effects on the main applicable to both t, lief valve discharge and steam pipics are expected.
O turbine stop valve closure are used with the BC414 particular fluid boundary conditions of these NJA Piping, Fittings and Safe End occurrences. Step wise solution of these Materials equations generates a time.bistory of fluid
- ,roperties at numerous locations along the pipe. Tbc material specified for tbc 28. inch main Simultaneously, reaction loads on the pipe are steam pipe is SA155 KCI70. The corresponding determined st each location corresponding to tbc specification for the piping fittings and position of an cibow. forgings are given as SA4
- 0, Wpl6 and SA350, LF2, respectively. The meterial for the safe Tbc computer programs RVFOR and TSFOR end forging welded between t'us main steam piping described in Appendix 3D are used to calculate and the steam nonle is SA308 Clau 3. ,
the fluid transient forces on the piping system 3E . 6,1 5" due to safety relief valve discharge and turbine .W&5 LBB Margin Evaluation u*' *
,3 stop valve closure. Both of the programs use ,
method of characteristics to calculate the Guld The Code stress analysis ophe piping *M transients. 14e reviewed to obtain repgsentative stress
"- F 2%
l Tbc results from the RVFOR program have been magnitudes.
ew+-the-sM,;..d.
cesdded. Table E +shows FoHhe-La" 1 e example rG ehr 6[,r p hese
- verified with various inplant test measurernents
. l sucl as from the Monticello tests and Caoroso stress magnitude due to pressure, weight, tests and the test sponsored by BWR owner for theraal expansion and $$E loads.
NUREO 0731 at Wyle test facilities, Huntsvilb. w.3 6e Al6aina. Various data from the strain sages a The leak rate calculations wete performed the pipes and the load cells on the supports were assuming saturated steam conditions at 1050 compared with % analytical data and found to be psi. The leak rate model for saturated steam in good correem developed in Section 3E.4.2 was used in this m3 e>c
,O N bl t
AmtMmeM T 3E. 6 - 3
ABWR msuu Slanditd Plant Piv i)
/~3 etaluation. Pressurg, weight and thermal
() esponsion stresst 6 w"s're included in calculating tbr crack opening area.,.,A plot of leak rate as_ a_. :
functio', of crack sire was deseloped_aff4Ghown._, g ~, ,,,
in F i g u r e Ertrt'T e a k a g e f l a w l e n g t h s corresponding to m440 gpm+ere determined "*),
stom tbis figure, eu v e r . . h e c4 Jan r=+' ('" ' " ' "
The calculations for the critical flaw slie and instability Jged corresponding to leakage slie cracts were perfortued using tbc J.T melbodology. Specifically, the $$00F J.R curve shows in Figure 3E.2 8 and the Ramberg Osgood per6 meters given in Subsection 3E.3.2.1 wert et used. A plot ofinstability tension and bending stresses as a funcilon of crack _,lengtAyyh n g,. L developed. Table 3fW1Fabows theqalculated critical track site and the margin along~Mth TEP8"eru f' * * # R " "#
lastebility load margin for the lenkcge size cracks. It is noted that the critical cruk sire margin is greater iban 2 and the instability load marsin also exceeds 8 1.6 Conclusion dos.411 Jour. loops.cl4he..maia.ataa- y " .
7S leakage rates of 5 and 10 gpm are used in the 1,Ill (v) o i
valuation based on the limit of satisip< tor letection of the associated unid 4tified e
l eakage. Dased upon these leaka eles and r epresentative stress magnitudes,) akage flar c g ,w. , d ll engths are cal.culated for 2 4nch pipe and
' compared against the critical aw length. Tbt e<o inargin is shown to be gro er than 2 for bott i l' 7 l eakage rates._ Also,Abe leak. size craci i tability evaluation showed a .aargin of at less
/27 / N
/ \
[ lt is also shoka that other1BB criteria el Ucction 3.6.) including immunity t'o(silure frou effects of IOSCC, water bammer end tbermal s
latigue/and capability for leak detecilon arc i stisfied. Therefore, all four loops of tbcNinio i
tpam piping qualify for the leak.before.br'y Jostulation-approach -- '
( h V
Anwadmem 7 OfM 3 6. f, . y I
l 1
32.6.1.6 Conclusion
()
O for all main stesa itnes, based upon the reference Icakage rates and assumed stress magnitudes, leakage flaw lengths are calculated and compared against the critical flaw length.
The margin is shown to be greater than 2 for the leakage rates. Also, the leak site crack
. stability evaluation is shown to hate a margin of at least /2.
It is also shown that the conditions required for applicability of LBB (see subsection 3.6.3.2), such as high resistance to failure from effects of ICSCC, water hammer and thermal fatigue, are satisfied. Therefore, all four of the main steam lines qualify for LBB behavior.
')
~
,.e3 V
u . A -5
ABWR mm Prv 9 51&nd1LiPlant >
3 c . c .2 cec p 3P.S FEEDWATER SYSTFA PIPING 3 tetaperatuses, pressures and thickness for representative pipe stres in theffiedseie7
Q 30 c. A.:
3F;3;l System Description +ptem. The cominal thickness for both pipe hW % ices correspond to schedule 80. Table 3FM M M The function of tbc feedwater (FW) splem is showsphfie~pissentee stress magnitudeiloT"jn+
to conduct water to the reactor sessel oser the each pipe sire due to pressure, weight, thermal t.
full range of the reactor power operation. The expansion and SSE loads. Only the pressure feedwater lines from Ibcpiping consists high pressure of two feedwater 22.lochfliameter beaters, weight and in the leak rate evaluation, thermal where a sum ofespansion all stres e.m connecting to the reactor vessel through tbtce stresses is used in Ibe instability load and F61ochrisers on each line. Each line has one critical flaw esaluation.
O e.c me hen cvalve inside the containment drywell and one positive closing check valve outside 3F.3.6 LBB Mart ni Evaluation containment. During abutdown cooling mode, reactor water pumped through the RilR beat The incomlag water of the feedwater system is exchanger in one loop is returned to the vessel in a subcooled state. Accordinglyttbe,le ak age y by way of one faedwater line. flaw length calculations weet' based o~o~th'e ~~, md procedure outlined in Section 3E.4.1. The This section addrenes the feedwatet piping in saturation pressure, Psat, for each pipe sire mag 4.e the nuclear Island, catending from the senel out *es calculated from the normal operation to the outboard isolation valve (ASME Class 1) temperatures given in Table 3F4-CThe lese ~" d ' #
and further through the shutoff valve to and rates wsYe calculated as a function of crack including the seismic interface restraint (ASME length. The leakage flaw lenEths corresponding Class 2). This section of the feedwater piping to 5-eed461pas leak rates were then determined. M *'
is classified as Seismic Category 1. to. <*6** D e e b " r" "
x 4.1 A The calculations for the critical flaw site m 3FJ.2 Susceptibility to Water Hammer and the instability load corresponding age site cracks we(performid uiing the _.io J.T leat. ~0 u There is no record of feedwater piping failure figally, the J.T curve shown due to water bammer. Although there are sescral methodology.
in Figure 3E4-9 an Sp,egi,d the Ramberg Osgood para check valves in the feedwater syste m, operating meters given in Subsection 3E.3.2.2 were used. . gg procedure and the control systems have been Table 3F4#slio_ws the caliulaied crhical crack designed to limt ibe magnitude of water bammer sites, and the margins along with the instabi.
load to the extent that a formal design is not lity load margi.'s for the leakage site cracks.
required, Results are shown for both the 22. inch and R.6.2 1 12. inch lines, it is noted that for the two 3F.33 Thermal Fatigue reference leak rates, the critical crack sire margin is greater than 2 and the instability Thennal fatigue is not a concern in ADWR feed. load margin also exceeds /2, water piping. The ASME Code evaluation includes Be 4 A.7 operating temperature transients, cold and bot 3F&7 Conclusion water mixing and thermal stratification. ,3 m M 6.2 4 LDD evaluation besteen conducted using 4**
3F;3A Pipings, Fittings and Safe End .-%19e*-ef reference leak rates, 5 and-lotpmr Material Based upon these leakage rates and representa.
tive stress magnitudes, leakage flaw lengths e The material for piping is either SA333, Or. 'were calculated for 22. inch and 12 inch lines.
6, or SA.672 Gr. C70. Comparison with critical crack lengths show#,
30 6.1.f margin to be greater than 2 l.cakage sire crack 3Fr3:5 Piping Sizes, Geometries and stabilii> evaluation showp>a margin of at least ARepresentative Siresse 5 M.
Table 3,F.M shows the normal operating it ha*4en also demonstr ated in the l q n 6-3 If M
( Amendmtni 7 3 E. . F - (o i.
ABWR zwwt mn Standard Plant y precedlag subsections that the feedwater line (3
meets other LDB Criteria of#cction 3.6,3.1
'~) including immunity to failure from effects of IGSCC, water hammer and thermal fatigue.
(^\
9
~ U)
Amendmtat 7 I
. _7
ABWR uAsmAt Standatd Plant RLY A i
3 t. 6 - l O TAHLE JF:21% '
E REPRESENTATtVE STRESSES IN T11E MAIN STEAM LINES
( A t.5 O M G > F' R C^^MPW) '
Long. Weight + i Nominal Pipe Nominal Pressure hermal SSE Pipe O.D nickness Stress Espansion Stress -
Site (In) (in) (ksi) Stress (ksi) .
(in) (ksi) 28 28.0 1.32 5.17 3.0 5.0 i
(
3 f.: . G, - A TABLE 3F:2 2 r CRITICAL CRACK LENGTH AND INSTABILI1T LOAD MARGIN EVALUATIONS FOR MAIN STEAM LINES (c A AM PLC)
Margins on Reference laakage Critical Instabilityl Pipe Refereate Crack Crack liending leadJ at Site leak Rate length length Stress,Sb Critical leakage (in) (gpm) (in) (in) (ksi) Crack Crack
.-# -- 5 -- - -I14 --30,7 27 4 :S- 2.',
24.4 2.3 2.2 n 10 13.45 30.7 NOTES:
- 1. Based on Equation 3E3 9a.
- 2. Based on Equation 3E.3-9b.
. 3, s e e $4s ec4'en tc .5, O
Amendment 1" WH~
3 E. 6 - W
$[gg M E,lthi axsimat pry A a c .6 - 3 O TAHLE3F.31s P p itJ Gi ( E X A M Pl.6) l l
DATA FOR FEEDWATER SYSTEM HEPRESENTATION PIPESIZE7 l
Nominal Pipe Nominal Noenlast Operating l Pipe O.D Thkkats: Temperature Frenure '
Stae (in) (in) ('r) (psis) ,
(In) j 12 12.75 0487 420 1100 22 22.0 1.0.11 420 1100 1
1 36 6 4 TABLE 3F32-/ i AREPRESENTATlYE STRESSES IN FEEDWATER LINE 6 y r s u m e .v ren ans mPLG) '
Nominal l_engitudinal Weight + Safe Shut down O~ Pipe Pressure Therinal Earthquake (SSE)
Slee Stress Espanslom Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) '
(ksi) 12 5.1 4.0 5.0 23 $.4 4.0 5.0 t
k k m._,
-,,--,--y- ,- ,- .e.-, ----.__w--m,w.--- ym.-- <,.*.r-,-,. y _ . . > . . - r.-. 3 .,-.,_y- , , , - , , - - - , -
ABWR nwam Standardfjant 9.tra O 3C.,6-f l l
TA14LE 3F.3 3y ;
CRITICAL CRACK LENGT1 AND INSTABILITY LOAD MARGIN -
EVALUATIONS FOR FEEDWATER LINES ( E A A P4 P L.G ) l Marylos on Reference leakage CHtical lastabillt)I Pipe Reference Crack Crack Bending lead! :
Slie taak Rate length length Stress,Sb CHtical leakage (in) (gpad (in) (In) (ksi) Crack Crack
~12- 5 3 -----45 - 13.1 37,2 - t# ---
13 4 i a, 10 5.7 13.1 24.0 2.3 2.1 2 2-- - - ----5 , 5 2 --- - - 20.4 - - -279 - - 23-(
-2A 10 6,7 20.4 25.6 3.1 2.2 NOTES: i O 1. Based on Equation 3E.3 9a. -
- 2. Based on Equation 3E.3 ob.
3, 5: . C As ac 4ece 3 6 i fr.
'I f
(
O Amendment 1. WT
~6C,6*10
1 ABWR i serd2rtrJant "T"I l O ,
i2 - !
10 8
e.
4 O $ :
4 -
2 0-I 2
/l 4 6 i
8 I
10 i
12 14 l
16 CR ACK LENGTH (in.)
36.6-1 Figure 3f-2 t LEAK RATE AS A FUNCTION OF CRACK LENGTH
' 3 ~ IN MAIN STEAM PIPE (, E x A M P L e)
Amendment I >H e B C . (, - 18 >
F O
APPE DIX 3F APPLICATION OF o LEAK BEFO)lI-BREAK APPROACH TO 18 armNysrEus
( APPENoix 3 F DGLavso) -
/
o
A