ML20141M451

Nonproprietary Fracture Mechanics Evaluation,Byron Braidwood Units 1 & 2,Residual HX Tube Side Inlet & Outlet Nozzles

ML20141M451
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood
Issue date:	08/31/1992
From:	Adamonis D, Bamford W, Tandon S WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML19303F044	List: ML20141M448 ML20141M450 ML20141M451
References
WCAP-13455, NUDOCS 9208280231
Download: ML20141M451 (56)

Text

A,B_B _H s 3 M _5 5.3 3 _N E,N s M M_ s, M_ m o r m % w,M_

MMMMMN%n 3

mm

_fk,u f,hn _ Y _h h ~Ih_0kh n-g W V WWEO_PROPnETARYsCt_t YYfbh,W hk k

k E_gegef,m%k iMMa AS $ m W@;;g 43 d!

m m

~' %

ct pm _)

itTMhbd;.ew vwg9%w%y%gd, y:sQg p Yggq%g

/ q.. e-s v 4# 6 1 dot u< Pt

@r fs

. c e ;g 4-n Q V(y&yttm&

yg7 jr 5-4.

v*<

n. ; p N

a&p r.a, t-o

~ rn WMA;ny gy#g;q 949 :

fMqrW Ry %%Qp( QaM % ;. (xmi' hp

. ; vt M l?; s ? Lt.

r e

y f

M: u.w s w My y v u y.wi qy 29. 4

-p A

ghy :3pp g g g m > y q q& m h w ; q v w w p;dp 9 j L ; w y ptr.+g;g.r 3 f@wWq &:

pe w..M:;;a3n3. :p q,1

w ssy

.pm.

y nm gg g 4;w weag%p3, y me n w.tWifVS;' x81 wMg; asm,+O

+

MM1pMp K W sd,MN!

m w qa g g m u$N6dp %:wagegggpWgg ggggghgwg M m.li rep od V rM D Wild '

mw ews Wyy 4p yf p p g a &r m c%w,+% m' g w %g % u m q&m uA m %m e 3

whanhw mpy wwwwmm em 4

ngwu g, ngn z mim wo pH 7 pegg, m %pa,lgyvw x e,e

,8 Wyu w

v;qqw v

.%gf m g gyggqug gg 7

A l

-a n, s 4

nL %p@hn 1 rm 4

,v o

q ewg Az o

hY hh hh n> +a&N $n naa#pn n y,

8..ww r qms wemo as wh Qm 4 w g %r ig. o g g

&p&c%)7pg + v%'

4 gg q g 94h

& Q Q q;&g @y e,

e. Q g w J g U c a

Wgtmqh tf@y&y

h

$ % %Q W M Wp %y

• v dwypp m

ky gn6&k g agaf w ng QQQgy %;mp@pw@g$ Q%fy y$m$Q?e&sSD%Whaug;4; m6M 4l d M Mueggy g u g y L ;@p g ag f mma; y[?,M@%qmmdf@% p m aqq g:;c gM;v m wl4N )yW g%po%s gCp ps W w b w~+ n O gtnQ i r 49 U &,boyce%4 y:mid.s( s _+4m - - Ym uJe ve yg m t t t pc g w c64 vKnwew %, y,3f T: % e c@w nM;o..:M Q qiffqg,yf emma%m w 4l% 1 wemmenanmemmeme kkmysgw.am.upw@ydmm Nm kh n-m@g$$m%MW%W$g@ue@am@e n d p ap$p$y g n@@i4 Mi5 pnp $p$y m en sMM dO f ? 9 g Qp g@@ dWhWW6 $$R@ R mRNgdhny - m _ _} g g g _p q p _q q q q g g y p e g _g jm e acs c c g ggggggg ggggggp pg <. mew w*n

CLASS 3 1 WCAP 13455 I FRACTURE MECHANICS EVALVATION BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD UNITS 1 AND 2 RESIDUAL HEAT EXCHANGER TUBE SIDE INLET AND OUTLET N0ZZLES August 1992 l W. H. Bamford H. Jambusaria Y. S. Lee J. P. Houstrup Reviewed by M W

5. Tandon D. C7 Adamonis, Manager Structural Mechanics Technology 1

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-355 @ 1992 Westinghouse Electric Corp. All Rights Reserved WPo480:1bl081792

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Code Acceptance Criteria: Class 1 Components 1.2 Acceptance Criteria for Class 2 Components 1.3 Geometry 2.0 LOADING CONDITIONS. FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHODS. AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2.1 Transients 2.2 Stress Intensity Factor Calculations 2.3 Fracture Toughness 2.4 Thermal Aging 2.5 Allowable Flaw Size Calculation 3.0 SUBCRITICAL CRACK GROWTH 3.1 Analysis Methodology 3.2 Crack Growth Rate Reference Curves 3.3 Residual Stresses 3.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking Susceptibility 4.0

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS 4.1 Flaw Evaluation Charts Construction 4.2 Conservatisms in the Flaw Evaluation

5.0 REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: Development of Unified Flaw Acceptance Criteria f_r Austenitic Piping APPENDIX B: Welding Procedures and Shop Travellers: Byron and Braidwood-Residual Heat Exchangers a wro453.wo81492 - i

- ~ _ - -. - _ - -. - - - l SECTION 1.0 l INTR 00,0CT10N i t i [ This fracture mechanics evaluation has been carried out to t m largest size of indications which can be accepted for the res Y.at exchanger inlet and outlet nozzles. The results of this evaluation are l presented in the form of flaw evaluation charts contained in Section 4. The technical basis for these charts is contained in the remaining sections, and also in Appendix A. l t 1.1 Code Acceptance Criteria: Class 1 Components The evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria for indications in Class 1 j austenitic stainless piping are contained in paragraph IWB 3640 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI.(1) The evaluation procedure is j applicable to all the materials within a specified distance from the weld centerline, v'rt, where r - the pipe nominal outside radius and t is the nominal wall thickness. For example, at the RHX nozzle, this distance is calculated to be 1,62 inches, which encompasses regions of the heat exchanger, as well as part of the RHR line. All the materials in this region'are SA 240 Type 304 stainless steel, but these acceptance criteria are applicable fo'r all grades of Types 304 and 316 stainless steels. The evaluation process begins with a flaw' growth analysis, with the l requirement to consider growth due to both fatigue and stress corrosion l

cracking, For pressurized-water reactors only fatigue crack growth needs be considered, as discussed in Section 3.

The methodology for the fatigue crack growth analysis is described in detail in Section 3. 4 l The calculated maximum flaw dimensions at the end of the evaluation period are then compared with the maximum allowabic flaw dimensicas for both normal operating conditions and emergency and faulted conditions, to determine' acceptability for continued service. Provisions.are made for considering flaws projected both circumferential1y and axially, wrom1wo81492 1-1 l

I i 1 1 3 t The allowable flaw sizes have been defined in the tables of IWB 3640 based on maintaining specified safety margins on the loads at failure. These margins are '.77 for normal and upset conditions and 1.39 for emergency and faulted conditions. The calculated failure loads are different for the base metal and the flux welds as they have different fracture toughness values, as discussed in Section 2. (Non-flux welds, such as gas tungsten arc welds, have the same l j properties as the base metal.) The failure loads, and consequently the f allowable flaw sizes are larger for the base metal than for the welds. Allowable flaw sizes for welds are contained in separate tables in lWB 3640. i j 1.2 Acceptance Criteria for Class 2 Components l 1 dection XI in its present form contains no acceptance criteria specific to t Class 2 components. Instead, the user is referred to the criteria for Class 1 components, which have been described above. Work has been underway for some time in the Section XI committee to develop evaluation criteria for Class 2 4 and Class 3 components. This work has been used to develop a flaw evaluation chart specific to the Byron and Braidwood Residual Heat Exchangers. The detailed technical basis is contained in Appendix A of this report. This approach is consistent with the approach used for Class I components, and-in fact allows one to reproduce the acceptance criteria for Class I systems. The approach utilizes the original design criteria for the component and maintains this design margin in the presence of a flaw. The corrections for flux welds i are exactly the same as those for Class-I components. l 1.3 Geometry The geometry of the residual heat exchanger is shown in Figure 1-1, the l details of the inlet and outlet nozzles of the tube side is shown in Figure 1-2. The tube side of the residual heater exchanger is designed to Class 2 criteria, while the shell side is designed as-Class 3. The notation used for surface and embedded flaws in this work is illustrated in Figure 1-3. The fracture and fatigue crack growth evaluations carried out to develop the handbook charts have employed the recommended procedures and material properties for stainless steel prescribed in paragraph IWB 3640 and Appendix C of Section XI. WPO4511b!08169? l-2 ..-#.-.m..w_,er--- .-.wi-+, ,-,.w+- ww- ---sear r.e-r= r--v&=--m-re-----*~ +--*wt'-M-**w+- -ww*-*-i*-e --s .in e ..+rv r.w w +, w rir e v-w + --.e - ww w w .y + ' e r we-w w g-r r --eE

O* M n 5:M@

• 5' N *> f'3 5n c....,.L e 4+ E k t e F ? % E b k l,b e*n-stes rom u s c

\\ / g / /, / s 1 ' ( *GNO e C4t jh ( ,f( ""ND "O E e,e 3 _6 1 t e 4' k % = t 4.0tt -C D *w i ( % yjht 41' ( 8).s0Lt S t io A s t ' ' '& M * * *f7 S#C D $*EAODJ g Nc2 M CPd 49 $ BC ER 2 f= 3f, la4Cb4CElSOL S T k OR1F rJ" 7 2&f *).) 'a' Ete D (W' Set *C 4 St t k[p f tt t C4'A*6 'A' D*$ ShU b a5 ewre o GM k:A c > w sw ., A e I, i y c..m.. m. e t.. n N o s n e 1 e

• h N

i l ^ i >C SIDE VIEW 4 yi -l-1.l1 m I ~ v l..;e g ( 71' [! R.3 'm W'.,j a j w (.'..i Q,... n c; r s-e s s,7 % , j. 7?,3 -- L p' -a-e % Lo ' ? l L. j (f ..~= m St.' h, m.m o" <c* S*M r.sv. ees,-o..to ** 56** c figure 1-1, Geometry of the Residual Heat Exchanger WPF0863/111191:10 1-3

\\FSSB. t WALL REINFORCDBR V O 40" pactual vall' ,t31cuneo,, ] k N0ZZLE ' Figure 1-2, Geometry of the Tube Side Nozzles (Inlet and Outlet Nozzles are Identical) WPO453.1V080592 1-4

WALL THCKNESSt g m 0~ i c&; i

• - 8 S-A TYPICAL EMBEDDED 4

FLAW INDICATION WALL THICKNESS t _ 1 I _L

• ~0 1

TYPICAL SURFACE FLAW INDICATION Figure 1-3. Typical Notation for Surface and Embedded Flaw Indications-i WPO453.1ht081392 1-5 li..

l 4 SECTION 2.0 LOAD CONDITIONS, FMCTURE ANALYSIS METHODS AND MATERIAL PROPERilES The loading conditions used in the analyses described herein were taken directly from the equipment specification. The latest fracture analysis technology has been employed in conducting this analysis. The material properties have been taken from the latest version of the Reference ! ASME Code. 2.1 Transients and load Conditions The design transients for the residual heat exchanger are very minimal, because this component operates only during plant shutdown conditions. Therefore, the only transient conditions which it experiences are the startup and shutdown of the system. This coincides with the-shutdown and startup of the plant, respectively. The appropriate limiting load conditions for the location of interest are discussed next. The loading conditions which.were evaluated include thermal expansion (normal and upset), pressure, deadweight and seismic (OBE and SSE) loadings. The RHR piping forces and moments for each condition ere obtained from the ASME Code Section Ill calculations performed by Sargent and Lundy and hestinghouse for Byron and Braidwood Units 1 and 2 in References 2 through 5. These loads [6] were found to be bounded by the equipment specification design loadings for the heat exchanger nozzles (G-679150 Rev. 1). Consequently, the evaluation performed using the design loadings is applicable to Byron and Braidwood Units 1 and 2. Residual stresses were not' used-in this portion of the evaluation in compliance with the Code guidelines. A further discussion of residual stresses is contained in Section 3.2. The stress intensity. values were calculated using the following equations: S I = P. + P, f 1 SI j + y (M' + M,' + M,*]" wr04531 bro 81492 2-1

._.__m I where F, = axial force component (membrane) l M,, M,, M,- moment componen's (bending) A = cross-section area l 2 = section modulus The section properties A and Z at the weld location were determined based on the minimum pipe dimensions. This is conservative since the measured wall thickness at the weld is generally larger. The following load combinations were used. A. Normal / Upset - Primary Stress Pressure + Deadweight + OBE B. Emergency / Faulted - Primary Stress Pressure + Deadweight + SSE C. Normal / Upset - Total Stress Pressure + Deadweight + OBE + Ncrmal Thermal D. Emergency / Faulted - Total Stress Pressure + Deadweight + SSE + Normal Thermal-2.2 Stress Intensity Factor Calculations i One of the key elements of the fatigue crack growth calculations is the . determination ofcthe driving force inherent to _the flaw, or stress intensity factor (K ). This was done using expressions from available literature. In j all cases the stress intensity factop calculations utiliz3d a representation of the actual stress profile rather than a linearization. This was necessary WPO453 lbl081492 - 2-2

to provide the most accurate determination possible. The stress profila was represented by a cubic polynomial: a(x) e A, + A, 5 + A, + A, (2-1) t t t where x is the coordinate distance into the wall wall thickness t stress perpendicular to the plane of the crack r o coefficients of the cubic fit A, for the surface flaw with length six times its depth, the stress intensity factor expressi< ' YcGowan and Raymund [ ))"' was used. The stress intensity factor ry (@) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by o - 0. The following expression is used for calculating K; (p), where d i, the angular location around the crack. =- os (cos 9 + a' sin p)m(A/1, 4 _ _A,H, (2-E) na 2a 2 r K,( )= z Q C nt 1a 2 8 - + -- Aji, + 4 Afl,) a 2t 2 3n t The magnification factors H ($). H,(o), H ($) and H ( ) are obtained by the a 2 3 procedure outlined in refert.nce [8]. The stress intensity factor calculation for a semi-circular surface flaw, (aspect ratio 2:1) was carried out using the expressions developed by [ [ ))"'. Their expression utilizes the same cubic representation of the stress profile and gives precisely the same result as the expression of { ]"' for the 6:1 aspect ratio flaw, and the form of the equation is similar to that of [ ]"' above. WPO453:1b!081692 2-3 - - -. _. _ = _ - _ - -.

i The stress intensity factor expression used for a continuous surface flaw was that developed by [. [ ] ]'". Again the stress profile is - f represented as a cubic polynomial, as shown above, and these coefficients as-well as the magnification factors are combined in the expression for K, 1 en i l K, = ga (2-3) 9 i l where F, F, F,, F, are magnification factors, available in (9]. i 2 4 2.3 Fracture Toughness 4 i The residual heat exchanger is constructed of SA 240 stainless steel, type 304. The weld at the nozzle was made by the shielded metal arc process l as verified by the shop traveller and the weld procedure referenced thrain. The fracture toughness of the base metal has been found to be relatively very high, even at operating temperatures [10], where the J,, values have been-found 2 to be well over 2000 in-lb/in. Fracture toughness values for weld materials i have been found to display much more scatter, with the lowest reported values. significantly lower than the base metal toughness. Although the J, values i 1 i 1 reported have been lower, the slope of the J-R-curve is still large for these J cases. Representative values for J,, vere obtained from the results' of e l Landes, et. al. [11], and used in the development of the fracture evaluation methods. !t a.C.s - n i This value of toughness was used in t:.4 original development of the flaw { acceptance criteria, and has been shown to be extremely conservative relative to test results -for larger specheas obtained since that time. This subject I is furthcr discussed in Section 4.2. 1 4 _ PO453:1bl081492-24 W . - ~

) 2.4 THERMAL AGING Thermal aging at operating temperatures of reactor primary piping can reduce the fracture toughness of cast stainless steels and, to a lesser degree, stainless steel weldments. Because of the lower operating temperatJre (400*F) of the residual heat exchanger, and the fact that the materials are type 304 stainless (not cast), thermal aging in this component will be negligible. 2.5 Allowable flaw Size Determination The critical flaw size is not directly calculated as part of the flaw evaluation process for stainless steels. Instead, the failure mode and critical flaw size are incorporated directly into the flaw evaluation technical basis, and therefore into the tables of " Allowable End-of-Evaluation Period Flaw Depth to Thickness Ratio," which are contained in paragraph IWB 40. The same is true for the revised acceptance criteria for Class 2 ionents. 'lA {$ id, nonductile failure is possible for ferritic materials at low ~mperatures. but is not applicable to stainless steels. In stainless steel materials, the higher ductility leads to two possible modes of failure, plastic collapse or unstable ductile tearing. The second mechanism can occur when the applied J integral exceeds the 4 fracture toughness and some stable tearing occurs price to failure, if this mode of failure is dominant, the load carrying capacity is less than that predicted by the plastic collapse mechanism. The allowable flaw sizes of paragraph IWB 3640 for the high toughness base materials were determined based on the assumption that plastic collapse would be achieved and would be the dominant mode of failure. [ )..o WP04531hl081492 2-5

SECTION 3.0 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH In applying Code acceptance criteria as introduced in Section 1, the final flaw size a is defined as the flaw size to which the detected flaw is f calculated to grow at the end of a specified period, or until the next inspection time. This section will examine each of the calculations, and provide the methodology used as well as the assumptions. 3.1 Analysis Methodology The methods used in the crack growth analysis reported here are the same as those suggested by Sect' ion XI of the ASME Code. The analysis procedure involves postulating an initisl flaw at specific regions and predicting the growth of that flaw due to an imposed series of loading transients. The input required for a fatigue crack growth analysis is basically the information necessary to calculate the parameter AK which depends on crack and structure y geometry and the range of applied stresses in the ana where the crack exists. Once AK is calculated, the growth due to that particular stress cycle can be y calculated by equations given in Section 2.2 and 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 only transients considered in the analysis were the startup and shutdown of the RHR system. These transients are spread equally over the design lifetime of the vessel. Crack growth calculations were carried out for a range of flaw depths of three basic types. The first two types were surface flaws, one with length equal to six times the depth and another with length equal to twice the depth. The third type was a continuous surface flaw which represents a worst case condition for surface flaws. WPO453 lbl081492 3-1

32 Crack Growth Rate Reference Curves The reference crack growth law used for the stainless steel was taken from that developed by the Metal Properties Council - Pressure Vessel Research Committee Task Force in Crack Propagation Technology. The reference curve has the equation: b = CTS AK' (3-7) dN where b = track growth rate, inches per cycle dN Material coefficient (C 2.0 x 10'I9) C frequency coefficient for loadings (F - 2.0) F = R ratio correction coefficient (S - 1.0 - 0.502 R )-4.0 2 S = Material property slope (n3.0321) n = Stress intensity factor range, psi j in AK This equation appears in Section XI, Appendix C (1989 Addendum) for air environments and its basis is provided in reference [12], and shown in figure 3-1. For water environments, an environmental factor of 2 was used,_ based on the crack growth tests in PWR environments reported _ by Bamford -[13). 3.3 Residual Stresses Since the residual heat exchanger vessel-to-piping welds have not been stress-relieved, residual stresses are likely present. For fatigue crack growth analyses, these stresses are Lincluded directly. In general, the distribution of Lresidual-stresses is strongly dependent on the degree of constraint of the structure. The stiffer the structure, the-higher the residual stresses. [ 3.x. yip 0453:1bl081492 3-2

[ )..u [ ).u 3.4 Stress Corrosion Cracking Susceptibility In evaluating flaws, all mechanisms of subcritical crack growth must bq evaluated to ensure that proper safety margins are maintained during se'vice. Ja Stress corrosion cracking has been observed to occur in stainless steegin operating BWR piping systems. The discussion presented here is the teo?pical basis for not considering this mechanism in the present analysis. The residual heat exchanger tube side nozzles are exposed to only primary coolant water. For all Westinghouse plants, there is no history of cracking failure in the reactor coolant system loop piping. For stress corrosion cracking (SCC) to occur in piping, the following three conditions must exist simultaneously: high tensile stresses, a susceptible material, and a corrosive environment. Since some residual stresses and some degree of material susceptibility exist in any stainless steel piping, the potential for stress corrosion is minimized by proper selection of a material immune to SCC as well as preventing the occurrence of a corrosive environment. The material specifications have taken into consideration compatibility with the system's operating environment (both internal and external) as well as other materials in the system, applicable ASME Code rules, fracture toughness, welding, fabrication, and processing. WPO453.lbl081492 3-3

s a I / . une.,,nte-eisen.s,ewrn. [ [

1. '~

rnended to account for ratio oopendence of wter encronment p / ~ S curves, for 0.25 <R < 0.65 f or p [j [ $00 S ohellow stooe: M! = (1.01 X 10'110 3 g.95 +,

• j

~ 1 ~ 2 N b I dN 02 = 3.75 8 4 OD6 [ [ ~ e

• /t /

/ a=K r,<K,ne. m j / set..r4e. fi.ws / [ (air environrnent) { 100 4 3.726 8 A = 10.0267 X 10 ) A Kg (h 70 [ Determine the 6K at which the -/ It law changes tn calcutetson of j

• g e

the intersection of ttw two / $/p curws. ey Surf ace flows f (water roector enwonment) go G epplicate for j 'O.25 < A 0 5 fj R3065 % $l 10 ~ R=K IK,, m m,n E l E 7 I / 1 4 1 9

• Lirmer inwrpotetion is recommended f

( to account for A ratio dependena ~ of water environment curws,for g f ,f { 0.25 < R < 0.65 tor atoep slope: q = (1.02 X 104) O AK.95 5

1. 8 g

e an Ifk IIk Og = 26.9R 5.725 I min #mex l R=K I IJ I-i i i i l lri r-I i i i IIII 1 2 5 7 to 20 50 70 100 Stress Intensity Factor Range (AKg ksi f.) ] i I Figure 3-1. Reference Crack Growth Rate Curves for Stainless Steel in Air Environments [12). WPF1260J/032792:10 3-4

35 6 I $?$ l ~ ~ 21 i / 1 00) PIECE No 1 PitCE No. 2 f.03 I I I e l i } i ? I I i I n' E 3'a I 'l I \\ l >\\ US - N I I I I riA I 1 (\\ } g t.401 - 2b.13 e l l $01 Fl(LET - 36 16 i..oi 42,19 4-701 I t t I l to B m.) 10.6 en.1 to 4 m l 10 2 en.) 10 2 m.) to 4 in.) to 6 in 1 2.032 1.524 cvn 1.016 cm 0.b00 cm 0 608 cm 1.016 cm 1524 cm Figure 3-2. Maximum Principal Surface Residual Stress for a 10 inch Schedule 160 Pipe [14] WPF1260J/032792:10-3-5

l l 1 I .. c.. Figure 3-3. Through Wall Distribution of Residual Stress in a 10 Inch, Schedule 160 Pipe, in a Cross Section Adjacent to the Weld Center Line [15] WPF1260J/032792:10 3-6

SECTION 4.0

SUMMARY

AND RESULTS 4.1 Flaw Evaluation Charts Construction The acceptance criteria for surface flaws have been described in Section 1 for both Class 1 and Class 2 components. For. flaw evaluation in stainless steels, only the fatigue crack growth results must be calculated. The allowable flaw depths were determined directly from the tables in IWB 3640 and from tables developed specifically for Class 2 components, as detailed in Appendix A. The first set of data required for surface flaw chart construction is the final flaw size a,. As defined in IWB-3611 of ASME Code Section XI, a, is the flaw depth resulting from growth during a specific time period which can be the next scheduled inspection of the component or until the end of design-lifetime. Therefore, the final depth, a,, after a specific service period of i 7 time must be used as the basis for evaluation. 4 The final flaw size, a,, can be calculated by fatigue crack growth analysis, which has been performed covering a range of postulated flaw sizes, and flaw shapes. The crack growth calculational methods have been discussed in Section 3. The results of the crack growth calculation showed that growth for. a complete range of crack sizes was inconsequential for the entire service life of 40 years. This was expected, since the region experiences so few cycles. The allowable flaw size for Class 1 stainless steel piping and components is obtained directly from tables in paragraph IWB 3640, so the evaluation process is straightforward,- The allowable flaw size for Class 2 piping and components was obtained directly thrcqqh use of Appendix A. The allowable flaw size is. calculated based on the most limiting transient for all normal operating conditions. Similarly, the allowable flaw size for emergency and faulted conditions is.also determined. 'The theory and methodology for the calculation of the allowable flaw sizes have been provided in Section 2 and Reference 16 for Class I components, and in' Appendix A for Class 2 components. Allowable flaw sizes were calculated for a range of flaw shapes. WPO4511bl081692 4-1

Two dimensionless parameters-which fully address the characteristics of a surface flaw, have been used for the evaluation chart construction: o Flaw t.ength divided by the circumference, f/c o flaw Depth parameter a/t

where, wall thickness, in, t

= flaw depth, in. a flaw length, in. t pipe circumference, in. c = The flaw evaluation chart for the residual heat exchanger inlet and outlet nozzles is shown in Figure 4-1. The chart has the following characteristics: [ l l 3... WPO453:1b!081492 4-2'

A detailed example on the use of the charts for a surface flaw is presented below-Surface Flaw Example Now suppose an indication is to be evaluated using the charts. For the circumferential orientation: a = 0.10" l = 6.1" t = 0.40" c = 44.0" The flaw characterization parameters then become: a/t = 0.250 f/c = 0.139 I Plotting these parameters on the surface flaw evaluation chart of Figure 4-1, it is quickly seen that the indication is acceptable, for both the class 1 and class 2 curves. Embedded Flaw Example The flaw evaluation charts are equally useful for embedded flaws. Suppose an embedded indication were discovered with the.following dimensions: 2a = 0.2" l = 7.0" S = 0.1" t = 0.4" c = 44.0" The indication would be characterized as an embedded flaw, because the S dimension exceeds.0.4a. The flaw characterization parameters then beenme: 3 2a/t =.5 1/c = 0.160 Plotting these parameters on the flaw evaluation. chart in Figure A-1 shcws. that the indication is acceptable for both the Class l'and Class 2 acceptance WP0453:1bl081492 4-3

criteria. Note that for embedded flaws, the total depth "2a" of the flaw is plotted on the chart. 4.2 Conservatisms in-the flaw Evaluation The stress and fracture analysis results presented herein have been structured to be conservative at each step to ensure conservatism in the final-result. The stresses applied to the heat exchanger nozzles were taken from the vessel equipment specification loads, which represent bounding loads for the structure. The actual loads for the Byron and Braidwood Units I and 2 heat exchangers [6] are approximately 60 percent of the design -loads. 1 WPO453:1bf081492 44

s.c.e - Figure 4-1 Flaw Evaluation Chart for Byron and-Braidwood Units 1 and 2 Residual Heat Exchanger Tube Side Nozzles WP0453.Ib!080592 45

e c.e i e J M Figure 4-2 Comparison of Fracture Toughness Results for Different Specimen Sizes, Submerged Arc Weldments WP0453: Wor]S92 4.(

SECTION

5.0 REFERENCES

1. ASME Code Section XI, " Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," 1983 edition (used for updated code allowable limits); !.983 edition, Winter 1985 Addendum (used for flaw evaluation of austenitic stainless steel piping); 1989 edition (used for reference crack growth curve, stainless steel). 2. Jambusaria, H., " Residual Heat Exchangers: Braidwood Unit 2," Westir.ghouse Report No. 031804 Rev. O, Jan. 24, 1986. 3. Jambasaria, H., " Residual Heat Exchangers: Byron Unit 1," Westinghouse Report No. 031805 Rev. O, 2/27/92. 4. Jambusaria, H., " Residual Heat Exchangers: Byron Unit 2," We,tinghouse Report No. 031806 Rev. O, 2/27/92. 5. Jambusaria, H., " Residual Heat Exchangers: Braidwood Unit 1," Westinghouse Report No. 031803 Rev. O, 2/27/92. 6. Letter # BPM #1577 from D. J. Skoza of Commonwealth Edisor. Company to Janet Bunecicky of Westinghouse Electric Corporation,

Subject:

RHR Heat Exchanger Nozzle Loads, dated 2/12/92. 7. McGowan, J. J. and Raymund, M., " Stress Intensity Factor-Solutions for Internal Lnngitudinal Semi-elliptic Surface Flaw in Cylinder Under Arbitrary Loading", ASTM STP 677, 1979, pp. 365-380 8. Newman, J. C. Jr. and.Raju, I. S., " Stress Intensity Factors for Internal Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels", ASME Trans., Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol. - 102,1980, pp. 342-346. 9. Buchalet, 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 590, 1976, pp. 385-402. WPU480.1b,'o81792 - 5-1

10. Bamford, W. H. and Bush, A. J., " Fracture of Stainless Steel," in Elastic Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP 668, 1979, 11. Landes, J. D., and Norris, D. M., " Fracture Toughness of Stainless Steel Piping Weldments," presented at ASME Pressure Vessel Conference,1984. ] I 12. James, L. A., and Jones, D. P., " Fatigue Crack growth Correlations for- ) Austenitic Stainless Steel in Air," in Predictive Capabilities in Environmentally Assisted Cracking," ASME publication PVP-99, Dec.1985. l 13. Bamford, W. H., " Fatigue Crack Crowth of Stainless Steel Piping in a Pressurized Water Reactor Environment," Trans ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel technology, Feb. 1979. l 14. " Studies on AISI Types 304, 304L, and 347 Stainless Steels for BWR Application, April-June 1975," General Electric Report NE00-20985-1, September 1975, 15. Rybicki, E. F., McGuire, P. A., Merrick, E., and West, J., "The Effect of Pipe Wall Thickness on Residual Stresses Due to Girth Welds," Trans ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol 104, August 1982, 16. " Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping," Trans ASME, Journal' of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol.108, Aug. -1986, pp. 352-366. 17. Wilkowski, G. et. al., " Analysis of Experiments on Stainless Steel Flux. Welds," Battelle Columbus 1 abs report for USNRC, number NUREG/CR 4878, April 1987. WPO480;1bl081792 5-2

APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT OF UNIFIED FLAW ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR AUSTENITIC PIPING A.l.0 INTRODUCTION There are currently rules in the ASME B&PV Code, Section XI, (Ref.(A3), for the evaluation of flaws in austenitic piping when the discovered indications exceed the allowable acceptance standards. These rules are compiex, use relatively arbitrary " safety factors", require the knowledge of a " flow stress" that is very difficult to determine, and have arbitrary limits on the maximum flaw depths allowed, with the result that the compounded conservatisms have produced very conservative results. The approach taken in developing these rules is that austenitic piping is very ductile and a failure of a pipe, whether flawed or not, will be by plastic collapse of the pipe cross section and has been verified by numerous experiments. A solution for the collapse load of a flawed pipe was developed in terms of the applied primary loads and the flawed pipe geometry using limit load theory with the yield stre s replaced by a flow stress. This collapse stress is divided by a fixed safety factor (2.77 for Level A and B loadings and 1.39 for Level C and D loadings) to establish allowable stresses in the flawed pipe and these were back calculated to establish the allowable flaw size. It should be noted that the collapse equations were developed for a thin walled tube (R > t), for this is the only practical solution, and again is conservative for real pipes which have thicker cross sections. These solutions of Ref. (A3) have several limitations: a) They are available for Class 1 piping only, b) The allowable design stresses of Ref. (A1) have different values for each of the loading categories (Levels A, B, C, and D) that are not always consistent with the safety factors used. WPO480:1b'061792 A-1

c) The accumulated conservatisms are such that, for many cases, a new unflawed pipe wi_ll fail the criteria of Ref. -(A3). d) There_is no limit on axial membrans stress. Although the predominant failure mode in piping is by bending,. there are cases such as a flaw in an end cap weld where the membrane stress governs. t )..... I WPO480:1b(081792 p -2 =

i.- A.2.0 CRITERIA r l The criteria of the ASME B&PV Code, Section III, " Nuclear Power Plant Components", (Ref..(A1)) for.the design of new components is based upon_the i premise that the materials used will be ductile and the failure mode will be j by plastic c-~~1 apse. The resulting minimum safety margin is the ratio of the f collapse load of the structure to the maximum permitted loads in the structure. The collapse load of the structure is conservatively ' defined in l Section III using limit load theory with the collapse -stress equal to-the yield strength of the material. These criteria are discussed in " Criteria of-f Section III of the ASME Boiler and Pressure-Vessel Code for Nuclear Vessels", l ASME,1964 (Ref. (A2)). Figure A2.1 is a reproduction of Fig. 2 of Ref.~(A2), l that demonstrates the safety margins for a beam of rectangular cross section for both longitudinal-membrane and membrane plus bending stresses, j ( ).. 4 1 4 l i 1-k 1 h i 4 + 4 WPO480 lb!081792 - A-3 ,.r ---.v-my-,.-y,,, -w i ---.,+.e .3,-,--m-w,yw.-.w-w..,p .-,a. ~.,%.,.e, ,v..--.ye,,--a,-yy,,y-,. c.q,-,,,vm .,- n e w-r

1.t COLLAP3E STRES$ i,4, Pm" TEN 3tLE STAEis P e BENotHG KTAESS b Sg a viELD STRESS 1.2 , I.0,,,,,,,,,,,, u / h '0Estcw LturT3

f. 0.6 E

/ b .6 f C / / f c4 / / f 0'.2 / / 0 O C.2 C.4 0.4 C.8 1.0 Pm sg COLLAP3E STRESS FOR COMBINED TENSION ANDBENDING (RECTANcuLAn 3ECTow) Figure A2.1 Reproduction of Figure 2 of Reference A2 [ )..... F M WP0480:1bl081792 A-4

Collapse Stress Solid Roctangle Thi n Walled Tube 1.5 / 4/n 1.2 A*O ///////// / 0,8 Design (Pm+Po)/Sv Limits f 0.6 / / 0.4 / 0.2 / / O' '/ 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Pm/Sv Figure A2.2 Collapse curve for a thin walled tube for comparison with Fig. A2.1 { ]a,c,e e WPO480.1bl081792 A-5

[ ju, A 3.0 FLAW NOMENCLATURE FOR A CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW The nomenclature used in evaluating a pipe with a circumferential flaw is illustrated in rigure A3.1 and defined specifically as: the maximum measured flaw depth projected to the end of the a = evaluation period. the maximum measured half flaw length in radians projected to the O = ) end of the evaluation period.

ngle.n radians to the neutral axis,

/1 = pipe wall thickness. t meaa radius of pipe. R = 1 inside radius of pipe. R, a R outside radius of pipe. = o v, flow stress at plastic collapse. Flaw a +or I = / // ^ = \\e% ( t j \\ B / \\ 'N Neutral Axis -ce Figure A3.1 cross section of flawed pipe. WPO480:1b 081792 A-6

A,4.0 FLAW EVALUATION DEVELOPMENT A.4.1 Limit On Membrane Plus Bending Stress [ )..... ( ).... ) WPO480:1bl081792 A-7

---

n

[ ).. 1 1 I l e WPO480;1bl081792 A-8

[ j u.. ( ).. i FLAW DEPTH Fl.AW LENGTH O/n RATIO I 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 A/T 0.1 .984 .970 .958 .950 .947 .947 .947 .947 .947 .947 3 0.2 .969 .939 915 .897, .888 .886 .886 .886 .886 .886 0.3 .953 .907 .869 .840 .822 .818 .818 .818 .818 .818. i 0.4 .936 .875- .821 .778 .751 .740 .739 .739 .739 .739 0.5 .920 .841 .770 .713 .674 .653 .650 .650 .650 .650 0.6 .903 .806 .718 .644 .591 .559 .547 .547 .547 .547 i O.7 .886 .770 .663 .572 .503 .457 .435 .431 .431 .431 1 0.8 .869 .734 .606 .496 .409 .349 .314 .301 .300 .300 1 0.9 .851 .696- .547 .416 .310- .233 .185 .161 .155 .155 ^ Table A4.2 Calculated values of the flaw reduction factors in equations (7a) and (8a), primary membrane-plus bending stresses in-a pipe with a circumferential flaw. I, A.4.2 Limit on Membrane Stress j ( ).. i ( )..... 1 WPO480.1bl081792 A-9 k

ItAW DEPTH FLAW LENGTH O/tr I itATIO 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9-1.0 3g 0.1 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.2 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.88 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.80 0.3 0.97 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.85 0.82 .0.79-0.76 0.73-0.70 0.4 0.96 0.92 0.88 0.84 0.80 0.76 -0.72 0.68 0.64 0.60 0.5 0.95 0.90 - 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 - 0.60 _0.55 0.50 0.6 0.94 0.88 0.82 0.76 0.70 0.64 0.58 0.52 0.46 0.40 0.7 0.93 0.86 0.79 0.72 0.65 0.58 0.51- -0.44 0.37 0.30 0.8 0.92 0.84 0.76 0.68 0.60 0.52 0.44-- -0.36 0.28 0.20 0.9 0.91 0.82 0.73 0.64 0.55 0.46 0.37 0.28 0.19 0.10 Table A4.3 Calculated values of the flaw reduction-factors in equation- (9), primary membrane stress in piping with a circumferential flaw. WPO480:1bl081792 A-10 - _ ~.

/ l A.5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ACCEPTANCE CRi(ERIA FOR THE RESIDUAL HEAT EXCHANGER b-N0ZZLES 4 j [)o The loads from Section 4 and appropriate class 2 allowable stresses are listed below: Loading Case P, + P, (ksi) Z, . Allowable Stress cr, (ksi) level A 12.3 1.449 1.5 Ss = 24.3 Level B _12.3 1.449

1. 8 S, = 3. 2 Level C 16.8 1.449 2.25 S, = 36.45-Level D 16.8 1.449 2.0 S, --40.7 WPM 80:1bl081792 A-11 d

l a/t e/n l Level A Level B Level C Level D i 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 t 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 l P 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 i O.5 0.365 1.0 0.529 1.0 0.6 0.283 0.462 0.368 0.509 0.7 0.235 0.357 0.295 0.382 0.8 0.201 0.296 0.252 0.316 0.9 0.176 0.257 0.219 0.272 [ ).... n i I e h h I L h l WPO480.1b!082092 A-13 + l.. . _, _ _,... _, _, _..,, _.., _. -.. _..., _. ~ _...,....,, _ _.. .,,.. _..............,.... _.,. _. _ _ _.., _, ~. _..., _.. _.. _.

43 A. -auJ.d.--- st r u m AE.h _N ha W4a+mtwa s A_Mw A S Ar.hwA4m4._-- --"*4.J_.4--h 4 e M6 hu '---hh4%_F,%4- ^ hM& i s [ ).o l __ 1 I i b e I e 1 .I P T t t 4> l 1 t i WPO480:1bl081792 A-12 Y yee t c r-_.y ,.,,,,g,,m_ c.,_m,,,___ ,,,_, m

1 e,e.. l Figure AS.1 Flaw Evaluation Chart for Residual Heat Exchanger Tube Side Inlet and Outlet Nozzles WP0480.1b%81792 A-14 .._...m.

~ _. _. _ _. 1 1 .l q A.

6.0 REFERENCES

l (Al) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, " Nuclear Power Plant Components". 1989 Edition with the 1991 Addenda used foi2 specific references. J (A2) " Criteria of Section 111 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for Nuclear Vessels", ASME, 1964. t (A3) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, " Rules for Inservice ) i Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components". 1989 Edition with the 1991 Addenda used for specific references. (A4) J. P. Houstrup; Presentation to the ASME Section XI Task Group-on Pipe Flaw Evaluation, in minutes, Nov.1988. (A5) EPRI Report No. NP-4690SR, " Evaluation of Flaws in Austenitic Steel Piping", July,1986. l 9 7 l 1 l wro480.1 bros 1782 A.... z-.....--

APPEl4DlX B WELDlf4G PROCEDURES Af10 SHOP TRAVELLERS BYRON AND BRAIDWOOD RESIDUAL HEAT EXCHAf4GERS B WPO480 lb!081792 B-1

911L/76 ~ ~..... Fev. 1) '.0 5 t PH o.a..r.e.e n p o.r ta i nv I. age 1 of k ra -.,.-. WFLDitJG l'ROCTE'UFE ' eEC i r t C AT f nN VPS u SHIFLDED METAL-APC VELDING STA14LESS STEEL TO,STAlHLESS STEE_L, l Welding frocess: A. All weldinn shall be done by the Shle'ded Metal-Arc Welding

• recess ( S wM f) in or.cordcnce with ASME Section IX.

Bas Metalt-A. Each base metal shell conforn to a scccification lis+.ed in Sectlen IX groun P-6. Filler l'et el t and Electrodes: A. The electode shall conform to ASME specification number SFA 5.4, gresup F-5 and Weld Metal Analysis A-8 as indir.ated ir Table A. SSicidtne Ges and Packino Rings-A Shielding gas shell not be used. B. Gas backing, nonmetallic retair.ers, or nonfusing metal retainers shc11 not be used. Basc Metal Thickness: A. This procedure covers groove welding of material thicknesses from 3/16" to l l-1/2" and all size fillet we.lds on any materici thickness, 11 Preparation of Base Material: A. The edges or surfaces of the parts to be. welded may be cut by machining, grinding, sawing, abrasive disc, plasma, or arc cutting to confoi.. essentially l with Figure I and shall be cleaned by ulre brushing or grinding as necessary. B. When plasma or are cutting is used, ill oxides and scale shall be reinoved by machining or grinoing cway 1/16" cf material, C. Prior to welding, the surface shall be free of oil, grease and excessive amounts of scale or rust. Position: A. The welding may be done in the flat (lG, IT), horizontal (2G, 2F), vertical (3G, 3F), overhend (4G, 4F), or multiplc (SG, 6G) position. l 1

.. p e., 9 ...D s.f.D H D A T c O.R D O.R A. J a =-

• * * - - - ~ " "

Rev. 11 Page 2 of 4 B. The reld progresslor! for positions 3G, 36, SG. and 6G shall be.pward. P r e h e n. t av Postheat Treatment: A. Preheat tenperature - 50 r minicum B. Interpass terperature - 350 r maximum. C. tio postweld heat treatment r e; u l. e c'. ,Fhetrical Characteristics: A. All welding shall be done with direct c u r r e r, t, reversed polarity (base metal on negative side of line). J oi n t Ve l d t,n,g P roc ed u e : A. The current and voltage shall be essentially as Indicated in Table B. B. The wel ing sequence shall be essentially as shown in Figure I using stringer beads. The width of the bead shall not exceed 2-1/2 times the electrode dismater. C. Prior to weldlag the underside or sernnd side of a groove, this side shall be bedy.vvyed w clean metal by grinding, chipping, or are gougint. II Arc gouging shall be followed by grinding away 1/16" of materiai. D. Starts and stops which show excess reinforcement or excessive depressions thall be ground out prior to depositing next pass. Cleaning: A. All slag or flux remaining on any tead of welding shall be removed before laying down the next succeS$1ve bead of welding. Interpass cleaning shall be by wlre brushing, grinding, or slog gun as necessary. Defects: A. Any defects such as cracks, porosi ty, etc., which appear on the surf ace of any weld bead shall be removed by grinding, chipping, or are gouging prior to the depo 31 tion of the next successive weld bead. Arc gouging shall be followed by grinding away 1/16" of material. B. Peening 15 prchib1ted. Prepared by: Reviewed by: bw Nlw adw .. b a Jay hurphy j Engineering l Quality Control Manager

VPS-9 JostpH .e...... o n t c o m p o n a t io r(e v. 11 ....... o..<... Page 3 of 4 IfBLE A The following material - electrode can,binations may be used unless specified otherwise on the shop drawings. BASE MATERIAL ELECTRODE For Group P-8 nateriais of the fol'owing types: 304 to 30h E308-15, E308-16 304L to 304L, 304 E308L-15, E308L-16 316 to 316, 304 E316-15. E316-16 316L to 316L. 316 E316L-15, E316L-16 317 to 317 E317-15, E317-16 317L to 317L. 317L E317L-15. E317L-16 309 to 309 E309-15, E309-16 TABLE B i l MIN. TRAVEL ELECTRODE SIZE V01.TAGE RANGE AMPERAGE RANGE SPEED * (IPM) l 3/32" 18-20 40-80 2-4 l 1/8" 20-22 80-120 4-7 5/32" 20-24 100-150 5-9 3/16" 20-24 136-190 6-11

• As voltage and amperage are jncreased, the minimum travel speed shall be l

Increased through the range indicated. l l e 1

'e \\!PS-9 , f,058 Pd 0 p,T,c o,n o o,n gt io,, Rev. 11 m - / - - = o. Page 4 of 4 y,00 f',E I PIC0t'. MEN ('E D JOINT CONFI GURATI ONS AN D VELDING BEAD SEQUENCES

• A.

Materiel thicknesses of 3/8" and it.ss: G C'~~~--W i at 4/ i { ,W ( 3-Q O-Ms" ~ B. Material thicknesfe, greater than 3/8": GO 'u ohs",2_il N D l k O '/ 6 " j ~. g,0

• s C.

All thicknesses for any si e fillet: V D ( i

• 0ther configurations acceptable upon Engineering approval,

Ow 483 PROCEDURE QUALIFICAll(aN HECOW tiul (See Ow 201.2. Section 11, 1974 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code) __ _ _ _Correany Nane JOSEPH DAT CORPORAT10N _ _ - - _.__.c.-_m__ m-Procedure Ovalihcation Record No. PQR.9 Date _1/11/ 7 7 BPS No. 9; welding Processtes) SMAV TYPCS Manool (Manual Auton.atic Semi Aut.) JOINTS (QW402) BASE METALS (QW403) 'O* M ' Material Spec. 5 A

• 2 L O__

TP 304 Type or Grade. 0- MI L 8 r-s -,, p g,. g p g,. 9 0 '/S. Thickness 3/4" 60*- Diameter Croove Design Used Other FILLER METALS (QW-404) POSITION (QW405) Veld Metal Analysis A No. 8 Position of Croove F1at It S! e of Electrode 5/37" wcld Pregtession Forehpnd Filler Metal F No. 5 (Uphill, Downhill) SFA Specifica6 ion SFA 5.4 Other AWS Classification E-308-16 Other PREH EAT (QW406) 0 treheat Temp. 90 F U Interpass Temp. 't90 F max. Other POSTwELD HEAT TREATMENT (QW 407) GAS (QW408) Temperature None Type of Cas or Gases N-Time Composition of Cas Mixture Other Other ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS (QW 409) TECHNIQL'E (QW 410) Curren Direct String or Weave Bead Strinoer Polarity Reversed Oscillation Amps. 130 Volts 22-24 Multipau c:Singte Pass MultIcass Travel Speed 10 1pm (Fer side) Other Singic or Multiple E1cetrodes SInole ine in u.n =,.,i....,o .a. n., sut o,ew r.. i.. u s t. 4 r si.. m,im. %,,, iovo I

00 483 (Back) Sheet 2 1/11/77 TENSILE TEST (0W.150) I ULTIMATE ULTIMATE CH ARACTER OF SPECIMEN TOTAL LOAD UNIT STRESS F ALLURE h N O. Wl0TH. THICKNESS AREA L B. PSI L OC ATION 9Ti 1.569 0.731 ..l.147 97 250 84,790 Base Metal-nre :e 2 912 I.569 0.724 I.13G 96,000 84 $10 Base Me t a l - IRc ' ' ' I GUIDED BEND TESTS (QW.160) TYPE AND TYPE AND 1lGU3E NO. RESULT FIGURE NO. RESULT 7W-4.'..' ( a ) s i,1,, _ <;,, 4 s y, m,., nu_u, w , S L51n.dat; f ar m-OV-462.2(a) Side-Sne4cfFtorv ')'! 4 M. ? Q) Ride-Sati'#9 C f "" TOUGHNESS ESTS (QW 170) SPECIMEN NOTCH NOTCH TEST IMPACT L ATERA L EXP. DROP WElGHT NO. I.0C ATIO N TYPE TEMP, VALUES *A SHE AR l MILSBREAK NOBREAK Type of Test Deposit Analye.is O t h e r._ FILLET WELD TEST (QW 180) Result - satisf actory _ __ Penetration into Parent Metal __. Yes, No Yes, No Type and Character of f ailure . Macro-R esults' Welder'c N ne Johp F. Bover Clock No. 72 Stamp No. Tests condu, ed by: Pitt5. Te5t ke.h. 1.aboratory Test No. AI7476 R. D. Eavey pet. We certify that the s'atements in this record are correct and that the test welds were prepared. welded and tested in a6eordance with the requirements of Section IX of the ASME Code. Signed Joseph Oat,_ Corporation (Manufacturct) 1/11/77 4 yjg4 Date (Detail of record of tests are illustrative only and may be modified tb confo to be type and num-ber of tests required by the Code.)

It!1TI AL DATt' ItJ ITI AL DATE Joseph Oat Corporation Jol) tio. J-2267 p3-g A 1. 'N TI['i _st6-AA2(23r,1r>konP _Q.C. hO .J[//7f Customer UEs T s tic't00',E P. O. I 4 Item tio. Dwg. No. l g;g3g,

prop, Code ASHE fil Class 2 Tube Side 3 Shell Side Sheet I

of 7 ~ ~ 120TE: Inittais Indicate acceptance. V= Denotes Vestinghouse lloid Point. Al-Denotes Code lloid Point. WELD PPOC. I!OLD IIDT PROC. OAT It1SP. CUST.IllSP, AUTl! INSP ITEP DESCRIPTION Number Rev Nu.nber Rev Sign Date Sign Date Sign Date i NATERIAL RECEIPT l. Shells ( 2. Ileads l 3 f80rzles 4. Tubes 5. Tube Sheets" i i 1 6. itiscellaneous Il 5 HELL FABRICATION 1. Cut and roll shell plates to Dwg. Dim 6nsiota (Inspect). l 2. Veld shell long scams Inside 22 background. (LPT) 35 Al QC 100 3 Complete welding shell seams 22 (LPT) (INSPECT) 35 QC 100 4. Fit-up shell sections. Al

l l l Sheet 7 of 7 Job'No. J-7767 Item No. 6-3-75 Revision I WELD PItOC. IlOLD NDT PROC. OAT INSP CUST INSP AUTil INSP DESCPCPTION Number Rev PT. Number 'Bev Sign Date Sion Date Sinn Date iTEP_ _. II SHELL FAB. (Continued) t 5 Fit-up shell head and shelt flange (Inspect) gg 22 6. Weld all girths inside, backgrind (LPT) 35 QC 100 22 7 Complete welding on girths LPT Final welds then spot RT 35 QC 100 1 QC 215 i 8. Layout shell for nczzles i l 9 Fit-up nozzles to shcIl 10. Weld nozzles to shell inside 4 i 4 II. Cut holes for nozzles - Grind flush j QC 100 inside - Backgrind outside - LPT Al 1

12. Complete welding nozzles outside -

l QC 100 LPT final nozzle welds, I i~ 13 fit-up and wcld nozzle reinforcement pads (LPT) 7' -QC 100 r' l Al SI C RADI OGRAPI IC

14. Spot RT shell welds W

QC 215 RELDER St EET F( R ACCIPTANCE 15 Layout sheII for seismic lugs - t Fit-up then weld (Inspect) LPT 22 QC 100 i-i I 1 i i i ( ---n

4 I - Jc.li No. J-2267 Item tio. Sheet i of_J l 6-3-75 Rev!slon I l WELD PDOC. IlOLD NDT PRGC. OAT It1SP CUST ItISP Mml It!S P STEP l DESCRIPTICN Number Rev PT. Nu:the r Pev Sign Date Sion Date Sign Date! l I i lIl CHPliNEL ASSEMBLY 4 1. Cut shell then roll to Dwg. dimension - tack scam (Inspect) 2. Veld seam inside 9 l Backgrind (LPT) 40 QC 100 'g n, ~ i 3. Complete Velding seam 9 g (LPT) 40 QC 100 ! 4 4 ( I 4. Radiograph seam 100% Al SEE RADIOLRAPHI, REA0! R ( V QC 200 j SHE1 T FOR ACCEPl ANCE. I i 5 I It-up head and flange (Inspect) Al 6. Veld inside - backgrind - LPT 40 QC 100 ?. Complete h" cad and flange welds (LPT) 9 J 40 QC 100 Al l SEE RADif GRAPHIC REAR ER 8. Radiograph 100t head and flange W QC 200 j St EET Fr R ACCI PTANCE 1 9 Layout channel for nozzles and I c.oupl ing s (Inspect) 10. Fit up nozzles weld Inside then cut holes and grind flush (LPT) 9 Al QC 100 l II. -Backgrind outside l l (LPT) QC 100 12. Complete outside nozzle welds then LPT 9 QC 100 I

Sheet 4 of 7 . Job No. J-2267 .. Item No. I 6 7 t: P r-e l s i n n 1 WELD PROC. IIOLD I NIrr PHOC. ' OAT ItiSP CUST If1S P AUTil I. SP iTEP DESCRIPTION Number Rev PT. Number Rev Sign Date Sinn Date Sign Date ill CHANNEL ASSEMBLY 13 Tit-up and weld reinforcement pads (LPT) 9 QC ISO

14. Fit-up pass partition plate and Internal pipe support insp - weld 9

QC 100 15 Fit-up baseplate to skirt 22 Insp - weld - LPT ,,3 5 QC 100

16. Overlay skirt edge with 5/S

' filler 19 17 Fit-up skirt to channel head i insp then weld - (LPT) QC 100

18. Fit-up (inspect) then weld elbows for channel drain (LPT) 9 QC 100 e

8 h_'__ m -m. m.

- Job No. J-7767 I tem No. Sheet 5 of 7 r, 7 r, Revisten I WEi.D PROC. I!OLD tifTr PROC. OAT It!SP CUST If25P AUT!! IIIS P iTEP DESCRIPTION Number Rev PT. Number nev Sign Date Sinn Date Sinn Date IV TUBE Buf;DLE ASSENDLY 201 1. Overlay tubesheet 202 2. Hact.ine tubesheet to Dwg. Dim (LPT) QC-100 3 Layout for tube holes drill (Insp) 4. Layout and drill baffles (Inspect) 1 5 Deburr baf fles and tubesheet 6. Clean tubesheet, baffles, tie rods, l and spacers. QC-700 -~ 7 Assemble tube bundle and Insert j tubes e 8. Set tubes flush with tubesheet f then weld 305 l 9 Clean entire assembly QC-700 t ~ -'y ...i.......l'u

. Job No. J-2267 _ Item No, Sheet 6 of 7 6-1-75 Revision i WELD Pl!OC. IIOLD WIT PPOC. DAT Ir1SP CUST IrtSP AUTII I' SP STEP DESCRIPTION Nurnber Rev PT. Nxnber bev Sinn Date Sign Date Sign Date i V FINAL ASSEMBLY 1. Take completed shell and clean QC-700 2. Inspect shell Internal Al I 3 Clean tube bundle QC-700 4. Insert clan tube bundle in shell W 5. Bolt up tubesheet to shell W l 6. Diank off shell connections i I 7 Air test tube welds / Cage No. W QC 500 l l 8. Drop alr pressure and l roll tubes IP-305 9.. Clean tube sheet and tubes QC-700 j 10. flydro shell per dwg. req's Al l pressure observed..... Gage No. V QC-600 j V QC-IlO 11. LPT tube to tubesheet welds = l 12. Clean tubes & tubesheet after penetrant exam QC-700 l l l l r I i r, < r M

Job No. J- -g7 _ Item No. Sheet 7 of 7 Revisien i 6-3-75 WELD PIOC. IIOLD !88PrPROC. OAT INSP CUST INSP AUTil INSP STEP DESCRIPTION Nurrber Rev PT. Number Rev Sign Date Sign Date Sign Date V FillAL ASSEMBLY (Continued)

13. Clean channel (Bonnet)

QC-700 13# Inspect Internal Bonnet Al s. 15 Bolt up bonnet to tubesheet I 16. Blank off connections l 17 Hydro tubeside 4, Pressure observed Gage No.' W QC-600

18. Drain tube tide and clean anJ f

dry shell C tcoeside QC-700 19 Paint shell per dra4Ing req's.

20. Apply cameplate I

21. Skid i 22. Final Q.C. release V ~ Al d '}}