ML20135D255
| ML20135D255 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1996 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135D238 | List: |
| References | |
| TR-95-024(NP), TR-95-24(NP), NUDOCS 9703050153 | |
| Download: ML20135D255 (17) | |
Text
--
1 j
TR-95-024(NP) l ANO Unit 2 Steam Generator Tubes l
Evaluation of Burst Pressures with Circumferential Flaws Present Prepared For Entergy Operations, Inc.
By Tetra Engineering Group, Inc.
l April 11,1996 l
l l
1 l
l I
^
i 9703050153 970226 PDR ADOCK 0500 8
LW Tetra Engineering Group, Inc.
i USA: 110 Hopmeadow Street, Suite 800, Westogue CT, 06089 (1).860.651.4622 France:Immeuble Petra B B.P. 272, 06905 SOPHIA ANTIPOLIS (33).92.96.92.54 4
. _. _. ~.. - - - - -...,.
. - - ~ -. - _.
Tetro Engineering Group. Inc.
C 1996 AH Roghts Rosened a
t I
l t
i Non Proprietary This is a non proprietary version of a Tetra Engineering Group report. Proprietary information has been removed at locations
}
indicated by a heavy vertical bar in the right margin. This report is i
submitted in confidence and is to be used solely for the purpose for j
which it is furnished. This report, parts thereof, or the information i
contained within, may not be transmitted, disclosed, or reproduced in any form without the written permission of Tetra Engineering Group, Inc.
j l
@ Copyright,1996 Tetra Engineering Group, Inc.
Copyright under International Copyright Conventions and under PAN AMERICAN Conventions.
i ALL RIGliTS RESERVED l
l l
l l
t TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Contents = l l
i L
T tt: Engineering Group, Inc.
@ 1996 All R ghts Reserved i
Contents l
Introduction 3
US Steam Generator Tube Burst Data 4
Millstone Unit 2 Test Program.
.4 ANO Unit 2 Test Program..
.5 Adjustments to Test Burst Pressures 6
Correction For Test Temperature..
.6 Correction For Material Properties.
.6 Corrected Burst Test Pressure..
.7 Predicted Burst Pressure 9
Correlation of Burst Pressure with Degraded Area.
.9 Regression of Circumferential Burst Data..
.9 95% Lower Bound of Circumferential Burst Data.
.10 i
References 13 Appendix 14 Millstone Unit 2 Burst Test Data..
. 14 ANO Unit 2 Burst Test Data..
. 15 i
l l
1 j
TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Contents = 11 l
L T:tr> Engineenng Group. Inc.
C 1996 All Rights Reserved Introduction The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the affect of the presence of circumferential flaws in the ANO Unit 2 steam generator tubes on the predicted burst pressure of the tubes. Circumferential flaws have occurred in the ANO Unit 2 steam generator tubes as a result of outer diameter initiat :d stress corrosion cracking (ODSCC) at the top of the tube;heet. This evaluation will determine the maximum allowable flaw size that will continue to meet Regulatory guide 1.121 margin to burst requirements of three times the normal operating pressure load and 1.4 times the postulated accident load.
Two US utilities, Northeast Utilities and Entergy, have sponsored burst tests of steam generator tube with circumferential flaws. A large number of specimens have been tested with various flaw depths and are lengths intended to simulate the range of flaw sizes and geometries which potentially could occur in an operating steam generator. Test specimens were produced from tubes with circumferential cracks removed from operating steam generators and from tubes with laboratory generated flaws. The laboratory test specimens contain either electric discharge machined (EDM) notches or laboratory generated stress corrosion cracks.
Symmetrical and asymmetrical circumferential flaw geometries were tested both with and without simulated eggerate supports. The axia: stress generated in a pressurized tube with a flaw is proportional to the degraded area of the flaw as measured in percent of the tube cross-sectional area. The percent of the tube cross sectional area degraded by the presence of a flaw is defined as the PDA. Burst pressure of a tube with a circumferential flaw cerrelates well with the PDA for both tubes with uniform 360 flaws and tubes with asymmetric flaws supported by eggerates.
All tests were performed at room temperature. An adjustment to the observed burst pressure is made to account for the reduced material strength at steam generator operating temperatures. A second adjustment is made to account for differences between the test specimen material strength and the 95% lower bound material strength of tube in the ANO Unit 2 steam generators.
TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Introduction.l 3
& T:ta Engineenng Group. Irr C 1996 All Rights R1 served l
l US Steam Generator Tube Burst Data i
Millstone Unit 2 Test Program The following discussion of the Northeast Utilities Millstone Unit 2 steam generator tube burst test program is excerpted from reference 1.
A total of 49 burst tests were performed including tests of the two removed MP2 SG tubes. Tubing provided by Combustion Engineering with characteristics typical of that in the MP2 and AND Unit 2 steam generators was used to produce 47 artificially flawed samples. The tubing was nominal.750 inch OD x.048 inch wall, high temperature mill annealed Inconel Alloy 600. A complete listing of the i
test specimens is provide in the appendix. Samples X, Y, and Z were produced with a lathe. All others were produced with the EDM process. All samples contained circumferentially oriented notches of various extents and depths.
CE samples A through F modeled the two removed tubes. Some of these samples l
contained axial grooves to simulate the gouging which resulted during the tube removal process. The tests verified that the test results for the removed tubes were reasonable. Samples J through M modeled the flaw geometries from specific regions on a limit load failure curve. Region 1 is the area of the curve in which the flaw geometry comprises some circumferential extent of 100 percent throughwall with no wall loss over the remainder of the circumference. In Region 2, the tube has some 100 percent throughwall extent and some uniform depth over the remainder of the circumference. Samples N and O modeled Tube 1C L45/R13 based on October 1989 vintage 1T data.
~
In the W Group A tests (Al through Al2), notches were positioned at varying distance from the " secondary face" of a simulated tubesheet. Six of the samples were roll expanded into the simulated tubesheet and the other six were not expanded. The tests were designed to quantify any effect on burst pressure of the notch / crack position and the presence of a tube expansion. The Group B tests (B1 through B9 ) were designed to quantify the effects oflateral support provided by ECs #1 and #2 on the burst pressure of asymmetric notch' cracks. These tests were performed with a simulated #1 EC only, a simulated #2 EC only, and no EC.
l These tests and the Group C tests also provided infbrmation on limit load Region l
- 1. Group D (D1 through D5) tests modeled Tube 1 C L45/R13 stress levels based on conservative, October 1989 vintage, UT data.
Each sample listed in the appendix is classified as symmetric or asymmetric depending on the nature of the notch / crack cross section. For example, Sample G TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation US Steam Generator Tube Burst Data =l 4
T;tro Engineenng Group, Inc.
@ 1996 AllRights Reserved is symmetric since the metal loss is distributed unif ormly around the tube circumference and Sample J is asymmetric since the metal loss is nonuniformly distributed. Asymmetric samples produce significant bending stresses when j
pressurized. This can lead to slight notch / crack opening at a pressure below that i
which true burst would occur.
)
The test objective was to subject each sample to increasing pressure until burst was achieved. Burst is defined as notch / crack deformation which causes tearing of the surrounding material. Several of the asymmetric CE samples (J through 0 and 52/22) could not be burst due to equipment limitations. Since a very low flow i
pressurizing system was used with no method for preventing premature leakage through the notches / cracks, development of small notch / crack openings precluded pressurization of the samples. This was addressed in the W tests by implementing i
a bladder arrangement to prevent premature leakage. The bladder is comprised of Tygon tubing and a thin metal shim placed in the sample ID adjacent to the notch.
l The Tygon tube prevents leakage and the shim prevents extrusion of the Tygon l
through the notch. This approach allowed samples with 100 percent throughwall segments to be tested.
Deformation of selected notch / cracks as a function of pressure was measured during the W tests with strain gages. The results showed that the shim thickness had no effect on the burst pressure of notches / cracks which were supported with an EC, it also showed that for unsupported samples, the 10 mil shim resulted in an elevated burst pressure when compared with the 5 mil shim. Overall, the effect of the bladder was considered to be small and did not influence the test conclusions.
ANO Unit 2 Test Program A total of 44 specimens were tested in the ANO Unit 2 burst test program, references 2 through 5. One specimen was removed from an ANO Unit 2 steam generator. Thirty one specimens contained laboratory generated stress corrosion cracks. The remaining twelve specimens were manufactured using electric discharge machining.
All specimens except the pulled tube were tested with simulated eggerate supports. The burst pressure for the removed tube was analytically corrected to the burst pressure as if an eggerate support was present. The laboratory generated stress corrosion cracks ranged from 0% to 75% degraded area. All specimens with degraded areas less than 50% failed axially as a fishmouth rupture away from the circumferential flaw, as an axially oriented tear initiating from the circumferential flaw, or leaked prior to burst. Tubes with flaws greater than 50%
j degraded area failed circumferentially at the flaw or leaked prior to burst.
J TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation US Steam Generator Tube Burst Data =l 5
T:tr: Engineenng Group, Inc.
C 1996 AIIRights Reserved Adjustments to Test Burst Pressures An adjustment to the observed burst pressure is made to account for the difference between the test temperature and the ANO Unit 2 steam generator operating temperature. A second adjustment is made to account for differences between the test specimen material strength and the 95% lower bound material strength of tubes in the ANO Unit 2 steam generators.
Correction For Test Temperature All test specimens in the Millstone Unit 2 and ANO Unit 2 burst test programs were tested at room temperature. The appendix provides the room temperature failure pressure for each test specimen. Since the material strength ofInconel Alloy 600 decreases with increasing temperature, a factor must be applied to adjust the room temperature results to the steam generator hot leg operating temperature.
In Inconel Alloy 600, the ultimate strength and yield strength will decrease at different rates with increasing temperature. References 6 through 8 were reviewed to determine the appropriate adjustment factor to allow the room
)
temperature tests to be representative of ANO steam generator hot leg operating conditions. The required adjustment was determined to be a decrease in the ultimate strength of % and a decrease in the yield strength of %.
l The adjustment was applied to the ultimate and yield strengths of each test specimen. A temperature corrected flow stress was then calculated as the sum of the conected ultimate and yield strengths divided by The temperature l
corrected flow stress was divided by the rcom temperature flow stress to obtain a temperature correction factor. The results are provided in table 1.
Correction For Material Properties The material properties of the specimens tested were not identical to the material properties of the ANO Unit 2 steam generators. To conservatively account for any differences in the material properties, a normalization factor was calculated.
This normalization factor was the 95% lower bound flow stress of the ANO Unit 2 steam generators, reference 9. divided by test specimen flow stress. This factor l
is provided in table 1.
l t
TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Adjustments to Test Burst Pressures l 6
T;tra Engineering Group, Inc.
@ 1996 All Rights Reserved.
Corrected Burst Test Pressure Table 1 provides the corrected test pressure for the specimens tested in the Millstone Unit 2 and ANO Unit 2 burst test programs. The corrected burst pressure is the room temperature burst pressure multiplied by the temperature correction and the normalization correction. The results are representative of the behavior of an ANO Unit 2 steam generator tube with the 95% lower bound material properties at the hot leg operating conditions. The corrected burst pressures are plotted against the percent degraded area (PDA) in figure 1.
Table 1 Corrected Hurst Test Pressures Number Vendor Sample PDA Room Temp Temp Temp Temperature Normal-Corrected Temp Corrected Corrected Corrected Correction ization Burst Burst YS UTS Flow Correction Pressure Pressure 1
W A1 80 3760 2
W A2 82 3440 3
W A3 82 3170 4
W A4 81 3740 5
W A5 81 3560 6
W A6 81 3580 7
W A7 84 2970 8
W A8 81 4010 9
W A9 81 3260 10 W
A10 82 3390 11 W
A11 83 3150 12 W
A12 82 3400 1
13 W
B1 56 8460 i
14 W
B2 53 9150 l
15 W
B3 57 8680 16 W
B4 53 8430 17 W
B5 55 8090 18 W
B6 54 9420 19 W
B7 55 4410 20 W
B8 56 5680 21 W
89 55 4350 22 W
C1 68 8600 23 W
C2 67 8160 24 W
C3 69 8680 25 W
D1 70 6700 26 W
D2 69 7000 27 W
D3 67 7020 28 W
D4 69 6780 29 W
DS 67 6920 30 CE A
42 11800 31 CE B
47 11600 32 CE C
32 11700 33 CE D
36 11400 34 CE E
40 11850 35 CE F
34 11800 36 CE G
65 10100 37 CE H
42 12000 38 CE I
33 12000 39 CE J
52 5400 40 C2 K
52 6000 41 CE L
56 6900 42 CE M
55 6000 TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Adjustments to Test Burst Pressures l 7
-..a.
. ~
~. ~... - - -... - -..
Titr2 Engineering Group, Inc.
@ 1996 AllRights Rxserved l
43 CE N
70 4900 44 CE O
66 6500 45 CE X
76 7500 46 CE Y
88 5200 47 CE Z
74 7450 48 CE 118/14 49 11200 49 CE 52/22 47 8450 50 TS4 24 0
11700 51 TS-5 28 0
11800 i
52 TS-2 12 0
12200 53 TS-5 29 8
10400 54 TS-7 38 9
10000 55 TS-5 25 11 11700 56 TS-5 26 8
11800 57 TS-4 20 14 10800 58 TS-2 11 15 10300 59 TS-7 39 15 10700 f;0 TS-4 19 14 11800
~fa1 T S-2 8
13 11900 I
62 TS 4 22 14 12000 63 TS-2 9
11 11700 64 TS-3 13 16 11700 65 TS-3 16 18 11900 66 TS 4 21 16 11000 67 1S-2 7
16 11000 68 TS-4 23 18 11800 69 TS-2 10 18 11600 70 TS-6 35 20 11800 71 TS-7 37 20 11800 72 TS-7 40 23 9800 73 TS-3 14 24 10600 74 1S 3 17 26 11000 75 TS-3 15 27 11700 l
76 IS-7 41 27 8500 77 TS-3 18 32 10800 78 TS-6 33 37 11800 79 TS-6 32 44 11600 80 TS-7 42 52 8000 81 TS-6 34 75 7400 82 ANO-2 61 68 5900 83 ANO-2 66 82 2800 84 ANO-2 75 78 4600 85 ANO-2 6448 65 8440 86 ANO-2 64 64 4200 87 ANO-2 69 fi7 4200 88 ANO-2 70 78 2600 89 ANO-2 65 85 3600 90 ANO-2 67 76 3700 91 ANO-2 63 74 4400 92 ANO-2 73 77 2900 93 ANO-2 72 79 1000 i
l l
Adjustments to Test Burst Pressures *l 8 TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation
Tctro Engineenng Group, Inc.
@ 1996 AllRights Reserved.
Predicted Burst Pressure Correlation of Burst Pressure with Degraded Area Symmetrical and asymmetrical circumferential flaw geometries were tested both with and without simulated eggerate supports. The axial stress generated in a pressurized tube with a flaw is proportional to the degraded area of the flaw as measured in percent of the tube cross-sectional area. Burst pressures of a tubes with a circumferential flaw correlate well with the degraded area for both tubes with uniform 360 flaws and tubes with asymmetric flaws supported by eggerates.
The test specimens were pressurized until the specimens burst or a leak developed in excess of the make up capacity of the tests apparatus. Specimens with flaws less than 50% PDA failed axially when burst was achieved. The burst occurred either as an axially oriented tear initiated at the circumferential flaw or as an axial fishmouth rupture away from the circumferential flaw. Tests which resulted in an axial burst, axial tear, or a leak prior to burst were not considered in the determination of the circumferential burst regression correlation.
Test specimens with asymmetric circumferential flaws greater than 50% PDA which are not supported by a simulated eggerate support tend to fail at a lower pressure than a tube with a similar size symmetrical flaw. This is due to the bending moment generated by the asymmetric geometry. This bending moment is neutralized by the eggerate supports and by the tube bundle stiffness in an actual steam generator. The tests of unsupported tubes with large asymmetric flaws were not considered representative of actual steam generator conditions and were not used in the determination of the circumferential burst regression correlation.
Regression of Circumferential Burst Data Thirty four of the ninety three specimens tested had circumferential flaws large j
enough for the specimen to develop a circumferentially oriented burst. These thirty four specimens are plotted in figure 2. A linear regression line is determined for the thirty four specimens using the fbliowing fbrmula, reference 10:
Y = B + B, X o
TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Predicted Burst Pressure el 9
T;to Engineering Group, Inc.
C 1996 AR Rights Reserved.
Where:
i X
PDA p
Predicted Burst Pressure i
X-axis Intercept and f
B, = [X,Y, - nXY
[(X, - X)#
where:
X, Individual PD A Y,
Individual Predicted Burst Pressure y
Mean PDA y
Mean Predicted Hurst Pressure n
Number of test specimens The percent degraded area is transformed to the percent remaining area by subtracting the value from 100%. The intercept, B, is set to zero to force the regression line to intercept the x-axis (zero pressure) at 100% degraded area. The B, value is determined as l
95% Lower Bound of Circumferential Burst Data A 95% one sided lower bound confidence interval was determined for the thirty four circumferential burst specimens using the following formulas, reference 1..
i95u = io - 95LL and
,a 95LL = t<u.o 93r 1+ 1 (X -X)~
+
[(x,- R)~,
3 n
j where-p95u 95% lower bound confidence interval of the predicted burst pressure pg Predicted burst pressure X,
Individual PDA X.
New specimer. PDA t< u.o.95)
Student i distribution value for 95% one sided confidence interval with v degrees of freedom y
Mean PDA TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Predicted Burst Pressure h0
=
Totre Engineenng Group, Inc.
@ 9990 AllRights Reserved.
l 7
Mean Predicted Burst Pressure i
s Standard Desiation l
t l
n Number of test specimens For this case, v=n-2, to2.o 95> = 1.6939 and s=1015.758202 l
l The predicted 95% lower limit burst pressures fbr the test specimens are given in table 2. The 95% lower bound confidence interval of the predicted burst pressure l
l is plotted in figure 2.
Table 2 Circumferential Burst Regression Correlation Number Vendor Type Sample PDA Avg.%
Corr.
Predicted f
_g2 95LL Predicted X0 - XJ 95% Lower l
i intact Burst Burst
\\
Pressure Pressure Limit Burst i
i Pressure 1
W EDM A1 80 20 2
W EDM A2 82 18 3
W EDM A3 82 18 l
4 W
EDM A4 81 19 5
W EDM A5 81 19 6
W EDM A6 81 19 7
W EDM A7 84 16 8
W EDM A8 81 19 9
W EDM A9 81 19 10 W
EDM A10 L2 18 11 W
EDM A11 83 17 12 W
EDM A12 82 18 13 W
EDM B1 56 44 14 W
EDM B2 53 47 15 W
EDM B3 57 43 16 W
EDM B4 53 47 17 W
EDM BS 55 45 18 W
EDM B6 54 46 22 W
EDM C1 68 32 23 W
EDM C2 67 33 24 W
t.34 C3 69 31 25 W
EDM D1 70 30 26 W
EDM D2 69 31 27 W-EDM D3 67 33 28 W
EDM D4 69 31 29 W
74 26 82 ANO-2 EDM 61 68 32 83 ANO-2 EDM 66 82 18 84 ANO-2 EDM 75 78 S-85 ANO-2 Tube Pu81 64-48 65 db i
l TR-96-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Predicted Burst Pressure e h1 1
i Tetro Engineering Group, Inc.
O 1996 AllRights RCserved.
[
t Figure 1 l
US Steam Generator Tube Burst Data For Circumferential Cracks l
All Data I
i 12000 l
11000g g,,
a
,3 _,
5=
-=*
10000 -
g
+
a y
i l
+
v 9000 -
5 g
e 8000 -
/
)
l 7000 -
s ee l
e-u.
- 6000 -
,m,,,,,
- s.n o
V 5000 - - '. * * = _
v e
4000 -- -c-.io
-w ;
y y g,
g i
. eaa 3000 4 a='-
I V
v u.
ai 2000 -
y e im u.
Au v-w.
1
^-~'
1000 -
y 0
r--
7 i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Degraded Nea (PDA)
Figure 2 US Steam Generator Tube Burst Data For Circumferential Cracks Circumferential Burst Data 12000
~- -- --
11000 -
10000 -
9000 -
e 9
f8000-af
/
=
E 7000 -
5
\\
g 6000 -
i gg e
5000 -
e g ',. ***,
4000 y
g g
3000 -
- s a.
e 2000 -
_ ".". m o""s u a s
1000 -
0
- - ~ - -
1 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Degraded hea (PDA)
TR-95424 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation Predicted Burst Pressure e h2 l
1
I Tetra Engineering Group, Inc.
@ 1996 AIIRyhts Re.cerved.
References
- 1. K. A. Colgan to J. M. Fackelmann," Summary of Nuclear Materials and Chemistry's Millstone Unit 2 Steam Generator Tube Related Burst Test Programs", NMC-91-103, May 31,1991.
1
- 2. D. Harrison to F. Anderson, Transmittal of ANO Unit 2 Burst Test Results
{
and Metallographic Results, Excel Spreadsheets BURST 2.XLS and METDATA.XLS, July 28,1995.
- 3. D. Harrison Private Communications with F. Anderson,"EDM Notch Data",
August 2,1995.
- 4. G. C. Fink and J. F. Hall, " Examination of Steam Generator Tubes Removed from Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 2 During Refueling Outage 2R9", ABB-Combustion Engineering Report TR-MCC-225, October 1992.
- 5. D. Harrison Private Communications with F. Anderson,"CMTR for Lab Samples", August 1,1995.
- 6. INCO Alloys International,"inconel Alloy 600", Sixth Edition,1985.
- 7. J. M. Steicken and A. L. Ward," Effects of Test Temperature, Strain Rate, and Thermal Exposure on the Tensile Properties of Alloy 600", HEDL-TME 62, July 1976.
- 8. D. C. Drennen, W. S. Hyler, W. D. Wood,11. W. Deem, D. B. Roach, and A.
M. Hall, " Compilation of the Mechanical, Physical, and Fatigue Properties of Selected Metallic Materials" Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory Contract Number 73-T-305923, April 29,1963.
- 9. 'lc;.e Engineering Group,Inc.,"ANO-2 Steam Generators: 95/95 Mechanical Properties", TR-95-025, March 31,1996
- 10. G. J. Hahn end S. S. Shapiro, Statistical Models in Engineering, John Wiley &
Sons, New York,1967.
i
- 11. N. Draper and H. Smith, Applied Regression Analysis, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sens, New York,1981.
I TR.95 024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation References e h3
T trto Engineenng Group, Inc.
C 1996 AllRights R: served l
1 l
Appendix Millstone Unit 2 Burst Test Data Number Vendor Sample Avg. % Nature Support Mode Orient RT.
OD WALL YlELD UTS Flow TW PRESS 1 W A1 80 SYM NONE Burst Circ 3760 0.7453 0.0483 42.77 101.29 72.03 2 W A2 82 SYM NONE Burst Cire 3440 0.745 0 0483 43 88 103 19 73.54 3 W A3 82 SYM NONE Burst Care 3170 0 746 0.049 41.96 100.87 71.42 4 W A4 81 SYM NONE Burst Circ 3740 0.746 0 049 42.29 102.07 72.18
)
5 W A5 81 SYM NONE Burst Cire 3560 0.746 0.049 39 48 100.82 70.15 6 W A6 81 SYM NONE Burst Cire 3580 0.7465 0.049 41.96 100.87 71.42 7 W A7 84 SYM NONE Burst Circ 2970 0.7488 0 0485 44 87 100 31 72 59 8 W A8 81 SYM NONE Burst Circ 4010 0.7453 0 048 42.77 101.29 72.03
)
9 W A9 81 SYM NONE Burst Circ 3200 0 7468 0.049 41.66 102.57 72.12 10 W A10 82 SYM NONE Burst Cire 3390 0.7468 0.0488 42.29 102.07 72.18 11 W A11 83 SYM NONE Burst Cire 3150 0.7458 0.0485 43.88 103.19 73.54 12 W A12 82 SYM NONE Burst Circ 3400 0.747 0.049 41.66 102.57 72.12 13 W B1 56 ASY EC#1 Burst Care 8460 0.747 0.049 41.66 102.57 72.12 l
14 W B2 53 ASY EC#1 Burst Circ 9150 0 7463 0.049 43.56 104 15 73.86 15 W B3 57 ASY EC#2 Burst Cire 8680 0.746 0.0488 42.23 102.07 72.18 16 W B4 53 ASY EC#1 Burst Circ 8430 0.745 0 0478 44.59 101.85 73 22 17 W B5 55 ASY EC#2 Burst Circ 8090 0.745 0 048 44.59 101.85 73.22 18 W B6 54 ASY EC#2 Burst Circ 9420 0.746 0 0483 39.48 100.82 70.15 19 W B7 55 ASY NONE Burst Cire 4410 0.7463 0.0488 41.66 102 57 72.12 20 W B8 56 ASY NONE Burst Circ 5680 0 745 0 048 43 88 103 19 73.54 21 W 89 55 ASY NONE Burst Cire 4350 0 746 0 049 4356 104 15 73 86 22 W C1 68 ASY EC#1 Burst Cire 8600 0 7485 0.049 44.87 100.31 72.59 23 W C2 67 ASY EC#1 Burst Circ 8160 0 7465 0 0488 3948 100 82 70.15 24 W C3 69 ASY EC#1 Burst Circ 8680 0.7465 0.049 4 L96 100 87 71.42 25 W D1 70 ASY EC#2 Burst Cire 6700 0.748 00485 44.87 100.31 72.59 26 W D2 69 ASY EC#2 Burst Cire 7000 0 746 0 0488 43.56 104.15 73.86 27 W D3 67 ASY EC#2 Burst Cire 7020 0.745 0 0483 43.88 103 19 73 54 28 W D4 69 ASY EC#2 Burst Circ 6780 0 7468 0.0488 41.96 100 87 71.42 29 W DS 67 ASY EC#2 Burst Circ 6920 0.745 0 048 44.59 101.85 73.22 30 CE A
42 SYM NONE Burst Axial 11800 0.75 0.047 50.20 102.40 76 30 31 CE B
47 SYM NONE Burst Axial 11600 0.75 0.048 50.20 102.40 76.30 32 CE C
32 ASY NONE Burst Axial 11700 0.75 0 048 50.20 102 40 76.30 33 CE D
36 ASY NONE Burst Axial 11400 0 75 0.048 50.20 102.40 76.30 34 CE E
40 SYM NONE Burst Axial 11850 0 75 0 048 50.20 102.40 76.30 35 CE F
34 ASY NONE Burst Axial 11800 0 75 0 047 50.20 102.40 76.30 36 CE G
65 SYM NONE Burst Circ 10100 0.75 0.048 50.20 102.40 76.30 37 CE H
42 ASY NONE Burst Care 12000 0.75 0.047 50.20 102.40 76.30 38 CE I
33 ASY NONE Burst Axiat 12000 0 75 0 047 50.20 102.40 76.30 30 CE J
52 ASY NONE Leak Cire 5400 0.75 0.048 40.52 101.92 71.22 40 CE K
$2 ASY NONE Leak Circ 6000 0.75 0 048 40.52 101.92 71.22 41 CE L
56 ASY NONE Lear Circ 6900 0 75 0 048 40.52 101.92 71.22 42 CE M
$$ ASY NONE Leak Circ 6000 0 75 0 048 40.52 101.92 71.22 43 CE N
70 ASY NONE Leak Cerc 4900 0 75 0 048 40 52 101.92 71.22 44 CE O
66 ASY NONE Leak Cire 6500 0 75 0 048 40 52 101 92 71.22 45 CE X
76 SYM NONE Burst Cire 7500 0 75 0 048 50 20 102 40 76.30 46 CE Y
88 SYM NONE Burst Cire 5200 0 75 0.047 50 20 102 40 76.30 47 CE Z
74 SYM NONE Burst Cire 7450 0 75 0.048 50 20 102 40 76 30 Appendix e h4 TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation
_ - - - ~ _ -. - - -.
~ ~ ~
T;tts Engrneenng Group, Inc.
@ 1996 AllRmhts Reserved.
48 CE 118/14 49 SYM NONE Burst Axial 11200 0.743 0.047 44.20 92.30 68.25 49 CE 52/22 47 ASY NONE Leak Cire 8450 0.746 0.046 52.70 99.00 75.85 ANO Unit 2 Burst Test Data Num.
UTIL Type SAMPLE PDA LENGTH RT.
SUPPORT ANO Mode Orient YS UTS Flow 1
PRESS Comment 50 TS-4 Lab Crack 24 0
100 11700 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 51 TS-5 Lab Crack 28 0
60 11800 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 52 TS-2 Lab Crack 12 0
80 12200 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 53 TS-5 Lab Crack 29 8
110 10400 EC#1 TS Tear Axial 49 00 100 00 74.5 54 TS-7 Lab Crack 38 9
110 10000 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 55 TS-5 Lab Crack 25 11 130 11700 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49 00 100.00 74.5 56 TS-5 Lab Crack 26 8
70 11800 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 57 TS-4 Lab Crack 20 14 120 10800 EC#1 TSLK Leak 49.00 100 00 74.5 58 TS-2 Lab Crack 11 15 140 10300 EC#1 TSLK Leak 49.00 100.00 74.5 59 TS-7 Lab Crack 39 15 70 10700 EC#1 TS Tear Axial 49.00 100 00 74.5 60 TS-4 Lab Crack 19 14 60 11800 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100 00 74.5 61 TS-2 Lab Crack 8
13 90 11900 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49 00 100 00 74.5 62 TS-4 Lab Crack 22 14 60 12000 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49 00 100.00 74.5 63 TS-2 Lab Crack 9
11 80 11700 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 64 TS-3 Lab Crack 13 16 0
11700 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74 5 65 TS-3 Lab Crack 16 18 50 11900 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 66 TS-4 Lab Crack 21 16 70 11000 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100 00 74.5 67 TS-2 Lab Crack 7
16 40 11000 EC#1 TS Tear Axial 49.00 100.00 74 5 68 TS-4 Lab Crack 23 18 0
11800 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49 00 100 00 74.5 69 TS-2 Lab Crack 10 18 40 11600 EC#1 TSLK Leak 49.00 100.00 74.5 70 TS-6 Lab Crack 35 20 40 11800 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49 00 100.00 74.5 71 TS-7 Lab Crack 37 20 11800 EC#1 FM Burst Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 72 TS-7 Lab Crack 40 23 200 9800 EC#1 TS Tear Axial 49 00 100.00 74.5 73 TS-3 Lab Crack 14 24 170 10600 EC#1 TS fear Axial 49.00 100 00 74.5 74 TS-3 Lab Crack 17 26 300 11000 EC#1 TS
'. ar Axial 49.00 100 00 74.5 i
75 TS-3 Lab Crack 15 27 80 11700 EC#1 FM BJrst Axial 49 00 100 00 74.5 76 TS-7 Lab Crack 41 27 50 8500 EC#1 TS Tear Axial 49 00 100 00 74.5 77 TS-3 Lab Crack 18 32 110 10800 EC#1 TSLK Leak 49 00 100.00 74.5 78 TS-6 Lab Crack 33 37 40 11800 EC#1 TS Tear Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 79 TS-6 Lab Crack 32 44 70 11600 EC#1 TS Tear Axial 49.00 100.00 74.5 80 TS-7 Lab Crack 42 52 120 8000 EC#1 TS-?
Leak 49 00 100.00 74.5 81 TS-6 Lab Crack 34 75 300 7400 Y
TSLK Leak 49 00 100 00 74 5 82 ANO-2 EDM 61 68 360 5900 Y
Burst Cire 49 00 100.00 74.5 83 ANO-2 EDM 66 82 360 2800 Y
Burst Cire 49 00 100.00 74.5 84 ANO-2 EDM 75 78 360 4600 Y
Burst Circ 49.00 100.00 74.5 85 ANO-2 Tube Pull 64-48 65 360 8440 None Y - Corr. Pres Burst Cire 53 80 115.70 84.75 86 ANO-2 EDM 64 64 360 4200 Y
Leak Leak 49 00 100.00 74.5 87 ANO-2 EDM 69 67 360 4200 Y
Leak Leak 49.00 100.00 74.5 88 ANO-2 EDM 70 78 360 2600 Y
Leak Leak 49 00 100.00 74.5 89 ANO-2 EDM 65 85 360 3600 Y
Leak Leak 49.00 100.00 74.5 90 ANO 2 EDM 67 76 360 3700 Y
Leak Leak 49.00 100.00 74.5 91 ANO-2 EDM 63 74 360 4400 Y
Leak Leak 49 00 100 00 74.5 92 ANO-2 EDM 73 77 360 2900 Y
Leak Leak 49 00 100.00 74.5 93 ANO-2 EDM 72 79 360 1000 Y
Leak Leak 49 00 100 00 74.5 h5 TR-95-024 ANO 2 SG Tube Burst Evaluation a
i ATTACHMENT 6 TR-96-021, REV. 0 NON-PROPRIETARY l
l l