ML20133G601
| ML20133G601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1997 |
| From: | WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19310E989 | List: |
| References | |
| WCAP-14741, NUDOCS 9701160096 | |
| Download: ML20133G601 (59) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . . . . Westinghouse Non-Proprietary Class 3 - t. WCAP-14741
+s+ + + +:+ + +
c . Specific Application.of LLaser Welded Sleeves 1 for the , Farley Units 1 and 2-Steam Generators - Westinghouse Energy Systems .' W
===
$L 1 . 48 PDR
. ; , L , *] . ,1. . -: ,y : "y ;
, _ .. ; :o ;w q: n ,: < ; *.
): ).t' :.
. e ..r
'.. ; . . , , . ' ,'; g: ...e . '-
. L:. k J .s:3.',. W ,.,;.:.yhh{ r;_'h.:,e.ly n a P.W
,:
- 5i' ;- Y- ,' Q 'lgY.l*:yl4 h e*g:.~.yu;vr . :.jj' :;_p n :<-s. QA n<
n; n.:.yn'.;>,.s,; y.3:. ;< e.I '5
,:;. T.a ,;r p e i;g,-n.
'. ' . g . ~ ; . .; "
L ' ,. e 1
. W.
- .sq. ,. '. z. .- <
- m. . m .&lb,;f. 1
;q fv l& Q *t, W ,:d.*,.:l, il,W;.%.. .: : L,
;! \ :q'!, ~\.w; G.,2, fic A :. $Qf.y
&;a;:ll., - W &;9
- 3 y: .C n.7:.$.; Nf.vt. uj.
-l?lc4.y:t zy , ;9.g%,'
%6p2'Q..$1.}(
- .. s k,....h..d.w.yl:,:..%.y .hh:':,' k
.4%
h$b.0 .!.m;,,a. h,;.y.vl%y.,y' h}h;f,yp t. y,f
?; huW:.
h: h.m. v f!$(b. hsew;,,'s. .Wf .% %..:, ; k.' hifbhf,,%'.. r-
..z .
,s c:4 m , 9
. M.:n y: .:3 q> p @n y. :,;,;. h:i 9 ./; y.5 ~. bk m.. . e k .sqefg.
t a 2 ,@ s y aV-g
..., & s 4,;y.;. f.;;,f. ..u?0;:]g o. >..9..y ' < 'N'y.c.g:,.g.q e' ?; .i%- ..p&gg,;Y
. . A@NIdy '.,
. .W . . l,) . . .f ,Nh. ,c ylh.nb 3,a ..h. m.hhg. ,% .j - Qp"' Q.f; ,;,p::.k.
. g ..
f.N:m'j p .'h.s@, ., kk, ,#Nd ,h,P[g,91:.p " )*y. ,ay7h.8 .h$f.. . A . y. . n ~ . .y
..s~.? [:M,:, . ?N.
.. ; ,.h, ;: . . .. n.c
, . .k... $. h.y ?$ ,13h. .h*kM.bk.'h%;$[.(.hk.,9:-lW.
,; . ,~_;~- e .- q . .m: . e.:p.. g, p(. .f.
y;.:
.;;!:,;y ,j ; .,,yg gy ::c., q.. ,y ,. .y ..,
\'.o, . ..,:.w.g...g.;:
, .,; ,. . :.,: ;9; g
. a .,
g . . . . gg:4.
. v.
.:.,+.~ g
.. :. ..-... V.....s 3 4.. :..c. w, %, :: . LM.;-
- .-. .3,..<v. -! -'.:. c, , M. 3.., .c.
.z. . m. ;
h.:.,%:.L.. o * < ::.:
- 4 ,, .. . ,,,g. , y . .n. a,. . -v
*: %. . :4: i.yQ.x'm .g..y;A..g,.:,;.g
- n. ,..4c :...f: c y :: . s: " n
. '. r
.~..-;,.'.a
..y
,. s . . .g %.
's,,; : . 4 % '..M . . J .A. 1- .m., .3.w. * . .
,'+<.:-. : .
;& : .' q
~; * .V a . ' e.:%.O s . :/ , .+ .: .. : ?. -Q-:.
..un,,.
.: ..n-
.) .se ;;;s.2~. *.y;.:: ':M~.." ,)'
v:?- ' c
. .'. lt: y'.g.
u n. .i~; V':.J.K. 1, s: !:: . : ~ .. e 1:. .: .~; ':.i+v, 7. ;ug,% u .. :-. ' g,e:..,.UJ.
'. .. ~ %::,1 .; e ~g . , ~: & :... ' [e ,- ;:.. ~.%q
- 4. ?;*t . ,. .;p :y m :
.W 6~
,qv: : ";
- c.. -
-, ,: :. . , ;n';.~ .. . . Q , . : e :, :*.-< ., y + - :. $ . : A'.:-:* ,. %y? . ; %. 'i :;.
. :...>>; ':.v, s.f a %g:.. .%.. ' .&::L.
. :h :. .p .:.
^
i . , .. -
'Q:P :. .::: .
- , . 'p.. g: : .;y.,.
,sn ..;M .<: . . .w ,,;s. e.n , :. ~. . ps. < *:.i: . '. . . . . (s.....
* .'. y.; ,,..
.....<<- s M... .y. <.,..;. . , s. w - a . , . -
y' ?. : ;.'; ,.; :. ~.; n f, : /. '...,. 3: ..' . e c.nvy:;. ..' . rw : , . ;> n -
.. ;,,p, s.6.ir;. , r.: ,.<;,m.;....- ..;..'
",':z-
. ;Q:-, y_ y ;3 % ..' , . ,-' .: . . L. L;.i, \.,. .;y.p'.Q;'.Q:;
ls._ ,
y; r,:' ,,:,.y ,. 'Q. ;, C y y ;;. . , .\,~ . .t .,l1Q.n,.
y' ,l,:.. ,,; :'%. - y :.; .- ? . . %, .Q .%,'_* q:l'm:l?. y
. . . . ~, :.p. ; .m. . < .s :, ' %. : ', - :. . ; :-
/. ) ,. J ! . .l
,,U 'l<
. %9 j :U.
's .,f. ;l$ . .: ; * ' e is .':.;; :: '5.l 'd.* i
- a q* .
- J,, ? '. s e <e W.;y:qp;:,_;.y':?-f x'. ; ;. :. . ;,.lgs
. -, Q . * ',2
...' <. * . ,? .q,T r . %. ^r
- .~g._ x ;
^ ,;A . :
** ;;4 ;', . ,s
, * } - Q'., t.-$. , ,
..'.:.I'._ - - . , ,
J. - % . ;.' * . _Q ,l-l y. ';h,;'v.,J.' ;g - P .. . .. !.,.l.- *.
= , s,"- .%. .- ~ . . . x; 1.'l, , ~ -l. ".,,:* l .,;V L, 3 '::,. .
- . * .. b, $ .L .:..i 5.;';,'. l -l
,{ - p:' , se. %:.g. 3.; s . >.. .> q. .. r; Ti'*d, 4. ?. ~; &" ;;. ;' :
. C. . ..
3.\. 1:-n :.'...', .,:l..'s. ..;
;- .?"N.
l.,, .,. .; .;%.. .. ... . ,c.. .: ;s r:
, .g
* } :'86"
.c $., ,>.: :,*. 1 :.l;l
. & '. :;?:' '; ' * "
;c..:..'. > ; .
....,? .y -.n?.. .. A, A z .. , . . . ,. n; ; 9 -
4 ..t.
^
;_ ;j~ . . - -
..o .'..--
.; -/ ;, r s=.: .' r. . s?
f.
- ,e. . -,- *; . ; .3 f.
('5-
....v.
.. . ...e. m . '!, q . .* .'.* '; . J,..ql,4,,:; , .nh.s.':v.e 4 : ., ;';;,n *;;a*. ..<~ ,..,, q, o;
.. ..e ..{y.t,., .tr ., -. , " ,..,r,.s,..
, r' ' ,. ..: . .. ,..L. u,,);, -..y y. :.:
%. = , ..
.:) :', .: ':1 ", - . :, ,.
s .
;.L E..' l Is: '" ~ll,.' , ;*0.: ,U'?.%;: ?E:; ' .*,'.
?:'.1;.' : s. 5l ;: ' ;._h$ g./ ,
*.f; :. .*,\. ., q -l. $'
- s ;,*.Y V . ..* ; ... ' l., i,
- i:,'-
.4.,,, . . - , . _r er *C * % ,4 * .N : l..} .
..i'(,,.,,'ia, ..* / if . ..: .-(..,. s.s ..i.-
. .; % g ,
- t. . -
*' : ,.,- 3
'.'l. = . ' :. - i r, , .= *
.p it ' 4 , * .=,8 .5 6 a - -
.;Q rate,.. . . . . l #'. . ,Y ';,. .' *
[.-',*~ ' . }, , .Q,. 'ls: : : :' o. *. s ',' ll ;: (; $ ' ? .r 7. f . }.; ',.'. ; :. ..,i'l; , .'. , ', . , * *{e . , ',.,e..
. * 'u .*
,. . , :. ) . s; .' ',l # , .
'. '. ;, ,n '
- 'I s. ,, . ; r, ' .I t .
- c'. .L . , \.'..' , ?-;. .}f. <; . [. . h:- <$ .j ',2 f. . 2
' . ./f".' jC;
..: ..=s. ,,. , , sl .Y e F.
. - .v.:*..?'.
l . ; * .. er. , .: "..o.r r s g*; r ,..s.-~.f.A...'.'.~.e.';
.*x . . , ... *...,.'*.,;,-{,,'.....
l*.,, & . .r ::,. f. ,, :,;vpa:, 4. u: v. . .t . . y :$ . ...
-n. *> ..
e '
.p;. .
- . , r:- . *.. .>, . ., :, ,I .: i.
'y. 's..:p. ;;. . ,.f.'....- [,;:,' .-
;* ' . :, . . p .,7
; y; : ' 7, <.. . ::,p .;'(.: . ;;q . . .' ,e, ; ;3* yr*; ,~ .. .:.y . WC..w ,"-
., ,gi , ..
*y _ '._;..",,*_*,{.9.;',,, ;y
.. , .v
.. .., _:. . :. . .Ao <:.
g , _ ;, .
. . .' .. .. ,. .. -:.v,.._.,.
f.. '.,i.; k , . ; ~.
- r s p-
. l ,. ; ,. ,s. , -. .,'..
e: . ,. , ..-
; , y;n _ :o:; .. ,,.;.,. _
.- '"y...,.n).o. s ;\;; , , . .' , ., ' . . . .-
f . , ,_. , ' ,: . . . * , _ . .. :; , *f,*,'..#.. . . ' . . p, \:. t ...*..a w , : v; .. :..,,. . ,i ;
.s . ...:,.,,_',
., . t- ....
', [.** ' ' : . : .
- l; ,' . *... ' - % - ^ ,- * :" .;
- v,.
., .. .,c' .;;- . : ..s,.
~_*,i
~ -
",?,'".,,,*'.',..:..
,? . s. ,/. :. c :;l.: . . .. ' _; ?~,;,;,
.~.,; ;' s, .- ,...," * . . '
*'n 4
.' . ,. ,, s?., J. '.'
. -l: ';. .:l ..
4.,':.' ., - ...
- .;' ;. . . ,. -' ' - , , ' :, :: ;;;, . : %;:p:,
s* ..,, . :. : - -
....s,..,....,,;..y..,
y.; o . ., : .- :.;. . , - s
.l ,: ;; .. :: ,
y .:. ', .,,.,..f,. .. . ;. . . :. .. ..-; , , .: ' ;
,.,s .-- e '. . ;.. ',..-, 1;;,v. .% ., ;
, ,/.7.- .,,, . .,. _ : .:.
... ...:,., . e .
3.., 4... ..r ,j * ,
.,,,;. : . %. . . ,, - . . . , - k. :
.. ,..1.. *. .< = ,
, :.,' c.: ' ',y** ..
,,,..',".'.,l,- ,;* , .. *, , . ,;. . sl . ; , l
. . ',' d. ,, ," ,
' .* ~ "., ; f. s, . , / ,", e,
.,3 ,' . . g,.c , .- % :
.,'ly $ . ' '
f,.f.' ',l [ ' N. L. ' ' . . ,' . . i 4
.: -..,,/,., .'.'> '.'-
-l' t : :. #'i .}".,..\
' . -- :..' : . . l .. .
e -.e. r,/ .f ' , ;< < e % ,'.'.,c., :. . *; , .i.*: e
*t .s s
.c. .
f
..,y .: i's.'
- i. :: e' . ., ,*? *;:
g'
...p ; * . , _
.: . ( l,1 ??. ;.' .y ' :!, ' f Q ; 'i .G* , ,,' ,'
..,% *. l,' Q f :
'..']. ','.. : :.. J. '.l;
.:.....?,...,., f - o.','.W, f **: *a ; . ' ' l'- ' ^:^: ' . ' , , . ' . . . . . - ' .
'. . r. . *.
- .l,.l%; ,
A t, 's,,,,- :P ;* *
.s-
?.: ..., ~:,. .1 . f.' -
, . :, ... : s. ,. ." ' t: : ; . . :, ;;w.~ , - . . ; .. .
<.. . . :q - . . . . -- .
- ^:.. . '
., q:
V'" &:.r;,.g.e..., f K.c.';l :i,:cl.'; ? /.?: y'. 'e_ zY:#Q ,, _ ,p. . :, .. ^, ';f, (. ' . .
' ;.rl ' *} ' ; ' . [:. *, [i l:-
. . A' **' . ,l7;;- f (, -l '
' ', ~ , . ,( :. ;.Q' s
c e
!n. . f. ..g:A,1 .- . s. !.h . .i, c.
/ .:.
,- x :
n , :;.. .n.. ,.:. . ,1..,.::. '. :. ..L. %. u./ . a :' *.. ,%. ..;. , %s. a*.,a:.r
. . . . , . ~
;g ,'1, -. . . , i; h;,, : ...,q:;, . . , v..,,.....
? i &.Q ? .9.C *5, ,,'& ,':.,f,. :;;)::.f. . {'). . *..* .'., . n +,f,,, ~3.y '.} fL' 7 .[ },'&.;.j.' :. l,. '~ .~ % 5 ,',' ' ?:q, l V'
, $ :: : .h ' . " ...-l,'l;l917:,~e, t; .
;),.l};;I Y~. . a.'%.'.'-ll: ..N' .
. g. ,..;y' g; - t h.; g.-
t .- * . . l .,p
,.o ,*,
.y.--
....ra -
,. - ~
- v - .- ..
.,=ns:.;). c: s.a . ~
- s }e u.
>> ;,f, . . ; ,* ,e: . ,.: 'e.. : '
. ". . '. a.
'g.' ..;,_
* '..A .:
,, ,{- ..,,. ..,.;p**'8',.. .e L . ~ .tv :. :. ..;e < - ., ...:
,- '..;'. ,;.'..,'. ,.3.'.';.,),:,',". .'..,:."..,,,j.
..., . . . 3 .}. : g,/ ,,: ,,.c .<.. : ,. , - ; .:
..,. .,.y,.g3,.r. ./ ..
e-
.- p;,. .
. . . ' , .:, ,..,s../..,
v,- ;,> 1 %.' . .- ; ,
- t~,.; . ^ ;;. . .
(
.r,:.: ? : %G. ; ;. , l. - 4: . . .
- 4. . ..;e a . :. ' (,7 '; *:
e; '; &y_..r; '; ;;. W:..,. ? ' . ", ' '.: '.\vQ. .l,';;,;{'b:n ' .. :o*."':.:;: t:,'e
- Q y^; l,J, :-.'?;.,*:l":* . . ..C -itu.'Z.Q;; .? n;~?.y.::- . . . ~n . , .q:' . . . ..., ., .: . . ~? . , .
^
* :Q .. y :.:;. ( .. h,'
- v '.. ' j." '.z.?: '-
; .,:. *..[ f~..:,
.,7 :,.p..,a. ,l 8 : ..
s Nl, :: ): ..' ' , . ;s '-.':'
. . ?.' : "@, ,;l.?. . . . - '< . . s. ;,.. . : . ;..5.s?.v.!J ..G..b 9 7. %,L ,
.. .- : . i .-
. s, ? .s. &. ' . s .e,- ,
.4 .
- %,. er : ., . :e L.
M. ;s ." . :% ;; , g. -'
<'e. - ' ' ey ,a 9.g. -'.C ' . . % .)i...:
i ?.- 1., : ' ~ .. ,- p. ,@. ...? .. .. : ..,.?,...
'A'
-:: A. j .-l* " %P-.p *. .,:.q-) } i.l.Q , , . Q :.,f I :, . .k '
;, .'r,. :n . l+:h. I.Q %;; . i. : ~, % ~ s !; .', ;l:'?i: > a :1,s; * * '. '. ;\,,,. .. ;' ;.. ,,
s,/ - .; .. .
- F*3 7, ' ..; J i 44 ' .. 'l ;%, !" "* ?*: *. ,, 'y' 7. .;'s :~u
/* s -
.n% k, V 8* /. *+ . .n -. * .
4"Q * .. , Q',l#. . ' :. :: >< .c %g 4; u,;;i .e /?s' c.:.',:'r.'Qt.:. 5 % .L;L.V M 5p "rl:f'. # w- ~, N: ?' : .,". .
\ W.'b . %l" 1li,Qo:P ' ' t,k C:*. "O*.% .
.N V ,', . $W E D. D;'h.0?. 'W,:S,. 6 lT ? .V: ;'::' Q : .: ?
.h::c'40 t ,,, ! ' .f!l4. '?W .::[it.', O 'bI. C'.':*f :,;. . '5. .c ]'<.'.N;\ 1: .;T -
[. ;" ) N,::' h# .t.' Sg d,7;6.f p'f('Q'Wf W; [. Q . h..hs ,:D/N,[ $g.' %l? 3f::i%'-: x,Q'.y,l'^'.h[.h.D.Y:h. '.Nf
.j, :j. ,:1. iW i ,'I((ff b
- .W M.p: .: y;. :n':- .l;%;yk,; ;:lMM.:
rO (g' $A </ gh,.QQ';Q,;; f:. ;t.gc(% ? ::f, Mg& .:*::lg* ""' n%p n 93. fig:g;9W.,'g' f,:9,.y
%. ..h& p*- . ' .a: 87
? 3,
;.h.@Wj t
- f':: . . . , ,
.. ] : . %.' ,e l",, e s : :As. .. -:.-.; f :ll;p y. , y % ?f e,. ,, l 7 pf ;, M4 % ..\
3 :Wl i ;r ".*;:.
~'
*:'y l firD.
"'EP l- ;;h y bf:*1..Y. $ $ .f.-l%.gi Q :^L.w l.-"j. :.;;;;v . f *- l. ':
.'M,'
*l:: ;; j :;' :Q
.a . ,4. .%.r:..'. ;,.% ,'
; ;,; ", O!?l,kI.+*
o}q d.,'H; p:.r g.Qe . n.+W..q t
"y W,l'::c. %.;:~4l . Q. ~:', ,s;.
n.. .:~;;;":' y1 - ..s : . i. f; . :x-;; K .. . 6;Q ' ;r
- ll m}& ,l;. :-
c:::m %:T;m.Yq
- O:. A. . .,.
[y,:wr..hhN , y...%
.s.pg'::$h,hh$kh: :ydy4.; P hfh:W w$h8.M),.;.
h .hh.vU.W'n;
!37 i
2;
., in'.y;Qy:m,h;.'."
? ?l^
~
h::::h:.:w,; *. ' .nA V-m
- &. WSi4 m.@;l'u.a.v;
- y. .y x . -
2 .$;;.. :.\.7. M. $5.N:X;;MW.m. c.. . .s.s. ay*)$w.\}VW i;g%N?W:tQd ~
%.. h:.w % . & .L
<W a-s- W.4 i.?g 5.llpH,g.
;.:;. e ;. :n, .. :,.. ~. :.. s m.:. ..+ ;s. e. .%y,u;.;. f.r.y:g . m.,.:g.MN' c. .%, W,e/.1
..,.i:y..;
v m P:,u:9.4.c:n,%w. J:,.df.k.9. f: ..,g.:lln.:.y.5 ,, i:.. y - , . .
"7 3. . a r c h :4<l,g y ij ,4.,:':' :':.3. ?., Q':f 4 : l M '?.> ./f ..
v . .. .+ .. Q
- u. .f ';w.u.N* Q r.. ) : m.i.. , wg.'Y,; q. .~ y .:n .h m,g:.p. f y.&.U;.'s.Q.r,'; %,.':p'.gwer; n? ;-.. .'::. .. ;.,
, y v: .:. . .;.n. w en .
,{
,' . k'. . , ,i 8 k%.:%$6 n+~ n-9 .-
%n, ,
M. ., w - 3, a -
%s,, r - , ,
*
- M 4.= .
, .. ; cv , . 9 --
, y 7. . ; x e . y g. ..,.} g _;R -;tMf%) Q . _ .a _ h .b h! k f, , _. , ,
l :
WESTINGHOUSE NON-PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 W CAP-14741 l SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF LASER WELDED SLEEVES FOR FARLEY UNITS 1 AND 2 STEAM GENERATORS JANUARY 1997 l C 1997 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION NUCLEAR SERVICES DIVISION P.O. BOX 355 PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15230
I ABSTRACT Under Plant Technical Specification requirements, steam generator tubes are periodically inspected for degradation using non-destructive examination techniques. If established inspection , criteria are exceeded, the tube must be removed from service by plugging, or the tube must be brought back into compliance with the Technical Specification criteria. Tube sleeving is one technique used to return the tube to an operable condition. The purpose of this evaluation is to establish the applicability of a generic laser welding sleeving analysis for Series 44 and 51 steam generators (Reference 8.1) to the Joseph M. Farley Units 1 and 2 steam generators. All of the sleeve design, mechanical testing, stress corrosion resistance testing, installation processes and nondestructive examination discussed in the generic report apply directly to Farley Units 1 and 2. Based on the combined results of this evaluation and the generic evaluation (Reference 8.1), the laser welded sleeves are concluded to meet applicable ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code requirements for Farley Units 1 and 2. The allowable plugging limit for sleeve degradation is 24%. l l l
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Sleeve Design and Description - 1 3.0 Analytical Verification 1 3.1 Applicable Loading Conditions 2 3.2 Primary Striss Limits 3 33 Maximum Range of Stress and Fatigue 3 3.4 Minimum Wall Thickness Requirements 4 3.5 Structural Evaluation Conclusions 4 3.6 Effect of Tubesheet Rotation on ETS Contact Pressures 5 1 4.0 Mechanical Tests ' 8 4.1 Farley FLTS Lower Joint Development 8 4.2 Farley ETS Lower Joint Development-Tube Undegraded in Joint Area 12 43 Farley Unit 2 ETS Lower Joint Development - 16 l Tube Undegraded in Joint but Degraded away from Joint 4.4 Degraded Tube Option for FLTS Lower Joint - Units I and 2 19 5.0 Stress Conosion Testing of Laser Welded Sleeve Joints 20 6.0 Installation Process Description 20 , 7.0 Nondestmetive Examination (NDE) Inspectability 20 7.1 Details of Pressure Boundary and Related Inspection Elevation Ranges 21 8.0 References 25 e
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 3.1 Umbmila Pressure Loads for Design, Faulted, and Test Conditions 26 3.2 Stess Summary of Maximum Primary Stress Intensity 27 Full Length Tubesheet Laser Welded Sleeve [ ]" 3.3 Stress Summary of Maximum Primary Stress Intensity 28 Full Length Tubesheet Laser Welded Sleeve [ ]" 3.4 Comparison of Transient Cycles 29 Generic Series 44 and 51 Steam Generators vs Farley Units 1 and 2 3.5 Maximum Range of Stress Intensity and Fatigue 30 3.6 Comparison of Minimum Wall Thickness Calculations for Sleeves 31 Generic Series 44 and 51 Steam Generators vs Farley Units 1 and 2 4.1 Verification Test Results - Mechanical Interference Fit 32,33 Lower Joint Full Length Tubesheet Sleeve - Alloy 690 Sleeve for 7/8 Inch Tube 4.2 Comparison of Laboratory Leak Resistance Test Configuration 34 with Plant Configuration for Normal Operation - FLTS (Farley Units 1 and 2) 4.3 Comparison of FLTS Laboratory OSL & Direct Pullout Test Configuration 35 with Plant Configuration for Normal Operation - FLTS (Farley Units 1 and 2) 4.4 Comparison of Laboratory Leakage Resistance Test Configuration with Plant 36-38 Configuration for Normal Operation - Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve (Farley Unit 1) 4.5 Verification Test Results - Mechanical Interference Fit Lower Joint, Elevated 39 Tubesheet Sleeve - Alloy 690 Sleeve for 7/8 Inch Tube 4.6 Comparison of Laboratory OSL & Direct Pullout Test Configumtion with Plant 40 Configuration for Nonnal Operation - Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve (Farley Unit 1) 4.7 Summary of Primary-to-Secondary Side Leak Tests at Normal Operation for 40 Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve (Farley Unit 2) iii
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd) Table Title Page 4.8 ~ ' As-Installed ETS MF Joint Sleeve-to-Tube Contact Pressums for Tube Undegmded 41 in Joint Area for '.sfey Unit 2 ; 4.9 Conclusion on Direct Pullout Qualification Test Results - Sleeve-to-Tube 42 for Farley Unit 2 9 I t 4 AV
_ . . . - _ . . . _ . . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - . . _ _ . ..m _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ , . . _ _ _ _ LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 3.1 Finite Element Model of Channel Head /Tubesheet/ Stub Barrel 43 of Sedes 51 Steam Generator 3.2 Contact Pressures for Nonnal Conditions with an Intact Tube 44 33 Contact Pressures for Nonnal Conditions with a Separated Tube 45 l 3.4 Contact Pressures for Nonnal Conditions with an Intact 46 or Separated Tube 4.1 Undegraded Tube Leak Test Configuration 47 4.2 Sleeve / Tube & Tube / Sleeve Contact Pressure Test Configuration 47 i 7.1 Application of Plugging Limits - Farley Units 1 and 2 FLTS 48 ) 7.2 Application of Plugging Limits - Farley Unit 1 ETS 49 73 Application of Plugging Limits - Farley Unit 2 ETS 50 V
l , NOMENCLATURE ACRONYM TITLE ) AILL Accident-Induced Leakage Limit ARC Altemative Repair Criteria ASE Above Sleeve End ATE Above Tube End - CP Contact Pressure dpm Drops per Minute EAL Effective Axial Length ECT Eddy Cunent Test ETS Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve FLB Feed Line Break FLTS Full Length Tubesheet Sleeve FNP Farley Nuclear Plant ID Inside Dianeter ISI In Service Inspection ! LWS Laser Welded Sleeve MIF Mechanical Interference Fit NDD Non Detectible Degradation NDE Non Destmetive Examination N.OP Nonnal Operation OD Outside Diameter OSL Onset of Significant Leakage PB Pressure Boundary RT Room Temperature i SG Steam Generator SLB Stean Line Break TSS . Tube Support plate Sleeve O e Vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the applicability of the generic laser welded sleeving l analysis for Series 44 and 51 steam generators, documented in Reference 8.1, to the Joseph M. I Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP) Units 1 and 2 steam generators. In performing the generic analysis, ' transient loads are used that umbrella Series 44 and 51 steam generators. neluded in the generic analysis are calculations to determine minimum wall thickness requirements for the sleeves. These calculations are a function of plant operating parameters, which vary from plant to plant, and which can change with the implementation of operating or system modifications. The purpose of this evaluation then, is to compare the current set of transient and operating parameters for Farley Units 1 and 2 to those used in the umbrella analysis, with the intent of confirming that the generic analysis provides a bounding analysis for Farley Units 1 and 2, and also to remove any conservatism in the generic analysis, if possible. In establishing the structural adequacy of the laser welded sleeves in the generic analysis, criteria were evaluated for primary stress limits, maximum range of stress intensity and fatigue, and minimum wall thickness requirements. The load conditions applicable to each of these areas are reviewed in this analysis to establish the applicability of the generic analysis. 1 Additionally, new mechanical interference fit (MIF) sleeve-to-tube and tube-to-tubesheet joints, !
~ not found in Ref. 8.1, were qualified for FNP and are documented in this report. In general, the discussions to follow provide only a brief overview of each area. More in-depth discussions are contained in Reference 8.1 for the generic analysis.
i 2.0 SLEEVE DESIGN AND DESCRIPTION I The [ l
]"' (However, it !
is intended to use the new FNP-specific MIF lower joints for tubesheet sleeves.) 3.0 ANALYTICAL VERIFICATION This section summarizes the structural analysis of the laser welded full length tubesheet sleeve > (FLTS), the elevated tubesheet sleeve (ETS), and the tube support plate sleeve (TSS) for use in 4 the Farley Series 51 steam generators. The Farley structural analysis is Wd primarily on the generic analysis of these sleeves for Series 44 and 51 steam genercurs, Reference 8.1, which included finite element model development, a heat transfer and thermal stress evaluation, a primary stress intensity evaluation, a primary plus secondary stress range evaluation, and a fatigue evaluation for mechanical and thermal conditions. Calculations are also performed to establish minimum wall thickness requirements for the Farley sleeves and to estimate the change in sleeve / tube /tubesheet contact pressures at the lower mechanical joints of the Farley elevated tubesheet sleeves. l l 3.1 Applicable Loading Conditions The first set ofloading condition parameters, listed below, was used in the generic stress analysis , of the laser welded sleeves, Reference 8.1, which was based on the generic loads in Reference ! 8.2 that umbrella o.r bound the Farley loads specified in Reference 83. In the generic stress analysis of Reference 8.1, the specified normal, upset, and faulted transients, given in References - 8.2 and 83, generally initiate relative to either the normal full power operating or the zero load conditions. The calculated sleeve / tube contact pressures, reported in Reference 8.1, are also based on the generic parameters listed below, which are specified in Reference 8.2. Annlicable Normal Oneratine Parameters 1 Parameter Generic Limiting Refs 3.1. 8.2 Farlev 2tCA f i NSSS Power ! RCS Vessel Tm l 1 Vessel Tm/Tw ; Reactor Coolant Pressure Steam Pressure Pressure Drop Steam Temperature l Zero Load Temperature _ He second set of parameters, labeled above as " Limiting Farley," are for upgraded V5 fuel, thimble plug removal, intermediate flow mixing, uprated NSSS power level, reduced thermal design flow of 86000 gpm per loop,20% steam generator plugging and a RCS vessel average temperature of 567.2*F. These Farley plant specific parameters are considered " limiting" since the normal operating full power primary to secondary pressure drop load is 1575 psi, compared to 1530 psi for the generic case. The generic analyses of Reference 8.1, which are based on the first set of parameters, are extended herein to include the " Limiting Farley" set of parameters. l However, it should be noted that the maximum design, faulted, and test condition loads, specified in Reference 8.2 and used in the generic analysis of Reference 8.1, remain essentially unchanged and apply directly to Farley. Also, some of the larger generic loads specified in Reference 8.2 i for test conditions apply only to Series 44 steam generators. Herefore, the structural analysis in l Reference 8.1, that considers these limiting test loads, are conservative for the Series 51 steam generators used in Parley. I 2-
3.2- Primary Stress Limits A summary of the limiting pressure loads used in the generic analysis for evaluating the sleeve primary stresses are provided in Table 3.1. In comparing the plant specific loads of Reference 8.3 to the generic loads of Reference 8.2, the generic loads are found to either equal or exceed (umbrella) the Farley plant specific values. Summaries of the maximum stress to allowable ratios (minimum margins) due to the pressure loads in Table 3.1, taken from the generic analysis of Reference 8. , are presented in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. In performing the generic analysis, two conditions are evaluated relative to the tube integrity between the upper and lower welds for the tubesheet sleeve. [
]"
Note that for primary stress, the limiting condition for the sleeve occurs with the [
]" From Tables 3.2 and 3.3, the largest values of the ratio of calculated stress intensity to allowable stress intensity (i.e., the overall minimum margins) are [ ]" for design conditions, [
]" for faulted conditions (feedline break), and [ ]" for test (primary side hydrostatic) conditions. Since none of these limiting conditions is affected by the differences in operating parameters listed in Section 3.1, the results in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 also apply to Farley without modification. These analysis results show that the primary stress intensities for the laser welded sleeved tube assembly satisfy all of the allowable ASME Code primary stress limits, Reference 8.4, at all analysis sections for all loads and conditions.
3.3 Maximum Range of Stress and Fatigue In evaluating the maximum range of stress and fatigue, the number of transients, as well as the temperature and pressure fluctuations are significant. A comparison of the transient cycles considered in the generic analysis to the applicable transients for Farley is provided in Table 3.4. This comparison shows that the generic analysis considers more transients, and in some cases, more load cycles per transient, than are applicable to Farley. Therefore, the generic transients umbrella the Farley transients. As stated in Section 3.1, the temperature and pressure fluctuations, for the transients in both the generic and Farley design specifications, are defined in terms of changes in applicable parameters from an initial starting point, typically normal full power operation or hot standby at zero power. Comparison of the pressure fluctuations shows the generic analysis and Farley values to be comparable. However, those transients that initiate relative to full power conditions, will experience somewhat higher pressure drop loadings since the Farley full power pressure drop is 1
l 1575 psi, compared to 1530 psi for the generic analysis. Conservatively assuming that all of the stress amplitudes at the worst section (which is the upper weld joint assumed to be at the 0.015 inch minimum thickness) are increased by the factor 1575/1530 or 1.03, and also conservatively assuming the more numerous number of transients and loading cycles used in the generic analysis, then the maximum calculated fatigue usage in the upper laser vield joint increases from the generic value of 0.0896 (Reference 8.1) to only 0.103 for Farley, which remains well below the allowable cumulative usage factor of one. A summary of the limiting stress ranges is shown in Table 3.5, along with the accumulated fatigue usage for the limiting cross section. The analysis results show the ASME Code limits for the maximum primary plus secondary stress intensity range and cumulative fatigue are satisfied at all analysis sections for all of the specified normal, upset, and test loads listed in Table 3.4. I 1 3.4 Minimum Wall Thickness Requirements 1 i For computing the minimum required wall thickness based on structural limits, te, the pressure stress equation NB-3324.1 of the ASME Code, Reference 8.4, is used: APsx R,
= !
t"". : P, -0.5 (Pp P,) ' where: Pi = Primary side pressure P, = Secondary side pressure AP, = Primary-to-secondary pressure differential R, = Sleeve inside radius [ ]" P. = Allowable stress. A comparison of the calculations to determine the minimum required thickness for the generic ! case, Reference 8.1, and for Farley is provided in Table 3.b. These results show the plugging ; limit for Farley to be 24% (of the 0.037 inch nominal minimum wall thickness), which is slightly i lower than the 25% plugging limit for the generic analysis. The slightly smaller margin is due to the larger normal operating AP3 for Farley given in Section 3.1. 3.5 Structural Evaluation Conclusions Based on the results of the above evaluation, the generic analysis of Reference 8.1 generally bounds the analysis for the Farley Series 51 steam generators for all conditions and where the generic analysis does not bound, specific analysis is satisfactory. Based on the combined results , of this analysis and the generic evaluation, the following conclusions are made regarding the structural requirements for laser welded sleeves for the Farley steam generators:
J . 1. The laser welded sleeves satisfy all applicable ASME Code structural requirements. i 1 j 2. The allowable plugging limit for sleeve degradation is 24%. 1 3.6 Effect of Tubesheet Rotations on ETS Contact Pressures : l The elevated tubesheet sleeves are installed in the upper half of the tubesheet, where tubesheet . l'j bow due to the primary to secondary pressure differential during normal operation tends to ! increase the diameter of the holes drilled in the tubesheet. This diameter increase due to j tubesheet bowing tends to decrease the initial contact pressures between the sleeve / tube and j tube /tubesheet. However, these contact pressures are also influenced by system pressures and ! differential thermal expansions among the sleeve, tube, and tubesheet. This section determines j the combined effect of tubesheet rotations, system pressures, and differential thermal expansions on the initial sleeve / tube and tube /tubesheet contact pressures. l As stated above, loads are imposed on the sleeve as a result of tubesheet rotations under pressure j and temperature conditions. In order to estimate these loads, a 2-D axisymmetric finite element
- analysis of the Farley Series 51 tubesheet, channel head, and lower shell has been performed j using the rnodel shown in Figure 3.1. This analysis yielded displacements throughout the l tubesheet for two pressure and three thermal unit loads. The two unit pressure loads are applied ,
l individually to the primary and secondary faces of the model. The three unit temperature l l loadings consist of applying a uniform thermal expansion to each of the three component - members, one at a time, while the other two remain at ambient conditions. { l Previous calculations performed with a 3-D finite element model of this region for a Model D-4 { steam generator showed that the displacements at the center of the tubesheet when the divider !- - plate is included are [ ]'" of the displacements without the effect of the divider plate, . Reference 8.5. Although the reduction in the displacement components throughout the tubesheet is a more complex function of the reduction in the vertical displacements at the center due to the 4 divider plate, applying the same [ ]'" factor to all of the dis,siacement components is a [ reasonable approximation since all displacement components will decrease when the maximum displacement decreases. This is also supported by an independent 3-D analysis of the Model E tubesheet, channel head, stub barrel complex. The radial displacements produced by the thermal , unit loads are unaffected by the divider plate. l 4
- The radial deflection at any point within the tubesheet is found by scaling and combining the unit load radial deflections at that location according to:
I* e i , 5-4 w -d+ - '~ " 1- 7W_ - 5-7-.-- up -+r-+my ; - 7
i UR = (0.76)(U R ) Prim (Primary Pressure /1000)
+ (0.76)(U R )Sec(Secondary Pressure /1000)
+ (U R}Tubesheet[(Tubesheet Temperature - 70y500]
+ (U R)Shell[(Shell Temperature - 70y500]
+ (U R
) Channel Head [(Channel Head Temperature - 70y500] I This expression is used to determine the radial deflections along a line of nodes at a constant axial elevation (e.g. top of the tubesheet) within the perforated area of the tubesheet.
-1 The expansion of a hole of diameter D in the tubesheet at a radius R is given by:
l Radial: AD = D {dUR(RydR} l Circumferential: AD = D (UR(RyR) URis available directly from the finite element results. dU R /dR may be obtained by numerical
]
differentiation. The maximum expansion of a hole in the tubesheet is in either the radial or circumferential
- direction. Typically, these two values are within 5% of each other. Since the analysis for
calculating contact pressures is based on the assumption of axisymmetric deformations with respect to the centerline of the hole, a representative value for the hole expansion must be used that is consistent with the assumption of axisymmetric behavior. A study was performed to determine the effect of hole out-of-roundness on the contact pressures between the sleeve and r tube, and between the tube and tubesheet. The equation used for the hole AD is- 1 i AD = (SF)(ADmax) + (1 - SF)(Admin) where SF is a scale factor between zero and one. For the eccentricities typically encountered during tubesheet rotations, SF is usually between [ ]". This hole expansion, given above by AD, includes the effects of tubesheet rotations and deformations caused by the system pressures and temperatures. It does not include local effects produced by interactions between the sleeve, tube, and tubesheet hole. Thick shell equations, from Reference 8.6 in combination with the AD hole expansions from above, are used to calculate the contact pressures between the sleeve and tube, and between the tube and tubesheet. For a given set of primary and secondary side pressures and temperatures, the above equations are solved for selected elevations in the tubesheet to obtain the contact pressures as a function of radius between the sleese and tube and the tube and tubesheet. The elevations selected were the neutral axis of the tubesheet and three elevations spanning the section from the bottom of the ETS to two inches from the top surface of the tubesheet. l
Normal Oneration From Section 3.1, the limiting temperatures and pressures for Farley normal (uprated) operating conditions are: Primary Pressure = 2235 psig Secondary Pressure = 660 psig Primary Fluid Temperature (T w) = 603.8 *F Secondary Fluid Temperature = 499.1 F For this set of primary and secondary side pressures and temperatures, the contact pressures between the sleeve and tube and the tube and tubesheet are obtained as functions of radius for selected elevations in the tubesheet for both intact tubes and tubes separated above the tubesheet. Faulted Condition The temperatures and pressures for the Farley limiting faulted condition are: Primary Pressure = 2650 psig Secondary Pressure = 0 psig Primary Fluid Temperature (Thot) = 603.8 *F Secondary Fluid Temperature = 499.1 F For this set of primary and secondary side pressures and temperatures, the contact pressures between the sleeve and tube (Str) and the tube and tubesheet (T/TS) are obtained as functions of radius for selected elevations in the tubesheet for both intact tubes and tubes separated above the tubesheet. Summary of Results The contact pressures between the sleeve and tube, and between the tube and tubesheet are plotted versus l radius in Figures 3.2 thmugh 3.4. Results fmm these figures are summarind below: i i Figure Condition Tube Status Minimum Sleeve / rube Contact Pressure (psi) .
._ mc.t 3.2 #'
3.3 3.4 3.4 These contact pressures are for the elevation approximately 3.0 inches below the top (secondary face) of the tubesheet (Y = 18.03 inches), which corresponds to the top of the hard roll of the ETS. They are conservative for any lower elevation in the tubesheet. These
i contact pressures are in addition to the interference preload pressures between the sleeve and tube ' and tube and tubesheet produced during installation of the sleeves. In all Sfr cases, the net effect of the tubesheet rotations, thermal expansions, and pressures is an increase in the contact pressure between the sleeve and tube, thereby enhancing joint pullout and leakage resistance. 4.0 MECHANICAL TESTS The mechanical tests (
]". A portion of the mechanical tests in Section 4.0 of Reference 8.1 determined the l
resistance to primary-to-secondary leakage for tubesheet sleeve non-welded lower joints and the applicable leakage criteria. 4.1 Summary of Farley FLTS Lower Joint Development This section summarizes the qualification of the Farley-specific lower joint for full length tubesheet sleeves (FLTSs) for Units I and 2. ; 4.1.1 Joint Design and Development 1 Development of the lower joint for this FLTS is based on selection of the " roll first" sleeve installation sequence. In this sequence, the sleeve-to-tube weld is performed after the lower joint ! roll expansion. In the two-roll-pass, a.k.a. two-pass, process selected for this design, the lower ' elevation pass is performed first, followed by the upper pass. ('Ihe " roll-last" sequence may also be evaluated for use.) + i The qualification involved three types of tests for the lower joint:
- 1) primary-to-secondary side leak resistance testing
- 2) secondary-to-primary side " onset of significant leakage" testing (OSL), and
- 3) sleeve pullout testing.
The purpose of the primary-to-secondary leak resistance testing is to determine, for potential ; perforations in the section of the tube (in any sleeved tube) spanned by the sleeve, the leakage for { normal operation, for feedline break /steamline break (FLB/SLB) and for a higher pressure which approximates the SG initial primary side hydrostatic pressure test. [ ' i
]"' i The pullout resistance as determined by OSL testing can be compared with the direct pullout l testing. Sleeve pullout testing is a direct determination of the resistance to pullout of the sleeve
. joint. The resistance to pullout determined in the laboratory is conservative compared to the , resistance expected to be realized in the plant. t
.g.
t
For the sake of design standardization, it is desirable that the lower joints of the FLTSs for Farley Units 1 and 2 be of the same axial length. On this premise, the effective axial length of the joints was determined by the roll expanded axial portion of tube available in the vicinity of the tubemouth of Unit 1; Unit 2 is full-depth roll expanded and has no such limit in the vicinity of the tubemouth. 4.1.2 Primary Side Testing of FLTS 4.1.2.1 Rolled Joint Geometry and Torque In this task, the appropriate values _ of the two-pass sleeve-to-tube joint, MIF roll expansion parameters were qualified. This involved the roll expansion effective axial length, number of roll , steps (two), the effective length (s) of the individual roll step (s), effective length of individual rolls [ (" pins") of the roll expander, number of pins in the tool, roll expander model number and rolling ! motor approximate RPM. The required resistance to pullout of the LWS two-pass lower joint is the "endcap" load exerted by three times the primary-to-secondary side pressure differential at normal operation times the expanded tube maximum "inside" area. This is referred to as the "three delta P" or 3AP force. A roll expansion torque of ( ; f
}sts 4.1.2.2 Primary-to-Secondary Side Leakage Testing and Results Ten primary-to-secondary side qualification, conforming-condition, leak tests were performed using a total of nine test samples. (Because the primary side leakage testing tends to be non-destructive of the samples, one of the test samples was tested, then rerolled at a higher torque, and leak tested a second time.) All samples exhibited small amounts of leakage. As discussed above, five nonconforming condition samples were made and leak tested. The results were included in the averages of the conforming test results to show the relative insensitivity of the leakage resistance to values of the joint variables slightly outside of the selected range.
Leak test results at the normal operation (N.Op.) condition should be compared with the leak rate criteria value of [
) e, h
e 4
Because FNP has alternate repair criteria (ARC) for tube degradation at the support plates, the i combination of ARC-permissible leakage and potential leakage from sleeve nonwelded joints in a given steam generator at the SLB/FLB condition are considered. The current total allowable i primary-to-secondary accident-induced leakage limit (AILL) is 11.4 gpm, to ensure that the j 10CFR100 and GDC 19 radiation limits are met. (This current leakage limit may be revised in the future without revising this WCAP.) Based on the test results of the MIFjoint, the average leakage under SLB/FLB conditions was determined to be [ 1 1
]"" This is a negligible fraction of the AILL 11.4 gpm faulted condition permissible flow. Therefore, essentially all of the 11.4 gpm can be allocated to the support plate ARC.
In the plant, the most stringent location in the tubesheet, i.e., at the bundle periphery, where the tubesheet upward bending causes [ l I
]"#
4.1.3 Onset of Significant Leakage (Contact Pressure) Testing and Results Secondary side pressure, a.k.a. [
]"'
10
[ l
]"# The pullout resistance as determined by the OSL testing can be compared with that of the direct pullout tests. The cps measured in the OSL tests provide an average i
pullout resistance of approximately [ !. ]"# 4.1.4 Pullout Testing and Results
~
Pullout test results should be compared with the criteria of the larger of three times the maximum endcap load during normal operation, (3AP) or 1.43 times the endcap load during FLB/SLB. The larger of these two loads is usually the N.Op. case and for this summary, this load will be used j , for comparison with the test results. For Farley, the maximum N.Op. pressure differential for the
' limiting ("uprate") condition is [
]"#
Two pullout test samples were fabricated at the selected process, i.e., torque values of [ 1 3us
- The testing was performed on sleeve / tube /tubesheet unit cells (collars) at ambient pressure and i room temperature. [
u 4
]"# Refer to Table 4.3.
4.1.5 Conclusion i A torque of [ 4
]"'
The test results show that this joint meets all design criteria. It is to be installed with the
- appropriate-length-cage roll expander of the same model number, pin length, lubrication conditions and approximate rpm, used in the qualification.
4
1 4.2 Farley Unit 1 ETS Lcwtr J: int Dayzlepment - Tubs Und:gred:d in Jcint Rsil l Area and Below Elevation of Joint This section summarizes the qualification of the lowerjoint for sleeves elevated in the tubesheet l (ETSs) for Farley Unit 1. The bottom of the ETS is nominally [ l ,
]"'
4.2.1 Joint Design and Development . Development of the lower joint for this ETS is based on selection of the [ l
]"#
The qualification involved three types of tests for the lower joint:
- 1) Primary-to-secondary side leakage resistance testing of the sleeve-to-tube (S/F) interface ,
- 2) Secondary-to-primary side " onset of significant leakage" (OSL) testing of the S/T l interface '
- 3) Sleeve pullout testing The purpose of the primary-to-secondary leak resistance testing is to determine, for potential perforations in the section of the tube (in all of the sleeved tubes) spanned by the sleeve, the ,
leakage for normal operation, for feedline break /steamline break (FLB/SLB) and for a higher ! pressure which approximates the SG initial primary side hydrostatic pressure test. The secondary-to-primay OSL test is performed to determine the sleeve-to-tube interference fit radial contact pressure (CP) and is the same test as used for the FLTS configuration to determine pullout resistance. The pullout resistance as determined by OSL testing can be compared with the direct pullout testiag. Sleeve pullout testing is a direct determination of the resistance to pullout of the sleeve. The resistance to pullout determined in the laboratory direct pullout testing is conservative compared to the resistance calculated for the plant. As stated earlier,it would have been desirable for standardization to make the lowerjoints of the undegraded-tube ETS of the same axial length as the FLTSs. However, it was judged that, everything else being equal, the elevated, undegraded-tube joints would require slightly more length for approximately the same strength and leakage resistance than the tubemouth joints because of the detrimental effect caused by tubesheet upward bending onjoints located above the tubesheet neutral bending axis. Therefore, the axial effective length of the ETS was increased by approximately 0.22 inch over the axial length of the FLTS, which is backed up by the tubesheet. 4.2.2 Primery Side Testing cf ETS 4.2.2.1 Rolled Joint Geometry and Torque In this program, the appropriate values of the two-pass sleeve-to-tube joint, MIF roll expansion parameters were qualificM. This involved the roll expansion effective axiallength, number of roll steps (two), the effective le igth(s) of the individual roll step (s), effective length of individual rolls (" pins") of the roll expander, and number of pins in the tool. The required resistance to pullout of the LWS two-pass lower joint is the "endcap" load exerted by three times the primary-to-secondary side pressure differential at normal operation times the expanded tube maximum "inside" area. This is referred to as the "three delta P" (3AP) force. A roll expansion torque of [ 3us 4.2.2.2 Primary-to-Secondary Side Leakage Testing and Results Twenty-three primary-to-secondary side qualification, conforming-condition, leak tests were performed using a total of 19 test samples. Refer to Table 4.4. (Because the primary side testing tends to be non-destructive of the samples, four of the test samples was leak tested, then rerolled at a higher torque, and leak tested a second time.) All samples exhibited small amounts of leakage. Leak test results at the normal operation (N.Op.) condition should be compared with the leak rate criteria value of ( 3ua Because FNP has alternate repair criteria (ARC) for tube degradation at the support plates, the combination of ARC-permissible leakage and potential leakage from sleeve nonwelded joints in a given steam generator at the SLB/FLB condition are considered. The current total allowable primary-to-secondary accident-induced leakage limit (AILL) is 11.4 gpm. (An accident- induced primary-to-secondary leakage limit is determined to ensure that the 10CFR100 and GDC 19 radiation limits are met. For Farley, the current leakage limit is 11.4 gpm; however, that value 1 i
- may be revised in the future without revising this WCAP.) Based on the test results of this MIF joint, the average leakage under [
*l
- ]"" This is a negligible fraction i of the AILL faulted condition permissible flow. Therefore, essentially all of the AILL can be ,
3 allocated to the support plate ARC. In the plant the largest reduction in contact pressure between the sleeve and tube in the ETS lower joint occurs at a radius of approximately [ l L i 1 l 1 j I i SSA Reference to Table 4.5 shows that the test joint was approximately [ !
]"" The leakage criteria were established based on the conservative assumption of all the sleeved tubes being perforated in the sleeve-spanned portion of the tube.
4.2.3 Onset of Significant Leakage (Contact Pressure) Testing and Results Secondary side, a.k.a. OSL, pressure testing, or contact pressure testing, does not prototype any operating condition, but is performed to determine, conservatively, the interfacial radial contact pressure between the rolled sleeve and the tube. These contact pressures are then used to calculate sleeve rolled joint pullout resistance. The average of all cps recorded in the test was [ ]"# Multiplying this sleeve-to-tube pressure times the contact area, times an appropriate coefficient of friction previously determined for these material couples provides a conservative value for the pullout resistance. Refer to Table 4.6. The pullout resistance as determined by the OSL testing can be compared with that of the direct pullout tests. ( 3ua 4.2.4 Pullout Testing and Results Direct pullout test results should be compared with the same criteria as listed for the FLTS joint. The testing was performed on sleeve / tube /tubesheet unit cells (collars) at ambient pressure and room temperature. Table 4.6 shows that the test is conservative, owing to the [ I
}""
4.2.5 Conclusion The test results show that the ( Jus l 1 l
l l l I 4.3 Farley Unit 2 ETS Lower Joint Development - Tube Undegraded in Joint but ' Degraded away from Joint This section summarizes the qualification of the lower joint for elevated tubesheet sleeves (ETSs) installed in tubes which are undegraded in the joint (roll expansion) area in Farley ' Unit 2. However, it addresses the case of the tube being completely degraded above and below the elevation of the joint roll expansion. Therefore,if the tube was degraded in these l areas prior to installation of an ETS or if it became degraded after installation, no further actions are necessary. In fact, it need not be inspected in these portions. The pressure boundary below the joint roll elevation changes to the tubesheet hole surface. Both joint requirements of adequate leakage and pullout resistance strictly within the axial length of the roll expansion of the joint were met. Prototypical materials, sample designs and installation processes were used. 4.3.1 Joint Design and Development Development of this joint was similar to the Unit 1 MIF joint; it is based on the [ ! l 3us The qualification involved five types of tests:
- 1. Sleeve-to-tube primary-to-secondary side leakage testing
- 2. Tube-to-tubesheet primary-to-secondary side leakage testing
- 3. Sleeve-to-tube secondary-to-primary side " onset of significant leakage" (OSL) testing i
- 4. Tube-to-tubesheet secondary-to-primary side " onset of significant leakage" (OSL) testing
- 5. Sleeve pullout testing The objective of test types 1 and 2 was to establish the sleeve baseline rolling torque and the range of the torque needed to obtain a satisfactory MIF joint. The test criteria involved [
+
1 l 1 The objective of test types 3 and 4 was to determine the CP betweer. sleeve and tube and between the tube and tubesheet within the roll expansion of the MIF joint for Un it 2. All of the types of test methods and related analytical evaluations used for the Unit 1 test were used in this test. [
]'" The leakage resistance in the laboratory, at the S/r and T/TS interfaces was appropriately related to the plant.
Test type 5 involved sleeve pullout testing. The configuration used was the same as used in the first four types of tests and in the Unit I test. l 4.3.2 Primary Side Testing of S/T and T/TS Interfaces of ETS 4.3.2.1 Rolled Joint Geometry and Torque In this part of the program, the appropriate values of the MIF roll expansion parameters were identified in a process development test and then qualified in the Qualification Test. (The values of the hydraulic expansion parameters were the same as developed for the Unit 1 process; hydraulic expansion is essentially insensitive to the type of tube expansion process used in the factory and to MIF joint performance.) This involved the roll expansion effective axial length, number of roll steps (two), the effective length (s) of the individual roll step 5(s), effective length of individual rolls (" pins") of the roll expander, number of pins in the tool, roll expander stalling torque and roller approximate RPM. ; A roll expansion torque of [ l I 1 l nu 4.3.2.2 Primary to Secondary Side Leakage Testing and Results Test Tvoe 1 Six test samples were fabricated for Test Type 1. These included three torque values and two simulated tubesheet hole diameters. The primary side of the joint was pressurized and leakage was measured from the Sfr interface. Leakane Test Emh. At the N.Op., i.e.,1900 psi " criteria" pressure condition, the laboratory [
).u r
[ l l Jaes . Test Types 1 and 2 Results of Tests 1,nicace Four samples involving both the S/T and T/TS interfaces were tested. Refer to Table 4.7. The primary side of the joint was pressurized and leakage was measured [ j Jaea At higher differential pressures, the flow from both leak paths trended downward. Sleeve-to-tube interface leak rates, unadjusted, averaged [
-i 3 ass l l
Test tvoes 3 and 4 Contact Pressure Results Contact Pressure test results are shown in Table 4.8. As-installed, i.e., in both the plant and , laboratory, sleeve-to-tube interface contact pressures ranged between ( , l jau '
l Test type 5 Sleeve Direct Pullout Testing Results Two pullout tests were performed. Refer to Table 4.9. In the first test, a sleeve pullout test sample was fabricated with undegraded sleeve-to-tube interfaces at a torque of ( 3u, In the second test, a sleeve pullout test sample was fabricated with undegraded sleeve-to-tube interfaces at a torque of [ 3u, 4.3.2.3 Conclusion The test results show that the [ 3u, 4.4 Degraded Tube Option for FLTS Lower Joint - Units 1 and 2 In the case where the tube is undegraded within the effective length of the lower, or first, pass of the roll expansion of the [
}u, ,
The postulated condition involving tube degradation within the axial length of the second pass may also be evaluated against MIFjoint qualification results which are documented in Ref. 8.1. ' t
These data, shown in Tables 4-4 and 4-5 of Ref. 8.1, show that [ l Jaes 5.0 STRESS CORROSION TESTING OF LASER WELDED SLEEVE JOINTS The conclusions reached in Reference 8.1 for performance of laser welded joints apply directly to Farley Units 1 and 2. 6.0 INSTALLATION PROCESS DESCRIPTION The outline of the installation processes in Reference 8.1 apply directly to Farley Units 1 and 2. The discussion in Reference 8.1 was intended to provide an overview; the detailed installation process verification steps are all specified in the individual applicable field service procedures that will be provided by Westinghouse as part of the job. 7.0 NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION (NDE) INSPECTABILITY The NDE section of Reference 8.1 specifies the installation NDE plan logic and defines the principles of the NDE processes to be used. It applies directly to Parley Units 1 and 2. - 7.1 Details of Pressure Boundary and Related Inspection Elevation Ranges
Background:
The objective of sleeving is to span the degraded portion of a tube with a sleeve. (Nate: The definition of tube " degradation" for FNP is any flaw which is detectible by NDE; any flaws , which are not detectible are therefore "non detectible degradation" (NDD}.) The sleeve is - l attached or joined to the tube ID by means of a joint. The definition of the pressure boundary (PB) in the vicinity of sleeve joints will be discussed in terms of decreasing elevation, from the upper joint of a tubesheet sleeve, " changing over" from the tube as the PB, to the sleeve as the ) PB, in the weld joint. The axial location in the joint at which the tube ceases to be the PB and I where the sleeve begins being the PB is important because it determines the elevation of the l extreme extent of degradation relative to an important part of the joint during sleeving and during subsequent in-service inspections (ISIS). The extreme extent of degradation is similarly determined at the MIF joint roll expansion, where the sleeve continues to be the PB and the tube resumes being the PB. At this location, both the sleeve and tube comprise the PB. Full 12ngth Tubesheet Sleeve - Units ! and 2 1 In terms of decressing elevation, from above the weld of the upper joint, the tube ceases to be ! the PB [ l l l l Jaxe Corresponding values for FLTSs of other lengths can be determined by referencing the sleeve I nominal length to the nominal length of the 30 inch sleeve. If any of the input information to this calculation changes, a new calculation will be required and will be provided at the appropriate point in the LWS outage preparation phase. Continuing toward the tubesheet bottom, the [ 3ua 1 b I : e i 1 i i
]"' With the addition of an appropriate ECT uncertainty in elevation to this, i.e., the separation distance, the lowest '
elevation of tube degradation is determined. If the degradation elevations are reckoned relative ! to the slacyc end during ISIS, an appropriate distance should be added to the elevation to make l it comparabic to the ATE elevations. ' Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve - Unit 1 , The separation distance and PB " changeover" from the tube to the sleeve at the [ )
]"" (Note: The fact that the bottom of the separation distance l coincides, approximately, with the bottom of the weld joint hydraulic expansion is inconsequential.) All of the sleeve, tube and tubesheet component and installation axial dimensions, including the sleeve roll installation tolerances, are used to determine the bounding ;
weld elevation. Based on the most recent evaluation, the bounding weld, [
]
)
i I
. 1 us ,
l
)
I 1 The elevation range of ECT with advanced probes, for example where only part of the tube extent within the tubesheet is inspected, will be sufficient to ensure that the elevation range of tube which is intended to be NDD is inspected. For instance, inspection of the tube within the tubesheet above and within the MIFjoint, based on the above calculations requires that the probe record data to an appropriate distance below the tubesheet top. A probe travel margin should be added to this. Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve - Unit 2 The separation distance and PB " changeover" from the tube to the sleeve at the Unit 2 ETS weld joint are the same as at the FLTS and Unit I weld joints. Refer to Fig. 7.3. The weld and degradation elevations for the respective ETS lengths for Unit 2 are the same as for the respective elevations for Unit 1. Continuing toward the tubesheet bottom, the [ sleeve (for both 12 and 20 1 inch lengths) is the PB to the vicinity of the sleeve bottom end, including the MIFjoint roll, and l must meet inspection requirements over that length during ISIS. However,in the case of Unit l 2, prior to sleeving and during ISIS, the tube must be NDD only within the separation distance of the MIF joint roll top, within the MIF joint roll and within the separation distance below the i MIFjoint roll bottom. Within the tubesheet, the separation distance consists solely of the NDE i uncertainty in elevation of degradation; there is no attenuation length within the tubesheet.]"' The greatest elevation of the MIF joint roll top is approximately [ 3aa The use of only the tube portion within the ( ju, (Note: If the degradation elevations are reckoned relative to the sleeve end during ISIS, an appropriate distance should be added to the elevation to make it comparable to the ATE clevations. Therefore the degradation lowermost extent in the vicinity of, and above, the MIF joint roll top is approximately [
]'"
The elevation range of ECT with advanced probes, for example where only part of the tube . extent within the tubesheet is inspected, will be sufficient to ensure that the elevation range of tube which is intended to be NDD is inspected. For instance, inspection of the tube within the tubesheet, above and within the MIF joint roll, based on the above calculations requires that the - probe record data to an appropriate distance below the tubesheet top. A probe travel margin should be added to this. Tube Supoort Sleeve - Units 1 and 2 The determination of the separation distance and PB " changeover" from the tube to the sleeve at the upper tube support plate sleeve (TSS) weld joint is the same as it is at the FLTS weld joint. Distances are reckoned relative to the sleeve bottom; the [ l l i
] Changing from the sleeve as the PB back to the tube, at the lower joint, is-basically the reverse of the changeover at the upper joint of the TSS.
Changes in Input Information If any of the input information to these calculations changes, a new calculation will be required and will be provided during the appropriate point in the LWS outage preparation phase. 4
. . . _ . . ~
8.0 REFERENCES
8.1 WCAP-13088, Revision 4, " Westinghouse Series 44 and 51 Steam Generator Generic Sleeving Report - Laser Welded Sleeves," January,1997. (Proprietary) 8.2 Design Specification 412A19, " Plants with Series 44 and 51 Steam Generators, Steam
- Generator Heat Transfer Tube Sleeving," ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Code Case 1 Safety Class 1,1) 12/17/92. (Proprietary) 8.3 Design Specification 677439, Revision 6, " Alabama Power and Light Company Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit Numbers 1 and 2, 51 Series Steam Generator,"
February 2,1981. (Proprietary) 8.4 "ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, " Rules For Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components," The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 8.5 WNET-142, Volume 8 "Model D4-2 Steam Generator Stress, Report Divider Plate Analysis," Westinghouse Tampa Division, September,1977. (Proprietary) 8.6 Timoshenko, S., Strength of Materials, Part II, Third Edition, Van Nostrand Company, Princeton, NJ,1956.
- .. .. - . ~ . .- -- - _ . - _ , .
l Table 3.1 Umbrella Pressure Loads for i Design, Faulted, and Test Conditions ' i Pressure Load, psig Classification Conditions Primary Secondary YN , Design Design Primary - " Design Secondary l j Faulted Reactor Coolant Pipe Break l l Feedline Break Steamline Break Loss of Secondary Pressure Test Primary Side Hydrostatic Pressure Test Secondary Side Hydrostatic Pressure Test Tube Leak Test - Primary Side Leak Test Secondary Side Leak Test l Subsequent Primary Side Pressure Test Subsequent Secondary Side Pressure Test Primary to Secondary Leak Test l Tebla 3.2 l Maximum Calculated Primary Stress Intensity to Allowable Ratios Full Length Tubesheet Laser Welded Sleeve, Reference 8.1, Results Also Apply to Elevated Tubesheet and Tube Support Plate Sleeves i Sleeve / Tube Minianum Weld Width of [ ]*** ! l ( )*,c Stress Intensities and Allowables are in ksi. I Design Conditions I Loca- P. Allow. Ra- Pt+P Allow. Ratio S3+Sa +S Alict. b a Ratio tion tio a.,cp Sleeve ' Tube Weld . Faulted Conditions - Feedline Pipe Break Loca- P. Allow. Ra- Pt+P Allow. Ratio S3+S2 +S Allow. Ratio b a tion tio
-Scp Sleeve Tube Weld ._
l Test Conditions - Primary Side Hydrostatic Pressure Test Loca- P, Allow. Ra- Pt+P b Allow. Ratio S3+S2 +S a Allow. Ratio tion tio W Sleeve i- -c Tube Weld l Tchts 3.3 Maximum Calculated Primary Stress Intensity to Allowable Ratios l Full Length Tubesheet Laser Welded Sleeve, Reference 8.1, Results Also Apply to Elevated Tubesheet and Tube Support Plate Sleeves j Sleeve / Tube Minimum Weld Width of [ ] * [ ] , Stress Intensities and Allowables are in ksi. Design Conditions Loca. P. Allow. Ratio Pt,+Pb Allow. Rati St+Sa +S Allow. Rado a tion Sleeve
- 4. (
Tube Weld .. Faulted Conditions - Feedline Pipe Break Location P, Allow. Ratio P1,+P3 Allow. Rati St+S2 +S a Allow. Ratio l O& Sleeve Tube Weld . Test Conditions - Primary Side Hydrostatic Pressure Test Location P, Allow. Ratio Pt+P b Allow. Rati S3+Sa +S a Allow. Ratio o 0 0
~ ~
Sleeve Tube Weld . l l l
l Table 3.4 Comparison of Transient Cycles Generic Series 44 and 51 Steam Generators versus Farley Units 1 and 2 NO. CYCLES EVENT CLASSIFICATION GENERIC FARLEY Plant Heatup/Cooldown Normal Plant Loading / Unloading Small Step Load Decrease Small Step Load Increase Large Step Load Decrease i i Hot Standby Operations Turbine Roll Test ! Steady State Fluctuations Loss of Load Upset Loss of Power Loss of Flow Reactor Trip from Full Power Reactor Trip with Cooldown Inadvertent RCS De-Pressurization ! l Operating Basis Earthquake (load cycles) l Reactor Coolant Pipe Break Faulted Feedline Break Steamline Break Loss of Secondary Pressure Primary Side Hydro Test Test Secondary Side Hydro Test Tube Leak Test Primary Side Leak Test Secondary Side Leak Test Subsequent Primary Side Pressure Test Subsequent Secondary Side Pressure Test Primary to Secondary Leak Test 4
mau-_+.m.s...- ,w-... h __. .a _m .w._,..LM 4 ---r .
.A_...+&E--ws-.-. 4 2. 6m. Aa.-w.aAa-M.a h -
Tabla 3.5 Maximum Range of Stress Intensity and Fatigue LOCATION COMPONENT STRESS ALLOWABLE C^LC ALLO
~
STRAIGHT Sleeve ' Lc$t SECTION UPPER LWJ Sleeve Tube Weld CUMULATIVE FATIGUE USAGE FACTOR ( 1" O Tchl: 3.6 Comparison of Minimum Wall Thickness Calculations for Sleeves Generic Series 44 and 51 Steam Generators versus Farley i CONDITION PARAMETER GENERIC, FARLEY Reference 1 NORMAL TRANSIENT af ,0 (1) (l[ Pi (PSIA) P,(PSIA) AP, (PSI) tum (IN) UPSET TRANSIENT i P, (PSIA) P (PSIA) 1 AP, (PSI) tum (IN)
- FAULTED TRANSIENT l
Pi (PSIA) P.(PSIA) AP, (PSI) STRUCTURAL MINIMUM t - (IN) STRUCTURAL MINIMUM -(%) ALLOWANCE FOR CONTINUED GROWTH AND EDDY CURRENT UNCERTAINTY - (%) , FINAL PLUGGING MARGIN -(%) 25 24 (1) NORMAL OPERATION , (2) LOSS OF LOAD - SERIES 44 (3) LOSS OF LOAD - FARLEY (SERIES 51) (4)FEEDLINE BREAK (5)STEAMLINE BREAK 1 TABLE 4.1 Page 1 of 2 Verific: tion Test Results - Mechanical Interference Fit Lower Joilt, Full Length hbesheet Sleeve Alloy 690 Sleeve for 7/8 inch Tube Sample Identification Collar Sleeve Roll Expansion Process Izakage Rate (DPM) OR Pullout Force * (Ib) as a function of AAt-Collar Tube Sleeve I.D. Torque 12ngth Sleeve Pressure Differential (psi) and P cr S _ hn-lb inch %AWT l-25 8-4 5-47 Nom-I. inal 1-25 8-4 5-47 Nom-
- 2. inal 1-20 1-3 5-41 Nom-
- 3. inal 1-24 8-1 7-40 Nom-
- 4. inal 1-26 1-16 5-53 Nom-
- 5. inal I-23 1-15 5-32 Nom-
- 6. inal 1-28 1-11 5-50 Nom-
- 7. inal 2-28 1-13 5-51 Maxi- l
- 8. mum _ l b OTES: 1. All testing was performed at room temperature OSL = Onset of Sigmficant Ixakage. AWT = Apparent Wall Thinning.
P = Primary to Secondary Pressurization. S = Secondary to Primary Pressurization *
- Pull Test" breakaway force (Ib)
TABLE 4.1 Page 2 of 2 Verification Test Results - Mechanical Interference Fit Lower Joint, Full length Tubesheet Sleeve Alloy 690 Sleeve for 7/8 Inch Tube Sample Identification Collar Sleeve Rolf Expansion Process Leakage Rate (DPM) OR Pullout Force' (Ib) as a function of Collar Tube Sleeve I.D. Torque Length Sleeve Pressure Differential (psi) and P or S 3' ' fin-lb inch %AWT 2-25 8-6 5-55 Maxi-
- 9. _ mum 2-22 I-7 5-46 Maxi-
- 10. mum 2-24 8-7 5-54 Maxi-
- 11. mum 2-23 1-14 7-39 Maxi-
- 12. mum 2-27 8-5 5-49 Maxi-
- 13. mum 2-26 8-3 5-48 Maxi-
- 14. mum b 01ES: 1. All testing was performed at room temperature OSL = Onset of Sigmficant Les cage. AWT = Apparent Wal, ninning. -
P = Primary to Secondary Pressurization. S = Secondary to Primary Pressurization * " Pull Test" breakaway force (Ib i
Tchle 4.2 COMPARISON OF LABORATORY LEAK TEST CONFIGURATION WITH PLANT CONFIGURATION FOR NORMAL OPERATION FLTS (Farley Units 1 and 2) Parameter Laboratory Plant Comment .s - a , C-p I T chie 4.3 COMPARISON OF S/T FLTS LABORATORY OSL & DIRECT PULLOUT TEST CONFIGURATION WITH PLANT CONFIGURATION FOP. NORMAL OPERATION FARLEY UNITS 1 & 2 l Parameter Laboratory Plant Comment
~ a,c,e O
M TABLE 4.4 Page 1 of 3 Verification Test Results - Mechanical Interference Fit Lower Joint, Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve Alloy 690 Sleeve for 7/8 Inch Tube 6,C)2e Sample Identification Collar Sleeve Roll Expansion Process Leakage Rate (DPM) OR Pullout Force * (Ib) as a function of
. Collar Tube Sleeve ID Torque Length Sleeve Pressure Differential (psi) and P or S _
kn-lb inch %AWT I-9 l-29 7-7 Normal 1. 1-9 l-29 7-7 Normal 2. l-10 2-46 7-32 Normal 3. 1-11 1-32 7-20 Normal 4. l-11 1-32 7-20 Normal 5. 1-12 1-30 7-21 Normal 6. 1-13 1-33 7-24 Normal 7. 1-14 8-30 7-26 Normal
- 8. _
NO1ES: 1. All testing was performed at room temperature OSL = Onset of Significant leakage. AWT = Apparent Wall Thinning. - P = Primary to Secondary Pressurization. S = Secondary to Primary Pressurization * " Pull Test" breakaway force (Ib)
.- .~ . . .
TABLE 4.4 Page 2 of 3 Verification Test Results - Mechanical Interference Fit Lower Joint, Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve Alloy 690 Sleeve for 7/8 Inch Tube %6 Sample Identification Collar Sleeve Roll Expansion Process Leakage Rate (DPM) OR Pullevt Force * (Ib) as a function of Collar 'Ibbe Sleeve ID Torque tergth Sleeve Pressure Differer.tial (psi) and P or S - kn-lb inch %AWT l-15 8-31 7-28 Normal . 9. 1-30 8-32 7-30 Normal 10. 1-18 2-41 7-33 Normal 11. 2-9 8-29 7-18 Maxi- ' l mum l
- 12. l 2-9 8-29 7-18 Maxi-mum 13.
r 2-10 8-33 7-19 Maxi- ; mum 14. 2-11 8-34 7-22 Maxi-mum 15. 2-12 8-35 7-23 Maxi-mum 16. L _
TABLE 4.4 Page 3 of 3 Verification Test Results - Mechanical Interference Fit Lower Joint, Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve Alloy 690 Sleeve for 7/8 Inch Tube A Cf , Sample Identification Collar Sleeve Roll Expansion Process Leakage Rate (DPM) OR Pullout Force' (Ib) as a function of Pressure Differential (psi) and P or S A Collar Tube Sleeve ID Torque Length Sleeve kn-Ib inch %AWT 2-12 8-35 7-23 Maxi-mum 17. 2-13 8-36 7-25 Maxi-mum 18. 2-14 8-34 7-27 Maxi-mum. 19. 2-15 8-35 7-29 Maxi-mum 20. 2-16 8-36 7-31 Maxi-mum 21. 2-17 2-42 7-34 Maxi-mum 22. r 1-13 2-45 7-35 Maxi-mum 23. L _
- 38 .
T t ble 4.5 COMPARISON OF LABORATORY S/T LEAKAGE RESISTANCE TEST CONFIGURATION WITH PLANT CONFIGURATION FOR NORMAL OPERATION Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve - Farley Unit 1 Parameter Laboratory Plant Comment
%CS l
e a i l Tchte 4.6 COMPARISON OF LABORATORY Sfr OSL & DIRECT PULLOUT TEST CONFIGURATION WI PLANT CONFIGURATION FOR NORMAL OPERATION Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve - Farley Unit 1 Parameter Laboratory Plant Comment JAs i l f b 5
~
- Table 4.7 Summary of Primary-to Secondary Leak Tests at Normal Operation Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve - Farley Unit 2 f
Type of Test (Undegraded Axial Roll Length, Inch *
- Average leakage, dpm i
d tube within Joint Roll) (Adjusted to Plant Conditions) MO Sfr (Leak test-Type 1 & CP test) T/TS (Leak test - Type 2) S/r (Leak test - Type 1) _.
~
** Critena- ( 3 m ,c t 4
1 .
Tchle 4.8 As-Installed ETS MIF Joint S/T & T/TS Contact Pressures for Tube Undegraded in Joint Area for Farley Unit 2 Torque, inch. Tube / Sleeve Contact Tube / Collar Contact Note: lbs. Pressure
- psi, min. Pressure
- psi, min. *"
~
b,Cf Max. Dia. Collar Nom. Dia. Collar Max, Dia. Collar Nom. Dia. Collar " Max. Dia. Collar Nom. Dia. Collar Max, Dia. Collar Max, Dia. Collar Nom. Dia. Collar Max. Dia. Collar Contact pressure conservatively determined by onset of significant leakage minus 500 psi
" Limit TfrS pressure to save sample for ' pull' test
*"'Ihe limit of the test system was [ ]"'
+ " Contact Pressure" Test Series
< "Undegraded Tube" Test Series l
9 Tebis 4.9 Conclusion on Direct Pullout Qualification Test Results - Sleeve-to-Tube Elevated Tubesheet Sleeve - Farley Unit 2 i Sanple Torque AWT Note: l Pullout Force o C6 l-42 Nom. Dia. Collar . I Contact Pressure Sample 2-38 Max. Dia. Collar
' Undegraded' Sample
)
a l l l 4 9 l l l
, - # P
^(@
i l < l l l 1 1 l l i i I i
;. ~L Finite Element Model of Channel Head /Tubesheet/ Stub Barrel of Series 51 Steam Generator 4
Figure 3.1 1 1 51 (Ferily) Elsvrted Sinva I Normal Operation, Hot Leg Side, intact Tube A > C,4 Radius (in.) ,, i
! ! 51 (Farley) Elevated Sleeve .
I Normal Operation Hot Leg Side, intact Tube i ; o.,c, e. r t t I Radius (in.) s Contact Pressures for Normal Conditions with an Intact Tube Figure 3.2
- 44 _
. 51 (Farley) Elevated Sleeve Normal Operation Hot Leg Side Separated Tube' h,Cp J 4 d i i i I
~
l Radius (in.)
. \
51 (Farley) thated Sleeve l '
- ! i Normal Operation. Hot Leg Side, Separated Tube i m., C,e.
i i I i ! i l i l Radius (in.) _. i Contact Pressures for Normal Conditions with a Separated Tube ! Figure 3.3 i l l Serie3 51(Fcrl;y) El;v;ted Sleeva j Faulted Condition. Hot Leg Side, intact or Separated Tube i ,AC% 9 l e - l l l l 4 l l l 1 l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 _i_. , I , Radius (in.) l t j Series 61(Farley) Elevated Sleeve j
. FauNed Condition, Hot Lag Side, intact or Separated Tube i a ,c,e ;
r- ! l i l l l
- ~
Radius (in.) Contact Pressures for Faulted Condition with an Intact or Separated Tube - Figure 3.4 Figure 4-1 Sleeve /Undegraded Tube Leak Test Configuration - ETS - Unit 2 y Ah.b
. I l
Figure 4.2 Sleeve / Tube & Tube / Sleeve Contact Pressure Test Configuration- ETS - Unit 2 2, q. l l l* l ,
\
I l l i l w i s.c.e 4 , o i 5 's i J 1 a v T l l l 1 i. Application of Plugging limits - Fadey Units I and 2 FLTS . Mgure 7.1 a.C.t I I i 1 1 i l
, Application of Plugging limits - Fadey Unit 1 E13 Hgure 7.2
- - . _ - ~ . - . . - .. . -.
1 i l
)
- c c.e 1
s. 4 1 1 ] l 't il
}
l
. l J
\
1 1 J f l i 4 4 1 i i I 4 4 Application of Plugging Ilmik - Farley Unit 2 EIS , Mgure 73 1
}}