ML20153D662

Background & Technical Basis for Handbook on Flaw Evaluation for Jm Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 Reactor Vessel Beltline & Nozzle to Shell Welds

ML20153D662
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	04/30/1988
From:	Cranford L, Palusamy S WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML20153D649	List: ML20153D647 ML20153D652 ML20153D660 ML20153D662
References
WCAP-11763, NUDOCS 8805090239
Download: ML20153D662 (142)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 CUSTOMER DESIGNATED DISTRIBUTION WCAP-11763 BACKGROUND AND TECHNICAL BASIS FOR THE HANDBOOK ON FLAW EVALUATION FOR THE JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 REACTOR VESSEL BELTLINE & N0ZZLE-TO-SHELL WELDS April 1988 W. H. Bamford K. R. Balkey Y. S. Lee Verified by: [I L. Cra6fcfrd \\ Approved by: M

5. 5. f41usamy, Manager Structural Materials Engineering Although information contained in this report is nonproprietary, no distribution shall be made outside Westinghouse or its licensees without the customer's approval.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION Nuclear Energy Systems P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 neu m i.u io 8905090239 890505 PDR ADOCK0500034g Q T@To

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 CODE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 1-2 1.1.1 Criteria Based on Flaw Size 1-3 1.1.2 Criteria Based on Stress Intensity Factor 1-3 1.1.3 Primary Stress Limits 1-5 1.2 GE0 METRY 1-5 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS WORK 1-5 ~ 2 LOAD CONDITIONS, FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHODS, AND 2-1 RATERIAL PROPERTIES 2.1 TRANSIENTS FOR THE REACTOR VESSEL 2-1 2.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS 2-1 2.3 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS 2-3 2.4 IRRADIATION EFFECTS 2-4 2.5 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE DETERMINATION 2-6 3 FATIGUE CRACK. GROWTH 3-1 3.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3-1 3.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR EXPRESSIONS 3-2 3.3 CRACK GROWTH RATE REFERENCE CURVES 3-3 3.4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS 3-4 4 DETERMINATION OF LIMITING TRANSIENTS 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION

4-1 me,mmoo jj

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Section Title Page 4.2 SELECTION OF GOVERNING EMERGENCY AND FAULTED 4-1 TRANSIENTS 4.2.1 Background and History 4-1 4.2.2 PTS Risk for a Typical Westinghouse PWR 4-3 4.2.3 Treatment of Transient Severity 4-4 4.2.4 Emergency and Faulted Conditions - Beltline 4-7 Region 4.2.5 Faulted Conditions Evaluation for Other 4-8 Regions 5 SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION 5-1 5.1 CODE CRITERIA 5-1 5.2 LONGITUDINAL FLAWS VS. CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS 5-2 5.3 BASIC DATA 5 5.3.1 Fatigue Ceack Growth 5-2 5.3.2 Minimum Critical Flaw Size a and a$ 5-3 c 5.4 TYPICAL SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION CHART 5-4 5.5 PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SURFACE FLAW-._...~. 5-5:... EVALUATION CHART 6 EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION 6-1 6.1 EMBEDDED VS. SURFACE FLAWS 6-1 6.2 CODE CRITERIA 6-2 6.3 BASIC DATA 6-3 6.4 FATIGUE CRACK GR0kiH FOR EMBEDDED FLAWS 6-4 6.5 TYPICAL EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHART 6-6 mumimao jjj

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Section Title Page 6.6 PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMBEDDED FLAW 6-9 EVALUATION CHARTS 6.7 COMPARISON OF EMBEDDED FLAW CHARTS WITH ACCEPTANCE6-11 STANDARDS OF IWB-3500 7-1 7 REFERENCES APPENDIX-A FLAW EVALUATION A-1 INTRODUCTION T0. EVALUATION PROCEDURE A-1 A-2 BELTLINE (INCLUDING MIDDLE-TO-UP.PER SHELL A-11 CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD, LOWER-TO-MIDDLE SHELL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD AND LONGITUDINAL SEAM WELDS) A-11 A-2.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-2.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS A-12 A-3 INLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD (PENETRATION) A-19 A-19 A-3.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-20 A-3.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS A-26 A-4 OUTLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD A-26 A-4.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-27 'A-4.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS A-5 LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER SHELL WELD A-33 A-33 A-15.1 SURFACE FLAWS A-34 A-15.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS E-1 APPENDIX B-CRITICAL FLAW SIZE RESULTS C-1 APPENDIX C-FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS an.mu a jy

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This flaw

• evaluation handbook, has been designed for the evaluation of indications which may be discovered during inservice inspection of the Joseph Farley Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor vessel:,. The tables and charts provided herein allow the evaluation of any indication discovered in the regions listed below without further fracture mechanics calculations.

The fracture analysis work has been done in advance, and is documented in this report. Use of the handbook will allow the acceptability of much larger indications than would be allowable by only using the standards tables of the ASME Code, Section XI (1). This report provides the background and technical basis for the handbook, as well as the handbook charts themselves. The handbook has been developed for the following locations in the Joseph. Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels: o Beltline (core region) (Fig.1-1) Inlet nozzle to shell weld (fig.1-3) o Outlet nozzle to shell weld (Fig.1-4) o Lower head ring to lower shell weld (Fig.1-2) o The geometry of each of 'these regions is shown in figures 1-1.through 1-4. The highlight of the handbook is the design of a series of flaw evaluation charts for.both surface flaws and the embedded flaws. Since the characteris-tics of the two types of flaws are different, the evaluation charts designed for each are distinctively different in style. One section of this technical basis document deals with surface flaws at various locations, and another l section concentrates on the evaluation of embedded flaws. I i

• The use of the term "flaw" in this document should be taken to be synonymous with the term "indication" as used in Section XI of the ASME Code.

l i 2:awo4ous to 1.} ?

The flaw evaluation charts were designed based on the Section XI code criteria of acceptance for continued service without repair. Through use of the charts, a flaw can be evaluated instantaneously, and no follow-up hand calcu-lation is required. Most important of all, no fracture mechanics knowledge is needed by the user of the handbook charts. It is important to note that indications which are large enough that they exceed the standards limits, and must be evaluated by fracture mechanics, will also require additional inservice inspection in the future, as discussed in Section XI, paragraph IWB-2420. 1.1 CODE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA There are two alternative sets of flaw acceptance criteria for continued service without repair in paragraph IWB-3600 of ASME Code Section_ XI [1]. Either of the criteria below may be used, at the convenience of the user. 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 thi,ck sections, and the acceptance criteria (2) have been assessed by past experience to be less restrictive for thin sections, and'for outside surface flaws in many cases. In all cases, the most beneficial criteria have been used and only one calculation has been made. The criteria actually used for each region are listed in Table 1-1. Since the fracture mechanics results for surface flaws have been presented in terms of critical flaw size, it is more straight forward to construct the surface flaw evaluation charts by using criteria (1) in this handbook. This has been done for inside surface flaws in all cases except the safe end region, where criteria (2) are more beneficial because of the small section thickness. All of the embedded flaw and most outside surface flaw evaluation charts in this handbook were constructed using acceptance criteria (2), for ease of use, as well as to obtain the maximum benefit, since these criteria will generally be less restrictive for embedded flaws. un,mus in 1-2

1.1.1 CRITERIA BASED ON FLAW SIZE The code acceptance criteria stated in IWB-3611 of Section XI are: af 5 .1 a For Normal Conditions c (Upset & Test Conditions Inclusive) f 1 .5 ag For Faulted Conditions and a (Emergency Condition Inclusive) where The maximum size to which the detected flaw = af is calculated to grow at the end of a specified period, or until the next inspection time. The minimum critical flaw size under normal a = c operating conditions (upset and test conditions inclusive) ag =, The minimum critical flaw size for initiation of nonarresting growth under postulated faulted conditions. (emergencyconditions. inclusive) To determine whether a. surface flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair, both criteria must be met simultaneously. However, both criteria have been considered in advance before the charts were constructed. l Only the most restrictive results were used in these charts. 1.1.2 CRITERIA BASED ON STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR As mentioned in the preceeding paragraphs, the criteria used for the evaluation of embedded flaws, including most outside surface flaws and those in the nozzle safe-end regions are from IWB-3612 of Section XI. mr. memo 1-3 - ~. _. -.,.

The term stress intensity factor (K ) is defined as the driving force on a g 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 (K,, K!c) is a measure of the resistance of the material to g propagation of a crack. It is a material property, and a function of temperature. The criteria are: K " For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) I Kg < /10 K IC For faulted conditions (emergency conditions inclusive) K g ~< / 2 where The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw K = g size a to which a detected flaw will grow, during the f conditions under consideration, for a specified period, or to the next inspection. K, Fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the = g corresponding crack tip temperature. Fracture toughness based on fracture initiation for the K = Ic corresponding crack tip temperature. To determine whether a surface flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair, both criteria must be met simultaneously. However, both criteria have been considered in advance before the charts were constructed. Only the most restrictive results were used in the charts. 4 me,+m o 14

i, 1.1.3 PRIMARY STRESS LIMITS In addition to satisfying the fracture criteria, it is required that the primary stress limits of the ASME Code Section III, paragraph NB-3000 be satisfied. A local area reduction of the pressure retaining membrane must be used, equal to the area of the indication, and the stresses increased to reflect the smaller cross section. All the flaw acceptance tables provided in this handbook have included this consideration, -as demonstrated herein. The allowable flaw depths determined using this criterion have been summarized in Table 1-2 for each of the locations for which handbook charts have been constructed. 1.2 GE0 METRY The geometry of the reactor vessel is shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-4. The cladding on the inside of the vessel has been neglected in the stress analysis. It has been accounted for in the thermal analysis by adjusting the film coefficient for the conditions analyzed. The outside surfaces have been assumed to be insulated. The notation used for both surface and embedded flaws in this work is illustrated in Figure 1-5. 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS WORK The fracture and fatigue crack growth evaluations carried out to develop the handbook charts have employed the recommended procedures and material properties for low alloy steels, as contained in Section XI, Appendix A. Therefore, the charts apply strictly to those materials. u n,m een io 1-5

1. TABLE 1-1

SUMMARY

OF CRITERIA USED IN PREPARATION OF HANDBOOK CHARTS INSIDE SURFACE OUTSIDE SURFACE EMBEDDED REGION FLAW CHARTS FLAW CHARTS FLAWS Beltline 1 2 2 Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld 1 2 2 Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld 1 2 2 Lower Head Ring to Shell Weld 1 2 2 + KEY: 1 Criteria on Flaw Size (IWB-3611) 2 Criteria on Kg (IWB-3612) i nu.we.u in 1-6

TABLE 1-2

SUMMARY

OF ALLOWABLE FLAW DEPTHS BASED ON PRIMARY STRESS LIMIT CRITERIA ALLOWABLE DEPTH ALLOWABLE DEPTH OF FLAW, a/t OF FLAW, a/t REGION (longitudinal) (circumferential) Beltline 0.49 0.54 Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld 0.51 0.63 Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld 0.58 0.65 Lower Head Ring to Shell Weld 0.41 0.96 NOTE: Allowable depths indicated are relative to the inside su'rface. i aus.+o.u in 17

SHE LD ,i \\ I 96.07" li MIDDLE-TO-UPPER ~ CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD ~ 7.88" i00.53" ~ C?n!Ca? M 9?? = + - - - - - WELD l00.66" LOWER HEAD RING TO ~ LOWER SHELL WELD n LOWER HEAD RING TO = ~~~~----- LOWER HEAD WELD u ///// il 5.00" NOTE: THICKNESSES DO NOT INCLUDE INSIDE CLADDING 044-A-25004-lA 1 Figure 1-1. Reactor Vessel Velds un.v:us n 1.g

i i 8.03 (BASE METAL) = 79.S3R (BASE METAL,J LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER HEAD WELD LOWER HEAD RING 79 2SR TO LOWER SHELL_ WELD (BISE METAL) s.oo i BELTLINE AND LOWER HEAD REGIONS NOTES: 1. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLADDING, 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES [ 044-A-25004-3 Figure 1-2. Beltline and Lower Head Region (dimensions in inches) l me.+om is 19 [ l t

SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW O.156 MIN. - 155. 5 ID. CLADDING 9.12 - U U If NOZZLE TO SHELL WELD l O.25 CLADDING g 38.48 L l + 27.47 + U = 33.07 = = 55 5 NOTES: 1. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES 044-A-25004-4 Figure 1-3. Reactor Vessel Inlet Nozzle mi. o.u i 1-10 m -y,- ,-g- -.,,-m- _y

ES L DIUS O.156 MIN. - 3.25 CLADDING U 9.12 - U V_ NOZZLE TO VESSEL WELD + CLAD 44.53 U 28.97

• 35.41 N

12.13 \\ l \\ U U U h h i l = 35.50 = c 51.00 = NOTES: I. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES 044-A-25004-2A Figure 1-4. Longitudinal Cross Section of Outlet Nozzle to Vessel , Juncture Region (Side View Only) mssems so 1 11

Figurs 1-5.. Typical Notation for Surface and Embedded Flaw Indications i i i Wall Thickness t Wall Thickness.t 1 ... - r 7 k I I 6-F v -3 gr M __g g h_e_4 ) s -- o-g + I i 'l ~ 1 I i TYPICAL SURFACE FLAW INDICATION TYPICAL EMBEDED FLAW INDICATION ] mummin ie 1

SECTION 2 LOAD CONDITIONS, FRACTURE ANALYSIS METHODS AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES 2.1 TRANSIENTS FOR THE REACTOR VESSEL The design transients for the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels are listed in Table 2-1. Both the minimum critical flaw sizes, such as a under c normal operating conditions, or ag under faulted conditions for criteria (1) of IWB-3611, and the stress intensity factors, K, for criteria (2) of g IWB-3612 are a function of the stresses at the cross-section where the flaw of interest is located, along with the material properties. Therefore, the first step for the evaluation of a flaw indication is to determine the appropriate limiting load conditions for the location of interest. The selection of the most limiting transient for normal / upset / test conditions was r,traichtforward. The transient with the highest surface stress in the area where the flaw was postulated was chosen as the worst case. Note that this can result in a different limiting transient for an inside flaw as opposed to an outside flaw, as may be seen in the detailed treatments of the individual locations. The governing transient for each region is listed in the tables of Appendix B where the critical flaw depths are provided. The transients listed in these tables are the governing ones for the region itnited, regardless of the criterion used to construct the flaw evaluation charts, (either the criteria on flaw size (Section 1.1.1) or on applied K; (Section 1.1.2)]. The selection of the most limiting emergency and faulted condition transient is discussed in Section 4. i 2.2 STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR CALCULATIONS l One of the key elements of the critical flaw size calculations is the determination of the driving force or stress intensity factor (K ). This g was done for each of the regions using egressions available from the literature. In all cases the stress intensity factor for the critical flaw j 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 critical flaw size, and is particularly m a u m eie 2-1 l s

important for consideration of emergency and faulted conditions, where the stress profile is generally nonlinear and of ten very steep. The stress profile was represented by a cubic polynomial: o(x) = A0+Al{+A2({} +A3({} (2-1) j where x is the coordinate-distance into the wall t = wall thickness o = stress perpendicular to the plane of the crack A4 = coefficients of the cubic fit 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.K; (v) 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 K; (4), where 9 is the angular location around the crack. 1 f 2 1/4 K ($) = %) O.5 2 2 (A H0O+ {A1 1 H (cos, + sin 9) g C (2-2) 2 3 1a 4 3 H+Ep3 N) A +2}A 2 3 2 1 The magnification fac. tors H I')' N (*)' H (v) and H (9) are O 1 2 3 obtained by the procedure outlined in Reference (2). The stress intensity factor calculation for a semi-circular surface flaw, (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 stress profile and gives precisely the same result as the expression of McGowan and Raymund for the 6:1 aspect ratio flaw, and the form of the equation is similar to that of McGowan and Raymund above. i 2"8' * " " 2-2 4 i

The stress intensity factor expression used for a continuous surface flaw was that develeped 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 2 1h A 3+h a y = /sa [A0 A F) H 1 2 + 'l A F F F K 2 3 4 where F, F, F, F are magnification factors, available in (6). 1 2 3 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 paper oy 1.ee and Bamford (6). 2.3 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 appendix A, section XI. In the transition temperature region, these curves can be represented by the following equations: l Kye = 33.2 + 2.806 exp. (0.02 (T-RTNDT + 100'F)] (2-4) Kla = 26.8 + 1.233 exp. (0.0145 (T-RTNDT + 160'F)) (2-5) and K, are in ksi / in. where K g ge The upper shelf temperature regime requires utilization of a shelf toughness which is not specified in the ASME Code. A value of 200 ksi/in has 1 been used here in all the regions. This value is consistent with general practice in such evaluations, as shown for example in reference (7), which provides the background and technical basis of Appendix A of Section XI. me,mmoe 2-3

The other key element in the determination of the fracture toughness is the value of RTNDT, which is a parameter determined from Charpy V-notch and drop-weight tests. The material chemistry and initial RT values for all NDT the welds, plates and forgings in the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels are provided in Table 2-2 and 2-3. The core region materials are identified in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 for Units 1 and 2 respectively. This information was determined from the vendors material certification reports, surveillance capsule tests, and weld chemistry studies by Westinghouse, EPRI, and others. When no information on the chemistry or RT was available, NDT conservative assumptions were made, and those cases are clearly marked in the tables. The limiting material properties from both the Unit 1 and Unit 2 vessels were used in the analyses here, taken from references 8 and 9. This has very little impact on the results, however, as the properties are similar in both units, and differences in allowable flaw size are not significant. 2.4 IRRADIATION EFFECTS Neutron irradiation has been shown to produce embrittlement which reduces the toughness properties of reactor vessel steels. The decrease in the toughness properties can be assessed by determining the shift to higher temperatures of the reference nil-ductility transition temperature, RTNDT. Because the chemistry (especiall) apper and nickel content) of reactor vessel steel has been identified as a.najor contributor to radiation embrittlement, trend curves have been developed to relate the magnitude of the shift to RTNDT to the amount of neutron fluence. The reference fracture toughness curve, indexed to RTNDT, will shift along the temperature scale with a value equal to the increase in the RT f r given levels of irradiation NDT Based on the initial RT value and the material chemistry of N limiting NDT core region materials, the post irradiation RTNDT values are dewmined from the trend curves. These final ' NOT values are subsequently used to calculate K;g and K;, as a function of the fractional depth through the wall. Irradiation effects were accounted for in all regions analyzed, but only had a significant impact on the properties in the beltline region. i un,v w o 24

is enhanced by certain chemical elements The extent of the shift in RTNDT (such as copper, nickel and phosphorus) present in reactor vessel steels. Westinghouse, other NSSS vendors, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others have developed trend curves for predicting adjustment of RTNDT as a function of fluence and copper, nickel and/or phosphorus content. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) trend curve is published in Regulatory Guide 1.99. Regulatory Guide 1.99 was originally published in July 1975 with a Revision 1 being issued in April 1977. Currently, a Revision 2 (10] to Regulatory Guide 1.99 has been finalized by the NRC and is in the final stages of printing. The chemistry factor, "CF" (*F), a function of copper and nickel content identified in Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2 is given in Table 2-4 for welds and Table 2-5 for base metal (plates' and forgings). Interpolation is permitted. The value, "f", is the calculated value of the neutron fluence at the location of interest in the vessel at the location of the postulated 19 defect, n/cm2 (E > 1 MeV) divided by 10 The fluence factor is determined from Figure 2-3. The Adjusted Reference Temperature (ART) based on the methods of Reg. Guide 1.99 Revision 2 (Draft) can be compactly described by the sequence of equations listed below: ART = Initial RTNDT + ARTNDT + Margin (2-6) SURFACE](EXP(-0.067X)) (2-7) ARTNDT = [ARTNDT X = Depth into vessel wall from inner (wetted) surface (1/4T and 3/4T) (2-8) ART SURFACE = (CF]p (0.28 - 0.10 LOli F) (2-9) NDT 19 F = Neutron fluence divided by 10 (2-10) CF = Chemistry factor from tables * (if no data use 0.35% Cu and 1.0% Ni) (2-11) 1

• See tables 2-4 and 2-5.

2a2'= " 2-5

l l l MARGIN = 2 (o;2,,,2 0.5 (2-12) 3 og _ = Nean value of initial RTNDT; if initial RTNDT measured, og = 0, otherwise og obtained from set of data to get i initial RT (2-13) NDT o = Standard deviation of initial RT (2-14) l g NDT 28'F for welds 17'F for base metal (o need not exceed 1/2 times RTNDT surface] g 2.5 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE DETERMINATION The> applied stress intensity factor (K ) and the material fracture toughness g values (K, and Kgg) can be used to determine the critical flaw size g values used to construct the handbook charts. For normal, upset and test [ conditions, the critical flaw size a is determined as the depth at which c the applied stress intensity factor Kg exceeds the arrest fracture toughness la' For emergency and faulted conditions the minimum flaw size for crack initia-tion is obtained from the firs.t intersection of the applied stress intensity 7 factor (K';) curve with the static fracture toughnes's (K!c) curve. Intersection of the Kg curve with the crack arrest toughness (K,) curve g determines the crack arrest size. The critical flaw depth for emergency and faulted conditions (aq) as defined earlier, is the minimum flaw depth for initiation of non-arresting growth. Non-arresting growth is defined as growth which arrests at a depth greater than 75 percent of the wall depth. An erample of this type of calculation is shown in Figure 2-4. The critical flaw depth is determined at point A in this figure. usam mo 2-6

TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY

OF REACTOR VESSEL TRANSIENTS NUMBER OF OCCURRENCE 5 USED IN THE NUMBER TRANSIENT IDENTIFICATION SPECIFIED ANALYSIS Normal Conditions 1 Heatup and Cooldown at 100'F/hr (pressurizercooldown200'F/hr) 200 200 2 Load Follow Cycles (Unit loading and unloading at 5% of full power / min) 18300* 18300 3 Step load increase and decrease of 10% of full power 2000 2000 4 Large step lcad decrease, with steam dump 200 200 6 5 Steady state fluctuations Infinite 10 Upset Conditions 6 Loss of load, without immediate turbine 80 80 or reactor trip 7 Loss of power (blackout with natural circulation in the Reactor Coolant System 40 40 8 Less of flow (pirtial loss of flow, one pump only) 80 80 9 Reactor trip from full power 400 400 10 Inadvertent Auxiliary Spray 10 10 Faulted Conditions l l 11 Large Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) 1 1 12 Large Steam Line Break (LSB) (other transients described in section 4) 1 1 13 Safe Shutdown Earthquake 1 1 l This number is 29,000 for f arley Unit 1, and 18,300 for Farley Unit 2. 18,300 cycles were used in the analysis, n u, c u n io 2-7 i l

TABLE 2-1

SUMMARY

OF REACTOR VESSEL TRAN31ENTS (cont.) NUMBER OF OCCURRENCE 5 USED IN THE NUMBER TRANS![NT IDENTIFICATION SPECIFIED ANALYSIS Test Conditions 14 Turbine roll test 10 10 15 Primary Side Hydrostatic test conditions 50 50 16 Cold Hydrostatic test 9 3105 psig 5 5 i i P i I t u.a m. 2-8

TABLE 2-2 CHEMISTRY AN0 PROPERTIES OF JOSEPH FARLEY UNIT 1 REACTOR VESSEL MATERIALS I T RT Upper Shelf Energy Material Cu P Ni h0T NOT Id) M (c) Component Code No. Type (%) (%) (%) (*F) (*F) NMWO Closure head dome B6901 A533,B,C1.1 0.16 0.009 0.50 -30 -20[a] 140 Closure head segment 86902-1 A533,B,C1.1 0.17 0.007 0.52 -20 -20[a] 138 Closure head flange B6915-1 A508, C1.2 0.10 0.012 0.64 60[a] 60[a] 75[a] 4 Vessel flange B6913-1 A508, C1.2 0.17 0.011 0.69 60[a] 60[a] 1%[a] Inlet nozzle B6917-1 A508, C1.2 0.010 0.83 60[a] 60[a] 110 Inlet nozzle B6917-2 A508 C1.2 0.008 0.80 60[a] 60[a] 80 Inlet nozzle B6917-3 A508, C1.2 0.008 0.87 60[a] 60[a] 98 Outlet nozzle BS916-1 A508, C1.2 0.007 0.77 60[a] 60[a] %.5 Outlet nozzle B6916-2 A508, C1.2 0.011 0.78 60[a] 60[a] 97.5 Outlet nozzle B6916-3 A508, C1.2 0.009 0.78 60[a] 60[a] 100 Upper shell 86914-1 A508 C1.2 0.010 0.68 30 30[a] 148 Inter. shell 86903-2 A533,B,C1.1 0.13 0.011 0.60 0 0 97 151.5 Inter. shell B6903-3 A533,B,C1.1 0.12 0.014 0.56 10 10 100 134.5 7 Lower shell B6919-1 A533,B,C1.1 0.14 0.015 0.55 -20 15 90.5 133 Lower shell B6919-2 A533,0,C1.1 0.14 0.015 0.56 -10 5 97 134 Bottom head ring B6912-1 A508 C1.2 0.010 0.72 10 10[a] 163.5 Bottom head segment B6906-1 A533,B,C1.1 0.15 0.011 0.52 -30 -30[a] 147 Bottom head dome B6907-1 A533,B,C1.1 0.17 0.014 0.60 -30 -30[a] 143.5 Inter. shell long. M1.33 Sub Arc Weld 0.25 0.017 0.21 0[a] 0[a] weld seam Inter to. lower G1.18 Sub Arc Weld 0.22 0.011 <0.20[b] 0[a] 0[a] shell weld seams Lower shell long. G1.18 Sub Arc Weld 0.17 0.022 <0.20[b] 0[a] 0[a] weld seams [a] Estimate per NUREG-0800 "USNRC Standard Review Plan" Branch Technical Position MTEB 5-2. [11] [b] Estimated (Iow nickel weld wire used in fabricating vessel weld seams). [c] Major working direction. ~ [d] Normal to major working direction. mu,-.

w TABLE 2-3 CHEMISTRY AND PROPERTIES OF JGSEPH FARLEY UNIT 2 REACTOR VESSEL NATERIALS Average Upper Shelf Energy Normal to Principal Principal Working Working T RT Cu P Ni NOT NDT Direction Direction Component Code No. Grade (%) (%) (%) (*F) (*F) (ft-lb) (ft-lb) CL. HD. Dome 87215-1 A533,B.CL.1 0.17 0.010 0.49 -30 16(a) 83(a) 128 CL. HD. Flange B7207-1 A508,CL.2 0.14 0.011 0.65 60(a) 60(a) >56(a) >86(c) Vessel Flange B7206-1 A508,CL.2 0.10 0.012 0.67 60(a) 60(a) >71(a) >109 Inlet Noz. 87218-2 A508,CL.2 0.010 0.68 50(a)' 50(a) 103(a) 158 Inlet Noz. 87218-1 A508,CL.2 0.010 0.71 32(a). 32(a) 112(a) 172 Inlet Noz. 87218-3 A508,CL.2 0.010 0.72 60(a) 60(a) %(a) 150 Outlet Noz. B7217-1 A508,CL.2 0.010 0.73 60(a) 60(a) 100(a) 154 Outlet Noz. B7217-z A508,CL.2 0.010 0.72 6(a) 6(a) 108(a) 167 Outlet Noz. B7217-3 A508,CL.2 0.010 0.72 48(a)- 48(a) 103(a) 158 '? Upper Shell B7216-1 A508,CL.2 0.010 0.73 30 30(a) 97(a) 149 5 Inter Shell 87203-1 A533,B.CL.1 0.14 0.010 0.60 -40 15 99 140 Inter Shell 87212-1 A533,B,CL.1 0.20 0.018 0.60 -30 -10 99 134 Lower Shell B7210-1 A533,B.CL.1 0.13 0.010 0.56 -40 18 103-128 Lower Shell B7210-2 A533,B,CL.1 0.14 0.015 0.57 -30 0 99 145 Botton Head Ring B7208-1 A508,CL.2 0.010 0.73 40 40(a) 89(a) 137 Botton Head Dome B7214-1 A533,B,CL.1 0.11 0.007 0.48 -30 -2(a) 87(a) 134-Inter. Shell A1.46 5NAW 0.02 0.009 0.% 0(a) 0(a) >131 Long Seams A1.40 SMAW 0.02 0.010 0.93 -50 - -60 >106 Inter Shell to Lower Shell G1.50 SAW 0.13 0.016 <.20(b) -40 -40 >102 Lower Shell <.20(b) -70 -70 >126 Long Seams G1.39 SAW 0.05 0.006 (a) Estimate per NUREG 0800 "USNRC Standard Review Plan" Branch Technical Position NTEB 5-2. [11] (b) Estimated. 'c) Upper shelf not available, value represents minimum energy at the highest test temperature. a.ea,m e,e w-,,< r-

TABLE 2-4 CHEMISTRY FACTOR FOR WELDS, *F

Copper, Nickel, Wt-%

Wt-% 0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.01 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.02 21 26 27 27 27 27 27 0.03 22 35 41 41 41 41 41 0.04 24 43 54 55 54 54 54 0.05 26 49 67 68 68 68 68 0.06 29 52 77 82 82 82 82 0.07 32 55 85 95 95 95 95 0.08 36 58 90 103 108 108 108 0.09 40 61 94 115 122 122 122 0.10 44 65 97 122 133 135 135 0.11 49 68 101 130 144 148 148 0.12 52 72 103 135 153 161 161 0.13 58 76 106 139 162 172 176 0.14 61 79 109 142 168 182 188 0.15 66 84 112 146 175 191 200 0.16 70 88 115 149 178 199 211 0.17 75 92 119 151 184 207 221 0.18 79 95 122 154 187 214 230 0.19 83 100 126 157 191 220 238 0.20 88 104 129 160 194 223 245 0.21 92 108 133 164 197 229 252 0.22 97 112 137 167 200 232 257 0.23 101 117 140 169 203 236 263 0.24 105 121 144 173 206 236 268 0.25 110 126 148 176 209 243 272 0.26 113 130 151 180 212 246 276 0.27 119 134 155 184 216 249 280 0.28 122 138 160 187 218 251 284 0.29 128 142 164 191 222 254 287 0.30 131 146 167 194 225 257 290 0.31 136 151 172 198 228 260 293 0.32 140 155 175 202 231 263 296 0.33 144 160 180 205 231 266 299 0.34 149 164 184 209 238 269 302 0.35 153 168 187 212 241 272 305 0.36 158 172 191 216 245. 275 308 0.37 162 177 196 220 248 278 311 0.38 166 182 200 223 250 281 314 0.39 171 185 203 227 254 285 317 0.40 175 189 207 231 257 288 320 me.. i. 2-11

r TABLE 2-5 CHEMISTRY FACTOR FOR BASE METAL, 'F

Copper, Nickel, Wt-%

Wt-% 0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.01 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.02 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.03 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0.04 22 26 26 26 26 26 26-0.05 - 25 31 31 31 31 31 31 0.06 28 37 37 37 37 37 37 'O.07 31 43 44 44 44 44 44 0.03 34 48 51 51 51 51 51 0.09 37 53 58 58 58 58 58 0.10 41 5B 65 65 67 67 67 0.11 45 62 72 74 77 77 77 0.12' 49 67 79 83 86 86 86 96 96 0.13 53 71 85 91 96 0.14 57 75 91 100 105 106-106 0.15 61 80 99 110 115 117 117 0.16 65 84 104 118 123 125 125 0.17 69 88 110 127 132 135 135 0.18 73 92 115 134 141 144 144 0,19 78 97 120 142 150 154 154 0.2t) 82 102 125 149 159 164 165 0.21 86 107 129 155 167 172 174 0.22 91 112 134 161 176 181 184 O.23 95 117 138 167 134 190' 194 0.24 100 121 143 172 191 199 204 0.25 104 126 148 176 199 208 214 0.26 109 130 151 160 205 216 221 0.27 114 134 155 184 211 22S 230 0.28 119 138 160 187 218 233 239 0.29 124 142 164 191 221 241 248 0.30 129 146 167 194 225 249 257 0.31 134 151 172 198 228 255 266 0.32 139 155 175 202 231 260 274 0.33 144 160 180 205 234 264 282 0.34 149 164 184 209 238 268 290 0.35 153 168 187 212 241 272 298 0.36 158 173 191 216 245 275 303 O.37 162 177 196 220 248 278 308 0.38 166 182 200 223 250 281 313 0.39 171 185 203 227 254 285 317 0.40 175 189 207 231 257 288 320 2-12 ~ _ _ _ __. _-

I f Figure 2-1. Identification and Location of Beltline Region Waterial for the Joseph Farley Unit No. 1 Reactor Vessel CtactMERENT!AL StAM5 5__RTICALStAN5 56903 3 19 3943 f 10 894 g% f 45 a 8.4= I E CORE = = n \\ fj ~ C0RL = 144.0" 3 19 894A 85903 2 1 C, 20.1" q gg g,94 20 8948 56919.g E '45

1. I g

b ^ ~ l o 48.75" e B6919-1 20-894A I

.mm io 2-13 l

vittfCAL SIAMI CtactwtatMTTAL stAM1 B7212-1 i 19-9238

1. T 4* 10-923 9

45 8.4" E CORE ~ I = =' CCitt s I.M. 0* ,3 B7203-1 19-923A 1 ~ e g 20.1" 4 11-923 B7210-2 20-9238

• 45

~ Catt g i.l c 48.75" o B7210-1 20-923A Figure 2-2. Identification and Location of Beltline Region Material i for the Joseph Farley Unit No. 2 Reactor Vessel 2 14 n u.< w u,a .) )

2~" y 3 . g _ _I_ . n p y f is 1@E@ ' P 1 :

.]

ij + ..,tg4 y e. .si y h-e iet b. no qpih 1~5 .Qu, b- .~' ue -bm - j pb ne m v u a . s no ,i i l' UII i M ,ii",,,,M ri ! i !!!Nii! d,s ..Q = u i ! i ll! 2

1. :l!

ijj! M 1 i t h. ,,t us n a u o m l N! ! I!b N 's .i l l "! ! J l 4 s !Li! i,ilii! i .4 y i n g, p 99 pg 4 s q m i ~ I I I i l i M c . :.-t ,,i ,3 I W l li )! l M L l !!i!0 4 l l l!@ . u Wi li af!!i ! llll yl l lqlj + + j ___,8' f II I l L i I L I4',j i i j / h t i; i 9 ^ 4 n 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 e31 2 3 8 8 7891 2 3 4 5 6 7 891 rh ac., niem" (E > 1 M.VI Figure 2-3. Fluence Factor for Use In The Expression for ARTNDT 28923430188 le

300 800 SECONDS CRITICAL CRACK = 0.3596 Kg a [ 3 pKIC e } 200 Pt.A 8 0 5 C s h 100 m 0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 FRACTIONAL DISTANCE (A/T) KI PLOT i l Figure 2-4. Example of Critical Flaw Size Determination 2-16 an.4mu 3 K.

SECTION 3 4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH a In applying code acceptance criteria as introduced in Section '.. the final flaw size a used in criteria (1) is defined as the minimum flaw size to f which the detected flaw is calculated to grow at the end of a specified period, or until the next inspection time. In this handbook,' ten, twenty-and thirty year inspection periods are assumed. 1 These crack growth calculations have been carried out for all the regions in the Joseph Farley reactor vessels for which evaluation charts have been constructed. 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 Section XI of the ASME Code. The analysis procedure I 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 fatigue crack growth analysis is basically the information necessary to calculate the parameter AK; which depends on crack and structure geometry and the range of applied stresses in the area where the crack exists. Once AK is calculated, the growth due to that particular g stress cycle can be calculated by equations given in Section 3.3 and Figure l 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 l this manner until all the transients known to occur in the period of evaluation have been analyzed. L l The transients considered in the analysis are all the design transients contained in 'the vessel equipment specification, as shown in Section 2, Table 2-1. These transients are spread equally over the design lifetime of the j vessel, with the exception that the preoperational tests are considered j first. Faulteri conditions are not considered because their frequency of I occurrence is too low to affect fatigue crack growth. an.4.o.u x 31 l

Crack growth calculations 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. The second was a continuous surface flaw, which represents a worst case for surface flaws, 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. 3.2 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 expression 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 stresa profiles corresponding ~to each transient ar's represented by a third order polynomial, such that: 2 3 3h o (X) = A0+A1{+A +A (3'l) 2 The stress intensity factor Kg (4) can be calculated anywhere along the crack front. The point of maximum crack depth is represented by e = 0. The following expression is used for calculating Kg (e). sin,)1/4 (A H0+ {Al i 2 2 K;(4)=(}) (cos e + d 0 c (3-2) 2 3 1a 4 3 A H) +2}A H2 + Ti p 3 3 2 The magnification factors H (')' H f')' N (4) and H (4) are obtained by the 0 1 2 3 procedure outlined in reference (2). mamm in 32

r i The stress intensity factor for a continuous surface flaw was calculated using [ an expression for an edge cracked plate (20). The stress distribution is linearized through the wall thickness to determine membrane and bending stress and the applied K is calculated from: f Y /a (3-3) Kg = o, Y, / a + B B The magnification factors Y,and YB are taken from (12] and a is the crack depth. For an embedded flaw, the stress intensity factor expression provided in Appendix A of section XI was used directly, which again' requires linearizing the stresses. 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, although still embedded'. This flaw will provide a worst case calculation of stress intensity factor for embedded flaws. Since the calculated crack growth was very small for this case, no further consideration of other flaw shapes or locations was deemed necessary for an embedded flaw. 3.3 CRACK GROWTH RATE REFERENCE CURVES 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 for all inside surface flaws, and the air environment curve was used for embedded flaws and outside surface flaws. For water environments the reference crack growth curves are shown in Fig. 3-1, and growth rate is a function of both the acplied stress intensity factor range, and the R ratio (Kmin/Kmax) for the transient. For R<0.25 6 5.95 (AKg <19 ksi /in)h = (1.02 x 16 ) 3g (3-4) am, - o 33

r (AKg >19 ksi /in)h = (1.01 x 10~3) 4K l.95 g where h = Crack Growth rate, micro-inches / cycle. For R>0.65 -(AKg <12 ksi / in)df = (1.20 x 10-5)3g 5.95 (3-5) x (aKg >12 ksi / in)h = (2.52 x 10~1)AK l.95 g For R ratio between these two extremes, interpolation is recommended. 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) AK;3.726 (3-6) where, h = Crack growth rate, micro-inches / cycle g = stress intensity factor range, ksi /in AK = (K,,, - Kimin) g 3.4 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS Tbs fatigue crack growth results for all locations for which handbook charts were developed are summarized in the tables which are included in Appendix C. An example is included in Table 3-1. I L i I mwo.we 34 r

1000 / i p --, rosom. [ / ~ mended to essount for ratio desoneenes of near encronment / ~ [S 8"'. O.2 5 < A < 0 A6 f or a /j / 300 shen we,e: .$ = (1 A1 X 10'110 A "' B$ } ~

• N k 4 l

2 a = 2.7s a + Das / 4 ~ 4 $f g l R=Km IK,,,, / m j / sue.urfees fw / g Iair en*ronnent) w { 100 4 3 1042s7 X 10 ) A Kg M / [ I ~ / ^ g wrm-the 4K ot.. / g3 80 is. w my escuseven of 7 e4 3 8 & the inersection of the two 8/ & ~ p. j w f- / (amer reacts enerorwent) 20 sensesense for / a < 02s '029tM4026 f f R 3 0BS 10 g. K,,,, IK,,,, = I I 2 Te = J I 8 u,.e,.n r.o.on i. recomme. g f to account for A ratio appendeam of.eer eneronment curws, for a g g ( g" 025 < A < 0.45 for sees slope: f

8. = (1.02 X 104) Og AK535 ev tit j

tit a, = 2esn.s.m M=Km,s IKme, I I l l I I I I Ill l I I I IIIi i 1 a s 7 10 20 a0 70 100 Stress latensity Factor Rarge (AKg to [.1 Figure 3-1. Reference Fatigue Crack Growth Curves for Carbon and Low Alloy Ferritic Steels nu.uein io 3-5

o TABLE 3-1 BELTLINE REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW 1 l INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 i a/t = 0.0 0.100 0.10029 0.10051 0.10071 0.10093 0.300 0.30559 0.30980 0.31392 0.31842 0.500 0.51655 0.53068 0.54518 0.56063 0.800 0.83247 0.86220 0.89248 0.92424 1.000 1.04105 1.07914 1.11826 1.15934 1.200 1.25608 1.30162 1.34794 1.39615 1.300 1.35949 1.40802 1:45890 1.51202 1.550 1.61870 1.67575 1.73367 1.79345 a/t = 0.167 0.100 0.10010 0.10018 0.10024 0.10032 0.300 0.30188 0.30329 0.30463 0.30608 0.500 0.50722 0.51287 0.51841 0.52425 0.800 0.81267 0.82270 0.83265 0.84294 1.000 1.01548 1.02830 1.04104 1.05429 1.200 1.22245 1.23762 1.25260 1.26808 1.300 1.32275 1.33802 ,1.35302 1.36841 1.550 1.57467 1.59177 1.60868 1.62596 un.uwe 3.s

f .i i i SECTION 4 DETERMINATION OF LIMITING TRANSIENTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

l The key parameters used in the evaluation _of any indications discovered during [ inservice inspection are the critical flaw depths; first, that governing [ normal, upset, and test conditions and second, that governing emergency and ~ faulted conditions. The selection of the governing transient for normal, upset, and test conditions was done based on the highest surface stress for each location for -which a chart was to be constructed, For emergency and faulted conditions, 7 this choice was not as straightforward, as a result of developments on the pressurized thermal shock issue. This issue has resulted in a great deal of j study of various transients which could occur in operating plants, including j consideration of the overall frequency of each transient in addition to its severity. An extensive set of analyses have been carried out.[13,14) to consider other thermal shock transients in addition to the large loss of coolant accident-(LOCA) and large steamline break (LSB) transients evaluated j in previous reports (15, 16). 4 The following section will provide a summary of the. generic work performed for I PTS, along with a detailed comparison of the various emergency and faulted transients that are possible in the beltline region of the Joseph Farley Unit i 1 and 2 reactor vessels. 4.2 SELECTION OF GOVERNING EMERGENCY AND FAULTED TRANSIENTS 4.

2.1 BACKGROUND

AND HISTORY The issue of reactor vessel pressurized thermal shock (PTS) has focused significant attention to the evaluation of the vessel beltline location. Until early 1982 reactor vessel integrity was evaluated for PTS i nu.wan io 43 i i

i I 1 i events, which generally fall into the category of emergency and faulted conditions, usually using only design basis transient scenarios. For instance, a summary report on reactor vessel integrity for Westinghouse plants WCAP-10019 (13), was submitted to the NRC staff in December 1981 and addressed the large LOCA and large steamline break transients along with a conservative evaluation of the small break LOCA and small steamline break i events. The Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels were evaluated as part of this generic evaluation supported by the Westinghouse Owners Group. l Following the submittal of this information, the NRC was concerned, as a result of recent plant operating events, that other more likely events with j dominating transient characteristics were not being addressed. l To respond to the above concern, an innovative methodology was developed that l coupled probabilistic event sequence analysis results with4hermal hydraulic { and fracture mechanics analysis results to identify all potential transient l scenarios of concern for reactor vessel PTS. This methodology efficiently, I evaluated ever 8,000 possible transient scenarios on a generic basis and the i results demonstrated adequate safety margin for the Westinghouse domestic t i operating plants. This work, which was submitted to the NRC via the j WestinghouseOwnersGroup(WOG)inReferences(17,18,19) was extensively used by the NRC Staff in the development and improvement of their own position on PTS. The NRC used the Westinghouse probabilistic results to better i quantify total plant risk from PTS and to support their licensing position as [ described in NRC Policy Issue SECY-82-465, November-1982 (20).~(This document l provides the technical basis for the PTS Rule (21) that was issued in 1985.) I 1 A key aspect of this work is that the principal contributors.(dominating 3 transients) to the total frequency of significant flaw extension in the vessel 4 l from PTS can be identified. However, this work was done in an approximate generic manner and both the Westinghouse Owners Group and the NRC agreed that I more work should be done to investigate additional candidate transient i sequences and characterizations and to validate some of the approximations { made in the supporting analyses. For instance, the 2"-6" small LOCA results j used detailed calculations of system response (including fluid mixing effect' 1 in the cold leg and vessel downcomer as predicted from experimental results, heat input from hot piping walls, and assumed benefits from the effect of warm r I assave40 sea 10 4.g E i

prestressing) whereas the extended high pressure injection category (i.e., events that could lead to extended high pressure safety injection operation with stagnated loop (s)) used very conservative transient characterizations. This approach lead to a conservative assessment of the total frequency of significant flaw extension. 4.2.2 PTS RISK FOR A TYPICAL WESTINGHOUSE PWR In order to address all candidate transient scenarios in a thorough manner, the Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) undertock a Stagnant Loop Code Evaluation Program in late 1982. One key purpose of this program was to demonstrate that the overall risk from PTS on a typical Westinghouse plant is dominated by small steamline breaks, small LOCA's, and steam generator tube ruptures, as suggested in previous WOG work during 1982, and not by other transient scenarios, including those involving loop stagnation. WCAP-10319 (14) presents the results of this exhaustive study. The important results and the relationship of them to previous fracture analyses performed for the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessels are discussed below. The event sequence analysis performed in the WOG Stagnant Loop Code Evaluation resulted in.the following broad categories of events that could potentially result in a pressurized thermal shock of the reactor vessel: 1. Secondary Depressurization (SD) 2. Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) 3. Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) 4. Loss of Secondary Heat Sink (LOHS) 5. Excessive feedwater (EXFW) 5. Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM (ATWS) 7. Feedline Break (FB) Combinations of these categories were also considered if they met certain criteria defined in WCAP-10319 (14). Some of these PTS-categories were further subdivided into a number of small bins to offer greater resolution and-accuracy in the risk assessment and in the identification of the dominating transient scenarios. nnsmau se 43

The summary results of the above WOG risk assessment for PTS (see Figure 4-1) showed that the key contributors to the total risk occur from the LOCA and SGTR categories because of the combination of severe transient characteristics with relatively high frequencies of transient occurrence. The LOHS transient, while much lower than LOCA or SGTR, was the third most dominating transient in terms of contributing to the total PTS risk. This is primarily because LOCA transient characteristics were conservatively used for the LOHS analysis. If the true LOHS transient results had been used, it is believed that the resulting transient characteristics would be less severe than those that were used. The other PTS transient scenarios, including those involving loop stagnation (i. e., SD, EXFW, ATWS, and FB), do not contribute significantly to the overall risk. The ASME Code in its present form, however, does not take transient frequencies into consideration and requires an evaluation of flaw indications using the most limiting emergency / faulted condition transient. Therefore, the above PTS risk analysis results could not be used directly, but they were used to guide the determination of the key transients to be considered further, as will be seen in the next section. 4.2.3 TREATMENT OF TRANSIENT SEVERITY Probabilistic fracture mechanics (PFM) results, used in the above WOG risk assessment for PTS, were utilized to evaluate the severity of the transients used b the generic study that were major contributors to the risk of vessel failure. Figure 4-2 shows an example of PFM results that quantify the conditional probability of reactor vessel failure (i. e., significant flaw extension) given that a PTS event occurs. The results shown in figure 4-2 were based uoon the evaluation of stylized exponential cooldown transients charr.cterized by three quantities: a final temperature (T ) reflecting the depth of the f cooldown, a time constant (S) reflecting the rate of the cooldown, and a characteristic pressure (P) as described in figure 4-3. The curves in figure 4-2 were generated from PFM analysos using the Monte Carlo technique. A values were matrix of cases for given T, B, and inner surface RTNDT f nn wm so 44

i evaluated to obtain results for generation of the curves. The RTNDT values are calculated as a function of initial RTNDT, material residual elements and fluence using the methodology discussed in Section 2. For each case, a 6 large number of deterministic fracture mechanics analysis trials (~10 ) were simulated using random values selected by a random generator from distributions defined for the pertinent input properties. The input properties that have been treated as random variables include: initial crack depth, initial RTNDT, copper content, fluence, and the critical stress intensity values for flaw initiation and arrest. The probability of vessel failure for each case was determined by dividing the number of failures by the number of trials. The curves in Figure 4-2 were plotted from the matrix of for assumed longitudinally results by normalizing Tf against RTNDT oriented flaws. The pertinent aspect of the PFM results for determining the governing transient (s) is that, at a given inner. surface RTNDT value, the higher the conditional probability of vessel failure, the more limiting the transient. Using the stylized transient characteristi:s for the WOG generic transients within all of the various transient categories [14), the most limiting transients were determined from the WOG PFM results as shown in Table 4-1. The transients are shown in order of decreasing severity. The associated transient frequencies of occurrence are also given for the purpose of information. -2 The conditional probability of failure values ranged from 1 x 10 g, -2 5 x 10 for the above transients at an inner surface RTNDT value which is value for the Joseph Farley 1 near the projected end-of-life (32 EFPY) RTNDT and 2 reactor vessels (see Section 2). For all other transient events, the -2 conditional probability of failure values were much less than 1 x 10 From the standpoint of statistics, however, the conditional probability of failure values were essentially the same for the above limiting transients, and any one of them could be the "governing" event. The fact that stylized transient characteristics were used in the evaluation rather than the actual transient histories lends further support to the above statement. E ani uau io 4-5

Although the large LOCA and LSB events are not significant contributors to the overall risk of failure because the frequency of occurrence for these events ~7 is negligible (~1 x 10 /r yr), the severity of these events still needs to be considered in the selection of the most limiting event for the flaw handbook. The plant specific results for these events from prior Joseph Farley analyses are considered as shown in the next section. Therefore, we see that the large number of thermal shock and pressurized thermal shock transients (>8000) can be reduced to a list of a few key transients, as shown in Table 4-1. Fracture analysis was then concentrated on these transients, as discussed in the following section. 4.2.4 ENERGENCY AND FAULTED CONDITIONS EVALVATION -- BELTLINE REGION To determine the governing emergency and faulted conditions for the Joseph Farley reactor vessels, a series of transients were studied. These transients included the large LOCA and large steamline break (LSB) already analyzed (15, 16), and the dominating transients from the Westinghouse Owners Group pressurized thermal shock studies. This work, which took into account the differences in plant system characteristics between Josieph Farley and the typical plant in the generic WOG evaluation, led to the conclusion that the following transients should be considered in the deterministic assessments for the beltline regions to be used for this handbook. o steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) o small LOCA o large LOCA o large steamline break (LSB) The transient frequencies for these limiting events are also given in the table in Section 4.2.3. ma,*me 46

Thermal, stress, and fracture analyses were performed for the beltline region, utilizing the characteristics of the above four transients, represented in the form of Figure 4-3. The limiting circumferential weld and the limiting longitudinal weld for both units were used in performing the fracture analyses. The resulting critical flaw depths for a range of shapes are shown in Table 4-1. From this table it may be seen that the large steamline break transient evaluated previously is the governing transient for the beltline region. The detailed assessments performed for the tube rupture and small LOCA transients serve to verify this conclusion. Also, from the standpoint of total risk it is worthy of note that these latter two transients are the dominant ones. Section XI of the ASME Code presently requires that only the most severe transient be evaluated, regardless of its prcbability of occurrence, so the large steamline break is the governing transient for the handbook. 4.2.5 FAULTED CONDITIONS EVALUATION FOR OTHER REGIONS A number of analyses were performed by means of linear elastic fracture mechanics methods to determine the postulated minimum critical flaw size at which unstable flaw growth could occur in the Joseph Farley Units 1 and 2 reactor vessel beltline regions, as discussed above. The critical flaw size required for unstable flaw growth was determined from the intersection of the cirve, as described in Section 2. Ky curve with the Kge The conclusions reached as to the governing transients for the beltline region will not necessarily be applicable to the other regions, because the fracture toughness is not reduced from irradiation. The conditions which could lead to fracture in these other regions will be governed primarily by pressure stresses, while the conditions for the beltline regions are governed by thermal stresses. This conclusion is even more true for regions of stress discontinuity, where most of the welds are found. For this reason the severe thermal transient with the largest pressurization level was found to be generally the governing transient, i.e., the large steamline break (LSB). Although not true n general for all plants, this is the same transient found to be governing for the beltline region. The critical flaw size results for the regions analyzed are provided in Appendix B. mi,$me io 47

TABLE 4 1 XEY PRESSURIZED THERMAL SHOCK TRANSIENTS WOG Frequency of Occurrence Per Reactor Year For Transient Limitine Events -5 o 3" Small Break LOCA in Hot Leg 6.1 x 10 at Zero Power with Accumulator Injection Flow o 3" Small Break LOCA in Hot Leg 4.6 x 10'4 at Full Power -5 o Loss of Secondary Heat Sink 1.0 x 10 -5 o Steam Gener'ator Tube Rupture at 1.2 x 10 Zero Power, 30 Minute Delay in SI Termination -5 o Steam Generator Tube Rupture at 1.9 x 10 Moderate Decay Heat, 30 Minute Delay in SI Termination w i. 48

- - - - - - -.... = _ --- -. - -... - .. - = -. -=_ . l TABLE 4-1 l CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SL206ARY FOR BELTLINE REGION j Flaw Continuous flaw Aspect Ratio = 6.0 Aspect Ratio = 2.0 i Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t i i j y = 5.51 (0.711) a g = 7.75 (1.0) E/F Long. a g = 2.50 (0.323) a g = 7.75 (1.0) g = 7.75 (1.0) a g = 7.75 (1.0) a j (Steam Gen. Tube Circ. a Rupture) i 1 ? e f E/F (LSB) long. a g = 3.39 (0.44) ag = N/A N/A g = N/A N/A a l Circ. a g = 7.75 (1.0) g = 7.75 (1.00) a g = 2.21 (0.34) a g = 5.74 (0.74) a; = 7.75 (1.0) y = 2.25 (0.33) a E/F (Small LOCA) Long. a g = 7.75 (1.0) g = 7.75 (1.00) a g = 7.75 (1.00) a Cire. a g = 7.75 (1.0) g = 7.75 (1.00) a E/F (Large LOCA) Long. a g = 7.75 (1.00) a y y = 7.75 (1.00) a y = 7.75 (1.0) ] Circ. a = 7.75 (1.00) a c c,,= 7.75 (1.0) 7.75 (1.M) N/U (Excessive Long. a = 3.83 (0.494) a = 7.75 (1.00) a = 7.75 (1.0) j Feedwater Flow) Cire. a = 7.75' (1.00) a = c c c mum. w-w _.-..--.~.,m,m---m,, e x--.., - -m. ,-ww--. e-- -mrw. ,,--4,ev-.---.r,.-.-v. ,,-~%-. ,,---m,,-,e- ,.r-,. -.--,,,-,,---...-..*--m e.-

100 y 10~T r': 10-2. T: WCAP 10319 10-3 r _OG TOTAL NRCTOTAll W m 5 -/ 2: Loss of Coolant 10 4 IAccident /# = %dO",g poi, ,e g ig-5 r a s $* o(, Y ,s' e a " pe# N 10-6 y / /

W

= Y '#+ w 10-7 g W h r 4* i 9s s,,6 e 1 -8 r,[ / r7 ~ ig-e,. / b Excessive Feedwater,,. /- jo - 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 250 290 300 WEAN SURFACE RTNOT Figure 4-1. Frec.nney of Significant Flaw Extension for Longitudinal flaws in a Typical Westinghouse PWR m w m m.ie 4-10 i -,-,-,---n,-m. _-,,,-.,_--,-,.--,-,-a

i e .e NN l 99 1 c. w ao p z ~ I o e me a: o a 6 us M w.g t E ' g o m...... 6...... 6...... 6...... n m w e e o E N o I l' I I I I o n o o .o o o o o g ;. a ~ W i @y 3WnllVJ 13SS3A 30 All118V80Md 1VN01110N00 m a u - M. 8, o e. w m w a O n sa g I U aW m. w IT., i M g m 11 li w a li ~ g a: 5 8 it 'T. .o @ e ti

m..e u

n it da 11 a = a: z gg Ns ~ 3 \\\\ a<Z O o w,,,,,. i.,,,,,,, i.,,,,,,, i....... i.....,, i,,,,,,. z n m e me o o i i i I i u o o o o 2 o o 3e t 3Mn11YJ 13SS3A 30 Allll8V808d 1YN01110N03 ? 4-11 f

Pcharacteristic Tm e gt 7{, g, p ---+ T T g Time LARGE STEAM STEAM GEN. PARAMETER SMALL LOCA LARGE LOCA LINE BREAK TUBE RUPTURE -1 -1 ~1 S .1 Min 0.25 min ~0.10 min T 100*F 70'F 225'F 174*F p T 550*F 550*F 550*F 557'F y P 1000 psig 0 psig 1550 psig 1000-1800 psig l Figure 4-3. Schematic Representation of Emergency and Faulted Transients for Joseph Farley, along with actual values used for Transients Evaluated. l me.-mm io 4-12 i.

SECTION 5 SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION 5.1 CODE CRITERIA The acceptance criteria for surface flaws have been presented in paragraph 1.1. For convenience they are repeated as follows: af 51 a For Normal Conditions c (Ur et & Test Conditions inclusive) and f 5 5 a4, For Faulted Conditions a (Emergency Condition inclusive) where af The maximum size to which the detected flaw is calculated to = grow until the next inspection. 10, 20, and 30 year oeriods have been considered in this handbook. ine minimum critical flaw size under normal operating a = c conditions (upset and test conditions inclusive) The minimum critical flaw size for initiation of ncnarresting a = 3 growth under postulated faulted conditions. (emergency conditions inclusive) Alternatively criteria based on applied stress intensity factors may be used: K Kg5 For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) K Kg5 For faulted conditions (emergency conditions inclusive) usswwo g.1

where The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw size K = g to which a detected flaw will grow, during the conditions af under consideration. K, Fracture toughness based on crack arrest for the corresponding = g crack tip temperature. fracture toughness based on fracture initiation for the K = Ic corresponding crack tip temperature. 5.2 LONGITUDINAL FLAWS VS. CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAWS Longitudinal flaws may be defined as flaws oriented in a radial plane, such that circumferential or hoop stresses would tend to open them. On the other hand, circumferential flaws would be oriented in a radial plane such that longitudinal or axial stresses would open then. These two types of flaws are portrayed graphically in the geometry figure of each section of Appendix A. 5.3 BASIC DATA in view of the criteria, it is noticed that three groups of basic data.ar.e,, required for the construction of charts for surface flaw evaluation.

Namely, af, a, and ag, respectively.

g The preparation of these three groups of basic data will be discussed in the following paragraphs. 5.3.1 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH The first group of basic data required for surface flaw chart construction is determined from fatigue crack growth. As defined in the-final flaw size af IWB-3611 of Code section XI, af is the maximum size resulting from growth during a specific time periud, which is the next scheduled inspection of the l l 24'41s@0444 to 5-2 f

component. Therefore, the final depth, af after a specific service period o' time must be used as the basis for evaluation. The charts have been constructed to allow the initial (measured) indication size to be used directly. Charts have been constructed for operational periods of 10, 20, and 30 years from the time of detection. can be calculated by fatigue crack growth analysis, The final flaw size af which has been performed covering the range of postulated flaw sizes, and flaw shapes at various locations of the reactor vessel needed for the construction of surf ace flaw evaluation charts in this handbook. All crack growth results have been summarized in Appendix C. Notice that all the finite surface flaws and embedded flaws analyzed are semi-elliptical in shape. Crack growth analyses for finite surface flaws with aspect ratio (length to deoth) less than 6:1 have utilized the results of 6:1, and for any flaw with aspect ratio larger than 6:1, the results of the continuous flaw are used. This is conservative in both cases. In some of the regions, it is noted that only the crack growth analysis for longitudinal flaws was performed. The crack growth results for the longitudinal flaws can be used for circumferential flaws at the same location with some slight conservatism. In regions where differences are significant, separate analyses haveteen done, as may be seen in the various sections of Appendix A. 5.3.2 MINIMUM CRITICAL FLAW SIZE a and a$ c By definition a is the minimum critical flaw size for normal operating c conditions. It is calculated based on the load of the n'ost limiting transient for normal operating conditions. By the same token, a$ is defined as the minimum critical flaw size for faulted conditions. It is calculated based on the most governing transient of faulted conditions. The governing transients are often different for different regions, and those for each category of load conditions have been identified in tables in Appendix B. The theory and methodology for the calculation of a$ and a has been provided in c Section 2. an,Smoo 5-3

5.4 TYPICAL SURFACE FLAW EVALUATION CHART Two basic dimensionless parameters can fully address the characteristics of a surface flaw, and are used for the evaluation chart construction, Namely: o Flaw Shape Parameter a/t o Flaw Depth Parameter a/t

where, t - wall thickness, in.

a flaw depth, in. flaw length, in. t A typical chart was chosen for illustration purpose as follows: (Refer to Figure 5-1) o The flaw shape parameter a/t was plotted as the abscissa from 0 (continuous flaw) to.5 (AR = 2.0) o The flaw depth parameter a/t in % was plotted as the ordinate. o The lower curves were the Code acceptable flaw depth tabulated in Table IWB-3510-1 of ASME Section XI. These curves indicate the acceptance standards of the Code, below which analytical evaluation is not required. Two curves are provided, since the code acceptance standards were revised with the Winter Addendum of the 1983 Code. The revised curves remain in effect through the present time (1986 Code, 1988 Addenda). o The upper boundary curve shows the maximum acceptable flaw depth beyond which no surface flaw is acceptable for continued service without repair. This upper bound curve has been determined by the fracture and fatigue evaluations described herein. l l l ne w e u io 5-4

o Any surface indication which falls between the two boundary curves will be acceptable by the Code, with the analytical justification provided herein. However, IWB-2420 of ASME Section XI requires future monitoring of such indications. The surface flaw evaluation charts constructed for various locations of the reactor vessel are presented in Appendix A. 5.5 PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SURFACE' FLAW EVALVATION CHART A numerical example is used here to show how a surface flaw evaluation chart was constructed. Example Required: To construct a surface flaw evaluation chart for the longitudinal i ~ flaws at the beltline region, at the inside curface. Step 1 Determine the critical flaw sizes from Table 4-1. These flaw sizes are used to determine allowable flaw sizes per-IWB-3611. Load Flaw Critical Flaw Depth '(in.) Condition Orientation a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 N/U/T* Circumferential a = 7.75 a = 7.75 a = 7.75 c c c f E/F* Circumferential a4 = 2.21 a3 = 7.75 ag = 7.75 l l Note that in some cases here the critical flaw depth is set equal to the wall thickness. This is for the case where the stress intensity factor for postulated l flaws never exceeds the fracture toughness, regardless of flaw depth, i l

• N/U/T normal, upset, and test conditions E/F emergency and faulted conditions l

i an.+= io 5-5

i The maximum code allowable flaw depths using the criteria of IWB-3611 are then determined, using a factor of 10 for normal upset and test conditions and a factor of 2 for emergency and faulted conditions. The results are presented below: Load Allowable Flaw Depth (in) Condition a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 N/U/T 0.775 0.775 0.775 E/F 1.105 3.875 3.875 Therefore, the allowable flaw depth for the normal and upset conditions is more limiting, and the governing transient can be considered as the excessive feedwater flow transient. This is because.much larger safety factors are applied to the normal / upset conditions than to the emergency and ' faulted conditions. Step 2 Determine the maximum Code allowable flew depth per IWB-3612, which is based on allowable stress intensity factor criteria. ~ Load Flaw Code Allowable Flaw Depth (in) Condition Orientation Criteria a/t = 0.0 a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 N/U/T Circumferential Kla/ /10 3.18 3.84 4.078 Step 3 The allowable flaw depth is then determined from the Step 1 and Step 2 allowable flaw depths. The most liberal results are taken for each set of criteria, and this becomes the final allowable. Thus, from the results of Step 2 we find: nsas.saun n s.g

a/t = 0.0 allowable a = 3.18 in, a/t = 0.167 a = 3.84 in, a/t = 0.5 a = 4.078 in. Step 4 Determine the corresponding initial flaw sizes which will grow to the above critical flaw sizes after 10, 20, and 30 years of service. We define the above limiting critical flaw depth as af. The initial flaw size a can be found from the fatigue crack growth results of Table 3-1. o The values of a, which are applicable to 10 years of service, for example, 'are listed as-follows: Continuous Flaw a/t = 0.167 a/t = 0.5 a 3.18 3.84 4.078 f a 3.056 3.80 4.034 g This shows that the effect of fatigue crack growth in this region is very small. Steo 5 Determine a/t vs. a/t% in the beltline region where t = 7.75", and a=a. For 10 years of service, the values are: g Continuous Finite Surface Finite Semicircular Flaws Flaws, a/t = 0.167 Surface Flaws a/t 0 .167 .5 ait 0.394 0.490 0.5205 t' m e,*:.u is 5-7 I

Note that the allowable flaw depths here exceed 20 percent of the wall ~ thickness, which has been set as an arbitrary limit, based on engineering judgement. The charts therefore re' t this value as an upper limit. Step 6 The upper bound curves result from the picts of a/t vs. a/t for 10, 20, 30 years of service, as obtained from the crack growth results. These curves are shown in Figure 5-2. Step 7 Plot a/t vs. a/t data from the standards tables of Section XI as the lower curve of Figure 5-2. For' example, the values of Table IWB-3510-1 for Code editions up until the Winter '83 addendum are: Aspect Surface

Ratio, Indication, alt alt, %

0.00 1.8 0.05 2.0 0.10 2.2 0.15 2.4 0.20 2.7 0.25 3.1 0.30 3.5 0.35 3.5 0.40 3.5 0.45 3.5 0.50 3.5 l The above seven steps would cotplete the procedure for the construction of the surface flaw evaluation charts for 10 years, 20 years, or 30 years of operating life. l l In the interest of prudence, Figure 5-2 only shows the allowable flaw depths for these inside surface flaws up to 20 percent of the section thickness. nn.+me io 5-8 l ~

UPPER LIMITS OF ACCEPTANCE BY ANALYSIS INDICATIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AB0VE THE ANALYSIS LlHIT LINES 10 x[Wh-- I T 7 ^s .. s ~~ IN THIS ZONE, INDICATIONS .l-K year s- / e / f ARE ACCEPTABLE BY ANALYSIS d -- + / --- g .;?O yem~ -- p 8 '30 y: 's / /..//.... ~ ...= g PER IWB 3600 3 .. ~ -y ..y

g. y.

\\- \\ \\ / / /

g

,\\ -T.5 / /

n

(

d.. _

.s. T r-f. .. fl e Z =._.:. ..>-' / s j / -f CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT C SINCE 1983 WINTER y ___ /. '.. /[.. j _' e. .. _j .- ++ ADDENDUM . f: /.._.- f." /:. _.__ _.2_ pp i FLAWS PLOTTED BELOW THE APPLICABLE gsp8 4. l _ _3 ;g gg l. $ CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT : "CODE ALLOWABLE LlHIT" LINE ARE I 2

PRIOR TO 1983 WINTER ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT ANALYSIS OR n

FUTURE MONITORING.

l.,

A,DDEN, DUM,

.a. 4 .. p 3.. O O O.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 FLAW SHAPE (a/f) Figure 5-1. Sample Surface Flaw Evaluation Chart 28923/030144 30

e l e r b c o. al n im s ta i ru s. pd t epc hei0 m n i rm tct0 eu ee ai c y6 ld ld 7 bd 8 a.bn el ,al3 ae aA 9 y e w nsnB wd w 1 D 0a oiaW od or e N 3l z I lA l e s we l l t u E ,f sadn ar an o G E 0e il oi e i n L 2l hfC et eW d w t a dn d n a ,b eEi oi o3 ta l a 0t ncMr CW C8 s wf e a 1 p iaSe 9 e hfAt E3 E1 W l l F a M8 M ec tr i uyr S9 So O i hc 1 l t Ta Wsbc A1 At a n n e i r A 8 C D d e u f t m B i u D e g c ggI a 5 n n r 0 i oi l L C t l e B X l les 4 s w 0 e w a V a l l F r F o d 3 t e e c c d a a d 7 e f e R r b 1 o 3 # u m a r S E 3 a ( o E f P o A 't X r H a 2 i S h C e o W e c A n c a s 2 L o a f i f r / v d i in l 0 F t r u ii a u S u S l e a e d E i s s t y n u 2 I O 1 m 0 S eX I rug i j F

• 0 8

6 4 2 0 8 6 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 i 7 t fE0 E<d a i m m. nu n u$

l ll ll'

i SECTION 6 EMBEDDED FL AW EVALUATION 6.1 EMBEDDED VS. SURFACE FLAWS According to IWA-3300 of the ASME Code Section XI, a flaw is defined as embedded, as shown in Figure 6-1, whenever, S 3 a (For Editions prior to 1980] of S 3 0.4 a (For Editions of 1980 and thereafter) where S - the minimum distance from the flaw edge to the nearest vessel wall surface (clad-base metal interface for flaws near the inside of the vessel) a - the embedded flaw depth, (defined as the semi-minor axis of the elliptical flaw.) Surface Proximity Rules The surface proximity rules were liberalized with the 1980 Code, allowing flaws as near the surface as four-tenths their width to be considered embedded. This change resulted from the finding that the original proximity rules had been more restrictive for near-surface embedded flows than for known surface flaws, which is clearly not technically correct. Specifically, the criterion for a flaw to be considered embedded was changed to S 3 0.4 a, so substituting into the definition for 6 we now find: nusems,o 6-1

WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 CUSTOMER des!GNATED DISTRIBUT1oN a 6-S 6 > 1.4 a Therefore, the limit for a flaw to be considered embedded is a,= 0.714 6 for Code editions of 1980 and thereafter.: This more accurate criterion has been used throughout this handbook, and is recommended for all inspections, regardless of the edition of the Code which is ured for the inspection. A flaw lying within the embedded flaw domain is to be evaluated by the embedded flaw evaluation charts generated in this section of the handbook. On the other hand, a flaw lying beyond this domain should be evaluated as a surface flaw using the charts developed in Section 5 of the hanabook instead. The denarcation lines between the two domains are shown graphically in Figure 6-3, for both earlier and later Code editions. In other words, for any flaw indication detected by inservice inspection, the first step of evaluation is to define the category to which the flaw actually belongs, then, choose the appropriate charts for evaluation. 6.2 CODE CRITERIA As mer,tioned in Section 1, the criteria used for all the embedded flaws are from IWB-3612 of ASME Code Section XI. Namely, K Ks For normal conditions (upset & test conditions inclusive) y K y5$Forfaultedconditions(emergencyconditionsinclusive) K i l l t l l l 2432s/041ase 10 6-2 ~~-

where The maximum applied stress intensity factor for the flaw K = g size af to which a detected flaw will grow, during the conditions under consideration. K, Fracture toughness based on crack. arrest for the = g corresponding crack tip temperature. Fracture toughness based on fratture initiation for the K = Ic corresponding crack tip temperature. The above two criteria must'be met simultaneously. In this handbook only the most limiting results'have been used as the basis of the flaw evaluation-cha'rts. 6.3 BASIC DATA In vie'.v of the criteria based on stress intensity factor, three basic groups of data are needed for construction of embedded flaw evaluation charts. They la, and K, respectively. The units used herein for all are: KIc' K g these three parir.eters are ksi / in. K and K, are the initiation and arrest fracture toughness values ge g (respectively) of the vessel material at which the flaw is located. They can be calculated by formulae: Ic = 33.2 + 2.806 exp(.02(T-RTNDT + 100*F)) (6-1) K and K, = 26.8 + 1.233 exp(.0145(T-RTNDT + 160'F)] (6-2) r K is the maximum stress intensity factor for the embedded ficw of g interest. The methods used for determining the stress intensity factors for embedded flaws have been referenced in Section 2.

a.. mens io 6-3

L Notice that both K and K cre a function of crack tip temperature T, Ic la at the tip of the flaw. The upper shelf and the material property of RTNDT fracture toughness of the reactor vessel steel is assumed to be 200 ksi/in in all regions. K used in the determination of the flaw evaluation charts is the maximum g stress intensity factor of the embedded flaw under evaluation. It is important to note that the flaw size used for the calculation of K; is not the flaw size detected by inservice inspection. Instead, it is the calculated flaw size which will have grcwn from the flaw size detected by inservice inspection. That means that the embedded flaw size used for the calculation of K.had to be determined by using fatigue crack growth results, similar to y the approach used for surface flaw evaluation, as illustrated in the. previous section. i l 6.4 FATIGUE CRACK GR0dTH FOR EMBEDDED FLAWS Unlike the surface flaw case, the fatigue crack growth for an embedded flaw (even after 40 years of aervice life) is very small in comparison with that of a surface flaw with the same initial depth. Consequently, in the handbook evaluations, the detected flaw size has been used for evaluation by the charts without any appreciable error.* This simplifies the evaluation procedure without sacrificing the accuracy of the'results. A detailed justification of this conclusion is provided in this section. The environment of an embedded flaw is considered to be inert, or air. The crack growth rate for air environment is far smaller than that of the water environment, to which the surface flaw is conservatively considered to be exposed. Consequently, the fatigue crack growth for an embedded flaw must be far smaller than that of an inside surface flaw (of the same size and under This conclusion holds for the range of flaw sizes acceptable by the rules of section XI, IWB-3600. It would not necessarily hold for very large flaws of the order of 50 percent of the vessel wall thickness. nu,<mu so 6-4

I the same transient conditions). Numerically, the fatigue crack growth of an embedded flaw is so low that the difference between the initial flaw depth and its final crack depth is negligible. This engineering judgment has been demonstrated by an illustrative example, as follows: Example The beltline region of the Joseph Farley reactor vessels was used as a demonstration. The crack growth results for circumferential inside surface flaws (a/t = 0.167) are as follows, as also shown in Appendix C. These flaws were assumed exposed to the water environment. Postulated Initial Crack Depth Crack Depth (in.) After Year 10 20 30 40 0.80 .813 0.823 0.833 0.843 1.00 1.015 1.028 1.041 1.054 1.20 1.222 1.237 1.253 1.268 1.30 ._1.323 1.338 1.353 '1.368 1.550 1.575 1.592 1.609 1.626 A similar crack growth analysis was performed for an embedded flaw, using the same set of transients

• and the number of cycles
• as the surface. flaw run, and the results follow.

The air crack growth reference law was used. As specified in Table 2-1. W an, man to 6-5

Initial Crack Depth Crack Depth (in.) After Year 10 20 30 40 0.90 0.900 0.900 0.901 0.901 1.050 1.050 1.051 1.051 1.051 1.200 1.200 1.201 1.201 1.201 1.350 1.351 1.351 1.352 1.352 In comparing the results of the two types of flaws under the same service conditions, it is seen that the final crack growth for an embedded flaw is less than 1% of that for a surface flaw under the same operating conditions a's tabulated below: Postulated Final Crack Depth lin) Crack Growth for Initial Crack After 40 Years Embedded Flaws, Depth, (in) Embedded Flaws in(%) 0.90 0.90075 0.1% 1.050 1.05108 0.1% 1.200 1.20149 0.1% 1.350 1.35202 0.15% In conclusion: in the construction of the evaluation charts for the embedded flaws, the accuracy of the charts would not be impaired using the flaw size found by inservice inspection directly. 6.5 TYPICAL EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHART The details of the procedures for the construction of an embedded flaw evaluation chart are provided in the next section. nn.mus to 6-6

In this section, instructions for reading a chart are provided by going through construction of a typical chart, Figure 6-3, step by step. This will help the users to become familiar with the characteristics of each part of the chart, and make it easier to apply. This example utilizes the surface / embedded flaw demarkation criteria of the 1980 Code, and later editions. Following are the highlights of a typical embedded flaw evaluation chart. (Refer to Figures 6-2 and 6-3). 1. The absicissa of the chart in Figure 6-2 represents the flaw depth a, of the embedded flaw. 2. As defined by the Code, the embedded flaws with a depth less than a, = 0.714 6 should be considered as' embedded flaws. Any embedded flaws beyond the domain of a, = 0.714 6, should be evaluated by means of surface flaw charts instead. 3. A key parameter for evaluating an embedded flaw is 6, the distance between the flaw centerline and the nearest surface of the vessel wall (clad-base metal interface for the in' side surface). A range of 6 between ht and ft have been considered in ~ constructing figure 6-2. For each specific value of 6, such as ht, ht, ht, etc., a family of 4. curves were plotted for a range of aspect ratios *, for 3:1 through 10:1. This corresponds to a/t. values ranging from 0.333 to 0.1. For any specific flaw depth a at the abscissa, a corresponding value K at the ordinate can be found in Figure 6-2, for any distance to g the surface, 6.

• Note that aspect ratio AR = t/a m e.**" "

6-7

l I 5. The range of aspect ratios from 3:1 to 10:1 was chosen to encompass the range of flaws which might be detected. Within this range, interpolation can be used for any other aspect ratio. Use the 3:1 j curve as a lower bound and the 10:1 curve as an upper bound. I 6. In this specific chart, the Code acceptance limit line was i K gh=63.3ksiinbecausegoverningconditionwasanupset = y condition, and the operating temperature of the transient was over 500'F across the wall thickness at all times. The shelf value of 200 ksi / in for K, was used. g l 7. The intersection of the Ky curve with the code acceptance limit line is the maximum flaw size acceptable by Code for the specific curve. In view of Figure 6-2, it is seen that only the cur res for 6 = ft 8. intersect with the code acceptance limit line. That means that, up to a distance of 6 = ht (= 1.453"), all embedded flaws are acceptable by code criterion so long as their depth is within the domain of a, = 0.714 6. On the other hand, for flaws located at a distanceupto6=kt(=1.938"),themaximumacceptableflaw sizes for various aspect ratios are less than the domain of a, =.714 6. Therefore, for flaws centered at this depth, separate allowable flaw lines are produced in the evaluation charts, as shown in Figure 6-3. 9. The maximum acceptable flaw size can be found from the chart by determining the abscissa of the intersection points. Namely, for 6 = 0.25 t, l l un,.mus,o 6-8 l

Aspect Ratio Maximum Acceptable of the Flaw a/t Flaw Size (in) 10:1 0.1 0.968 6:1 0.167 0.968 (< a = 0.969) g 3:1 0.333 0.968

10. The maximum acceptable embedded flaw size for 6 = ft has been depicted in Figure 6-3.

This simpler flaw evaluation chart, described in the following paragraph, is the type included in the handbook, as may be seen in Appendix A. These embedded flaw evaluation charts, constructed for various locations of the reactor vessel, are presented in Appendix A. 6.6 PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMBEDDED FLAW EVALUATION CHARTS A numerical example was used in this section to show how an embedded flaw evaluation chart was constructed step by step as follows: 4 Example i To construct an embedded flaw evaluation chart for circumferential flaws at the beltline. The excesi feedwater flow transient was determined to be the ~ governing condition for this example. Step 1 Calculate K, for various distances underneath the inside vessel wall g surface (clad-base metal interface) (in). The procedures of the calculation are as follows: nu. c.u io 6-9

o Plot the temperature across the wall thickness during the worst time step (610.86 sec.) of the excess feedwater flow transient. The minimum temperature is 472.5'F for this transient, Calculate the corresponding K, by the formula given in equation o g (6-1). The values of RT at various 6 locations' were also NDT determined. K Calculatethevaluesofh o Step 2 Calculate K values for embedded flaws of various sizes, various aspect g ratios, and at various distances underneat.h the surface. In total, 141 cases were analyzed by closed form stress intensity factor expressions (5). The 141 analyzed casee are tabulated in Table 6-1. Step 3 The Kg results of the 141 cases were plotted in Figure 6-2. These curves were combined into one single plot as the final chart, as shown in Figure 6-3. The Code acceptance limit of was plotted on all these figures as a guideline for evaluation. Step 4 Determine the maximum acceptable flaw size: nn.Smo 6-10

The basic concept of the evaluation is that the part of the curves under the K hlineareacceptablebytheCodecriteria. Therefore, the intersection K ofacurvehwiththedrivingforceK1 curve indicates the maximum flaw depth acceptable by the Code criteria. The acceptable maximum flaw sizes for various distances of flaws beneath the vessel surface, 6, were plotted as shown in Figure 6-3, which is the final flaw evaluation chart. By examining Figure 6-4 for instance, for a flaw located at 6 = ht with an aspect ratio of 3:1, the maximum flaw size acceptable is.0.692". For an aspect ratio of 10:1, a maximum flaw depth of 0.692" is acceptable. -The above four steps have completely described the procedures-of the construction of an embedded flaw evaluation chart for circumferential flaws at the inlet nozzle to shell weld. The basic concept for the interpretation of the curves in a typical evaluation chart is that any flaw size which lies on the curve above the Code acceptance limit line is not acceptable for continued service without repair. The intersection of a curve with the Code acceptance limit line is therefore, the maximum acceptabi'e flaw size.for that particular case. 6.7 COMPARISON OF EMBEDDED FLAW CHARTS WITH ACCEPTANCE STANDARDS OF IWB-3 The handbook charts for embedded flaws do not show the acceptance standards of Section XI, as the surface flaw charts do. Therefore, it is not clear from the charts themselves how much is gained from the analysis process over the standards tables contained in IWB-3510. Such a comparison cannot be made directly on the embedded flaw handbook charts, because the charts are applicable for a full range of sizes, shapes and locations. The purpose of l this section is to provide such comparisons, and to discuss the results of i those comparisons. l nmmu to 6-11 l t

Se example will be for the inlet nozzle to shell weld, whose handbook chart is provided in the appendix, and also in Figure 6-3. The handbook chart values have been compared with the acceptance standards tables in Figure 6-4. This example is applicable to the cases where all flaws which are embedded are acceptable, up to a depth of 2a/t = 0.25. Again it can be seen that the advantage gained by use of the analysis is greater for flaws located further l l from the inside surface. The largest allowable flaw shown here is centered at one quarter the wall thickness from the surface. Note that the allowable depth for this type of embedded flaw is a/t = 0.125, or a total flaw width (2a/t) equal to 25 percent of the wall thickness. Carrying the calculations further would result in an allowable flaw depth for a mid-wall flaw (6 = 1/2t) equal to 50 percent of the wall thickness, but it is clearly not prudent to allow flaws of this size to remain. Therefore, the allowable flaw depths for embedded flaws have been limited to 25 percent of the wall thickness in j total depth, and the upper curve of Figure 6-3 has been labelled accoroingly. l l 4 4 9 newan io 6-12

TABLE 6-1 EMBEDDED FLAW CASES ANALYZED FOR THE INLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD Dietance Embedded Flaw Depth (in.) y, Surface A.R.10 t i A. R. Gt i A.R. 3 : 1 T/14 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 $m0.M8 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.450 0.470 0.450 0.470 0.450 0.470 3T/.32. 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 , Sa o.m 0.7 0.70504 0.7 0.70504 0.7 0.70504 7/g 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 $=l.3tb 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9400 0.9 0.9400 0.9 0.9400 3T/ g 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.45 0.60 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 0.75 0.90 0.75 0.90 ga t.04 1.05 1.20 1.05 1.20 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.410 40 1.35 g 79 40 1.35 7 j7n 1.40 1 1 T[i 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 '. 4 0.6 0.8 0.6 '0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 I" E-1.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8801 1.8 1.8801 1.8 1.8801 l an.43oin in 6-13

SURFACE s N N N \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ // / / / a = the maximum embeaded flaw size / 0 (in depth direction) allowable / per ASME XI* l EMBEDDED / S = the corresponding: minimum depth-e l FLAW of an embedded flaw (less than DOMAIN which it must be considered a a=a, surface flaw) S, a g = -= FOR ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS: asa

• NOTE:

If a > a, the flaw must be 0 charactefizedasasurface flaw, with depth = a + 6. ) Figure 6-1. Embedded vs. Surface Flaw em.ca.no 6-14

ed A m n $n9 3 MV M~ . _ }. :r.- - - :-ir.d=J. = W. -s_. - :.n:n.

=:

'_.:.a -+.- - u --4 :: :. =- J-5 j r.3..-. W n ;._~I.O: s{n ; c -~ L---- = .t = a= -= a _:: L=. : : -.q:.: =.:.r u, .--t.:"- m O 4. . - ur- = .1-r vo

.7 : '"-

e -.*!=.= _51 E..=..C=_.%. _:-::

=A~_i !_=1. __:_v..r.=.i'.

. ~.1. X. i

i!.=_ h..i3..-D_:E_nu...'. ; _6i E.i.!...=

= =. o. ._JY52fi: " 9 E'. M E.I'-M W-- El+-.".- ~~ i 'M.1=?# TJ i ' N

p".;,) 2,{.T1:1H-purpuy-i _ --.;,.... rl {=[j: g -...,.i: ". :. '_. :.

2: uo ., r _... ..;.z. .u..

_- H.}:...:.::.=._.:._..-

r.:. __.. a ._t. g... a m c : --y V... ' '~... = _: _ n.:. "c

j' '..

.r_.-

r.

.t.. g i-

. : t.. _-- :r- : 1 T :...

--I a ......t_:m ._....i_.r._ -r { i- - i\\ - - ^ ~ - TV- -l j W '\\::.% ....__'=__i. ~~' a 1 rr. ; _: j : : r: _:.. ;.rl_r.... o 3 r ' ;r.g - ...9._.. = :]:.;::: s\\ z.. t.:.\\ :- t -.- - t. t .- r g n 'n "s..r--. N*k h b~ '.(.=.M22 = = h_ _!" N ~ =.'. IWr N d

• i l -N_i ; -

r5-=.EU~- ki=.i. J ..1.:. . _ ] g [..- l : - p:.;;:{_[-_:.j_.._,nr:,7 _:. :l :.. ~ :- c - -. _q 4 "D ...._....4

:.:. f_.... _

._.t.-

3

:.~~..::.:._7..r. {= a. y._. ::......=..: &..._.::_:. -. t q..u.. :.:.... _.

.:::r : _ _.. _ =. :

=.

--f =- 1:d ui[p.;;.. 4.: - k=,=. :.j k iij:_E_=4f;i= i.{ =, -~.-! p [ -1 4=: i=~=.-- 5=':Mi+ = =i:i.- &==H W e==W=1=ris-b-41=-M - ~.7. ! ;.J.};9afy#.j:i'.~E-F.E,#. -f# :'="-k:.j i:h7:.~=-{. ~.i.n i ::( ' Q *I d .i[.d-hNi'5.]'$5.1=:N# 1.T_r Ei' }.5Mf. i:hE-Nh:--M. N- -!_l b o. He_ - d: :%_ l :=_:. :\\ _ h 4 =:)-. :r):.:._ . =..._ __ '}.._::.r_=- 4 e ~ ..- } -- ' ' = a 1. 4 .~:._..-... -...._ e g ' ~ ' ~=... _ L':.._.

._ :.=.: r__:.: =.. _ :.:. =.. _ " =_ = : : ', ~_\\-=__.

. r__. _:. r.z.:..:._..__ C a f2 =-tv 4:

.:::V ::.

2.- - :_-_ u ~ :-. Q_ 3 v -Jr r. ; ' -- r :. :. -~. L :a =_T:1--- , A =r _3_. ;. _. 1 : :.-- _g.__

.= -: l'i. : :. fJ g

= _. -. =~-- , -q -==. =.ra g -- u:- -::~. -- _ : --

---

= -

- :=-. z__ :_

1. g

- 1. :. : : - '..-. . :r : l - :.4.. - :_.3,:n.: g.. =.=. _j_. (2..t..--., _. __ -' . a.. f... _.. r g e ~ _ - +- 3 _ _:.., 7. ; _..._ m _. )

_;_ __;;.,1 a,

"a, y;. ] _ _:2.;_ _:). ;.,j...... _-W _--... a

==-- : ::. _ _r _r_ w- = m-. - -=. _. = - . =:==_:..= ~ ===.\\-v -+.=v---=____.__ s_ _ = -

. - :.. _

= -,--r.= Ld.J --- b :" _ ~~=~. f. 2:. '. E --' _ _: Ja '. ~ C :: :. O --M a ' _--=:rs O- .1 . _.:d:=:_ra .. 6 x 2 E u - :F_ _ - . ~ _. .-1_._ (.. 4 --- F_- t-

r.q 9

_\\u:-%: - --M A n.:r_- . -t -z :1:u::..: ~ 1 :- [ -t ,[ h* N i 2 . -- r : c.;

::._. - _.. t. _- N 1 %. = li \\

gg,,_ ' Y u. T 1 _f _=_=._i-WA=A Ma==t==== te-s i s

====-r=-ss=?=- =-c. n

- @\\z.:. M :::.l :,:.y- :u r -\\ N :--.

n-

t..'=

:: _:___==.

.=_=.=._. 1 7 ~; -- P--- - -E ~.b_:-

2. =:-v : :: :m-rf- __--

_ _ _ _ -= _-N 4 A. ~. i ._=. :: w -. m s _; .= .m._,._,... -.m~7 '*. _4. _ --h_- -- ' --"_-1._, __.___: l

ry_. -.-: 1p. :-

. -- --}.=_.7 / :i- {Egi;.: g.Q.Wrg 3"=' _',4.- '$ j ..___-I '*:.*~_'*, ~__'_'.',._.....,l_.*_.{**...,{ _:_.,,,... _._.._ t.2..... ':~.~d_".*~. .z '~^.W

*.~.

~_~A .~?'-'. ~r' 2*:.^*'. a .-----~=J'=,~1.-= =_ r== = -1~~_,,:.'.- *T. =... _. 2 L.,--- - - k -_'~s.X5_:-= . - =. y m ___=t.__=_...._'. _.=-' _ _ _.==: =- _r2._4. : h .:.: tu 1:=_. y.__ 4 :._'._ n n : :}u+= u

1--- _. -

4 --r- = r. = p-- e

=_ v.:.. _z _ ' =..'. :

..:..:_,=.-,yf _:::=..:..=.__~ - __ _.t --.. - - _- ;.. t,._. [ ..y 3 .D* l n=W:E ::: N ?=_== =h R=-~D . Sf*=== = ;:if:'~-Ti= :: h.:. : ~_ H.. C.~~ Q --. --- M : * *}. = z: = r: -- =. T: ;. ~

T = =_ =: r _=.- =. W'.==::. : &y*. ;:=_-

-- = s : = : =- . nRf- :-- = .. - -~~: : -

n

% ~ n R

• I

~ R 6-15

48/45/10930 1 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.1 3 .. h. 1=: :!b rustooto FLAW ai/. F

=- l==_:

' FLAWS WITH a EmaEi:: =E 0*12 -s;- :.~' w3 g~CONFIGUR ATION ry ni:".",i; : ""n.. ..i-" ~ ~ ' " " * * " ' " "- ABOVE THIS LINE ARE '~iilEi fii EEid:E -!=il M*"j"!M5}ii=:: ifit !E%J = NOT ALLOWABLE -- jEy:?q-E1=ii y-iis n~~- : 0.11 - ' ' E :._ i =E:i:f..-.: i(:: =E E- - E .u !!E9" i

ir.li!.I is =Eif E E~}i!!ZiiM !sEi!Efii :sii N SURFACE / EMBEDDED jiff 1.

EM FLAW DEM ARCATION

r O.10 i hr/ EEgEggj LINE UP TIL 1980 CODE '

"Miii P ' i

sE :A :!-EEi

- !Efi:dE rs. .=2-

.3.,.Jr.: - -y-

-. f

=ut =: =t!4

.=g3.==:=:" :

~ - a .:n :n:u 27 L. _g :.=: :1rn J. .T !EtMM =itiAra=it /!! itiitt=iE-iE a ~.;;=2Eilik [ 0.08 N # ~ !IWM575EffEE 'l U.W*.8 N48W E5 i/i5ij f.'=[5i 5i-5:-E5 is@I i I 0.07 INsuRIAsl ffNksEYY bbsNk E iEM "l=8" - -=II "EEiIE9"-E ii *iEE IEiEEI O Z %ws IN his M N 5 M 55l:E N g 0'06 .-REGION MUF BL..;

.p pr.;,: 39g, --;g gj-

- - - ---ng-- ---;gn;.--.gggg g-- A gi

.:CONstDE R EO

-= h 98UhFACE [ii[jEf. fili? =Eji:fi,}ip:{j :i!Eggi:! =E ?j:{ii "2 $$Y - -fi M/ =%s65hi isi}i -i5 Win-si-tm;}Ei i iEN ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS z O.04 -~

if:=i=f"?r-EE" M-i

E ii" E-ti i 4

~P = . ii Z" .~ :/ ~ ;",':g. = i.?F.-i" " " '.O ..:i.E "s-"' =r pi. (ON THIS SIDE OF

n-fii:. "= :- : (if :fi;3:ii

=:..i 9.: is i....: si.nu lii s: ".: i. DEMAR%AT!ON LINE) . M !? T.' tin... .l..f ""ii"!!7EPT.!!.'....: Z. ARE ACCEPTABLE PER ~ 0.03 SM l./~ f.E

== u:i-ii li s =.

.Emm ui = un = :

i=

CRITERIA OF IWB 3000

=n=E r; 2

5 i ~ EI EE AS LONG AS ,a,0'25 t. 0'02 fi'. ' : j. : :d:i iMMi !!!iffii "#'H il: =!i ti#isE" =ii.r.lil j t i O.01 II i=II 5 . ~ =d!F :=i 15 5Ei 5 :.il-i : ^.'.h!.: --- !iijf!? 3: =t:i-- i ' il 0 ' ti -I 'i " ib- ' Ii ~ ilii i N' =" 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE d) 4 Erbedded Fisw Evaluation Chart for inlet No:zle to Shell Weld c "- (for Longitudinal ar.d Circumferential Flaws) l l ki m 71 s.13

1 ~ I)I 4 k)I s% 1 I /l' .14 .e l \\ s g .14 a.'l,t it i i ~' i i j I 1 i i I .12 l i .11 i l J-i .10 4=f t l E .09 1 i n(.08 l S 5 I I [*07 i 4 "ajt i. I i. i A,- ! d k 3~a =.1.0 E *06 i I I ff I- '" i'yt i d.05 4' 4 i i l E f* i i . m#< i y i

• 03 i #

i j i i Y * ! 0.E ~ ~ j .02 g 1=== ACCEPTAACE SIAND4tDS OF TABLIS ~ ~ M i .Iws snig m> tws asiz aivsu taitTOW 2 .01 j j l j. i-5 FiGOR TC-t980-t0!T10N .00 ~~'I I I i "* F 4 8 5MW"Y '.0 .1 .2 .3 ,4 .5 FLAW SHAPE (a/l) Figure 6-4. Illustration of Advantages gained by Analysis for Embedded Flaws at the Inlet Nozzle to Vessel Weld t newom io g.17 ~

i. SECTION 7 REFERENCES

1. ASME Code Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components",1974 Edition (Summer 75 Addendum) and 1983 Edition (Summer 83 Addendum); In addition these specific addenda contain updates in standaras and data used for the evaluation charts:

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 Inter.al Longitudinal Semi-Elliptic Surface Flaws in a Cylinder Under Arbitrary Leading," ASTM SlP-677, 1979, pp. 365-380.

3. Newman, J. C. Jr. and Raju, I. S., "Stress Intensity Factors for Internal Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Pressure Vessels", ASME Trans., Journal of Pressure Yessel Technology, Vol. 102, 1980, pp. 342-346.

4. 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.

5. Shah, R. C. and Kobayashi, A. S., "Stress Intensity Factor for an Elliptical track Under Arbitrary Leading", Engineering 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",

presented at ASMC Pressure Vessel and Piping Conferens., Portland Oregon, I June 1983. Paper 33-PVP-92. I

7. Marston, T. V. et. al. "Flaw Evaluation Procedures: ASME Sectinn XI" Electric Power Research Institute Report EPRI-NP-719-SR, August 1978.

i nu,co.u io 71

8. Congedo, T. V.,- et, al. "Heatup and Cooldown Limit Curves for the Alabama j.

Power Co. Joseph M. Farley Unit 2 Reactor Vessel," Westinghouse Electric Co. WCAP 10910 Rev. 1, February 1986. 9.'Congedo, T. V., et. al. "Heatup and Cooldown Limit Curves for the Alabama Power Co. Joesoph M. Farley Unit 1 Reactor Vessel," Westinghouse Electric WCAP 10934, April 1986. t

10. USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.99, Effects of Residual Elements on Predicting Radiation Damage to Reactor Vessel Matertals, July 1975; Rev. 1: April 1977; Rev. 2 (in printing) 1988.

11.'USNRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG 0800.

12. Plane, Strain Crack Toughness Testing of High Strength Metallic Materials, ASTM STP 410, March 1969.

13. WCAP-10019, "Summary Report on Reactor Vessel Integrity for Westinghouse Operating Plants," December, 1981.

14. WCAP-10319, "A Generic Assessment of Risk from Pressurized Thermal Shock of L

Reactor Vessels on Westinghouse Nuclear Power Plants," July, 1983.

15. Heyer, T. A., et. al. "Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of the Farley Unit 1 Reactor Vessel" Westinghouse Report WCAP-9623, Nov. 1979, i

16. Schmertz, J. C., et. al. "Fracture Mechanics Evaluation of the Farley Unit 2 Reactor Vessel," Westinghouse Electric WCAP 9641, Dec. 1979.

17. "Summary of Evaluations Related to Reactor Vessel Integrity report i

performed for the Westirghouse Owner's Group, Westinghouse Electric Corporation May, 1982.

18. Letter 0. D. Kingsley, WOG, to H. Denton, NRC, "West'.nghouse Owner's Group Activities Related to Pressurized Thermal Cr.ack," OG-73, July 15, 1982.

7-2

i

19. Letter from O. D. Kingsley, WOG, to H. Denton, NRC, "Westinghouse Owner's Group Activities Related to Pressurized Thermal Shock," OG-79, September 2, 1982.

20. SECY-82-465, United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Policy Issue, "PressurizedThermalShock(PTS),"November 23, 1982.

P

21. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,10CFR50, "Analysis of Potential Pressurized Thermal Shock Events," Federal Register Vol. 50. No. 141, July 23, 1985.

i 4 9 [ i t k i 'A 4 g i suwau to 73 w ee,, e.,,

APPENDIX A FLAW EVALUATION A-1 INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION PROCEDURE The evaluation procedures contained in ASME Section XI are clearly specified in p6ragraph IWB-3600. Use of the evalutic'1 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 (t) and depth dimension (a) for surface flaws, (2a) for embedded flaws, including its distance from the clad-base metal interface (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 1-5 in the main text): Flawshapeparameter,f o Flaw depth parameter, *g o surfaceproximityparameter(forembeddedflawsonly),f o where t = wall thickness of region where indication is located (not including clad thickness) ler.gth of indication t = i nu.+wo A-1 I c

(< I depth of surface flaw; or half depth of embedded flaw in the a = width direction distance from flaw centerline to surface (for embedded flaws o = only, 6 = S a) smallest distanen from edge of embedded flaw to surface S = Once the above parameters have been determined and the determination made as to whether the indication is embedded or surface, then the two parameters may be plotted directly on the appropriate evaluatien chart. Its location on the chart determines its acceptability immediately. Important ObservatiNs on the Handbook Charts i Although the use of the handbook charts is conceptually straight forward, y 3 experience in their development and use has led to a number of observations which will be helpful, s i Surface Flaws An example handbook chart for surface flaws is shown in Figure A-1.1. The i flaw indication parameters (whose calculation is described above) may be, - i plotted directly on the chart to determine acceptability. The lower two curv>as shown (labelled code allowable limit) are simply the acceptance 4 standards from IWB-3500, which are tabulated in Section XI. If tne plotted i point falls below these lines, the indication is acceptable without analytical i justification having been required. If the plotted point falls between the Code allowable limit lines .d the lines labellec "upper limits of acceptance j by analysis" it is acceptab'iv by virtue of its meeting the requirements of i IWB-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 the main body of this report. There are three of these lines shown in the charts, labelled 10, l 20 and 30 years. The years indicate for how long the acceptance limit applies, from the date that a flaw indication is discovered, based on fatigue t crack growth talculations. l m u.-o.o*" " A-2 , -. = -. _ -. - -.- -

t As may be seen in Figwe A-1.1, the chart gives results for surface fisw shapes up to a semi-circular flaw (a/t = 0.5). For the unlikely occurrence i-of flaws which the value of a/t eneeds 0.5, the limits on acceptance for a/t = 0.5 should be used, according to ASME Code requirements." Embedded flaws An example chart for embedded flaws is shown in Figure A 1.2. The heavy diagonal line in the figure can be used directly to determine whether the indication should be characterized as an embedded flaw or whether it is I sufficiently close to the surface that it must be considered as a surface flaw i (by the rules of Section XI). If the flaw parameters produce a plotted point below the heavy diagonal line, it is acceptable by analysis if the point is belcw the appropriate a/t limit line. If it is above the line, it cannot be justified by analysis, and is, therefore, not acceptable. For cases where there are several acceptance limit lines, interpolation between adjacent lines is recommended. A worked example is provided as embedded flaw Example 5. The outermost lines should be used as the limits, with no interpolation beyond them. For example, for a/t values greater than O 333, use the line for a/t = 0.333 in the figure, and for a/t values less. than 0.167, use the line for a/t = 0.167. Beyond these outer limits, the analyses have shown that-the sensitivity to flaw shape is small. 1 4 For cases where there are no branching limit lines below the heavy diagonal l line (see Figure A-2.6 for example) then all flaws classified as embedded are acceptable. The only limitation is, as discussed in Section 6.5: h<0.25 [ Note that the embedded flaw evaluation charts are applicable for flaws near j either the inner or outer vessel surface, and the parameters "S" and "6 are i defined from the nearest surface. mwm in A-3

Another important observation is the procedure to be used for an embedded flaw whose plotted point falls above the heavy diagonal line, and must therefore be considered a surface flaw. An example of this is provided in "Embedded Flaw Example 1" below, but it is important to note that when this must be done, the depth of the flaw is redefined. The new depth is equal ta 2a + S, as shown in the example, which becomes the effective crack depth a* to be used in the surface flaw chart in such cases. Surface Flaw Examole 1 Suppose an. indication has been discovered which is a surface flaw, and has the following characterized dimensions: 0.357 in, a = 1.783 in, t = 7.75 in. t = The flaw parameters for the use of the charts are {= 0.046 { 0.20 = i Plotting these parameters on Figure A-1.1 it is quickly seen that the indication is acceptable by analysis. To justify operation without repair it is necessary to submit this plot along with this technical basis document to the regulatory authorities. Embedded Flaw Examole 1 A longitudinal

• embedded flaw of 2.0" x 5.00", located within 0.10" from the surface, was detected.

Determine whether this flaw should be considered as an embedded flaw. nu,-o.o A-4

t r 1 .2.0" 2a = 0.16" -S- = S + a = 0.16 + 1/2 (2.0) = 1.16 6 = 7.75" t = 5.0" t =

• Note:

longitudinal herein means relative to the vessel or nozzle centerline, not the weld length. For the nozzle inner radius, and other regions of a nozzle, longitudinal is relative to the nozzle centerline.

and, 1/2 x 2.0" a

= 1.0" = 4 Using Figure A-1.2: a 1.0 7 7 75 = 0.13 = 6 1.16 7 7 75= 0.15 = Since the plotted point (X) is above the diagonal line, the flaw must be considered a surface flaw instead. Now, since the flaw must be considered as a surfaca flaw, the depth must be redafined as the distance from the surface to the deepest point of the flaw. This is equivalent to circumscribing the embedded flaw with a semi-elliptical surface flaw. Operationally, the paraceters are recalculated as follows. Defining a* as the corrected crack depth for the surface flaw, c* = 2a + S = 2.16" t = 5.0" {=0.278 n o, +- o A-5

t {-=0.432 Referring to Figure A-1.1 for the surface flaw, it is quickly seen that this flaw is much too large to be acceptable, and must be repaired. Embedded Fitw Example 2 (Point A) Suppose an indication has been discovered which is embedded, and has the r following characterized dimensions: 1.15 in. I 2a = 1.72 in. t = 10.53 in. t = I 0.86 in. S = Calculating the flaw paramoters, we have: {= 0.0545 { 0.333 1 = f=0.136 S + a = 1,43 in, 6 = Plotting these parametsrs on the embedded flaw evaluation chart, Figure A-1,2 it may be quickly seen that the indication is ombedded, and is acceptable by analysis (point A), since it lies below the a/t = 0.333 limit case. { 1 1 t 9 E i asta,+mu u A-6

Embedded Flaw Example 3 (Point B) Suppose an indication has been discovered which is embedded, and has the following chcracterized dimensions: l 0.84 1.68 a = 2a = 2.55 t = -10.53 t = 1.52 S = Calculating the flaw parameters, we have: {= 0.08 j,= 0.33 S + a = 2.37 6 = f = 0.225 Plotting these parameters on Figure A-1.2 (point B) we see that the indication is a.cceptable, since it falls below the line which is applicable to a/t = 0,333. (Note that if a/t = 0.167, for example, the indication would not be acceptable, since point B would lie above that line, as may be seen in-the figure'. ) me.-m i. A-7

Embedded Flaw Example 4 (Point C) A longitudinal embedded flaw of 1.15" x 5.38" was detected at a distance S = 1.075 in, underneath the surface. Evaluate the flaw for code acceptance for continued service without repair. The flaw geometry parameters are determined as follows: 7.75" t = 1.24" S = S + a = 1.937" 6 = ~6.52" t = and 1/2 x 1.395" a = .698" = 6 1.937 7 =(g) = 0.2e, { = h = 0.107 a .698 7 = 7 7 = 0.09 Evaluate the flaw by referring to Fig. A-1.2 and plotting the point (as point C). This is above the code acceptance limit line for a/t = 0.167, which should also be used for a/t < 0.167; therefore, the flaw is not acceptable, and must be repaired. m u,-o.m o A-8

b UPPER LIMITS OF ACCEPTANCE BY ANALYSIS INDICATIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE AB0VE THE ANALYSIS LIMIT LINES 10 s l .I' 2-. / /-. s / IN THIS ZONE. INDICATIONS .,IC year s. / e / / + -~ f ARE ACCEPTABLE BY ANALYSIS S f 70- ye<trs 7, ' k..,..h _3 /- /.. /..~ PER IWB 3600 ~-,p q z /..-y y \\ \\ \\' f / / T.4 . / r g 3

- 2

-.7 .. A .r.. 7 9 / 8 r r X . / -f i r Y E N ' / [ . ) CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT SINCE 1983 WINTER pf. y ,[,/[ -O - - p AggEnguy pr f f... y c f-- f [*: z .L FLAWS FLOTTED BELOM THE APPLICABLE 2 M#,i

1. l

_ 2 ._ 44 g 2; .2 ,4s 5 CODE ALLOWAELE LIMIT : "CODE ALLOWABLE LIMIT" LINE ARE ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT ANALYSIS OR

PRIOR TO 1983 WINTER +

FUTURE MONITORIMG. 2

A.DDEN. DUM I

.i J I - o O 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 FLAW SHAPE (a/fl Figure A-1.1 Example of Surface Flaw Evaluation an.-.wi i.

48/45/10930 1 SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE ^* O.13

guago'ogo,Gw7i f fi

$p.l.'.. i '. '. SURFACE / EMBEDDED w iii.j:i-

ii-i - ":;: ::r : q~.i

..i con McV R_ ATio N u 1.' = 33 .S' = .i. b "; FLAW DEM ARCATION 0.12 iiiiiii' =: - ! X J'iT!= fr. !!!-hiu. J.lii /ii LINE, UP TIL 1980 CODE =. r :: "C 5-E -7

• EMBEDDED FLAWS

= u.: ~

7.'..

.:b = g': 'q- ;f=:... up u ::7 0.11 'Z 5 =. .. u.: !"~ r.P 5-E !!.ef =fi if: PLOTTED IN THIS h!!/ n.. .it= Fir =. n= ar : : I ~ ia.f'. p: 0.10 ~ =i.:ii:- :. !=+;i i:p. APPLICABLE a/.LIN E) = --.l l". '.... n*ni [; :.1.T"T '.:;if . = =: ... :iii ii :

=

ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE =

=

r .= :e /p 2 .. :.;u u z..;- .T., 0.09 =. f: y. 39:f;i : =g:; a/4 = 0.333 = 3 0.08 - !1\\4ME i 17.- idO.skWh i+' ~ D".ji. E - a/t = 0.167 g .A +segsp iii :f :

.fi}gg..

. :;;;M 0.07 -s'unF1ct E N w R:l!!

lle !.f!!! l=~ iiff inf:i f54 iiEi-n

!!fr:" h"FUws ik T'His' i!/s: Ein rijp%=-. : bli lE "iihi: M zr 0.06 atosoN Must at /: ~/- :via: :.. p.. r. l.: O 2coNsiornto g 'isVRFACE P: !!; [Si ii7 - ~q niij:i -l! 0.05 'nAws . +ic u; ........ f' j ' /-F if' -i -i'.:. THIS REGION ARE OM "ii N EMBEDDED FLAWS IN pp r.7.t _ 7 ACCEPTABLE PER p '/ CRITERIA'OF IWB 3600 ~ 0.03 ..1 tv: .f: / iri-i lj. 0.02

[fi/

= IF PLOTTED POINT FALLS BELOW THF APPLICABLE

=

a// LINE f . j.. : -: :ii: i !Fii - Jf l--

j -

. p-0.01 f

~ 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (j) Figure A-1.2 Example of Embedded Flaw Treatment A-10 m

~ A-2 BELTLINE (INCLUDING MIDDLE-TO-UPPER SHELL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELD, AND i LOWER-TO-MIDDLE SHELL CIRCUMFERENTIAL WELDS, AND LONGliUDINAL SEAk WELDS) i A-2,1 SURFACE FLAWS i The geometry and terminology used fv flaws in the beltline region is depicted [ in Figure A-2.1. The following parameters must ce determined for surface flaw. l evaluation with the cherts. Flawshapeparameter{ o Flawdepthparameterf o where a - the surface flaw depth detected, (in.) t - the surface flaw length detected (in.) t - wall thickness at the beltline (t = 7.75") The surface evaluation' charts for the beltline are listed below: o Figure A-2.2 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw _ _ Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw Figure A-2.3 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline o X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Lengitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-2,4 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline Inside Surface 1 Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw 1 Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw Figure A-2.5 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline o Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw mwomo A-11 l

i N A-2.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS The geometry and terminology used for embedded flaws at beltline is depicted in Figure A-1.1. Basic Data: t = 7.75 in. Distance of the centerline of the embedded flaw te the 6 = surface (in.) Flaw depth (Defined as one hal' of the minor diameter) (in.) a = Flaw len'gth (Major diameter) (.in.) t = a, Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which = it must be considered a surface flaw, per Section XI characterization criteria. The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw-Flawshapeparameter,f o Fladepthparameter,{ o surfaceproxiI4ityr.srameter,f o The evaluation chart for embedded flaws in the beltline is shown in Figure A-2.6. Ay embedded flaw in this region will be acceptable regardless of its size, shape and location (as long as { < 0.125) as shown in Figure A-2.6 and discussed in Section A-1. This determination can be easily made by plotting the indication parameters on the figure, to determine if it lies below the appropriate demarcation line (i.e. embedded not surface). t nu.. we A-12

WALL T ICKNESSt I 6-H -i-~f f dJ I 35.C6" FLANGE TO SHELL % ELD - M p \\ t t 96.07" l MIDDLE-TO-UPPER " ~ ~ ~ " " - ~~~~~* CIRCUMFERENTIAL % ELD TYPICAL EMSEDED FLAW INDICATION f ,1 7.88" I00,53" f E 1 is'&SS, C7;'CWerRBM u r % ELD l 100.66" I h ? 4: U LO%ER HEAD RING TO o "~~~~- - ' " " ~ ~ ~ ~ LO%ER SHELL % ELD o LOWR HEAD RING TO o i LO%ER HEAD % ELD ~ ~ ~ ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 f \\ l e 5.00" NOTE: THICKNESSES DO NOT INCLUDE I INSIDE CLADDING ~l TYPICAL SURFACE FLAW INDICATION Figure A-2.1 Geometry and Terminology for Flaws at the Beltline nu. o.m. ie A-13

LEGEND 20 A - The 10, 20, 30 year io m acceptable flaw limits. -30Fa B - Within this zone, the A surface flaw is acceptable W j p 3 by ASME Code analytical i i u j p l criteria in IWB-36f'O. 18 g C - ASME Code allowable since 1983 Winter Addendum. 16 ll/ D - ASME Code allowable ::rior i 14 to 1983 Winter Addendum. i / fB ll i 12 l l I i ll'- { l us 10 q fi, c i l O 3: ll i ^ 8; l' I g i ) 6 C A" O Westinghouse 1987 Y l

7 D

.....on""' ,,4 ,,,,,g O I l I O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 ' 0.5 FLAh SHAPE (a#) Figure A-2.2 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline (RTNDI < 270*F) X Inside Surface ' X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface ^ Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw ~ nn, omse,e

LEGEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. / so,20 3OUT3 B - Within this zone, the ~ g surface flaw is acceptable 20 J l by ASME Code analytical criteria in 114 -3600. 18 C - ASME Code allowable since 16 1983 Winter Addendum. D - ASME Code allowable prior 14 7 to 1983 Winter Addendum. B I 12 ? Ei 10 j O Y s ?. 6 4 C O "l#7 4 l I .:r: D I l 2 l 0 I 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 FLAW SHAPE (a#) Figure A-2.3 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline (RTNDT < 220*F) X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential flaw

1..,.

ou...

e l e r b c o.m al n iru s t a i t epc. s. pd em een i hei0 rm tct0 lhld ai c y6 7 b bd 8 el ,al3 a aA 9 y e a-w w 1 w nsn8 o or oia1 D 0a e N 3l z 1 lA l e s E ,f we l l t to sadn ar an o G E 0e il oi e i n L 2l hfC et eW d t a dn d n ,b a a eEi oi o3 t 0t ncMr CW C8 s w 1 p iaSe 9 e a e hfAt E3 E1 W l ec tr i M8 M w f h c iuyr S So O a Ta Wsbc A At l l F a i l t A B C D a n n e g i r k C D d e A\\ 5 i u f t m 0 e i u n g c i n r l o i t L C le B l X 4 e 0 ss C' e w V w a 3 a l / o F r l f t d c e e ) a c d N. i 3 # e a d l a R f e i r,'lls 0 ( r b E r u m P o S E f A i e~ H t i,' S r X ',i a ' ; W'. h A: C 'e [ 2 L n e c l lo [ 0 F o c a n' in,, t f r i a f i, a r u l u u S I g' l S a e v e d i i,; E d i s 1 s t 0 4 n u 2 I O I A e X l r l; i u i g ll;;l p i F O 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 4 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 g5 I$uO 3<$ i i a .n a

LEGE1D A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. B - Within this zone, the surface flaw is acceptable - f ?3,! by ASME Code analytical i i y criteria in Ile-3600. Is-4 C - ASME Code allowable since 1 16 ...p 1983 Winter Addendum. (B D - ASME Code allowable prior 14 to 1983 Winter Addendum. g E f = 12 I h T Ei 10 = o. 3:< s d 6 ) C "I 4 D 2 l 'l I I 0 O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 FLAW SHAPE (a#) Figure A-2.5 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline _ Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw ress,-emee se

\\ SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARC ATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.13 t:El i %: :ii W sTo'6ED E ai /t: up: iiid:i =

-

!i: =

FLAWS WITH a 'L' +.93-.,. + CONFIGURATION r)."# g .nLn. M"'A:. .j, t c.i =i ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " " ~~ "' s' 0*12 !!!- #8% Eiii= eiif:i si!= :si 21 ili ABOVE THIS LINE ARE !Eiif-

.n NOT ALLOWABLE nj g'..

..... u;g. ;7*;=:".. "U3:r;g",,. "!!ifiP = .=:" ur .:a: O.11

ir G E :i=0

' "E-Eli!!/di# iWi!!!Fif!! Jil: N SURFACE / EMBEDDED ~; yliff Li"' rfi;:! FLAW DEM ARCATION 0*10 4;f si.iu-;i" g LINE UP TIL 1980 CODE r_ .r.i tij- ;iiis 12.af;;; i. p .tusi u' i ~ i U = i 'f' ~ ] O'09 I'ik 23I N5 [5.!I[ -F--'. M[-'i !55 5'N'#ii.- sh 55Ef i WM */4 i*!**## !# M ^ ,i 0 08 a

e.,.m- -m/u= =wEm 0 07 in; fii.l' O : f. i::.nii! f".!!~25 iirf: iijii-

-lij "-. =:- :-u r fii; "--r - ~ .g sumFAct- ~ h ~ -":::.:tu;ta 5. Ni[ '.'.' E5iT[.iniN}N !!55j55 RNNix :!!!IEi 0.06 j u s m mis W(9 .79... .... w.....:Wi .,e r: : n :- n=:r: Z

MEGION MUST sE f~; ;.r.;f- ;

,. iggg.. ;;;:y;..

.g;g;

- -" b 4"; -. 4 CJN SIDE R E D - ~~ h fl,yg,,,,, {[ hSuRFACE iM[.:fiE "Ei tir ;pp. ii.Q;i,i-zii{i!;l ~{i 0.05 j7j ji 3;

_;; 3;ggi;. _;5 p_

i ii

jgi j

1 firf.E sip X:

i. s i i. -Eiji-

j i.N ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS "js:

n{n (ON THIS SIDE OF ..: s. r:;4i: -" ' i.,3::.is ii " uz

_n

-,,la.;- r}r ".i". DEM ARKATION LINE) 7:" -i : f. .if...- - t;u7 ARE ACCEPTABLE PER n n .-- - r r. --

ii" ". / p}f

lii..je :.:it;H CRITERIA OF lWB 3600 i

f= iistiti Ei: wi-2 0.02 5:l. AS LONG AS,a40.25 d: / -==3= :Hiii ab.fi== p==n = .ja; t r ~ ~"f/ !j" 3;iti.; :ini i Ei:: :i .~ ij;t..j ji i.. i sj 0.01 f. !!ds - = " h... in - =i: fFi!- .:iii-i= i:Cai- - 1i 0 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f) Figure A-2.6 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline X Inside Surface Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface X Ertedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw n u.- m in se A-18

t I A-3 INLET N0Z2LE TO SHELL WELD (PENETRATION) A-3.1 SURFACE FLAWS The geometry and terminology for surface flaws at the inlet nozzle to shell weld is depicted in figure A-3.1. The following parameters must be determined t for surface flaw evaluation with the charts Flawshapeparameter{ o Flaw depth parameter 'g o where a = The surface flaw depth detected (in.) t = The surface flaw length detected (in.) t = Wall thickness at the inlet nozzle to vessel weld (t = 10.53") ~ The surface flaw evaluation charts for the inlet nozzle to vessel weld are F listed below: i Figure A-3.2 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld o X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw Figure A-3.3 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Wald o X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw Outside surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw Figure A-3.4 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld o Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw i X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential flaw i I 4 i j i me.was ie A-19

A-3.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS The geometrical description of an embedded flaw at the inlet nozzle to shall weld is depicted in Figure A-3.1. Basic Data: 10.53 in. t = Distance of the centerline of the embedded flaw to the 6 = surface (in.) Flaw depth (defined as one half of the minor diameter) (in.) a = Flaw length (major diameter) (in.) t = a, Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which = it must be considered a surface flaw, per Section XI characterization rules. The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw Flawshapeparameter,f o Flawdepthparameter,{ o surfaceproximityparameter,f o The evaluation chart for' embedded flaws: l l o Figure A-3.5 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld 1 Inside Surface Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw nu. wau io A-20

I m at 110 It l b D9LDDl0 PDtT T1011-V. ' SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW O.ISS HIN. CLADDING - - 155.5 10. E__! [ d( NOZZLE TO f j O.25 l

• p' LADDING 38,48 L

li i 1f ( + 27.47 + j 33.07 = 55.5 NOTES: I. OIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLAD 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES Figure A-3.1 Geomet y and Terminology for Flaws at the Inlet Nozzle to Shell Wold (Penetration) ws,-unss to g.g3 -,-.-.--n. a

e e l e r b c o. al n im s t a i ru t epc. s. pd i h ei0 m n rm tct0 eu ee ai c y6 ld l d 7 el . al3 b n bd 8 y e a - ae aA 9 snB wd w 1 w )r D 0a oiaW* od or N 3l Z I lA l e es E ,f we l l t m G sadn ar an o E 0e il oi e i e w l L 2l hfC et eW g a t a dn d n ,b l a eEi oi o3 e t w F 0t ncMr CW C8 s 1 p iaSe 9 e a e hfAt E3 E1 W l l f a M8 M ec tr i h c iuyr S9 So O i l t Ta Wsbc A1 At a n n e i r d e A B C D u f t m g d i u l g c p 5 e n r 1 3 0 W o i L C l l i. e hS X I o t w w a 4 e a l 0 l l F z F z d o e e N c d a d t f e e r b l u m ) n S E 3 # I a 0 ( r E o X P f A t H r S a W h C

e 1!

I A 2 L n e c "m[ 0 F o c a io,,,,, u u S i a f t f r a r u l S a e v e d E d i i s s t 1 2 n u I 0 I 3 I O Y l A 0 I e X 3 ru O>@ g i 2 F O. l glg ] O 0 8 6 4 2 0 8 6 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 7E= ?$$< u. 10 8860 40 3 2 1 91 Tg

LEGNO A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. 8 - Within this zone, the surface flew is acceptable 20 A by ASME pode analytical I ( N 2. criteria in 118-3600. In C - ASME Code allowable since I"3 UI"I'" ?s l 14 ~ D - ASE Code allowable prior to 1983 Winter Addendum. k = 12 8 h [ Ei 10 j f 0 3: 'O 3 s u. 6 4 i O Westandteaua 1987 0 l 0 I I I O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 FLAW SHAPE (a#) Figure A-3.3 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitudinal flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential flaw 29123 040888 10

LEGEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. .g y3 N B - Within this zone, the surface flaw is acceptable 20 l

y" 7

g ;

- l by ASME Code analytical t.; t l criteria in IWB-3600. 18 l 1 C - ASME Code allowable since 16 1983 Winter Addendue. D - ASME Code al'owable prior 14 7 to 1983 Pinter Addendum. ? 12 4 t = l 1 E 1 10 -T o l T 3 i T "I 8 \\.[-' l u. 6 I! l l C 1 1 e = = a io=7 l -e. D 11 I 2 j { l l" 'l 1 0 ' 0.5 O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 FLAW SHAPE (a#) Figure A-3.4 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal flaw X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential flaw w2. o.oue se

SURFACE / EMBEDDED FLAW DEM ARCATION LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE =5:Ni - :li5Ed'n:} i

r rih EM BEDDED FLAW

![ N E :i$5

_ FLAWS WITH 7 a I=-: . q ..q .,..;:CONFIGUR ATION f-.... j :. -u/ .w =: ,-.1..:.; n-0.12==: : ABOVE THIS LINE ARE f:;:. =hi A. 4 - -i:[.- hi4;i._ 1:;

i-NOT ALLOWABLE

~ =~ \\ /i....::h= 7..._ "~ i ?# 7;h O'11 ') ~ i:1 E '.~isi/'iL=i !!!#!!EE/d E!:i : N iSEP . i= I-== a= SURFACE /EM3EDDED f_tpi E iii FLAW DEM ARC ATION 7p -j:.jjf.== i-

Ei fjEr: '= =E

- =i: i=I!f i; 0.10 LINE UP TIL 1980 CODE

i n ii.f a i

;:=.=,

.ngii n_pu . iis ;; 3-EI!iiil Y! L :. ~i !!: :).f-5? [ifiirl!ii ii Mi!i-ii! 5 .h:!iii fpf ;iljEi ti jiij+ _si};i: ,K ii-;M i. .::ij h :;=p; /;;!![- = ~i%MjfdiEii=Sif.;.;!.filijjE :Ei;@~ji ] i'jEiiiii: 22' 7 l 'U8 hl::..W+.: **ao E t/ii-- 3Hli.=/#= aEi: E sitii 0.07 RA E! 2ili" Fi'i'.::1:::: Pf;[ : 'E=.:1- /.ir liii.. ~- I" P -rili: .:!!!:i! Z .: FLAWS IN THIS i!!/fi! 5i[5@ f N515:I!NI iiE". -'~:..":: : i f r 0.06 GREoiON Aeusiet 7.

'37--.

ggi.. ;.=.4;.

q" --"' "34";. :" O -" 4.

CONSIDERED

~ h til SUR F ACE ["ijEf.fiH "=ti~i !(. ij il ; ;=iiiii= j-il i

iit-u-.-

r - fi !iEf =il. ......J. -. 0.05 H FLAWS . "Y:ni - - ab= ' n i-.... ~ Ii! E 2 0'04 ~ (;i ~.fg4="ii ~_r~ i f.af- - ::12. - h: T-.... .i E: fi[; (ON THIS SIDE OF is!s u- "E utur T.k.: DEM ARKATION LINE) -ln ARE ACCEPTABLE PER e" 2.:/. (..-: ida: !!#7 : EE+ iiti E i== 4 CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 5/ Y I AS LONG AS' D( 0.25 i : 0.02 jijiji

Ji-:ig;iE=j=:i

-li:; t /

_p;r

nri jji-

~= i ..Y$ 0.01 . =ith:= g. it! .h =i p. 334.a u=

=-

i 0

0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f) Figure A-3.5 Evaluation Chart for Inlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface X Ertedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw n u.-c a u io A-25

A-4 OUTLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD The analyses of the outlet nozzle to vessel weld showed a very complex stress state in this region. Consequently two separate sets of evaluation charts were constructed. The geometry most nearly corresponding to the angle of the indication should be used, or if there is some doubt, use both sets of charts, and take the most limiting result. A-4.1 SURFACE FLAWS The geometry and terminology for surface flaws at the Outlet Nozzle Penetration is depicted in figure A-4.1. The following parameters must be prepared for surface flaw evaluation with charts, Flawshapeparameterf o Flawdepthparameter{ o where a - the surface flaw depth detected (in.) t - the surface flaw length detected (in.) t - wall thickness (t = 11.11) The surface flaw evaluation chart'for the Outlet Nozzle Penet tion, is listed below: o Figure A-4.2 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface 1 Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flew Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferential Flaw o Figure A-4.3 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface 1 Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw n u, ** " A-26

i o Figure A-4.4: Outside Surface Flaw Evaluation Chart - outlet nozzle full penetration, (longitudiral and circumferential) A-4.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS The geometry of embedded flaws at the Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld is depicted in Figure A-4.1. l Basic Data: 11.11 in. t = Distance from +,he centerline of the embedded flaw to the 6 = surface (in.) Flaw depth (Defined as one half of the minor diameter) (in.) a = Flaw length (Major diameter) (in.) t = Distance of the flaw to surface. (in terms of wall thickness 6 = e.g. 6 = 1/8 T, etc.) Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which a, it n.,t be considered a su' face flaw, per Section XI characterization rules. The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw Flawshapeparameter,f o Flawdepthparameter,{ o surfaceproximityparameter,f o Evaluation chart for embedded flaws: Figure A-4.5 A-27

f n ~ CIRCWFIAIKTIAl. 'N LONGITVolwtj, i 9.*2 9.12 T gR DIUS ESS L ( oi.5f30g-3.2s 9.12 - g /, N .40ZZLE To w n 'ESSEL 'nELD

• ypg) CLAD 2

44.53 i R s - 28 S7 - 3s..i 12.13 N l x H U f h h 1 -=- -- 35. 50 - -e-- 5I.00 - - NOTES: 1. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUCE CLAD

2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES Figure A-4.1 Geometry and Terminology for Flaws at the. Outlet Noz:le to Shell Weld n u. * "* * ' '

A-28

~ LEGEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year to f acceptable flaw limits. 1, s ogrs B - Within this zone, the A', by ASME Code analytical surface flaw is acceptable 20 r A I yl l 18 l; ) criteria in IWB-3600. l C - ASME Coda allowable since ll 1983 Winter Addendum. 16 .k.. 1 /f {-' D - ASME Code allowable prior j 14 i f to 1983 Winter Addendum. -6 d l B i 12 lh E ,l$ 10 lllL-t' o l d Q g a F 4 a I i u) aa. i 6 g. ) ]4,-. C O h h ige 7 4 1 7.4-ce :r: "-- D l 2 -f b l I ' d 'I I I 1 0 0 0.1 0.2 - 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ft./@ SHAPE la#) Figure A-4.2 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw P '- W Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential flaw 19323 040sas te J

20 !.EGEND A - The 10. 20, 30 year tO acceptable flaw limits. ! 1 8 - Within this zone, the 3 20 ll lA g surface flaw is acceptable by ASME Code analytical y .;l 1 7 ll criteria in Indt-3600. 18 l C - ASME Code allowable since 1983 Winter, Audendum. 16 D - ASME Code allowable prior 14 to 1983 Winter Addendum. 7 k i 12 a f I ,i 10 I' o is 4 8 7 d l U 6 j l C gm 4 l ,,ux;.; D 1 g 2 0 l I I : 1 N O u.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 I FLAW SHAPE (a#l Figure A-4.3 Evaluation, Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface X Surface flaw X ' Longitudinal Flaw Datside Surface Embedded flaw _X_ 'Circumferential Flaw nu.cosa se

LEGEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year accepte.ble flaw limits. s o' 2 o,3 07' B - Within this zone, the surface flaw is acceptable by ASME Code analytical 20 ( ,i 1 criteria in I'A-3500. la C - ASME Code allowable since 1983 Winter Addendum. 16 I ,J D - ASME Code allowa*cle prior to 1983 Winter Addendum. 14 q 1 7 us 10 o 3 Y a I U d 6 ..g gn C l .,i.. C Wessangheeses 1987 4 T U l i,"""innols i , c,,,,p l g; 2 , i. i. O I I O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 FLAW SHAPE (a#1 Figure A-4.4 Evaluation Chart for Reactor Vessel Beltline Inside Surface X Surface flaw X Longitudinal flaw X Outside Surface Erubedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw 23sh 640588IO

SURNACE/ EMBEDDED FLAW DEMARCATION LINE BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE 0.13 =ifi:t :!iiii4ti:1; n= :i iWiii6E57tsw =i /0: a!!= :iiri:i a -_IGU..R A...T.I.O. N., rf. d. =,7,. L.. .,./ - FLAWS WITH t CONF . T. 3,- 3a...; .y 0'12 JE!Hi~- .i/= d4id Enjail fii ABOVE THIS LINE ARE Mi' E !!!A ! ppv2:: NOT ALLOWABLE r,,. O*11 ""Eii; up' f y.: ......a . :Y au: :q;u-. O. 3 = 2: ~"=" =*~ "u =' N F ~ is/iih= iiifffPiE!/= di.j SURFACE / EMBEDDED F." -== :i=i3 1-10 ~ 'z; d!!/ ;." i -J4 :" /s=!:iihiH FLAW DEM ARCATION i 2}iiEnilig LiNE UP TlL 1980 CODE iisM=f. /iii _ir'iR it!}/ iE

== = I eT., O'09 liite ! i E9! :\\:! = /TF) liW Jiij@Wi!E fizii};!: 3 0.08 N IEIN i I -til5 M +.s ygae iiE /ij:::pj}};-/:j:n iEij"Eiiii:'i; ri.$1: .nL ;tif:i -"iEiii@f Ti{i:- li[ E. us=i: iiliv O.07 "' /fiP P 6 - ' -}if !!Efiir g sunrAct- 'T u!3;i f.! -d@ir tiEii E5iii:.iiiiiii: sjii.=rE.ne=c: i "!! FLAWS IN TnJs Ni[iIf iE~ 5[NY:i ' Ik-II'Y:i{!5hIM diiI~ Z d g 0.06 mroioN MusT BE fj;; : gf.- -, ;. u._ f--

Consionnto

-- -;.. ;.g .u ;g. gi .[ir:j;; -!}{=i ~ h 'il sUR F ACE [i}iMf:.fdi "" tiR ! 3:7.. ~ "i NtN-m -/- inff u'lir mi :i= E];: del .::2 s na e /J M .M ik :M E

j M ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS Z 0.04 liin..

(ON THIS SIDE OF

=.is-Ei-/d-fi!D Etii liiE F

u-0.03

~ "/ uf". =t a.. _.:-{ c . j.. ..n na

e DEMARKATION LINE)

N".1 if T J.I. ARE ACCEPTABLE PER nr= ':/ [i: iiire ii?rn. =uN; it:..:: nila in?" ~ CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 Mh!= ' AS LONG AS _,at. C.2 5 2 0.02 ch, =rL:=-.. ::.n

.. is =im iu-t

.p..- = a.. ~~_.. - . ~.. ..is. La =! y"" 0.01 f. Ei!!! 'iiT.4'I .. }.i;

di;

= 5i=i.li h f. p g 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f) Figure A-4.5 Evaluation Chart for Outlet Nozzle to Shell Weld X Inside Surface Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw mi.-mwe A-32

l1 A-5 LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER SHELL WELD A-5.1 SURFACE FLAWS The geometry and terminology.for surface flaws at the Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld is depicted in figure A-5.1. The following parameters must be prepared fer surface flaw evaluation with charts, Fiswshapeparametersf o Flawdepthparameter{ o where a - the surface flaw depth detected (in.) 1 - the surface flaw length detected (in.) i t - wall thickness (t = 4.875") i -The surface flaw evaluation charts for the Lower _ Head Ring to Lower Head Weld 4 are listed below; i Figure A-5.2 Evaluation Chart for icar Head Ring to Lower Head Wald o X_ Inside Surface X Surface Fiaw X Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw Circumferentiel Flaw a Figure A-5.3 Evaluation Chart fck ower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld L o _X_ Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitucinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw l Figure A-5.4 Evaluation Chart for Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld o In:ide Surface X Surface Fiaw X Longitudinal Flaw i X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X_ Circumferential Flaw j i I i f j i i l ? t un.-um o A-33 ) I i r

l ? t A-5.2 EMBEDDED FLAWS The geometry of embedded flaws at the Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Wald is t I depicted in figure A-5.1. Basic Data: t = 4.875 in. Distance from the centerline of the embedded flaw to the 6 = surface (in.) Flaw depth (Defined as one half of the' minor diameter) (in.) a = Flaw lengt.h (Major diameter) (in.) t = / Maximum embedded flaw size in depth direction, beyond which = a, it must be considered a surface flaw, per Section XI r characterization rules. i i The following parameters must be calculated from the above dimensions to use the charts for evaluating the acceptability of an embedded flaw 1 Flawshapeparameter',f o f Flawdepthparameter,{ o surfaceproximityparameter,f o l Evaluation chart for embedded flaws: Figure A-5.5. m e.-u = = in A-34

i twtc'=N55 t g a g g _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _ _ 'dd35.06* r, s: M. 07

• si <-m3

[ &~ > g H-7. M" T 100 53* / ? \\ i L. i g pgeg __ i wua r, t , co. u-I t g = g g,ro._ a vv icAt cecoco g g g g to._ ) ____.*.*.;*_ " 2 "o ' c ^ " o" i twicu SS t e 5.00* I NOTE TW!Cotssts 00 N0Y !><1UDC IN510E CLA00!NO ~ ~ 8.03 ~ ~~ (BASE METAL) t .e---- 79. 53R ~. (BASE METAL) LO.ER HEAD RING [ TO LOWER HEAD HELD t / 79.2SR ~ LO.ER HEAD RING TO LOaER SHELL % ELD (BASE METAL) TyptcAt s(AFAOc Flaw Im ! CATION 5.00 BELTLINE APO LOWER HEAD REGIONS l L l l NOTES:

1. DIMENSIONS DO NOT INCLUDE CLADOING i

2. ALL O!MENSIONS ARE IN INOHES Figure A-5.1 Gecmetry and Terminology for Flaws at the Lower Head Ring to Lower Head Weld i

t un.*as 's A-35 J

LEGEND A - The 10. 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. iO 20 \\A[o'de" 8 - Within this zone, the surface flaw is acceptable g l l ll l [ z by ASME Code analytical ll criteria in IWB-3600. u, Is ni ll C - ASME Code allowable since l !b 1983 Winter Addendum. 16 h I D - ASME Code allowable prior 14 g to 1983 Winter A&h. i 12 I ? 10 f o C 0 % 1987 4 ,,,..o:: { .n.. D l 2 7-- i I il l I 0 O 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 , 0.5 FLAW SHAPE (a#) Figure A-5.2 Evaluation Chart for Lower llead Ring to Lower llead Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface. E;; bedded flaw Circumferential flaw 29173 cenerf te

LEGEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. t o,.2 0.3 0*dr* B - Within this zone, the / surface flaw is acceptable 20 A l l. j by ASME Code analytical I criteria in IWB-3600. 18 C - ASME Code allowable since 1983 Winter Addendum. 16 0 - ASME Code allowable prior 18 7 to 1983 Winter Addendum. 8 I E = 12 I E f us 10 I 0 l E l l t: s u. G ) '..+ C O Wessanghouse iss7 4 ~r

• "" ',,i.m:

D i l ,.,,,g.."? 7-2 ,,, 7 o I ii Il I 1 i o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0S FLAW SHAPE (a#) Figure A-S.3 Evaluation Chart for Lower llead Ring to Lower Head Weld X Inside Surface X Surface Flaw Longitudinal Flaw Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw n n,o.anse,.

LEEND A - The 10, 20, 30 year acceptable flaw limits. B - Within this zone, the 20 surface flaw is acceptable by ASME Code analytical criteria in 1141-3600. Is C - ASME Code allowable since 16 1983 Winter Addendum. 14 t D - ASME Code allowable prior 2 [' s to 1983 Winter Addendum. = l 8 4 12 {

c 4

Si 10 O 3: s 5 l u. 6 O IM 4 D l 2 n \\ 0 f"h ! I i U 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 FLAW SHAPE (a#) Figure A-5.4 Evaluation Chart for Lower llead Ring to Lower llead Weld Inside Surface X Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw 1.n. I

I SURFACE / EMBEDDED E FLAW DEM ARCATION I LINE, BEGINNING WITH 1980 CODE l! p 0.13 l . ;3=.,;i3;. go. Q,ij, .,, ) r ' FLAWS WITH. =g .;;. =. o l .g. q

coNeiouRATION :fg..j_. : i rf 0.12

pi

f; ABOVE THIS LINE ARE g{33

,3,g.. ci; jyn NOT ALLOWABLE O'11 ~ ~"g'. "I'_" j.. ;.; U,..r.,-~ -N + p' "a"5j;i:/ L.t.;- itu r iIf;; i,: SURFACE / EMBEDDED t:"pii:

f _ r

- au g; iis i E

1 "{f Ei- -ffpi ailiiri FLAW DEM ARC,ATION hir/ siliE= iig. LINE UP TIL 1980 CODE Eiii i# ii; i M i&= =-

== i l/4iWi ii 'f =4 ik= i ?i hi= i i'i I E i O'09 4 iie ..=ij.( [; iigf,p{is .:g;t. .;;lf]f = - - af iiT M Ei"lif.- - tt.i'i if-i = i i;FE ~ +sogae

1. fi- -iij._:f4m; E :!Ei 1"- ntg WE ill ' ' ' i uit:iif!! Ei ii9/

iii! iiEi :- 'iilii = m J suntAc 0.07 :ri-!im.:::.::c: : 'W/:- f.it -ini!#i- ! E i: !!!:i I artAws N THis S/n! Ef ii/:i'tM "':M. -f:lir- : =n ~ r:! E M's$tas ' [^!.:i- ?- "/ Mi: !!" i:- !!# ~ 1 : 'IF 5

iisumF Act

) f41 r!Ti~ pr li-h;+ r = $.0.05 geg,w, s,,, g

334= g

=jj = h y OM i4.-

• ALL EMBEDDED FLAWS i

' t:- :iidu i i = 6' ~ = ='

n L

ni (ON THIS SIDE OF Hj:/"J s}o; _~ ~,i: :s 4:: f. al = J:':jn, DEM ARKATION LINE) r: u=- t J j;

p p

{f ' ' ~ ~ = = ARE ACCEPTABLE PER '"E = 0.03 1L.'/ Q. inin

4 CRITERIA OF IWB 3600 iiG

.'r

p --

hii AS LONG AS,at. 0.2 5 2 0.02 ~ ~ "= i .f

=...

: iip ar: ip-as ::-i=

t =

n

,..N T ~ ~ 0.01 . j; a r. i.:.. .= l t

jp p

2 j.:

ij-i i i"9 - !:

l. -l 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 DISTANCE FROM SURFACE (f) l Figure A-5.5 Evaluation Chart for Loner Head Ring to Lower Head Weld .,X_, Inside Surface Surface Flaw X Longitudinal Flaw X Outside Surface X Embedded Flaw X Circumferential Flaw n u.. au in A-39

4 APPENDIX B CRITICAL FLAW S!ZE RESULTS m n-9:4:s ie g.g

l TABLE B-1 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE S(M4ARY FOR BELTLINE REGION (INSIDE SURFACE) Flaw Continuous flaw Aspect Ratio = 6.0 Aspect Ratio = 2.0 Corjition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t E/F Long. a = 2.50 (0.323) a = 5.51 (0.711) a = 7.75 (1.0) g g g g g = 7.75 (1.0) g = 7.75 (1.0) a = 7.75 (1.0) a (Steam Gen. Tube Circ. a Rupture) g = N/A N/A g = 3.39 (0.44) a g = N/A N/A a E/F (LSB) Long. a g = 7.75 (1.0) g = 7.75 (1.00) a g = 2.21 (0.34) a Circ. a g = 5.74 (0.74) a; = 7.75 (1.0) g = 2.25 (0.33) a E/F (Small LOCA) Long. a g = 7.75 (1.00) a = 7.75 (1.00) a = 7.75 (1.0) Circ. a y g g = 7.75 (1.00) a g = 7.75 (1.0) g = 7.75 (1.00) a E/F (Large LOCA) long. a g g = 7.75 (1.00) a = 7.75 (1.0) Circ. a = 7.75 (1.00) a g .83 (0.494) a = 7.75 (1.%) a = 7.75 (1.0) N/U (Encessive Long. a = c c c Feedwater Flow) Circ. a = 7.75 (1.00) a = 7.75 (1.00) a = 7.75 (1.0) c c c w 1.m..

TABLE B-2 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE

SUMMARY

FOR BELTLINE REGION - OUISIDE SURFACE Flaw Continuous claw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t N/U/T Long. a = 3.54 7.75 a = 7.75 1.0 a = 7.75 1.0 c c c Cold Hydro Circ. a = 7.75 7.75 a = 7.75 1.0 a_ = 7.75 1.0 c c 7 w g g = N/A* N/A* a; i N/A* N/A* E/F Long. a = N/A* N/Aa a Circ. a = N/A* N/A* a = N/A* N/A* a = N/A* N/A* g g g LEGEND: a Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions c a Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions g 'The emergency / faulted (E/F) case was found to be less critical at the outside surface than the normal / upset / test (N/U/T) conditions, because the stresses are compressive for the E/F conditions. Therefore, these cases were not subjected to fracture analyses. l nu.ma i.

i TABLE 8-3 CRITICAL FLAN SIZE SL2004RY FOR I INLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD - INSIDE SURFACE 1 1 i Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 j j Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t 1 1, i N/U/T .Long. a = 5.41 .514 a = 10.53 1.0 a = 10.53 1.0 c c c 9.16 1.0 Excessive Circ. a = N/A N/A a = N/A N/A a = c c c J i Feedwater Flow g = 10.53 1.0 E/F Long. a y = 1.032 .098 a g = 10.53 1.0 a g = 10.53 1.0 ~ LOCA Circ. a y = 1.27 .121 a g = 10.53 1.0 a J LEGEND: i J a Nipimum critical flaw size under normal conditions a Winimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions j g l t )

• Governing transient for charts t

7917sAbesees se -,.---~-----.-,..,-,-,...,,,,n,-,---,-,r,.-,,-

TABLE 8-4 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SUte4ARY. FOR INLET N0ZZLE TO'SHELL WELD - OUISIDE SURFACE Flaw Continuous flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t 7.16 .68 a = 10.53 1.0 N/U/T Long. a = 4.10 .389 a = c c c Loss of Flow

• Circ.

a = 8.29 .788 a = 10.53 1.0 a = 10.53 1.0 c c c J. g = N/A* N/A* g = N/A* N/A* a g = N/A* N/A* a E/F Long. a y = N/A* N/A* g = N/A* N/A* a y = N/A* N/A* a Circ. a LEGEND: a Ninimum critical flaw size under normal conditions a Ninimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions g

• The emergency / faulted (E/F) case was found to be less critical at the outside surface than the normal / upset / test (N/U/T) conditions, because the stresses are compressive for the E/F conditions. Therefore, these cases were not subjected to fracture analyses.

n,w

TABLE B-5 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SUISIARY FOR OUTLET N0ZZLE TO SHELL WELD (Inside Surface) Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspcct Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t 5.81 0.523 a = 11.11 1.0 a = 11.11 1.0 N/U/T Long. a = c c Turbine Roll

• Circ.

a = 11.11 1.0 a = 11.11 1.0 a = 11.11 1.0 c c c ? o. g =11.11 1.0 y = 2.72 0.245 a y = 1.29 0.116 a E/F Long. a g = N/A N/A g = N/A N/A a y = N/A N/A a LSB Circ. a LEGEN0: a Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions, cold hydro c a Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions g N/A Results not available

• Governing transient for charis

- - - ~ TABLE B-6 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SUlemRY FOR OUTLET N0ZZLE TO SliELL WELD (Outside Surface) Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t N/U/T Long. a ' 3.22 0.29 a = 4.M 0.6 a = 11.11 1.0 c c Cold Hydro Circ. a = N/A N/A a = N/A N/A a = N/A N/A c c c g = N/A N/A g = N/A N/A a g = N/A N/A a E/F Long. a g = N/A N/A g = N/A N/A a g = N/A N/A a Circ. a 1 LEGEND: a Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions, cold hydro a Minimune critical flaw size under faulted conditions g

• The emergency / faulted (E/F) case was found to be less critical at the outside surface than the normal / upset / test (N/U/1) conditions, because the stresses are compressive for the E/F conditions. Therefore, these cases were not subjected to fracture analyses.

N/A Results not available ~ nn l -.. -~.x----.--

TABLE 8-7 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SUISIARY FOR LOWER HEAD RING TO LOWER SHELL WELD (INSIDE SURFACE) l Flaw Continuous flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1 Aspect Ratio = 2:1 l Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t l l l l N/U/T Long. a = 2.93 0.60 a = 4.875 1.0 a = 4.875 1.0 c c c a Excessive Circ. a = 4.875 1.0 a = 4.875 1.0 a = 4.875 1.0 c c c feedwater Flow

• l l

g = 4.875 1.0 g = 4.875 1.000 a g = 2.12 0.436 a E/F Long. a g = 4.875 1.0 y = 4.875 1.000 ag = 4.875 1.000 a LSB Circ. a I LEGEND: i l a Minimum critical flaw size ur. der normal conditions a Minimum critical flaw size s.mder faulted conditions ~ g

• Governing transient for charts I

2..,. -.

TABLE 8-8 CRITICAL FLAW SIZE SIM4ARY FOR LOWER llEAD RING TO LOWER HEAD WELD (OUISIDE SURFACE) Flaw Continuous Flaw Aspect Ratio = 6:1_, Aspect Ratio = 2:1 Condition Orient. inches a/t inches a/t inches a/t N/U/T Long. a = 2.398 0.492 a = 4.875 1.0 a = 4.875 1.0 c c c d> Turbine Roll

• Circ.

a = 3.193 0.655 a = 4.875 1.0 a = 4.875 1.0 c c c E/F Long. a; = 2.672 4.875 a; = 4.875 1.0 a; = 4.875 1.0 g g = 4.875 1.0 LSB Circ. a; = 4.051 4.875 a = 4.8 1.0 a LEGEND: a Minimum critical flaw size under normal conditions c a Minimum critical flaw size under faulted conditions g

• Governing transient for charts l

1..>.-..

g .i -.. APPENDIX C FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH RESULTS 1 l au..uas io C-1

BELTLINE REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - LONGITUDINAL FLAW 4 INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.100 0.10297 0.10560 0.10834 0.11141 0.300 0.31799 0.33316 0.34905 0.36636 f 0.500 0.53457 0.56587 0.59941 0.633666 0.800 0.86544 0.92893 0.99871 1.07716 1.000 1.08915 1.17854 1.27880 1.39385 1.200 1.31613 1.43681 1.57620 1.74225 1.300 1.43140 1.57062 1.73477 1.93512' 1.550 1.72659 1.92503 2.17617 2.48940 a/t = 0.167 0.100 0.10112 0.10194 0.10276 0.10362 0.300 0.30905 9.31666 0.32432 0.33239 0.500 0.51781 0.53233 0.54707 0.56250 0.800 0.82772 0.85118 0.87491 0.89958 1.000 1.03325 1.06173 1.09053 1.12031 1.200 1.23805 1.27093 1.30415 1.33830 1.300 1.34018 1.3/499 1.41018 1.44626 1.550 1.59475 1.63402 1.67375 1.71434 n u.-own.

• C-2

BELTl.INE REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.100 0.10029 0.10051 0.10071 0.10093 0.300 0.30559 0.30980 0.31392 0.31842 0.500 0.51655 0.53068 0.54518 0.56063 0.800 0.83247 0.86220 0.89248 0.92424 1.000 1.04105 1.07914 1.11826 1.15934 1.200 1.25608 1.30162 1.34794 1.39615 1.300 1.35949 1.40802 1.45890 1.51202 1.550 1.61870 1.67575 1.73367 1.79345 a/t = 0.167 0.100 0.10010 0.10018 0.10024 0.10032 0.300 0.30188 0.30329 0.30463 0.30608 0.500 0.50722 0.51287 0.51841 0.52425 0.800 0.81267 0.82270 0.83265 0.84294 1.000 1.01548 1.02830 1.04104 1.05429 1.200 1.22245 1.23762 1.25260 1.26808 1.300 1.32275 1.33802 1.35302 1.36841 1.550 1.57467 1.59177 1.60868 1.62596 l nn.mus,o C~3 l

BELTLINE REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20023 0.20041 0.20060 0.20078 j T = 7.75 in. 0.250 0.25035 0.25064 0.25092 0.25120 6 = 0.48438 in. 0.300 0.30050 0.30091 0.30131 0.30171 0.320 0.32057 0.32103 0.32148 0.32194 0.350 0.35061 0.35108 0.35156 0.35205 T = ?.75 in. 0.400 0.40079 0.40141 0.40203 0.40266 6-= 0.72656 in. 0.450 0.45099 0.45178 0.45257 0.45336 0.500 0.50122 0.50219 0.50317 0.50415 0.560 0.56138 0.56247 0.56356 0.56465 T = 7.75 in. 0.640 0.64180 0.64322 0.64465 0.64609 63 0.96875 in. 0.650' O.65186 0.65333 0.65480 0.65628 0.700 0.70184 0.70324 0.70465 0.70607 T = 7.75 in. 0.800 0.80239 0.80423 0.80608 0.80794 6 = 1.45313 in. 0.900 0.90303 0.90537 0.90773 0.91009 1.000 1.00375 1.00667 1.00960 1.01255 0.900 0.90256 0.90445 0.90635 0.90826 T = 7.75 in. 1.050 1.05353 1.05616 1.05881 1.06147 6 = 1.9375 in. 1.200 1.20468 1.20822 1.21178 1.21536 1.350 1.35605 1.36067 1.36533 1.37003 nn m wo C-4

BELTLINE REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH ( ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20005 0.20009 0.20013 0.20017 T = 7.75 in. 0.250 0.25008 0.25014 0.25020 0.25026 6 = 0.484 in. 0.300 0.30012 0.30021 0.30030 0.30039 0.320 0.32014 0.32024 0.32034 0.32045 0.350 0.35011 0.35020 0.35028 0.35037. T = 7.75 in. 0.400 0.40015 0.40026 0.40038 0.40049 6.= 0.726 in. 0.450 0.45020 0.45034 0.45049 0.45064 0.500 0.50025 0.50044 0.50062 0.50081 0.560 0.56022 0.56039 0.56056 0.56073 T = 7.75 in. 0.640 0.64031 0.64054 0.64076 0.64100 6 = 0.968 in. 0.650 0.65032 0.65056 0.65079 0.65103 0.700 0.70020 0.70035 0.70051 0.70066 T = 7.75 in. 0.800 0.80027 0.80048 0.80069 0.80090 6 = 1.453 in. 0.900 0.90036 0.90064 0.90092 0.90120 1.000 1.00047 1.00084 1.00120 1.00157 0.900' O.90022 0.90040 0.90058 0.90075 T = 7.75 in. 1.050 1.05032 1.05057 1.05082 1.05108 l 6 = 1.9375 in. 1.200 1.20044 1.20079

1. 20?..'.4 1.20149 1.350 1.35060 1.35107 1.35155 1.35202 I

nu.a.n io C-5

BOTTOM HEAD TRANSITION REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.200 0.20611 0.21181 0.21765 0.22403 0.400 0.41674 0.43204 ].44779 0.46462 0.600 0.62901 0.65583 0.68379 0.71390 0.800 0.84305 0.88375 0.92696 0.97401 1.000 1.05994 1.11881 1.18331 1.25582 1.200 1.28289 1.36900 1.46790 1.58561 a/t = 0.167 0.200 0.20284 0.20537 0.20787 0.21056 O.400 0.40789 0.41500 0.42208 0.42946 0.600 0.61219 0.62322 0.63425 0.64567 0.800 0.81567 0.82979 0.84391 0.85839 1.000 1.01836 1.03480 1.05132 1.06812 1.200 1.22093 1.23958 1.25836 1.27741 I nu. a i. C-6

BOTTOM HEAD TRANSITION REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL rDArk LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.200 0.20867 0.21455 0.22044 0.22694 0.400 0.42194 0.43971 0.45805 0.47791 0.600 0.63691 0.66909 0.70256 0.73844 0.800 0.84889 0.89244 0.93771 0.98568 1.000 1.09942 1.11310 1.16874 1.22748 1.200 1.26925 1.33273 1.39853 1.46793 a/t = 0.167 0.200 0.20395 0.20667 0.20930 0.21218 0.400 0.41127 0.41934 0.42739 0.43597 0.600 0,61745 0.63097 0.64448 0.65855 0.800 0.82088 0.83734 0.85373 0.87057 1.000 1.02307 1.04152 1.05989 1.07863 1.200 1.22461 1.24463 1.26452 1.28475 im.+am e C-7

BOTTOM HEAD TRANSITION REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20015 0.20027 0.20039 0.20051 T = 4.875 in. 0.250 0.25023 0.25042 0.25060 0.25079 6 = 0.304 0.300 0.30033 0.30060 0.30086 0.30113 0.320 0.32037 0.32068 0.32098 0.32128 0.210 0.21015 0.21027 0.21039 0.21051 T = 4.875 in. 0.240 0.24019 0.24035 0.24050 0.24066 6 = 0.457 in. 0.270 0.27024 0.27044 0.27063 0.27083 0.300 0.30030 0.30054 0.30078 0.30102 a 0.250 0.25019 0.25035 0.25050 0.25065 T = 4.875 in. 0.300 0.30027 0.30049 0.30071 0.30093 6 = 0.609 in. 0.350 0.35037 0.35067 0.35096 0.35126 0.400 0.40048 0.40087 0.40126 0.40164 0.400 0.40042 - 0.40074 0.40107 0.40139 T = 4.875 in. 0.480 0.48060 0.48107 0.48154 0.48201 6 = 0.914 in. 0.560 0.56081 0.56146 0.56210 0.56274 0.600 0.60094 0.60167 0.60241 0.60316 l a 0.700 0.70110 0.70195 0.70280 0.70365 T = 4.875 in. 0.800 0.80145 0.80258 0.80371 0.80484 6 = 1.218 0.830 0.83157 0.83279 0.83401 0.83524 / m e. + a n io C-8 . 3

BOTTOM HEAD TRANSITION REGION EMSEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20016 0.20029 0.20042 0.20055 T = 4.875 in. 0.250 0.25025 0.25045 0.25065 0.25086 6 = 0.304 in. 0.300 0.30036 0.30066 0.30095 0.30124 0.320 0.32041 0.32075 0.32108 0.32142 [ 0.210 0.21015 0.21026 0.21038 0.21050 T = 4.875 in.- 0.240 0.24019 0.24035 0.24050 0.24066 6 = 0.457 in. 0.270 0.27024 0.27044 0.27063 0.27083 0.300 0.30030 0.30054 0.30079 0.30103 0.250 0.25017 0.25032 0.25046 0.25060 T = 4.875 in. 0.300 0.30025 0.30046 0.30066 0.30087 6 = 0.609 in. 0.350 0.35035 0.35063 0.35091 0.35119 0.400 0.40046 0.40083 0.40120 0.40158 0.400 0.40034 0.40061 0.40088 0.40115 T = 4.875 in. 0.480 0.48049 0.48089 0.48129 0.48169 6 = 0.914 in. 0.560 0.56068 0.56124 0.56179 0.56235 0.600 0.60079 0.60144 0.60209 0.60274 l m n w... i. C-9

vm 6 OUTLET N0ZZLE FULL PENETRATION REGION SURFACE j FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.600 0.62372 0.64156 0.65967 0.67874 0.800 0.83187 0.85678 0.88216 0.90881 0.900 0.93587 0.96436 0.99342 1.02389 n.. 1.000 1.03981 1.07187 1.10460 1.13888 a/t = 0.167 0.600 0.61408 0.62411 0.63412 0.64448 0.800 0.81786 0.83094 0.84403 0.85750 0.900 0.91955 0.93410 0.94862 0.96354 1.000 1.02113 1.03707 1.05298 1.06935 h / a 1 n n. w m io C-10

OUTLET N0ZZLE FULL PENETRATION REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGlH 10 20 30 40 a/t = 0.0 0.600 0.61789 0.63146 0.64506 0.65951 0.700 0.72180 0.73886 0.75607 0.77435 0.900 0.93645 0.96804 1.00083 1.03600 1.000 1.04240 1.07995 1.11010 1.16114 1.300 1.57806 1.65196 1.72992 1.81322 2.000 2.11111 2.21849 2.33122 2.63124 a/t = 0.167 0.6CO 0.61026 0.61740 0.62442 0.63182 f 0.700 0.71254 0.72168 0.73071 0.74020 0.900 0.91728 0.93052 0.94367 0.95737 1.000 1.01931 1.03433 1.04926 1.06480 1.300 1.52902 1.55282 1.57657 1.60099 2.000 2.03642 2.06730 2.09793 2.12925 m a e ese " C-11

OUTLET N0ZZLE TO VESSEL WELD REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.100 0.10002 0.10004 0.10006 0.10008 T = 11.11 in. 0.300 0.30019 0.30034 0.30050 0.30065 6 = 0.694 in. 0.400 0.40034 0.40060 0.40087 0.40114 0.500 0.50052 0.50094 0.50135 0.50177 0.200 0.20008 0.20014 0.20020 0.20026 T = 11.11 in. 0.400 0.40029 0.40052 0.40075 0.40099 6 = 1.041 in. 0.600 0.60064 0.60116 0.60167 0.60219 0.700 0.70088 0.70158 0.70228 0.70298 0.300 0.30015 0.30027 0.30039 0.30051 T = 11.11 in. 0.600 0.60058 0.60103 0.60149 0.60194 6 = 1.388 in. 0.900 0.90129 0.90231 0.90334 0.90437 0.950 0.95144 0.93258 0.95373 0.95488 0.500 0.50035 0.50062 0.50088 0.50115 T = 11.11 in. 0.900 0.90100 0.90192 0.90276 0.90360 6 = 2.083 in. 1.300 1.30226 1.30402 1.30578 1.30755 1.400 1.40263 1.40468 1.40674 1.40881 I l l l 0.500 0.50030 0.50051 0.50073 0.50094 T = 11.11 in. 0.900 0.90094 0.90162 0.90230 0.90298 6 = 2.777 in. 1.300 1.30195 1.30339 1.30483 1.30629 1.400 1.40226 1.40395 1.40563 1.40733 wwocus so C-12

OUTLET N0ZZLE TO VESSEL WELO REGION FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - CIRCUMFERENTIAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.100 0.10002 0.10004 0.10006 0.10008 T = 11.11 in. 0.300 0.30021 0.30037 0.30063 0.30069 6 = 0.694 in. 0.400 0.40038 0.40067 0.40096 0.40125 0.500 0.50061 0.50108 0.50154 0.50202 0.200 0.20006 0.20011 0.20015 0.20020 T = 11.11 in.- 0.400 0.40025 0.40044 0.40064 0.40083 6 = 1.041 inc 0.600 0.60060 0.60107 0.60154 0.60202 0.700 0.70085 0.70153 0.70219 0.70287 0.300 0.30009 0.30016 0.30023 0.30030 T = 11.11 in. 0.600 0.60039 0.60070 0.60101 0.60133 6 = 1. 388 i n. 0.900 0.90101 0.90183 0.90263 0.90345 0.950 0.95116 0.95209 0.95301 0.95395 0.500 0.50010 0.50018 0.50023 0.50034 l T = 11.11 in. 0.900 0.90040 0.90073 0.90106 0.90139 6 = 2.083 1.300 1.30109 1.30200 1.30290 1.30382 l 1.400 1.40135 1.40247 1.40358 1.40471 i 0.500 0.50004 0.50006 0.50009 0.50012 T = 11.11 in. 0.900 0.90015 0.90026 0.90037 0.90049 6 = 2.777 in. 1.300 1.30039 1.30071 1.30103 1.30135 1.400 1.40049 1.40089 1.40128 1.40169 C-13

INLET N0ZZLE' TO SHELL WELD REGION SURFACE FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR l ASPECT CRACK RATIO LENGTH 10 20 30 40 l a/t = 0.0 0.500 0.52595 0.54453 0.56368 0.58450 l 0.700 0.74109 0.77358 0.80773 0.84500 O.900 0.95764 1.00601 1.05734 1.11288 1.100 1.17359 1.23695 1.30396 1.37652 1.400 1.49720 1.58445 1.67839 1.78131 1.600 1.71485 1.82101 1.93612 2.06368 a/t 2 0.167 0.500 0.51307 0.52074 0.52827 0.53630 0.700 0.71856 0.73045 0.74219 0.75451 1 0.900 0.92308 0.93856 0.95389 0.96986 1.100 1.12676 1.14524 1.16356 1.18252 1.400 1.43070 1.45251 1.47414 1.49632 1.600 1.63262 1.65624 1.67959 1.70352 Note: Crack growth analysis not pe.rformed for circumferential flaws because of low stress values. The longitudinal flaw results were used in developing the flaw charts. t me.4mie io C-14

INLET N0ZZLE TO VESSEL WELD REGION EMBEDDED FLAW FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (ASPECT RATIO 1:10) - LONGITUDINAL FLAW INITIAL CRACK LENGTH AFTER YEAR CRACK LENGTH 10 20 30 40 0.200 0.20009 0.20013 0.20017 0.20021 T = 10.53 in. 0.300 0.30020 0.30029 0.30037 0.30046 6 = 0.658 in. 0.400 0.40030 0.40052 0.40067 0.40083 0.450 0.45046 0.45066 0.45086 0.45106 0.500 0.50042 0.50061 0.50081 0.50100 T = 10.53 in. 0.600 0.60062 0.60090 0.60118 0.60146 6 = 0.987 in. 0.700 0.70087 0.70126 0.70165 0.70204 6 = T/8 0.700 0.70067 0.70099 0.70130 0.70162 T = 10.53 in. 0.800 0.80090 0.80132 0.80173 0.80215 6r 1.316 in. 0.900 0.90117 0.90171 0.90224 0.90279 1.100 1.10122 1.10186 1.10250 1.10314 i = 10.53 in. 1.200 1.20148 1.20224 1.20301 1.20377 6 = 1.974 in. 1.300 1.30178 1.30267 1.30357 1.30448 1.400 1.40211 1.40316 1.40421 1.40527 1.100 1.10099 1.10158 1.10218 1.10278 T = 10.53 in. 1.200 1.20118 1.20188 1.20258 1.20329 6 = 2.632 in. 1.300 1.30139 1.30221 1.30303 1.30385 1.400 1.40162 1.40257 1.40351 1.40446 Note: Crack growth analysis not performed for circumferentit.1 flaws because of low stress values. The longitudinal flaw results were used in nu..ua developing the flaw charts. C-15}}