ML20138C824
| ML20138C824 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1985 |
| From: | Ainger K COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138C830 | List: |
| References | |
| 0771K, 771K, NUDOCS 8510230056 | |
| Download: ML20138C824 (62) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:' 4g
- 4 Commonwealth Edison j j One First N;tionit Plaza. Chicigo. Illinois
( ~7 Address Reply to: Post Othee Box 767 Chicago. Ilknois 60690 October 11, 1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Byron Station Unit 2 Preservice Inspection NRC Docket No. 50-455
Dear Mr. Denton:
The enclosed report contains Commonwealth Edison's analysis and disposition of 45 ultrasonic indications identified in the Byron Unit 2 steam generators and pressurizer during the preservice inspection. As noted in section II of the report, l'i of the 45 indications have been found to meet AStE Section XI requirements. The dispositon of the remaining 28 indications that are unacceptable to ASME Section X1 is presented in section VII of the report. Two of the unacceptable indications were removed for metallurgical analysis to confirm our preliminary conclusions regarding the cause and size of the indications. The results of this analysis are included in the enclosed report as Attachment B. In addition to the two indications removed for metallurgical analysis, six other unacceptable indications were removed from the steam generators by controlled grinding. Five other surface indications were identified by visual examinations as inside diameter surface blemishes formed during steam generator fabrication. The details of these repairs and visual examinations are describec in sections III and V, respectively, of the enclosed report. As a result of our extensive investigation of the indications in the steam generators and pressurizer, and the associated metallurgical analysis and repair efforts, we have concluded the following:
- 1. The ultrasonic indications are not cracks, but either innocuous slag-induced discontinuities or ID surface blemishes formed during fabrication.
- 2. Component fabrication radiographs show no indications of the sizes identified by the preliminary preservice ultrasonic examinations.
- 3. Metallurgical analysis of two weld samples and removal of six other indications have provided evidence that the indications were oversized by Section XI ultrasonic techniques.
g/ 8510230056 851011 PDR ADOCK 05000455 G PDR il
44 H. R. Denton October 11, 1985
- 4. The official preservice inspection of the steam generators secondary side welds has shown that the size of the indications has not grown after hydrostatic testing.
Based on the conclusions drawn above, we believe that further repairs to remove the remaining unacceptable indications would not significantly improve the structural integrity of the components involved. In reaching this conclusion we have considered the potential negative affects associated with additional repairs. The location of most of the remaining indications significantly increases the degree of difficulty involveo with their removal. Consequently, the overall component integrity may diminish as a result of any further repairs. The official preservice inspection of the pressurizer and primary side of the steam generators is currently in progress and is expected to be completed in early November, he will report the findings from this inspection as they are available. However, we do not expect the results to differ from what was identified during the preliminary preservice inspection. To support our conclusions, an analysis was performed to demonstrate that the indications identified in tne steam generators will not crow to an unacceptable size during plant life. The results of this nnalysis are provided in Attachment A. Additionally, a similar analysis is being performed for the pressurizer indications. The results of this analysis will also be submitted for NRC review in early November. We believe sufficient information exists at this time to conclude that additional repairs to the steam generators or pressurizer are not warranted. We are hereby requesting NRC concurrence with this position. Please aadress any questions regarding this matter to this office. One signed original and fifteen copies of this letter and' enclosure are provioed for NRC review. Very truly yours,
, 7 K. A. Ainger Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Enclosure cc: Byron Resident Inspector 0771K
ANALYSIS AND DIS 30SITION OF ULTRASONIC INDICATIONS IDENTIFIED IN BYRON UNIT 2 STEAM GENERATORS AND PRESSURIZER Reference (a): May 24, 1985 letter from K.A. Ainger to H.R. Denton I. Introduction Reference (a) summarized the results of the preliminary ultrasonic (UT) examinations which identified forty-five weld indications in the Byron Unit 2 steam generators and pressurizer. It provided original fabrication details of these components, a description of repairs on Byron Unit 1 steam generator welds, and the results of the metallurgical analysis performed on Unit 1 weld samples. Based on this information, preliminary conclusions were presented regarding the condition of the Unit 2 components. The UT indications were believed to be caused by very small slag-induced discontinuities in the weld metal oversized by AShE Code Section XI ultrasonic techniques. Correction factors were applied to the Unit 2 examination data to account for ultrasonic oversizing resulting in only five unacceptable inoications. To confirm our preliminary conclusions, weld samples containing two of these five ultrasonic reflectors were to be taken for metallurgical analysis. The three remaining unacceptable reflectors were to be removed by grinding and, if necessary, weld repair. II. Ultrasonic Examination Results The forty-five reflectors identified in the Byron Unit 2 component welds have been ultrasonically examined several times utilizing a variety of ultrasonic techniques in an attempt to accurately characterize them. The data from these multiple examinations has been reviewed to determine the most representative size values for each reflector based on Section XI flaw sizing criteria. These values are provided in Tables A-1 through A-3. Seventeen of the reported forty-five reflectors have been characterized as surface flaws unacceptable to Section XI requirements. Eleven reflectors have been identified as unacceptable subsurface flaws. The remaining seventeen reflectors meet Section XI requirements. Characterization of the reflectors as surface or subsurface flaws was done in accordance with 1980 Edition of Section XI. Sizing correction factors were not applied to any uf this data. III. Weld Sampling and Reflector Excavation The weld samples have been removed from the Unit 2 steam generators. Two 2.5 inch diameter plug samples were removed from secondary side tubesheet welds. One sample contained a reflector characterized by ultrasonics as _a surface flaw while the other sample contained a subsurface flaw. Cover plates were then installed without welding. Details of the reflectors found in the weld samples are provided in the next section. L
Six other reflectors have also been removed from welds in the four steam generators. Initially, excavations were maoe to remove the three reflectors as discussed above in the Introduction. 'Three more reflectors were then removed after discussions with the NRC on July 26, 1985. All reflectors were characterized ultrasonically as surface flaws. Five of the six reflectors were located near the inside diameter (ID) surface of transition cone upper weld seams which are accessible from inside the steam generators. The sixth reflector was located in a nonaccessible lower weld seam of the transition cone. To expose the ID surface of this weld, it was necessary to cut and remove a section of the tube bundle . wrapper. Unusual geometry made it necessary to then acid etch this weld seam to confirm its location on the ID surface. The reflectors were removed by controlled grinding, removing one-sixteenth inch of metal per pass to minimize excavation sizes. Magnetic particle examination was performed after each pass to locate the reflector and to verify its complete removal prior to blending the cavity. Welding at the shell ID surface was not required in any of the four steam generators since minimum wall criteria were not violated. After blending, ultrasonic examination was performed again to insure the reflector had been removed and to collect baseline data on the cavity. When the examinations of the lower weld seam were complete, the section of the tube bundle wrapper was welced in place. Details of the steam generator weld seam locations and of the excavations are provided in Figure 1 and Table A-4, respectively. Excavation of the reflectors has shown them to be sufficiently separated from the ID surface such that they can be characterized as subsurface indications. IV. Metallurgical Analysis of Reflectors The metallurgical analysis of the Unit 2 weld samples was similar to the analysis performed on tne Unit I weld samples. Surface, metallographic, fractographic, and chemistry examinations were performed in an attempt to oetermine the nature, cause, and actual size of the reflectors. The Unit 2 analysis confirmed that the ultrasonic reflectors were not cracks, but void-like discontinuities near but not at the steam generator shell ID surface. The reflectors were oriented parallel to the circumferential welds. The results attributed the discontinuities to the presence of trapped inclusions ~ located in weld metal-to-weld metal interfaces. The inclusions consisted of elements corresponding to slag produced from welding processes during component fabrication. The summary report for the Unit 2 analysis is provided as Attachment B. Based on this report and our review of the Unit 2 component fabrication histories, we believe that the slag inclusions were formed during fabrication. They were probably caused by improper surface preparation between weld passes made near the ID surface after removal of the backup bar.
+ Analysis of the Unit 2 weld samples also confirmed that the reflectors, were ultrasonically oversized during the preliminary preservice inspections. However, the extent of the oversizing was less than tnat identified by the Unit 1 weld sample analysis. For the Unit 2 reflectors, the average ultrasonically-predicted length was 2.7 tinies greater than the actual length. The average ultrasonically-predicted through-wall dimension was 2.2 times greater than the actual through-wall dimension. The Unit I sizing factors were 2.5 for length and 6.5 for the through-wall dimension. Despite the smaller degree of oversizing, the actual sizes of the Unit 2 reflectors were acceptable to Section XI requirements. Additionally, the metallurgical analysis identified the reflectors as subsurface reflectors. The actual distances between the reflectors and the ID surface was greater than those predicted by ultrasonic examination. Evidence of ultrasonic oversizing was also seen when excavating the six reflectors. Again the actual dimensions of the reflectors were exaggerated to various degrees. Details of these excavations are provided in Table A-4. The size factor of the excavated reflectors was i 2.0 for lengtn, while the through-wall factor varied from 1.0 to 4.7. In the two cases where the actual dimensions for both length and througn-wall were determined, only one reflector was acceptable to Section XI requirements. However, for the unacceptable reflector, the margin of unacceptability was within the accuracy of the measurements. Based on our investigation, we concluded that the Section XI ultrasonic techniques oversized reflectors to various degrees depending on their location and orientation. In most cases the length and through-wall dimensions were exagerated by at least a factor of two. In other cases the factors were significantly larger. Due to the inconsistency in oversizing, it is difficult to establish a correlation between the ultrasonically-predicted sizes and actual sizes of the reflectors. Therefore, we conservatively chose not to apply correction factors to the preliminary preservice data. However, we feel the information acquired from the reflector analysis regarding ultrasonic oversizing should not be discounted when determining the acceptability of reflectors. This information may eliminate the need for grinding and weld repair which can potentially reduce vessel integrity. V. Investigation of Surface Indications Our findings and position regarding additional repairs were discussed with the NRC Materials Engineering Branch (MEB) on July 26, 1985. MEB agreed that repairs in the pressurizer and steam generator primary side welds are undesirable due to the significant risk of affecting vessel integrity. Iney also stated that surface flaws were j generally more of a threat to weld integrity than subsurface flaws and i expressed concern with not removing surface flaws in the steam generator secondary welds. Twelve of the seventeen reflectors ultrasonically characterized as surface flaws were located in the steam generator secondary side welds. Eight of these twelve reflectors were reasonably accessible in transition cone welds and could be repaired without high J risk of vessel damage. MEB suggested that two of the eight reflectors be j removed in an attempt to further characterize the remaining surface reflectors. The need to repair the remaining six accessible surface reflectors would be determined after the two excavations were complete.
I i _4_ After the repair crew was remobilized at the site, a decision was made to remove all eight surface reflectors to avoid another potential mobilization. Three excavations were made in transition cone upper weld seams as described in section III of this report. The other five reflectors were located in transition cone lower weld seams. Removal of the tube bundle wrapper was necessary to expose the ID surfaces of these welds. Visual inspections identified three of the five reflectors to be surface ridges formed during fabrication of the transition cone plate. The fourth and fifth reflectors were identified, respectively, as a surface scratch and a spot of weld splatter resulting from the 1 back-chipping process performed during fabrication. To verify that these blemishes were the cause of the ultrasonic indications ~, they were " finger dampened" during ultrasonic examination from the outer diameter- shell surface. Also, the ID surfaces were acid etched to confirm the weld locations. Consequently, all five surface blemishes were determined to be located in base metal outside the examination volumes required by Section XI. This could not be determined during the preliminary preservice inspections because unusual geometry at the- bottom of the transition cone made weld location difficult from the outside. diameter shell surface. Since the presence of the blemishes do not violate ASME Section III and Section XI requirements, they were not removed from the base metal. VI. Official Preservice Inspection Hydrostatic testing and the official preservice inspection of the steam generator secondary siae shell welds were completed in early August, 1985. There were no major oifferences between the official preservice examination data and the preliminary examination data, except that two previously unacceptable indications (Table A-1, No.1 and Table A-2, No.1) were determined acceptable based on official preservice inspection data. The official examinations did not identify any growth in reflector sizes due to the hydrostatic test. The official examinations did detect two additional subsurface reflectors in the secondary side tubesheet weld of one steam generator. Location and size details of these reflectors are provided in Table A-5. The ultrasonic data shows these reflectors to be unacceptable to Section XI requirements. The official preservice inspection of the steam generator primary side tubesheet welds and the pressurizer began after the hydrostatic test of the Unit 2 reactor coolant system and is still in progress. Completion of the official examinations is tentatively scheduled for November 1, 1985. , 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ , . . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . , __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___. ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,-
VII. Final Disposition of Reflectors As stated in section II of this report, seventeen surface indications ano eleven subsurface indications were identified in the Byron Unit 2 steam generators and pressurizer during the preliminary preservice inspection. Two additional subsurface indications were identified in one steam generator during the official preservice inspection. In our efforts to determine the nature, cause and actual sizes of the reflectors, a number of the reflectors were either removed from the component welds or identified as surface blemishes. The remaining reflectors have been dispositioned based on conclusions derived from these efforts. The final- disposition of all unacceptable indications in the Byron Unit 2 components is summarizeo below: Attached Indication Table Number Location Disposition
' Surface Indications:
A-1 9 S/G Secondary Core sample removeo Tubesheet held A-1 6 S/B transition Renoved by grinding before cone hydru A-1 14 S/G transition Removed by grinding befor'e cone hydro A-1 16 S/G transition Removed by grinding before cone hydro A-1 4 S/G transition Removed by grinding after cone hydro A-1 7 S/G transition Removed by grinding after cone hydro A-1 13 S/G transition Removed by grinding after cone hydro A-1 2 S/G transition Identified as surface cone blemish
- 4. l Attached Indication Table Number Location Disposition Surface Indications:
.A-1 3 S/G transition Identified as surface cone blemish A-1 5 S/G transition Icentified as surface cone blemish A-1 11 S/B transition Identified as surface cone blemish A-1 12 S/G transition Identified as surface cone blemish A-1 1 S/G secondary Determined acceptable to tubesheet Section XI during official preservice inspection A-1 10 S/G secondary Leave as is. Repair not tubesheet weld recommended A-1 15 Feedwater nozzle Leave as is. Repair not recommended A-1 8 S/G primary Official preservice tubesheet weld inspection not complete.
Leave as is. Repair not reconnended. A-1 17 Pressurizer Official preservice inspection not complete. Leave as is. Repair not recommended. Subsurface Indications: A-2 2 S/G secondary Core sample removed tubesheet weld A-2 1 S/G secondary Determined acceptable to tubesheet weld Section XI during official preservice inspection. A-2 7 S/G secondary Leave as is. -Repair not tubesheet weld recommended. A-2 3 S/G shell Leave as is. Repair not barrel weld recommended. ! A-2 4 S/G transition Leave as is. Repair not l cone recommended. l
Attached Indication Table- Number Location Disposition Subsurface Indications: A-2 5 S/G transition Leave as is. Repair not cone recommended. i A-2 6 S/G transition Leave as is. Repair not cone recommended. A-2 8 S/G transition Leave as is. Repair not i cone recommended. t i A-2 9 Pressurizer Leave as is. Repair not recommended. A-2 10 Pressurizer Leave as is. Repair not I. recommended. 1 I A-2 11 Pressurizer Leave as is. Repair not recommended. A-5 1 S/G 5econdary Leave as is. Repair not l tubesheet weld recommended A-5 2 S/G Secondary Leave as is. Repair not weld- recommended The investigation of the ultrasonic reflectors in the Unit 2 components has confirmed our preliminary conclusions regarding their i nature and cause. Consequently, we feel that additional repairs to remove the remaining unacceptable reflectors are unnecessary. We support our position by the following:
- (a) .
the ultrasonic reflectors are not cracks, but either innocuous slag-induced discontinuities or ID surface blemishes. formed during ! fabrication; l (b) repairs in the component welds may result in a condition of decreased rather than increased vessel integrity;-
.(c) component fabrication radiographs show no indications of the sizes
~
! identified by the preliminary preservice ultrasonic examinations; (d) metallurgical analysis of two weld samples and excavati~on of six , reflectors have provided evidence that the reflectors were l oversized by Section XI ultrasonic techniques. Actual dimensions 1 of all but one of the removed reflectors were acceptable to Section. l XI requirements. One reflector was marginally unacceptable. Also, l the actual reflector distances from the weld ID surface were [. greater than that predicted by ultrasonic examination. l l
1 (e) official preservice examinations of steam generator secondary side welds have shown that the reflector sizes have not grown after hydrostatic testing. The present condition of the Byron Unit 2 steam generators and pressurizer will not reduce the level of plant rafety when the plant becomes operable. Through metallurgical analysis the ultrasonic reflectors have been identified as either innocuous slag inclusions nr ID surface blemishes, not cracks or lack of fusion. The inclusions and blemishes have little or no effect on vessel weld integrity. Additionally, removal of several reflectors has establisheo confidence that the remaining reflectors are much smaller than predicted and most likely acceptacle to Section XI requirements. Removal of the remaining unacceptable reflectors does not guarantee an increase in the integrity of the components. Location of most of the reflectors significantly increases the degree of difficulty involved in their removal. This increased difficulty can make .the repairs detrimental to component integrity. The following are potential consequences of the repairs: a) metal debris from grinding can become lodged inside the components making their removal impossible and possibly degrading the performance of the component; b) maneuvering of grinding and welding equipment can damage the steam generator tubing; c) excavations in component shell ID surfaces become prime locations for pitting ano stress corrosion cracking; d) excavations in component shell 10 surfaces will complicate future inservice inspections; e) welding at shell surfaces can result in additional slag inclusions at weld metal interfaces; f) coring holes in tubesheet welds and postweld heat treatment of shell and nozzle welds can induce stresses in these areas; g) postweld heat treatment can cause the sensitization of cladding in the pressurizer and steam generator primary side tubesheet welds. These consequences make additional repairs undesirable. We feel that plant safety can be preserved by avoiding the removal of the remaining reflectors.
_9_ Section XI allows analytical evaluation of flaw indications for acceptability when the indications are identified during inservice inspections. Although Byron Unit 2 is not in service, we have performed evaluations of the steam generator indications. The analysis was performed in accordance with paragrapn IWB-3600 of Section XI (1980 Edition) assuming flaw sizes as preaicted by the ultrasonic examinations. The results of the analysis provided in Attachment C are in the form of handbook charts. The analysis has shown that if the existing reflectors are assumed to be flaws, they will not grow to unacceptable sizes during plant life. Per the requirements of Section XI, repair of the component welds would be unnecessary if the indications were identified during an inservice inspection. A similar analysis of the indications identified in the pressurizer is currently being performed. This analysis should be available for NRC review in November, 1985. 6812b* t
O
\
i a ATTACHMENT A
; BYRON UNIT 2 COMPONENT ULTRASONIC DATA AND EXCAVATION DETAILS i FIGURE 1 TABLES A-1 THROUGH A-5 t
[ e
- - , --r ,-. _ y ., ____
i A p
- D Ja a#
8 et I s-$'70 0*e . .$at- 2 ty5- , h ::
~
" l.Ij.,U L U - '
2 mux [p,'l! f, '
--$ cvU"SN9-<3dM n m;;;y ,r%l --
j T
;b,. II '. '. , -
1 u 93i $$E Ef!'. e i :!Eiff mn o,u m . C !I fis s; .
- D. "
a L UnptHittil ; - ee so sis! .e. ,o # s.y:,8 u t.. ,o n . ,i i
.J. oi I ) . m , y) p y., , "i 387hhf $ $a Mi[g 82ljrlerk58 i
RicoT'/s::gg,,q'EO 05 3 $ 28 - ,tf3,,,f,_h s( I 4
. h. 3 lhy y
j J;, e
- f , 7 ,h ' 's O i
m fe c! N m c?! VieMi Egi , N. i - E. .>cI
' la f!; Ii ):.hr j
'?
f.r e xs W;;. ::reu : .et t
.(Y;!Y!ii.
v u-y i l d
- N ; ,}X -
s s.
- Inw:Ref:j?? e.u% g r-"].[]--,-lv.
O!y;nk .I f, e r s r o 5'h::s i n.,e..v..i. s- ;I i
. f s' ... i-i s <. umu -
j7 q, - 4u1rl ; 24, h,.u ; .,'l x . t n, J i 'S
% j) o ,
I. ,,1 H, .s , '- g Ts1:
. r :
+E.. - lq!= f-Q.l i..l o e C, N;l 3
.: 3 _i c -
! j f1 e .- ;
t-
-j y
- 5 g -- 2 =; g i
i Y-s = @p o;'q; - "g
.Q,l,i . f -q n1 i
= .-,, a 3 8 1. . [ d 6 .,'.
c g-
;: l s ,l a,j- l. l J h.
i; l g, - - p
}.i S
rb _7_.g) 1I .', p !!
. f. E_ l $_ l V s" < p t
!"in'
;. l,ysi . ,
7
- r. .
'u a
> :1 . A>e1 He t i
L, c- l'tt i / H)' - . d>J;ig ..ist i. Nc-4.r. -!m'// i . y E tj i
- L -
,t a 5
.1 JD .
a <,,3 ; 3 j , -
- . %g ,,
;4 _4
,i.p .
5 b- ) ' l
* ;= l ; ; m: }. :
N
- a w*
;, t o l Hlg l
ri i i ji
;.l es e
-s- 1; ... _ 31 1 dl; L i H p
%lL
- 3
?
t a r- 3r , i j
* ,s e;~. . -- - -_
L.. ;. _i .j-el i l,l b l I R i,;! , si h i p3
;{.
?qrQ E
- r. U~*l.
ll
. i q, -, u,a n 3 l 1
.. =.. .
y!,, H; ;.ta . , a ;
- 5. if .
.:. '1 g 7;- h1 u p-l3 , D
- 5;1, .~
p,$ . b f
. -N d
- . 'f '
'D ll .
,k va8I *
'J. , _ , .
- 4 s ;. _
. (s n.f l . ,,;
g* Q a j ! - s l i s. i '3l.. J. u ck(u.
'*lJy* 1}
y...l y !* pd,;, il, y(3- ~ 4
;d L_; -3Wrc :t;;: g: t =_ l _
f --
+,1 ! fi g , 2 .,
;_ -\ - m .
. ,!:r!i !; t
/ - $* f f
r'3 "
', d i %,d.
f t
.c e'=.7.
; i
" Q. -
t s. t* e j
~
x/sj ^ ulf I /1 _ I v .
. i e
- )4 Y.
, sa O O g
.~
( -tis ma s
Page 1 of 2 - Table A-1 Prellr.inary PresIrvice Inspection Results l Surfac2* Indications Exceeding Requirements cf Section XI , Wall Distance Thru ) Weld Thickness Length From I.D. Wall ;
& Camponent Sean Location l_t"1 t 1]"1 is"1 id"1 4E 3 a Caseents t
I '
- 1. 2095 SGC-02 224 5/8 CCW 3.2 0.75 0 -0.25 0.33 0.078 Determined acceptable during official preservice inspection.
- 2. 2095 SGC-05 88 CW 4.0 2.375 0.07 0.23 0.13 0.075 I.D. Visual Inspection - !
Surface Ridge i l ! 3. 2095 SGC-05 48 CW 4.0 1.625 0.03 0.27 0.18 0.075 1.D. Visual Inspection - Surface Scratch i
- 4. -2095 SGC06 110 1/2 CW 4.0 0.75 0.02 0.43 0.60 0.112 Removed by Grinding 8/85
, 5. 2096 SGC-05 190 3/4 CW 4.0 0.5 0.04 0.30 0.68 0.085' I.D. Visual Inspection - j Surface Ridge [
-i
! 6. 2096 SGC-05 212 3/4 CW 3.4 1.0 0.05 0.37 0.42 0.124 Removed by Grinding 6/85
' I
- 7. 2096 SGC-06 229 CW 4.0 0.75 0 0.24 0.32 0.060 Removed by Grinding 8/85 l
l 8. 2097 SGC-01 207 3/8 CW 5.5 0.625 0 0.36 0.56 0.064 Official Preservice Insp. ) Incomplete. I Repair in Primary side j l Weld not recommended. I
- 9. 2097 SGC-02 107 1/4 CW 3.3 0.88 0 0.24 0.27 0.073 Core Sanple Removed 6/85 I
- 10. 2097 219 1/4 CW 3.3 0.625 0 0.37 0.59 0.112 Official Preservice Insp. t j SGC 4 confirms sizing. Repair in tubesheet weld not 2
j l i recommended.
- 11. 2097 SGC 4 40 1/4 CCW 4.0 0.5 0.02 0.28 0.60 0.075 I.D. Visual Inspection - ;
l Welds Splatter. ; l j 12. 2097 SGC-05 45 1/2 CCW 4.0 0.625 0 0.45 0.72 0.113 I.D. Visual Inspection - j Surface Ridge. j l .
- 13. 2097 SGC-06 42 1/2 CCW 4.0 1.0 0 0.33 0.33 0.083 Removed by Grinding 8/85 l
I 4
- Based on 1980 Edition of Section II ,
! t i __ . _ _ _ _ _ .
Page 2 of 2 '. Table A-1 Preliminary Preservice 17.spection Results Surface Indicitions Exceeding Requirements of Section XI - mil Distance Thru Weld Thickness Length From I.D. W11 h _Ce_nsonent Sean Location it"1 11"1 1s"1 id"1 gl gi Cauments
- 14. 2097 SGC-06 139 1/4 CW 4.0 3.5 0 0.45. 0.13 0.113 Removed by Grinding 6/85
- 15. 2097 SGN-02 11 1/4 CW 3.2 0.5 0.04 0.29 0.62 0.097 Official Preservice Insp.
confinns sizing. Nozzle repair not recommended. 16 . 2098 SGC-06 40 5/8 CCW 4.0 3.25 0 0.51 0.16 0.128 Removed by Grinding 6/05
- 17. Press 1741 PC-03 75 1/2 CW 4.3 0.88 0 0.26 0.30 0.061 official Preservice Insp.
Incomplete Pressurizer Repair not recommended.
Page 1 of 2 Tabla A-2 Preliminary Pres:rvica Inspection Results Subsurfaca Indications Exceeding Requirements cf Section XI - Wall Distance Thru Weld Thickness Length from I.O. Wall & Component Seam Location it"1 Q"1 is"} id"1 3 4 a/t Comments
- 1. 2095 SGC-02 108 1/2 CCW 3.2 0.5 1.1 0.31 0.31 0.048 Detennined acceptable during official Preservice Inspection.
- 2. 2095 SGC-02 110 CCW 3.2 0.88 0.16 0.53 0.30 0.083 Core sample removed.
- 3. 2096 SGC-03 20 5/8 CW 3,08 0.88 0.82 0.41 0.23 0.067 Official Preservice Insp.
confinns sizing. Repair requires removal of internal wrapper.
- 4. 2096 SGC-05 127 CW 3.4 0.88 0.94 0.57 0.33 0.084 official Preservice Insp.
confinns sizing. Repair requires removal of internal wrapper.
- 5. 2097 SGC-05 82 CW 3.2 0.75 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.033 Official Preservice Insp.
confirms sizing. Repair requires ranoval of internal wrapper.
- 6. 2097 SGC-05 49 3/4 CW 3.2 0.88 0.53 0.26 0.15 0.041 official Preservice Insp.
confinns sizing. Repair requires removal of internal wrapper.
- 7. 2098 SGC-02 10 3/4 CCW 3.14 1.75 0.42 0.26 0.07 0.041 official Preservice Insp.
confinns sizing. Repair in tubesheet weld not recommended.
- 8. 2098 SGC-06 134 3/4 CW 4.0 0.625 0.2 0.35 0.28 0.044 Official Preservice Insp.
confinns sizing. Subsurface indication.
- 9. Press 1741 PL-02 15 5/8" 4.3 1.0 0.20 0.45 0.22 0.052 Official Preservice Insp.
from incomplete. Press. Repair PC-02 not reconnended.
.-. . - _ _ _ _ _. - - - - . . - - ..m . .- _ - - . -. -- -.
i. Page 2 ef 2
- Table A-2 Prell;inary Preservica IIspection Res:lts Subsurfac2 Indications Exceeding Requirements cf Section XI .
Wall Distance Thru ! Weld 1hickness Length From I.D. Well h Component Sean Location -it"1 1]"1 is"1 id"1 3 4 3 a Cassents
, 10. Press 1741 PC-04 5 1/4 CW 4.3 1.5 0.2- 0.35 0.12 0.041 Official Preservice 1
Insp. Incomplete press. repair not recomunended.
- 11. Press 1741 PC-04 142 CW 4.3 0.62 0.48 0.73 0.59 0.084 Official Preservice Insp.
Incomplete. Press repair not recomunended. 1 4 Y
--, -,, , , . . , . - - , - - - - - , - _ . - . . - . ,. , . . . , - - . - - - . - . . . , , . ~ , . - , - . - -
Page 1 of 1 ~ Table A-3 Prell;inary Pres:rvico inspection Res21ts Indications Acceptabla to the Requirements cf Section XI . Wall Distance Thru Weld Thickness Length From 1.0. Wall No Component Seam Location 1,t"1 1.1"1 is"1 id"1 I a_/I, af_t Comments
- 1. 2095 SGC-02 109 1/4 CCW Max Amplitude = 26% DAC No Sizing Dimensions at 50% DAC . -
- 2. 2095 SGC-02 131 1/4 CCW No Sizing Dimensions at 50% DAC - - - -
- 3. 2096 SGC-03 36 3/4 CW No unacceptable indications - - - -
- 4. 2096 SGC-06 54 7/8 CCW 4.0 .375/ O/ 0.3/ 0.8/ .075/ 2 Indications-
.5 0 0.23 0.46 .068 Geometry
- 5. 2096 SGC-08 132 1/4 CW Max Applitude = 48% DAC - No Sizing Dimensions at 50% DAC -
- 6. 2097 SGC-02 217 CW Repeat of Indication at 219 1/4 CW. See Table A-l. -
- 7. 2097 SGC-06 43 CCW Removed by grinding with indication at 42 1/2 CCW. See Table A-1 Official Preservice Insp. confints no indication present.
- 8. 2097 SGC-06 44 1/2 CCW Supplemental NDE and reexamination indicate reflector most Ilkely due to' geometry.
- 9. 2097 SGC-06 115 7/8 CCW Acceptable to lie - 3511 - - - -
- 10. 2097 SGC-06 118 1/2 CCW NOE Examinations indicate reflector due to geometry.
- 11. 2098 SGC-02 11 7/8 CCW No sizing dimensions at 501 DAC- - - -
- 12. 2098 SGC-02 11 1/8 CCW No sizing dimentions at 50% DAC- - - -
- 13. 2098 SGC-06 40 CCW Removed by grinding with indication at 40 5/8 CCW. See Table A-1.
- 14. 2098 SGC-06 132 1/4 CW Maximum anpiltude = 48% DAC - No sizing dimensions at 50% DAC 1
- 15. 2098 SGC-06 129 CW Acceptable to IWB-3511 - - -- -
16, 2098 SGC-03 39 1/2 CCW Acceptable to IWB - 3511 - - - -
- 17. Press 1741 PL-01 7" to 17" Acceptable to IWB-3511 - - - -
Below PC-07
Page 1 of'1 Table A-4 Detells cf Reflectors Removed from Stem Generitor Welds . s Depth When Deepest Wall Actuall UT Wall First Point of Thickness Thru Actual Thru UT Thru Weld 1hickness Detected
- Excavation At DPE Wall Length Wall Length Wall Length h Component Seam Location it"1 (in.) (DPE)(in.) (in.) id"1 (in.) [d"1 (in.) Factor Factor 1- 2096 SGC-05 212 3/4 CW 3.110 ** 0.359 2.908 - ** 0.37 1.25 - -
2 2097 SGC-06 139 1/4 CW 3.882 0.375 0.469 3.548 0.094 ** 0.45 3.0 4.7 . - 3 2098 SGC-06 40 5/8 CCW 3.912 0.125 0.281. 3.631 0.156 ** 0.51 3.25 3.3 - 4 2095 SGC-06 110 1/2 CW 3.92 0.156 0.375 3.80 0.219 0.375*** 0.43 0.75 1.9 2.0 5 2096 SGC-06 229 CW 4.060 **** 0.0938 4.041 - *** 0.24 0.75 - - 6 2097 SGC-06 42 1/2 CCW 3.892 0.219 0.562 3.35 0.343 0.438 0.33 1.0 1.0 2.0
- Measured from 1.D. surface CS Not recorded c'* Two reflectors seen. Each 0.375 in. in. length and oriented as separate reflectors.
**** Reflector was not seen by UT or MT Nota 1 - Actual thru wall - deepest point of excavation-depth when first detected 6754b'*
Page I cf I ~* Table A-5 Additional Indicitions Identified During Officir.1 Preservica 11spection Exceeding Requirements Cf Section XI e l l Wall Distance Thru Weld Thickness Length From 1.D. Wall h Coseonent Seam Location it"), U"), is"), (d") af], 4/t Comments'
- 1. 2095 SGC-02 91 1/2 CW 3.2 0.75 0.74 0.235 0.16 0.038 Subsurface indication in tubesheet weld.
- 2. 2095 SGC-02 94 CW 3.2 0.6 1.02 0.41 0.34 0.064 Subsurface indication in tubesheet weld, t
4 1
! $8ased on 1980 Edition of Section XI DPC/sm/6754b*
e D ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY
REPORT FOR METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF BYRON UNIT 2 WELD SAMPLES i;.
y O ATTACHMENT C BYRON UNIT 2 STEAM GENERATOR FLAW EVALUATION ~ ANALYSIS PER SECTION XI IWB - 3600
4
?s4 ,
t , l FLAW EVALUATION'HAbOBOOK CHARTS FOR BYRON UNIT 2 STEAM GEIERATORS l
- 1. INTRODUCTION !
I During Inspections of the Byron Unit 2 steam generators, a number of ! 1 Indications were discovered. These evaluation are believed to be slag i however for completeness a series of flaw evaluations have been carried out to determine the size of Indications which are acceptable by the rules of l Section XI, paragraph IWB 3600. These evaluations should prove useful for ' assessment of the results of future' Inservice Inspections. , , The results of these evaluations have been developed in the fors.'of handbook charts, presented separately for each of the fol, lowing regions of
, the steam generator:
jt
?
o Tubesheet 10 channel head weld region (seem SGC-01) , o Tubesheet to stub barrel weld region (SGC-02) l t o Stub barrel Intermediate seam (SGC-03) ; o Lower shell to cone weld region (SGC-05) l o Upper shell to cdne weld region (SGC-06) I r o Upper shell to dome weld region (SGC-08) o Feedwater nozzle to shell weld region (SGN-02) ' f
.The geometry of the Byron Unit 2 Model D-5 steam generators is shown
- schematically In Figure 1-1. All of>the regions for which evaluation !
, charts have been developed are Identifled in this figure by weld seam number. The weld seem nus6er is also identifled in parentheses in the I above Iist. ' 4 ) The fisw evaluation charts have been developed based on direct application , of the criteria of IWB 3600. The notation used for surface and embedded . flaws is shown in Figure 1-2. l t t 1 -1 l j , > x,. . J _l N- -_ ., . . - , . _ -.
s , .
' l- There are two alternative sets of flaw acceptance criteria for c:ntinu;d
*, service without repair in paragraph IW8-3600 of ASME Code Section XI [1].
Namely, l 1. Acceptance Criteria Based on Flaw Size (IWB-3611)
- 2. Acceptance Criteria Based on Stress Intensity Factor (IWB-3612)
Both criteria are comparable in accuracy for thick sections, and the 4 acceptance criteria (2) have been assessed by past experience to be generally less restrictive for thin sections, and for outside surface flaws in many cases. In all cases, the most beneficial criteria has been used, generally criteria (2). CRITERIA. BASED ON FLAW SIZE The code acceptance criteria stated in IWB-3611 of Section XI are: a f 1 .1 a g For normal conditions : (upset & test conditions inclusive) and a 5 .5 a g For faulted conditions f (emergency condition inclusive) where a f
=
The maximum size to which the detected flaw is calculated to grow at the end of 40 years design life, or till the next inspection time. a, = The minimum critical flaw size under normal operating conditions (upset and test conditions inclusive) i t ag = The minimum critical flaw size for initiation of nonarresting growth under postulated faulted conditions. (emergency conditions inclusive) l 1-2
. .t N - 4 . . j .. .
*~
To determine whether a flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair, both requirements must be met simultaneously. However, both criteria have been considered in advance before the charts were constracted. Only the most
~
restrictive results were used in the charts. CRITERIA BASED ON STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR As mentioned in the preceeding paragraphs, the criteria used for the construction of the charts in this handbook are from the least restrictive of IWB 3611 or IWB 3612 of Section XI. The term stress intensity factor (Kg ) is defined as the driving force on a crack. It is a function of the size of the crack and the applied stresses, as ' well as the overall geometry of the structure. In contrast, the fracture toughness (Kh, Kg ) is a measure of the resistance of the material to propagation of a crack. It is a material property, and a function of
; temperature.
. The criteria are stated in IWB 3612:
K i Kgi For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) l K g5[K For faulted conditions (emergency conditions inclusive) where i K g
= The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw size af to which a detected flaw will grow, during the conditions under consideration, at the end of design life, or to the next i
inspection. K,g
= Fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding
- , g crack tip temperature.
- l 1
K,g
= Fracture toughness based on fracture initiation for the corresponding crack tip temperature.
l
. _ _ . _ . . . , _ _ . . _ _ ~ _ , , . _
e T9 detarain2 wheth;r a fitw is acceptable fcr continued service with:ut
,,. . ., , . repair, both criteria must be met simultaneously. However, both criteria have been considered in advance before the charts were constructed. Only the umst restrictive results were used in the charts.
l 1 PRIMARY STRESS LIMITS 1 In addition to satisfying the fracture criteria, it is required that the primary stress limits of Section III, paragraph NB 3000 be satisfied. A local area reduction of the pressure retaining membrane umst be used, equal to the area of the indication, and the stresses increased to reflect the sus 11er cross section. All the flaw ac'cepta'nce tables provided in this handbook have included this consideration. s 1' t 1 I I l 1-4 1 _
- s .
4 V Upper shell-dome (SGC-08) O CJ , F_,3 Upper shell-cone (SGC-06) Lower shell-cone (SGC-05) Stub barrel intemediate seam (SGC-03) ( l Feedwater nozzle-shell (SGN-02) Tubesheet-stub barrel (SGC-02) Tubesheet-channelhead(SGC-01) 1 l l 1 Figure 1-1 Schematic of Byron Unit 2 Model D-5 Steam Generator l l 1-5 !
l 1 i
. , . 1
, I
,l '
i E
- _
= E w _= e
)
E g3 4 ,
-w-5 * .
f g 5 5
= g
/ 6 t,3 . L '
~
c 1 i(' i F m ( e f \ -
. T,
'8 SURFACE [ CLAD-BASEMETAL
.8 INTERFACE FOR INDICATIONS 5 NEARINSIDESURFACE) m .
E U C E m . . o
,c ' s s .
e" E
. u .
E> 6 i
\
d SE E {I T
~ { t /
i y Sv s ( e ) 8 %3 :
~
E S / I [g i 0
\
L / fh T
- 1 I
.' h 4e ^
R l SURFACE [ CLAD-BASEMETAL INTERFACE FOR INDICATI0h5 NEARINSIDESURFACE] 1-6
l i : ,.
- 2. LOAD CONDITIONS. FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHODS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES TRA'NSIENTS FOR THE STEAM GENERATOR The design transients for the Byron Unit 2 steam generators are listed in Table 2-1. Both the minimum critical flaw sizes, such as a under normal g
operating conditions, or a g under faulted conditions for criteria (1) of IWB-3611, and the stress intensity factors,g K , for criteria (2) of IW8-3612, are a function of the stresses at the cross-section where the flaw of interest is located, along with t'he material properties. Therefore, the 2 first step for the evaluation of a flaw indication is to determine the appropriate limiting load conditions for the location of interest. The key parameters used in the evaluation of any indications discovered during inservice inspection are the critical depths, first, that for the governing normal, upset, and test conditions and second, that for the governing emergency and faulted conditions. It should be noted here that the flaw evaluation charts have been constructed based on all the operational transients for the steam generators. The pressure tests have been purposely omitted from the chart construction, because the severity of these tests can be mitigated by increasing the test temperature. Separate charts have been constructed to enable determination of hydrotest and leak test temperatures to ensure required margins of IWB 3600 are maintained. STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS One of the key elements of the critical flaw size calculations is the determination of the driving force or stress intensity factor (Kg, ). This was done using expressions available from the literature. In all cases the stress intensity factor for the critical flaw size calculations utilized a representation of the actual stress profile rather than a linearization. This was necessary to provide the most accurate determination possible of the l 2-1
'U
' critical flaw siza, and is particularly important fcr censideration cf emergency and faulted conditions, where the stress profile is generally I'
nonlinear and of ten very steep. The stress profile was represented by a cubic polynomial: i l 2 3 e(x) = A0+A1 +A 2 II +A 3 I) where x is the coordinate distance into the wall t t = wall thickness e = stress perpendicular to the plane of the crack For the surface flaw with length six times its depth, the stress intensity factor expression of McGowan and Raymund [2] was used.
.The stress intensity factor Kg ($) can be calculated an M ere along W crack f ront. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by $ = 0. The following expression is used for calculating Kg ($):
Eg ($) = (Cos $ + sin 4) (A NOO+ Al H j
*11 2 2 2 H2*E t 3 3 "3I 4A 1
l I The magnification factorsO H I*)' "l(*I' "2(*} "" "3I ' } " I' cbtained by the procedure outlined in Reference [2]. 1
- The stress intensity factor calculation for a semi-circular surface flaw, j (aspect ratio 2:1) was carried out using the expressions developed by Raju and Newman [3). Their expression utilizes the same cubic representation of the j stress profile and gives precisely the same result as the expression of l McGowan and Raymund for the 6:1 aspect ratio flaw, and the form of 'the
! cquation is similar to that of McGowan and Raymund above. e i j 2-2
-.--,.,---,,-.,,,,-.,--..--,,r,,,y.w,. . - ~ - , , - - - - , _ - , - - , _ - - . - . . _ , - - , , - , , , _ , , , _ , . _ _ , , , _ , . , ---.----,-----_..-%-
i
~
The stress intensity factor expressitn ustd fcr a ccntinuous surfaco flaw was that developed by Buchalet and Bamford [4). Again the stress profile is
.- represented as a cubic polynomial, as shown above, and these coefficients as well as the magnification factors are combined in the expression for K g below: _
2 Kg = (va [A0 1* 1 F 2+ A2 F3+
- A3 F)4 where F), F 2 , F 3 . F4 are magnification f actors, available in [4).
The stress intensity factor calculation for an embedded flaw was taken from work by Shah and Kobayashi [5] which is applicable to an embedded flaw in an infinite medium, subjected to an arbitrary stress profile. This expression has been shown to be applicable to embedded flaws in a thick-walled pressure vessel in a recent paper by Lee and Bamford [6). FRACTURE TOUGHNESS The other key element in the determination of critical flaw sizes is the fracture toughness of the material. The fracture toughness has been taken directly from the reference curves of Apper. dix A. Section XI. In the transition temperature region, these curves can be represented by the following equations: K g = 33.2 + 2.J06 exp. [0.02 (T-RTNDT + 100*F)] l Kg , = 26.8 + 1.233 exp. [0.0145 (T-RTNDT + 160'F)] t where K and K g are in ksi/in. IC s. l 2-3
,.. The upper shelf temperature regime requires utilization of a shelf toughness l which is not specified in~the ASME Code. A value of 200 ksi/in has been '
used here. This value is consistent with general practice in such evaluations,is shown for example in reference [7], which provides the background and technical basis of Appendix A of Section XI.
~
The other key element 1n the determination of the fracture toughness is the value of RT c a param W M a ined from Charpy W notch and NDT. drop-weight tests. For this analysis, it was assum d that the RT
- NDT for the weld, and 40*F for the heat affected zone and base material. The tube sheet material is SA-508 C1. 2a 'and she vessel material is SA-533 Gr. A, C1. 2.
These RT NDT va ues are consWered to be an upper bound for base and weH material in steam generators based on earlier work and the guarantees which are available from fabricators. CRITICAL FLAW SIZE DETERMINATION i The applied stress intensity factor (K )g and the material fracture toughness values (Kg , and Kgg) were used to determine the allowable flaw size values Osed to construct the handbook charts. For normal, upset and test conditions, the critical flaw size a, is determined as the depth at which the applied stress intensity factor K exceeds g the arrest fracture toughness Eg ,. ) l For emergency and faulted conditions the minimum flaw size for crack initiation is obtained from the first intersection of the applied stress intensity factor (K )g curve with the static fracture toughness (Kgg) curve. l l l
?
2-4
, ., , TABLE 2-1 STEAM GENERATOR TRANSIENTS - BYRON UNIT 2
.[.
NUMBER TRANSIENT IDENTIFICATION # Cycles l 1 Heatup and Cooldown
- 200 Turbine Roll Test 20 W
2 Plant loading and unloading
- Unit loading 13200 Small Step load increase 1500
_ 2000 16700
- 3. Inadvertent RCS Depressurization
- 20 Control Rod Drop Large Step Load Decrease 80 200 Partial Loss of Flow .,
80 Inadvertent S.I. Actuation ~ 60 Loss of Power 40 Inadvertent Startup of Inactive Loop 10 Normal Loop Shutdown 80 650 4 Reactor trip C
- 10 Reactor trip A 230 Reactor trip B 160 400 5 Excessive feedwater flow
- 30 6 Bypass Line tempering
- 20 Valve failure Nomal loop startup 70 90 7 Excessive bypass flow
- 40 Feedwater cycling _ 2000 2040 8 Primary side leak test
- 200 i (primary at 2485 psig, secondary at 885 psig) 9 Secondary side leak test
- 80 (primary at 615 psig, secondary at 1285 psig) 10 Primary side hydrotest*
10 (primary at 3106 psig, secondary at 0 psig) 11 Secondary side hydrotest* 10 (primary at 0 psig, secondary at 1481 psig) 12 Tube leak test D* 80
- (primary at 0 psig, secondary at 840 psig) 13 Tube leak test C* 120 (primary at 0 psig, secondary at 600 psig) 14 Tute kak test B* 200 (primaryat0psig,secondaryat400psig)
- 15. Tube leak test A* 800 l
(primary at 0 psig, secondary at 200 psig)
- Governing Transients -
2-5 l t
- n .
.m J I' 3.c FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH in applying < ode acceptance criteria as introduced in Section 1, the final flaw size a, used in criterla (1) is defined as the minimum flaw size to which the detected flew is calculated to grow at the end of the design life, or until the next inspection time. In this handbook, ten , twenty , thirty , and forty-year Inspection periods are assumed.
These crack growth calculations have been carried out for all the regions of the Byron Unit 2 steam generators for.which evaluation charts have been constructed. This section will examine the calculations, and provide the methodology used as well as the assumptions. The crack growth calculations carried out were rather extensive, because a range of flaw shapes have been considered, to encompass the range of flaw shapes which could be encountered in service. ANALYSIS ETHODOLOGY The f atigue crack growth analysis procedure involves postulating an Initial flaw at specific regions and predicting the growth of that flaw due to an imposed series of loading transients. The input required for a f atigue crack growth analysis is basically the Information necessary to calculate the parameter AKy which depends on crack and structure geometry and the range of applied stresses in the area where the crack exists. Once AKg is calculated, the growth due to j that particular stress cycle can be calculated by equations'given below and in Figure 3-1. This increment of growth is then added to the original crack size, and the analysis proceeds to the next transient. The procedure is continued in this manner until all the transients known to occur in the period of evaluation have been analyzed. The transients considered In the analysis are all the design transients contained I,p the steam generator equipment specification, as shown in Section 2, Table 2-1. These transients are spread equally over the design lifetime of t l 3-1
., r . , - % the vessel, with the execpticn that the preoperaticnal tests are ccnsidered first. Faulted conditions are not considered because their frequency of occurrence is too low to affect fatigue crack growth.
- Crack growthTalculations were carried out for a range of flaw depths, and three basic types. The first type was a surface flaw with length equal to six times its depth, and whose analysis was previously reported. The second was a continuous surface flaw, which represents a worst case for surface fisws, and the third was an embedded flaw, with length equal to three times its width.
For all cases the flaw was assumed to maintain a constant shape as it grew. STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR EXPRESSIONS,. Stress intensity factors were calculated from methods available in the literature for each of the flaw types analyzed. The surface flaw with aspect ratio 6:1 was analyzed using an expressure developed by McGowan and Raymund ) [2] where the stress intensity factor K is calculated from the actual stress profile through the wall at the location of interest. The maximum and minimum stress profiles corresponding to each transient are represented by a third order polynomial, such that: 2 3 e (X) = A0*A1 *A 2 *A 3 4 The stress jntensity factor Kg ($) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by $ = 0. The following expression is used for calculating Kg ($). Kg ($) = * (cos2 , , ,g,2,) W gg0 "O + Al H j ! c 1 1 I 1L2 3
+
2 12 A2 H 2+bl 313 3 A H) 3 l 3-2
l w . The magnification factors H 0 ($), Hj ($), H2($) and H3 ($) are
';- obtained by the procedure. outlined in reference [2].
The stress intensity factor for a continuous surface flaw was calculated using an expression for an edge cracked plate [8]. Thestressdistribudonis linearized through the wall thickness to determine membrane and bending stress and the applied K is calculated from: Kg = e ,Y ,/s + eg Y,/a The magnification factors Y, and Y, are taken from [8] and a is the crack depth. For embedded flaws the stress Intensity factor is much lower than for a surface flaw of equivalent size. This, combinted with the fact that the fatigue crack growth rate for embedded flaws is much lower, leads to the conclusion that fatigue crack growth from embedded flaws is generally very low. For these cases, the stress Intensity factor provided in Appendix A of Section XI was used directly, which requires linearizing the stress, as discussed above. For these cases the flaw shape was set with length equal to three times the width, and the eccentricity was set at 2.5, which corresponds to a flaw near the Inside surface of the vessel. This flaw shape provides a conservative, worst case calculation of stress Intensity factor for embedded flaws. In regions where crack growth for embedded flaws exceeded one percent in 40 years, the crack growth results were f actored directly into the embedded flaw evaluation charts. CRACK GROWTH RATE REFERENCE CURVES j ' The crack growth rate curves used in the analyses were taken directly from Appendix A of Section XI of the ASME Code. Water environment curves were used l for all inside surface flaws, and the air environment curve was used for embedded flaws and outside surface flaws. Is For water environments the reference crack growth curves are shown in Fig. 3-1, and growth rate is a function of both the applied stress intensity factor range, and the R ratio (Kg/K,) for the transient. 3-3 >
For R<0.25 J; (&Kg <19 ksi/in) h = (1.02 x 10-6) gg,5.95 (AKg >19 ksi/in) h = (1.01 x 10-3) gg,1.95 where h = Crack Growth rate, micro-inches / cycle. For R>0.65 (AK g <12 ksi/in) h = (1.20 x 10-5) gg g5.95 l (AK g >12 ksi/in) h = (2.52 x 10~I) AK y For R ratio between these two extremes, interpolation is recomended. The crack growth rate reference curve for air environments is a single curve, with growth rate being only a function of applied AK. This reference curve
- is also shown in Figure 3-1.
h = (0.0267 x 10-3) gg l m l Where, k= Crack growth rate, micro-inches / cycle - AKg = stress intensity factor range, ksi/in I
- I"Imax ~E lmin I l
l l I 3-4 1
.~ . . .. . .
O. ,
]
1000
' LINEAR INTERPOLATION 88
.l -
- p ,
- 700- RECOMMENDED TO ACCOUNT /
.. FOR RATIC DEPENDENCE OF . )
500- WATER ENVIRONMENT CURVES. / _ i i POR 0.25 < R < o.ss FOR SHALLOW SLOPE: * #% [. !
.e .
" i x i. oi , am g,
(% r ! : b . # 2 = 3.75 R
- 9.06 < ,[
- N[=N 200 -
A*EMIM" MAX f[ [ [8 i 9gg _ SUS SURFACE FLAWS (AIR ENVIRONMENT)
!4
,I .
to - g. so.na87x10'3sta,3.728 l 50 -
'DETE"M'"E TM8 '" "T WHICH THE LAW CHANGES
}
i BY CALCULATION OF THE g - INTERSECTION OF THE TWC CURVES) - >C j ~ SURF ACE FLAWS (WATER REACTOR ' i ENVIRONMENT) j l 3 APPLICA8LE FOR R C0.25< l
. gg
- 0.25 < R < 0.85 <
R > 0.85< 6 7C R*K MIN MAX'
=
"k
- f 4 *L NEAR INTERFOLATION is 5 f '2 i
RECOMMENDED TO ACCOUNT 4 '0" " "'T'O DE'ENDENCE C'
}k l f WATER ENVIRONMENT CURVES.
FOR 0.25 < R < 0.85 FOR 87EEP
~ ef gLOrg
,f I
. I *
$. 4
*/*
- i.02 5 10 og AKM g/g ,
03 3s.s4.s.725 i ll; i ,ll! f a -
- MIN =uAx
! 1 i i i i i i i tiiii } 1 2 p 7 10 20 50 70 100 i STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR RANGE LaKg (K5'l/IE.) l FJG. 3-1 REFERENCE FATIGUE CRAcr. GRD'niH CURVES F0il
.. CARBON AND LOW ALLOY FERRITIC STEEL 5
.e .
3-5 ,
y . J, 4. USE OF THE FLAW EVALUATION CHARTS EVALUATION.PRDCEDURE The evaluation procedures contained in ASME Section XI are clearly specified in paragraph IWB-3600. Use of the evaluation charts herein follows these procedures directly, but the steps are greatly simplified. Once the indication is discovered, it must be characterized as to its location, length (1) and depth dimension (a for surface flaws, 2a for embedded flaws), including its distance from the inside surface (S) for embedded indications. This characterization is discussed in further detail in paragraph IWA 3000 of Section XI. , The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use , the charts (see Figure 1-2): ' i o Flaw Shape parameter, f o Flawdepthparameter,f a Surface proximity parameter (for embedded flaws only), f where t t = wall thickness of region where indication is located I 1 = length of indication f a = depth of surface flaw; or half depth of embedded flaw in the width : direction ,
& = cistance from flaw centerline to surface (for embedded flaws only) !
(& = s + a) ; 5 = smallest distance from edge of embedded flaw to surface - I S l 1 i 4-1 , __ ___- __ _ _ _ ._ _ . _ ~ _ _ . _ _ , _ , _ . _ , . . ~ ___ ._-_
Once the above parameters have been determined and the determination made as 2 to whether the indication is embedded or surface, then the two parameters may j be plotted directly on the appropriate evaluation chart. Its location on the chart determines its acceptability immediately. Although the use of the handbook charts is conceptually straight forward, experience in their development and use has led to a number of observations which will be helpful. l Surface Flaws An example handbook chart for surface flaws is shown in Figure 4-1. The flaw indication parameters (whose calculation is described above) may be plotted directly on the chart to determine acceptability. The lower curve shown (labelled code allowable limit) is simply the acceptance standard from IW8 3500, which is tabulated in Section XI. If the plotted point falls below this line, the indication is acceptable without analytical justification having been required. If the plotted point falls between the code allowable limit line and the lines labelled ' upper limits of acceptance by analysis' it is l acceptable by virtue of its meeting the requirements of IW8 3600, which allow acceptance by fracture analysis. (Flaws between these lines would, however, require future monitoring per IWB 2420 of Section XI.) The analysis used to develop these lines is documented in this report. There are four of these
~
lines shown in the charts, labelled 10, 20, 30, 40 years. The years indicate for how long the acceptance limit applies from the date that a flaw indication is discovered, based on fatigue crack growth calculations. As may be seen in Figure 4-1, the chart gives results for surface flaw shapes tp to a semi-circular flaw (a/1 = 0.5). For the unlikely occurrence of flaws which the value of a/1 exceeds 0.5, the limits on acceptance for a/1
= 0.5 should be used. The upper limits of acceptance have been set at (a maximum of) twenty percent of the wall thickness in all cases, u ,
i , 4-2 ' i l 6
i
.s :
.- l
', Embedded flaws l
! An example evaluation chart for embedded flaws is shown in Figure 4-2. The heavy diagonal line-in the figure can be med directly to determine whether the f indication should be characterized as an embedded flaw or whether it is I 1 sufficiently close to the surface that it must be considered as a surface flaw (by the rules of Section XI). If the flaw parameters produce a plotted point i I below the heavy diagonal line, it is acceptable by analysis. If it is 3).9.Y.t. l
! the line, it must be considered a surface flaw and evaluated using the surface (
flaw chart in Figure 4-l . I l The standards for flaw acceptance without analysis cannot be shown in the embedded flaw charts because of their generality. Therefore, they have been f I plotted separately in Figure 4-3. Note the change in standards with the 1980 ! code, when the standards became a function of the proximity to the surface, 5. j j r i ! I Detailed examples of the use of the charts for both surface and embedded flaws I
< t j are presented in the following sections.
Surface flaw Example I i Suppose an indication has been discovered which is a surface flaw and has the j following characterized dimensions: ! 1 i a = 0.12' l 1 = 1.2" f t = 3.13' I l i The flaw parameters for the use of the charts are i f=0.0383(3.g35) { r j f=0.10 i v . I plotting these parameters on Figure 4.1 it is quickly seen that the indication l
- is acceptable by analysis. To justify operation without repair it is }
i . l l \ r 4-3 f _ _ . . _ _ , _ , _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ ___ _ . _ .__._ _. J
4 necessary to submit this plot along with the Technical Basis document [1] to the regulatory authorities. Embedded Flaw Example A circumferential embedded flaw of 0.24 x 5.00', located within 0.2817' from the surface, was detected. Determine whether this flaw should be considered as an embedded flaw. 2a = 0.8138'
~
5 = 0.2817' - 4 = 5 + a = 0.2817 + 1/2 (0.8138) = 0.6886' t = 3.13' 1 = 5.0" and,
, a = 1/2 x 0.8138'
= 0.4069" Using Figure 4-2:
A, 0.4069 t 3.13
= 0.13 j, , 0.6886 = 0.22
- t 3.13 Since the plotted point (x) is below diagonal line, the flaw is considered embedded.
The flaw is not acceptable, however, since the upper limit for allowable flaws was set at a/t = 12.5%, which corresponds to a total wall penetration (fa) of 25%.
,8 l i
4-4 I
u ,. . ,- 10 years - 20 years
- 30 years 40 years y {.
..[
E!'
$! N!-!'ih dli
.i I:c ;.
- 'M 4--
i b \-kihy - - [f' $ltll 31 dd llh I
;N'.ht
!II} -; .;;.
A T Y ANALYSIS g ..i sit; ti;; 4 j., .- l f .i.: 2,, L
.!:a li:' illi jii q.
g _* p -y
.T
..i I
/ . ,,
.y y
.sg; .. .
.f ,.I'l !b:i iNI[I,t y' ;
' :*I: I'! i'l i:l vii;
\. ::;.
*~
s.F is , !, . ;- _-
- 8 l6 i. e ii / .; . . ..
- h. ..:.. ..i.n.,._:,J, .:. 4ay I% y:.gap . 4
. :. .p.
- g. . . q!.!. 1::- !l: _.:. - .
.g!'
- t, - . ..
8
.. -it iii: in. ::::
ir-yj; ;.;: -t, . .m .
- .- .a
;r 94 ... .!!: isti
; !H eli: sit ;i,; ;-.111.,L: --
- is..
._n.pj;.
i- __p ., ; . . . . . g p!' .:-t
- :_ = .:: :. ::: ,g; WITHtN THIS ZONE THE SURFACE s .x + it ;
g- . gri :-
,- il !-
lil 11!: :'ii is )/ liit i:;i :;ii ;i;; ;;;
= -
; -; :+t e' ,: .- -
FLAW IS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE g
!!n 2'll :s .ill lili 11, i: 7 ;: :li! i;n. ANALYTICALCRITERIA IWB 3600 E .:. .. .. .
... .-:. _:... .-:a. 1 ... . :S ,
'!!' l;
~
- I?:-
'Ill ilh !dl llli iij / iii ,ii; !!;j :;p 'r- S 'E :!I: !f Ia 'O
* :, ..a -- f .- - -
e,_:. . J. i, d!i illl p-a:t. !::a:.13. ila. . ..r.. . !t .:L .: .:.: - - -
.-: ..m ',
I fi: 'if. i t.ii. i.: ':.
. s is. :-...
.,- ,1.. . , ., .
8 -
- '- F. - --
-' * : :ii 3-' .
Z.at, :.:. .4 .n. . :. .n. p:...: y & .igL; E .9 .ig. .i.i 4 Ji.
.:7, JB : s:.
ei , .gg; ,;; y
.- - - : i.r ,.
4 8 a ,:! ; .. .. CODE ALLOWABLE LIMff V.: i.; i: T . - M - 1
% -tPg p
.IL]:IS I::.-
n. j g yp p . . .
*p- :;
7
.c; a
- .: .1 -
y- "r 4, iAM : ! .'il ' 6 ;' im : !'
. .it:..l.9 .p.:-
ti ;
- ;1ti
.g. .:
P
]
I I I. :::. J: 11. iii- .: !:ii lill tir !il: :. ,.i. .- -: - i!- :. i; / NO ANALYTICALJUSTtFICATION iji. :ii
. sii i.;
,5;
.:: ;p; g !;.
i;;
.- ttp
. i. ::;:
p. IS REQUIRED O O O.1 0.2 r.3 0.4 0.5 , FLAW SHAPE ( 1/1 FIGURE 4-1 Flaw Evaluation Chart for Circumferential Surface Flaw in the Tube Sheet to Stub Barrel Weld Region d
da/45/109331 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARC ATION ' LINE 0.13 .
^
"t'i:i - *!f_f :I::1
.h:-EMstDDED FLAW "['- N ':.3*
S
. ::.=. - %.3. _., . ,co._N ascu..m Atso..N if 1:.. -
- I _ FLAWS WITH t 0.12 : .;:g=. :. .
... '~
.a .iL - . : iN: ~:.;ji: ABOVE THIS LINE ARE E *a ::1-"~ ...
1 ' ..ri-..f.:: ::f
. . -' :T.P.-T p" " ' " '..~"!'. E. . ,. NOT ALLOWABLE I "." "
o 11 - - i.;r;ig :v .uj T = . :=: .1 !--- '"pg':p' 'igi.; -!:ip .,.
- = i:i.E . :!
0.10 .:
- . 1
.. :it /;..:f U:"
.- I:!j :
. . : . !!p:ui
- = v f.m
.3:.11= _ ::1 -
r ::.- .::a . .. . . - 2: zitie -
.i g: . -y 3 g! { j.s ' a i. :.i1. . . . . . . .
cII di b _ iM := = f!J s +1.: : +ii-- - r .. M g 0.08 - '! "'
;.5;ia:r rhp
, ~. : +se .eam..W/r u r.. i;p.: n ..
g 0.07 :ii.iit suasAct- ::=:qf.;j=
- 1 1 - - =.': -
.. l::".
~- iii:l:i mil.:
$ .ri ri!P.:T..- ;"~;if 1139 :1-? : :.i_ = itii:9 diiii ;pjp z
> O 06 hascioN runs iN ms uust er..-&
W'N G1 Tdt @ % C Lico%siogngo-
"y-rl - -
8:
..m
.~~
h 0.05 MisuRfAct i.i ; l -T:j " ' F Ei!? p!,
/ z
~ . . . .
m
'~-
, rFuws.
9: ...p pli. au: .i-) . :;p . ::. j g,g4 !a . - fij:iin :p .j, . . l-
- a-
- .) !-
- ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS
- !- . - a
.:. " :.;:i 7 4:_ :q . ::i - (ON THIS SIDE OF
%' f.j i:' _$pa .- 1:5 d}i.. :5 iIjy
~'
'. b . -l. DEMARKATION LINE) 0.03 1.....
- l...
./ .
. .a. . .. ' . . .. . , .
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER 1 f .""i. . . ; . . t CRITERlA OF IW8 3600 0.02 9:
=
n , '. ,:.; a;.:i.- :q:. ' . aL ;;;a..; ...!.
':" .j. !".
U. AS LONG AS .2e.40.25 t 0.01 l._ _.:g- - i. q ..
' 'i.
2.i :..
- ).: .:j h ::1 : i l. l.. .
+q :p
'l ""
O I " I ' . . ' . 'I i 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f) Figurek-2 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluatin Charts - Circumferential Flaws in Tubesheet to stub barrel weld region (SGC-02) 4-6 l l L
.lV - - ;, -
+ = = . i =--Ei.:-- _i.tii- =-t=+.utsie_-{ =g =-i .- :t
.g :_ . ' cut - : +:i =i=#E-%ii i :5=c:it+"iid - Yi i' :
.:=.. : -.: .= . .=4 . . ..-
. - . - . . - - -- - .3. -- -- . ; . . .:.= . -_2. ..,. . --] . _- ..
.It - - -i ' - -' ,C.tA
. 3 Q ;-t/s._3 W *Ai :
i . 3 d .- .
-- . : ; - .y .:j:. . :: .i .;_: ._::.: ..;.:_d.2:
. . . . . . . . n, _;.:s. &. =. :.:..:r : .--.-
elI _ : . .
. . _: ._ - -e- " :: . .: :-- . ;; .: . 2.
.ID
. N % ~: -
.l - = :l. ::
_.._:._----6 -
- .?. 2 .2-..:
3.:__ I . . .r::::- n:- -
- - - r: . .: . .
.09 ( f 4 . .:_;. : _:u.c
- s. - :
s , . , L . _. _.... . ..
.3, E
y ( { i RN=f i5-
- k. -Se . .:: ji= :j=. . =f.;;i .: .
E *g :- ._. . , . . .!-llr.u: E'.:.. _ .~. s p g,g* a i:; eij 5.=f_M.M/ I c :. .a f .r: _ _. a . , -
- y ,. m _ + y- o. s
- 7 .....a . . .... . , , q ...- .
,, J. .3:
.2 -
.:= .- - -
.- j .:_:.- .... p ....: ...r - a q.
.2 ._
. . . . 3...:
7 .;. .: u! ..: i = +1 . / = / - I .....) y ~ Y= 0.G
. _:. .-l..."_Mid:5 ;s{-- ::_ :
. .-l;2 _: :ii[.':1 #/ -
M
. . .j j -
l .j .
.03 #
- r : ;j- -
.o..
.. ...j.
_ l.
- -*-Y
- : 0.4
, ...g ., 4j:: _.3:g 2._. ; -
, . j-4-1
.61< l i l; .{ . - ,
.r.
! *i. +
.0l"
.t.
t.'
. .a
. .. ?. 3. - . . ,r 0.8 0.2. O.3 0.*f c.T o -
FLAWSHAPE(a/l) FIGURE 4-3 Acceptance Standards for Embedded Flaws, from Table IWB-3511-1
*0nly Y = 1.0 curve applies to ASML Codes prior to 1980 Edition.
i 4-7
,. 5. HANDBOOK CHARTS FOR BYRON UNIT 2 STEAM GENERATOR In this section flaw evaluation charts are provided for each of the regions of interest for the Byron Unit 2 model D-5 steam generators, as shown in Figure 5-1. Separate charts are provided for inside surface flaws and embedded flaws.
The charts are provided in the following order: o Tubesheet to channel head weld region (seem SGC-01) o Tubesheet to stub barrel weld region (SGO-02) o Stub barrel Intermediate seem (SGC-03) o Lower shell to cone weld region (SGC-05) o Upper ~shell to cone weld region (SGC-06) o Upper shell to dome wold region (SGC-08) o Feedwater nozzle to shell weld region (SGN-02) Instructions and examples for use of the charts are contained in Section 4 6 i 5-1
l
'V
.- Upper shell-dome (SGC-08)
O O E]^ Upper shell-cone (SGC-06) Lower shell-cone (SGC-05) Stub barrel intermediate seam (SGC-03) Feedwater nozzle-shell (SGN-02) Tubesheet-stub barrel (SGC-02) Tubesheet-channel head (SGC-01) i' Figure 5-1 Schematic of Byron Unit 2 Model D-5 Steam Generator 5-2
_.n, _ . . .
., -- - -.m - -- m_ r l
4
. 48/45/10930 1 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE 0.13
_j.:; _ gr} ' :[..:1 :
.l.:.....__.......-.
EMSEDDED FLAW ;*[3: 2; "=' 0 12
.. ! W 8. - -., .. c_oNFacu..R ... Ati.o..N :j . Pt.:.
,- FLAWS WITH a 7
.i.
- =_. .ii_s. . ..'
- :u. . a- _
_ . v. n:.l..n: r . w :, ..n n.u. .x/ . . a h. : ; ::
=
=
A8OVE THIS LINE ARE
.__ . _.,..=~. r.NOT ALLOWABLE
_. = 0.11 =. :te ._.1f,: W.in;- ri1=.-
=
?r f ..
. .. . *L. . _-
. . =. =...z.
. i.
r r:t ."_
= =--
si:
. . . . " . .- . . -..n[:::
- :.1 !. ._. . , ._.< a.1#,.... l =_
. . .:=. t.. :. :. :n. 1=. . .2.-
Elg = .H p: I ii'fl9 i;f i li:' _ .Ni"..: .!jfj.!iiiij= u. 0.10 .._:. 3
.~=
.h
- . t.
a: _. ... .:.._---_.- . _. .. - ... _a. . n_=
.. . . ... . .u :: .-r.=... . _ . . . . -=.u. . :
3=isie : M c :- # th/:!# "iii: Wiiii: ?!L=- dE =- 3
.T-0.09 Etc a =nM' :t=" /t) , ! .. rl.i.isn= WiR :Li-
- na :.
g o.os - : y .: . gg :g,r c3;; .:5:;;, .jj . ;=,p;.5:g:3.g: :.
- t. . . . nn s m_, ._
.:.l /.s.. 2
.=. . l. .=: - :.. . =:. . .
- c. x. =_ ..=. F =. .::t.=:.
g =urj > 8 - g 0.07 n ::-- = n_f. ;g=:- . =: - ::1.: a=. ::.-;n... n 4:; O :* . ..
*C Ed =suasacti" j
. .':I N *E;'. ".U ~; i Ii3. . . .
s 0.06 -3,FL,AWs IN TMisC #;:f '=,: M" ""I :-
.:. 9u!".
".5_h".
- . re . -_.*' g_"ir.
O liCO%5lDEREDc,os 1 wust " ~ *of 1=:...: *?.: ; ..-
.: . - ".h
- t.... .
'"t"~~ a L 4.: - . . .
. - O:
h 0.05 li S u R F A CE [.i:li"; iij:i ' Jii["2 eiE .if:1:i.:N* E -F . .:Z ~. f!. a . n.. . . .La.. w s. . ... :.x, :: e.j .: aL:.:- ..
=. 1 n -":} .r. E ~:t- a c. .:
0.04 ib E
"ij= il :;n "i 4 . i: i1 !
. ii= : f.:i . i.i = :: .j". - f.gi: ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS
~"
. :.ja _ ni- :jir (ON THIS SIDE OF
' . . . . -i .J:. '..". '. I . ."' . . r:E .J' ':
0.03 ~...- := ].f l'1.: -Z:. ;g.: ul:
.I ' . -
y
'" "'" DEM ARKATION LINE)
. .a . : f" --
;p. .a .g. . ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
~"at -
... CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 o
0.02 -: T..., ::;;: "i. { ..... Mr ! :. ca;u "'. :"N, ". . AS LONG AS _2a 40.25
' 1;. "
;;;a.. .
- t;
= j j 1
0.01 : e :1 '.: !: . ! :
- ij:- i:) . nl:i :ildr
~
~"' ~"
r i. a. F. ia ~ i ; ;. .;i.. . ia . .a
. :ii. :+ .t..
- f. *j !iNU ; i .
l: .' :l. : . !'
-l 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE ({l .
- i. '
Figure 5-2' Embedded Flaw Evaluation Charts - Longitudinal Flaws in Tubesheet i to channel head weld region (seam SGC-01) I l 5-3
e I 1 l
,W {l0 20 years years -
20 - _ _ ._ y! !ill 911 till Illi gj g q4j g4j y j:a i: 'f " 'W '
- L[I l 11 lill I!jl [. l {l1 [
lill 11 II j ) ,30 years 40 years ilII !iti lili iii; ini ch li mt ;iii 7- -
.c ll! !O.kI I I , Il lill i i
,a g i. g iU ml lm g t jh diI g .g. ...; .. ..
! IHI H HU H HH !
h I lg jg! hg, h;q 16 M lii k h $l M III IIII II IIIl iII @iilii ilil Ii illl liti lii) iiiii! ii i !;;i ji;; gg i; ; ;; i;; i;; ;;; j :q ;; _
, ,; ; g ;;;; , ,
y y iidi;n kh $!f[ hl I1[Illi li!} iiji illt Illi IIl lljl illi illl illi j ii i ( llii ilk ih i 'I ID l ' 1 k !!!i n; h h
- " ;ii! '
O!I h.! h Ih
!II! OI IIll !!II Illl IIll Hil I I Oli lill UH IUi hii ilii h I IM h hh hi T '
i WITHIN THIS ZONE THE SURFACE I!!! FLAWIS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE
= 12 f i r $ I o 10 g! ;!;j iii! ;j i, i ) n -
- n. .. . . ; g;j g;; ;g; j;;; j;;; ;i;, i ;i N;
8
* "!!Ilii liii iiii lil lii in iii k i; i[,j m; $ if@ ;J "jgf fi' 9 !!ii liii Ri illi ii!!
jijj $ [0 0jhjj yl; $ ijj j[ 30((j j[ Ofj yilli iH! [q3ji i ['0hi h sp.
.,: ,n- .,,- -- - -
i- .
- .. .. . . . III Willl i i r. m 6 j; ;jj
, ;;g ;;! lig; !,jj g; .!;i ;!!; g!! jt!! j ! 14 !!;i gli ijl! !!i i!!!
i g i;;: li! pODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT 2,2 T: T iMiin MI$ d}lTili M! iii; II.1 tyi up I!'i ilii i!;l jjij jjjj j;;; jjh .lh iN !'I' /[ 4
! . . .. : :i?. 4!! !!!! lik 'i!! !I!i 'lil ll!I !!!! liii $M uo s iiii liji -
- . J m "ti qi Iir ..; im in- ; ;g gg mi g}
ijjj ;jij jiii jiJi j]pjj] Jjg ;,; $1!..]! ] ![ji !ji~ , j 2 NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION !
.!:! gj ii; ;[j !}[ ;iii i '
gli il i jj jif Illi IIii j l iii il i iig Iij Sij N}}: { :. !!!! ! Il !!!! !!i! !lli ti:l i}}) Jhj jiji jl} IS REQUIRED ; 0. R ib -li! li1l !!!i !ili lIll lil III i ti : ]l!! !!! i
- O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ., ,
l -- FLAW SHAPE (a//) . g Figure 5-3 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Longitudinal Flaws in Tubesheet to channel head weld region (seam SGC-01) . e e
i
. 48/45/109301
._ t -
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION ' LINE 0.13 -. ~ . ~ - sj:i -~iM ib3 :I' : 'M9a Id-EMBEDDED FLAW "[':- 8
. - FLAWS WITH
- p.g %. .. vCON
.. . =:
0.12 : =_ :. :- : m riGu..m ATI,O...N
... r =f- -
il' . 7
- a. 1 c .: : ..._n - :;. . a =c ABOVE THIS LINE ARE
=.v:-
n.! . . /* %, : .r .# -
-.=. . =. :
. n .r
- f. : f.. NOT ALLOWABLE
-.. L=. . _ -.
- t..f . p".. ::[an i :-..
'u: n _:, :.. .n,.e::
0.11 - - ' ' - '~ " " - '
!!-fi li. :!!iT a= i_=: .3 !: : - ". I:/.:if i"'
- - .!!-%i - fiiNi :
- ; .ri!
.:- _: _-: :i;iiff i=i:ii::~. : .: - :: "" -
5.ij:iq 0.10 -. : ::i"..-
..: -.n;::::. :. .:.-
..!!)::ai
.A. .
a.-
.a. .n ... .z. -
. f' . . .
... .. - r. .u. :. : :
>. 0.09 iiiifii-
- i. L:
ii' iiFi [!:ifi "i k i".;.ill.i_ Ni!5 ...._
- Eit' u: r::.- ..,..:.
Cl
'~
u .t - at - : =_-. :: -
~.
g 0.0a Lidiji:;.. 1" -
%4/Jf),:iii.i:- ~i l .'. g.[: ; j.ilyinii~:'
q :: -- dj*. s eient a mje.T:l/ i : .;;p isn; M8iir j lt j :d+i g E[U i - 5: .n,f.;[:=: .. ... # m-
- jii : i4::
0.07 ::: .- E .:-..:.j.;r..g. suaea:E: .1 :: ". . . :::"- y . - -
--- . / . . . _ .-pr:::-!
- .":=...
.n. . : ..:n.: ..:n .
- n. y.:. .. . . .
E 0.06 irt,4ws if:i O i# @. T:!Mid@:i Ei; b. C , a,0NINMusT THis sE f":.. .
.r'-I "3---
- i C ON siD E R E D' > -- - a.!::
-' I" g .'iisvaract f li j-; i iti . ;. i": ;i' ;
.ijil;;.: - n-O.05 - flaws _ r:i
- .In -f-l .
S; :ii- n- - :r - r 1:. nii :: :. 4 7.:im .: . iE- : r: Liii . - i-: :r - j' . E 0'04 -
- *:: 4- .iiif n- -
i;l . ti -
- ALL EM MDDED FL.AWS
.iii. . :
.. , f. i . i:ini. a. ! .
. ;..g -ii.4E -
- fi:: .. :i.i.a. .iii. n (ON Ti.sS SIDE OF g
"f, . . , . .
.. ._.i...
'j.'
"" .. "g 0.03 E.' -
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
)
./ '".^:- .: ..- .:la a .vi- ::. ii:- mu- :
il . 1 CRITERIA OF IWB 3600
'~'
'7". us.. _ = . . . .: . . . , .a. . ..,..
"." ?n *::...
0.02 2 ..'
- f AS LONG AS _2ad l,0.25 n: ..! .:n::: -
;:L.; :g}::,....(" r. "*l,.: :. t
[; M- :1.:1: ..! : ;ijn i:!:i ilii-0.01 .
--!:i:.
f' : !.: .
;i: i !.
4.. . ... ..,.. f i.. :; :i:::i , i- l. . . :!" -l-0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) Figure'5-4 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws in Tubesheet to stub barrel weld region (SGC-02) 5-5 l l
..o 10 years-20 years
- 30 years 40 years
.: .- ' :n r P.' '
~
Y u: + UPPER l.IMITS OF iii. Ilij jij, q;i ip'. - ml >m ith yij- gg ip-!;;. ye - -m -! g! @.! .;d! ; b.l hl! l illi i ;rMqg l...3l:ill
= r ... Ik' Nlt ACCEPTANCE BY AN41.YS15
.. til; ::: pc ;irti ;;. .
i,:
.>o llll 13} 2* W 1S
- q. .g
.g .-/ ro. o :!I I;ij ... .i
.::. c-
..:. .; . .c - -
d a 4i 2;i ,iI.I 4u; :;;; all -";- a- :- .!:;1..;
- ll'. :! E 4--
+! 9: Hi- :-
.f. fn :'-g, :p"i : j. ,.?
" ,p.'
.." .- "" g8:
+- . ,,;. -
J " ' - 16 /- .- /.y jp je, ;",:,
'b '". :1 t :i i : ,e .:,. .- ' "i- .
4 ::- ihj : :r :-, -p". . c .;38! 24 4F :j : [!
'a1. .: Ill2 % 11 4M. i. h :'!j;-
M
' ;' '"' %::;..b ;!!! : fi . !! ! :i l l'!: lil!
'lil Illi i l. :!!: it .; ;i;'
Y
@g
- !! 's.. ;11: l3;i -
ili- -ll u -sil
~
[-- .. if - 181:
;.:: i:iji !!!! '!":-"uil :11; .;i: i;c ini ii:;
q .c a; iiii jy' :.:t 2".. .lli
. u e ::. ap .
p"!'1'3! !WfTHIN THfS ZONE THE SURFACE f ,; ::!' !!!! %l ll!: !!!! Mi: M.3- . 11 ::;i tiil i:;i :ip ;i;; *;;; :+ ,; . . : ;:'- FLAWIS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE
*g ilii g g- - ?.4 :d '!! -@ ANALYTICAL CRITERIA flW8 3600) h a.
..:. .: . .. : !!ii 8}j !! i l .41 ill! Ili P
.. .. h.n f ..
lip- :' .- - t
- 4r i.- m-i;.
- .
- n %
- ; mt r+ -
;- i!b :l(
!.ill lit. ilk j iii ;iri :lli w l'n.
'..!!!...lii:
o 10 . .. d, ,'.. li.. ,i i,[iifj INI
- p. ..
iii; ilii
- i :!il ith 3.:
g 3,.; :.,sE'; ..'D !. g 4 .,0 ils. :...i. :..i.. ,.,, d./ f- . i :ij
., ".til.. . ,:. _, .,.., .
- a. -
.i.:
.{.
- .l 'll. . . 'le.:.
. . ':. :v.. .
5s (" g; .<
- 4. 11!! '!,d
. Oi li:. !:; g;. .g. 3p .u: .;i.. .i;;
m * .i.E1r.. E:4. :.';. .
+-4. 2..
..~ ,,,. ,i., ._ih i,.., .. ',i[ 31
,.i x.
CODE ALLOWA8tE LIMff 8 i.i ;!: 1;: . . !'i .
.i c: ..!-
.i:! p.- . . . - ,:: .
"Iiliti.. . :. .:
V..::a.c - .
- . .:.r. g:: --
..- :.cf.t
.. ,1. .1 ::r: .e . :..;Qi.]j.
-i .i:: . .. - ..- ~. iii. .
- i. pi
.. .. .t.. .g. . i. ,,: _. .y 4 ::: !!! tin
'. . i!!-
.:.. _. : .:.: :: : :a :.:: :4; -.:. ..
2.*. g,,
.8:
a
#:4l.a4
- l';
..j ,
s e. ut. .g. .: . .:
. *. - n.i- .;::
.: a,- .- .- 2 ..
. . . . i:
;l :, il ;. n. ,l .l, ,.
li:1 l:: ,1;; dt] ..- .- -~ i::- _: 9e: 2 ,
.!:j y ,:, ,j; g :,,p ,j; ,;;i ~ -
,; !;;; i;j, ,;p ,;p ;;;.
, :,;. ip j. :!.;
NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION IS REQUIRED
.- .I,- ':p. :::.. . :. - ;i.
c."~ q' . '
~
, up'
. r,'
. r' ".
0 O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 , FLAW SHAPE (a//) FIGURE 5-5 Flaw Evaluation Chart for Circumferential Surface Flaw in the ~ Tube Sheet to Stub Barrel Weld Region (SGC-02) l J i l l l
's e
. 48/45/10930-1 SUR FACE /EM B EDDE.'
FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE 0.13 --
.j-si_-% ' Iu!j . .-. -
8 EMBEDDED FLAW "[h I2 ; -#'
.:: = :
- ,3, --. p. .. .r- NFIGU CO.m..R A..TI.O..N .,f . ,
' ' pp ., i g Me y .3,
. 1 O.12 :_3.- =n :..- :
4
...: :. A.JG. d M ARE
=. : - .:/ .. ::-.er = .:=:
n:y7n:
#8%.y 5
,' 74 '
EEi# T: -
'Ilil;[ : -M!:Si :idfii [i li-!I@i !!:~ t .fr "!5
- if:ii.
., _- :;. .;jj fi ' : .: ::3: .3 13 ^ )i;[ .kii
. :!!!(i! - "lijii!:~ .i j. f.
El"i#- -#2! 1:C; i:- - f ~:ii![ I iii"J :EIi!44l%i;i j;.jp 4jf i._ #~ ' "!.![j; & @ :.Elli. "E! E #.iii .
=r . -
.i ejc. p 3 isi /.ig=m i:- : 3.ig-pii!!si iia:
- 0.09 .. . . . .
. u_. .n. r . 1 r.=.
e l, .::.i.
- .! ... : .1. : . =
. :. . :=- . . . .r - n. . r..._ . l. .:.
~~
!.35.:]iI,a ;
i) . ' -i555. - iIl[. ._
; _3. [ buiiE
^ ! ". " .M + ,5 @ a k l.} [ ild:fi}E' Nja.i f.l5Ij!:1 . Mi' :!I A?
I m O.07 :EliEif[
#:?![ii{s:: .-- : nln ::-ren-4 O -- -:.
.: i. j ..s'um ,;.g. Face :
..n= . . . . . . .:=:::
n.-
- =:
-l'....
- nj .:.
2 ::
- . . [ ...a.
. . , . .. _. . ' :..l_.3
-=. .. :".. .- -
> 0.0 6 FLAWS IN THis -#" - - - -
i t-- .-: lr.- .:: ! =. . -. .-:*:n2 .x . M' O RicioN Must sty": '..- .: i ..- "* Bico N side R ED* 2"- . .: 4;- - d: . . . h lisuRFACE 0.05 5 flaws _[.h[ 3' i@i : 2Ej' ~ ;E . jill:l.i^iilii . ri: m n . a :e n- =; - z.;
- r. 3-- .: .l n. ...!=... n . . ; 3. . . .;I .-
- n. : n-
- a- :n :
4 =;. i n:5. m. Z 0 04 e'.n I- .@. -
.iiiiii
-- iij --
- i N ALL EM' BEDDED FLAWS
. .. .. .. . . . .., f. . :- .:.3...
. - - ...j...
. . 3.u.
a
... .. . _.. . ..g...
.u.
- .: (ON THIS SIDE OF as;/1 : 1, i
- - -. : 3.:... ..j.
..-: - r- - t:- .,.- DEMARKATION LINE)
.. ins f ;.. -* .ny .i ii' - g .. i;:..
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER CRITERlA OF IWB 3600
.n.;:-::
./. . .n. .a u .=.
- . .n
- --l - 1 n!
n: :
.:. ,! n. .
' ". . . . .+l un
- n. 4AS LONG AS .g840.25 "i ',, -O':i: : : :p; ; i:L. lij:i.... "i H.
. 1.! t
=
0.01 { --' 1 ii 1.; ..! : .:!!: :i!" ~ i:!:i :ilUn f : !:? . n- l- li al.. O f -i- i n= : . l: . Mi' :j~ 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE ({} Figure'5-6 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws in Stub Barrel intennediate seam (SGC-03) 1 l 5-7
n---------------------- .- M 10 years l , 20 years l 30 years . 20 '
" ' " i
'UI M 7.l$1Lil${4llINI
[!
! !! I I! I I $! I I! I [
M i iii lili : Ii l l' l l! ;ik l ; .t , I,0 ] @U. l! ! [I ! ll lll [ll lll ll l il l i, RSO{ ii gjjj gy un IV .i l lHi i I!!! D I ! I Il ii hli lii Ph " jd! ' 16 6 iili h Mb l b!IO N N [I I II M b l U i ! l Illi ! lll g
-hi 'l y ijjj g i'~ l l ' ! i' ;lll j viii , l1!I l i p ll l ll l l ;t l ll iid Iri N.N!b IFII II flI IIl iili II III lill illi i{li 'iii iiI I? !!II 7 ,, u I iIi il i t
{ l j;j H'! '!'i I!!l . ! ! Il I l !i III !ll! [ [lll j d [] j d l j l jj I.li I11[WITHIN THIS ZONE THE SURFACE
= 12 Ii lii !!U l! - l II - J I!I !'II I I II I Illi l'Il II I I i i i Ili ii i ii l':' i r @ ,!!I FLAW IS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE k ;ij! '!N E !!N !I $ i!S [Il .
lIf lIf Nd}l0 ll .1Nii !N!hi IM ilh khij'h
*l!,
! !!!I ild ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (tWB 3600)-
m Si 10 "' I ' " s' '!'l IE!S!i u uni id li l j $j jijj [j h;cj y' hij l!i jii O'j j jI! li !! !!!! !!!! !!!!!!!! d!! 3 f'!1TJiiIlli iij; ij ; ;llj jlj jlj ; ,, ; g. ;;h :i, i i m- :.i! .:- r i I.II !!II I!i O!l
!Ill i!!!
i i ! I, I j lj
' "' !!'! "4 US !I lil' !!9 !!!! l !! CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT
! wg ii !!! !;!! !!!! !!! !!!! 'Hi !!!! ii i iiji j :i! li!!
4 iI!I!'
?, ::: D 1 9iIliii !!!I IIIih iiII N!!IIii Ilf Iiii iiii ijU iil li l i 1pl lj i i;;! j%j
, a /
! . .:.:!:' !!!.' !D! lil! '11! !iii !li! lill !!Il lii' $lipb o s mi ni g + .L >!r g;
j :" mi 'ge ;w .: im iiir7 gg ji i g]j jgi iji ij ij l[;; j ; g. h'-$.- ! '!ji yji if , 2 3; i;j. j ,, j;;; jgj ;g i ij jgl3 j;; ijj g; jjgyii i ;g iiii NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION : qjj ;j ;;! !l l ll!! !!!! !Ili i ,
!g 0.
'S- !'i liil !IU $ !ili lIil !il)l }}E Iili Ibi Ill II!! ilF' 'ii !: I
!i ! i.l! . 9.! !Il! IIII II{i' ilii IS REQUIRED ;
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 l > l , FLAW SHAPE (a//) I l . i Figure 5-7 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts' - Circumferential Flaws in Stub barrel intermediate seam (SGC-03) , J e e e
*t 48/45/10333.,
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION tlNE O.13 .., _.. 3;il:i -
-::=
~!fi Ihi:d . -
;!.!: EMBEDDED FLAW P
[ 8'- ;I". . ' C' " _ S 0.12 : =._=, . nA. . w3. .. .,c_o._Nracu..natio.N 1
. . . . . :/- -. - --
1- at FLAWS WITH 7
- n.iu _: /* % :, :. a ;,:: _ .: / . ...:. .. : ABOVE THIS LINE ARE
.. . . . _ = . . . _=.
ne= . :- - O.11 -
.#. .,.- NOT ALLOWABLE
^
- . Mill :
- iil1 -
13; ii h @ .'I I![.:IN :!Sii!:5 5iliiii ~ il
- --"-.. - . .n
_._ l::. . J::. : . . : .: - - . . . . . . _ . . 0'10 ' a.~ .
- f"_ . .
~" ::r.:. :- :::'::::
~
jid: .;j .l:ig'n;.i): vJ/ i.. .:. :iii .ii8a. n-2::: . 3ilir :
~5;liIfi[ :55 5 @.it ;i-i}'.! !4* I.5. ii:ii; 0.09 -:i
'. Ll
.2 .
. . H. - ::r 4* h. --. ../: :!;}, :; , .. :;[; ;- ::: _;- :__p_ . .- .}.3:.
!Ei g 0.0s . ii; .
Er i~j . V -j g ,jiji:p aiT.'. .g ; j.:i}ijii:inu::. ( * - '**,'. M 5 9 asug.._j
.i. [. 1:ij: ;;;- !.:} .i: Jy:!:. .1:.- . p..l.:r.. ;;: ..
d 0.07 iiiiii"[:Ssvaract I r .dir.:;/.;j:.i=~jiHii P .i] ~ ;
-~' --
"~~
"'jn ' iiij.:
g :_.II!!.$ *.il 1: : u, 0 i!/i iF~d:I'iI '! 3 d i ~55535 12- :: i!!I'ii~ 2" 1 FLAWS IN THl3 }f.nifNiU""Ti~
> 0.06 s Nl'} *II.!ihT 7EO~M -HT C nEcios wust .s.:..
.5cossgggggp* sE 3 .-f.:. : ;-) .
~~.. _s. mk a
. . . i ::
h 0.05 'iisun F ACE i@i . "3 j " "' 'dP :iilla.:- n!!! '
- g. m rL4ws [:.i.is.- :Z." "
~.
'.i; s : ii-+ e- - n-- :- " :,n . .:rl ~::.~". ;-i;i'
' F.:3 . .la * !!!!- :.r!
5 0'04 .:!En
- in . ;$. :
4 !E 5 ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS 7" i.ini):: i : :i . ., - :: sijr (ON THIS SIDE OF
. . i.uf'f. - j.M. . .
- :".. _E..T.:7.
0.03 . 1 .-
~'.' " -DEM ARKATION LINE)
. . . . . '. . . . ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
.. ._.2. _1. . .
..u- a t.: ~
.:u .. d...
. = , .
- -- .1 CRITERIA OF IWB 3600
=a .e -
- .1 O.02 =--
- 'l"- ' , ' '
x,
~ '
t'i
-y;: .
12.;2; :n:;: -. AS LONG AS .2._a_ 0.25 at; 3. . . r. 1.i. t
- [; i:1 'n !F. ..Li il:- g- :i!!!:;
O.01 -
-- ~
f :.i;; i'
. := '! !. : . l ... .
O( ' ii ' ' I' =f ! O O.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE ({} v Figure 5-8 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws in Lower shell to cone weld region (SGC-05) r 1 5-9
. ^
l , 10 years l 20 years .
! 30 years O
,g i il ,
b dij i}N SI UU ! UU ' EM ! b $ [ [ 0I $ l[j El1jf #
- ih iin f.
![;i
,, Si . 6 i i h , J UN #il [1,11011i. I!il ilil Iii ilii ii u [Ji ;q j,; ;;; ,. H i
/,ig g
, i :l ' ' ' !hl 9,1 il I ily ll l Hll N,1 llll Ig ll ;jjj ig ll g- . ;. ! l g 7 94 i i;ii Irli @ III[ NI !IIIkI iilI l!iiIl Il!I llIIl ii I III l I I ii ilh i I M.II ;
<e -
- ::!i
[,!! % I!Ii llp'i 6! Illi illl III! liii llll ll!i l,jjj lli iggIIIIII 8 t-l j yII illi u, 1 n- illI, ,l ' ly: [I l. lH" j' I t ' l j il;bl'pj i. l1 , Illi
.:.: WITHIN THIS ZONE THE SURFACE 12 ii';
!" ~= '
I !!II Il I ilIl i,li-l lI llii Ill' lill Ii il i h i Mi e i i 'I I!!I FLAWIS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE h ;iji $ !L b$h h 1 h}i[j ll li !!Nhi
!if h hii h h h H!I 'j ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (lWB 3600) w 10 (lil iill i lill thi ll l nii illi llii ila ;r. lili iii- .- ;" r II!I Ili:
y' 0 d' I!Il 19! iilj hji @ % dii 3!' IIIi iiii IIii ii; iki iill li;i lii Idi+j % !"! I~ ij N 'li i "I!!! Ui! !!!! !!!! !!D !!!! !ill iiii 5 $, % h' n P !! YI'9 !!II liII OIIIIh ii!! I, ! 6 i I I ; h l ,: g "; y y,f pg :y! gg, yl pg g! p!! g I tili !!g igi l l !pi Ip! j; ; .
;. y!; CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT r 'i ' ili I!!! 'iii
. ? !!![iili 4l!lii! D'! fil iili iiii ii'i ili ijij iiii ijll }g iii; . ;;' jjk .:n !h !!!! /
. ..:. .'R
- M!.' !D! til! ;!!! !! ! i !!il !ill !U lin$lipboi !a in, ii
'i:t 'I!i iir i g -
ia ..
- m, ;n yn 99 iik li]j yji iiji ilj, i jj jji ijj p. h-im og ! yg gli lji j
2 ti'i
! ' 9 !I!! !Ili 3:; ,;.. iiti ii; iiii ;iii ij! Il! I li Ili lji @ ik i i ;
if NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION : i , jg !! !Ili li!i l O.
'!- si liii :i'. 4!: iili l[} lili III lll ilii lil ilil I!I 3ll : '!: !i : i! III'! !!! jijl tjj y j}j[ IS REQUIRED .
O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 l l -- FLAW SHAPE (a//) j l . Figure 5-9 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws in Lower shell to cone weld region (SGC-05) , e
f . 1
, i e
48/45/10930 1 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE O.13 -.- _ - . . ~ . -
- : - .m :s n=
-l ::d .- ..h!-EMBEDDED FLAW C / I"- d r.: 12 ' . - .
. - FLAWS WITH a
.=:
w3. , m-... con ricu..R Ar.i.o..N., r/ . . af. O.12
- n n:-r
.= n.- .
a.i .- n~. . , . _ ; m =. . :; _ :
- f: .. - . _...:.. _
- ....= n ABOVE THIS LINE ARE
=M}:1-
.. ._ .U,- . - NOT ALLOWABLE
._.IM : -h.!:!r !!!lrii [.i.d
- ?!:3. .1. ir xli" !
i:giij - .:w . nit " -23 1:in. J.',];j;M:yt' ;i_uj:; : nr.:: :y Ei . n =: 10 years
~ ~ j jg. p . .
;="-:: {f- ,f!" "#
~'.. .
0.10 ~ 20 years ss"=i !!di . :li:nr i[J//%M-ti!!!!i Mi!E Miii - a=ij:g; l5j ."j g .. g3 4.r; //yjqin .;.5 jg.: i:jt=3 iirie= - 30 years 47; . tim.:. = !?a :EiA !=sE/sH// i:T=i =Eii.= ::=iti: Ai-5!!!i-_ 1" %Q/ "(($ii.-3i:li'.; .r.)] ;j. jjij:i i::iili
~
- .] . '
ag i:_ g e.s egg a m,'.Tilf///ijrj j@;l fjiii;# f jt:f-g -j-u 0.07 fiElii/ 8 -
- li.:~~ .n:f/g/~ - -
"8=
---3:-jun -
.i?{::~
$ sif.ii3 .=sva :.e r ACE:d:"iif//=- Fili ::ilid:i is"ilii + += 11: .H!!#J
.Z. 0.06 ! flaws IN TMis i!((MEi*i55' -iti!_ -U:!!5h!M:I 5I -
O mEcios vust atEH-3CoNstDERED* :r/ur r j .,- "g# . --
.: . s .: . .
2"*"~ . -
- n-~
'I ;
j 'i5uRFACE ((((ipp fij:i 1 'I!j" - d. ._f.?;..,j#ii3 t;.. ti:
'E ba- fe-t -[//:iiii -
.: .M I!:i ni!!:i - ;i ] 1 :?i:ir ni i-Z 0'04 '.in .- -
- l g/:hiiii - r;n -j.
14". :ii-fii
-" i:}c s i':
- ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS
. f.
.:i"n n.ini =_ f.dii : :... . r ,
(ON THIS SIDE OF T ^/'. ' e::::. i: . %j . : iii:; 0.03 . . . -
-5.: . ~ . . * .. I ':
* "! :. DEMARKATION LINE)
. // . i.:'- .ii!:-- n.r, : - nri .
'i =i- ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
- F .ii:. . mi-e
. .;e a g#j'~: us.. .
~"' . . . .
.p - ..I'r= ;ia. CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 c,
0.02 .# . . . . . . ..
'T '
= . _- _==.. . ." . . .? l
- "" . AS LONG AS .2a.t.O.25 mit; ; ;:L..-
iiin .: "11 '
"'i . ; t i1-!if .
l 0.01 :. "k l ur ; i.; Y,. . :.: i i- nii - u! iiii!
. 'i'. l ; ii::n .
l: .;:l.:. n!' 1 0 - :- rl ~ t O O.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 ! 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f) e b. Figure 5-10 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws in I Upper shell to cone weld region (SGC-06) 1 i l 5-11 _, _ - ~ - - - ,e ' '" "
i :
'O years l 20 years l
l 30 years *
~ go i
" ' "U ! 'l
'!M'.._ (fli!UiIj!!H1ijj lij.
jj '
'[!
l OlII Il I
!!I li Ill llllIIll ll I p 3, I!kilfIll iiii illi li i li ! !! g'.
r : b , I I! I !! .! lll ll 1 il i i ' n, :., liii gj jp jl
!! . I !p .i l I , 1,!! . !! l g I l ll l l ll l g'I' l
" I I!
16 ' fi jgg'I : .! H. !!!i i , ! ! ! '! I il9 !I !!]! . Ii I !Ill 3 @! illi i1 ill il! lill illi
!l [j !jij g i. .
L ! !!. . _ ii'
~
, , , ,ii in r.+ ii!! !!.IIIli.li lin i i ui" ih ni" i T!.fi p'n
- t':'
ci i! il ! igl i I! IIH !!H j
' ' lill -
< u- - .Iki .I,lll - Id.i [
Jil i,Hi e i.lli Il [I! I'! j i il iijii !-
.! dit lui j*ig':
lii jg-j j- r Illi !!Il I 11 illi m HIi l liii HH llil hii iiii ii i Ivi i e rF, '!!'u WITHIN THIS ZONE THE SURFACE FLAW IS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE
= 12 /'i ' -
I 1 I i I k i
,jlj if li N'(i!
~ ~
iill !!i liji tilj illi !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!ll iiii , .' '!!! I!Il !!I!
'" 3 S!! IIIi IIil ifi ii ; li1l li'i]
ll i;i ii'i iI- ((l .Ih"" hj bjj i i! g$"!!!! !! d!! '!Il !!II liii Illi Illi iii! I 8
!. l .". I i ,
!!iI'
! 'W g gi: !;!! ::!' l1!! '!!! Tl !!!! !il! !!'! Il U!! !!!I !!!! I I! 'H! lll! ii'i CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT
- !!! jilj fij ! li!!
U GF !!!!!!!! !UI
~
IIHi l lill III; liii
'l!! IIl liii ifi !,li Ilil iHi tii j,i it;i gi !'ll iij! jjiyh /
l .- il!
/.!im !!U $! !!!!
;w im im $";!'S
!!!!I'!.' !!U "E
$]!D :E !'S !U! B I ilij
,;, ..n nn 99 lll, pj jiji gli nji lll lli; ij j 3- $:..j g!
ii' L 1
.y 'Ji! lJii is.
j . 2 .
.i;; ;;;, jj,; j j; jljj ;ij, j, j j, j lj lj lg jjji i j, i i !;
j I !!!! lill
!Ili ii!i NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION :
i j
- s. 6 is iiil si l;i!; !g!
illilIIi lIli Ii! Ili Ili ill iiii ill ii : h ! ; .- !!il I; ;k -.
;- ijjj [ljj ijj{ IS REQUIRED .
' 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 I o
i " FLAW SHAPE (a/l) l l . Figure 5-11 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws in Upper shell to cone weld region (SGC-06) ' l ee-ee .mma--ee--.me eue
a O. -t 0.% C
. 44/45/10930 1 i
SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION LINE 0.13 ..,
- i. $.i b NI '-
_. U
- $2J '::5" u .=:2 1 :-EMSEDDED FLAW._.....__......._.[!
+
i3 .,. FLAWS WITH 0*12 =~=~~:=' *e
.. coNracum AttoN :)-
' ' ~ * ~ " ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ..'+2. I."' "I-
.' d.i.#* .n.%
?
. ..,_ .+ u == .. :i. /. .. .9.r: t.._
.". L' :. .
I
=-
""gr ... .
.. .. ..: x = =. ABOVE THIS LINE ARE O.11 'l '~ 2:.) 3;;9.y'
.g . --;'..'" '" :7'a- : "q
- :- : ..z NOT ALLOWABLE
': ":2
.. '"x "-'
"#ili li
awfdiifihir a= i! 1: t
..ri;/.:iM: Mi;i:iSiijiri ..y :
O.10 ss" li-bd! 1:ii's
-~
YWY* NU"' 5550 55N*
!/ i! ail;i_:: !.il8li.! "=iii" fili: .
d 'b- 5 NiYN N e"I, 0'09 !!E - !!!- N !E
~
F i') . '
=f%fi=iff:!!f uR- i:T !!! =iii. E 1:'iiiit . !!.ij. .
y 0.08 51:5:4 Y '?[2: ::n- n :! -
.~. - .n.) i : ---i:ijiji'lj;:i!5?:
_j ]:-jkM i,5 M a k -5l.[i i i[:i :: : [ys.l gjjjj{r : j }tpj;;[ .j-0.07 (i=:ir[:a g 3
-suneAct .dur.::- g;;j;.i=~) -
3~
--lM- 3:.ja: ' ;;;3 i.7 h
.3II!!id.'.iE .i ; nh5i![l51iif:E5 ndi:in ;iiiiiig (35:.. 3;:j ;T z
- o*06 5 *
- 5 '* *'s i:Zir M:P :m _ -!;!!Dit: p.
9 a. REGION MU57 8E 2: CONSIDERED * > - - .: j- Mr f:.n: ... . . :... . . :: . . a
"'t"- - . -i -
3 lissaract g 0.05 - rL4ws f.ggi iil:i t ag - iin ;;r:in.: 11 :
-:i u-wn.- :t-/- . . _ . . .=:rr
- - - rn
.jg 15.;; niijn
( :i:) ~ . g;n - ,. Z O.04 " /.i - ' 13 11. nl:- iiiin iili :!P ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS di::i - /' _: Fi-ia - ti%: . rig . ;ij;gtilij:- (ON THIS SIDE OF 0.03 :i:fi a: . _==J Es". l!i r1 - .1 : ua n y: n:._y . p ":.7
; n ., ,
' - ~" "'" DEMARKATION LINE)
, , = , .. .: au.: - --
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER
".i -
t
. . s:- .n ii.
- emnl/c 0.02 T::. n.~ . .-' . ..g. j '
". p"
. - . ". - CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 n: .! :.1:
'"iH" 1'
-'di- .nu_ a. . ..:.
. , . " ' . n.
ns. .
.:' ..: .=1. -n.. i iy:.
AS LONG AS .2a 0.25 t 0.01 Ei J 'dU
- E' idd "I%'
/ ii! rin 'i I:l :4 iii;i -:.! r 3 f l. i . ,
us.. . . 1:
,. .u. j . . ::: :
O 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE ({} . i Figure"5-12 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation C s - Circumferential Flaws in i Upper shell to dome weld region 1 P 1 5-13 t
'.~~s,.- ,
i . I
,10 years I g 20 years
,! , , 30 years
..," 20 !! " '"I! ! !Il Ilj l l.j! Ilj l[ l J 40 years '
l 1 :
'! ! I I
[ ' 1!i! !Ill Illi lill 1lll [p] g [g gjq ;i lIhlI Iil 1- 1 illIlliIII. I ' I I.!! I Il in ll!i tillliliiiii iilii,k il i is n- -
! EI I O- I!!! IJ!! 3!II I l l Nldjll[jll) jN '
liii :!!j i jiijj f' M; !I d il ll irillIl l Illil! Il jii ii l i. llfiliii ii ll iiniiiii il Nn ' flj i li t {j l' l' y ljf * !! !! l i ll ll illl ll ill lj il !' !Pl !I riej ij{j ig ! I NN h f $ N h b b Y b i {i 'lf @ l I[ l[ jj 7 94ry[N O , I!'i '!H l
!.!I !d sl! !I)l ?!i IIll !ill j] ylj {} } l J
[ [ I.li 31! WITHIN THIS ZONE THE SURFACE {a { [] ii:; ; :- ;: h h iflI I! I Illl !!ll l ll IlI illi I llii lill }}l1 I li iiii Iil i ; bli dc r N
; I!!I FLAWIS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE g !!!I ilii ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (IWB 36001
!D! l'!! !!!! !l !ill '.Ill {h ilii 11dj[j ll1 jjii ii!l hi lij} jh llli y' !Id V' f p4:5
[Ij ! ll l ilii ilii hi: illi l1 : Illi 1 ! IIII IIII
% Ei !h liii ill jii ilII ilk ih k' if i ilii !!ll iiii
# y f, ij!! ! li !:!! !!!! !!!! !!!!
l "' j'
~
"!! 19l 19! iilj lj i lili li ! i( ijji 5 S IIII iiii ill ill "l;j b f. k; :ii h' V! I !! @ !!II !i!i IIII IIli I!I!
lli i in li i
.- r 5e ,!! ... !.i.i.i,, im m p .
ne in .. opy ni in, g I! d d i i! ig i.
)f
$! p!!Il@ b' @ !!!! 11! Iil idi jiji iii, lI h
- iiii fk, !Ib E!I !: CODE ALLOWA8LE LIMIT
- w lii; R! !!!! !!!! !!!! J! O!!li!! !!'! !I' : !W !!!I I!!I H! $! W! ii'i idi ii!j hj L;:
l liii ilii ii2 I]i liil iill E;il lih 6i5 ;!!! /
! < i !
- - O b;!l Ui! lill !!!! IBi III Bil 3! ilii Il
" : :R !!!! !D!!!k '.!!! !iii!!D ll!I94 Hn MN4 o mi nn uij gg ;
- i. .:. !!
g ; :k' Ih!!!!!lJiilli~
. . . .i 'iiiiw m:'si$@4jfittfi$ liljijli liii iiii t'ij jji; jj "ti j 2 , g1;i;j. ;ji;jj; jgjji
; jjj ggjjg ,jj, ,jj;;[;;; ,: !!U llJ hD !!!!lili liii NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION :
gj3 jgj; j; lIlIIIij jjj{ IS REQUIRED i lt; !ili ilii iililiil.Illi }}ii fil: ilk li} Sii!!" ! : k N !I I -
?. :!'i lili :ii l I 0. 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ,
' O 0.1 '-
FLAW SHAPE (a/h l l . Figure . Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws in Upper shell to dome weld region (SGC-08) , J e e J , N E
e
. 48/45/109301 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION LINE O.13 .. ..6 '
~ - * - * ~ ' '
10 years
!.Ei:i 'in 4::1^d:M- au* *s*~E co'*E o'P'*s.A [ !'"w"'l ti" ~. .l"=-*
~
.. !~ - ' ' ' %3 ..' coNracunatiou : - a 0'u ' =~ =- ~=.;.3ii:;
~ ' '
. FLAWS WITH
.:ii =.. /* % : ..,. au:i=. :i
~'"''"
n::..... .: .i.i.i.: .- 7
= tur : g:4
....- .a =,i: ABOVE THIS LINE ARE pi..
gg -
- 23c1:.. : :.- npn.
..s ft - : :. _.
. :: ng:.:.._. - :. ..e NOT ALLOWABLE
- 1. : n-:
?.iipi4 ..idf.:= aui.3 "lig:.j;g li4j i =ijig - o:
.n.; 1:=
20 years 0~10 i s se 0 years f-s f :liici #~ - y' !/.i!R !!# Ehi- "i i!5 '-
- 'd5 --
0*09 U U ' g% E
~
.id : . . . _ . . .
- ik g iig;j i}' ..!:.- i:.:.=:ijj:i; ijij- :1.g
~
g 0.08 - '
=
- e. s6 a se El /ty' e; I
< is iii=s Miliie : i:Hi as:
OM ! IN N E "" h i.~NiiN '.~-1: ~sunsacE.:;% E!![ 'iN!f;b'$ Udi::i 'i5ii":.ini:. ! Z ii_[:I!
- O*06 "*hws iN mis MH M P @ :. WW M O REGloh MUST BE -
- . 2
.::) - ' M y"'
!.iiCO N 5 tD E R E D' h liSun F ACE r 2"'- .a:!::
g 0.05 . FLA ws f.1:is:: :Z:' i ;iij' - :T.-
- !T.3::.:-- n- n 7:.
a ii .:-
- - n :--/ q= ...4i ]:. in,: . .. in ~ .:- : . )",-
; r.i- ..@,~
Z 0.04 N" i : f.is ' ti "i :*. liiin isl: d.i if. . its;i i;.-; - -i:;n- .! =i
- ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS
. : :.: - :ii.: fiin (ON THIS SIDE OF
!! 2:lih 0.03 : ri - -: :i.:i+ a
..'/i.:r:: . " . ";....
DEM ARKATION LINE)
.. =- -
"i i.: .:=. : - . . . .. :1:1
~ .-
ARE ACCEPTABLE PER j.. : t. . is. .au.. - - o 0.02 :is.. 1',/ i.
. un
.g. -
CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 __..e ":i.~ :!: AS LONG AS _2a 0.25
":1. .
- n.:n. :* ng::.. -
"! ' ' l ' l'i. 1 0.01 1' '
' ' * * "!d W
- . i.; -
ri- ~ i ;: 4.. :ii:: - - ; o i :; 59::1 - - 1: .: iia. :! - . ; .3 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 l DISTANCE FROM SURFACE ({} I l Figure k-14 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Charts - Circumferential Flaws t in Feedwater nozzle to shell weld region (SGN-02) k ' 5-15 l l
10 years 20 years l l 30 years .
" 20 is
! ! ; , l l il i p, ; ,}
- };;i ;g j ;!, , .
ig .; ; g ii ; j, gj (j : a i iiii nli h;,; $I '.III II! INI il IIII III I II iII il Il ll liti ii iil !h I ' Ih is i z;- [...ji.y . u ;q :p ;p!q ,,g g gg [ ; gg g ig ;g, j~.,, g i i p ; g ; i j
~
hl TJ((lit jili ii[ iiji T~' Tiil illi iiii ij]i [i j~i_i; j jl [? 1,[i g , ;i j ; {g fiii h dd 4 h!!I j.! !!! Ol!!'h NI! k!! [ hl k! IlI [J li d,.. i ll h i
!- li '.!'!
WITHIN THIS ZONE THE SURFACE
= 12 i'" 5 l-!=- ' - - ! I III UII I II iI 'UI I Uli "" lIll Ii IIII ilii h' "h !' ir 'i '!II FLAW IS ACCEPTABLE BY CODE Y'
E S 3, ['d -
- !E!
! Ei
!'!! !!N [I.II [fN lIj
!II M fl I!.1}iij lll I!!i !$ lli 0}} Ih Ihi ik hhhl !!!!
!I! I!Il ilil lili !lli Ivi iiji i li ij i ilk' k I illi ilii j!ii illi lF: lit! !!L :-- h -- ! II!i
]i ji ANALYTICAL CRITERIA (lWB 3600) tii:
M O " j!
!!!! I!Il I!!! iilj !!i 'iiji [j'j !!!! ill! !'!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!!I iiii 5 f ijjfyh" !'";"h !!!! jjjj [ 11 !l[i ljij lllj ijgj jjjj
!!!I 'IIII iiii IIli li ; !ill il j lit! f: lH t']'
! , il h -
Ny. !4!
's i
iii : ;:. iiII !!iiIU!dl
,n: . i, - -
r N'l lNjdOl il l$UlhIiOih$SIflilll o ;.- w 1
"'! lll lili !!!I I!!! l!! l!I! !D! ii'i iijj "I
@Hl! h lili al i m
!!ii
! gi !;!! !!!! !!!! !!!! !!H !!!! jg j[jj gi: !D! CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT iil!! /
U ~
.i 31 I!!T lii! !!!i @i d! Tii! 11 l iij; ll11iiiiiiiiij5 j !.h I!;l ilij jj ; j;;; ii;; :h :ib !'!'
4
!. .!:' :!!' !D! w ini ul g >:
j ,y!i -
!!i nr mi li!! 'l!! I!!! @!,
i:r
? ,,,
[l11!!!i HR%Siii
.;p un 9h lik Vli ivi Hit liij iVi lii! H i n;! $; g! TI IIii. ii!
1
. .. ;;[
2
$; i;;. ;;,; j;;-, j,jj ,,j, jij, j;lj jj; i i; i jj lll; lll! !lg lllj ,;,i NO ANALYTICALJUSTIFICATION :
i ill lJg';jjy i,!I !g ! I - :- iii lii; :ia ljll3
- iti iill lIIl II!! If iili Oli lii il!! !qi '
ii !!!: ;: :H il ill! ijil ihj jijj jjj[ IS REQUIRED , I 0.
! O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 I
.i "
FLAW SHAPE (e//) ' f l l - Figure 5-15 Inside Surface Flaw Evaluation Ch' arts - Circumferential Flaws in Feedwater nonle to shell weld region (SGN-02)
Q f SECTION 6 l
, ' ;' REFERENCES
- 1. ASME Code Section XI, ' Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components",1974 Edition; 1983 edition (used for updated standards tables, and 1980 edition [ Winter 1981 Addendum) (for revised reference crack growth curves). ~
- 2. McGowan, J. J. and Raymund, M., " Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Internal Longitudinal Semi-elliptic Surface Flaw in a cylinder Under Arbitrary Loading" ASTM STP 677, 1979, pp. 365-380.
- 3. Newman, J. C. Jr. and Raju, I. S., " Stress Intensity Factors for Internal Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Pressure Yessels" ASME Trans., Journal of Pressure vessel Technology, Vol. 102,1980, pp. 342-346.
- 4. Suchalet, C. B. and Bamford, W. H., " Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Continuous Surface Flaws in Reactor Pressure Vessels", in Mechanics of Crack Growth. ASTM, STP $90,1976, pp. 385-402.
- 5. Shah, R. C. and Kobayashi, A. S., " Stress Intensity Factor for an Elliptical Crack Under Arbitrary Loading". Encineerino Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 3, 1981, pp. 71-96.
- 6. Lee, Y. S. and Bamford, W. H., " Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for a Longitudinal Buried Elliptical Flaw in a cylinder Under Arbitrary Loads",
l presented at ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, Portland Oregon, June 1983. Paper 83-PVP-92.
- 7. Marston, T. U. et. ' Flaw Evaluation Procedures: ASME Section XI" Electric Power Research Institute Report EPRI-NP-719-SR, August 1978.
I ! 8. Plane Strain Crack Touchness Testina of High Strenath Metallic Materials. ASTM STP 410, March 1969. L
\
6-1 l
- . _ . . - - - - . . - - _}}