ML20105A863

Rev 0 to Technical Data Rept TDR 645, Basis for Revised Plugging & Stabilizing Criteria for Once-Through Steam Generator Tubes

ML20105A863
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	01/31/1985
From:	Leshnoff S GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20105A831	List: ML20105A828 ML20105A863
References
TDR-645, TDR-645-R, TDR-645-R00, NUDOCS 8502040552
Download: ML20105A863 (24)

Text

-

TDR NO.

645 0

j g

REVISION NO.

SUOGET 1

^,,

TECHNICAL DATA REPORT ACTIVITY NO.12001, pggg 0F

! OEPARTMEN' SECTIONEng'g & Design D1I-l RELEASE DATE //3/ /ts aEvlsiON carg COCUMENT TITLE-Basis for Revised Plugging and Stabilizing Criteria for OTSG Iubes ORIGINATOR SIGNATURE OATE l APPROV AL. t 1ATURE

! oA7g s.D tes m off i

w tatesclceR

~

r 11). dull.

t'istles i Iffa i.y.as or 1m

}

Ak'ROML FOk' EXTERNAL OISTRIBUTIONI,OATE i

i NW.W\\%

\\

Coos t!us TORinclude recommendationtsP Cyes CNo if yes.TPWR/TR

• OISTRIBUTION ABSTRACT l

R. F. Wilson Problem Statement D. K. Croneberger Recent ECT inspection has identified indications not pre-viously seen in 1982. Additional mechanical analysis of

'H.

D. Hukill i

J. J. Colitz flawed tuces since the deve'apment of the original tube R. J. Toole plugging and stabilizing criteria provides the basis for ti

,R.

O. Barley revision.

lG. R. Capodanno B. D. Elam Result T. E. Richter A revised tube plugging and stabilizing criteria is de-C. K. Lee veloped here. The revised criteria will be applied to D. G. Slear disposition tubes with indications identified in the re-R. J. McGoey cent and future ECT examination.

M. J. Graham G. E.Rhedrick N. C. Kazanas

F. S. Giacobbe

'J. Janiszewski i

I I

i 8502040552 850131 DR ADOCK 05000289 p

, eor

~ :::n ~

Ni TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 2 of 24 Table of Contents I Statement of the Problem II. Methods of Analyses A. Plugging Criteria B.

Stabilizing Criteria III Results A.

Revised plugging and stabilizing criteria B. ' Margins of Safety 1.

Plugging Criteria a.

ASME Sect. III: Analytical Margin b.

ASME Sect. XI: Analytical Margin c.

ECT Detection Margin d.

Margin with axial alignment

~

Margin due to residual structural-strength e.-

f.

Results of Babcoock and Wilcox Analysis Performed to

-Guidelines of Reg. Guide 1.21 2.

Stabilizing Criteria Analytical Results IV ' Review of Criteria Discussed in TR 008-

~

V' 10 CFR 50.59 Safety Evaluation i -:

References

' Table 1 Disposition of OTSG Tubes with ECT Indications

-Table-2 Calculation of Fatigue Usage Factor Based on 79% Throughwall Defect

= Table 3 Allowable Depths for OTSG Defects

-Table 4 OTSG Radial Velocity 7

f i

h.

.~

7.

i' TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 3 of 24 Table of Contents (Continued)

Table 5 Vortex Shedding Frequency JTable 6:

Outline of Basic Tube Plugging / Stabilizing Plan

-Figure 1--_ASME Section III, Division 1. Figure 1-9.2.1 Figure 2 Disposition of 11/84 Tube ECT Indications

Figure 3 Results of Previous Analyses Figure;4 Comparison of Analysis Results with Criteria-c 4

4 A

'"1-m

?

TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 4 of 24 TMI-1 Basis for Plugging and Stabilizing Criteria for OTSG Tubes I. -Statement of the Problem Recent ECT inspection, performed as required by Technical Specifica-tions, has identified indications not seen in 1982. New chemical attack is not the cause, as is discussed elsewhere (Ref. 1).

Mech-anical factors, enabled enhanced ECT detectability of previously ini-tiated defects.

Additional evaluation of earlier mechanical analyses of flawed tubes (performed in evaluating the 1981 tube cracking) provide the basis for

. tube plugging and stabilization criteria. These plugging and stabil-izing criteria are developed here. The tube plugging and stabilizing criteria will be used to disposition tubes with indications identified in the recent (11/84) and future ECT examinations.

II.

Methods of Analyses A.

Plugging Criteria

~Several existing analyses of the serviceability of flawed tubes under normal, transient, and accident conditions were con-sidered.

These analyses included ASME Section III and Section XI

, fatigue evaluations and a solid mechanics single accident load

. analyses conducted as part of GPU Nuclear's response to the 1981 tube cracking experience. Also considered was the Babcock and Wilcox ASME Section III evaluation used to support the original generic evaluation of OTSG tubing satisfies Reg. Guide 1.121.

GPUN's evaluation combines the methodology of both ASME Sections III and XI in order' to obtain the widest range of solu-tions for the. reduction in fatigue resistance caused by identi-fled or hypothetical ECT indications wheth'er they are intergranu-lar attack (IGA) or intergranular stress assisted cracking (IGSAC) in origin.

-1.-

ASME Section III ASME Section III provides guidance for designing nuclear pressure components against-failure. This ASME design cri-teria is based on several layers of conservatism (Ref. 2).

ASME fatigue data is corrected to account for the difficulty L

7 TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 5 of 24 in computing residual stress in complex welded pressure vessels. The correction for this effect is to shift the e

curve to the left a factor of 20 on cycles and downward a factor of 2 on stress.

Because OTSG tubes are not welded nor complex in the free span then the utilization of Figure I.9.2 of Section III, Appendices (Figure I) is conserva-tive. This fatigue failure analysis,Sectoin III, uses crack initiation as criteria for loss of fatigue resistance of the material, therefore designs using this approach insures only a degraded material condition and not outright structural failure.

The approach used to enter the design fatigue curve was originally discussed in TDR 421 (Ref. 3) and as summarized in TR 008 (Ref. 12), the document on which the OTSG tube plugging and stability criteria is partly based. Treating the indication as at straight-sided notch and using the methods of solid mechanics, it is possible to derive an equation for axial stress range as a function of crack length and depth. The applied loading was axial force and flow induced vibration combined as appropriate, for a Section III evaluation (Section VIII, Part D, Appendix A, Ref. 3).

The allowable stress for 240 Heatup/Cooldown cycles anticipated in 40 years of service (design basis) f ron the design fatigue curve is reduced by a fatigue strength reduction f actor (FSRF) equal to 5.0 due to stress

. concentration.

2.

ASME Section XI ASME Section XI provides guidance for evaluating the impact of' suspected flaws in pressure retaining components inser-vice. The methods of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) are recommended.

In this approach the' presumed crack

'is analytically interacted with the local stress field in order to predict enlargement and propagation as service loads (both mechanical and thermal) are cycled in the anti-cipated manner.

Since the data base predicts the material response more closely than Section III, this analysis'is more exact. The range over which the analytical fracture mechanics solutions are available is narrower than that covered by solid mechanics for Section III.

As discussed'previously (Ref. 4), a particular fracture mechanics solution was used by GPUN in order to properly model-the response of a thin tube to the presence of an I.D.

circumferential crack under applied axial load, internal pressure, and bending stress due to flow induced vibration.

The aim of the analysis in Ref. 4 was to demonstrate the adequacy of the threshold of ECT detection sensitivity. The i

7 TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 6 of 24 results of that analysis also satisfy the Section XI flaw acceptance criteria (above) when integrated with the results of the MSLB analysis, also in the same reference.

3.

Main Steam Line Break The rupture strength of a flawed tube to the maximum axial load, applied one time only, is evaluated under the faulted condition of a main steam line break (MSLB). The tube re-sponse is analyzed by methods of solid mechanics capturing the increased flexibility of the tube at the elevation of the flaw and utilizing the flow stress as the limiting material condition (Ref. 4).

The flow stress reflects the load at which the gauge length of a test specimen departs from a uniform strain response, i.e.,

the onset of localized necking. The flow stress is less than the ultimate tensile strength and occurs at much less than total strain at rup-ture.

4.

The above methods, addressing plugging only, provide the framework for the results described below.

B.

Stabilizing Criteria The need to stabilize a plugged tube is based on an analysis of tube vibration characteristics. Those areas in the steam gener-ator where high cross flow would occur are first identified. The vortex shedding frequency is calculated in each span of concern and compared to the analytical fundamental frequency to see if a resonant condition is possible. Vibration amplitudes of a few configurations (unsevered, stabilized severance in the T/S and in the 16th span) are calculated and form the basis for determining whether wear of neighboring tubes can be expected due to cross-flow.

III. Results A.

Plugging and Stabilizing Criteria L

The plugging and stabilizing criteria for the disposition of 11/84 OTSG tube ECT indications are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1.

This criteria is an envelope around previously pre-sented analyses. A fracture mechanics analysis using ASME,Section XI methods, was reported in Reference 4.

An ASME,Section III evaluation, was reported in Reference 3 and as sum-marized by TR 008 (Ref. 12). The results of these analyses are shown in Figure 3.

The criteria of Figure 2 bound the Section XI LEFM results,Section III fatigue evaluation, and the MSLB solid' mechanics analysis.

L

y TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 7 of 24 The plugging and stabilizing criteria also address the problem of disposition of multiple indications located within a 1" axial region. The indications within this region can be combined to find an equivalent size. The method of combination is derived out of recognition of the structural impact of both circumferen-tial (in the sense of cross-influence) and axial flaw alignment (See Note 1 of Table 1).

Where an unacceptable analytical result for 40 years of service is obtained the tube is removed from service by plugging and then stabilized through the span of the indication when necessary.

The flaw is characterized by penetration (percent throughwall),

using the.540 standard differential probe at high gain and by circumferential extent (arc length) using the (8x1) absolute probe.

Stabilization, in general, is intended to mitigate the conse-quences of wear on adjacent active or plugged tubes, which could occur following the severance of a tube.

Retention of a minimum of 4" of unexpanded tube within the tubesheet allows plugging without stabilizing.

Lane / Wedge tubes are treated separately.

High cross-flow local to these tubes is a concern for all tube spans. Historically, the industry has seen more problems in this area than in any other. Consequently, all pluggable indications are stabilized through to the span of the indication.

The following is a discussion of margin of safety either inherent in the analytical methods and the ECT detection method or added as additional conservatism.

B.

Margins of Safety The governing condition for margin of safety for exist'ag Tech-nical Specifications occurs when approaching the 360' circumfer-ential defect and up to 40% throughwall. This was previously summarized in TR 008 Section IX, Part D (Ref. L2), in Figure 1 of TDR 388 (Ref. 4) and approved by NUREG 1019, page 12 (Ref. 13). The plugging and stabilizing criteria of this TDR is superimposed against the serviceability of flawed tubes analyses in Figure 4.

It is clear from this figure that the limiting analyses for the existing licensing basis is Main Steam Line Break (MSLB).

It has been previously pointed out that MSLB is conservative since the structural limit is taken to be the flow stress of the material rather than rupture stress.

In addition, this approach also accounts for a thermal stress resulting from the MSLB which I

L

TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 8 of 24 according to ASME Section III, NB-32213.9 does not result in failure after one application.

Because of the ductility of the structure (OTSG tubes) thermal stress is strain limited and therefore applied load goes down as the more flexible part of the structure (tubes) elongate. Both considerations continue to jus-tify the acceptability of the MSLB analysis.

The criteria of this TDR does not alter the licensing basis for existing Technical Specification.

For each coil the margin separating the fatigue analysis results and the criteria of this TDR is ten percentage points (10%) on throughwall.

The limiting margin of safety approved by the NRC is not affected or reduced. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of an ac-cident or malfunction is not increased.

1.

Plugging Criteria a)

ASME Section III: Analytical Margin The prescribed Section III methods and material per-formance data base are intended to be conservative.

For the type of material and condition of TMI-l OTSG's certain aspects of Section III analytical methods pro-vide additional conservatism:

(1) Thumb nail cracks were modeled as full rectangular notches. For the same percent throughwall indica-tion the model assumes more material is missing from the cross section than actually exists.

(2) A fatigue strength reduction factor equal to 5.0 is conservatively applied before using the code data base.

(3) Forty years of anticipated service is the period over which the loading is applied. The technical specifications are interested in growth between inspections only, thus a number of inspection cycles could have been used less than the 240 design number.

(4) Crack appearance is taken as a failure in the analysis whereas tube severance is the structural concern, providing additional conservatism.

. ~ - - --

pq L

4~

~

s TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 9 of 24 (b) ASME Section XI:- Analytical Margin

' LEFM is a conservative method for evaluating propaga-tion of part through wall cracks in steam generator tubes.. 10 CFR 50.55a(g) requires in-service nuclear 1

power plant components be inspected and evaluated ac-cording to the methods of ASME,Section XI.

The LEFM method has been successfully applied throughout the industry.

^

(c) ECT Detection Margin The sensitivity of an 8x1 absolute probe has been

. demonstrated to detect a notch of 80% through wall-extent by 0.194" are length on a single coil.

(Ref. 5).

Anything larger would appear on more than one coil. Therefore, multi-coil calls'are possibly

~

.overcalls. Treating all multi-coil calls, for purposes.

of analysis, as always coinciding in are length with the 8x1' identification,'is conservative.

d).

Margin with axial alignment The.1984 higher voltage.540 SD results, coupled with single (8x1) coil response may be indicative of axial alignment within an IGA patch.

The axial and circumferential alignments, can be

" treated independently analytically because each is acted on by'a different principle stress.

ByEcompari--

son, the stress intensity'for an axial throughwall.

I

~

crack in a pressurized OTSG tube is less than that for J

.the same, size circumferential1y oriented' crack under, axial load. The ^ results obtained for circumferential -

through wall cracks bound thoseifor:similar sized axial cracks, formed out off!GA link-up.

For IGA patches, the axial dimension is' generally com-L parable to the~circumferentialfcompon'ent on the' surface

~ (Ref.'.1 ). Even though the axial component would be-predicted to propagate more slowly than the. circ'mfer.

u ential.; component, potentia 1' consequences of axial pro '

.gation were also~ considered.. Severance of a_ tube by axial growth is not possible,-but. leakage up to that

. predicted for severence due to'a'circumferential flav, could occdr if the~ axial' flaw were large enough. Since leakage'from an axially-oriented defect would not be load-dependent,.

+

0 e

a f

TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 10 of 24 a small through wall defect, propagating axially, would be detectable by leakage long before reaching a size comparable to a double ended rupture. Leakage detec-tion, by present leakage monitoring equipment and off-line primary-to-secondary leakage assessment pro-cedures (Ref. 11), will detect Primary to Secondary leakage through an axial defect in the same way as for circumferential cracks.

e)

Margin due to residual structural strength It is of interest to note that severe pitting in steam generator tubes did not significantly reduce steam gen-erator burst strength. This was demonstrated by a pressure test of an actual pulled tube specimen that exhibited 83% TW ECT indication while in the genera-tor.

"This tube exhibited'a burst pressure in excess of 9000 psi, which is close to the strength of as-manu-factured tubing and indicative of the high residual strength associated with even severely pitted tubes" (Ref. 8).

GPUN also performed a pull to rupture test on a OTSG tube specimen with a known crack (Ref. 3).

The rupture of the tube occurred in a ductile manner.

This demonstrated that tubes have high structural strength even with the presence of cracks. These tube tests continue to support the residual structural margin.

f)

Results of Babcock and Wilcox Analysis Performed to Guidelines of Reg. Guide L.121 Analyses for patches of mechanical wear are applicable s

to the present situation.

Mechanical wear was considered in previous B&W work (B&W 10146, Ref. 6) performed which satisfies Reg.

Guide 1.121 (Ref. 7).

A comparison of B&W 10146 with the'GPUN analyses of this TDR demonstrates that this plugging criteria is reasonable because of the similar-

.ity of the two results.

Table 2, which is identical to Table 6-3 in Ref. 6, shows that the' usage lactor for a 79% throughwall de-feet evaluated for an inspection period of 40 months is much less than one.

(It should be noted that a usage factor equal to 1 signals that the fatigue limit has been reached.). This fatigue evaluation used design

-basis anticipated transients such as heat-ups, 9

y c

TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 11 of 24 cool-downs, and load changes.

Based on the Technical Specification OTSG inspection frequency, the results of the plugging criteria of this TDR bound the B&W results.

It is important to note that while the Primary-Plus-Thermal allowable defect depth is >70%, when in fact it can be shown to be larger. This is because a secondary (thermal) stress is involved and as indicated in ASME Sect. III, N3-3213.9 (ASME, Sec. III) one application of a secondary stress is not expected to cause failure. These results are developed for tube OD de-fects which, after removal and laboratory examination, are characterizable as erosion / corrosion or wear over an area of 1.5" axially and 45' circumferential1y. -The-present circumferential indications are within the bounds of this analysis.

It is conservative to do this. Reduction in fatigue resistance and load carry-ing capacity were addressed by using the appropriate axial load associated with each transient. As pointed -

out in B&W 10146, their results'do not include allow-ances for inspection technique inaccuracies or for de-feet growth rate.

2.

Stabilizing Criteria Analytical Results Analytical prediction of radial velocity during steady-state operations has become available (Ref. 9).

The THEDA compu-g-

ter code, a Babcock and Wilcox 3D thermal hydraulic code, provided radial cross velocities including the effects of the current plugging pattern. Only the inlet, operating, and: steam dome regions are significant. Results are shown

'in Table 4.

These results allow the conclusion that FIV of an intact tube is significant only in one (steam dome) region of those where cross-flow is likely to occur.

Recently, B&W calculations have identified the vortex shed-ding frequencies in these zones as well as the natural frequency of our unflawed tube, including cross span effects (Ref. 10). Vibration amplitudes were also calculated for the worst case. -These,results are given in Table 5.

These results do not change significantly even when'the displace-ments for the first 20 modes are combined.

These results indicate that it is only important to stabil-ize the 16th span against flow induced vibration (FIV) due L

TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 12 of 24 to cross-flow.

In terms of potential to wear neighboring active or plugged tubes, upper span tubes are stabilized not only because of the high energy imparted to the severed ends by the cross-flow, but also because of the absence of the mitigating effect of damping that is gained if a severance occurs in the liquid phase (at a lower span) as opposed to superheated steam, as in the top span. Margin is obtained by stabilizing a pluggable tube all the way through the span of the indication.

A severed tube could conceivably wear against neighboring tubes even in regions of low cross flow. High axial vel-ocity in the region can be expected.

The ends of a severed plugged tube will be driven by turbulent parallel flow.

Each of the severed ends is driven by a different forcing function. The principal difference is the orientation of the severed end with respect to the parallet flow. The lower piece moves like a string. The upper part presents a high drag cross-section to the flow and behaves differently.

Also, it is evident from these results thst Connor's in-stability in the 16th span will not cause wear of neighbor-ing tubes. A minimum of 4" of unexpanded tube within the tubesheet is required to provide that a severance will not wear neighboring tubes (Ref. 3).

Therfore stabilizing plugged tubes provide assurance of structural integrity of neighboring plugged or inservice tubes.

IV.

Comparison with Previous Criteria Table 6 provides a basis for comparison between the plugging and stabilizing criteria of TR 008 Ref. 12 to the criteria in this TDR.

As stated in TR 008, less than 40% TW indications which are also two coils or less are acceptable except if the indications are in the upper span in which case the tube is taken out of service and stabil-ized. Tubes with greater than 40% TW indications and more than 2 coils on the absolute probe are plugged and stabilized to the span of the defect. Tubes with greater than 40% TW indications but with 2 coils or less are plugged only if the indication elevation is between the 15th SP (support plate) to LS-4.

Tubes with indications less than 40% TW but larger than 2 coils are taken out of service by plugging only as specified by Table 6.

Using the criteria of this TDR tubes in the lane / wedge area are taken out of service by plugging and stabilizing, through the span of indi-cation if the indications equal or exceed 40% TW.

Additionally, multiple indications are addressed in the revised criteria.

Indications located within a 1" axial region centered at an indication, are combined in a fashion to maximize are length out of

9:

TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 13 of 24 consideration of axial interaction (one on the other in a circumfer-ential sense). The combination rule is also intended to be an en-velope around possible axial link-up (Note 1 of Table 1).

Safety Analysis using 10 CFR 50.59 10 CFR 50.59 provides that unreviewed safety questions do not arise if a change does not introduce a new accident, increase the probability of an accident occurring or increase its consequences, or decrease the licensed margin of safety.

It is maintained that no unreviewed safety questions are involved in the 1 plugging and stabilizing criteria presented here.

In fact, there are no new issues of any kind. Enhanced detectability of IGA initiated at the time of the original chemical event has lately enabled the indentification of addi-tional indications. These indications are of a size not previously visible by ECT. GPUN had previously demonstrated that such indications were of a size that did not need to be plugged or stabilized. Thus it has already been demonstrated that no safety _ considerations require that they be removed

'from service.

'While;the proposed plugging criteria represent a new application of the pre-vious analyses, their validity is unchanged. This criteria provide for 40 years of service. At the same, time, the bases for procedural action levels after the detection of primary-to-secondary leakage is unchanged (Ref. 11).

It should be noted that leak detection capability and procedures provide operational safety protection.

Structural resistance to accident loads is not reduced.

This evaluation does not provide results which reduce margins of safety. An accident is no more likely. The consequences of an accident are'not greater having applied the plugging and stabilizing criteria than they were with the original criteria, p

V r

~

?f e

TDR No. 645 Rev. O Page 14 of 24

- Referene,es.

1.

.TDR 638, J. Janiszewski, " Evaluation of Eddy Current Indications Detected During the 1984 Tech Spec Inspection", Jan. 11, 1985.

2.

Background of the Factors of Safety Used in Divisions 1 of Sections III and XI of the ASME Rules for Nuclear Vessels, prepared for the ASME Section XI Special Working Group on Operating Plant Criteria by

~

W.E.: Cooper, 10/84.

3.

TDR 421, TMI-1 Steam Generator Adequacy-of Tube Plugging and Stabiliz-ing Repair Criteria, March 1983 4.

.TDR 388, Rev. 3, Mechanical Integrity Analysis of TMI-l OTSG Unplugged

. Tubes, May 1983 5.-

TDR 401, Task IV Report on Eddy Current Indications Found Subsequent to Kinetic Expansion of TMI-L OTSG Tubes, 4/83.

6.

BAW Report 10146, Determination of Minimum Required Tube Wall Thick-ness for 177-FA Once Through Steam Generators, 1980.

7.

= Regulatory Guide 1.121, Basis for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Genera.

tor Tubes, 8/76.

. 8.

NUREG 1063, Steam Generator Operating Experience Update, 1982-1983, by L., Frank 9.

IOM, N.G. Trikouros to S.D. Leshnoff, OTSG Cross-flow Velocities, SAPC-265, 11/28/84.

10.

Babcock and Wilcox Document No. 51-114-1502-00, 177FA OTSG Flexible Stabilize Design Verification Report, B&W Proprietary, March.1984.

~

11.

LTDR 624, " Bases for Procedural Action Levels Concerning Measured

~

Primary-To-Secondary Leakage", November 1984.

E 12.-

T.M.-Moran, " Assessment of TMI-l Plant Safety for Return to Service After Steam Generator Repair,"'GPUN Topical Report 008. Rev. 3, August-19,~1983.

13.

NUREG 1019. Supplement l, " Safety Evaluation of TMI Unit i Steam Generator Tube Repair and Return To Operation."

I; i

og i

f'

(

?

El

. I'a i

1 dis Pos :T to r or OTSG TUDEs W TH E C T INbtC A rto^ts l

~

re 4

h E D

E e c L Ane/ WEDG E ell L OTHER TU6ES O_

I O

o g

i v5r4 PL UG ONL-Y R% /STt1Bil126 RIRolGH l

YHE. span w noe matcArtoM y

j?4 I

I Is i

I i

LS'4 US *]

USr4

/S "'SP

/S*bP US t 4-E y

ro ro to 70 ro to V

"$0lol" LS-Z2 US*A5 L6 ~4 L.5 -4 USr4 L.S ~4 I

I I

I J *3 I

PL Ve f 3TAGIL/2E Dif41GI A, 6, S w I fall LAl' 2 g gg.- 2 kt - 3 Sw4 G

9 IllE SPAN Of Ilic IMb/CARLyd cD TDia Ty tiotary h ;p yyy ySoy y gg

}

}

o 4

6 c

b O

E

~

CCH TERED 4r O

AN is: Doc A To a NOTE: t THE GQus VA LENT Site Of PlvLrtPLE INDic A rtoN.s LOCATib W THiss A l' AxtAl. MGIGN IS f e a

OBTAsnto uy USsac, Tlte r1 A t sh uh Nprit OF AN1 tuotc Artcn inno THe Subs i *e A

OF THE IstDivIOUAL ARL A Essias, a1 (2 xo), As rHe cneconrentureAu exTen7, nor 3

TO EXLEED Fl\\vnt c os s..s.

es

2. S TA6tt 12 s^t4 Gu rb A nt e IS FOR HINth vF1 STAbtLitER LENtarH 1T '4 REWE"OED

?

THar T+lt STAfbtLollt: c'* Te n t> To THE ne a r suppoAT PLATE Bt YOND THE SPAN s

or rue mo t c a rwN.

a O

TAME /

6 2

=

a

~t d

l

?> t

%ra a

r, a I'5

7 TDA 445

/6of24 Calculation of Tacigue Usage Factor Based on 79% Through-Wall Defect stress differences 12 S (a)

Stress cycle,

n Maximum Minimum alt N(b) n/N 1

17 22,653

-61,256 186,781 190 0.0895 2

1 22.653

-57,886 179,280 220 0.0045 3

74

-42,471

-57,886 34,314 2.2=103 0.0003 4

1

-47,443

-57,886 23,240

>108 0.0 5

2804

-47,443

-55,368 17,641

>10' O.0028 6

12.5

-47,443

-47,443 0

0.0

=

Usage = 0.097 6.0 =

0 (5)( ) (scress difference ran8e).

alc =

g,

(

From Figure I-9.2 of reference 11.

Th0L.E 2 O

0 6

TOR 445

(*l of 2. A Allowable Depths for OTSC Defects Minimum Defect depth.

Critical chickness,

% of wall in accident criterion fn.

0.0375-in. tube condition 9

Normal Operation 0.0114 70

~

~

F,1 $7 0.0103 73 3ap s pb (P,+ Pb + Q) 5 35

<0.0079

>79 sage factor s 1.0 Faulted Conditions P,s 2.45,,

0.75, 0.0116 69 FWL5 0.0046 88 FWL5 19 s 93

<0.0050

>85 LOCA ap 1 0.9p,

<0.0079

>79 TWL5 + SSE 5 3.65, P, + Pb

?rt-arv Plus Thermi

' d, ' 2

' P * *' 2

+

11

<0.0114 570 MSL5

(

(7,

,P, 5

Nomenclature not specifically defined Ln this section is

ete:

f rom the ASME Sotier and Pressure Vessel Code.

PEW 3

7tl TDR No. 645 Rev. 0

/J gr 24 Table 4

.0TSG Radial Velocity (as plugged)

Lane Tubes

' Etevation Peripheral Core

-4[ft.]

[ft./sec.]

[ft./sec.)

Inlet 0.395 3.5 32 2.69 1.1 Aspirator 54 51.4 3.87 Steam Dome

?

I W

4 l

/

3, ;

.f[t..

.r:

TDR No. 645 Rev. O If X 24 Table 5 Span Vortex Shedding Feequency (Hz) 16 39.4 10 4.6 1

5.4 Tubs Configuration Analytical Frequency Amplitude of Vibration (0-peak, inches)

Tube only 42.2 0.026 Laminated stabilizer, 20.2 0.041 T/S severance Laminated stabilize, 26.8 0.041 severance at 15th lateral support-plate

+

s

.F.

se3 A

N T

N l

t 7'

=

i I

Z g

O 5*

I le 7

103 934 g

g k

le 90 h em es m m m g,,

O E 3e 3 X l# as.

t flG. I 9 21 DESIGN FAliGUE CURVE FOR AUSTEfeific STEELS, te4CKEL-CNA0eetuM-IA000 ALLOV, te4CKEL-laget-CottetNute ALLOY, A800 setCaEL-CGPMR ALLOV FOR 5, > 2s 2 ksi FOR TERAMBATUAES 819I EMCEE 9000G MOT (Far 5, s 28.2 kne, une Fas. I-9.2.2.)

Tame 19 I Causeum im Wahes and a formula lor Auwase lanespelassen el ilms Cww to sg oo a

FIG 1 h

nNm*

4D

u OnpfLINE Or SASIC TL;St F*.oCCIEC/STABILitIIsc PIM any Detectable II"9' sable 19 d

E,leggable Koct Indacatics Indicataan tot Fescent N and 1

I g

8 m I > 2 C..als a

m 45th SP 15th SP to LS-4 15th 57 io t.5 -4

!$th SP to L5-4 I US

• 4.to Any Tube Stians igen ye. to os.g to in hatte/redce

$st

• 2 co!!s es and Isot Isolated an ise-c eseJae ers e 4 sistoracal Detect area exote 4:

Es -4 to -24 by sotto= 6-ses.to.ac.1 ehte at ol kinetic pesect Area l

I I

I i

espansson E

FluqEs W jug Flug asd yr

• 11re Flug and Jgab. alas.e to

!!ug Only Plug Only Plug an.s se.ahatare to bot tons of at Least an Span sottcs of 14-h SP to sottre of 14 Sr leth SP of Defect (Xcte Il l

(that e 38 l

1.

Includes tube sections from bottom of 15th support plate to 4-inches up into bottom of up.aer t ubenacet.

2.

Includes tube section f:ca bottom of 15th support plate to e inches down from the top of the lower tubesheet.

3.

gee rigure tv-l fus tubes an Lane /wege area.

4.

Sm! is TCT probe with 8 absolute cos ts and 364* ciscumferentaal coverage.

TABLE 6 (nc. 3727-t of 7R-002) 2g b

a

/

^ t

.3 m

k

n N'"~-lear CALC. NO......

SHEET NO.

......OF.......

oATE......

susaECT...........

COMP. SYtOATE.$'S:.kfdW.T. #["/JS CHK*D. SY/DA~E..

TOR 6}$

s kW yb d

22 W 24 mi.. a'8 e t-sy

/.00 %

t 0*$ ~ $

e f

PROPOSED AC TION : PLvGl ST48fLLEE THAOU(sH THE. 4 P 4 IV CF

/N 0/c 4 r/ON

.s.]. 3 C. b

r. 5 '. g :- - - - - - - - - - - - -

I iPLv4 $ $7A QtL ott p'g I

)/6NJp4AsONCY,

' O T hen vu e st r>L u4 C.3

---

..g~>,-'

omy l

."l

%NM O.5 0.0

~

Q 20 fC 50 l'O 5 W*

1 Of S PC s t 7"/0^t OF

!!/6 4 7066 GCT INOtC A T* toms f*l6. f.

A000 0016 st ce

ran, a 5 23 07 24-( %*a y va N" av Cy

/,e 1, a.1 - 4

).1 "a u

a MsLn

.7 3

t 40 Y2

. sect 3 C5 ra ric.:.1 I 0.4 ;

t ec,8

r n)

N C. 3 i 0.2ll

~

0.I 0.3

')

20 5a go m g n y, red u LTS of PREvrQu:, A n A t..y s g 3

tG. 3

'b

y Nuclear c:icui:ti:n sh::t Sub#ect Calc No Rev No Sheet No of _

Ongmator Datp Reviewed by Date

.S b LES HNoff l130/05 TDR 64-5 24 :f te

/6

\\

A 5Me SEC ll[

/. 6,

/. 4 -

I.2

/

m CR'rERIA I

\\\\

t /,00

\\

MSt o E

'\\

/

c 3,/

\\

l

\\

%v v

A.6

~

j 9

!; /:

2 l.EFh G

issc 2 R

0.2 g,g 50 IO

.i,.

to 40 bD Fic,. /

com pere isom of ANAt.yS/S RESOLT.S vJt rH C RirERJ A.

A0000016 5-84 L_c j